Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 9781463236618

Table of contents :
Table of Contents
From the Editor
In Search of Sources for Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s The Paradise of Christianity: Theodore bar Koni’s Scholion
Alexander of the Port/Kadavil Chandy Kattanar: A Syriac Poet and Disciple of the Jesuits in Seventeenth Century India
The Romance of Aḥiqar the Wise in the Neo-Aramaic MS London Sachau 9321
Evidence of Christianity in the Kingdom of Hatra
A New Repertoire of Crosses from the Ancient Site of Ḥira, Iraq
Members of the CSSS for 2013-2014

Citation preview

JOURNAL OF THE CANADIAN SOCIETY FOR SYRIAC STUDIES

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies/ de la Société Canadienne des Etudes Syriaques The JCSSS is a refereed journal published annually, and it contains the transcripts of public lectures presented at the Society and possibly other articles and book reviews

Editorial Board General Editor

Amir Harrak, University of Toronto

Editors Sebastian Brock, Oxford University Sidney Griffith, Catholic University of America Adam Lehto, University of Toronto Craig E. Morrison, Pontifical Biblical Institute, Rome Lucas van Rompay, Duke University Kyle Smith, University of Toronto Copy Editing

Antoine Hirsch

Publisher Gorgias Press 180 Centennial Avenue, Suite 3 Piscataway, NJ 08854 USA

The Canadian Society for Syriac Studies La Société Canadienne des Etudes Syriaques Society Officers 2013-2014 President: Amir Harrak Vice-President and Secretary-Treasurer: Khalid Dinno Members of the Board of Directors: Samir Basmaji, Marica Cassis, Khalid Dinno, Geoffrey Greatrex, Amir Harrak, Robert Kitchen, Adam Lehto, Kyle Smith, Albert Tarzi, Ashoor Yousif The aim of the CSSS is to promote the study of the Syriac culture which is rooted in the same soil from which the ancient Mesopotamian and biblical literatures sprung. The CSSS is purely academic, and its activities include a series of public lectures, one yearly symposium, and the publication of its Journal. The Journal is distributed free of charge to the members of the CSSS who have paid their dues, but it can be ordered by other individuals and institutions through Gorgias Press (www.gorgiaspress.com). Cover Cross in gypsum from al-Hira, Iraq (Photo Nasir al-Ka‘bi)

JOURNAL OF THE CANADIAN SOCIETY FOR SYRIAC STUDIES

Volume 14

Copyright © 2014 by The Canadian Society for Syriac Studies. All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. Published in the United States of America by Gorgias Press LLC, New Jersey ISBN 978-1-4632-0469-3 ISSN: 1499-6367

GORGIAS PRESS 954 River Rd., Piscataway, NJ 08854 USA www.gorgiaspress.com

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standards. Printed in the United States of America

The Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies

Table of Contents

From the Editor

1

Aaron Butts,

3 In Search of Sources for Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s The Paradise of Christianity: Theodore bar Koni’s Scholion

István Perczel,

30 Alexander of the Port/Kadavil Chandy Kattanar: A Syriac Poet and Disciple of the Jesuits in Seventeenth Century India:

Emanuela Braida, The Romance of Aḥiqar the Wise in the Neo-Aramaic MS London Sachau 9321

50

Hikmat Bashir al-Aswad, Evidence of Christianity in the Kingdom of Hatra

79

Nasir al-Kaabi, A New Repertoire of Crosses from the Ancient Site of Ḥira, Iraq

90

Members of the CSSS for 2013-2014

103

___________________________________________________________________________

FROM THE EDITOR

CSSS 14 (2014) contains articles originally delivered at the CSSS symposia or as lectures given at the Department of Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations, University of Toronto. Two of the articles on epigraphy and art are especially welcome since they offer previously unpublished archaeological material. Dr. Aaron Butts, Catholic University of America, sheds new light on a Christian-Arabic biblical commentary as written by the 11th century Ibn al-Ṭayyib. Ancient writers rarely mention the sources they consult or quote, and Ibn alṬayyib is not an exception in his work The Paradise of Christianity. Through a careful literary analysis, Butts identifies two of Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s sources: Theodore bar Koni’s Scholion and Isho‘dad of Merv’s Commentary. Butts also reveals Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s method of using sources: he translates word-for-word while at times overlooking key elements; he also abridges and condenses, practices often witnessed in ancient and medieval writings. Dr. István Perczel, Central European University, probes the mind of a 17th century Indian writer named Alexander of the Port, who was immersed in his cultural heritage. He was familiar with the Syriac culture, being a hymn composer in Syriac, and influenced by European humanist learning acquired not in Europe, but through Jesuit missionaries in India. His writings reflect a curious fusion of three different cultural traditions: his Syriac abounds in Latinisms; he expresses Roman Catholic Christology in East Syriac poetical pattern; while his poetry may have been influenced by Indian poetic trends. Dr. Emanuela Braida, Postdoctoral Fellow at the University of Toronto, edits and translates the Neo-Aramaic “Romance of Aḥīqār the Wise”

J

while comparatively analyzing this version and the Syriac and the Imperial Aramaic versions. The present JCSSS contains the edition and translation of the Romance, written in the Neo-Aramaic dialect of Alqosh, a town in the Plain of Nineveh in Iraq, and preserved in the manuscript London Sachau 9321. This is the latest version of the Romance of Aḥiqār, a literary work known as early as the late 5th century BC. The earliest version was written in the Imperial Aramaic dialect and uncovered in Elephantine, in Upper Egypt. A commentary of the Romance by the same author will be published in a forthcoming JCSSS. The former Director of the Mosul Cultural Museum, Mr. Hikmat Bashir al-Aswad, published the only Syriac Christian inscription found at the impressive site of Hatra in northern Iraq, giving epigraphic evidence that Hatra did indeed know Christianity as claimed by Bardaisan of Edessa. The inscription, with its incised cross, is rudimentary suggesting its old age. The inscription and script are in Syriac and not in Hatran Aramaic and script. Could this indicate that Syriac became the language of Christianity even in regions that spoke different dialects? There are also crosses and other non-Christian symbols incised by stonecutters or architects on stones of monumental buildings in Hatra, and some crosses appear to be clearly Christian. Dr. Nasir al-Ka‘bi, professor of history at the Kufa University in Iraq and Postdoctoral Fellow at the University of Toronto, discusses a collection of plaque-type crosses uncovered by Iraqi archaeologists during the past few years at Ḥira, near alNajaf, in southern Iraq. The collection is unique in terms of the number of plaques coming from one site, their excellent physical condition, and the variety of stylized crosses which they depict. The many features found in these plaques reflect the

___________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) — Page 1

From the Editor

____________________________________________________________________________________ environment of Ḥira and its artistic tradition. Talbot Rice, who excavated the site in the early 1930s, held that these stylized crosses originated in Ḥira, spreading to Armenia, Byzantium, and beyond. I would like to thank the writers for coming to Toronto, sometimes from far away, to give their papers and discuss their latest researches and

archaeological discoveries. The publication of their papers in this issue of JCSSS is much appreciated. My thanks are also due to the members of the Editorial Committee who made the publication of this valuable issue of JCSSS possible. For many years now Gorgias Press is our publisher and we are very grateful to its President and officers for producing a very elegant JCSSS!

A.H. 15 October 2014

________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) — Page 2

______________________________________________________________________

IN SEARCH OF SOURCES FOR IBN AL-ṬAYYIB’S THE PARADISE OF CHRISTIANITY: THEODORE BAR KONI’S SCHOLION

AARON MICHAEL BUTTS THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA

I

n his Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur, Graf characterizes Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s The Paradise of Christianity as “das grösste exegetische Sammelwerk in der christlichen arabischen Literatur.”1 Despite this assessment, this commentary remains understudied.2 Among the many areas that remain virtually unexplored is an analysis of the sources on which Ibn al-Ṭayyib based his commentary. The present study aims to show that Theodore Bar Koni’s Scholion was one of the primary sources used by Ibn al-Ṭayyib in the question-and-answer part of his Paradise of Christianity.3

IBN AL-ṬAYYIB: LIFE AND OEUVRE Ibn al-Ṭayyib (d. 1043), whose full name was Abū al-Faraj ‘Abd Allāh ibn al-Ṭayyib, was among the most notable Christian intellectuals of Baghdad in the first half of the eleventh century.4 He worked at the ‘Aḍudiyya Hospital in Baghdad and served as secretary to both Catholicos Yūḥannā b. Nāzūk (r. 1012-1022) and Catholicos Eliya I (r. 1028-1049). He was a student of al-Ḥasan b. Suwār b. al-Khammār (d. after

1017), who himself was a student of Yaḥyā b. ‘Adī (d. 974). Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s students include ‘Alī b. ‘Īsā al-Kaḥḥāl (d. after 1010), Abū al-Ḥusayn al-Baṣrī (d. 1044), and Ibn Buṭlān (d. 1066). He was also a contemporary of Ibn Sīnā (Avicenna), who was acquainted with his works.5 Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s oeuvre includes more than forty items, all in Arabic, that span the fields of philosophy, medicine, theology, exegesis, and canon law. In philosophy, he wrote commentaries on the Isagoge of Porphyry,6 as well as on several works by Aristotle, including the Categories.7 In medicine, he wrote several treatises in addition to commentaries on Hippocrates and Galen. In canon law, he wrote The Law of Christianity (Fiqh al-naṣrāniyya), which is among the most important Arabic compilations of juridical literature for the Church of the East.8 He also wrote at least a dozen (short) theological treatises on a variety of topics.9 In exegesis, Ibn al-Ṭayyib wrote separate commentaries on the Psalms and the Gospels.10 It should also be noted that he may well have translated the Diatessaron into Arabic.11 Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s most important exegetical work—and arguably one of his most significant works

________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 3

In Search of Sources for Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s The Paradise of Christianity _________________________________________________________________________________________

in general—is his Paradise of Christianity (Firdaws al-naṣrāniyya). The Paradise of Christianity is a commentary on the entire Bible in two parts. One part, which is preserved in ms. Vatican Arab. 37, presents a running commentary on most of the Bible. Only the Genesis portion of this part of the commentary has been edited.12 Isho‘dad of Merv is one of the primary sources for this part of The Paradise of Christianity, at least for Genesis.13 Another part of The Paradise of Christianity, which is preserved in ms. Vatican Arab. 36, is a series of questions and answers on the entire Bible.14 This part remains entirely unedited.15 It is the question-and-answer part of Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s The Paradise of Christianity—especially its sources—that is of primary concern in this study.

IBN AL-ṬAYYIB’S QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS: A SAMPLE COMMENTING ON GENESIS The entirety of the question-and-answer part of Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s The Paradise of Christianity remains unedited. Thus, before investigating its sources, it is necessary to present an edition of a selection of this text. A section of the commentary dealing with various parts of Genesis, especially the latter chapters, has been chosen as a sample. The edition is based on ms. Vatican Arab. 36, ff. 72r-73r (13th-14th century).16 The edition presents the text in a slightly standardized form: correcting diacritical points; removing hamza where it is unexpected; not indicating vowels, shadda, and sukūn; and introducing paragraph divisions. No attempt has, however, been made to re-write the text in Classical Arabic. Several emendations have been suggested in the edition. These are at times corroborated by an Ethiopic translation of the question-and-answer part of Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s The Paradise of Chris-

tianity, which is available in ms. EMML 1839.17 Bar Koni’s Scholion, which, as will be argued below, is the Syriac source of this section of Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s The Paradise of Christianity, also corroborates several emendations.18 TEXT

‫والعلة في بيع يوسف شر اخوته وكيما يعد‬ ‫القوت الھله في وقت البال فيكون ذلك‬ ‫ وكيما يكون عالمة المسيح‬.‫بالتدبير االلھي‬ ‫المخلص الذي باعه اليھود للموت واسلموه‬ ‫ لخالص‬19‫للصلب وفي ذلك سر تدبيره‬ ‫ واخوة يوسف واليھود ما اعتمدوا اال‬.‫العالم‬ ‫ القمر مثال‬.‫ ظھر الخير‬20‫الشر وفي انتھايه‬ .‫ ولو بقيت لسجدت وناب االب منابھا‬.‫امه‬ ‫وبركات يعقوب الوالده تجري مجرى‬ ‫النبوات اما روبيل فجعل مفرشه مدنسا‬ ‫ بل اذكره‬21‫باضطجاعه مع بلھا كنته‬ ‫ ولم يلعنه لما ظھر منه في معنى‬.‫لجھالته‬ .‫يوسف اخيه وانه لم ٮوثر مساعدة اخوته‬ ‫وشمعون ولوي عيرھما للحرب الذي فعلوه‬ 22 ‫مع اھل شخيم بسبب دينا اختھم وايھودا‬ ‫اسبغ عليه البركات والنبوة الن من نسله‬ ‫ وزبولون احله على ساحل‬.‫يظھر المسيح‬ ‫ من‬23‫ وفي ھذا داللة على انه ينتفع‬.‫البحر‬ ‫ وايساخر جعل له‬.‫ في السفن‬24‫المتاجر‬ ‫خصب االرض التي شانه ان يفلحھا وياكل‬ ‫ ودان تنبا عليه بالحكم على شعبه‬.‫ثمارھا‬ ‫ وجاد تنبى عليه‬.‫بشمشون الجبار‬ ‫ وانه يقيم‬.‫باللصوصية واشير بسمين الحنطة‬ ‫ ونفتالي تقدم اعطا‬.‫المير للملوك من عمله‬ ‫ ويوسف‬.‫ارضه الغالت والرسل والحجة‬ ‫ وبنيامين تنبى‬.‫كلله بالفوز لما فعل به اخوته‬ ‫عليه بالمشابھة للحيوان في بھيميته وھذا‬ ‫عرض له‬ ‫االحقاب التي كانت من ابرھيم الى‬ ‫موسى سبعة وسنوھا خمس ماية خمسة‬

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 4

In Search of Sources for Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s The Paradise of Christianity _________________________________________________________________________________________

‫واربعين سنة الى موت موسى وفي الخامسة‬ ‫والسبعين من عمر ابرھيم اھله اللـه للرويا‬ ‫االلھية‬ ‫العادمة للقرون البلق وقيل ان العصا التي‬ ‫ يغوصھا يعقوب في الماء كان عليھا‬25‫كان‬ ‫اسم ادوم وھذا محال الن الكتابة لم تكن‬ ‫ يتعاھد البان‬26‫ظھرت ولم كملت كتابة لم‬ ‫ويعقوب على تل من حجارة والملك الذي‬ ‫حارب يعقوب لما ھرب من بيت البان يشجعه‬ ‫ويزيل عنه المخافة من عيسوا فالجھاد‬ ‫األصعب يزيل الجھاد األسھل فانه اذا قھر‬ ‫الملك فكم اولى ان يقھر االنسان تفسيره‬ 27 ‫ ولوجع وركه من الجھاد ال‬.‫مبصرا للـه‬ .‫ياكل اليھود الى االن عرق النسا بل يخرجونه‬ ‫واله ابيه الذي حلف به ھو اللـه وليس كما قال‬ ‫قوم اله غريب ومن بعد موت سرا تزوج‬ 28 ‫ واولد منھا عدة اوالد وانفذ‬.‫ابرھيم بقنطورا‬ ‫ ومع خروج يعقوب من بيت‬.‫الى المشرق‬ ‫ وابرھيم‬.‫ اللـه لم ينزل عيسوا‬29‫البان بامر‬ .‫اختتن له وله ثمان وتسعين سنة‬ TRANSLATION [Gen. 37:25-28] The cause of the selling of Joseph (is) the evil of his brothers and so that he could prepare nourishment for his people in the time of distress, for this would come about by the divine economy, and so that it30 would be a sign of Christ the saviour whom the Jews sold for death and handed over for crucifixion. In this is the mystery of his31 economy for the salvation of the world. The brothers of Joseph and the Jews only intended evil. At its conclusion, good appeared. [Gen. 37:910] The moon is a symbol of his mother. Had she remained, she would have bowed, but the father was her replacement. [Gen. 49:1-28] The blessings of Jacob for his sons are analogous to prophecies. [Gen. 49:3-4] As for Reuben, he made his bed defiled in lying with Bilhah his

daughter-in-law,32 yet he reminded him of his foolishness. He did not curse him for what came about by him in the matter of Joseph his brother and that he did not choose to help his brothers. [Gen. 49:5-7] As for Simeon and Levi, he reproached them for the battle that they made with the people of Shechem on account of Dinah their sister.33 [Gen. 49:8-12] As for Judah, he showered him with blessings and prophecy because from his offspring Christ would appear. [Gen. 49:13] As for Zebulon, he made him settle at the shore of the sea. In this was a demonstration that he would delight in34 merchandise35 in the boats. [Gen. 49:14-15] As for Ishakar, he made for him abundance of the land such that he would cultivate it and eat its fruits. [Gen. 49:16-18] As for Dan, he prophesied for him the judgment of his people through Samson the giant. [Gen. 49:19] As for Gad, he prophesied for him robbery. [Gen. 49:20] As for Asher, (he prophesied for him) the fat of wheat and that he would establish provisions for kings from his work. [Gen. 49:21] As for Naphtali, his land first gave fruits, emissaries, and a cause.36 [Gen. 49:22-26] As for Joseph, he crowned him with victory for what his brothers did to him. [Gen. 49:27] As for Benjamin, he prophesied a resemblance to animals on account of his brutality, and this happened to him. The generations that were from Abraham to Moses are seven, and their years are 545 until the death of Moses. [Gen. 12:24-7] In the seventy-fifth year of Abraham, God prepared him for a divine vision [Gen. 30:35]… lacking horns and spotted… [Gen. 30:37-39] It is said that the branch that Jacob was dipping into the water had on it the name of Edom.37 This is impossible because writing had not (yet) appeared, and a document had not (yet) been concluded. (If this was not the case,) why would Laban and Jacob make a

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 5

In Search of Sources for Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s The Paradise of Christianity _________________________________________________________________________________________

covenant at a hill of stones?38 [Gen. 32:2532] The angel who fought Jacob39 when he fled from the house of Laban was encouraging him and removing from him fear of Esau, for the difficult struggle (i.e., with the angel) would remove the easy struggle (i.e., with Esau). For, if he could defeat an angel, then how much more suitable would it be for him to defeat a human. [Gen. 32:28] The interpretation of it (i.e., the name of Israel) is ‘seeing God’. [Gen. 32:32] Because of the pain of his hip from the struggle, the Jews do not eat even now the sciatic nerve, but they remove it. [Gen. 31:42] ‘The god of his father’ by which he swore is God, and it is not as some people say a foreign god. [Gen. 25:1-6] After the death of Sarah, Abraham married Qantura. He bore from her numerous children, and he sent (them)40 to the East. [Gen. 31-32] With Jacob’s departure from the house of Laban by the command of God, Esau did not attack (him). [Gen. 17:24] Abraham was circumcised when he was ninety-eight years old. This section in Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s The Paradise of Christianity contains exegetical material that corresponds to four questions in the Scholion of Theodore Bar Koni’s: - What is the cause of the selling of Joseph? ( ‫ܡܢܐ ܗܝ ܥܠܬܐ ܕܡܙܕܒܢܢܘܬܗ‬ ‫)ܕܝܘܣܦ‬41 - What is the cause of the blessings of Jacob for his sons? ( ‫ܡܢܐ ܗܝ‬ ‫ܥܠܬܐ ܕܒܘ̈ܪܟܬܗ ܕܝܥܩܘܒ ܕܠܘܬ‬ ̈ )42 ‫ܒܢܘܗܝ‬ - How many generations were there from Abraham until Moses and the exodus of the people? How many were their years? ( ‫ܟܡܐ ܕ̈ܪܐ ܗܘܝܢ ܡܢ‬ ‫ܐܒܪܗܡ ܥܕܡܐ ܠܡܘܫܐ ܘܡܦܩܬܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܐܢܝܢ‬ ̈ ‫)ܕܥܡܐ ܘܟܡܐ‬43 ‫ܫܢܝܐ ܕܝܠܗܘܢ‬ - How old were Isaac and Ishmael?

How were [the patriarchs]44 ̈ ‫ܒܪ ܟܡܐ ܗܘܐ‬ buried? ( ‫ܫܢܝܢ ܐܝܣܚܩ‬ ‫)ܘܐܝܫܡܥܝܠ ܘܐܝܟܢܐ ܐܬܥܦܝܘ‬45

These four questions are subsumed into a single section in Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s The Paradise of Christianity.46 The remainder of this study treats each of these four questions individually. As will become clear below, some of this exegetical material is also found in Isho‘dad of Merv’s running commentary on Genesis,47 and less of it is found in the anonymous commentary on GenesisExodus 9:32 preserved in ms. (olim) Diyarbakır 22,48 which served as one of Isho‘dad’s main sources. Though this section in Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s The Paradise of Christianity at times contains similar exegetical traditions to these two running commentaries, it will be shown that it is based most directly on Theodore Bar Koni’s Scholion.

QUESTION ON THE CAUSE OF THE SELLING OF JOSEPH This section in Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s The Paradise of Christianity begins with the Joseph narrative and more specifically the cause for Joseph’s brothers selling him (Gen. 37:25-28): ‫والعلة في بيع يوسف شر اخوته‬ ‘The cause of the selling of Joseph (is) the evil of his brothers.’

This is based on the question and first answer given by Bar Koni in his Scholion: ‫ܡܢܐ ܗܝ ܥܠܬܐ ܕܡܙܕܒܢܢܘܬܗ ܕܝܘܣܦ܂‬ ̈ ‫ܕܐܚܘܗܝ܂‬ ‫ܩܕܡܝܬ ܚܣܡܐ ܘܒܝܫܘܬܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܐܝܟ ܕܡܠܦ ܟܬܒܐ ܕܛܢܘ ܒܗ‬ ‫ܐܚܘܗܝ܂‬ ‘What is the cause of the selling of Joseph? First, the jealousy and evil of his brothers, as the scripture teaches, “His brothers envied him” (Gen. 28:12).’49

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 6

In Search of Sources for Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s The Paradise of Christianity _________________________________________________________________________________________

The same cause is found almost verbatim in Isho‘dad of Merv’s running commentary: ̈ ‫ܕܐܚܘܗܝ܂ ܛ ܼܢܘ‬ ‫ܚܕܐ ܒܝܫܘܬܐ ܘܚܣܡܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܐܚܘܗܝ܂‬ ‫ܠܡ ܒܗ‬ ‘First, the evil and jealousy of his brothers: “his brothers envied him” (Gen. 28:12).’50

Ibn al-Ṭayyib compresses the reason given in the two Syriac commentaries, adapting the two words ‘jealousy’ and ‘evil’ in Syriac into a single word ‘evil’ in Arabic. In addition, Ibn al-Ṭayyib does not include the scriptural citation. Removal of a scriptural citation as well as condensing material are recurring tendencies in the authorial process of Ibn al-Ṭayyib. The second cause that Ibn al-Ṭayyib gives for the selling of Joseph is the following: ‫وكيما يعد القوت الھله في وقت البال‬ ‘…and so that he could prepare nourishment for his people in the time of distress.’

This is based on the second reason given by Bar Koni, which is, however, longer: ‫ܘܕܬܪܬܝܢ ܕܢܩܕܡ ܢܛܝܒ ܡܙܘܢܐ ܠܒܝܬ‬ ̈ ‫ܐܠܚܘܗܝ܂ ܐܠ‬ ‫ܐܡܪ‬ ܼ ‫ܕܗܘ‬ ܼ ‫ܐܒܘܗܝ܂ ܐܝܟ‬ ‫ܗܘܐ ܠܡ ܐܢܬܘܢ ܙܒܢܬܘܢܢܝ ܠܗܪܟܐ‬ ‫ܐܐܠ ܐܠܗܐ܂ ܠܡܣܡ ܠܟܘܢ ܫܪܟܢܐ܂‬ ‫ܘܠܡܚܝܘ ܠܟܘܢ ܡܫܘܙܒܘܬܐ ܪܒܬܐ‬ ‫ܒܐܪܥܐ܂ ܡܛܠ ܓܝܪ ܕܐܝܟ ܚܘܪܩܢܗ‬ ‫ܕܐܠܗܐ ܥܬܝܕܝܢ ܗܘܘ ܥܒ̈ܪܝܐ ܠܡܚܬ‬ ‫ܠܡܨܪܝܢ܂ ܘܠܡܫܬܥܒܕܘ ܐܝܟ ܒܪܬ ܩܠܗ‬ ܿ ‫ܥܬܕܗ ܕܝܢ ܠܡܚܬܬܗܘܢ‬ ‫ܕܐܠܗܐ܂‬ ‫ܒܥܠܬ ܟܦܢܐ܇ ܫܦܝܪ ܠܝܘܣܦ ܩܕܡ ܫܕܪܗ‬ ܿ ‫ܥܒܕܗ ܕܝܢ ܠܬܫܕܪܬܗ‬ ‫ܩܕܡܝܗܘܢ܂‬ 51 ‫ܬܡܝܗܬܐ܂ ܐܝܟ ܚܕܐ ܠܒܘܕܩܐ‬ ‫ܕܚܝܠܗ܆ ܘܕܬ̈ܪܬܝܢ ܕܬܬܓܐܠ ܡܪܚܘܬܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܕܐܚܝ ܝܘܣܦ܂‬ ‘Secondly, so that he could prepare in advance nourishment for the house of his father, as he said to his brothers, “It is not you who sold me here but God in

order to establish a remnant for you and to enliven a great salvation for you in the land” (Gen. 45:7-8). For, because, according to the judgment of God, the Hebrews would go down into Egypt and be enslaved, according to the word of God, he prepared their descent by way of a famine (and) rightly sent Joseph before them. He made the sending of him full of wonder, first as a revelation of his power, and second so that the audacity of the brothers of Joseph might be revealed.’52

Once again, this material is found with similar wording in Isho‘dad of Merv’s commentary: ̈ ‫ܠܚܝܝ݀ܗܘܢ܆‬ ‫ܕܬܪܬܝܢ ܕܢܛܝܒ ܡܙܘܢܐ‬ ‫ܘܠܡܚܝܘ ܠܗܘܢ ܡܫܘܙܒܘܬܐ ܒܐܪܥܐ܆‬ ‫ܐܡܪ܆ ܫܕܪ ܠܡ ܩܕܡܝܗܘܢ‬ ‫ܕܗܘ‬ ܼ ܼ ‫ܐܝܟ‬ ܿ ‫ܓܒܪܐ܂ ܟܕ ܬܗܝܪܬܐ ܥܒ‬ ‫ܕܗ ܠܬܫܕܪܬܗ܂‬ ܼ ‫ܚܕܐ ܠܒܘܕܩܐ ܕܚܝܠܗ ܕܡܪܝܐ܂ ܘܕܬ̈ܪܬܝܢ‬ ‫ܕܟܝܘܬܗ ܕܝܘܣܦ܂ ܘܕܬܠܬ ܒܝܫܘܬܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܕܐܚܘܗܝ܂‬ ‘Secondly, so that he could prepare nourishment for their lives and to enliven a salvation for them in the land, as it said, “He sent before them a man” (Ps. 50:17), making the sending of him full of wonder, first as a revelation of the power of the Lord, second (as a revelation of) the purity of Joseph, and third (as a revelation of) the evil of his brothers.’53

Isho‘dad of Merv attests the same tradition as is found in Bar Koni’s Scholion, but in a shorter form. Likewise, Ibn al-Ṭayyib provides the same cause as the two Syriac commentaries, but essentially forgoes all of the explanation that follows this cause. It should be noted, however, that Ibn al-Ṭayyib specifically mentions ‘the time of distress’, which is more or less explicitly stated by Bar Koni (i.e., the enslavement in Egypt) but only implied in Isho‘dad of Merv’s commentary.

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 7

In Search of Sources for Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s The Paradise of Christianity _________________________________________________________________________________________

After providing these two causes for the sale of Joseph by his brothers, Ibn al-Ṭayyib proceeds to discuss how God was at work in these events: ‫ وكيما يكون عالمة‬.‫فيكون ذلك بالتدبير االلھي‬ ‫المسيح المخلص الذي باعه اليھود للموت‬ ‫واسلموه للصلب وفي ذلك سر تدبيره لخالص‬ ‫ واخوة يوسف واليھود ما اعتمدوا اال الشر‬.‫العالم‬ .‫وفي انتھايه ظھر الخير‬ ‘…for this would come about by the divine economy, and so that it would be a sign of Christ the saviour whom the Jews sold for death and handed over for crucifixion. In this is the mystery of his54 economy for the salvation of the world. The brothers of Joseph and the Jews only intended evil. At its conclusion, good appeared.’

A similar exegetical tradition is found in Bar Koni’s Scholion: ‫ܐܦ ܓܝܪ ܛܒ ̈ܕܡܝܢ ܗܠܝܢ ܕܝܘܣܦ ܠܗܠܝܢ‬ ‫ܕܦܪܘܩܢ ܡܫܝܚܐ܇ ܕܒܝܕ ܡܘܬܗ ܥܬܝܕܘܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܝܗܘܕܝܐ ܕܝܢ ܒܚܣܡܗܘܢ‬ ‫ܕܢܚܐ ܠܥܠܡܐ܂‬ ‫ܙܒܢܘܗܝ ܠܡܘܬܐ܂ ܗܟܢܐ ܐܦ ܠܝܘܣܦ܆‬ ‫ܿܙܒܢܘ ܒܒܝܫܘܬܗܘܢ܂ ܐܠܗܐ ܕܝܢ ܠܥܠܬ‬ ܿ ‫ܣܡܗ ܒܡܕܒܪܢܘܬܗ܂ ܐܠ‬ ‫ܛܒܬܐ‬ 55 ̈ ‫ܝܗܘܕܝܐ ܕܙܩܦܘ ܠܡܪܢ ܛܒܬܐ ܐܪܫܝܘ‬ ‫ܒܥܠܡܐ܃ ܕܗܐ ܪܓܬܗܘܢ ܓܡܪܘ܆ ܘܐܠ‬ ̈ ‫ܕܗܘܐ‬ ‫ܒܢܝ ܝܥܩܘܒ ܒܝܘܣܦ ܐܚܘܗܘܢ܂‬ ܼ ‫ܡܠܟܐ ܒܡܨܪܝܢ܂ ܬ̈ܪܝܗܘܢ ܓܝܪ‬ ‫ܠܚܘܣܪܢܐ ܨܠܝܢ ܗܘܘ܂ ܐܠܗܐ ܕܝܢ‬ ̈ ‫ܠܝܘܬܪܢ ܐܦܩ‬ ‫ܐܢܝܢ܂‬ ‘For, these things with Joseph well resemble those with our saviour Christ, who would make alive the world through his death. The Jews in their jealousy sold him for death, and so also they sold Joseph in their evil. God made it a cause for good through his economy. The Jews, who crucified our Lord, did not confer good on the world, for they completed their desire, and the sons of Jacob (did not confer good) on Joseph their brother, who became king in Egypt. Both of them were inclined toward

harm, but God brought these things to our benefit.’56

Almost the same material is again found in Isho‘dad of Merv’s running commentary: ̈ ‫ܕܡ ܝܢ ܕܝܢ ܗܠܝܢ ܕܝܘܣܦ‬ ̈ ‫ܠܗ ܢܝܢ ܕܦܪܘܩܢ܂‬ ‫ܕܐܝܟܢܐ ܕܦܪܘܩܢ ܒܝܕ ܡܘܬܗ ܥܬܝܕ‬ ̈ ‫ܝܗܘ ܕܝܐ ܕܝܢ‬ ‫ܗܘܐ ܕܢܚܐ ܠܥܠܡܐ܂‬ ‫ܗܟܢܐ‬ ‫ܙܩܦܘܗܝ‬ ‫ܒܒܝܫܘܬܗܘܢ‬ ̈ ‫ܐܚܘ ܗܝ ܙܒܢܬܗ܇‬ ‫ܘܠܝܘܣܦ ܟܕ ܒܝܫܘܬ‬ ‫ܐܬܦܪܢܣܬ‬ ‫ܝܘܬܪܢܐ‬ ‫ܠܥܠܬ‬ ̈ ‫ܝܗܘ ܕܝܐ ܕܙܩܦܘ ܡܪܢ‬ ‫ܡܙܕܒܢܢܘܬܗ܂ ܐܠ‬ ‫ܐܪܫܝܘ ܛܒܬܐ ܒܥܠܡܐ܆ ܕܗܐ‬ ‫ܪܓܬܗܘܢ ܓܡܪܘ܂ ܘܐܠ ܒܢ̈ ܝ ܝܥܩܘܒ‬ ‫ܕܗܘ ܐ ܡܠܟܐ ܒܡܨܪܝܢ܂‬ ‫ܒܝܘܣܦ‬ ܼ ‫ܬ̈ܪܝܗܘܢ ܓܝܪ ܠܚܘܣܪܢܐ ܨܠܝܢ ܗܘܘ܂‬ ܿ ܿ ‫ܒܛ‬ ‫ܠܗ ܠܨܢܝܥܘܬܗܘܢ‬ ‫ܐܠܗܐ ܕܝܢ‬ ܿ ‫ܘܠܕܠܩܘܒܐܠ ܐܗܦܟܗ ܂‬ ‘These things with Joseph resemble those with our saviour, for in such a way that our saviour would make alive the world through his death, the Jews in their evil crucified him. When the evil of Joseph’s brothers sold him, the selling of him was distributed for a beneficial cause. The Jews, who crucified our Lord, did not confer good on the world, for they completed their desire, and the sons of Jacob (did not confer good) on Joseph, who became king of Egypt. Both of them were inclined toward harm, but God nullified their cunning and turned it to the opposite.’57

All three of the authors develop a similar argument, especially in comparing the ordeal of Joseph at the hands of his brothers with that of Jesus at the hands of the Jews. Nevertheless, it is clear that Ibn al-Ṭayyib is dependent on Bar Koni here, since they both attribute these events explicitly to the divine economy (‫= التدبير‬ ‫)ܡܕܒܪܢܘܬܐ‬. Isho‘dad, in contrast, does not mention the divine economy. In addition, once again, Ibn al-Ṭayyib removes details found in Bar Koni, even though he does relay the same general themes.

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 8

In Search of Sources for Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s The Paradise of Christianity _________________________________________________________________________________________

After this discussion of the causes for selling Joseph, Ibn al-Ṭayyib moves to the meaning of the moon in Joseph’s dream (Gen. 37:9-10): ‫ ولو بقيت لسجدت وناب االب‬.‫القمر مثال امه‬ .‫منابھا‬ ‘The moon is a symbol of his mother. Had she remained, she would have bowed, but the father was her replacement.’

This is very similar to the explanation given by Bar Koni: ‫ܣܗܪܐ ܕܐܡܪ ܕܣܓܕ ܠܗ ܥܡ ܫܡܫܐ܃‬ ̈ ܿ ‫ܟܘܟܒܐ܂ ܥܠ ܐܡܗ‬ ‫ܪܡܙ܂ ܕܐܠܘ‬ ‫ܘܚܕܥܣܪ‬ ‫ܚܝܐ ܗܘܬ ܐܦ ܼܗܝ ܣܓܕܐ ܗܘܬ ܠܗ‬ ‫ܣܓܕܬ ܠܗ ܕܝܢ ܒܐܒܘܗܝ܂‬ ‘“The moon,” which he says, “bowed to him with the sun and the eleven stars” (Gen. 37:9), hints at his mother, for, had she lived, she also would have bowed to him. She did, however, bow to him through his father.’58

Similar exegetical material is found in the commentary in ms. Diyarbakır 22: ‫ܕܣܓܕ ܠܗ ܥܡ ܫܡܫܐ‬ ‫ܕܐܡܪ‬ ‫ܣܗܪܐ ܓܝܪ‬ ܼ ܼ ̈ ‫ܟܘܟܒܐ܂ ܕܒܚܠܡܐ ܐܚܪܢܐ ܼܚܙܐ܂‬ ‫ܘܚܕܥܣܪ‬ ‫ ܣܗܪܐ ܘܫܡܫܐ ܥܠ‬59‫ܟܕ ܡܘܕܥ ܥܠ‬ ̈ ‫ܟܘܟܒܐ ܥܠ‬ ‫ܐܒܘܗܝ ܘܐܡܗ܂ ܘܒܝܕ‬ ̈ ‫ܐܚܘܗܝ܂ ܐܝܟ ܿܡܢ ܕܐܠܘ ܩܝܡܐ ܗܘܬ‬ ‫ܐܡܗ܂ ܐܦ ܗܝ ܣܓܕܐ ܗܘܬ ܠܗ܂ ܣܓܕܬ‬ ‫ܠܗ ܒܐܒܘܗܝ܂ ܐܝܟ ܿܡܢ ܕܓܒܪܐ‬ ‫ܘܐܢܬܬܐ ܚܕ ܐܢܘܢ ܒܣܪ܂܂܂‬ ‘“The moon,” which he says, “bowed to him with the sun and the eleven stars” (Gen. 37:9)— what he saw in another dream: he refers with the moon and the sun to his father and his mother and with the stars to his brothers. For, had his mother been alive, she also would have bowed to him. She did bow to him through his father, for a man and a woman are one flesh (Gen. 2:24) …’60

A connection with Gen. 2:24 is also found in Isho‘dad of Merv’s running commentary:

‫ܘܐܦܢ ܡܝܝܬܐ ܗܘܬ ܐܡܗ ܡܢ ܟܕܘ܆ ܐܐܠ‬ ‫ܒܣܓܕܬ ܝܥܩܘܒ ܐܦ ܿܗܝ ܣܓܕܬ ܠܗ܆‬ ‫ܐܝܟ ܿܡܢ ܕܓܒܪܐ ܘܐܢܬܬܗ ܚܕ ܐܢܘܢ‬ ‫ܒܣܪ܂܂܂‬ ‘Even though his mother had already died, she also bowed to him through the bowing of Jacob, for a man and a woman are one flesh (Gen. 2:24) …’61

All four of these commentaries relay the same explanation that the moon is Joseph’s mother, and that, since she was already dead, she bowed to Joseph through his father, thereby fulfilling Joseph’s dream. The commentary in ms. Diyarbakır 22, followed by Isho‘dad, cites Genesis 2:24 to explain how Joseph’s father could take his mother’s place. Bar Koni does not transmit this tradition, and thus it is also not found in Ibn al-Ṭayyib. Bar Koni does, however, cite Gen. 37:9, as does the commentary in ms. Diyarbakır 22 (though not Isho‘dad of Merv). Ibn al-Ṭayyib leaves out this scriptural citation from Bar Koni’s Scholion, a practice that was already noted above. In addition, he makes more explicit what is implicit in the Scholion by changing ‘she bowed to him through his father’ to the direct statement that Joseph’s father replaced her. Apart from these minor changes, Ibn al-Ṭayyib is close to an Arabic translation of Bar Koni’s Scholion, even preserving the counterfactual conditional sentence (Syriac ‫ = ܐܠܘ‬Arabic... ‫ ل‬... ‫)لو‬. Even if he shares exegetical traditions with the running commentaries of Isho‘dad of Merv and of ms. Diyarbakır 22, Ibn al-Ṭayyib is clearly dependent on Theodore Bar Koni’s Scholion in this question dealing with the Joseph narrative. With this material, Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s authorial process consists of translating the Syriac source into Arabic, often in an abridged form. The abridgement at times involves deleting explanatory material as well as often removing additional scriptural citations. Occasionally, Ibn al-Ṭayyib adds a clarify-

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 9

In Search of Sources for Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s The Paradise of Christianity _________________________________________________________________________________________

cation to his Syriac source, though this is not as common as his condensing of material.

QUESTION ON JACOB’S BLESSINGS FOR HIS SONS In his Scholion, Bar Koni proceeds to a new question on ‘What is the cause of the blessings of Jacob for his sons?’ ( ‫ܡܢܐ ܗܝ‬ ‫)ܥܠܬܐ ܕܒܘ̈ܪܟܬܗ ܕܝܥܩܘܒ ܕܠܘܬ ̈ܒܢܘܗܝ‬, commenting on Genesis 49:1-28.62 Ibn al-Ṭayyib also turns to the blessings of Jacob, but he does not mark this transition with a new question. Rather, he simply begins with the following: ‫وبركات يعقوب الوالده تجري مجرى النبوات‬ ‘The blessings of Jacob for his sons are analogous to prophecies.’

Bar Koni also connects Jacob’s blessings to prophecies: ‫ܡܢܐ ܗܝ ܥܠܬܐ ܕܒܘ̈ܪܟܬܗ ܕܝܥܩܘܒ ܕܠܘܬ‬ ‫̈ܒܢܘܗܝ܂ ܐܦܢ ܐܣܟܝܡ ܒܘ̈ܪܟܬܐ ̈ܛܥܝܢܢ‬ ̈ ‫ܗܘܝ܂ ܐܐܠ ܫܪܝܪܐܝܬ ܪܐܙ ܢܒܝܘܬܐ ܡܢܗܝܢ‬ ‫ܡܕܝܩ ܗܘܐ܂‬ ‘What is the cause of the blessings of Jacob for his sons? Even though they bore the form of blessings, actually a hint of prophecy was indicated by them.’

Once again, Ibn al-Ṭayyib can be seen abridging Bar Koni. Ibn al-Ṭayyib, following Bar Koni, proceeds to provide a prophetic exegesis for Jacob’s blessings for each of his sons. The exegesis of Ibn al-Ṭayyib is very close to that of Bar Koni’s Scholion for most of Jacob’s sons, though it departs from it with a couple of them. Following the biblical text (Gen. 49:34), Bar Koni begins with Jacob’s oldest son Reuben: ‫ܠܪܘܒܝܠ ܕܝܢ ܒܘܟܪܗ ܥܠ ܕܛܘܫ ܬܫܘܝܬܗ‬ ܿ ‫ܐܥܗܕܗ‬ ‫ܒܡܕܡܟܐ ܕܥܡ ܒܠܗܐ ܕܪܘܟܬܗ܆‬ ‫ܠܗ ܕܝܢ ܠܣܟܠܘܬܗ܂ ܐܠ ܕܝܢ ܠܛܗ ܡܛܠ‬ ‫ܨܒܝܢܐ ܕܚܘܝ ܒܨܒܘܬܗ ܕܝܘܣܦ܂‬

‘As for Reuben, his first born, because he defiled his bed in lying with Bilhah his handmaid, he reminded him of his transgression. He did not curse him on account of the favour that he showed in the matter of Joseph.’63 Ibn al-Ṭayyib relates the following about Reuben: ‫اما روبيل فجعل مفرشه مدنسا باضطجاعه مع‬ ‫ ولم يلعنه لما ظھر‬.‫بلھا كنته بل اذكره لجھالته‬ ‫منه في معنى يوسف اخيه وانه لم ٮوثر‬ .‫مساعدة اخوته‬ ‘As for Reuben, he made his bed defiled in lying with Bilhah his daughter-in-law, yet he reminded him of his foolishness. He did not curse him for what came about by him in the matter of Joseph his brother and that he did not choose to help his brothers.’

Ibn al-Ṭayyib closely follows Bar Koni here. Even the fronting of ‘Reuben’ in the Syriac text is reproduced in Arabic by the ’ammā … fa- … construction. Ibn al-Ṭayyib, however, adds further explanation for Reuben’s role in the Joseph saga noting that Reuben did not help his brothers. In this, Ibn al-Ṭayyib departs from his tendency either to reproduce or to abbreviate Bar Koni’s Scholion. Another change between Bar Koni and Ibn al-Ṭayyib is the description of Bilhah: Bar Koni describes her as ‘his maidservant’ (‫)ܕܪܘܟܬܗ‬, whereas Ibn al-Ṭayyib has a word (‫ )كنته‬that could mean either ‘his sister-in-law’ or ‘his daughter-in-law’.64 It is difficult to explain why Bilhah’s description as a ‘maidservant’ was changed to ‘daughter-in-law’ or ‘sister-in-law’. This does not follow the Arabic biblical text (Gen. 35:22). The earliest dated Arabic Pentateuch manuscript (ms. Sinai Arabic 2 [939/940]), for instance, has ‫‘ سرية‬concubine’ here.65 It is also not found in the running commentary part of Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s The Paradise of Christianity, where Bilhah is also described as a ‘concubine’ (‫)سرية‬.66

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 10

In Search of Sources for Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s The Paradise of Christianity _________________________________________________________________________________________

Following the biblical text (Gen. 49:57), Bar Koni treats Jacob’s blessing of Simeon and Levi together: ‫ܕܥܒܕܘ‬ ‫ܘܠܫܡܥܘܢ ܘܠܘܝ ܡܚܣܕ ܡܛܠ ܚܪܒܐ‬ ܼ ‫ܒܫܟܝܡ܇ ܒܥܠܬ ܕܝܢܐ ܚܬܗܘܢ܂ ܘܐܦ ܗܘܫܥ‬ ܿ ‫ܥܗܕ‬ ܿ ̈ ‫ܟܗܢܐ‬ ‫ܠܗ܂ ܐܫܬܘܬܦܘ ܠܡ‬ ‫ܢܒܝܐ‬ ‫ܘܩܛܠܘ ܠܫܟܝܡ܇‬ ܼ ‫ܒܐܘܪܚܐ‬ ‘As for Simeon and Levi, he reproached them for the slaughter that they made in Shechem on account of Dinah their sister. The prophet Hosea also mentioned it: “The priests joined in the path and killed Shechem” (Hosea 6:9).’67

Ibn al-Ṭayyib provides the following comments on Simeon and Levi: ‫وشمعون ولوي عيرھما للحرب الذي فعلوه‬ ‫مع اھل شخيم بسبب دينا اختھم‬ ‘As for Simeon and Levi, he reproached them for the battle that they made with the people of Shechem on account of Dinah their sister.’

Ibn al-Ṭayyib closely follows Bar Koni’s Scholion, though he does not include the passage from Hosea, following his tendency to remove additional biblical citations. Bar Koni provides a Christological interpretation for Jacob’s blessing of Judah (Gen. 49:8-12): ‫ܥܠ ܝܗܘܕܐ ܕܝܢ ܢܣܟ ܥܡ ܒܘ̈ܪܟܬܐ ܐܦ‬ ‫ܢܒܝܘܬܐ܂ ܐܝܟ ܐܝܢܐ ܕܡܢ ܝܘܒܠܗ ܥܬܝܕ‬ ‫ܗܘܐ ܠܡܕܢܚ ܡܪܢ ܡܫܝܚܐ ܕܒܒܣܪ܂‬ ‘As for Judah, he showered him with blessings and also prophecy, as the one from whose generation our Lord Christ would shine forth in flesh.’68

The same Christological interpretation is repeated in Ibn al-Ṭayyib: ‫وايھودا اسبغ عليه البركات والنبوة الن من‬ .‫نسله يظھر المسيح‬ ‘As for Judah, he showered him with blessings and prophecy be-

cause from his offspring Christ would appear.’

Ibn al-Tayyib closely follows Bar Koni's Scholion here, though he does omit ‘in flesh’. The first part of Bar Koni’s interprettation of the blessing for Zebulon paraphrases the Peshiṭta (Gen. 49:13), while the second introduces the interpretation: ̈ ‫ܠܙܒܘܠܘܢ ܐܫܪܝܗ ܥܠ ܣܦܪ‬ ‫ܡܐ܂ ܐܝܟ‬ ܼ ‫ܝܡ‬ ‫ܕܐܠܝܢܐ ܕܥܬܝܕ ܕܢܬܒܣܡ ܒܬܓ̈ܪܬܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܕܒܣܦܝܢܐ܂‬

‘As for Zebulon, he made him settle at the shore of the seas, as one who would delight in merchandise in the boats.’69

Ibn al-Ṭayyib follows this same structure: ‫ وفي ھذا‬.‫وزبولون احله على ساحل البحر‬ .‫داللة على انه ينتفع من المتاجر في السفن‬ ‘As for Zebulon, he made him settle at the shore of the sea. In this was a demonstration that he would benefit from the merchandise in the boats.’

Ibn al-Ṭayyib closely follows Bar Koni’s Scholion here. Unlike Bar Koni, however, Ibn al-Ṭayyib makes explicit that the second part is an interpretation of the blessing by adding ‘in this was a demonstration that…’. The translation ‘he would delight in merchandise’ is based on two emendations to Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s Arabic text: ‫‘ ينتقم من‬he would avenge himself on’ to ‫‘ ينتفع من‬he would benefit from’ and ‫‘ المتاخر‬that which is last, later, behind’ to ‫‘ المتاجر‬merchandise’. Both of these emendations are minor, and both are supported by Bar Koni’s Scholion. It is, however, interesting to note that the Ethiopic translation in ms. EMML 1839 reads: ወለዛብሎንኒ፡ሠርዓ፡ላዕለ፡ጽንፈ፡ባሕር፡ ወአኅደሮ፡ወበዝንቱ፡ያጤይቅ፡ከመ፡ለሊሁ፡ ይትቤቀል፡እምእለ፡ተድኅሩ፡በውስተ፡ሐመር።

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 11

In Search of Sources for Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s The Paradise of Christianity _________________________________________________________________________________________

‘As for Zebulon, he established him and caused him to reside at the shore of the sea. In this, he showed that he would be avenged by those things that were left behind in the boat.’

The Ethiopic translator, then, was translating an Arabic Vorlage similar to that found in ms. Vatican Arab. 36. Bar Koni provides the following interpretation for Jacob’s blessing of Issachar (Gen. 39:14-15): ‫ܐܠܝܣܟܪ ܒܟܗܝܢܘܬܐ ܘܒܡܫܝܢܘܬ ܐܪܥܐ܂‬ ܿ ‫ܦܐ̈ܪܝܗ܂‬ ‫ܕܥܬܝܕ ܠܡܦܠܚ ܘܠܡܐܟܠ‬ ‘As for Ishakar, (he prophesied that) in the abundance and tranquility of the land he would cultivate and eat its fruits.’70

A similar interpretation is found in Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s The Paradise of Christianity: ‫وايساخر جعل له خصب االرض التي شانه‬ .‫ان يفلحھا وياكل ثمارھا‬ ‘As for Ishakar, he made for him abundance of the land such that he would cultivate it and eat its fruits.’

Ibn al-Ṭayyib supplies a verb in the main clause, which is only implied in Bar Koni. In addition, he condenses the two words ‘abundance’ and ‘tranquility’ in Syriac into the single word ‘abundance’ in Arabic. Bar Koni connects the prophecy of Dan (Gen. 49:16-17) with Samson:

‘As for Dan, he prophesied for him the judgment of his people through Samson the giant.’

Ibn al-Ṭayyib closely follows Bar Koni. There are, however, a couple of differences. He again provides a verb for the main clause, which is only implied in Bar Koni’s Scholion. In addition, Ibn al-Ṭayyib is not able to preserve the play between Dan’s name and the verbal root √dwn ‘to judge’, which is found in the Scholion, the Peshiṭta, and even the Hebrew text, since this is not the usual meaning of this root in Arabic. Bar Koni provides two different interpretations for Jacob’s blessing of Gad (Gen. 49:19): ܿ ‫ܠܓܕ‬ ܿ ܿ ‫ܕܐܡܪ‬ ‫ܓܝܣܐ܂ ܐܘ ܐܝܟ‬ ‫ܕܗܘܐ‬ ‫ܕܗܘ ܡܬܓܝܣ܂‬ ܼ ‫ܝܘܢܝܐ‬ ‘As for Gad, (he prophesied) that he would be a robber, or as the Greek says, one who is robbed.’72

Ibn al-Ṭayyib, in contrast, provides a single interpretation: ‫وجاد تنبى عليه باللصوصية‬ ‘As for Gad, he prophesied for him robbery.’

This, then, is another instance in which Ibn al-Ṭayyib condenses the material in Bar Koni’s Scholion. In addition, Ibn al-Ṭayyib again adds the verb ‘he prophesied’, which is only implied in the Syriac. Bar Koni’s interpretation of Jacob’s blessing of Asher is little more than a rephrasing of the Peshiṭta text (Gen. 49:20):

‫ܠܕܢ ܕܝܢ ܐܝܟ ܿܡܢ ܕܥܬܝܕ ܠܡܕܢ ܠܥܡܗ܇‬ ‫ܒܝܕ ܫܡܫܘܢ ܓܢܒܪܐ܂‬

‫ܘܗܘ ܥܬܝܕ‬ ‫ܐܠܫܝܪ܂ ܫܘܡܢܐ ܕܠܚܡܐ܂‬ ܼ ܿ ‫ܕܢܬܠ ܦܘܪܢܣܐ‬ ‫ܠܡܠܟܐ ܡܢ ܦܘܠܚܢܗ܂‬

‘As for Dan, (he prophesied) that he would judge his people through Samson the giant.’71

‘As for Asher, (he prophesied for him) the fat of food and that he would give provisions to the king from his labour.’73

The same connection is found in Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s The Paradise of Christianity: ‫ودان تنبا عليه بالحكم على شعبه بشمشون‬ .‫الجبار‬

A similar interpretation is found in Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s The Paradise of Christianity: ‫ وانه يقيم المير للملوك من‬.‫واشير بسمين الحنطة‬ .‫عمله‬

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 12

In Search of Sources for Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s The Paradise of Christianity _________________________________________________________________________________________

‘As for Asher, (he prophesied for him) the fat of wheat and that he would establish provisions for kings from his work.’

In contrast to the case with Dan and Gad, Ibn al-Ṭayyib does not supply a verb in the main clause. Ibn al-Ṭayyib, however, departs from Bar Koni’s Scholion in making both ‘provisions’ and ‘kings’ plural, in contrast to the singulars in the Syriac. Bar Koni’s interpretation of Jacob’s blessing for Naphtali is more removed from the biblical text (Gen. 49:21) than those previously discussed: ‫ܠܢܦܬܠܝ ܬܘܒ ܡܩܕܡܘܬ ̈ܥܠܠܬܐ ܕܡܢ ܐܪܥܗ‬ ܿ ‫ܘܒܗ ܟܠܠܗ܂ ܐܝܟ ܿܗܘ‬ ‫ܝܗܒ ܠܗ‬ ‫ܕܐܝܙܓܕܘܬܐ ܿܥܒܕ܆‬ ‘As for Naphtali, he gave him the first fruits from his land, and by this he crowned him as one would serve as an emissary.’74

Ibn al-Ṭayyib does not follow Bar Koni’s Scholion as closely for Naphtali as he does with some of Jacob’s other sons: ‫ونفتالي تقدم اعطا ارضه الغالت والرسل‬ .‫والحجة‬ ‘As for Naphtali, his land first gave fruits, emissaries, and a cause.’

There are a number of differences here between Ibn al-Ṭayyib and Bar Koni. Though it remains unclear how it exactly happened, the word ‘first’ in ‘first fruits’ (‫ )ܡܩܕܡܘܬ ̈ܥܠܠܬܐ‬in Bar Koni’s text ultimately became an auxiliary verb of ‘to do first’ (‫ )تقدم‬in Ibn al-Ṭayyib. The genitive relationship between ‘fruits’ and ‘land’ in the Scholion was also removed in Ibn al-Ṭayyib. In its place, ‘his land’ is probably to be understood as the subject of the verbs, though the gender discrepancy is to be noted.75 Ibn al-Ṭayyib does not include the verb ‘he crowned him’ in Bar Koni, but does still preserve the prophecy of Naphtali being a messenger. Ibn al-Ṭayyib, however, adds ‘a cause’ (‫)الحجة‬

at the end of the list, which could alternatively be understood as ‘pilgrimage’. Without any additional context, this addition is difficult to understand.76 The end result of these changes is that Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s commentary is removed from Bar Koni’s Scholion, even if it is still ultimately based on it. Bar Koni offers a simple interpretation of Jacob’s lengthy blessing for Joseph (Gen. 49:22-26): ‫ܝܗܒ ܠܝܘܣܦ ܒܙܟܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܘܡܐܡܪܐ‬ ܼ ̈ ‫ܐܚܘܗܝ ̈ܒܥܠܕܒܒܐ‬ ‫ܘܒܢܨܚܢܐ ܕܠܘܩܒܠ‬ ‫ܨܒܬܗ܂‬ ‘He gave Joseph speech in victory and in glory with which he adorned him against his brothers, the enemies.’77

Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s comments on Joseph are even shorter: .‫ويوسف كلله بالفوز لما فعل به اخوته‬ ‘As for Joseph, he crowned him with victory for what his brothers did to him.’

Somewhat surprisingly, the verb ‘to crown’ is found here in Ibn al-Ṭayyib, as opposed to Syriac ‘to give’. This is especially noteworthy since in the previous blessing for Naphtali the Syriac had a verb ‘to crown’ whereas the Arabic did not. Ibn al-Ṭayyib does not include the idea of ‘speech’ (‫)ܡܐܡܪܐ‬, the meaning of which—it should be noted—is not entirely clear in Bar Koni’s Scholion, and also reduces the two Syriac words ‘in victory’ and ‘in glory’ to a single ‘in glory’ in Arabic. The structure of the final subordinate clause is also entirely different between Bar Koni and Ibn al-Ṭayyib. Thus, as with the previous passage on Naphtali, Ibn al-Ṭayyib does not follow Bar Koni’s Scholion here as closely as he does in the other blessings. Bar Koni concludes his exegesis of Jacob’s blessings with Benjamin (Gen. 49:27):

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 13

In Search of Sources for Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s The Paradise of Christianity _________________________________________________________________________________________

‫ܠܒܢܝܡܝܢ ܕܥܬܝܕ ܕܢܫܬܠܡ ܠܚܝܘܬܐ‬ ܿ ‫ܠܗ ܒܥܪܝܪܘܬܐ܂ ܗܕܐ ܕܝܢ‬ ‫ܘܢܬܕܡܐ‬ ‫ܓܕܫܬ ܡܢ ܒܢܝܡܝܢ܂‬ ‘As for Benjamin, (he prophesied) that he would be given over to an animal, and that he would resemble it (in) beastliness. This happened through Benjamin.’78

Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s interpretation is slightly more condensed: ‫وبنيامين تنبى عليه بالمشابھة للحيوان في‬ ‫بھيميته وھذا عرض له‬ ‘As for Benjamin, he prophesied a resemblance to animals on account of his brutality, and this happened to him.’

As in the case of the blessings for Dan and Gad, Ibn al-Ṭayyib supplies a verb in the main clause, which is only implied in Bar Koni. The syntax and structure of Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s The Paradise of Christianity also departs rather significantly from Bar Koni’s Scholion with the transfer of the two Syriac verbs into a series of prepositional phrases. Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s use of Bar Koni’s Scholion varies in this question on Jacob’s blessings for his sons: with some of the blessings, Ibn al-Ṭayyib presents almost an Arabic translation of Bar Koni’s Syriac text, whereas in others he is only loosely based on it. Several of the tendencies seen with the previous question are found again with this question, including the removal of scriptural citations and the inclination to abridge. Before moving to the next question in Bar Koni, it should be noted that Ibn al-Ṭayyib also comments on the blessings of Jacob in his running commentary.79 While this is not the place to analyze all of the blessings, it is worthwhile to look at a couple of them to compare his method in the running commentary part of The Paradise of Christianity with that of the question-and-answer part. Ibn al-Ṭayyib provides the following comments on Jacob’s blessing of Naphtali (Gen. 49:21):

‫ونفتالي رسول مسرع الخوته بسبب خصب‬ ‫ وله عبارة حسنة في الرساٮل وياتي‬.‫ارضه‬ ‫بالبشارات‬ ‘Naphtali is a quick messenger for his brothers because of the fertility of his land. He has fine expression in his messages, and he comes with good news.’80

Though the ideas are similar to those found in Bar Koni’s Scholion, which is quoted above, closer parallels are found in the running commentaries of Diyarbakır 22 and of Isho‘dad of Merv. The commentary in ms. Diyarbakır 22 provides the following comments on Gen. 49:21: ܿ ‫ܢܦܬܠܝ܂ ܐܝܙܓܕܐ ܩܠܝܐܠ‬ ‫ܝܗܒ ܡܐܡܪܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܐܠܚܘܗܝ܂ ܡܛܠ ܟܗܝܢܘܬ ܐܪܥܗ܂‬ ‫ܫܦܝܪܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܘܬܘܒ ܕܒܪܩ ܕܡܢ ܢܦܬܠܝ ܡܣܒܪ ܫܡܘܥܬܐ‬ ܿ ‫ܫܦܝ̈ܪܬܐ‬ ܿ ‫ܗܘܐ܂‬ ‫ܠܗܢܘܢ ܕܥܪܩܝܢ ܡܢ ܩܕܡ‬ ‫ܬܩܝܦܘܬܗ ܕܣܝܣܪܐ܂‬

‘Naphtali, a quick messenger, gives good news to his brothers because of the fertility of his land. Also, Baraq, who was from Naphtali, announced good news to those who were fleeing from the ferocity of Sisera (Jg. 4:6-22).’81

An even closer parallel to the running commentary part of Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s The Paradise of Christianity is found in Isho‘dad of Merv’s commentary: ̈ ‫ܐܠܚܘܗܝ‬ ‫ܢܦܬܠܝ ܐܝܙܓܕܐ ܗܘ ܩܠܝܐܠ‬ ‫ܙܟܐ‬ ܼ ‫ܡܛܠ ܟܗܝܢܘܬ ܐܪܥܗ܂ ܬܘܒ ܕܟܕ‬ ̈ ‫ܐܝܙܓܕܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܓܕܥܘܢ ܠܡܕܝܢ܆ ܫܕܪ‬ ‫ܩܠܝܐܠ‬ ̈ ‫ܒܟܠܗ ܝܣܪܝܠ ܘܗܠܝܢ‬ ‫ܐܝܙܓܕܐ ܣܘܓܐܐ‬ ‫ܡܢ ܢܦܬܠܝ ܗܘܘ܂ ܬܘܒ ܕܒܪܩ ܕܡܢ ܢܦܬܠܝ܆‬ ̈ ܿ ‫ܫܡܘܥܬܐ ܫܦܝ̈ܪܬܐ ܿܗܘܐ‬ ‫ܠܗܢܘܢ‬ ‫ܡܣܒܪ‬ ‫ܕܥܪܩܝܢ ܗܘܘ ܡܢ ܩܕܡ ܬܩܝܦܘܬܗ ܕܣܝܣܪܐ܂‬ ‫ܥܒܪܝܐ܆ ܢܦܬܠܝ ܦܪܥܐ ܢܝܚܐ܆ ܕܡܘܣܦ‬ ̈ ‫ܒܥܠܠܬܗ ܫܘܦܪܐ܂ ܗܢܘ܂ ܐܪܥܗ ܛܒܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܘܡܐܡܪܐ ܫܦܝܪܐ ܕܥܠܠܬܐ ܡܝܬܐ‬ ‫ܠܥܡܐ܂‬

82

‘Naphtali is a quick messenger for his brothers because of the fertility of his land. Also, when Gideon conquered Midian, he sent quick messengers throughout all of Israel (Jg. 7:24), and most of these

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 14

In Search of Sources for Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s The Paradise of Christianity _________________________________________________________________________________________

messengers were from Naphtali. Also, Baraq, who was from Naphtali, announced fine news to those who were fleeing from the ferocity of Sisera (Jg. 4:6-22). The Hebrew:83 “Naphtali, a gentle stem, who adds beauty through his fruits.” That is, his land is good, and he brings to his people the fine expression of fruits.’84

The first sentence in Ibn al-Ṭayyib is a word-for-word translation of Isho‘dad of Merv’s commentary. Ibn al-Ṭayyib, then, passes over Isho‘dad’s comments concerning Gideon and Baraq, both of whom are associated in the biblical text with Naphtali. In his last sentence, Ibn al-Ṭayyib adapts the reading that Isho‘dad attributes to the Hebrew, but which is actually from the Septuagint. He does not, however, preserve any indication of the source of this alternative reading. Thus, in this example from his running commentary, Ibn al-Ṭayyib is an Arabic abridgement of the commentary by Isho‘dad of Merv, much in the same way that his question-and-answer commentary makes use of Bar Koni’s Scholion. It should be pointed out that Isho‘dad of Merv is not the only source that Ibn al-Ṭayyib employs in his running commentary. Ibn al-Ṭayyib, for instance, provides the following commentary on the blessing of Asher (Gen. 49:20): ‫ للملوك واالقوات والدھن‬85‫اسير يعطي الغذا‬ .‫والخمر والطيب الذي يكون في ارضه‬ ‘Asher gives nourishment to kings: foodstuffs, oil, wine, and perfume, which will be in his land.’86

This is not found in Isho‘dad of Merv’s commentary, but a similar locution is found in Ephrem’s Commentary on Genesis:87 ‫ܕܐܡܪ ܡܘܫܐ‬ ‫ܕܐܫܝܪ ܛܒܐ ܐܪܥܗ܂ ܿܗܝ‬ ܼ ‫ܕܢܨܒܘܥ ܒܡܫܚܐ ܪܓܠܗ܂ ܕܡܝܐ ܕܝܢ‬ ‫ܕܐܪܥ ܐܦܡܝܐ ܗܘܬ܂ ܘܕܢܬܠ ܬܘܪܣܝܐ‬ ‫ܠ ̈ܡܠܟܐ܂ ܒܡܫܚܐ ܢܩܕܐ ܘܒܚܡ̈ܪܢܐ ܦܪܝܫܝ‬ ܿ ‫ܛܥܡܐ‬ ‫ܕܗܘܝܢ ܒܝܪܬܘܬܗ܂‬

‘“As for Asher, his land is good” (Gen. 49:20). That which Moses said, “He will dip his foot in oil” (Deut. 33:24). It seems that it was the land of Apamea. “He will give nourishment to kings” (Gen. 49:20) with pure oil and wines of exquisite taste, which will be in his inheritance.’88

Almost the same wording is found in the commentary in ms. Diyarbakır 22: ܿ ‫ܐܡܪ‬ ܿ ̈ ‫ܕܝܗܒ ܬܘܪܣܝܐ‬ ‫ܠܡܠܟܐ‬ ‫ܐܫܝܪ ܕܝܢ‬ ‫ܒܡܫܚܐ ܢܩܕܐ ܘܒܚܡ̈ܪܢܐ ܦܪܝܫܝ ܛܥܡܐ‬ ‫ܕܗܘܝܢ ܒܐܪܥܗ܂‬ ‘Regarding Asher, it says, “He will give nourishment to kings” (Gen. 49:20) with pure oil and wines of exquisite taste, which will be in his land.’89

Thus, this is a case in which the running commentary part of Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s Paradise of Christianity is not dependent on Isho‘dad of Merv’s commentary, but on Ephrem’s Commentary or possibly the commentary in ms. Diyarbakır 22 (or one like it).90

QUESTION ON BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY Following the question on Jacob’s blessings for his sons, Bar Koni turns to a new question in his Scholion: ‫ܟܡܐ ܕ̈ܪܐ ܗܘܝܢ ܡܢ ܐܒܪܗܡ ܥܕܡܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܠܡܘܫܐ ܘܡܦܩܬܐ ܕܥܡܐ ܘܟܡܐ‬ ‫ܐܢܝܢ‬ ̈ ‫ܫܢܝܐ ܕܝܠܗܘܢ‬ ‘How many generations were there from Abraham until Moses and the exodus of the people? How many were their years?’91

This question is significantly longer than the previous two questions. In Scher’s edition of the Syriac, the question on the cause of the sale of Joseph runs twentyfour lines and the question on the cause of Jacob’s blessings for his sons runs twentyfive lines, whereas this question totals seventy-four lines. Thus, it is three times as long as either of the previous questions! It

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 15

In Search of Sources for Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s The Paradise of Christianity _________________________________________________________________________________________

begins with Abraham and proceeds to Jacob, then to Joseph, then to the slavery in Egypt, and finally to Moses and his death. As was the case with the question on Jacob’s blessings, Ibn al-Ṭayyib does not indicate that a new question has begun; rather, he simply turns directly to what will be part of the answer in Bar Koni: ‫االحقاب التي كانت من ابرھيم الى موسى‬ ‫سبعة وسنوھا خمس ماية خمسة واربعين سنة‬ ‫الى موت موسى‬ ‘The generations that were from Abraham to Moses are seven, and their years are 545 until the death of Moses.’

This corresponds to the first part of Bar Koni’s answer: ‫ܟܡܐ ܕ̈ܪܐ ܗܘܝܢ ܡܢ ܐܒܪܗܡ ܥܕܡܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܠܡܘܫܐ ܘܡܦܩܬܐ ܕܥܡܐ ܘܟܡܐ‬ ‫ܐܢܝܢ‬ ̈ ̈ ‫ܘܫܢܝܐ‬ ‫ܫܢܝܐ ܕܝܠܗܘܢ ܕ̈ܪܐ ܫܒܥܐ܂‬ ̈ ‫ܚܡܫܡܐܐ ܘܐ̈ܪܒܥܝܢ ܘܚܡܫ܇ ܥܕܡܐ‬ ‫ ܕܛܘܒܢܐ ܡܘܫܐ܂‬92‫ܠܥܘܗܕܢܗ‬ ‘How many generations were there from Abraham until Moses and the exodus of the people? How many were their years? The generations are seven, and the years are 545 until the passing away of Moses.’93

As already noted, Ibn al-Ṭayyib does not include the question of Bar Koni, but rather transforms it into a declarative sentence. Apart from this, Ibn al-Ṭayyib provides almost a word-for-word translation of Bar Koni’s Scholion. The only other material that Ibn al-Ṭayyib includes from this question in Bar Koni’s Scholion is the following: ‫وفي الخامسة والسبعين من عمر ابرھيم اھله‬ ‫اللـه للرويا االلھية‬ ‘In the seventy-fifth year of Abraham, God prepared him for a divine vision.’

This is based on a sentence in Bar Koni’s Scholion only several lines from the beginning of the question: ‫ܗܘܐ ܒܪ ܫܒܥܝܢ ܘܚܡܫ‬ ܼ ‫ܐܒܪܗܡ ܕܝܢ ܟܕ‬ ‫̈ܫܢܝܢ ܐܫܬܘܝ ܠܓܠܝܢܐ ܐܠܗܝܐ܂‬

‘When he was seventy-five years old, Abraham was deemed worthy of a divine revelation.’94

Ibn al-Ṭayyib is clearly based on this sentence from Bar Koni. There are, however, several changes: the Syriac subordinate clause indicating Abraham’s age is changed into a prepositional phrase in Arabic, and the passive verb without an agent in Syriac is changed into God’s direct action in Arabic. Between these sentences in Bar Koni’s Scholion, there are the following lines of Syriac: ‫ܒܫܢܬ ܐ̈ܪܒܥܝܢ ܘܬܠܬ ܕܢܝܢܘܣ ܿܡܠܟܐ‬ ‫ܕܐܬܘ̈ܪܝܐ ܐܬܝܠܕ ܗܘܐ ܐܒܪܗܡ܂ ܘܚܝܐ‬ ‫ܡܐܐ ܘܫܒܥܝܢ ܘܚܡܫ ̈ܫܢܝܢ܂‬ ‘In year forty-three of Ninos, king of the Assyrians, Abraham was born, and he lived one hundred and

seventy-five years.’95

This material is not found in Ibn al-Ṭayyib. In addition, Bar Koni continues for another sixty-six lines of Syriac text in Scher’s edition, and none of this is represented in Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s The Paradise of Christianity. In this question, then, Ibn al-Ṭayyib adopts a different approach from that which was seen in the previous two questions. Seventy-four lines of Syriac text in Scher’s edition of Bar Koni’s Scholion become no more than thirty words in the Arabic text of Ibn al-Ṭayyib! Thus, a vast majority of the Syriac material in this question is not transmitted into Arabic. This contrasts with the two questions discussed previously, in which Ibn al-Ṭayyib relayed most of the exegetical material in Bar Koni’s Scholion, even if abridging and adapting it.

QUESTION ON JACOB (AND ABRAHAM) Following these few sentences involving the chronology of Abraham, Ibn al-Ṭayyib

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 16

In Search of Sources for Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s The Paradise of Christianity _________________________________________________________________________________________

moves to a series of comments primarily about Jacob (esp. Gen. 30-32) but also a couple on Abraham as well. Each of these statements in Ibn al-Ṭayyib derives directly from passages in the following question from Bar Koni’s Scholion: ‫ܒܪ ܟܡܐ ܗܘܐ ̈ܫܢܝܢ ܐܝܣܚܩ ܘܐܝܫܡܥܝܠ‬ ‫ܘܐܝܟܢܐ ܐܬܥܦܝܘ‬ ‘How old were Isaac and Ishmael? How were [the patriarchs] buried?’96

This question, which comprises sixtyseven lines of Syriac text in Scher’s edition, discusses various topics, including the age of the patriarchs at their deaths, the story of Jacob and Laban, the meanings and/or etymologies of several words, Abraham’s children after Sarah’s death, the circumcision of Abraham, Ishmael, and Isaac, and Joseph’s wife Asyat (‫)ܐܣܝܬ‬. As with the previous question, Ibn al-Ṭayyib does not relay all or even most of the material in the question. Rather, he makes a selection. This section in Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s The Paradise of Christianity begins abruptly with the following words: ‫العادمة للقرون البلق‬ ‘… lacking horns and spotted…’

Without context, the word translated as ‘horns’ could also mean ‘centuries’. In its context within Ibn al-Ṭayyib, the adjective ‘lacking’ (‫ )العادمة‬would seem to be modifying the immediately preceding ‘divine vision’ (‫ )للرويا االلھية‬from the previous question. This is, in fact, how the Ethiopic translation of Ibn al-Ṭayyib in ms. EMML 1839 understands it: ...በራእይ፡አምላካዊ፡እንተ፡አልባቲ፡አቅርንተ። ወፍካሬ፡አቅርንትሰ፡፻፡ዓመት፡ውእቱ።ወእመ፡ አኮ፡፸፡ወ፪፡ዓመት። ‘…a divine vision which was lacking centuries. The interpretation of centuries is one hundred years or seventy-two years.’

The Ethiopic translation deletes the word for ‘spotted’ and connects ‘lacking of centuries’ to the textually adjacent ‘divine vision’. In addition, the text adds an exegetical note clarifying the meaning of the Ethiopic word qärn as ‘centuries’, since it does not usually have this meaning. Despite its creativity, the Ethiopic text does not make sense as it stands: what is a vision lacking centuries?!? A solution to this crux can, however, be found in Bar Koni’s Scholion. Ibn al-Ṭayyib is dependent here on the following passage that discusses the words ‘bald’ (‫ )ܩ̈ܪܚܐ‬and ̈ ‘spotted’ (‫)ܦܝܣܟܝܐ‬ in the Peshiṭta text of Gen. 30:35: ‫܂܂܂ ܡܛܠ ܩ̈ܪܚܐ ܕܐܝܬܝܗܘܢ ܕܐܠ ܩ̈ܪܢܐ܂‬ ̈ ‫ܘܦܝܣܟܝܐ ܕܐܝܬܝܗܘܢ‬ ̈ ‫ܟܟܠܢܐ܂ ܂܂܂‬ ‘… because the “bald ones,” which lack horns, and the spotted ones, which have multiple colors…’97

This collocation of ‘without horns and ̈ ‫ )ܕܐܠ ܩ̈ܪܢܐ܂‬is clearly spotted ones’ (‫ܘܦܝܣܟܝܐ‬ the source of Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s ‘lacking horns and spotted’ (‫)العادمة للقرون البلق‬. Thus, at some point in the history of one of the texts, some material fell out, resulting in the entirely incomprehensible locution ‘lacking horns and spotted’ that is found in ms. Vatican Arab. 36. Ibn al-Ṭayyib continues directly with the following remark about the rods that Jacob set up in front of the water troughs of Laban (Gen. 30:37-39): ‫وقيل ان العصا التي كان يغوصھا يعقوب في‬ ‫الماء كان عليھا اسم ادوم وھذا محال الن‬ ‫الكتابة لم تكن ظھرت ولم كملت كتابة‬ ‘It is said that the branch that Jacob was dipping into the water had on it the name of Edom. This is impossible because writing had not (yet) appeared, and a document had not (yet) been concluded.’

This is based on Bar Koni’s Scholion:

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 17

In Search of Sources for Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s The Paradise of Christianity _________________________________________________________________________________________

̈ ‫ܡܬܐܡܪܐ ܕܝܢ ܕܥܠ ̈ܗܢܝܢ‬ ‫ܙܩܬܐ ܕܕܥܨ‬ ̈ ‫ܝܥܩܘܒ ܒ̈ܪܗܛܐ‬ ‫ܕܡܝ ܼܐ܂ ܫܡ ܐܕܘܢܝ ܓܠܦ‬ ‫ܥܠܝܗܝܢ܂ ܐܠ ܕܝܢ ܫܪܝܪܐ܂ ܡܛܠ ܕܐܦ ܐܠ‬ ̈ ̈ ‫ܐܬܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܕܣܦܪܐ ܥܕܟܝܠ ܐܝܬ ܗܘܐ܂‬ ‘It is said that Jacob carved the name Adonai on those rods that he stuck into the flow of water. This is not, however, true, because the letters of writing had not yet come into existence.’98

The same exegetical material is found in Isho‘dad of Merv’s running commentary: ̈ ̈ ‫ܕܒܩܠܦܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܘܐܢܫܝܢ܆‬ ‫ܕܙܩܬܐ ܫܡ ܐܕܘܢܝ ܪܫܝܡ‬ ܿ ‫ܗܘܐ܂ ܐܠ ܕܝܢ ܩܝܡܐ ܗܕܐ܂ ܒܗܝ ܕܐܦܐܠ‬ ̈ ̈ ‫ܗܘܝ ܥܕܟܝܠ܂ ܐܐܠ ܕܢܐܡܪ‬ ‫ܟܬܝܒܬܐ‬ ܿ ‫ܥܠܝܗ ܫܡܐ‬ ‫ܗܘܐ ܟܕ ܼܩܪܐ‬ ‫ܕܒܓܠܝܢܐ‬ ܼ ‫ܐܕܘܢܝ܂‬ ‘Some (say) that on the strips of rods was inscribed the name Adonai. This is not, however, established, since writing had not yet come into existence, but we could say that he was in (a state of) revelation when he read on it the name Adonai.’99

Isho‘dad is responding here directly to one of his sources, namely the commentary in ms. Diyarbakır 22, which states: ̈ ‫ܕܒܙܩܬܐ ܫܡ ܐܕܘܢܝ‬ ‫ܕܡܝܐ ܕܒܩܠܦܬܐ‬ ‫ܪܫܝܡ ܗܘܐ܂‬ ‘It is likely that on the strips on the rods the name Adonai was inscribed’.100

Both Bar Koni and Isho‘dad, then, are responding to the tradition preserved in the commentary in ms. Diyarbakır 22. The wording of Ibn al-Ṭayyib makes it clear that he is dependent here on Bar Koni: note, for instance, the beginning ‘it is said’ (‫)قيل = ܡܬܐܡܪܐ‬. Somewhere in the course of transmission, however, the name allegedly written on the rods changed from Adonai in the Syriac tradition to Edom in ms. Vatican Arab. 36. Edom does not, however, make sense in this context.

Interestingly, the Ethiopic translation of the Arabic in ms. EMML 1839 has neither Adonai nor Edom, but Adam: ተብህለ፡እስመ፡በትር፡ዘኮነ፡ይጠምዖ፡ ያዕቆብ፡ውስተ፡ማይ፡ነበረ፡ላዕሌሃ፤ስመ፡ አዳም፡ ‘It is said that the branch that Jacob dipped into the water had on it the name of Adam.’

At least two scenarios could explain these data: Adonai in Syriac may have been changed to Adam in Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s Urtext, as is attested in the Ethiopic translation, and was only later corrupted to Edom, as is found in ms. Vatican Arab. 36. Or, Adonai could have been corrupted to Edom in Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s Paradise of Christianity, and it was then changed to Adam in the Ethiopic translation, because the Arabic Vorlage did not make sense. It is difficult to adjudicate between these two options, though the latter seems slightly more likely, since it can account for the o-vowel in the second syllable of both Adonai and Edom. Regardless, the change in the Arabic may have been motivated by a loss of understanding of the original Hebrew term Adonai.101 After discussing the fact that writing did not appear on these rods, Ibn al-Ṭayyib states: ‫لم يتعاھد البان ويعقوب على تل من حجارة‬ ‘(If this was not the case,) why would Laban and Jacob make a covenant at a hill of stones?’

The most straightforward translation of this sentence would probably be: ‘Laban and Jacob did not make a covenant at a hill of stones’. This would, however, be strange since the biblical text states that Laban and Jacob did in fact make a covenant at a mountain of stones (Gen. 31:41-52). This crux can be explained by recourse to Bar Koni’s Scholion. Immediately after commenting on the writing of the name Adonai on the reeds, Bar Koni states:

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 18

In Search of Sources for Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s The Paradise of Christianity _________________________________________________________________________________________

‫ܘܐܢܕܝܢ ܐܠ ܠܡܢܐ ܥܠ ܝܓܪܐ ܕܡܟܢܫ ܡܢ‬ ̈ ‫ܟܐܦܐ ܡܩܝܡܝܢ ܗܘܘ ܩܝܡܐ ܘܡܫܪܪܝܢ ܬܢܘܝ܇‬ ‫ܠܒܢ ܘܝܥܩܘܒ܂‬ ‘If (this was) not (the case), why did Laban and Jacob make a covenant and ratify an agreement on a heap of stones?’102

In context, Bar Koni’s argument is as follows: had writing already been invented, Laban and Jacob would not have needed to go through such an elaborate scenario of stacking rocks to ratify an agreement, and therefore it can be deduced that writing had not yet been invented, and therefore the name Adonai could not have been written on the rods. Given the Syriac source, it seems that Arabic ‫ لم‬should not be analyzed as the negation lam, but as li-ma ‘why’, the short form of li-mā. According to this analysis, ‫ لم‬in Ibn al-Ṭayyib is a literal translation of Syriac ‫‘ ܠܡܢܐ‬why’ (this is the interpretation adopted in the edition above). Somewhere between Bar Koni’s Syriac text and Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s Arabic one, the protasis ‘If (this was) not (the case)’ fell out, leaving only the apodosis in Ibn al-Ṭayyib. This accounts for the situation in the earliest layer of the Arabic text. At some point, however, ‫ لم‬could have been reinterpreted as a negation, possibly in an unmarked rhetorical sentence: ‘Laban and Jacob did not make a covenant at a hill of stones’ or better ‘Did Laban and Jacob not make a covenant at a hill of stones?’. This is in fact how the Ethiopic translator understood the Arabic text: ወኢተካየዱ፡ላባ፡ወያዕቆብ፡ላዕለ፡ወግረ፡ እብን።103 ‘Laban and Jacob did not make a covenant at a hill of stone(s)’ or better ‘Did Laban and Jacob not make a covenant at a hill of stone(s)?’

Thus, the earliest layer of the Arabic text, which reflected the Syriac more closely, was understood differently at a

later time, as is witnessed by the Ethiopic translation of the Arabic in ms. EMML 1839. Ibn al-Ṭayyib proceeds to a discussion of Jacob’s wrestling with the angel (Gen. 32:25-32): ‫والملك الذي حارب يعقوب لما ھرب من بيت‬ ‫البان يشجعه ويزيل عنه المخافة من عيسوا‬ ‫فالجھاد األصعب يزيل الجھاد األسھل فانه اذا‬ ‫قھر الملك فكم اولى ان يقھر االنسان‬ ‘The angel who fought Jacob when he fled from the house of Laban was encouraging him and removing from him fear of Esau, for the difficult struggle (i.e., with the angel) would remove the easy struggle (i.e., with Esau). For, if he could defeat an angel, then how much more suitable would it be for him to defeat a human.’

This derives from the very next passage in Bar Koni’s Scholion: ‫ܡܐܠܟܐ ܕܝܢ ܕܡܬܟܬܫ ܗܘܐ ܥܡܗ ܟܕ‬ ‫ܥܪܩ ܡܢ ܒܝܬ ܠܒܢ܆ ܐܝܟ ܕܢܪܝܡ ܡܢܗ‬ ‫ܕܚܠܬܗ ܕܥܣܘ܂ ܘܒܕܚܠܬܐ ܪܒܬܐ ܢܫܪܐ ܿܗܝ‬ ‫ܕܙܥܘܪܝܐ܂‬ ‘As for the angel with whom he (i.e., Jacob) fought when he fled from the house of Laban, (this was) so that he would remove from him the fear of Esau, and that he would expel a small (fear) by a great fear.’104

Similar exegetical material is found in Isho‘dad’s running commentary: ‫ܡܐܠܟܐ ܐܬܟܬܫ ܥܡܗ ܠܘ ܒܚܠܡܐ ܐܐܠ‬ ‫ܒܥܠܘܐ܂ ܕܒܕܚܠܬܐ ܕܡܢܗ ܕܥܫܝܢܐ ܘܪܒܐ‬ ܿ ‫ܢܫܪܐ‬ ‫ܠܗܝ ܕܡܢ ܥܣܘ ܕܒܨܝܪܐ ܘܡܚܝܐܠ܂‬ ‘The angel fought with him, not in a dream but while he was awake, so that he might expel through the harsh and great fear of him (i.e., the angel) that (fear) that is small and meek from Esau.’105

The same general idea is also found in the commentary in ms. Diyarbakır 22, though with significantly different wording:

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 19

In Search of Sources for Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s The Paradise of Christianity _________________________________________________________________________________________

‫ܝܗܒ ܠܗ ܡܣܒܪܢܘܬܐ‬ ܼ ‫ܘܗܘ ܡܐܠܟܐ‬ ‫ܕܐܝܟ ܿܗܘ ܕܐܠ ܡܨܐ ܚܝܠܗ܂ ܕܢܠܦܗ‬ ‫ܕܐܠ ܢܕܚܠ ܡܢ ܥܣܘ܂‬ ‘The angel made him believe that he (i.e., the angel) did not prevail over him (i.e., Jacob) in order to teach him (i.e., Jacob) not to fear Esau.’106

Once again, the exegetical content of the four texts is similar: Jacob’s struggle with the angel showed Jacob that he had no reason to fear Esau. The wording of the passages, however, shows that Ibn al-Ṭayyib based his commentary on Bar Koni’s Scholion: both, for instance, begin with a relative clause modifying ‘the angel’. Ibn al-Ṭayyib adds the further clarification that ‘if he could defeat an angel, then how much more suitable would it be for him to defeat a human’. This represents one of the rare instances in the selection treated in this study in which Ibn al-Ṭayyib adds to what is found in Bar Koni. Immediately following this passage, Ibn al-Ṭayyib has the following statement: .‫تفسيره مبصرا للـه‬ ‘The interpretation of it is “seeing God”.’

In Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s text, there is no context within which to understand this statement. Once again, however, an obscure statement in Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s The Paradise of Christianity becomes clear with recourse to Bar Koni’s Scholion, the very next words of which read: ‫ܐܝܣܪܝܠ ܼܚܙܐ ܐܠܠܗܐ‬ ‘Israel (means) “he saw God”.’107

The name ‘Israel’ (Gen. 32:28), then, seems to have been omitted in Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s text, at least as it is witnessed in ms. Vatican Arab. 36. It should be noted that ‘Israel’ is also absent in the Ethiopic translation of Ibn al-Ṭayyib in ms. EMML 1839:

ወፍካሬ፡ስሙሰ፡ረአዬ፡እግዚአብሔር፡ውእቱ። ‘The interpretation of his name is “seer of God”.’

The Ethiopic text does, however, include ‘his name’ (ስሙሰ፡), which is not found in the Arabic text, at least as it is preserved in ms. Vatican Arab. 36. Perhaps the Ethiopic text witnesses here to an earlier version of Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s The Paradise of Christianity, or alternatively the word could have been added by the Ethiopic translator in an attempt to make sense of the obscure Arabic Vorlage. After commenting on the etymology of the name Israel, Ibn al-Ṭayyib moves to a discussion of Gen. 32:32: ‫ولوجع وركه من الجھاد ال ياكل اليھود الى‬ .‫االن عرق النسا بل يخرجونه‬ ‘Because of the pain of his hip from the struggle, the Jews do not eat even now the sciatic nerve, but they remove it.’

In his Scholion, Bar Koni moves directly to an explanation of the same verse, stating the following: ‫ܓܝܕܐ ܕܓܢܫܝܐ܆ ܓܝܕܐ ܕܥܛܡܐ ܕܩܪܝܒ‬ ‫ܠܚܪܘܬܐ ܕܘܟܬܗ ܕܡܦܩܢܐ܂ ܕܐܠ ܕܝܢ ܐܟܠܝܢ‬ ̈ ‫ܠܗ‬ ‫ܝܗܘܕܝܐ܆ ܚܕܐ ܐܝܟ ܿܡܢ ܕܓܝܕܐ ܗܘ܂‬ ‫ܘܕܬ̈ܪܬܝܢ ܠܥܘܗܕܢܐ ܕܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܓܕܫ ܠܪܝܫ‬ ‫ܐܘܡܬܗܘܢ܂‬ ‘The tendon of the hip is the tendon of the flank, which is near to the thigh, the place of the anus, which Jews do not eat, first because it is a tendon, and second as a remembrance for what happened to the head of their people.’108

Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s comments are not dependent on Bar Koni here. Ibn al-Ṭayyib is also not dependent on the running commentary of Isho‘dad of Merv or that in ms. Diyarbakır 22.109 Rather, Bar Koni’s exegesis is a slightly expanded rewriting of the Arabic biblical text. The earliest dated

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 20

In Search of Sources for Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s The Paradise of Christianity _________________________________________________________________________________________

Arabic Pentateuch manuscript (ms. Sinai Arabic 2 [939/940]), for instance, reads as follows for Gen. 32:32: ‫فمن اجل ذلك ال ياكلون بني اسرايل عرق‬ ...‫النسا‬ ‘For this reason, the Israelites do not eat the sciatic nerve…’

Thus, Ibn al-Ṭayyib glosses ‘this’ in the biblical text with ‘the pain of his hip from the struggle’ and changes ‘Israelites’ to ‘Jews’. He then adds ‘until now’ as well as the final clause concerning the removal of the sciatic nerve. Despite these changes, in its structure and even in its wording, Ibn al-Ṭayyib follows the Arabic biblical text. The fact that Ibn al-Ṭayyib comments on this verse at this particular point in his commentary—between comments on Gen. 32:28 and Gen. 31:42, 53—points, however, to his dependence on Bar Koni’s Scholion. The next remark in both Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s The Paradise of Christianity and Bar Koni’s Scholion deals with the phrases ‘god of my father, the god of Abraham, and the fear of Isaac’ (Gen. 31:42) and ‘fear of his father Isaac’ (Gen. 31:53). On the former, Ibn al-Ṭayyib comments: ‫واله ابيه الذي حلف به ھو اللـه وليس كما قال‬ ‫قوم اله غريب‬ ‘“The god of his father” by which he swore is God, and it is not as some people say a foreign god.’

Bar Koni remarks on the latter: ܿ ‫܆ܕܚܠܬܐ ܕܝܢ ܕܐܒܘܗܝ ܕܝܡܐ‬ ‫ܒܗ܆ ܠܘ ܐܝܟ‬ ̈ 110‫ܕܨܒܪܘ‬ ‫ܐܢܫܝܢ܇ ܕܣܛܪ ܡܢ ܚܕ ܐܠܗܐ‬ ‫ܕܫܪܪܐ܇ ܐܠܚܪܢܐ ܦܠܚ ܗܘܐ ܐܝܣܚܩ܂‬ ‫ܐܐܠ ܠܗ ܐܠܠܗܐ ܫܡܗ ܗܟܢܐ܂‬ ‘“The fear of his father” by which he swore is not as some people think that, besides the one true God, Isaac worshipped another, but he called that God thusly.’111

Similar exegetical material is also found in the running commentary of Isho‘dad:

‫ܿܗܝ ܕܐܠܗܗ ܕܐܒܪܗܡ ܘܕܚܠܬܗ ܕܐܝܣܚܩ܆‬ ‫ܚܕܐ ܗܝ ܟܕ ܡܦܠܓܐ ܐܝܟ ܥܝܕܐ ܕܟܬܒܐ܂‬ ̈ ‫ܕܐܢܫܝܢ ܕܠܕܚܠܬܐ ܐܚܪܬܐ‬ ‫ܘܠܘ ܐܝܟ ܒܕܝܐ‬ ‫ܦ ܼܠܚ ܐܝܣܚܩ ܣܛܪ ܡܢ ܐܠܗܐ܂‬ ‘The phrase “god of Abraham and fear of Isaac” is a single item that is divided, as is customary of scripture. It is not, as the folly of some would have it, that Isaac worshipped another fear apart from God.’112

The structure of Ibn al-Ṭayyib is most similar to Bar Koni’s Scholion. Ibn al-Ṭayyib has, however, simplified the material in Bar Koni and removed the reference to Isaac. Following this discussion of Gen. 31:42 and 53, Bar Koni devotes six lines of Syriac text in Scher’s edition to discussing the meaning of Panuel (Gen. 32:31), the meaning of Mahanaim (Gen. 32:2), the meaning of the word masmā ‘he was lame, blind’ (Gen. 32:31), the meaning of Gen. 31:54, the meaning of Luz (Gen. 28:19), and finally Jacob’s purchasing land in Canaan (Gen. 33:19). He then provides a summary of Genesis 25:1-6: ܿ ‫ܕܣܪܐ܂ ܠܒܟ‬ ‫ܡܘܬܗ‬ ‫ܐܒܪܗܡ ܕܝܢ ܡܢ ܒܬܪ‬ ܼ ܿ ‫ܕܪܘܟܬܐ ܩܢܛܘܪܐ܂ ܘܐܬܝܠܕܘ ܠܗ ܡܢܗ܆‬ ‫ܙܡܪܢ ܘܝܩܫܢ ܘܡܪܢ ܘܡܕܝܢ ܘܐܫܒܩ ܘܫܘܚ܂‬ ̈ ‫ܘܝܩܫܢ ܐܘܠܕ ܠܫܒܐ ܘܠܕܪܢ܂‬ ‫ܗܘܘ܆‬ ܼ ‫ܘܒܢܝ ܕܪܢ‬ ̈ ‫ܥܦܐ‬ ‫ܡܕܝܢ܂‬ ‫ܝ‬ ‫ܘܒܢ‬ ‫ܘܐܡܝܡ܂‬ ‫ܫܘܕܝܡ ܘܠܛܫܝܡ‬ ܼ ܼ ܿ ‫ܘܚܦܪ܂ ܘܚܢܘܟ ܘܐܒܝܕܥܡ ܘܐܠܕܥܐ܂ ܘܫܕܪ‬ ‫ܐܢܘܢ ܐܠܪܥܐ ܕܡܕܢܚܐ܂‬ ‘After the death of Sarah, Abraham took the maidservant Qentura. There was born to him from her Zamran, Medyan, Yaqshan, Madan,113 Ashbaq, and Shwaḥ. Yaqshan begat Shba and Daran. The sons of Daran were Shudim, Laṭshim, and Amim. The sons of Medyan were ‘Epa, Ḥapar, Ḥnok, Abida‘(m), and Elda‘a. He sent them to the land of the East.’114

In contrast to Bar Koni, Ibn al-Ṭayyib moves directly from the discussion of Gen. 31:42 and 53 to the following comments on Gen. 25:1-6:

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 21

In Search of Sources for Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s The Paradise of Christianity _________________________________________________________________________________________

.‫ومن بعد موت سرا تزوج ابرھيم بقنطورا‬ .‫واولد منھا عدة اوالد وانفذ الى المشرق‬ ‘After the death of Sarah, Abraham married Qantura. He bore from her numerous children, and he sent (them) to the East.’

Thus, Ibn al-Ṭayyib does not include multiple lines of Syriac in Bar Koni. In addition, he removes all of the genealogical information found in Bar Koni replacing the names with ‘numerous children’. This illustrates his tendency to abridge the Syriac material in Bar Koni. From the discussion of Gen. 25:1-6, Ibn al-Ṭayyib proceeds to comment on Gen. 31-32: ‫ومع خروج يعقوب من بيت البان بامر اللـه لم‬ .‫ينزل عيسوا‬ ‘With Jacob’s departure from the house of Laban by the command of God, Esau did not attack (him).’

This is based on the next sentences in Bar Koni’s Scholion, which are, however, much longer: ‫ܛܘܒܢܐ ܕܝܢ ܝܥܩܘܒ ܟܕ ܛܒ ܡܢ ܐܠܗܐ‬ ‫ܐܬܦܩܕ ܕܢܦܘܩ ܡܢ ܒܝܬ ܠܒܢ܆ ܐܐܠ ܐܠ ܦܫ‬ ‫ܡܢ ܿܗܝ ܕܘܠܝܐ܇ ܘܡܢ ܨܢܥܬܐ ܐܢܫܝܬܐ܂‬ ̈ ‫ܘܥܡ ܩܘ̈ܪܒܢܐ ܕܫܕܪ ܠܥܣܘ܆ ܘܐܦ‬ ‫ܠܢܫܘܗܝ‬ ̈ ‫ܣܥܪ ܐܦ‬ ‫ܘܒܢܘܗܝ ܦܠܓ܂ ܗܟܢܐ ܓܝܪ‬ ܼ ‫ܛܘܒܢܐ ܦܘܠܘܣ܂ ܕܟܕ ܛܒ ܐܬܚܙܝ ܠܗ‬ ܿ ‫ܓܠܝܢܐ ܕܐܢܫ ܡܢ ܿܗܢܘܢ ܕܒܐܠܦܐ ܐܠ‬ ‫ܐܒܕ܂‬ ‫ܐܡܪ܂ ܕܐܢ ܗܠܝܢ ܒܐܠܦܐ ܐܠ ܡܟܬܪܝܢ܆‬ ܼ ‫ܼܗܘ‬ ‫ܐܢܬܘܢ ܐܠ ܡܫܟܚܝܬܘܢ ܕܬܚܘܢ܂‬ ‘Although the blessed Jacob was commanded by God to go out from the house of Laban (Gen. 31:3), he did not forsake that which is necessary and belongs to human craft, and (thus he went) with presents that he sent to Esau (Gen. 32:13), and he also divided his women and children (Gen. 32:7-8; 33:1). For, the blessed Paul did thusly: although he received a revelation that none of those on the boat would perish, he (still) said, “If these men do not remain on the boat, you will not be able to live” (Acts 27:31).’115

Bar Koni is explaining that Jacob gave gifts to Esau and divided his family through his human ingenuity and not because he did not trust in the promise of God.116 To support this, he cites the story of Paul, who displayed his own ingenuity in telling the soldiers and centurion to stay on the boat lest they die, even though Paul already knew that they would survive thanks to an earlier vision from God. This entire line of argument along with the citation from Acts is not included in Ibn al-Ṭayyib. Rather, Ibn al-Ṭayyib takes his cue from Bar Koni but summarizes in a single sentence in Arabic. In doing this, however, he ignores the problem that Bar Koni is attempting to explain. Ibn al-Ṭayyib concludes this section by restating Gen. 17:24: .‫وابرھيم اختتن له وله ثمان وتسعين سنة‬ ‘Abraham was circumcised when he was ninety-eight years old.’

This is based on the very next sentence in Bar Koni: ‫ܐܒܪܗܡ ܕܝܢ ܟܕ ܓܙܪ܆ ܒܪ ܬܫܥܝܢ ܗܘܐ‬ ‫ܘܬܫܥ ̈ܫܢܝܢ܂‬ ‘Abraham was ninety-nine years old when he was circumcised.’117

Ibn al-Ṭayyib changes the age of Abraham’s circumcision from ninety-eight to ninety-nine.118 In addition, Ibn al-Ṭayyib rewrites the Syriac by making the verb ‘to be circumcised’ the main verb and changing the statement on his age into a subordinate clause.119 Following the remark on Gen. 17:24, Bar Koni continues with another ten lines of Syriac. None of this is, however, found in Ibn al-Ṭayyib, which ends with the comment on Gen. 17:24. This question leaves no doubt that Bar Koni’s Scholion was a principal source for the question-and-answer part of Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s The Paradise of Christianity. Throughout this question, Ibn al-Ṭayyib

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 22

In Search of Sources for Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s The Paradise of Christianity _________________________________________________________________________________________

follows exactly the order of presentation in Bar Koni’s Scholion, even including the discussion on Abraham’s children after Sarah (Gen. 25:1-6) and Abraham’s circumcision (Gen. 17:24), which are abrupt departures from the other material on Jacob (Gen. 3032). In some passages in this question, Ibn al-Ṭayyib is a word-for-word translation of Bar Koni’s Scholion. In others, such as that dealing with Gen. 32:32, he takes his initial cue from Bar Koni, but provides an exegesis that differs from that in the Scholion. This is similar to the questions treated previously. In contrast to the previous questions, however, this question contains several passages that are incomprehensible without Bar Koni’s Scholion. The locution ‘… lacking horns and spotted…’, for instance, is completely unintelligible as it stands in Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s text, at least as it is transmitted in ms. Vatican Arab. 36. This is confirmed by the Ethiopic translation in ms. EMML 1839, which connects these words with the previous question instead of the current question. Or, to take another example, how would a reader of Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s Arabic text know that the comment ‘its interpretation is “seeing God”’ refers to the name Israel? There is no clue in the text itself. These passages raise a series of questions regarding the function(s) of Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s The Paradise of Christianity within the Arabicspeaking Christian community: How was this commentary used? Did it presume knowledge of the Syriac exegetical tradition? Or even perhaps access to the original Syriac of Bar Koni’s Scholion? Further research based on a full edition of the Arabic text is needed before such questions can begin to be answered.

CONCLUSION Already in his Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur, Graf noted that Ibn al-Ṭayyib never names the sources for his Paradise of Christianity: “Im ganzen um-

fänglichen Kommentarenwerk des ‘Paradieses der Christenheit’ nennt der Vfr. keine Quellen.”120 The present study has aimed to remove one of Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s sources from the realm of anonymity: Theodore Bar Koni. For the sections of The Paradise of Christianity treated in this study, the Scholion of Theodore Bar Koni is the principal source used by Ibn al-Ṭayyib. Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s most common methods for incorporating material from this source are word-for-word translation, at times leaning toward a source-oriented (literal) translation, as well as abridgment, often removing biblical citations, condensing explanations, and replacing two Syriac words with a single Arabic one. In some cases, Ibn al-Ṭayyib skips over entire lines or even pages of Syriac text in Bar Koni’s Scholion. Ibn al-Ṭayyib also occasionally presents an interpretation of a passage that departs from Bar Koni’s, even though he takes his cue as to which passages should be commented upon from the Scholion. Both parts of Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s The Paradise of Christianity, then, are based on Syriac sources. Isho‘dad of Merv’s commentary is the principal source, at least for Genesis, for the running commentary part of The Paradise of Christianity, which is preserved in ms. Vatican Arab. 37. Bar Koni’s Scholion is the principal source, at least for the selection treated in this study, for the question-and-answer part of The Paradise of Christianity, which is preserved in ms. Vatican Arab. 36. Both of these statements must remain qualified until additional studies, ideally based on full editions of both parts of the commentary, appear. For now, however, it is clear that the two great works of East-Syriac biblical exegesis—Isho‘dad of Merv’s commentary and Theodore Bar Koni’s Scholion—find a new Arabic context in Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s The Paradise of Christianity.

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 23

In Search of Sources for Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s The Paradise of Christianity _________________________________________________________________________________________

NOTES * I would like to thank Simcha Gross (Yale University), George Kiraz (Beth Mardutho: Syriac Institute), Geoffrey Moseley (Yale University), and Lucas Van Rompay (Duke University) for their help with this study. 1 G. Graf, Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur (Studi e testi 118, 133, 146, 147, 172; Vatican, 1944-1952), vol. 2, 162. 2 In a recent reference article, Faultless writes, “much remains to be discovered of this remarkable solo achievement” (Julian Faultless, “Ibn al-Ṭayyib,” in Christian-Muslim Relations. A Bibliographic History. Volume 2 [9001050], ed. David Thomas and Alex Mallett, with Juan Pedro Monferrer Sala, Johannes Pahlitzsch, Mark Swanson, Herman Teule, and John Tolan [History of Christian-Muslim Relations 14; Leiden, 2010], 682). The most thorough study is J. C. J. Sanders, Inleiding op het Genesis-kommentaar van de Nestoriaan Ibn at-Taiyib (Leiden, 1963). See also P. Féghali, “Ibn aṭ-Ṭayyib et son commentaire sur la Genèse,” ParOr 16 (1990-1991) 149-62. 3 This was already noted in passing in Roger W. Cowley, Ethiopian Biblical Interpretation. A Study in Exegetical Tradition and Hermeneutics (University of Cambridge Oriental Publications 38; Cambridge, 1988), 120 and Aaron Michael Butts, “Embellished with Gold: The Ethiopic Reception of Syriac Biblical Exegesis,” Oriens Christianus. Forthcoming. 4 For this author, see A. M. Butts, “Ibn al-Ṭayyib,” in S. P. Brock, A. M. Butts, G. A. Kiraz, and L. Van Rompay (eds.), Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage (Piscataway, 2011), 206-207; Julian Faultless, “Ibn al-Ṭayyib,” 667-697; Graf, Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur, vol. 1, 152155, vol. 2, 160-77. More generally, see S. K. Samir, “La place d’Ibn aṭ-Ṭayyib dans la pensée arabe,” JEastCS 58 (2006) 177-193. 5 An interesting memoir recounts the story of Avicenna attempting to acquire books by Ibn al-Ṭayyib, but Ibn al-Ṭayyib thwarting the sale because he did not want Avicenna to obtain them (see Dimitri Gutas, Avicenna and the Aristotelian Tradition: Introduction to Reading

Avicenna’s Philosophical Works [Leiden, 1988], 64-72). 6 The Arabic is edited in K. Gyekye, Ibn al-Tayyib’s Commentary on Porphyry’s Eisagoge. Arabic text edited with introduction and a glossary of Greek-Arabic Logical Terms (Beirut, 1975), and an English translation is available in K. Gyekye, Arabic Logic. Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s Commentary on Porphyry’s Eisagoge (Albany, 1979). 7 His commentary on the Categories is edited with a German translation in C. Ferrari, Die Kategorienkommentar von Abū l-Farağ ‘Abdallāh ibn aṭ-Ṭayyib. Text und Untersuchungen (Leiden, 2006). The Arabic text is also available in ‘Alī Ḥusayn al-Jābirī et al., al-Šarḥ al-kabīr li-maqūlāt Arisṭū (Baghdad, 2002). 8 This is edited with a German translation in W. Hoenerbach and O. Spies, Ibn aṭ-Ṭayyib. Fiqh al-naṣrānīya (CSCO 161-162, 167-168; Louvain, 1956-57). 9 See Y. T. Langermann, “Abū al-Faraj ibn al-Ṭayyib on spirit and soul,” Le Muséon 122 (2009) 149-58; P. P. Sbath, Vingt traités philosophiques et apologétiques d’auteurs arabes chrétiens du IXe au XIXe siècles (Cairo, 1929), 179-80 (with a French translation in G. Troupeau, “Traité sur la science et le miracle et fragments du Traité sur les fondements de la religion de ‘Abd Allāh ibn al-Ṭayyib,” in Études de civilisation médiévale, IXe-XIIe siècles [Poitiers, 1985], 177-84); G. Troupeau, “Le traité sur l’unité et la Trinité de ‘Abd Allāh ibn al-Ṭayyib,” ParOr 2 (1971) 71-89; idem, “Le traité sur l’union de ‘Abd Allāh Ibn aṭ-Ṭayyib,” ParOr 8 (1977-78) 141-50; idem, “Le traité sur les hypostases et la substance de ‘Abd Allāh Ibn al-Ṭayyib,” in J. M. Barral (ed.), Orientalia Hispanica (Leiden, 1974), 640-44. 10 These are edited, but not in critical editions, in Y. Manquriyūs, Tafsīr al-mašriqī (Cairo, 1908-1910); Y. Manquriyūs and Ḥ. Jirjis, al-Rawḍ al-nadīr fī tafsīr al-mazāmīr (Cairo, 1902). The first part of the prologue to the commentary on the gospels is edited in Kh. Samir, “Nécessité de la science. Texte de ‘Abdallāh Ibn aṭ-Ṭayyib (m. 1043),” ParOr 3 (1972) 241-59; idem, “Nécessité de l’exégèse scientifique. Texte de ‘Abdallāh Ibn aṭṬayyib,” ParOr 5 (1974) 243-79. A short

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 24

In Search of Sources for Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s The Paradise of Christianity _________________________________________________________________________________________

excerpt from this commentary is edited in G. Troupeau, “Le traité sur la Trinité et l’unité de ‘Abd Allāh ibn al-Ṭayyib,” Bulletin d’études orientales 25 (1972) 105-23. For his commentary on the gospels, see also J. Faultless, “The two recensions of the Prologue to John in Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s Commentary on the Gospels,” in D. R. Thomas (ed.), Christians at the heart of Islamic rule. Church life and scholarship in ‘Abbasid Iraq (The History of ChristianMuslim Relations 1; Leiden, 2003), 177-98. 11 See the discussion in Peter Joosse, “An Introduction to the Arabic Diatessaron,” Oriens Christanus 83 (1999) 72-129 as well as still T. Baarda, “The author of the Arabic Diatessaron,” in T. Baarda, A. F. J. Klijn, W. C. van Unnik (eds.), Miscellanea Neotestamentica, vol. 1 (Leiden, 1978), 61-103 (reprinted in T. Baarda, Early Transmission of Words of Jesus [Amsterdam, 1983], 207-49). 12 It is edited with a French translation in J. C. J. Sanders, Commentaire sur la Genèse (CSCO 274-275; Louvain, 1967). An unsystematic comparison of this edition with ms. Vatican Arab. 37 shows that it unfortunately contains numerous misreadings of the Arabic. This can be illustrated by fn. 85 below as well as footnotes 34-41 in Butts, “Embellished with Gold.” 13 See Sanders, Inleiding op het Genesis kommentaar; idem, Commentaire sur la Genèse, ii-iii (‘la source principale’); Cowley, Ethiopian Biblical Interpretation, 66; Féghali, “Ibn aṭ-Ṭayyib et son commentaire sur la Genèse”; Faultless, “Ibn al-Ṭayyib,” 669, 681; S. H. Griffith, The Bible in Arabic: The Scriptures of the “People of the Book” in the Language of Islam (Princeton, 2013), 150-151; Butts, “Embellished with Gold.” 14 Faultless’ characterization of this commentary as “containing the remaining materials” and “the New Testament and all miscellaneous material” (“Ibn al-Ṭayyib,” 681-683) is inaccurate. A more careful description can, however, already be found in Graf, Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur, vol. 1, 163. 15 Thus, contrary to statements found in the secondary literature, not all of the material dealing with Genesis in The Paradise of Christianity has been edited: the running commentary part has been edited by Sanders,

but the question-and-answer part that deals with Genesis remains unedited. 16 For this ms., see Ang. Mai, Scriptorum veterum nova collectio, Vol. 4.2 (Rome, 1831), 78; Graf, Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur, vol. 2, 162. 17 An edition of the section of the Ethiopic translation of this commentary that covers the same material as the present study is in progress by the present author. 18 Bar Koni’s Scholion survives in two recensions: the Siirt (edited in A. Scher, Theodorus bar Kōnī. Liber Scholiorum [CSCO 55, 69; Louvain 1910-1912], with a French translation in R. Hespel and R. Draguet[†], Théodore bar Koni. Livre des scolies [recension de Séert] [CSCO 431-432; Louvain, 1981]) and the Urmia (edited with a French translation in R. Hespel, Théodore bar Koni. Livre des scolies [recension d’Urmiah] [CSCO 447-448; Louvain, 1983] [additions only]; the section on the ‘Pauline’ epistles was independently edited with a German translation in L. Brade, Untersuchungen zum Scholienbuch des Theodoros bar Konai [GOF I.8; Wiesbaden, 1975]). There is no difference between the two recensions for the selection treated in this study, and so the study uses the Siirt recension as edited by Scher (Theodorus bar Kōnī) and translated into French by Hespel and Draguet (Théodore bar Koni). 19 Ms. ‫تدبيري‬. It should be noted that the Ethiopic translation in ms. EMML 1839 has ሥርዓት፡ ‘economy’ without a pronominal suffix. 20 Ms. ‫انتايه‬, though the order of tā’ and nūn could be reversed. The emendation to ‫ انتھايه‬is corroborated by the Ethiopic translation in ms. EMML 1839, which has ደኃሪታ፡ለዛቲ፡ ‘the end of this’. 21 While the rasm is certain, the dots in the manuscript are not. The reading ‫‘ كنته‬his sisterin-law, his daughter-in-law’ is corroborated by the Ethiopic translation in ms. EMML 1839, which has መርዓቱ፡ ‘his bride, daughter-in-law, spouse’. 22 Perhaps read ‫وياھودا‬, though note that the East-Syriac form is ‫ ܝܗܘܕܐ‬/ihudā/. 23 Ms. ‫ينتقم‬. This emendation is supported by Bar Koni’s Scholion, which has ‫‘ ܢܬܒܣܡ‬he would delight’ (Scher, Theodorus bar Kōnī, 140.2). The Ethiopic translation in ms. EMML

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 25

In Search of Sources for Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s The Paradise of Christianity _________________________________________________________________________________________

1839, however, has ይትቤቀል፡ ‘he would be avenged’, and so it was translating an Arabic Vorlage similar to ‫ينتقم‬, as is found in ms. Vatican Arab. 36. See the discussion below. 24 Ms. ‫المتاخر‬. This emendation is supported by Bar Koni’s Scholion, which has ‫ܬܓ̈ܪܬܐ‬ ‘merchandise’ (Scher, Theodorus bar Kōnī, 140.3). The Ethiopic translation in ms. EMML 1839, however, has እምእለ፡ተድኅሩ፡ ‘those things that were left behind’, and so it was translating an Arabic Vorlage similar to ‫المتاخر‬, as is found in ms. Vatican Arab. 36. See the discussion below. 25 Ms. ‫كانت‬. This may be a case of attraction to the preceding relative pronoun (for attraction in Middle Arabic, see J. Blau, A Grammar of Christian Arabic [CSCO 267, 276, 279; Louvain, 1966], §188). 26 Probably a short form of ‫لما‬, corresponding to ‫‘ ܠܡܢܐ‬why’ in Bar Koni’s Scholion (Scher, Theodorus bar Kōnī, 144.13). See below for discussion. 27 Before this word, ‫ ما‬has been crossed out in the manuscript. 28 A marginal note adds the direct object, i.e., ‫وانفذھم‬. 29 Ms. ‫تامر‬. This emendation is corroborated by the Ethiopic translation in ms. EMML 1839, which has በትእዛዘ፡ ‘by the command of’, with the cognate preposition bä-. 30 Or, ‘he’. 31 The ms. reads ‘my’. 32 Or, ‘sister-in-law’. See Gen. 35:22. 33 See Gen. 34. 34 The ms. reads ‘he would avenge himself on’. 35 The ms. reads ‘that which is last, later, behind’. 36 Or, ‘pilgrimage’. See below for discussion. 37 Possibly emend to ‘Adam’. See below for discussion. 38 Or, ‘Laban and Jacob did not make a covenant at a hill of stones’, or ‘Did Laban and Jacob not make a covenant at a hill of stones?’. See Gen. 31:41-52. See below for discussion. 39 Or, ‘whom Jacob fought’. 40 The direct object is added in a marginal note in the ms. 41 Scher, Theodorus bar Kōnī, 138.13-139.11 (Syr.); Hespel and Draguet, Théodore bar Koni, 143-144 (FT).

42

Scher, Theodorus bar Kōnī, 139.12-140.14 (Syr.); Hespel and Draguet, Théodore bar Koni, 144-145 (FT). 43 Scher, Theodorus bar Kōnī, 140.15-143.12 (Syr.); Hespel and Draguet, Théodore bar Koni, 145-146 (FT). 44 Reading a variant in the manuscript tradition, following Hespel and Draguet, Théodore bar Koni, 146 n. 9.1. 45 Scher, Theodorus bar Kōnī, 143.13146.8 (Syr.); Hespel and Draguet, Théodore bar Koni, 146-148 (FT). 46 This tendency was noted already in Cowley, Traditional Interpretation, 120. 47 The Old Testament portion of this commentary is edited with a French translation in J.-M. Vosté and C. Van den Eynde, Išo‘dad de Merv. Commentaire de l’Ancien Testament, I (CSCO 126; Louvain, 1950); C. Van den Eynde, Išo‘dad de Merv. Commentaire de l’Ancien Testament, I, II-VI (CSCO 156, 176, 179, 229230, 303-304, 328-29, 433-34; Louvain, 19501981). 48 This is edited with a French translation in L. Van Rompay, Le commentaire sur GenèseExode 9,32 du manuscrit (olim) Diyarbakir 22 (CSCO 483-484; Louvain, 1986). 49 Scher, Theodorus bar Kōnī, 138.13-15 (Syr.); Hespel and Draguet, Théodore bar Koni, 143 (FT). 50 Vosté and Van den Eynde, Išo‘dad de Merv, 202.14-15 (Syr.); Van den Eynde, Išo‘dad de Merv, 218.11-13 (FT). 51 Probably read ‫ܚܕܐ ܐܝܟ ܕܠܒܘܕܩܐ‬, following Scher (Theodorus bar Kōnī, 138). 52 Scher, Theodorus bar Kōnī, 138.15-25 (Syr.); Hespel and Draguet, Théodore bar Koni, 143-144 (FT). 53 Vosté and Van den Eynde, Išo‘dad de Merv, 202.15-19 (Syr.); Van den Eynde, Išo‘ad de Merv, 218.13-18 (FT). 54 The ms. reads ‘my’ (‫)تدبيري‬. 55 The edition reads ‫( ܐܪܫܘ‬sic). It should be noted that this reading is cited without comment in M. Sokoloff, A Syriac Lexicon. A Translation from the Latin, Correction, Expansion, and Update of C. Brockelmann’s Lexicon Syriacum (Winona Lake – Piscataway, 2009), 1490-1491. 56 Scher, Theodorus bar Kōnī, 138.25-139.14 (Syr.); Hespel and Draguet, Théodore bar Koni, 144 (FT).

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 26

In Search of Sources for Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s The Paradise of Christianity _________________________________________________________________________________________ 57

Vosté and Van den Eynde, Išo‘dad de Merv, 202.19-28 (Syr.); Van den Eynde, Išo‘dad de Merv, 218.218.19-29 (FT). 58 Scher, Theodorus bar Kōnī, 139.15-16 (Syr.); Hespel and Draguet, Théodore bar Koni, 144 (FT). 59 Read ‫ ܒܝܕ‬following Van Rompay. 60 Van Rompay, Le commentaire sur GenèseExode 9,32, 1.109.17-22 (Syr.), 2.140.13-18 (FT). 61 Vosté and Van den Eynde, Išo‘dad de Merv, 200.18-20 (Syr.); Van den Eynde, Išo‘dad de Merv, 215.33-35 (FT). 62 Scher, Theodorus bar Kōnī, 139.12-140.14 (Syr.); Hespel and Draguet, Théodore bar Koni, 144-145 (FT). 63 Scher, Theodorus bar Kōnī, 139.14-17 (Syr.); Hespel and Draguet, Théodore bar Koni, 144 (FT). 64 The translation of ‘daughter-in-law’ has been chosen here based on the fact that ‫ كنته‬is translated by መርዓቱ፡ ‘bride, daughter-in-law, spouse’ in the Ethiopic translation of the question-and-answer part of Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s The Paradise of Christianity, as found in Ms. EMML 1839. 65 Images of this important ms. are available online at . 66 Sanders, Commentaire sur la Genèse, 97.10 (Arabic), 92 (FT). 67 Scher, Theodorus bar Kōnī, 139.18-21 (Syr.); Hespel and Draguet, Théodore bar Koni, 144 (FT). 68 Scher, Theodorus bar Kōnī, 139.21-140.1 (Syr.); Hespel and Draguet, Théodore bar Koni, 144 (FT). 69 Scher, Theodorus bar Kōnī, 140.1-3 (Syr.); Hespel and Draguet, Théodore bar Koni, 144 (FT). 70 Scher, Theodorus bar Kōnī, 140.3-5 (Syr.); Hespel and Draguet, Théodore bar Koni, 144 (FT). 71 Scher, Theodorus bar Kōnī, 140.5-6 (Syr.); Hespel and Draguet, Théodore bar Koni, 144 (FT). 72 Scher, Theodorus bar Kōnī, 140.6-7 (Syr.); Hespel and Draguet, Théodore bar Koni, 145 (FT).

73

Scher, Theodorus bar Kōnī, 140.7-9 (Syr.); Hespel and Draguet, Théodore bar Koni, 145 (FT). 74 Scher, Theodorus bar Kōnī, 140.9-11 (Syr.); Hespel and Draguet, Théodore bar Koni, 145 (FT). 75 This is how the Ethiopic translation in ms. EMML 1839 understood the Arabic: ወንፍታሌምሰ፡አቅደመት፡ወወሀበት፡ምድሩ፡ፍሬ፡በምክንያተ፡ መላእክት። ‘As for Nephtali, his land first gave forth fruit in a pretext for messengers’, where the nominative ምድሩ፡ must be the subject of the verbs. Alternatively, the Arabic (but not the Ethiopic) could be analyzed as a double accusative construction, i.e., ‘He (i.e., Jacob) gave his land fruits …’. 76 It may, however, ultimately be related to the similarity between ‫‘ ܥܠܠܬܐ‬produce’ and ‫‘ ܥܠܬܐ‬cause’, the latter of which could be translated by Arabic ‫( الحجة‬as well as the cognate ‫)العلة‬. 77 Scher, Theodorus bar Kōnī, 140.11-13 (Syr.); Hespel and Draguet, Théodore bar Koni, 145 (FT). 78 Scher, Theodorus bar Kōnī, 140.13-14 (Syr.); Hespel and Draguet, Théodore bar Koni, 145 (FT). 79 Sanders, Commentaire sur la Genèse, 97.4101.7 (Arabic), 92-95 (FT). 80 Sanders, Commentaire sur la Genèse, 100.1-2 (Arabic), 94 (FT). 81 Van Rompay, Le commentaire sur GenèseExode 9,32, 125.20-24 (Syr.), 163 (FT). 82 The edition has ‫ܐܠܚܘܗܝ‬. 83 As Van den Eynde notes (Išo‘dad de Merv, 237 n. 8), this is not the text of the Hebrew but of the Septuagint: νεφθαλι στέλεχος ἀνειμένον ἐπιδιδοὺς ἐν τῷ γενήματι κάλλος ‘Nephtali, a stem let go, giving beauty by produce’. 84 Vosté and Van den Eynde, Išo‘dad de Merv, 218.13-21 (Syr.); Van den Eynde, Išo‘dad de Merv, 237 (FT). 85 Sanders reads ‫غذا‬, but ms. Vatican Arab. 37 has the definite article. 86 Sanders, Commentaire sur la Genèse, 100.3-4 (Arabic), 94 (FT). 87 This was already noted by Sanders, Commentaire sur la Genèse, 94 n. 7 (FT). 88 R.-M. Tonneau, Sancti Ephraem Syri. In Genesim et in Exodum Commentarii (CSCO 152-153; Louvain, 1955), 116.3-6 (Syr.); E. G.

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 27

In Search of Sources for Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s The Paradise of Christianity _________________________________________________________________________________________

Mathews and J. P. Amar, St. Ephrem the Syrian. Selected Prose Works (Washington, D.C., 1994), 206 (ET). 89 Van Rompay, Le commentaire sur GenèseExode 9,32, 125.18-19 (Syr.), 163 (FT). 90 Such as the so-called Anonymous Commentary on the Pentateuch, preserved in a number of manuscripts and partly edited and translated into English in A. 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. Edited with Introduction, Translation and Notes; and Including a Study in Comparative Exegesis (London, 1951). 91 Scher, Theodorus bar Kōnī, 140.15-143.12; Hespel and Draguet, Théodore bar Koni, 145146. 92 Read ‫ ܠܥܘܢܕܢܗ‬following Scher. 93 Scher, Theodorus bar Kōnī, 140.15-19 (Syr.); Hespel and Draguet, Théodore bar Koni, 145 (FT). 94 Scher, Theodorus bar Kōnī, 140.21-22 (Syr.); Hespel and Draguet, Théodore bar Koni, 145 (FT). 95 Scher, Theodorus bar Kōnī, 140.19.21 (Syr.); Hespel and Draguet, Théodore bar Koni, 145 (FT). 96 Scher, Theodorus bar Kōnī, 143.13146.8 (Syr.); Hespel and Draguet, Théodore bar Koni, 146-148 (FT). 97 Scher, Theodorus bar Kōnī, 144.7-8 (Syr.); Hespel and Draguet, Théodore bar Koni, 147 (FT). 98 Scher, Theodorus bar Kōnī, 144.10-13 (Syr.); Hespel and Draguet, Théodore bar Koni, 147 (FT). 99 Vosté and Van den Eynde, Išo‘dad de Merv, 192.23-36 (Syr.), Van den Eynde, Išo‘dad de Merv, 206-206 (FT) 100 Van Rompay, Le commentaire sur Genèse-Exode 9,32, 101.6-7 (Syr.), 192 (FT). 101 Compare the misunderstanding of the tetragrammaton in a Syriac context discussed by Jacob of Edessa in a Scholion to his translation of the Cathedral Homilies by Severus of Antioch (M. Brière, Les Homiliae Cathedrales de Sévère d’Antioche. Traduction syriaque de Jacques d’Édesse. Homélies CXX à CXXV [PO 29.1; Paris, 1960], 190-207).

102

Scher, Theodorus bar Kōnī, 144.13-15 (Syr.), Hespel and Draguet, Théodore bar Koni, 147 (FT). 103 Perhaps read እበን፡ ‘stones’. 104 Scher, Theodorus bar Kōnī, 144.15-18 (Syr.), Hespel and Draguet, Théodore bar Koni, 147 (Syr.). 105 Vosté and Van den Eynde, Išo‘dad de Merv, 195.10-13 (Syr.); Van den Eynde, Išo‘dad de Merv, 209 (FT). 106 Van Rompay, Le commentaire sur Genèse-Exode 9,32, 103.13-14 (Syr.), 132 (FT). 107 Scher, Theodorus bar Kōnī, 144.18 (Syr.); Hespel and Draguet, Théodore bar Koni, 147 (FT). 108 Scher, Theodorus bar Kōnī, 144.19-21 (Syr.); Hespel and Draguet, Théodore bar Koni, 145 (FT). 109 For Isho‘dad, see Vosté and Van den Eynde, Išo‘dad de Merv, 196.2-10 (Syr.); Van den Eynde, Išo‘dad de Merv, 210 (FT); for ms. Diyarbakır 22, see Van Rompay, Le commentaire sur Genèse-Exode 9,32, 104.20-105.2 (Syr.), 133-134 (FT). 110 Read ‫ ܕܣܒܪܘ‬following Scher. 111 Scher, Theodorus bar Kōnī, 144.22-145.3 (Syr.); Hespel and Draguet, Théodore bar Koni, 147 (FT). 112 Vosté and Van den Eynde, Išo‘dad de Merv, 194.11-14 (Syr.); Van den Eynde, Išo‘dad de Merv, 208 (FT). 113 The edition has ‘Maran’. 114 Scher, Theodorus bar Kōnī, 145.9-15 (Syr.); Hespel and Draguet, Théodore bar Koni, 148 (FT). 115 Scher, Theodorus bar Kōnī, 145.15-22 (Syr.); Hespel and Draguet, Théodore bar Koni, 148 (FT). 116 This point is made even more explicitly in the running commentary of Isho‘dad of Merv (Vosté and Van den Eynde, Išo‘dad de Merv, 196.10-18 [Syr.]; Van den Eynde, Išo‘dad de Merv, 210-211 [FT]). 117 Scher, Theodorus bar Kōnī, 145.12-13 (Syr.); Hespel and Draguet, Théodore bar Koni, 148 (FT). 118 It should be noted that this change is not found in the earliest dated ms. of the Arabic Pentateuch, ms. Sinai Arabic 2 (939/940).

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 28

In Search of Sources for Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s The Paradise of Christianity _________________________________________________________________________________________ 119

It should be pointed out that the use of l- in ‫‘ وابرھيم اختتن له‬Abraham was circumcised’ is unusual for Arabic. Given Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s Syriac background, this could well be a replication of the so-called dativus ethicus construction in Syriac (see J. Joosten, “The Function of the So-called Dativus Ethicus in

Classical Syriac,” Orientalia 58 [1989] 473492). Nonetheless, this construction is not found in the Syriac source, and thus it would not be due to translation, but possibly a feature of Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s Arabic idiolect. 120 Graf, Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur, vol. 2, 163.

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 29

______________________________________________________________________

ALEXANDER OF THE PORT / KADAVIL CHANDY KATTANAR: A SYRIAC POET AND DISCIPLE OF THE JESUITS IN SEVENTEENTH CENTURY INDIA1

ISTVÁN PERCZEL CENTRAL EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY

O

riginally, I had intended to give a simple report on the discovery of the poetical work by a seventeenth-century Indian Malayalee humanist poet. The very existence of this poetry, composed in Syriac according to the traditional meter of ‘ōnyāthā used in East Syriac church hymnology, but produced by a pupil of the Jesuit missionaries, is an interesting phenomenon that deserves to be better known. The form and content of this poetry presents a synthesis of Indian, East Syriac and post-Tridentine Latin Christian elements along with humanist erudition which the poet acquired from his Jesuit teachers. However, while I was preparing this paper and studying not only the poetry itself but also its immediate context and its sources, it gradually dawned upon me that through this complex material we might also be able to understand the following obscure points in the intellectual history of the Saint Thomas Christians of Malabar: 1) the unusual role that Classical Syriac played during the early modern history of South Indian Christianity as a modern lingua franca;

2) the chains of non-European transmission of Syriac learning, which had previously been completely obscure but are more illuminated by this poetry and its literary models; 3) the origins of a vast corpus of Syriac literature, both translations and original creations that were produced by the missionaries. This paper will begin with a short biography of Alexander of the Port. I will then turn to the source material that we have about his literary oeuvre. This will be followed by the poetry itself, and finally, I will discuss the more intricate theoretical questions that the discovery of this corpus and of its literary environment could illuminate.

A) ALEXANDER OF THE PORT Here, I will summarise what we know of the life of Alexander of the Port or Alexander the Indian, based on the research of Alexander Toepel, who published one of Alexander’s letters found during the digitisation of the Thrissur Chaldean manuscript

________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 30

Alexander of the Port / Kadavil Chandy Kattanar _________________________________________________________________________________________

collection.2 To his research I have added some elements from my own findings. Alexander of the Port (Alexandros Lmenaya) is the translation of the Malayalam name Kadavil Chandy (this translation comes from Alexander himself). In fact, Kadavil in Malayalam refers to the small port in a river where the boats would land, while Chandy is the Malayalam version of Alexander. He was also called Alexander the Indian, whose Syriac form, Alexandros Hendwaya, is also attested from his own invention. He likely did not call himself “the Indian” but was so dubbed by the Portuguese, and he translated this nickname into Syriac as Hendwaya. He was born in 1588 in Kaduthuruthy near Kottayam, and most probably died in 1673. According to the Carmelite missionary, Giuseppe Maria Sebastiani, he was of humble origin, a statement at odds with the fact that several members of the Kadavil family became priests, and that Chandy himself was a friend of the raja of Purakkad. He must rather have been of aristocratic origins. Kadavil Chandy was a priest who studied at Vaipicotta Seminary at Chennamangalam with the Jesuit Francisco Roz, who later became the first Latin bishop of Angamaly/Cranganore (1601-1624). As his newly discovered work indicates, Chandy was a very faithful pupil and great admirer of Roz. Kadavil Chandy had a troubled relationship with Roz’s successor, namely Archbishop Stephen Brito (1624-41), who had Chandy excommunicated for several years. A petition of the Saint Thomas Christian priests presented to viceroy Philip Mascarenhas in 1645 may reveal a partial cause of this earlier tension. In this petition, the priests complain that after Roz, who was a linguistic genius, an excellent Syriacist and fluent in the Malayalam language, incompetent teachers of Syriac were employed at the Vaipicotta Seminary, simply because they were Europeans, while Roz’s Indian

pupils, who knew Syriac much better, were eschewed. The petition mentions Alexander by name as the most capable candidate for assuming the teaching duties.3 The stories of the short-lived Congregation of Saint Thomas and of this petition shed an interesting light on the combination of Latinisation and racism that triggered conflicts between the Europeans and a highly learned local elite, who were revolting not against the Catholic faith itself but rather against these twin social tendencies. Alexander was involved in the conflict between the new Archdeacon Pakalomattam Thomas and the new Archbishop Francis Garcia (1641-1659). Beginning in 1645, Alexander took the Archdeacon’s side in the increasing conflict. In fact, he was one of the authors of the aforementioned memorandum to the Portuguese viceroy, Dom Philip Mascarenhas, complaining of the Archbishop’s abuses. However, in 1652 he warned the Archbishop of the impending schism. He participated in the famous Bent Cross Oath (Koonan Kurishu Satyam) on 3 January 1653—an oath taken by the Syrian Christians in Matancherry, Cochin, never to obey the “Franks,” that is, the Portuguese—by reading a praise of the Babylonian Catholicos Patriarch. Further, on 5 February 1653 he read a letter attributed to the Syrian Catholic bishop Mar ‘Atallah to the assembled crowd and clergy in Edapally, which gave the Archdeacon farreaching jurisdictional power. Subsequently, Alexander was made one of the four advisors given to Pakalomattam Thomas and he likewise defended Thomas’s episcopal consecration on 22 May 1653 in Alangad, by referring to the ousting of Spanish overlordship in Portugal in 1640.4 When, in 1663, Alexander de Campo (Parampil Chandy)—Mar Thomas’s relative and part of the original four-member council—returned to the Roman Catholic fold and became Vicar Metropolitan of

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 31

Alexander of the Port / Kadavil Chandy Kattanar _________________________________________________________________________________________

India, Kadavil Chandy, at the age of seventy-five, became the Vicar General under him. However, as one of his newly discovered letters attests, his return to Rome actually dates much earlier, at least from 1657, when he sent a letter to Pope Alexander VII. Kadavil Chandy remained Vicar General until 1673 when George of St. John was given the position.5 It is assumed that he died at or shortly after this date.

B) THE SOURCE MATERIAL B.1. The Memra on the Eucharist It has now been revealed that Chandy was also a famous poet who sent his verse homily (memrā) on the Eucharist to Pope Alexander VII in Rome, and the poem was highly praised by Roman Syriacists.6 However, his poetic oeuvre remained unknown until its discovery thanks to joint efforts of Indian Christian and Western scholars. The first revelation was made by Father Emmanuel Thelly who, in his checklist of the Syriac manuscripts of Saint Joseph’s CMI Library in Mannanam, a paper presented at the VIIIth Symposium Syriacum in Sydney in 2000, reported that he had found the famous memrā on the Eucharist in a liturgical manuscript of the collection.7 This is, according to our checklist, MS Mannanam Syr 99 and has the original shelf mark 090248-3PHE-S. It is a Ḥudra, or breviary of Catholic feasts, beginning with the first Sunday of Advent and ending with the feast of the Presentation of the Holy Mother of God in the Temple on November 21. Thankfully, in 2008, with the support of the Hill Museum and Manuscript Library, the Association for the Preservation of the Saint Thomas Christian Heritage (based in Ernakulam) was given permission to digitise the Mannanam collection. As such, I am able to give a more detailed report on this discovery. The colophon of the manuscript is as follows:

This book was copied and completed gradually by Priest Philippos, son of Thomas, who is also called “near the dry land”,8 a man of failure and more miserable than all the miserable, a burnt up firebrand, feebler than any man, who is not worthy to write his name in this book. He lives on the right hand side of the church of the ever-virgin Lady Mary in the blessed and celebrated royal city whose name is Kalluvathu.9 It is under the rule of a pagan king, under the hand of the Virgin Mary, the Bearer of God and humble Mother of the God Christ, the crucified, from the tribe of Judah, from the family of David. In the 1734th year of Our Lord, the ninth day in the month of February, a Wednesday.10

The memrā of Alexander is inserted between the service of Pentecost and the general service for the feasts of the Mother of God.11 Its insertion into the breviary seems to be an indication that the poem was used at liturgical celebrations, perhaps loosely connected to the Eucharist in general. The manner of its introduction, showing that it was written for public chanting, also reinforces this impression. Yet, it is not ascribed to any concrete religious feast and there is no rubric prescribing its liturgical usage. It uses complex metric and formal elements, an acrostic poem going from the letter ālap to the letter tāw: after every letter of the alphabet, the section begins with precisely that letter. The lines are rhythmic and rhyming at the same time and the prosody contains much wordplay. In each section, all the lines end with the same rhyme. The poem’s title is the following: Memrā composed by Presbyter Alexander the Indian, also called of the Port, on the Eucharist of Christ. It should be sung upon the melody of “We worship…” (Sāgdīnan: an

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 32

Alexander of the Port / Kadavil Chandy Kattanar _________________________________________________________________________________________

‘ōnīthā of the East Syriac Church service).12

Following the title there is a four-line exordium, after which the acrostic verses begin. Each letter of the alphabet is followed by a changing number of rhyming lines: ܿ ܿ .njNjܵƾǁǠƦ‫ܕ‬ ܼ ǫ‫ܙܘ‬ǯƢDŽ njNjƽܼ ƯƪǍ ܿ ܵ .njNjǡƯǞLJ ܼ ƱƵƦܼ ƯDŽ ܸ njNjƾܼ ǁǠܵƦ‫ܘ‬ ܿ ܵ ƲǓ .njNjܵƾƵLJ‫ܕ‬ ܼ ƱǢܼ ƴܼܿ ‫ܗܕ ܵܢ‬ ܼ njNjƽƯƧǓ‫ܘ‬ ܿ ܵ ǃƽ‫ܐ‬ ܵ Ʋǖ .njNjǝ‫ܪ‬ ܼ ‫ܪ‬Ǡǡ‫ ܼܕ‬ƣLJ‫ܬ‬Ʋƴ ܼ [149r] We worship the mysteries of the one who is consubstantial with us, / and we bless his sacrifice which sanctifies us. /And we commemorate the suffering of the one who gives us life / as the seal that has confirmed our redemption.

ܿܵ ܿ ܿ ƣƽƯܵ ƾܼ Ƶƽܼ ‫ܗ‬Ǡܹ ƧDŽܼ ƣƦܵ ‫܀ ܐ ܀ ܼܐ‬ .‫ܪ‬Ưܿ ܼ ǡܼܿ ljDžܼ ǔDŽ ܿ ̈ܵ 13 ܿ ܿ ̄ ǠǞܼ ƧNJ ܼ Ƥ‫ ܗܘ‬Ưƾܼ Ʀ‫ ܼܕܐ‬ƣǢNJ‫ ܕ‬ƣǎNjܹƩ‫ܕ‬ ܿ NJ ‫ܐܦ‬ Ƥ‫ܘܬ‬ƯƧǓܵ njLJ‫ܘ‬.‫ܪ‬Ʋǔǎ ܸ ܿ ܿ ܼ ܼ̈ ܵ ܵ ܼ ̈ .‫ܪ‬Ǡܼ ƵNJ ܼ ǫ‫ܘ‬ƯƧǔDŽ ƣNJ‫ܘ‬ǰƷ ܼ ƥ‫ܕ‬Ƣǡ‫ܕ‬ ܿ ܿ ܿ .‫ܪ‬ǠǢNJ ܼ ƥƯ̈ƽܼ ƯNJ ƣǢǗNJ ܼ ƿƾܼ ܿ ǖǯ‫ ܼܘ‬ƤƱƽܼ ǰǁ ƣǓǰLJ‫ܘ‬ ܼ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܿ ̈ .ǠƦƯNJܼ ƣƪƾDžǖ Ƥ‫ܬ‬ƲNjܼ Ljƽ‫ܕܗ‬ ܼ ƤǤǡƲǝ‫ ܕ‬ƣƴ‫ܘܪ‬ƢƦ‫ܘ‬ ܼܿ ܿ ܿ ܼ ܿ ̄ .‫ܪ‬ƱNjܿ NJܼܿ ‫ܗܪܗ‬ƲNjƦ ܼ ܼ ‫ ܗ ܼ ܵܘܘ‬njƾܼ ƦǤܵƽ ‫ܟ‬ƲǢƵܹܿ Ʀ‫ ܼܕ‬njƾDžƽƢDŽ‫ܘ‬ ̈ ƲǎƦ ܿ ܿ ‫ܘܕ‬ .ǠƸNJܸ ‫ ܘ‬ƥǠܹ ǢNJܸ ‫ܢ‬ƲNJܿ ‫ ܼܐ‬njƽǠƾܼ Ǎ‫ ܼܐ‬ƣLjƷ ܼ ܼ ܿ ܿ NJ ‫ ̄ܗ ܵܘܘ‬njƽǠܹ ǡ Ƥ‫ܬ‬ƲLJ‫ ܕ‬ƣDžDžܵ ƸƦ‫ܘܕ‬ :ǠǢǂܼ NJܼܿ ‫ܘܩ‬ǠǗ ܸ ܼ ܸ ܼ ܿ ܵ .ǠǗǡܼ ‫ ܼܕ‬ƱNjƾƦܼ ǜDŽ ܹ ǠǗǢNJܸ ‫ ܘ‬:‫ܪ‬ƱƦǤǢNJܸ ‫ ܕ‬ǃƽ‫ܐ‬ A. The Father sent His OnlyBegotten Son to the world, / so that He may seek out the human race that was lost, / that He may visit it; and from the servitude / of the tyrannical demons He may free his servants; That He may strengthen the ailing sick and those foul because of the slackness of soul, / and may lead to the right way of the faith those who have split away, / and enlighten with His light those who were sitting in darkness, (Lk 1:79) / untie and protect those who were chained in fetters, / and redeem [149v] and make virtuous those who were dwelling in the shade of death (Lk 1:79) / in order that He may be glorified and please His will that is pleasant.

This verse was about the Father, that is Abbā, beginning with an ālap. The next acrostic is bēth, thus begins with the Son, Brā: ܵ ƣƴ‫ ܼܪܘ‬njLJܼ ǣNJǠƦ‫ ܸܐ ܼܬ‬ƣܵƾLJܵ ‫ ܿܘ‬ǤLJ ܼ ƥǠƦ‫܀ ܒ܀‬ .ƣǡ‫ܕ‬Ʋǝ‫ܕ‬ ܼ 14 ܿ ƤǤDŽ‫ܘ‬ǤƦܼ njLJ ܿ ƣNjLJƲDŽ ƯƾƦ Ƥ‫ܬ‬ ƲƧƾ Ʒ ǤƾDž LJ‫ܕ‬ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼܵ ܼ ܼ .ƣǢƽܼ Ưǝܼܿ džǂƦ ƣܵƾDžǓܸ ƣܵƾܵƽǤܼ ƽܼ ‫ ܐ‬ƣƦ‫ܕܐ‬ ܿ LJ ƣDŽ‫ ܕ‬ƱƦƲƴ‫ ܕ‬ƤƳLJ ܵ Ǡܸ Ʀ .ƣǢNJǠƦ Ƥ‫ ܗ ܸܘ‬ǃƽǤǎ ܼ ܼ ܸ ܿ ܵ ܿ ƱǢǗNJ ‫ܝ‬Ʋƴ‫ܘ‬ .ƣǢƾܼ Ǔ‫ ܬ‬ƣLjDžǔDŽ ƲǢƽܼ Ưǝܼܿ džǂƦ ܼ ܸ ܵ ܿ ̈ ƣLjǓܼ njLJܼ ƨDŽܹ ‫ܝ‬ǰƽܼ ǠƦ ǫƲƵƾܼ Džǡ ǣNjǁ‫ܘ‬ ܼܿ .ƣǢܵ ƾܼ ƪǡ ܵ ܿ ܿ NJ ‫ܢ‬ƲNJܿ ‫ ܼܐ‬ƣƧƩ‫ܘܕ‬ .ƣǡ‫ ܕ ܸܘܪ‬ƣDŽ‫ ܕ‬ǫƲLjƴǯ ‫ܘܘܢ‬Ʊ ܸ ܼ ܼ ̈ ̈ .ƣǡǠǡ‫ܕ‬ ܸ njƾDžƽ‫ ܐ‬ƥ‫ܕ‬ƲƩ ܼ ‫ܝ‬ǰLJ‫ ܕ‬ƣƸƧǡ ‫ ܼܬ‬ƲLJƯƦ‫ܘ‬ ܼ ̄ ܿ ܿ Ǭƾǁ‫ܙ‬ ܼ ‫ ܼܘ‬Ƥ‫ ܗ ܼܘ‬ǫƲDžǓ ƨܸƽǤǁ‫ ܼܿܕ‬ƣLjDžǁ ljDžܸ ǡ‫ܘ‬ ܼ .ƣǢƾܼ ƧDŽ ܿ .ƣǢNj̈ƾNjƦ ǘDžƴ Ƥ‫ܬ‬ƲǞ ܼ ƽܼ ‫ ܕܙܕ‬ƣƵƦ‫ܒ ܕ‬Ǡܸ ǝ‫ܘ‬ ܼ ܿ ܿ ܿ džǂƦ ƣǁܹ ‫ ܕ‬ƱLJ‫ܗ ܼܘܕ‬Ǡƪǖ ‫ܘܢ‬ƱDŽ ‫ܒ‬Ʊƽ‫ܘ‬ ܼ .ƣǢƽܼ Ǡǖ ƣLJƲܵƾƦ ܿ ܿ ƣDžܹ ƴ‫ ܼܪܒ ܘ‬ƫƾܼ Ʃ‫ ܼܿܘܪ‬ƶܸƽǜǖ 15Ǡƽܼ ‫ ܬܗ‬ƣǢLJǠƦ ܼ .ƣǢƦ‫ ܸܕ‬njLJܼ džǁ njLJܼ ƣǡ‫ ܬܘ‬njLJ‫ܘ‬ ܼ ܼ :ƣǢƾܼ Ʀ njLJܼ ‫ܩ‬Ǡǖ .ƣǢDŽƲƷ ܼ B. The eternal Son became man from the Holy Spirit, / from the Virgin full of grace, through the drawing nigh (?)16 / of the eternal Father who is exalted among all the saints. As a sign of his infinite love He became man, He showed himself in all holiness to the toiling world, / gathered his simple-hearted apostles from the boisterous people, / elected them so that they may love Him without being taught / and be like rods from the root, a wonderful choir. He completed all that had been written about him and conquered the Evil One, / offered the sacrifice of righteousness on behalf of men / He gave them his all-pure flesh and blood on the designated day, / on the wonderful, joyful, much-desired and great evening, sweeter than honey, / far removed from evil, from error and from all defilement.

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 33

Alexander of the Port / Kadavil Chandy Kattanar _________________________________________________________________________________________

I trust my rendering of the material shows that Alexander was indeed a gifted poet, who employed the paradigms of poesy in his memra.

B.2. LETTER TO ANTONIO TOSCANO Father Emmanuel Thelly’s discovery of Alexander’s Memra on the Eucharist was only the beginning. While digitising and cataloguing the Syrian Chaldean manuscript collection of Mar Aprem in Thrissur, in MS Syr 7 of the collection (according to Mar Aprem’s checklist) I came across a letter by a certain Alexandros L-menaya to Antonio Toscano, the superior of the St Thomas Congregation at Edapally. After wracking our brains, my colleague, Dr. Alexander Toepel, and I have come to understand that Alexandros L-menaya was the self-made translation of the name Kadavil Chandy. The Syriac text of the letter was published with a translation and a commentary by Alexander Toepel.17 The St. Thomas Congregation was founded at Edappally, near Cochin, in 1626, at the joint urgings of Archbishop Stephen Brito and Archdeacon George of the Cross (that is, the local leader of the Indian Syriac community). The idea was initiated by the Archdeacon, who wanted to establish a genuine Indian monastic order that would educate monks from among Indian clergy, who, in due course, would replace the European monks, mainly the Jesuits. The first superior of the order was the Jesuit Antonio Toscano, a Portuguese native of India, born in 1561 in Mylapore. However, in 1627 or 1628, Toscano stepped down due to internal strife. The congregation was finally dissolved sometime between 1652 and 1657, as the dangers of establishing a native Indian religious order became evident to the Latin hierarchy.18 Kadavil Chandy does not seem to have been part of the congregation but

he was in contact with Toscano and congregation members, and apparently there was dissention in all quarters. The letter announces his intended visit to the congregation for the purposes of exonerating himself from some unspecified accusations that had been held against him. The letter is written in a baroque, complicated style, in excellent Syriac, and its content is occasionally somewhat incomprehensible. It can be dated to the narrow period between 1626 and 1628, when Toscano was superior of the congregation. It is, in fact, yet another testimony to the troubled relationship between this highly gifted Indian priest and the European missionaries.

B.3. LETTER TO POPE ALEXANDER VII Next came the discovery of Kadavil Chandy’s cover letter for the memrā on the Eucharist, addressed to Pope Alexander VII. As far as the cataloguing of our digitised material goes, it is extant in two copies. One of them is in a manuscript possessed by the great Indian Syriacist, Father Curien Kaniamparampil, MS Syr 2, fol. 387v390v, and the other is in a manuscript at the Mannanam library, Mannanam MS Syr 5, fol. 11v-13r.19 The letter is dated 15 December 1657, that is, after the Bent Cross Oath, and shows that less than five years after the revolt, Kadavil Chandy, who himself had played a crucial role in the revolt, returned his allegiances to Rome. Apparently, this return was triggered by political upheaval. In 1656, the Dutch conquered Cochin and expelled the detested Portuguese and their Jesuit missionaries. Pope Alexander VII then dispatched the Carmelites, led by the Apostolic Commissary Joseph Maria Sebastiani, to continue the mission there. Kadavil Chandy’s letter reveals much. He indicates complete submission expressed through poetic oxymorons: the

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 34

Alexander of the Port / Kadavil Chandy Kattanar _________________________________________________________________________________________

Roman Church is so exalted that “its sheep are our shepherds, its servants are our lords, its sons are our fathers, its deacons are our rulers.” The occasion of the letter marks the imminent trip to Rome by the Apostolic Commissary Joseph Maria Sebastiani20, and illustrates that Chandy and his community had felt abandoned by the previous bishops—and that Sebastiani had reversed these negative feelings. Apparently, Sebastiani had ingratiated himself to the Indians and this had renewed hopes for a peaceful existence within the Catholic fold. Certainly Chandy’s letter openly extolls Sebastiani’s virtues: He saw all our ailing and wretchedness and gave us his love in his eyes, and he lifted upon his shoulders our affairs and our apology and our accusation as well as all the needs of ourselves and of our Church, so that he may come before your Beatitude. He would come and apologise on our behalf and whether good or bad, all that is with us, he would report to your Beatitude. Please, listen to him with good will!

It could be said that this is more than obligatory praise for the missionary, who is carrying the author’s letter; Sebastiani’s personality and diplomatic skills must have played a critical role in returning a good number of the rebels to the Catholic fold. The timing also suggests that negotiations about the consecration of a bishop of Indian origin could also have begun. Kadavil Chandy was very ambitious and was, beyond doubt, the most educated and talented local Indian priest; so he could very well have been aiming for this position himself. Certainly this goal would be motivation enough to send his verse homily on the Eucharist to Rome. Even the delivery of his verse homily suggests an underlying message. Chandy was aware that neither Sebastiani nor the Pope read Syriac, and so Alexander VII was asked to give the poem

to a Syriacist reader who would translate it for the Pope. On top of that, and most extraordinarily, Chandy did not submit his offering to scrutiny by his superiors so that they might ensure his views on the Eucharist were orthodox. There is not even a shade of such anxiety expressed in the letter. Apparently, the only thing that is important for Chandy is the poetic quality of his work and the correctness of its literary Syriac, for which he expects to find qualified readers in Rome. He even changes the opening of the letter to the Pope and then directly addresses the anonymous reader: And I, the most wretched man among all the wretched, have sent through his21 beloved hands before the glorious and holy See of your Beatitude a small writing, written by my madness on the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, which your Beatitude should give to a reader, so that he may clearly make your Beatitude know all that is in it. O, Lord Reader! In love, supplication and petition I approach you and all those who will chance upon the poem of my madness, that, if they were to find in it some mistake or blunder, they should not hasten to dismiss it and to throw a stone of abuse on me but should illuminate my carelessness, feebleness and madness and should pray for me assiduously.

While these formulae of humility and self-deprecation are traditional not so much in Syriac letter writing but rather— interestingly—in the colophons written by scribes (see for example the colophon of Mannanam MS Syr 99 cited above), the whole formulaic discourse is set in a new, modern context: that of the gifted Indian poet’s communication with the scholars of the Vatican, whom he expects to read “the poem of his madness,” of which he is indeed proud. He is afraid only that his readers will find some “mistake or blunder”, that is, some expression that is incorrect in

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 35

Alexander of the Port / Kadavil Chandy Kattanar _________________________________________________________________________________________

grammar and style. In fact, a superficial reader might well find such errors in Chandy’s poetry and prose, as he seems to create boldly new grammatical forms and new words from existing roots and also uses the occasional Greek expression instead of the appropriate Syriac terms. This display of an odd Hellenisation in India indicated to me a European influence in Chandy’s culture—until the next step in the discovery of Chandy’s oeuvre was made. Classical Syriac was not the only classical language that Chandy knew. According to missionary reports, he did not speak Portuguese, but he was versed in Latin and was even involved in the translation of the Latin liturgical texts into Syriac. His Syriac poetical language contains astonishing Latinisms and in his letter to Rome he makes a display of his knowledge of Latin and of the Catholic ecclesiastic ranks by inserting a Latin formula in Syriac adaptation. In translation it might go thusly: I am sending the cause of the present letter before the glorious and holy See of your Beatitude by the hands of the commissarius delegatus apostolicus22, the venerable Carmelite pāter Maria Joseph.23

Commissarius delegatus apostolicus in Syriac adaptation is kūmsārī dalgad aposܿ ܵ ܿ ܵ ƲƸǎǖ ܵ Ʋǁ). tōlīqāyā (ƣܵƾǞƾDŽ ‫ ܼܐ‬ƯƪDŽ‫ܝ ܼܿܕ‬ǠǎLJ Also, Seܼ bastiani is called a Carmelite pāter—an expression that the version of the Mannanam manuscript, transmitting a secondary, less original text, changes to the colloquial Portuguese-Malayalam word pāthri —while the papal letter that Sebastiani had presented to the Malabaree Christians is properly called a sacra. Apparently, Chandy is keen on using the proper Latin terms when they are suitable. In fact, it occurs to me that both Chandy’s poetry and the letter-writing, as well as his way of translating his names into Classical Syriac, indicate a humanist mentality. This suggests that humanism, begin-

ning in Europe, then, through colonisation and missions, had become a global culture in which members of the local elite, such as Chandy, were taking part. However, we will see that there is even more going on for Chandy. If we take Hellenic or Hellenist culture as being part of the humanist tradition, we find that in India, European Hellenism met a pre-existent East Syrian Hellenism and the two became fused. I will return to this question later, when treating Chandy’s literary sources. There is also the matter of the changing role of Syriac language among Indian Christians. While it had been analogous to Sanskrit in being the exclusive language of the privileged, priestly caste of the Saint Thomas Christians, by the seventeenth century, while retaining this role, Syriac had also become the Latin of the East. This was a new cultural and linguistic endeavour, in which European and Indian scholars engaged with equal enthusiasm.24 The discoveries which I now discuss will reveal more on this phenomenon.

B.4. THE COLLECTED WORKS OF KADAVIL CHANDY25 During the cataloguing of the freshly digitised Mannanam CMI library, I came across an odd manuscript, Mannanam MS Syr 63 according to my checklist, and 090-264-S according to its original shelf mark. It contains Syriac and Malayalam texts of liturgical services as established by Francisco Roz, the first European Metropolitan of Angamaly/Cranganore (1601-1624). It also contains the Syriac poetry (memrē) of an anonymous poet. The language of the poems is complex, being composed not only of Greek terms, but also of Hebraisms, displaying much worldly erudition. Memra 7 is datable to 1624 AD. Memra 8 is identical to the one contained in Mannanam MS Syr 99, f. 149r-160v, where it is attributed to Alexandros Hendwaya or L-menaya,

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 36

Alexander of the Port / Kadavil Chandy Kattanar _________________________________________________________________________________________

alias Kadavil Chandy Kattanar, and the style of most of the poems is unmistakably individual. Therefore, as the hypothesis of multiple authorship should be rejected, I have concluded that the author of these odd poems is Kadavil Chandy. The manuscript can be dated to the first half of the 18th century. This dating is based on the paper: its watermarks correspond to manuscripts dated before 1750. The letter type also confirms this dating. Often the scribe who copied the memrē did not understand them and made a number of mistakes, which makes the reading of the poems, already very difficult in and of itself, even more challenging. Unfortunately, only for Memra 8 (on the Eucharist) do we have another text for comparison. The book bears the title Book of Chants [poems] (ƥǠLJ‫ ܕܙܘ‬ƣƦǤǁ) but, in fact, the first section contains liturgical texts. Beginning with folio 27v, there come a series of apparently original poems or memrē, composed on the tune of Church chants. Some of them are composed in acrostics. The original tune, upon which the text given here constitutes a variant— a šuḥlāpā—is indicated in red. Most of the memrē are without title. Most of the poems are šuḥlāpē on the same melody as the one on the Eucharist, starting with “We worship” (sāgdīnan). The volume also provides an answer to the question as to why Kadavil Chandy preferred precisely this motif. While most of the verse homilies treat theological-spiritual subjects, the author’s thirst for knowledge, erudition and poetic performance shines through. As a case in point, foll. 49v-81v contains Memra 4, “On the Arabic language.” This is a poem in acrostics, treating not only the excellence of the Arabic language, but also Islam, Muhammad and the Qur’an. Foll. 81v-96r is Memra 5, “On the Syriac language.” In this poem, the author identifies Syriac with Aramaic, and claims

that it derives from Hebrew; he speaks about the Targums and the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds, the Sepher ha-Zohar. He also speaks about the Christian literature written in Syriac, mentioning the Gospels, Saint Ephrem and Jacob of Edessa. Under the letter lāmad it mentions that the Indian Church uses Syriac (87v). Under nūn, it condemns the heretics, namely Nestorius, Theodore of Mopsuestia and Joseph Busnaya, the “abominable and stupid Hormiz,” “Abdisho the Belzebubish basilisk serpent”, and “Hananisho, who is full of the dragon’s head” (90rv); under pē it praises the Pope. On foll. 96r-106r one finds Memra 6, “On the Hebrew language.” In this poem the author emphasises that this is the holy language par excellence, because this was the first language, which Adam spoke, and also the language used by Christ, his Mother and the Apostles. A most fascinating poem is Memra 7 on foll. 106v-116r, which is a panegyric of “Mar Franciscus, full of chastity”. This is Francisco Roz SJ, many times mentioned before in the present study, with whom Chandy studied at Vaipicotta. Here, the poet speaks as an eyewitness to the life of Francisco Roz, composing his panegyric perhaps some years after the burial of the bishop that occurred in 1624. The poem is a double acrostic, going from ālap to tāw and, then from tāw to ālap. Every stanza starts with a word beginning with the letter of the acrostic. The poem narrates Roz’s life from his childhood, which he, born in an aristocratic and holy family, spent in Catalunia (hē-waw), where he was called to become a Jesuit (īšōcāyā in Syriac—ḥēth). Later, God gave him the Spirit to go to India. Arriving in the port of Goa (mēm), “he disembarked from the ship and went to the church of his Companions, dedicated to the Blessed Mary” (?),26 where “he raised his voice” (that is, prayed for the success of his mission?—nūn).

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 37

Alexander of the Port / Kadavil Chandy Kattanar _________________________________________________________________________________________

The next stanzas present Roz as a teacher at Vaipicotta Seminary: “He was prudently sitting in the chair of teaching and was instructing beautifully together with all those belonging to the same school” (‘ē). “As a sagacious philosopher and a lofty, learned and wise theologian, he taught the people in a voice of thunder” (pē). In the debates he overcame all the false teachers (ṣādē). “The entire people called him befittingly ‘our marvellous teacher’27” (qōp). After this, comes a narrative about Roz as archbishop: “Being the glorious Archbishop of all India, upon those whom he had called he conferred the reverend priesthood in great solemnity and in order.” (rēš) “Taking the greetings of the great … (Pope?) he came to Cochin and became the beloved teacher of all” (šīn).28 In fact, this verse teaches us that Roz, although according to his title he was Archbishop of Angamaly and, later, of Cranganore, was in fact residing in the Portuguese fort of Cochin. His predecessor, Mar Abraham moved his see to Angamaly precisely to escape Portuguese control, so it is expected that Roz would have stayed there where he could be protected by the Portuguese troups. “He was sitting on the glorious See of the wonderful Apostle Thomas of this admirable diocese in mercifulness toward the Church” (tāw). “He was a model of his rank,29 very-very eminent, alien to all evil and to the ways of vanity” (second tāw). “He perfected them30 (the Indians?) as sons of the (liturgical) service in the sign of the Spirit and of love and released them in the orthodox confession of our Lord according to his glory” (šīn)—this verse is difficult to interpret; did Roz introduce a ceremony of the confession of the orthodox faith for the Indian Christians? “He shepherded them as a true, righteous and elect shepherd who put his soul alien of all apostasy for the sheep of his diocese (see Jn 10:11)” (rēš). “Alien to any avarice or greed, he nour-

ished all the poor” (qōp). The next three letters continue the praise: “He was an ornament of all the ecclesiastic rank, a glory of all the catechumenate,31 a mind of contemplation, in the model of apostolicity” (ṣādē) etc. And here comes very important information about Roz’s teaching and literary activity: while in India, Roz translated many books from Latin into Syriac and from Syriac to Latin, those which were without error, not indiscriminately (semkath)—in fact we found a number of interesting translations from Latin into Syriac, not extant anywhere else in the world of Syriac erudition: apparently Roz translated the commentaries of Dionysius the Carthusian, the Mystical Theology of PseudoDionysius the Areopagite from the Latin translation of Ambrogio Traversari, Latin apocrypha,32 an otherwise unknown translation of the Book of Revelations, and many other texts. “All the Christians called this chaste patron the second Thomas and an Apostle-bishop” (nūn). “He humiliated his soul in the testimony that he witnessed, he wrote sermons and was a humble man who drove away pride” (mēm)—this praise seems to refer to the great erudition of Roz who, however, applied his talent to write sermons for his Indian faithful. These sermons seem in fact to be extant; they testify to much subtlety of theological thought as well as to a sophisticated accommodation to the thought-structures of the Indian audience,33 He was “a divine tongue, who made known the mysteries of the Hebrews, the Syrians, the Greeks and the Latins” (lāmad). He knew these languages as if they had been his mother tongue, so that all people were wondering about his knowledge34 (kāp)—apparently, Roz was a rare linguistic genius. “He also learned many languages of the world, in order to fight against the corporeal adversaries, so also the Indian (that is, Malayalam) and other languages” (yōd)—this, we also know from

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 38

Alexander of the Port / Kadavil Chandy Kattanar _________________________________________________________________________________________

other sources; among others, Roz was entrusted with supervising the translation into Malayalam of the Portuguese Acts of the Diamper Synod held in 1599, written before the synod.35 His fame had spread to the whole earth (ṭeth). “He was a most lofty and strong bishop, full of delicacy of his power … as a diligent (servant) of the Saviour” (ḥeth), “Being the glorious zodiac of the unoriginated sun of righteousness (Mal 4:2), he preached to the evil pagans and converted them from their erring” (zayn). The poet does not say “all this as an invention,36 as is the custom among the pagans,” but as a true eyewitness and as somebody to whom it has been revealed (waw). Mar Franciscus’ end has come in the company of his disciples (hē). So clerics belonging to the Jesuit order carried his divine body and placed it in a tomb befitting him (dālath)—this tomb can be seen until the present day in the Catholic church of North Paravur. Later, they took a bone from the dead body and placed it in the sanctuary (as a relic) (gāmal)—these relics seem to be also in the church of North Paravur. “The members of the diocese of sanctity and this parish (ƣܵƾǁǠǖܸ sic!) are weeping and are wailing in bitter voice and woe, weeping and longing!” (bēth). Finally the poet completes his work with the following words: “I said this in conclusion through advice that had been given to me from the King Christ, the Advisor: Glory to the Father, worship to the Son and thanksgiving to the Holy Spirit from the angels and men,37 to the ages of ages! Amen” (ālap).

Besides its literary interest, this poem is also a precious source about Roz’s life and work in India, about which we know very little. Despite its panegyrical genre it contains much information unknown from other sources, or confirming parallel information.

On foll. 116r-126r we find the last memrā, Memra 8, without a title, also based upon the tune “We worship...” This is a poem on the Incarnation and the Eucharist and is identical with the one found in MS 99 under the name of Alexandros Hendwaya or L-menaya, that is, Chandy Kadavil Kattanar. It is the presence of this memrā that has allowed us to identify the author as having written the other memrē as well. It is difficult to decide whether or not this is where the poems of Kadavil Chandy end, because what follows is a series of quite original compositions of a different type, namely a sequence of litanies, recapitulating the whole salvation history as contained in the Old and New testaments, composed with much inventiveness and poetic talent. These may or may not be composed by Chandy. After the poems comes another important text (on foll. 153v-174v), entitled the “Order of the Offering of the Sacraments”—this is the new mass introduced by Francisco Roz. While the text is in Syriac, all the rubrics are in Garshuni Malayalam, that is, Malayalam written in a mixed, Syriac-Malayalam script. The colophon of this text, written in Garshuni Malayalam on fol. 174r, clearly states that this is the new text of the Sacraments ordered by Francisco Roz: “This new text of the Sacraments was ordered by Mar Franciscus Metran.”

After the mass, there is a breviary containing the hymns of the most important feasts. While the services seem to belong to the East Syriac liturgical cycle, on f. 202rv one reads the following commemoration: For our holy Fathers, Mar Ignatius soand-so, Catholicos Patriarch, the Head of the entire Church of Christ, and Mar Thomas so-and-so, Metropolitan Bishop, let us pray that they may be confirmed according to the leadership

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 39

Alexander of the Port / Kadavil Chandy Kattanar _________________________________________________________________________________________

of Moses and that they may absolve according to the priesthood of Aaron, and that they may receive the keys as Peter and that they may hold fast in mercy in this world and that they may raise the religion of the Most High!

In the same commemoration, on foll. 204v-205r, there is a prayer according to the East Syrian custom for the memory of the “Blessed Lady Mary” who, then, receives all the attributes required by Cyrillian theology, that is, Ever-Virgin and Mother of God. This prayer is followed by one for all the saints, a practice prohibited by the Synod of Diamper, since it presupposes the dormition theory, or hypnopsychism, prevalent in the Church of the East, according to which the souls of the saints are not active, nor do they receive their rewards, until the general Resurrection. Interestingly, on foll. 214v-215r, the text contains a prayer for those who deny the humanity of Christ, that is, in this interpretation, the very Miaphysites whose Patriarch the same prayer commemorates: For those who in their ignorance are going astray and in their quarrelsomeness are denying the humanity of our Saviour, who is the pride of the members of his family [that is, of the human beings] and the good cause of all the rational beings, let us pray that they may leave the schisms and divisions that the rebellious Great Adversary has brought upon them, so that they may approach the sweet argument of the true faith and that we may be preserved in pure heart and harmonious thought. Let all of us together, with the venerable priests, raise glorification and confession to the eternal Head of our nature, who in His grace has converted us to the knowledge of the truth and has returned us from the scrutiny that is in the …, to whom belongs our glorification and blessing to the end. Amen.

This is clearly the East Syriac, not to say explicitly “Nestorian”, commemora-

tion, adapted to the Syrian Orthodox patriarch, who is named according to the rank of the Catholicos Patriarch of Babylon. Apparently, those who were using the present mixture of East Syriac (Nestorian/ Chaldean) and Latinised Syriac liturgy and, with it, Kadavil Chandy’s liturgical and secular poetry, in fact belonged to the Mar Thoma faction under the jurisdiction of the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch. Clearly, the book is, on the one hand, a witness to the liturgical and literary activity in Syriac and Malayalam of the circle of Francisco Roz and of Kadavil Chandy Kattanar, while, on the other hand, it testifies to a singular mixture of traditions among the Putthankoor, that is the faction that seceded from the Roman Catholic Church and was led by the Mar Thoma Metropolitans. Its detailed study, combined with that of other manuscripts, will elucidate many aspects of the intellectual activity of the Catholic missionaries and their Malayalee interlocutors after the times of the Diamper Synod.

B.5. KADAVIL CHANDY’S SOURCES Chandy’s manifold poems written in playful language and displaying vast erudition, encompassing such subjects as the Arabic, Syriac and Hebrew languages, together with a treatment of the literature written in these languages, once again testify to the humanist approach of the author. His panegyric of Francisco Roz shows his personal devotion to his teacher but it also shows that Roz was a missionary whom the Indian Christians indeed loved, not least because of his great erudition. We also learn from this poem that, while in India, Bishop Roz spent much of his time translating Latin texts into Syriac for Indian usage, and vice versa. We might therefore conclude that at least part of the rich translation literature that one finds in Indian manuscripts

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 40

Alexander of the Port / Kadavil Chandy Kattanar _________________________________________________________________________________________

is from Roz’s pen. However, one should be cautious with these attributions. Here we arrive at the question of Kadavil Chandy’s sources. In the Memrā on the Syriac language, under the acrostic nūn, Chandy condemns a series of heretics. He writes the following (89v-91r): ܿ Ƥ‫ ܵܬ‬Ʋܼ ƾܼ Ǎ‫ ܗܪ‬ƲǞDžƸLj ƣNJƱLJܵ ‫܀ ܡ ܀‬ ܼ ܵ DŽܼ njƽ‫ ܹܕ‬njDŽ ܵ ܹ ܿ ܿ ܵ Ƥ‫ܬ‬ƲǞƾܼ Ʒ‫ ܼܗܪ‬ƣDžܹ LJ‫ ܕ‬ƥ‫ܪ‬ƲǢDŽ ܼ ƲǗƵ ܼ ǎLjDŽ‫ܘ‬ ܼ ܵƤ‫ܬ‬ƲǢƽƯǝ‫ ܕ‬Ƥ‫ ܵܬ‬ƲNjLjƽƱƦ ܿ njDŽܿ njƽƳLJ‫ܿܘ‬ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܵ LJ njLJ njDŽܵ ƤǜǗLJ‫ܿܘ‬ ܵ ܵƾDŽ‫ ܿܕ‬ƤǤDž Ƥ‫ܬ‬ƲƸ ܼ ܿ ܹ ܼ ܼ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܵ Ʒܼ ܿ njLJ‫ܘ‬ Ƥ‫ܬ‬ƲǗNj ܼ ƤǤܵƾƴ‫ ܼܨܘ‬njLJܼ njDŽܼ ‫ ܹܙܒ‬ƲǢLJ‫ܘ‬ ܼ ܵ .Ƥ‫ܬ‬ƲǝǠƷ‫ ܕ‬ƤƳƽܼ Ǡƴ ƣǎܹ ǁƲƸƦ :njNjƽƳƴ‫ ܕ‬ǃƽ‫ܐ‬ ܼ ܿ ܵ Ʃ ǠƦ ǏƽǠƸǎ .ƣܵƾNjܵ Ƹܵ Ǎܵ ƣNJƱ ܼ ‫ ܀‬njNJ‫܀‬ ܸ ܼ ܼ ܿ NJܸ ƲǞǗNJ ܿ ܵ ܿ ‫ܘܐܦ ܬـ‬ .ƣƾNJƱܹƩ ƣƸܵ ƾܼ DŽ ƣܵƽ‫ܐܕܘ ܿܪܘܣ ܼܿܕ ܿܘ‬ ܹ ܼ ܵ ܿ ƣǞܹ ƾܼ Njǡ‫ ܼܬ‬ƣNjǖƯƪܼ LJ ƣܵƾNjǍƲƦ ܼ ǘǍܹ Ʋƽܼ ܿ ܵ .ƣܵƾNJ‫ܕ‬Ƣǡܹ ƣƦ‫ | ܪ‬ƥǠƾܼ ǂǡ ƥǠƽܼ ƯNJ ‫ܕ‬Ƴƾܼ LJ‫ܘܗܘܪ‬ ܼ ܵ ƴܿ ƣܵƽƲƴ ‫ܥ‬ƲǢ ܿ ܿ ܿ ƽ ƯƧǓ .ƣƾƧƦƳDžǔƦ ƣNjLJǠ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܼ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܿ ƣܹƾNjƾܼ NJ‫ܬ‬Ƣ ܼ ǡ‫ ܼܕ‬ƣDžܹ LJ‫ܥ ܼܕ‬ƱǢƾܼ NjNjƴܼܿ ̈ ܿ ܵ .ƣƾDŽƲƾǡ ƿNjƦ ƣƸܵ ƾܼ DŽ ƣNJǠܹ ƴ‫ ܐ‬ƤƢƾƪǍ ‫ܐܦ‬ ̈ ܵ ܿ ̈ ܿ ƣƦ‫ܕܐ‬ ̈ ǃƽ‫ܼ ܿܕܐ‬ ܵ .ƣƾLjܹƾǂǍ‫ ܘ ܸܐ‬ƣǡ̈ ƲƧDŽ ܼ ƿǢƾܼ ƧDŽ ƣDžƧܿ ƵLJ ܼ ̈ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܵ .ƣƾǍƲƸǍƲƽ‫ܕ‬ ܼ ܼ ƣLjܹ ƾܼ LJ‫ ܼܬ‬ƥǠLJ‫ ܐ‬ƣܵƽǤƾƦ‫ܕ‬ ܿ ‫ ܼܬ‬ƯǞ ƾܼ ǂƴܼ džƾǁܹ ‫ܵܗ‬ ܹ ǖܸ Ǥƽܼ ƢLj ܿ ܵ ܿ ܿ ‫܆‬Ǥƽܼ ƢǢƽܼ Ưǝ‫ܘ‬ ܼ ƱƾNjܹ ƧDŽܼ ܵ ܵ ܵ ‫܆‬Ǥƽܼ ‫ܐ‬Ưƾܼ Ǟǖ ƣNjǢDŽܹ ǫ njLJܼ ܿ .Ǥƽܼ ‫ܐ‬Ǡƽܼ Ǡǡ‫ ܘ‬ƣǞǎ ܹ ƾܼ ǎDžǞǝ‫ܼܐ‬ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܵ Ǥܼ ƽܼ ƢƧܼ ƽܼ Ǥǁ ܼ ƣNJƲNjǝ‫ ܘ‬ƲƦܼ Ǥܹ ǁ‫ܸܐܬ‬ ‫܆‬Ǥƽܼ ƢƧܵ ƾܼ Ƨƴܼܿ ‫ܘ‬ǤƾƦ ‫ܕܣ‬ƱNJƲǍ‫ܕ‬ ܼ ‫܆‬Ǥƽܼ ƢNjܵ ƽܼ ‫ܪܕ‬Ƴܼܿ Ʃ ƣLjܵ ܵƽƲǝ ܼ ‫ܐܦ‬ ܿ ܿ ‫܆‬Ǥƽܼ ‫ܐ‬ǜܵ ƽܼ ‫ ܬܪ‬ƣܵƾƧƩ ܼ ƥǠƾǓ‫ܼܘ‬ ܵ ܵ ̈ ǤƽƢNJǤǡƲǝ ܼ ܵ ƣǎܹ LJƲƷ‫ܕ‬ ܼ ƣNJ‫ܘܗܘ‬ ܵ ܼ .Ǥƽܼ ‫ܐ‬Ǡƽܼ ‫ ܘܕܗ‬Ǥƽܼ Ǡƾܼ Ǘǡ‫ ܘ‬ƣǢܵ ƽܼ Ưǝܼܿ džǁ‫ܕ‬ ܿ Ǥܼ ƽܼ ƢƵܵ ƾܼ Ƨǡ ƣNJܵ Ǡܹ ƴ‫ ܐ‬ƿƪ ܼ Ǎ‫ܘ‬ ܼ Mem. It is useful for us to destroy the heresy38 / and to pull down the wall that is full of heretical doctrine, / being armed with the faith of holiness / and saved from the word of curse / and delivered from abuse and from defilement, so that we may be seen in good order and excellence. Nun. Away with Nestorius, the son of Gehenna, the Satanic! / Also with Theodore, the wretched, cursed, who goes to Gehenna! / Joseph Busnaya, the blasphemous, who goes to the torments! / Hormizd, the abominable, the foul, the great demoniac! / Abdisho, the serpent, the basilisk, the

Belzebubish! / Hananisho, who is full of Satanism! / And many other accursed, sons of Sheol, / who, like perverse wolves put on the garbs and outward appearance / of the innocent dyophysite (diūsitōsāyā!)39 sheep of the household. So the Church (ekklēsiaskē!)40 wisely and holily / ordered to her sons / who are from this language [that is, Syriac] / in decrees and truly / and canons were also written in writing / and a council was convened in love, / and a constitution was written in the form of decrees / and an elect watcher in correctness, / and the mind of the Tomos41 in truth, / of all the saints and beautifully and carefully, and many other things gloriously.

Now what are these strange verses about? Why does Chandy condemn explicitly these East Syriac teachers? Has he ever read them, or read about them? And what kind of Council is he talking about? The verses themselves do not give an answer to these questions. However, something that, at first sight, looks like the direct source of the verses is found in another manuscript, MS Syr 46, of the same Mannanam library. Upon closer investigation, we will see that the text of this manuscript is not necessarily a direct source but rather a witness to Chandy’s source. The manuscript itself is a puzzle. Without question, it contains much of the literary output in Syriac of Francisco Roz, mentioned in Chandy’s Memra 7, including Roz’s letters to the Archdeacons, beginning in 1579/8042 (he arrived in India in 1578) as well as homilies, among which there is one written for the feast of Saint Thomas Apostle.43 The scholar Radu Mustaţa is working on its edition and translation44 and, together, we have established with a certain degree of probability that it could be written by Roz. However, some of the Syriac compositions in the manuscript must have belonged to another missionary

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 41

Alexander of the Port / Kadavil Chandy Kattanar _________________________________________________________________________________________

active in the 1560s at an unknown location. Some of his compositions are dated, and in fact the following notes are also present: “On the 11th of September, 1567 of the Lord”,45 and: “I wrote this in the church […]46 on the 3rd of August 1567.”47 As the material is mixed, it will be a difficult task to separate Roz’s Indian material from the material of the other missionary (missionaries?). There are also missionary treatises in Syriac on diverse dogmatic and canonical questions, one of which contains (or witnesses to) the direct source of Chandy’s verses cited above.48 Now, the style of this homily corresponds to what we know about that of Roz. This is confirmed by Chandy’s external witness, showing that he either knew this treatise, or, as he was Roz’s personal disciple, knew its content from Roz’s oral teaching. This text refutes the heresy of Dioscorus,49 then proceeds as follows: [124ra] Nestorius, together with the companions of his heresy, Theodore and Diodore, as well as the Syrian Nestorians, namely Joseph Busnaya, Hormizd, Abdisho and Hananisho and other Satanic people, in the disguisement of holiness lead astray many, when they say blasphemously that in Christ there are two persons and two natures but one will and when they deny about his blessed Bearer that she is the Bearer of God. And the Second Council of Ephesus of blind mind and deprived of the divine discernment, which was convened by the Nestorians, in certain things confirmed the truth but in other things diverted from it: while they confessed two natures, they did not confess the unity [of the two natures]; and, as to the two natures, they also confessed two persons in Christ.50 This council was followed by Narsai and Abraham, as well as John Bar Khaldon and others, whose names I am not listing here in order that my speech does not become too long. Therefore, because these, as rapacious,

violent and perverse wolves, entered the fold of the innocent sheep of the holy Church in order to destroy, plunder, confuse, blaspheme and speak wickedness in all these things that they say and in others that are similar to these, so it seemed to me proper that I give a report on the becoming and beautiful of the orthodoxy of the blessed Cyril, the famous teacher who, upon the order of Mar Pope Celestine directed the first council of Ephesus, [124rb] which was held against Nestorius and anathematised him, together with his associates.51

Here the author who, remarkably, believes the Second Council of Ephesus to be a Nestorian council, quits the historical introduction and begins to teach theology proper, which he attributes to Cyril of Alexandria but which he begins with a magisterial and lengthy argument on the incomprehensibility and absolute transcendence of God in the vocabulary of PseudoDionysius the Areopagite, translated from Latin. I would consider this predilection for Pseudo-Dionysius and for an abstruse theological speculation based on his teaching as one of the marks of Roz’s authorship. I would also identify Roz as the author of a Syriac translation, based on Ambrogio Traversari’s Latin translation, of PseudoDionysius’s Mystical Theology.52 The resemblance between this theological treatise and Chandy’s poetic passage is indeed remarkable. Thus, one might surmise that it is the direct source of Chandy’s poetry, which versifies the missionary’s prose, omits the doctrine and makes the discourse much more lively with poetic vilifications of the East Syrian theologians. Some of the images, such as the rapacious wolves plundering and destroying the innocent sheep, the Satanism of the heretic teachers, as well as the musings on “correct” and “incorrect” dyophysitism, remain the same. However, Roz’s explanatory sentences and Syriac vocabulary are substitut-

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 42

Alexander of the Port / Kadavil Chandy Kattanar _________________________________________________________________________________________

ed by unusual Greek expressions, such as diūphūsitōsāyā and ekklēsiastikē. But instead of the First Council of Ephesus, Chandy invokes Chalcedon, to which he attributes a Tomos, most probably that of Saint Leo. Apparently for the second part of his poem Chandy had a different source —one which is by no means inappropriate as Chalcedon also condemned Nestorius. In fact, if we accept Roz’s authorship for the theological treatise of Mannanam MS Syr 46, we do not have to suppose that Chandy necessarily read the text contained in that manuscript. As Roz was his teacher, Chandy could have used material taken from Roz’s oral teaching in classes given, as we know, in Syriac at the Vaipicotta seminary. Thus, the combination of the condemnation of precisely these authors with a reference to the council of Chalcedon may come from Roz’s oral teaching. I think this Quellenforschung is illustrative of the way in which Kadavil Chandy used some of his sources, i.e. versifying the learning acquired from his Jesuit teachers and incorporating it into traditional East Syriac poetic forms. Moreover, Mannanam MS Syr 63, among Kadavil Chandy’s poetry, also contains its literary model. This is Memra 3 in the manuscript, on foll. 44v49v, also composed upon the melody of the ‘ōnīthā “We worship…” and displaying very similar poetic features. Originally I thought that this poem was also by Chandy but, unexpectedly, I found it in a manuscript in another library under the name of “Gabriel of Mosul”.53 This implies that it was written by the thirteenth-century poet, Gabriel Qamṣā, a monk of the Monastery of Beth Qōqā, who was Metropolitan of Mosul in 1281. According to Anton Baumstark, Gabriel’s “main work is one of the most widely copied pieces of Syriac literature, a monstrous ‘ōnīthā, on the founder of the Beth Qōqā monastery, Sabrīshō, partly in twelve-syllable,

partly in eight-syllable rhyming verses, written in a bombastic language overloaded with Greek foreign words…”54

Now, Memra 3 seems to be one of the ‘ōnyāthā of Gabriel Qamṣā—though not the one mentioned and disparaged by Baumstark as “monstrous”; it certainly displays the same stylistic features, so much so that the scribe of our volume could not understand it and made it even more incomprehensible. Yet, apparently, the poetic form elaborated by Gabriel—as well as his heavily Hellenised, in Baumstark’s words “monstrous”, language—was the model for Chandy’s own poetic style. Thus, the aforementioned odd phrases, such as the use of Greek expressions and unusual Syriac words, which might shock a Syriacist reader, are not Chandy’s own creation but come from the East Syriac poetic tradition that he had chosen as his model. One must also say that, stylistic elements notwithstanding, Chandy’s poetry is much more accessible and enjoyable than that of Gabriel Qamṣā. There is one more possible source which remains unexamined at this stage: the local Malayalam poetic tradition, which was very rich, had a predilection for syllabic, rhyming verses and was fond of the alliterating techniques and wordplay, could very well have influenced Chandy’s complex style.

C. CONCLUSIONS It seems, to sum up, that the European humanist learning that Chandy acquired from Roz and other Jesuit missionaries was grafted upon a parallel humanist and Hellenising tradition—that of the medieval poetry of the Church of the East—and was perhaps also combined with Indian poetic trends. This unique blend has produced a poetic and epistolary output that is not only interesting but also new, original and entirely enjoyable.

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 43

Alexander of the Port / Kadavil Chandy Kattanar _________________________________________________________________________________________

APPENDIX: A LETTER BY KADAVIL CHANDY KATTANAR, ALIAS ALEXANDROS HENDWAYA OR L-MENAYA, TO POPE ALEXANDER VII FROM 1657 Witnesses: Kaniamparampil MS Syr 2 (K), foll. 387v-390v and Mannanam MS Syr 5 (M), foll. 11v –13r. As both copies contain mistakes, the reconstruction of the text can only be based on both witnesses. Yet, in general, K seems to represent a much better textual tradition and, so, whenever possible, the present translation follows the version of Father Kaniamparampil’s manuscript. The following is the translation of the text: [K 387v; M 11v] “To the one who is sitting on the glorious and holy and Petrine See of Rome,55 our Lord has called in his grace, placed in his love, and set up holily; its sheep are our shepherds, its servants are our lords, its sons are our fathers, its deacons are our rulers; to the Father of the fathers, the greatest Shepherd, the Head of the holy Christian Church of God, who has got all the authority over the ecclesiastic ranks,56 who rules in all things and is the master of all, to the holy Lord Pope Alexander the Eighth,57 peace! The most despicable and contemptible man from all the lump of Adam, a burnt up firebrand, who has withered in the fire58 of his debts, and has been burnt out in the flame of his sins, most wretched among the wretched, and a waste of the people, whose name should not be remembered in writing because of the great quantity of his vices and of his incorrect acts, however, in order that he may receive blessing and atonement from the mouth of your living Beatitude, [K 388v] makes known the name of his wretchedness, [M 12r] which is Presbyter Alexander the Indian, surnamed Of the Port, born at the faithful59 city of Kaduthurutthy60 in the diocese of Saint Thomas. Now, after asking for greetings from your

Beatitude, I am sending the cause of the present letter before the glorious and holy See of your Beatitude by the hands of the commissarius delegatus apostolicus,61 the venerable Carmelite pater62 Maria Joseph. For he, being strong amidst much labour and great distress and good in the care63 of voluntary love, came to us together with his beloved friends by the holy order of your Beatitude and found us as erring sheep without a shepherd who had been scattered throughout the regions of India among the pagans, who are under the rule of infidel kings;64 in due course, he let us know the holy sacra65 about all that your Beatitude has ordered. He saw all our ailing and wretchedness [K 389v] and gave us his love in his eyes, and he lifted upon his shoulders our affairs and our apology and our accusation as well as all the needs of ourselves and of our Church, so that he may come before your Beatitude. He would come and apologise on our behalf and whether good or bad, all that is [M 12v] with us, he would report truthfully to your Beatitude. May you listen to him with good will! And I, the most wretched man among all the wretched, have sent through his beloved hands before the glorious and holy See of your Beatitude a small writing, written by my madness on the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, which your Beatitude should give to a reader, so that he may see and read it, so that he may clearly make your Beatitude know all that is in it. O, Lord Reader! In love, supplication and petition66 I approach you and all those who will chance upon the poem of my madness,67 that, if they were to find in it some mistake or blunder, they should not hasten to dismiss it and to throw a stone of abuse on me [K 390v] but should illuminate my carelessness, feebleness and madness and should pray for me assiduously. And I am asking in my wretchedness from your Beatitude to give me from the

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 44

Alexander of the Port / Kadavil Chandy Kattanar _________________________________________________________________________________________

good blessings of your Beatitude, so that I may be nourished on them and sustain myself all the duration of my life, just like the dogs that are eating from the morsels falling from the tables of their masters (Mt 15:27). May the Lord lengthen your life of good and holy blessings and double your years and may He multiply his many blessings up-

on your Beatitude through the intercession of the prophets and the apostles your colleagues. Yes and amen. [M 13r] In the year one thousand six hundred fifty-seven of our Lord, on the 15th of the month of First Kānōn (December) this letter was written in the blessed city of Cochin68 abounding in the orthodox faith. Yes and amen.”69

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 45

Alexander of the Port / Kadavil Chandy Kattanar _________________________________________________________________________________________

NOTES 1

It is my most pleasant duty to extend my gratitude at least to some of those without whom this paper could never have been written. The Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and Hill Museum and Manuscript Library, Collegeville MN, who sponsored the SRITE digitisation project in Kerala. Special thanks are due to Father Columba Stewart, Executive Director of HMML and to Prof. Stephen Gerö, the recipient of the DFG grant at Tübingen University. Members of the Association for the Preservation of the Saint Thomas Christian Heritage (APSTCH), the NGO that has carried out the digitisation of the material treated here, and especially Father Ignatius Payyappilly, the Secretary of the APSTCH who has provided the Mannanam digital material for this study. 2 Alexander Toepel, “A letter from Alexander Kadavil to the Congregation of St. Thomas at Edapally,” in: D. Bumazhnov, E. Grypeou, T.B. Sailors, and A. Toepel (eds.), Bibel, Byzanz und Christlicher Orient. Festschrift für Stephen Gerö zum 65. Geburtstag, OLA 187 (Leuven: Peeters, 2011), 387–395. 3 Paragraph 20 of a memorandum submitted by Archdeacon Thomas to Dom Philip Mascarenhas, Viceroy of Portuguese India in 1645. See J. Kollaparambil, The St. Thomas Christians' Revolution in 1653 (Kottayam: Catholic Bishop’s House, 1981), 82. 4 See J. Thekkedathu, The Troubled Days of Francis Garcia S.J., Archbishop of Cranganore (1641-59), Analecta Gregoriana 187 (Rome: Università Gregoriana Editrice, 1972), 61-62; Kollaparambil, The St. Thomas Christians’ revolution in 1653, 140, 142, 147; J. Thekkedath (= Thekkedathu), History of Christianity in India. II. From the Middle of the Sixteenth to the End of the Seventeenth Century (1542-1700) (Bangalore: Theological Publications in India, 1982), 92. On the authenticity of the letters of Mar ‘Atallah, see J. Kollaparambil, The St. Thomas Christians’ revolution, 108-112, 145148, and also I. Perczel, “Four apologetic Church Histories from India,” The Harp 24 (2009) 189–217, here 211–217. Thomas’s other three advisors were the priests George Vendur, Ittithoman Anjilimutthil and Alexander Parambil, a cousin of Thomas who, in 1663, became

the first Indian archbishop of Cranganore; see also G. Sorge, L’ India di S. Tommaso. Ricerche storiche sulla chiesa Malabarica (Bologna: Editrice CLUEB, 1983), 73. 5 Cf. J. Kollaparambil, The Archdeacon of All-India, The Syrian Churches Series 5 (Kottayam: The Catholic Bishop's House, 1972), 152, 174. 6 Chandy is the Malayalam form of Alexander. On Kadavil Chandy Kattanar, seen from the Roman point of view, see P.J. Thomas, Malayāla Sahityāvum Christiyānikālum, Malayalam Literature and the Christians (Athirampuzha: St. Mary’s Press, 1935; second edition with additions by Scaria Zacharia: Kottayam: DC Books, 1989), 143–144. I owe this information to the late Fr. Antony Vallavanthara, who searched for and kindly translated the relevant passage for me. For an evaluation of Kadavil’s personality and role on the Jacobite side, see E.M. Philip, The Indian Church of St. Thomas (first published: Kottayam: E.P. Mathew Edavazhikal, 1908; second edition by Dr. Kuriakose Corepiscopa Moolayil: Cheeranchira, Changanacherry 686106: Mor Adai Study Centre, 2002), 135–137, and Curien Chorepiscopa Kaniamparampil, The Syrian Orthodox Church in India and Its Apostolic Faith (Detroit, MI: Rev. Philips Gnanasikhamony, 1989), 90–92. I received the first book from Fr. Kuriakose and the second from Fr. Curien Kaniamparampil. I thank them warmly for their kindness. 7 E. Thelly, “Syriac Manuscripts in Mannanam Library,” Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 56 (2004) 257–70. The manuscript is described on p. 261, where the discovery is briefly mentioned and the same manuscript is also listed on p. 267 among the breviaries of the collection. ܵ 8 ƤǤǢƾܼ Ƨƽܼ ܿ ‫ܒ‬Ǡǝ ƿNjܸ ǁ‫ ܕܐܬ‬This should be a Syriac translation of the Malayalam house name of the scribe. 9 This is perhaps the present-day township of Kalluvathukkal, in the Kollam district. 10 MS Mannanam Syr 99, fol. 337v. 11 The memrā occupies foll. 149r–160v. 12 About the poetic genre of the ōnīthā, see A. Baumstark, Geschichte der syrischen Literatur (Bonn: A. Marcus und E. Webers Verlag, 1922), p. 303–304.

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 46

Alexander of the Port / Kadavil Chandy Kattanar _________________________________________________________________________________________ 13

After correction. Both manuscripts containing the poem, that is, Mannanam MS Syr 63 ܿ ƧNJܿ , a word that does not seem to and 99 read ǠǢǞ ܼ ܼ exist in Syriac. 14 After correction. This reconstruction is entirely hypothetical. Clearly, the text is corrupt ܵ ƲNJ and M63 reads ƣǢܵ LJܵ ƲDŽ. here. M99 reads ƣǢLJ‫ܘ‬ ܸ ܼ None of these words has any meaning. ƣNjLJƲDŽ ܼ does not exist either but it can be a derivation from the verb ‫ܡ‬ƲDŽ ܼ ,: to draw nigh, come near, put on. Kadavil Chandy often creates new words. 15 After correction. Both M63 and M99 read Ǡƽܼ ƱƷ, an obvious mistake for Ǡƽܼ ‫ܬܗ‬. 16 This is a possible meaning of a corrupt word, which is difficult to reconstruct. See note 13 above. 17 See above, note 2. 18 Members of the Congregation supported the then Archdeacon Pakalomattam Thomas during his strife with Archbishop Garcia. See J. Thekkedathu, The Troubled Days of Francis Garcia, 25, 36. 19 See the Appendix for the entire letter in translation. 20 Joseph Maria Sebastiani, O.C.D. was Apostolic Commissary to India in 1655–58 and 1661–63. He carried Alexander’s letter to Rome in 1658. 21 That is, Sebastiani’s. ܵ 22 ܵ Ʋǁ‫ܕ‬ In the Syriac: ƯƪDŽ‫ܝ ܼܿܕ‬ǠǎLJ ǭ ‫ ̈ܘ‬Ưܵ ƽܼ ƢƦ ܼ ܿ ܿ ܵ ƣܵƾǞƾDŽƲƸǎǖ‫ܐ‬.ܼ 23 Sic K: ƣƸƾܼ DžLJǠǁܼܿ ƥǠǞƾܼ ܿ LJ ǠƸǖ ǘǍܸ Ʋܵƽ ljƽǠLJ. M ܵ ܵ ܿ writes: ƣƸܵ ƾܼ DžLJǠǁܼܿ ƥǠǞƾܼ ܿ LJ ‫ܝ‬ǠƸܼ ǖ ǘǍܹ Ʋܵƽ ljƽܼ ܿ ǠLJ. ܼ In M’s ܵ version, the dot underneath the ṭeth in ‫ܝ‬ǠƸܼ ǖ seems to indicate that the word is to be pronounced as th in the Portuguese Malayalam word pāthri or pāthiri (പാതരി or പാതിരി). 24 I discuss this phenomenon in “Classical Syriac as a modern lingua franca in South India between 1600 and 2006,” ARAM 21 (2009) 289–321. 25 I announced the discovery of Kadavil Chandy’s collected poems in “Classical Syriac as a modern lingua franca in South India;” ibid., 304–307. 26 If I understand correctly the text here, which is obviously corrupt. 27 With an interesting Syro-Hellenic expression: ƣNJǠƾܼ LJ‫ ܵܬܢ ܕ‬ƲDŽ apparently from the Greek ܼ ƲǂǍ‫ܕ‬: ܼ (di)daskalos.

28

Here comes an odd clause: “without the ܿ good Thomas” (ƣƧƷ ƣLJ‫ܘ‬Ƣ‫ܬـ‬ ƿDžƦ), which seems to be a locus corruptus. 29 After emendation, as the text is corrupt here. 30 After emendation: džDžǂǡ instead of ‫ܠ‬Ưǡ. 31 ܿ ƽǠƩ‫ܐ‬, which I do Here stands the word ƲǞ ܼ not understand. Does it come from ƥǠܼ ƾܼ Ʃ‫ܐ‬: catechumen? 32 See I. Perczel with the contribution of A. Toepel, “What Can a Nineteenth-Century Syriac Manuscript Teach Us about Indian Church History?: On MS Ernakulam MAP Syr 7” PO 33 (2008) 245–265. 33 On this, see Radu Mustaţa, Codex Syriacus Mannanam 46 and a homily by Francisco Roz on Saint Thomas, MA thesis written at Central European University, Department of Medieval Studies, 2014, which will be published in a scholarly journal. 34 Here the text is somewhat confused but this seems to be the meaning. 35 See Book I, chapter XVII in António de Gouvea, Jornada do Arcebispo de Goa Dom Frey Aleixo de Menezes Primaz da India Oriental, Religioso da Orden de S. Agostino (Coimbra : Officina de Diogo Gomez, 1606), fol. 57ra and 58ra. For an English translation see Pius Malekandathil (ed), Jornada of Dom Alexis de Menezes: A Portuguese Account of the Sixteenth Century Malabar (Kochi: LRC Publications, 2003), 230–31 and 235. 36 After emendation: ƣܵƽƯƦܸ . The manuscript ܵ has ƣƽƯǝܸ here, which is meaningless. 37 There is wordplay here using the homonܿ LJܵ ܵ LJܸ “advice”, ƣǂDž ܵ LJܼ ܿ “king”, ƣǁܵ ƲDž ymy between ƣǂDž ܿ ̈ܿ “advisor” and ƣǁܹ ƢDžܼ LJܼ “angels”. 38 I am indicating with italics and underlining expressions and passages whose sources— or rather, parallels—will be cited following. 39 ܿ Ʋƽ‫ܕ‬, The scribe of the MS writes ƣܵƾǍܵ ƲƸǍ ܼ ܿ ܵ which is to be corrected to ƣܵƾǍƲƷ‫ـ‬Ǎ Ʋƽ‫ܕ‬. ܼ ܼ ܿ 40 The scribe of the MS writes ƣǞǎ ܹ ƾܼ ǎDžǝ‫ܐ‬,ܼ which is to be corrected to ƣǝ< ܹ ‫ ܼـ‬ƾƷ>‫ـ‬ǎƾܼ ǎDžܹ ǝ‫ ܸܐ‬. 41 That of Pope Leo? 42 MS Mannanam Syr 46, fol. 192r-195v contain a collection of anonymous Syriac letters written in the late-16th and early-17th centuries. Several can be definitively identified as written by Francisco Roz.

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 47

Alexander of the Port / Kadavil Chandy Kattanar _________________________________________________________________________________________ 43

Ibid., fol. 68r-70v. Radu Mustaţa, Codex Syriacus Mannanam 46 and a homily by Francisco Roz on Saint Thomas, see above in note 33. 45 MS Mannanam Syr 46, fol. 37v. 46 Perhaps, there is a lacuna here. One would expect “the church of such and such a city” etc. 47 Ibid. fol. 113r. 48 Ibid. fol. 123v-135r. 49 I am indicating in italics the passages that are parallel with Chandy’s text, cited above. 50 This is how I would understand the complicated Syriac sentence which reads as folܿ ܵ njƽ‫ܕ‬ƲLJܵ Ǥƽ‫ܐ‬ǜƽ‫ ܬܪ‬ƣDŽܵ ƣNjܵƾǁ njƽ‫ ܹܪ‬ǤƦ Ưǁ‫ ܕ‬ǫ lows: njƽ‫ ܼܿܘܬ ܹܪ‬.Ƥ‫ܬ‬ƲNJܼ ƯƵƦ ܹ ܵ ܼ ܼ ܵ ̈ ܵ .njƽ‫ܕ‬ƲLJ ƣƵƾܼ ǢLjƦ ƣLJƲNjǝ njƽ‫ ܐܦ ܬ ܹܪ‬njƾܼ Nj̈ ܵƾǁ 51 Ibid. fol. 124ra-rb. 52 The translation is contained in Ernakulam Major Archbishop’s Palace MS Syr 7, fol. 508r–512r. For the time being this is the only copy that I have found of this translation. On this manuscript see: I. Perczel with the contribution of A. Toepel, “What Can a NineteenthCentury Syriac Manuscript Teach Us about Indian Church History?” mentioned above in note 32, here 253–54. That the Syriac translation was made on the basis of the Latin version by Ambrogio Traversari, was established by Sebastian Brock (in a personal letter dated 21 October 2004), see ibid., 254, n. 26. When writing the above study I was not yet confident that the author of the translation was Roz, so I tentatively proposed the Chaldean patriarch Joseph II of Amid (1696–1713). This suggestion is to be rejected, as we are now fairly certain that Roz is indeed the author. 53 Unfortunately, I have misplaced the references and so cannot indicate here where the 44

other copy is to be found. 54 A. Baumstark, Geschichte der syrischen Literatur, 323. 55 ܵ ̄ ƣƾNjLJ‫ܕܪܗ ܿܘ‬. 56 Sic M correctly; K: “and the ecclesiastic ranks”—erroneously. 57 The appellation “Alexander the Eighth” is erroneous. The Pope Alexander who ruled in 1657 was in fact seventh among the popes bearing that name. 58 Sic K correctly; M: “in the light”—erroneously. 59 “Faithful” is omitted from M. 60 According to both manuscripts: Kartthurathy. ܵ 61 ܵ Ʋǁ‫ܕ‬ In the Syriac: ƯƪDŽ‫ܝ ܼܿܕ‬ǠǎLJ ǭ ‫ ̈ܘ‬Ưܵ ƽܼ ƢƦ ܼ ܿ ܿ ܵ ƣܵƾǞƾDŽƲƸǎǖ‫ܐ‬.ܼ 62 Sic in K, using the Latin term. M: “Padri” using the Portuguese. It is probably the second, more common, term, which is secondary. Joseph Maria Sebastiani, O.C.D. was Apostolic Commissary in 1655-58 and 1661–63. 63 After correction; “Good and the care” MSS. 64 Sic K correctly; M: “infidel king” in singular, perhaps erroneously. 65 Sic! Sacra means here an official papal letter. 66 Sic in K. M: “in love, supplication of petition”, which is apparently a scribal error, writing a dālath instead of a ܵ waw. ܵ 67 Sic in K: ‫ ܼܬܝ‬ƲƸ M: ‫ ܼܬܝ‬ƲƸ ܼ ƾܼ ǡ ƯƩ‫ܪ‬ƲǎƦ; ܼ ܼ ƾܼ Ʀ ƯƩ‫ܪ‬ƲǎƦ ܼ without a sense; apparently a scribal error. 68 Sic in K. M: “in the blessed city of Kaduthuruthy”—probably by error, inspired by the fact that the author was born in Kaduthuruthy. 69 This second “yes and amen” is missing from M.

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 48

Alexander of the Port / Kadavil Chandy Kattanar _________________________________________________________________________________________

Figure 1 Mannanam, St Joseph's CMI Monastery, MS Syr 63, fol. 106v-107r: The beginning of Kadavil Chandy's memra on the life of Francisco Roz

Figure 2: Mannanam, St Joseph's CMI Monastery, MS Syr 99, fol. 149r: The beginning of Kadavil Chandy's memra on the Eucharist and the Incarnation

________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 49

______________________________________________________________________

THE ROMANCE OF AḤĪQĀR THE WISE IN NEO-ARAMAIC MS LONDON SACHAU 9321: PART ONE, EDITION AND TRANSLATION

EMANUELA BRAIDA UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO

INRODUCTION

T

he Neo-Aramaic version of Aḥīqār preserved in the MS London Sachau 9321 is written in the literary variant of the dialect spoken in Alqosh (Northern Iraq). The dialect of Alqosh belongs to the branch of North-Eastern NeoAramaic (NENA), the largest and most varied branch of Neo-Aramaic. The town of Alqosh was for centuries a centre of literary activity and here the earliest Christian Neo-Aramaic literature was written as far back as the 16th century. Being a literary language, the Alqosh dialect cannot be considered just a written transposition of a vernacular, since it is grounded in an earlier literary language (Syriac), a linguistic heritage that draws from multiple local spoken languages, and a number of loanwords mainly from Arabic, Kurdish and Persian languages.1 The Aḥīqār version preserved in the MS London Sachau 9321 has been written with a full diacritical system in which all the vowels, plural marker, linea occultans, diacritical points and signs are meticulously reported, resulting in an overpunctuated text with such a lattice of signs

that reading is sometimes hampered rather than facilitated.2 The vowels are marked with the pointing system usually employed in the Eastern Syriac Maḏnḥāyā tradition, which uses a system of dots above or below letters to indicate vowels: a or ă = ‫ ; ܿ ܼܒ‬ā or â =‫ ; ܵܒ‬e or ĕ = ‫ ; ܸܒ‬ē or ê =(‫ ; ܹܒ)ܝ‬i or ī = ‫ ; ܼܝ‬o or ō = ‫ ; ܿܘ‬u or ū = ‫ܼܘ‬ In the case of a/ā and e/ē, however, the alternation between long and short vowels appears to be sometimes unpredictable, although some general rules are mostly followed: long vowels are almost regularly marked in open syllables whereas short vowels occur in closed syllables. However, it is not uncommon to find various vowel alternations in the same word within a few lines, even in personal names, e.g.: ’Aḥiqar and ’Aḥiqār, Senḥārīḇ and Sanḥārīḇ, ’Esarḥaddom and Sarḥaddom. In the case of diphthongs av and aw, usually pronounced [o], sometimes they are ܵ ܵ ܿ spelled accordingly: e.g. ‫ܓ ܿ ܪܐ‬, gorā > ‫ܓ ܼܒ ܐ‬, ܼ gavrā, ‘man, husband’.3 Almost all the consonants begadkepat are marked by a dot above in the case of hard pronunciation and by a dot below in

________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 50

The Romance of Aḥīqār the Wise in the Neo-Aramaic MS London Sachau 9321 _____________________________________________________________________________________

the case of spirantized allophone. This was not a common practice in Syriac, where the allophones of the begadkepat were established by precise phonological rules. Since the spirantization is no longer deduced from the syllabic pattern in Neo-Aramaic, it has to be noted in modern texts with greater consistency than in Classical Syriac. In fact, the Neo-Aramaic litterae begadkepat rarely alternate their hard and spirantized allophones according to the rules of the Syriac phonology, but usually remain hard or spirantized in all forms of their stem pattern depending on their hard or spirantized aspect in the active participle.4 In the case of /b/, /g/, /d/, /k/, /t/, the two realizations have been preserved but they have been phonemicized, so that we can find a plosive sound after a vowel or a fricative sound at the beginning of a word. In the case of /b/ both plosive and spirantized pronunciations are marked, although the spirantized allophone /v/ is often pronounced [w] when preceded by a vowel (e.g. ‫ ܵ ܼܵܒܐ‬, ṭāwā, ‘good’). For this reason the graphic merging of /v/ ‫ ܼܒ‬and /w/ ܵ instead of ‫ ܵܒ‬, ‘to do’) frequently ‫( ܘ‬e.g. ‫ܐ ܸܘܕ‬, ܸ occurs, where the grapheme /v/ usually represents the historical spelling of the word. In the case of /g/ a dot below a Gamal is commonly used for writing Arabic /ġ/ (e.g. ‫ܓ ܼ ܿ ܼ ܵ ܼܬ ܼܘܟ‬, ܼ ‘your servants’, from Arabic ‫)غالم‬, whereas a tilde under the letter indicates /j/, mainly found in Arabic loanwords (e.g. ܿ ܵ ‫ ܵܓ‬, ‘answer’), sometimes in Kurdish ‫ܐܒ‬ ̰ loanwords (e.g. ‫ ̰ܓ ܼ ܹ ܐ‬, ‘cloth’). Regarding /k/ spelled as a kap with a dot below, the merging of /ḵ/ and /ḥ/ is very common (e.g. ‫ ܼܿ ܵ ܐ‬, ‘five’, instead of ‫) ܼ ܿ ܵ ܐ‬. With Arabic loanwords, /ḵ/ can merge with /ḥ/ (e.g. ‫ܙ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܵܬܐ‬,ܼܿ ‘crush, crowd’, from Arabic ‫ )زحام‬and /ḫ/ as well (e.g. ܸ ܸ , ‘nature’, from Arabic ‫)خلق‬. The frequent merging of /ḵ/, /ḥ/ and /ḫ/ bears obvious witness to a

common pronunciation [x] of the three letters. In the case of /p/ the fricative allophone is lost and the plosive allophone is generalized to all contexts. However, the phoneme /f/ is common since it has been introduced from loanwords. In this case a dot (sometimes thicker than usual dots) above the consonant has been adopted to mark the fricative sound [f] (e.g. ܹ ܸ ̇ , fahemlēh, ‘he understood’, from the Arabic root fhm). The merging of /’/ and /c/ is frequent in both Syriac words and Arabic loanwords, where /’/ usually replaces an etymological ܿ c ayn (e.g. ‫ ܸܐ ܼ ܟ‬instead of ‫ ܼ ܼ ܟ‬, ‘with you’). c Sometimes / / in non-initial position may be elided (e.g. ‫ ܸܕ ̈ ܹ ܐ‬instead of ‫ ܸܕ ̈ ܹ ܐ‬, ‘tear’). ̇ usually A thick dot upon a ṣade (‫)ܨ‬ indicates /ḍ/ as in ‫ ̇ ܸ ܼܝ‬, ‘green’, from Arabic ‫خضير‬, whereas a thick dot upon a ̇ usually indicates /ẓ/ as in ‫ ܿ̇ ܼ ܵܪܐ‬, ṭet (‫)ܛ‬ ‘noon’, from Arabic ‫ظھيرة‬. However, the rendering of /ḍ/ and /ẓ/ is extremely fluctuating and they are often interchanged.

EDITION AND TRANSLATION The Sachau collection includes a bilingual Arabic-Sureth story of Aḥīqār preserved in MS London Sachau 9321, f. 536b-620b. It was written in the Alqosh koine and translated into Arabic by the priest Jibrail Quryaquza5 around the year 1897, the NeoAramaic being on pages b of the manuscript and the Arabic translation on the opposite pages a. While the Arabic text is written in a careless cursive handwriting, the Neo-Aramaic text is neat and fully vocalized. The following is an edition and translation of the Story of Aḥiqār, both published for the first time. A detailed presentation of the manuscript and a literary analysis of the story will be published in a forthcoming issue in JCSSS.

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 51

The Romance of Aḥīqār the Wise in the Neo-Aramaic MS London Sachau 9321 _____________________________________________________________________________________

The Story of Aḥīqār the Wise Who Served before the Assyrian kings Senḥārīḇ and Esarḥadom [538] Chapter One. In the days of Senḥārīḇ and Esarḥadom, kings of Aṯor and Nineveh, there was a man named Aḥīqār the Wise, scribe and counsellor of the [above] mentioned kings. He remained constantly in their service without fault. When Senḥārīḇ, King of Assyria, died in the year six hundred and seventy-nine before Christ, Aḥīqār spoke to himself and said thus: “I, Aḥīqār, have grown old and I have also served Esarḥadom son of Senḥārīḇ.” Then the magicians and all the astrologers said to me: “You will have a son who will inherit all your wealth.” [539] When they said this to me, I married sixty women and built sixty large and fine rooms for them. Having reached sixty years without sons, then I, Aḥīqār, went to offer sacrifices to the gods. I burnt incense before them and said to them: “O gods, give me a son in whom I may rejoice and who, when I die, may be my heir, because the possessions I owned are many.” But the idols did not answer him at all and he went6 home [540] from the temple7 confused and grieved. He began to implore and pray before God with a contrite heart, saying: “God of the heavens and of the earth, Creator of [all] creatures! Behold and see my tears and my supplication. Give me a son, that I may rejoice through him, that he may be my heir, that he may be present at my death to close my eyes and bury me.” Then a voice came, saying to him: “Since you erred, trusting in idols, and burned incense before them, but you did not trust in me, for this reason, I left you without a son, but let this suffice and grieve not, for behold, Nādān, your sister’s son, will be [541] a son for you. When he grows up you will be able to teach him everything.” So when I heard these things I grew sad again and said: “O Lord, mighty God! If you give Nādān, son of my sister, to me as a son,

ܵ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܼ ܼ ܵ ܼ ‫ܸ ܸ ܬܐ ܼܕܐ ܼ ܼ ܿ ܼ ܐ ܕ ܸ ܼ ܹ ܵ ܸ ܼ ܕ‬ ‫ܘ ܸܐ ܼܿ ܼ ܿ ܿܘܡ ܿ ܼ ܹ̈ܐ ܵܐ ܼܬ ܿܘ̈ܪ ܹ ܐ܆‬ ܿ ܵ ̈ܿ ܵ ܵ ‫[ ܪ ܵ ܐ‬538] ܵ ܼ ܼ ܵ ܼ ‫ܵܐ܆ ܸܐ ܼܬܘܐ ܒ ܵܐ ܕ‬ ܹ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܵ ̈ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܹ ܸ ‫ܘ ܸܐ ܼ ܼ ܿ ܘܡ ܼ ܹ ܐ ܕܐ ܼܬܘܪ ܘ ܼ ̈ ܹ ܐ ܼ ܐ ܼܓ ܼܒ ܐ ܕ‬ ܿ ‫ܿܐ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܐ ܘ ܵ ܵ ܵܒܐ‬ .‫ܘܘ ܿ ܼ ܵ ܐ ܕ ܿ ܼ ܹ̈ܐ ܕ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܐ‬ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܵ .‫ܹܘ ܿܒ ܵ ܐ ܹ ܼܘ ܼ ܵܬܐ ܼ ܐ ܸܘ ܐ ܒ ܸ ܸ ܼ ܼ ܕ ܐ ܸ ܐ‬ ܵ ‫ܿ ܵܐ‬ ܵ ܵ ‫ܕܐܬ ܿܘܪ ܒ‬ ܿ ‫ܐܬܐ‬ ܼ ܼ ܼܼ ܵ ܸ ܹ ܼ ܸ ‫ܼܕ‬ ܵ ‫ܕܐ ܵ ܐܐ ̈ ܐ ܘܬ ܿ ܐ ܘ ܿ ܒܐܝ‬ ‫ܼ ܵ ܐ ܸ ܵ ܹܐ‬ ܸ ܸ ܸ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼܸ ܵ ‫ܿܐ‬ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܼ ܼ ܼ ‫ ܪ ܹܒ‬.‫ܸܐ ܸ ܓ ܹ ܘ ܐ ܸ ܗ ܼܕܟ ܼ ܕ‬ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܿ ‫ܼ ܒ ܼ ܐ ܐ ܐ ܼܐ ܼ ܸܘ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܼܗܡ ܸܐ ܼ ܼ ܘܡ ܸܒ ܕ‬ ܿ ‫ ܹܐ ܿ ܼܓ ܵ ܐ ܹ ܼ ܝ ܵ ܼ ܼ ܼܿ ܵ ܹ ܐ ܘ ܵ ܵ ܹ ܐ ܒ ܵ ܸ ܼ ̈ ܹܒܐ‬. ܼ ܼ ܵ ܸ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܿ ‫ܗܘ‬ ܼ ‫ܗܘ ܵܐ ܵ ܼ ܟ ܘܐ‬ ܼ ܹ ‫ ܸܕܒ ܘ ܵ ܐ ܼ ܐ ܒ‬. ܼ ܼ ܼ ‫ ܘ ܼ ܕ ܵܐ ܼܕܝ‬. ܹ ܼ ‫[ ܕ ܼ ܼ ܟ‬539] ‫ܹܒ ܵ ܸ ܼܬ ܵ ܐܠ‬ ܿ ܿ ̈ ܼ ܼ ܵ ܼ ܹ ‫ܸ ܼܐ ܼ ܼ ܓ ܹܒ ܼܝ ܒ ܹܐ ܵ ܼ ܹܐ ܹ ܐ ܹܘܒ‬ ܵ ‫ ܘ ܼ ܕ‬.‫ܹܐ ܼ ܼܐܘ ܵܕ ܵܬܐ ܕ ܼܿ ܒ ܼ ܐ ̈ܪ ܹܒܐ ܘ ܵ ܹ̈ܒܐ ܼܿܘ ܵ ܐ‬ ܵ ‫ܗܘ ܹ ܼ ܒ ܿܘ ܵ ܐ ܹܐ ܿ ܼܓ ܵ ܐ‬ ܹ ‫ܸ ܼ ܸܒ ܕ ܸܐ ܼ ܸ ܹ̈ܐ ܘ ܐ‬ ‫ܵܐ ܵ ܐ ܼܿܐ ܼ ܵ ܹܐ ܹܙ ܼ ܘ ܼ ܸ ܼܒ ܼ ܸܕ ܼܒ ܹ ̈ ܐ ܵܬܐ ܼܿܐ ܵ ̈ ܐ‬ ‫ ܵܐ ܼܿܐ ܵ ̈ ܐ‬. ܼ ܿ ܹ ܹ ‫ܸܘܕ ܹܪ ܼ ܵ ܿ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܸܒ ̈ ܹ ܐ ܘ‬ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܿ ‫ܒܓ ܹ ܚ ܘ ܼ ܕ ܿ ܼ ܸ ܢ ܼ ܿܬܕ‬ ܸ ܼ ‫ܼܗ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܐ ܒ ܘ ܵ ܐ ܕ‬ ܵ .‫ܵ ܸ ܼܬ ܼ ܼܿ ܿ ܼܒ ܕ ܼܿ ܒ ܼ ܐ ̄ ܹ ܹ ܵ ܵ ܐ ܕ ܸ ܵܐ ܸܘܢ‬ ‫ܿ ܼܒ ܵ ܡ ܼܿܨ ܵ ̈ ܹ ܐ ܐ ܸ ܓ ܿ ܿ ܼܒ ܹ ܼ ܵܐ ܸ ܸ ܡ ܒ ܼ ܵ ܵ ܼ ܼ ܵܬܐ‬ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܼ ‫[ ܹܒ‬540] ‫ܘܕ ܹܐ ܹܝ ܒ ܸ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܵܬܐ ܸܘܒ ܼ ܿ ܵ ܐ‬ ‫ܕܨ ܵ ̈ ܹ ܐ‬ ܼ ܼܿ ܿ ܿ ܵ ‫ܹܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ܸ ‫ܹܐ ܘ‬ ܸ ܹ ‫ܹܒ ܹ ܗ ܸܘ ܼ ܹܪ‬ ܵ‫ ܵܐ ܼܿܐ ܵ ܵ ܐ ܸܕ ܿ ܼ ܐ‬. ܹ ܵ ‫ܒ ܸ ܵܒܐ ܹ ܵܐ ܵ ܸ ܵ ܵܐ ܘ‬ ܵ ̈ ܵ ܿ ܼ ܹ ܿ ‫ ܵܐ ܵܒ ܵܐ ܕ ܸܒ ܵ ܵ ܼ ܿ ܕ ܸܘ ܼ ܼܝ ܼܕ ܐ ܼܝ ܘ‬.‫ܘܐܪܐܐ‬ ܼ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܵ . ܼ ‫ܸ ܒܓ ܸ ܗ ܘ ܸ ܼܬ‬ ‫ܕܬܕ‬ ܼ ‫ܘܗ ܼ ܼ ܐ ܒ ܘ ܐ‬ ܼ ‫ ܹܐ ܿ ܼܓ ܵ ܐ‬.‫ܘ ܵ ܿ ܹ ܪ ܒ ܿ ܼܬ ܼܝ ܘ ܵ ̰ܓ ܹ ܵ ܼ ܸܐ ̈ ܼ ܘ ܵ ܼ ܹܒ ܼܝ‬ ‫ܹ ܼܟ‬ ‫ ܸܒ‬. ܹ ܵ ܸ ܵ ‫ܵ ܵ ܐ ܕ‬ ܹ ܹ ܼ ܼ‫ܐ‬ ܿ ܵ ‫ܟ ܐ ܿܐ ܵ ̈ ܐ ܘܕܪ ܟ‬ ܿ ̈‫ܒ ܐ‬ ܼ ܹ ܸ ܹ ܼ ܸ ܸ ܼ ܸ ‫ܸܘ ܼܬ‬ ܹ ܸ ܼ ܼ ‫ܘ ܸܐ ܼ ܵ ܐ ܬ ܹ ܼ ܟ ܼܿ ܿ ܼܒ ܵܐ ܼܕܝ ܕ ܵ ܐ ܐ ܵ ̈ ܐ‬ ܿ ‫ܹ ܼܿ ܼܒ ܸ ܼ ܟ ܹܘ ܵ ܹ ܼ ܟ ܵ ܐ ܼ ܸ ܿ ܸܐ ܵ ܐ ܼܿܘ ܹ ܐ ܵ ܵ ܢ‬ ܵ ܵ .‫[ ܒ ܿܘ ܵ ܐ‬541] ‫ܗܘ ܵܗ ܹܘܐ ܵ ܼ ܟ‬ ܼ ‫ܸܒ ܕ ܼ ܼ ܼܘܟ ܐ‬ ܿ ܵ ‫ܿ ܿ ܹܐ ܼ ܠ‬ ‫ܪܒ ܵܐ ܕ ܵ ܸ ܹ ܗ ܐ ܼ ܿܒ ܼ ܟ‬ ܸ ‫ܘ ܸܐ‬ ܼ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܵ .‫ܹ ܼ ܸ ܼ ܼ ܓ ܸ ܬܐ‬ ܼ ‫ ܘ ܕ ܐ‬.‫ܹ ܼܝ‬ ܵ‫ ܸܐ ܢ ܼ ܵܒ ܒ ܿܘ ܐ‬.‫ܘܐ ܼ ܹ ܼܝ ܵܐ ܵ ܵܐ ܼܿܐ ܵ ܵ ܐ ܹ ܵ ܵ ܐ‬ ܼ ܸ ܵ ܵܵ ܼ ܼ ܼ ‫ܢ ܹܒ ܕ‬

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 52

The Romance of Aḥīqār the Wise in the Neo-Aramaic MS London Sachau 9321 _____________________________________________________________________________________

that he may [throw] earth over me after my death and close my eyes, will he be my heir or not?” But He did not answer any of these words. Then I took Nādān, my sister’s son. He became to me a son, whom I raised that he may receive whatever I taught him. And because he was a child, I entrusted him into the hands of nurses to raise him [542], being fed on honey and butter, growing up on carpets of all kinds, and dressed in robes of silk and purple. My son Nādān grew up and I began to teach him the Book of Wisdom without ceasing. King Esarḥadom’s question: When the king returned from whence he had been, he said to me: “O Aḥīqār, scribe, wise man, and keeper of my secrets, when you grow old and die, who will teach me wisdom?” Aḥīqār’s answer to the king: Then I answered and said to the king: “My Lord and King, may you live for ever! [543] I have a son, who is wise as I am and who also knows my writings.” Then the king said to me: “Bring him that I may see him, if it is possible for him to stay in my presence, [then] he will stay by my side. As for you I will leave you in peace that you may spend your old age every day of your life in peace.” Afterwards, I brought Nādān, my son, into the presence of King Esarḥadom; I brought him before him, and when the king saw him, he was pleased with him and said to him: “Today the horn of salvation is raised for Aḥīqār.” And he said: “The Lord protects you, my son. [544] As Aḥīqār had ministered before me and before my father Senḥārīḇ and was rewarded, in the same way Nādān his son [shall stand] before me and now Aḥīqār will spend a life of rest in his own home.” Then I, Aḥīqār, paid homage to the king, testified, and said: “My Lord and King, may you live forever! As you know, I walked before you and before your father. May you too be patient with my son’s youth, so that your favour towards me may be seen double, O my Lord the King.” Then King Esarḥadom [545] took oaths

ܵ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܼ ̈ ‫ܼ ܕ ܼܐܘ ܐ ܸܐ ܼ ܒ ܸ ܪ ܼܬ ܼܝ ܘ ̰ܓ ܹ ܵ ܼ ܐ‬ ܵ ܵ ̣ ‫ ܘ ܐ ܼ ܕ ܹܐ ܹܗ ܵ ܼ ܸ ܼܝ‬.‫ܵ ܹ ܼܬ ܼ ܵ ܐ‬ ܿ ܵ ̈ܵ ܵ ܵ ܵܵ ܼ ܵ ܼ ܹ ‫ ܸܐ ܼܓ ܵ ܐ‬. ܵ ‫ܐ ܼ ܬ‬ ܼ ܼ ܼ ‫ܢ ܸܒ ܕ‬ ‫ ܵܐ ܵܘܐ ܸܕ ܿ ܼ ܹܒ ܹ ܗ ܿ ܠ‬.‫ܗܘ ܹ ܵ ܼ ܒ ܿܘ ܵ ܐ‬ ܹ ‫ܸܘ‬ ܿ‫ܝ ܕ‬ ܿ ܿ ‫ ܘ ܿ ܿܒ‬. ‫ܿܬܕ ܵ ܒ‬ ܵ‫ܕܙܘ ܵܪܐ ܹܘ ܐ‬ ܼ ܹܹ ܼ ܼ ܸ ܼܼ ܹ ܹ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܵ ̈ ܵ ܿ [542] ܹ ‫ܼܬܕ ܼ ܹܒ‬ ܼ ܼ ܼ ‫ܸ ܵ ܸ ܹ ܒܐ ܼ ܸ ܕ ܕ‬ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܼ ‫ܼ ܹܪ ܼܒ ܵܐ ܸܐ‬ ܹ ܸ ‫ܘ ܸ ܹ ܕ ܼܒ ܐ ܒ ܼ ܼܒ ܐ ܘ ܼ ܼܐܐ ܘ‬ ܿ ܵܵ ̈ ‫ ܘ ܸ ܹ ܐ ܼ ܹ ܿܒ ܵ ܐ ܼ ̰ܓ ܹ ܐ‬.‫ܕܬ ܹ̈ܪܙܐ ܼ ܿܬ ܹ̈ܪܙܐ‬ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܿ ܿ‫ܒ ܘ‬ ܵ‫ܵ ܢ‬ ܵ ܵܿ ܼ ܼ ܹ ‫ܘܐ̈ܪ ̰ܓ ܹܐ ܸܘܪ ܹܒ‬ ܸ ܼ ‫ܼܕܐܒ‬ ܵ ‫ܼ ܿ ܹܐ ܹ ܐ ܕ ܸ ̱ ̈ ܼ ܵ ܕ ܵ ܐ‬ ܹ ‫ܸܘ ܼ ܪ‬ ‫ܵ ܐܐ܆‬ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܹ ܹ ܼ ‫ ܘ ܼ ܕ ܐ‬.‫ܒ ܼ ܘ ܐ ܕ ܸܐ ܼ ܼ ܿ ܘܡ ܼ ܐ‬ ‫ ܵܐ‬. ܼ ܵ ‫ܿ ܼ ܵܐ ܹܐ ܵܐ ܹܕܙ ܵ ܐ ܹ ܐ ܼ ܹ ܹܗ‬ ܵ ‫ܼܿܐ ܼ ܵ ܵ ܼ ܵ ܼܵܒܐ ܘ ܼ ܿ ܼ ܵ ܐ ܘ ܸܒ ܕܐ̄ܪ ܵܙܐ ܕ ܼ ܼܐܝ ܼ ܕ‬ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܵ . ܼܵ ܼ ܸ ܼ ܸ ܿ ܼ ‫ܐ ܸܒ ܘ ܼ ܹ ܬ‬ ܵ ‫ܵܓ ܵ ܐܒ ܿܕܐ‬ ‫ ܹܐ ܿ ܼܓ ܵ ܐ‬.‫ܿ ܼ ܵܐ‬ ܼ ܼ ̰ ܼ ‫̰ܓ ܼ ܹܘܒ‬ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܵ [543] ܼ ܼ ܼ ‫ܘ ܹ ܼܝ ܬܐ ܼ ܐ ܸܐ ܼܕ ܼܝ ܼ ܐ‬ ‫ ܐ ܸ ܼ ܒ ܿܘ ܵ ܐ ܕ ܸ ܼ ܵ ܼܬ ܼܝ ̄ ܹ ܼ ܿ ܼ ܵ ܐ ܹܘ ܵ ܼ ܵ ܼܵܒܐ‬. ‫ܼܿܐ ܿ ܼܒ‬ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܼ ‫ܕ ܼ ܼܐܝ ܐ‬ ܹ ܼ ܼ ܼ .‫ ܹܐ ܼܓ ܵ ܐ ܹ ܹ ܼ ܼ ܐ‬.‫ܗܘ ܵ ܹ ܐ‬ ܵ ‫ ܵܐ‬. ܵ ‫ ܘܐ ܢ ܿܒ ܵܐ ܿܬܕ‬. ܵ ‫ܕ‬ . ܼ ‫ܹܓ ܒ‬ ܼ ܸ ܸ ‫ܗܘ‬ ܹ ܼ ܼ ܹܹܼ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܵ ‫ܘܐ ܸ ܹܒ ܹ ܸ ܸܒ ܼ ܟ ܸܒ ܐ ܼܬܕ ܼ ܒ ܹܬ ܸ ܒ ܼ ܼܬ ܼܘܟ‬ ܿ ‫ ܵܒ ܸ ܪ ܸܕܟ‬.‫ܼ ܵ ܼ ܵ ܕ ܵ ܹ ̈ܐ ܕ ܼ ܼ ܟ ܸܒ ܵ ܵ ܐ‬ ܼ ܼ ܿ ܿ ܵ ‫ܹܓ ܹܒ ܿ ܼ ܵܐ ܸܐ ܼܿ ܼ ܿ ܿܘܡ‬ ܼ ‫ܼ ܹܬ ܼ ܵ ܢ ܒ ܘ‬ ܵ ܵ ܵ ‫ܿ ܼ ܵܐ‬ ܹ ܹ ܼ ܸ ‫ ܘ ܼܕ‬. ܹ ܹ ‫ܘ ܹ ܸ ܸܒ‬ ܵ ‫ܵ ܿ ܵܬܐ ܿܐ‬ ܵ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܼ ‫ ܕ ܹܐܕ‬.‫ܸ ܼ ܹ ܒܓ ܹ ܗ ܘܐ ܼ ܹ ܹܗ‬ ̄ ‫[ ܵܐ‬544] ‫ ܵ ܹ ܿܘܟ‬.‫ ܘ ܹ ܹܗ ܵ ܵܐ‬.‫ܿ ܼ ܵ ܐ ܕ ܼ ܵ ܵܐܨ‬ ܵ ܵ ܵ ‫ܿܐ‬ ܵ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܹ ‫ ܕ ܹ ܹܕܪ‬. ܼ ‫ܒ ܘ‬ ܼ ‫ܼ ܘ ܸ ܒܒ‬ ܿ ‫ܵܐܐ‬ ܿ ܵ‫ܒܐܕ ܿܬܪܙ ܵܗ ̇ ܹܘܐ ܿܗܡ ܵ ܢ‬ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܸ‫ܼ ܸ ܼ ܘ‬ ܿ . ܵ ‫ܒ ܿܘ‬ ‫ܘܕ ܵܗܐ ܼܿܐ ܼ ܵ ܼ ܕ ܵ ܹ ܒ ܼ ܵ ܹ ̈ܐ ܵܬܐ‬ ܼ ܹ ܼ ‫ ܹܐ ܿ ܼܓ ܵ ܐ ܵܐ ܵ ܐ ܼܿܐ ܼ ܵ ܵܬܐ ܿ ܼ ܵܐ‬.‫ܵ ܼ ܵܐ ܒ ܹܒ ܹ ܗ‬ ‫ ܕ ܹܐܟ‬. ܼ ‫ ܵ ܼܕ ܼܝ ܿ ܼ ܵܐ ܿ ܼ ܐ ܿ ܼܒ‬.‫ܸ ܕ ܼ ܘ ܹ ܼܝ‬ ܿ ‫ܿܐܒ ܟ ܿܗܡ ܵܐ‬ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܹ ܼ ܼܼ ܼ ܹ ‫ܼܟ ܘ‬ ܼ ܸ ‫ܹܕ ܼ ܿ ܹܐܬ ܹܕܪ‬ ‫ܹ ܹܟ ܹ ܸ ܕ ܼ ܼ ܟ ܹܐ ܸ ܼܙܘ ܼܪܘ ܵܗܐ ܕܒ ܿܘ ܼ ܼ ܿܬܕ ܸܕ ܼ ܵܐ‬ ܿ ܵ ‫ܬ ܼܪܝ ܼܿ ܵ ܐ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܸ ܸ ܼܘܟ ܹܓ ܒ ܼ ܵܐ ܹܐ ܵ ܼܕ ܼܝ‬ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܹ ‫[ ܐ ܸܒ‬545] ‫ ܹܐ ܼܓ ܐ ܼ ܐ ܸܐ ܼ ܼ ܿ ܘܡ‬.‫ܼ ̈ ܐ‬

ܵܵ ܿ ܼ

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 53

The Romance of Aḥīqār the Wise in the Neo-Aramaic MS London Sachau 9321 _____________________________________________________________________________________

and swore to Aḥīqār concerning his son Nādān that he would be at his side [in the place] of honour as he would reward him continuously with good things. Thereafter, I, Aḥīqār, kissed the soles of the king’s feet, took my son Nādān with me, and went home [and began] without ceasing to impart teachings to my son, until I filled Nādān with instruction like bread and water. The proverbs which Aḥīqār taught Nādān, his sister’s son: 1) Hear, son, my words, pay attention to them, and may they be in your heart. Do not tell people about my advice, [546] it might become as coal8 in your mouth and cauterize it, and you will blame your tongue and lament before God. 2) Nādān, my son, do not say everything you think and do not reveal everything you see. 3) My son, do not break a sealed knot and do not seal one that is broken. 4) My son, let not advice that is not yours escape from your lips. 4a) If you raise your eyes and see an attractive woman, do not desire [her], for if you give her all that you possess, you will get no advantage [547] from her [and] you will commit a great sin before your God. 5) My son, do not be hasty with your tongue like the tamarisk-tree that blooms early, [before other trees,] but whose fruit is eaten last. 6) My son, be wise like the mulberry tree that blooms (lit., that is seen by you) last and whose fruit is eaten first. 7) My son, turn away your eyes and lower your voice, look down, be self-controlled and be not debauched because, if a house is built by a loud voice, a donkey would build two fortresses in a day when it brays, and if the plough were drawn [548] by brute force, the yoke would never be lifted9 from the camel’s neck. 8) My son, it is better to go with a wise man than to go with a fool.

ܵ ‫ܵܬܐ ܿܐ‬ ܿ ܿܿ ܵ ܼ ܼܵ ܹ ‫ܼ ܼܒ ܿ ܵ ܢ ܵܒ ܘ‬ ܹ ܹ ܼ‫ܘ‬ ܵ ‫ܓ ܒ ܒܐ‬ ܵ ‫ܘܬ‬ ‫ܗ‬ ‫ܬ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ܼ ܹ ܼܸ ܼ ܹ ܸ ܹ ܹ ܵ ‫ܒ ܵ ܵܬܐ ܵܒ ܪܕܟ ܵܐ ܵ ܐ ܿܐ‬ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܸ ܸ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܼܵ ܹ ܿ ܿ‫ܵ ܵ ܢ ܒ ܘ‬ ܼ ܼ ܹ ‫ܼܕܐ ܼ ܕ ܼ ܐ ܸܘ‬ ܵ ‫ܕ‬ ܵ ‫ܘܕ ܐ ܝ ܒ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ܼ ܼ ܸ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܹ ܸ ܵ ܿ ‫ܗܘܠ ܕ‬ ‫ܕ ܿ ܼ ܹ ܵ ܐ ܹ ܬܐ ܒ ܘ‬ ܼ .‫ܵ ܵ ܢ ܼ ܵ ܵ ܐ ܸ ܸ ܼ ܵ ܐ ܵ ܵܐ‬ .‫ܿ ܼ ܼ ̈ ܹ ܐ ܕ ܼ ܹ ܹ ܼܿܐ ܼ ܵ ܵܬܐ ܵ ܵ ܢ ܹܒ ܕ ܵ ܹ ܗ‬ ‫܆‬1‫܆‬ ‫ ܘ ܼ ܕ‬. ܼ ܼ ܿ ‫ܿ ܐ ܒ ܿܘ ܼ ܵܬ ܵ ̈ ܼ ܵ ܼ ܘ ܿ ܼ ܹ ܼܬ ܹܐ‬ ܿ ‫ܘܬܐ ܐ̄ ܵ ܵ ܐ ܵ ܐ ܿܐ ܵܬ ̇ܗ‬ ܵ ‫ܵܗ ܿܘܝ ܒ ܿܒ ܟ‬ ‫ܬ‬ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܼ ܼܼ ܹ ܼ ܵ ܿ ‫ܗܘ ܵܐ ܓ‬ ܿ ‫ܢ‬ ܵ ‫ܪܬܐ‬ ‫ܒܓ ܿ ܹ ܼ ܟ‬ ܼ ܸ [546] ܸ ܿ ‫ ܘ‬. ܵ ܵ ‫ܘܒ‬ ‫ܼ ܵܐ ܒ ܼ ܵ ܼܟ‬ ‫ܒܐܘ ܸܕ ܿܬ‬ ܸ ܹ ܼ ܸ ‫ܘ ܹܒ ܵ ܹ ܹ ܿ ܸܐ ܸ ܼܿܐ ܵ ܵ ܐ܆‬ ܿ . ܿ ܹ ‫܆ ܒ ܿܘ ܼ ܵ ܵ ܢ ܵ ܐ ܼܿܐ ܹ ܿܬ ܒ ܿ ܿ ܠ ܸ ܼܝ ܕ ܼܪܐ‬2‫܆‬ ‫ܘ ܵ ܐ ܵܓ ܹ ܿ ܿ ܠ ܕ ܼ ܵ ܹ ܿ ܆‬ ܵ ܵ ‫ ܘ ܵ ܐ‬.‫ܼ ܐ‬ ‫܆ ܒ ܿܘ ܼ ܵ ܐ ܵ ܹ ܿ ܐ ܼ ܵ ܐ‬3‫܆‬ ‫ܼ ܼܿ ܸ ܿ ܸ ܵܐ܆‬ ‫܆ ܒ ܿܘ ܼ ܵ ܐ ܼܿ ܼ ܸ ̈ ܵ ܼܬ ܼܘܟ ܼ ܿܬ ܵ ̈ ܼ ܵ ܕ ܵ ܐ‬4‫܆‬ ‫ܕ ܼ ܼܟ܆‬ ܿ ܵ ‫܆ ܘܐ ܢ ܿ ܿ ܐ ܼ ܟ ܘ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܿܒ ܵ ܕ‬4a‫܆‬ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܸ ܼ ܸ ܿ‫ ܿ ܿܒ ܹ ܕܐ ܢ ܵ ̄ ܒ ܵ ܗ‬.‫ܵ ܵ ܐ ܵ ܿܬ‬ ܸ ܼ ܸ ܸ ܿ ܸ ܼܼ ܿ ܵ ܵ ‫ ܕ ܵ ܐ‬.‫ܝ ܕ ܿܬ ܵܐ‬ ‫ܒܓ ܵ ܿܗ‬ ܸ ܹܼ ܼ ܹ ܵ ܹܼ ܵܿ ܼܵ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܼ ܼ ܼ ‫[ ܸܒ ܵ ܹ ܬܐ ܼܐ ܼܘܟ‬547] ‫ܿ ܐ ܹ ܐ‬ ‫ܼܪܒ ܼ ܵ ܆‬ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܹ ܵ ‫܆ ܒ ܘ ܼ ܐ ܵܗ ܹܘ ܼ ܼ ܐ ܒ ܼ ܵ ܼ ܟ‬5‫܆‬ ܵ‫ܵ ܒ ܵ ܵ ܘ ܿ ܬܐ‬ ܿ ܵ ܼ ܼ ܼ ‫ܵܙܐ ܸܕ ܹ ܵ ܐ‬ ܹ ܼ ܼܼ ܸ ܼ ܹ .‫ܐ ܼ ܹ ܵ ܐ ܹܐܪ ̇ܗ‬ ܿ ‫ܐ ܵ ܵܐ‬ ܿ ܿ ‫ܕܬ ܼܘ ܵܬܐ‬ ܼ ܼ ‫܆ ܵܐ ܒ ܘ‬6‫܆‬ ܼ ܹ ‫ܗܘ ܼܝ ܗܘ ܵ ܵ ܐ‬ ܵ ܵ ‫ ܘ ܿܒ‬.‫ܵ ܵ ܟ‬ ܵ ‫ܹܕ ܿܒ ܼ ܼܿ ܼ ܵܬܐ‬ ܼ ܹ ܸ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܵ ‫ܹ ܐ‬ .‫ܵ ܹ ܐ ܼ ܼ ܵ ܐ ܹܐܪ ܿܗ‬ ‫܆ ܒ ܿܘ ܼ ܬ ܼܒ ܿ ܪ ܹܐ ܼ ܟ ܘ ܿ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܵ ܼ ܟ ܘ ܼ ܿ ܪ‬7‫܆‬ .‫ܼ ܵܐ‬ ‫ܼ ܵܐ ܘ ܵ ܐ‬ ‫ܗܘܝ‬ ܹ ܼ ‫ܸܘ‬ ‫ܼܿ ܿ ܼܒ ܕ ܹܐ ܢ ܵܗ ̇ ܹܘܐ ܒ ܵ ܵ ܐ ܸ ܵܐ ܵ ܹ ܵ ܐ ܸܒ ܵܐ‬ ܵ ܵ ܼ ̈ ܿ ‫ ܼ ܵ ܵܐ ܹܬ ܼ ܿܬܝ‬. ܵ ܼ ‫ܒ‬ .‫ܒܒ ܹ ܵ ܐ ܒ ܼ ܵܐ ܿ ܵ ܐ‬ ܼ ܸ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܼ [548] ‫ܘ ܸܐ ܢ ܒܓ ܸ ܕ ܼ ܹ ܐ ܼܙܪܒ ܐ ܹܿ ܐ‬ ‫ ܵ ܐ ܹ ܵ ܿ ܐ ܼ ܼܪ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܼܒ ܵ ܹܕ ܵ ܵ ܐ‬.‫ܼ ܵ ܵ ܐ‬ ‫ܵ ܿ ܼ ܵܬܐ ܕܓ ܼ ܵ ܐ܆‬ ܵ ‫܆ ܒ ܿܘ ܼ ܸܒ ܿ ܐ ܼ ܹ ܸ ܵ ܵ ܐ ܸܐ ܸ ܿ ܼܓ ܼܒ ܐ‬8‫܆‬ ܵ ‫ ܸ ܼ ܵ ܵ ܐ ܕ ܸܐ ܸ ܿ ܼܓ ܼܒ ܐ ܼܿ ܼ ܵ ܐ܆‬.‫ܼ ܿ ܼ ܵ ܐ‬

ܵ . ‫ܕܗ ̇ ܹܘܐ‬ ܵ ‫ܒ ܵ ܵܒ‬ ܼܼ ‫ܸ ܵ ܵܬܐ‬ . ܼ ‫ܿܓ ܹ ܒ‬ ‫ܿ ܿ ܹܐ‬ ܼ ‫ܼ ܹܒ‬

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 54

The Romance of Aḥīqār the Wise in the Neo-Aramaic MS London Sachau 9321 _____________________________________________________________________________________

9) My son, pour your wine on the grave of the righteous and do not drink it with the foolish. 10) My son, flee from a quarrelsome and shameless woman. 11) My son, do not seek after a woman’s beauty and do not desire her in your heart, for the beauty of a woman lies in her behaviour, her speech and her modesty. 12) My son, if someone strikes you [549] maliciously, strike him with a good thing by your wisdom. My son, the wicked shall fall and the just man shall remain in his place. 13) My son, do not spare blows to your son, for blows are to a boy what manure is to the earth, and like the bridle to the cattle and bolts to the door. 14) My son, control your son while he is young, and dampen his spirit while he is a child before he grows stronger than you are, or you will be ashamed and embarrassed by his foolish ways. 15) My son, do not acquire a bull with horns, a donkey with large hooves, [550] a runaway servant, or a stealing servant-girl, lest they take away from you everything you have. 16) My son, the words of lying people are like fat sparrows, and he who has heart [i.e. desire] can eat them. 17) Do not bring on the curses of your father and mother, for you may never see the achievement of your children. 18) My son, do not go unarmed on the road, for you never [know] when enemies come upon you. 19) My son, as the tree is adorned with its fruit and Mount Sāʽīr10 with its trees, so is a man [adorned] [551] with his wife and children. 20) My son, strike a wise man and you will remain in his heart like a lingering fever, [but] if you hit a fool with a thousand blows, he will not understand.

ܵ ‫ܕ ܼ ܼ ܟ ܸܐ ܸ ܿ ܼ ܼܒ ܐ ܼܿܕܙܕ ܼ ̈ ܹ ܐ‬ ‫ܹ ̈ ܐ ܼܿ ܼ ̈ ܹ ܐ܆‬ ܿ ܵ ‫ܿܒ‬ ܿ ܵ ܼ ‫ܼܼ ܘ‬ ܼ ܼ ܼ

ܵ ‫܆ ܒ ܿܘ ܼ ܒ ܿ ܙ ܼ ܼܿ ܐ‬9‫܆‬ ܵ ̄‫ܘ ܵ ܐ ܵ ܹ ܹܿܬܗ ܸܐ ܸ ܕܐ‬ ܿ ܿ ̣ ‫܆ ܒ ܘ ܼ ܐܪܘܩ‬10‫܆‬ ‫ܼܵܵ ܼ ܼܵ ܆‬ ܵ ‫ ܘ ܵ ܐ‬. ܵ ܼ ‫܆ ܒ ܿܘ ܼ ܵ ܐ ܵܙ ܼ ܟ ܵܒ ܹ ܪ ܼ ܐ ܕ ܿ ܼܒ‬11‫܆‬ ܵ ‫ܵܐ ܕ ܿܒ‬ ‫ܼܿ ܿ ܼܒ‬ .‫ܵ ܸ ܵܬ ̇ܗ ܒ ܸ ܿܒ ܼ ܟ‬ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܵ ܵ ‫ܸ ܵ ̇ ܐ ܼ ܹ ܘ ܿ ܼ ܿ ܹ ܼ ̇ܗ ܘ ܸ ܼ ܼ ܬ ̇ܗܐ܆‬ ܿ ܿ ܵ ̄ [549] ‫ܸܐ ܢ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܟ ܐ ܵ ܐ‬ ܼ ‫܆ ܒ ܘ‬12‫܆‬ ܿ ܿ ‫ ܵܐ‬. ܵ ‫ܒܒ‬ ܵ ܵ ܼ ܼ ܸ ‫ܼ ܼ ܹ ܒ ܵ ܼܒ ܒ‬ ܸ ܼ ܵ ܵ ܵ‫ܘܙܕ ܐ‬ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܵ ‫ ܒ ܘ ܼ ܸܒ‬.‫ܕ ܼ ܼ ܟ‬ ܼ ܼ ܹ ‫ܐ ܹܒ‬ ‫ܒ ܼܘ ܿ ܹ ܒ ܵ ܸ ܐ܆‬ ܵ . ܵ ܼ ̈ ܵ ܼ ܸ ‫܆ ܵܐ ܒ ܿܘ ܼ ܵ ܐ ܿ ܼ ܸ ܿ ܒ ܿܘ ܼ ܟ‬13‫܆‬ ‫ܼܿ ܿ ܼܒ ܸܕ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܵ ܵܬܐ ܐ ܵ ܵ ܐ ܸ ܸܙ ܸܒ ܼ ܵ ܿ ܵܬܐ‬ ܵ ܵ ‫ܿܐ‬ ‫ ܘ ܸ ܼ ܵ ܹܬܕ ܐ ܼ ܵ ܐ ܵܬܐ ܹ ܵ ܵ ܐ ܘ ܸ ܸ ̈ ܹ ܐ‬.‫ܪܐܐ‬ ܼ ܿ ܵ ܵ ‫ܬܐ ܼܬܪܐܐ܆‬ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܵ .‫ܗܘ ܙܘܪܐ‬ ܼ ‫ܸܒ ܒ ܘ ܼ ܟ ܼܒ ܹ ܐ ܐ‬ ܼ ‫܆ ܒ ܘ‬14‫܆‬ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܿ .‫ܗܘ ܸ ̇ ܵ ܐ‬ ܼ ‫ܸܘܬ ܼܒ ܪ ܸ ܼ ܼ ܼܬܐ ܕ ܹ ܼܒ ܹ ܐ ܐ‬ ܵ ܿ ܿ ‫ܸܒ ܼܿܙ ܼ ܵ ܐ ܸ ܼ ܟ ܸܘܒ ܵ ܼܿ ܵ ܹ ̈ܬܗ‬ ܸ ‫ܼ ܼܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܸܒ ܼܿ ܼ ܹ ܿ ܹܘܒ ܼ ܼܿ ̰ܓ ܸ ܿ ܆‬ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܿ ‫ܬܘܪܐ ܿ ܼ ܵ ܵ ܹ̈ܐ ܸܘ ܼ ܵ ܐ‬ ܹ ‫܆ ܒ ܘ ܼ ܐ‬15‫܆‬ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܿ [550] ‫ܿ ܵ ܵ ܐ‬ . ܵ ‫ܘܐܘ ܵܕܐ ܐܪ ܐ ܘ ܼ ܵ ܼܿ ܵ ܵܓ ܿ ܼܒ‬ ܼ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܿ ‫ܬܘܟ ܹܒ ܼ ܒ ܼ ܹ ܸ ܼ ܟ܇‬ ܼ ‫ܕ ܐ ܠ ܕ ܸܐ‬ ̄ ܿ ܿ ܿ ̈ ܿ ܵ ܵ ̈ ܵ ̄ ‫ܼ ܹܨ ܹ ܐ‬ ܸ ‫܆ ܒ ܘ ܼ ܼܬ ܵ ܵ ܕܐ ܹ ܐ ܼܕܓ ܹ ܐ‬16‫܆‬ ‫ ܘ ܿ ܼ ܼ ܕ ܸܐ ܸܬܗ ܸ ܵܒܐ ܵܐ ܸ ܿ ܼ ܆‬.‫ܼ ̈ ܹ ܐ‬ ܵ ܵ ܼ ܵ ̈ ܵ ‫܆ ܵ ܐ ܿ ܼ ܸ ܿܬ ܸܐ ܼ ܟ‬17‫܆‬ ‫ܕܒܒ ܼ ܟ ܘ ܸ ܼ ܟ‬ ‫ܕ ܸ ܿ ܼ ܢ ܵ ܐ ܼ ܵ ܹ ܬܒ ܵ ܼܵܒ ܼ ܵ ܹܕܐ ܵ ܼ ܟ܆‬ ܵ ܿ .‫ܒܐܘܪ ܼ ܵܐ ܕ ܵ ܐ ܸ ܵ ܐܚ‬ ܼ ‫܆ ܒ ܘ ܼ ܐ ܵܙ ܼ ܟ‬18‫܆‬ ̇ ܿ ܵ ܿܿ ̈ ܵ ܵ .‫ܒܓ ܼܘܟ‬ ܼ ܼ ‫ܼ ܼܒ ܕ ܐ ܹܐ ܐ ܸܕ ܸ ܸܐ ܸܒ‬ ‫܆ ܒ ܿܘ ܼ ܸܕ ܕ ܼ ܵ ̇ ܐ ܼ ܵ ܵ ܐ ܵ ̰ܓ ܵ ܿܒ ܼ ܒ ܹܐ ܹ̈ܪܐ‬19‫܆‬ ̈ ܵ ̇ ܵ ܵ ܹ ̄ ‫ܕ ܵ ܘ ܼ ܪܐ ܕ ܼ ܒܐ ܼ ܹܐ ܕ ܼ ܹ ܵܗܕܟ‬ ܵ̈ ܵ ‫[ ܒ ܿ ܼܒ ܼ ܹ ܗ ܘ ܸܒܐ ܹ ܐ܆‬551] ܼ ‫ܿ ܼܓ ܼܒ ܐ ܵ ̰ܓ ܵ ܿܒ‬ ܿ ܿ ‫ ܘܒ‬.‫ܿܓܒ ܵܐ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܐ‬ ܿ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ‫܆ ܒ ܘ‬20‫܆‬ ܸ ܼ ܸ ܿ ܵ ‫ܒ ܸ ܹܒ ܸ ܐ̄ ܵ ܼ ܵ ܵ ܼܪ ܼ ܵ ܘ ܸܐ ܢ ܵ ܼ ܹ ܿ ܓ ܿ ܪܐ‬ ‫ܼܿ ܼ ܵ ܐ ܼܿܐ ܵܐ ܿ ܼ ܵ ̈ܬܐ ܵ ܐ ܵ ܸ ܡ܆‬

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 55

The Romance of Aḥīqār the Wise in the Neo-Aramaic MS London Sachau 9321 _____________________________________________________________________________________

21) My son, send wise men and do not give them too many orders. And if you [plan] to send fools, go by yourself and do not send them. 22) My son, test your friend with bread and water, then put all your possessions into his hands. 23) My son, leave a banquet before anyone else; do not be interested in anointing yourself with scented oils, so that [552] they shall not make you delirious.11 24) My son, he whose hand is full is called a wise man, he whose hand is empty is called a fool. 25) My son, I ate bitterness and swallowed things as bitter as the colocynth, but I have seen nothing more bitter than poverty. 26) My son, I have loaded lead and iron and transported it, and it did not weigh on me as much as a debt. 27) My son, teach your son [what] hunger and thirst [are] so he will know how to oversee the running of his household. 28) My son, the blind man who easily learns the way and walks forward and backward through it [553] is better than a man of blind heart who leaves the path of truth. 29) My son, a nearby neighbour is better than a faraway brother, and a good name is better than beauty, because a good name endures but beauty withers. 30) My son, death is better than life for a man who finds no comfort, and the sound of wailing women is better than the sound of dancing, exhilaration, and chanting. 31) My son, a bone in your hand is better than a goose in another man’s pot. 32) My son, a sheep near at hand [554] is better than a faraway bull. A sparrow in hand is better than a thousand flying in the sky. 33) My son, poverty that saves up is better than wasteful wealth, and a living fox is better than a dead lion.

‫܆ ܒ ܿܘ ܼ ܵ ܹ ܪ ܓ ܼ ܹ̈ܪܐ ܼ ܿ ܿ ܼ ̈ ܹ ܐ ܘ ܵ ܐ ܵ ܼ ܹ ܿܬ‬21‫܆‬ ‫ ܘ ܸܐ ܢ ܼܿ ܼ ̈ ܹ ܐ ܼܿ ܸܪ ܿܬ ܵܐ ܸ ܿ ܿ ܸܒܓ ܵ ܼ ܟ‬. ܼ ܼܿ ܵ ܸ ܵ ‫ܘܐ ܼ ܵ ܐ ܼܿ ܸܪ ܿܬ܆‬ ܼ ‫܆ ܵܐ ܒ ܿܘ ܼ ܵ ̰ܓ ܵ ܸܒ ܼ ܼܿ ܼܒ ܼܘܟ ܒ ܸ ܼ ܵ ܐ ܘ ܵ ܵܐ‬22‫܆‬ ‫ܘ ܹܐ ܿ ܼܓ ܵ ܐ ܵ ܼ ܒܐ ܼ ̈ ܹܬܗ ܿ ܠ ܵ ܐ ܕ ܼ ܹ ܿܬ ܸ ܵܐ܆‬ ܿ ܿ ܿ .‫ܿ ܠ ܐ̄ ܵ ܹ ̈ ܐ ܿ ܩ ̣ ܼ ܼ ܵ ܐ‬ ܼ ܼ ‫܆ ܒ ܘ‬23‫܆‬ ‫ܘ ܵ ܐ ܼ ܿ ܸ ܿ ܸ ܵ ܵ ܐ ܓ ܵ ܼ ܟ ܒ ܸ ܵ ܹ̈ܐ‬ ܵ ‫[ ܵ ܸ ܹ ܼ ܟ ܒ ܵ ̈ ܼ ܵ ܆‬552] ‫ ܕ ܵ ܐ‬.‫ܿ ܼܒ ܼ ̈ ܹ ܐ‬ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܵ ‫ܕܗܘ ܵܐ ܵܐ ܼ ܹ ܗ‬ ܼܼ ܸ ܼ ܼ ‫܆ ܒ ܘ‬24‫܆‬ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܵ ‫ܕܗܘ ܵܐ ܐ ܼ ܹ ܗ‬ ܼ ܼ ‫ ܘ‬.‫ܸ ܵܐ ܼ ܿ ܼ ܐ‬ ܵ ܵ ܿ ‫ܸ ܵܐ ܼ ܼ ܐ܆‬ ܸ ‫܆ ܒ ܿܘ ܼ ܐ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܵ ܼ ܵܘ ܵܬܐ ܸܘܒ ܹ ܼ ܹ ܵ ܹ̈ܐ‬25‫܆‬ ‫ ܘ ܵ ܐ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܸ ܼܝ ܕ ܼ ܹ ܹܒ‬.‫̈ܪܐ ܼ ܹ ܹ ܹ̈ ܐ‬ ܵ ‫ܿ ܼ ܼ ܐ ܹ ܿ ܹ ܼ ܵܬܐ܆‬ ܵ ܿ ܵ ‫ܒܓ ܹ ܗ‬ ܼ ܹ ‫܆ ܒ ܘ ܼ ܹܐ ܼ ܸܪ ܹܨܨ ܹܘ ܹܙ ܐ ܹܘܪ‬26‫܆‬ ܵ ‫ܘ ܵ ܐ ܐ ܼ ܹ ܹܗ ܸܐ ܼ ܹ ܹܕ ܐ܆‬ ܿ ܿ ܵ ‫ܒ ܿܘ ܼ ܟ ܸ ܵ ܐ ܘܨ‬ .‫ܗܘܐ‬ ܸ ܼ ‫܆ ܒ ܘ‬27‫܆‬ ܹ ܿ ܿ ܿܿ ‫ܵ ܸܒ ܹܒ ܹ ܗ܆‬ ܹ ‫ܼ ܼܒ ܹܕ ܼܬܕ ܼ ܼ ܵܐ ܹܐ‬ ܵ ܿ ܿ ̈ ܿ ܸ ܵ ‫܆ ܒ ܘ ܼ ܼ ܹܐ ̈ ܹܐ ܸ ܹ ܐ ܕ ܼ ܼ ܐ‬28‫܆‬ ܵ ܵ ̇ܵ ܹ ‫ܼܐܘܪ ܼ ܐ ܘ ܸ ܵ ܹ ܸܘ‬ ܼ ܵ ‫[ ܸܒ‬553] ‫ܐܬܐ ܒ‬ ‫ܼܐܘܪ ܼ ܵܐ‬ ‫ܸ ܵܐ ܕ ܸ ܵܒܐ ܹܕ ܵ ܸܒ‬ ̣ ܹ ܼ‫ܐ‬ ܵ ܿ ‫ܘ ܆‬ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܵ ̣ ‫ܼܒ ܼܒܐ ܼ ܼ ܼܒܐ‬ ܹ ܼ ‫܆ ܒ ܘ ܵ ܼ ܸܒ ܼ ܐ‬29‫܆‬ ‫ܵܐ ܼ ܿ ܵ ܐ ܪ ܼ ܵ ܐ܆ ܘ ܹܒ ܵ ܼ ܐ ܼ ܹ ܸ ܵ ܐ ܵ ܼܵܒܐ‬ ܵ ܵ ‫ ܼܿ ܿ ܼܒ ܕ ܸ ܵ ܐ ܵ ܼܵܒܐ ܵ ܹ ܘ ܐ‬.‫ܼ ܐ‬ ‫ܵ ܸ ܆‬ ܵ‫ܿ ܵܬܐ ܵ ̈ܐ ܬܐ‬ ܿ ܹܼ ܼ ܼ ‫܆ ܵ ܒ ܘ ܼ ܸܒ ܵ ܼ ܐ‬30‫܆‬ ܹ ܿ ܵܵ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܼ ܵ ‫ ܘ ܐ ܕ ܼ ܼܕ ܵ ܼ ܵ ܸܒ‬.‫ܼܓ ܼܒ ܐ ܕ ܼ ܹ ܗ ܵ ܼ ܐ‬ ‫ܵ ܵ ܐ ܹܕܪ ܵ ܵ ܐ ܘ ܸ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܵܬܐ ܘ ܹܕܙ ܵ ܐ܆‬ ܹ ܼ‫ܐ‬ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܹ ܼ ‫܆ ܒ ܘ ܼ ܼܓ ܐ ܕ ܼ ܹ ܒܐ ܼ ܼܘܟ ܸܒ ܼ ܐ‬31‫܆‬ ‫ܼܿ ܵܙܐ ܕ ܼ ܵ ̇ ܒ ܸ ܹ ܗ ܕ ܼ ܸ ܹ̈ܐ܆‬ ܿ ܵ ‫[ ܘܒ‬554] ‫ܐܘ ܵ ܐ‬ ܵ ̇ ܵ ܼ ‫܆ ܒ ܿܘ ܒ ܵ ܐ‬32‫܆‬ ܼ ܸܵ ܼܵ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܵ ‫ ܒ ܼ ܬ ܼ ܐ ܼ ܐ ܕ ܼ ܹ ܒܐ ܼ ܼܘܟ‬.‫ܬܘܪܐ ܪ ܼ ܵ ܐ‬ ̣ ܵ ܿ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܼܿܐ ܵܐ ܒ ܼ ̈ܬ ܼ ܹ ܐ ܕ ܼ ܿ ܼ ܹܒ ܿ ܵ ܐ‬ ܹ ܼ ܸ ܵ ‫ܒܓ ܼ ܹܕ ܿ ܼ ܵܐ܆‬ ܿ ̇ ܵ ‫ܼ ܵܬܐ ܓ ܵ ܒ ܿ ܐ‬ ܼ ܹ ̰ ܹ ܸ ܼ ‫܆ ܒ ܘ‬33‫܆‬ ܸ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܿ ‫ ܘܬܐ ܐ ܿܒ ܵ ܐ ܒ‬.‫ܵܐܬ ܘܬܐ ܒ ܪ ܿܒ ܬܐ‬ ܸ ܼܼ ܼ ܸ ܹܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܿ ܵ ܵ ‫ܐ ܼ ܹ ܼܐܪ ܐ ܼ ܼ ܆‬

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 56

The Romance of Aḥīqār the Wise in the Neo-Aramaic MS London Sachau 9321 _____________________________________________________________________________________

34) My son, keep the word in your heart and it will be well for you, because if you utter it, you would annoy your mate. 35) My son, let no word leave your mouth without weighing it, because it is better for a man to trip with his foot than [555] with his tongue. 36) My son, if you hear a [bad] word from someone, bury it under four cubits of earth, so that every time you pass over it, you will destroy it. 37) My son, do not stand amongst quarrelling men, for quarrels lead to judgement and judgement to death. 38) My son, if you see a man who is greater than you, get up before him [in honour] and if he does not return [your courtesy], God will reward you. 39) My son, keep your tongue from lying and your hand from stealing and you will be called a wise man. 40) [556] My son, he who is tidy in his dress is also smart in his words, and he who is disorderly in his dress, so is he in his speech. 41) My son, do not meddle in anyone’s marriage. If it turns out badly they will curse you; [if it goes well] they will bless you. 42) My son, throw stones at a dog that leaves his master and follows you, because it will not stay at your side either. 43) My son, let the wise man beat you with many sticks but let not the fool rub pleasant [557] oils on you. 43a) My son, do not act wickedly toward the wise and do not be wise with the wicked. 44) My son, if you have shoes on your feet, tread on the thistles and make a path for your children. 45) My son, if the son of the wealthy eats a snake they say: “He ate it to cure his illness.” If the son of the poor eats it, they say: “He ate it because he was hungry.” 46) My son, eat your share with your mate and do not complain.

ܵ ܵ ܵ ܹ ܵ ‫ܬ ܹ ܼ ܒ ܸ ܒ ܼ ܵܟ ܿܘ ܸܒ‬ ܵ ‫ܿ ܿܒ ܕܐ ܢ ܐ ܬ ܬ‬ ܼ ܹ ܸ ܸ ܼܼ

ܿ ܵ ‫܆‬ ܼ ‫܆ ܒ ܘ‬34 ܿ .‫ܼܪ ܵ ܐ ܵ ܼ ܟ‬ ‫ܵ ܼ ܸ ܹ ܿ ܼ ܿ ܼܒ ܼܘܟ܆‬ ܵ ‫ܐ ܿ ܵ ܐ ܵܬ‬ ‫ܗܘܠ‬ ‫܆ ܒ ܿܘ‬35‫܆‬ ܼ ‫ܹ ܼ ܼܟ‬ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܼ ܵ ܵ ܿ ‫ ܼܿ ܿ ܼܒ ܕ ܸܒ ܿ ܐ ܼ ܹ ܵܬܐ‬.‫ܒܓ ܵ ̇ܗ‬ ܹ ܸ ܼ ܵ ‫ܸܕ‬ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܵ [555] ܹ ܸ ܹ ‫ܼܓ ܼܒ ܐ ܕ ܸ ܬ ܼ ܐ ܼܒܐ‬ ‫ܒ ܼ ܹܵ ܆‬ ̄ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܿ ̇ ܵ ܵ ܸ ‫ ܿ܆ ܵܒ ܘܿ ܼ ܸܐ ܢ ܵ ܼ ܸܐܬ ܬ ܹ ܼ ܐ ܵ ܐ‬36‫܆‬ ̇ ܵ ‫ܕܪܐܐ ܿܬܕ ܼ ܕ ܵ ܵ ܐ ܕ ܿܪ ܿ ܐ‬ ܵ ܼ ܹ ‫ܼܒܐܪܐܐ ܵ ܼܐܪܒܐ‬ ܸ ܹܼܼ ‫ܼܿ ܸܬ ̇ܗ܆‬ ̄ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܵ ̈ ̈ ܵ ܵ .‫܆ ܒ ܿܘ ܼ ܐ ܸ ܸ ܸܒ ܼ ܐ ܐ ܼ ̰ܓ ܹܐ‬37‫܆‬ ‫ܼܿ ܿ ܼܒ ܕ ̣ ܵ ̰ܓ ܿ ܹ̈ܕܐ ܵܒ ܹܐ ܕ ܼ ܵ ܐ ܘ ܼ ܵ ܐ‬ ‫ܸܒ ܵܗ ܹܘܐ ܿ ܼ ܵܬܐ܆‬ ܵ ‫܆ ܒ ܿܘ ܼ ܸܐ ܢ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܟ ܐ̄ ܵ ܵ ܐ ܕ ܼ ܹ ܸܒ ܪ ܵܒܐ‬38‫܆‬ ‫ܸ ܼ ܟ ܼ ܵ ܹ ܘ ܸܐ ܢ ܵܗ ̇ ܹܘܐ ܕ ܵ ܐ ܵ ܹܐ ܼ ܟ‬ ‫ܼܿܐ ܵ ܵ ܐ ܵ ܹ ܼ ܟ܆‬ ܿ ‫ܿ ܪ ܼ ܵ ܼ ܟ ܼܘܓ ܵ ܐ ܘܐ ܼ ܼܘܟ‬ ܼ ‫܆ ܒ ܘ‬39‫܆‬ ܿ ‫ܸ ܓ ܵ ܼܵܒܐ ܘ ܸ ܸ ܸ ܵܐ ܼ ܿ ܼ ܵ ܐ܆‬ ܵ‫ܼ ܐ‬ ‫[ ܒ ܿܘ ܼ ܵ ܼ ܕ‬556] ‫܆‬40‫܆‬ ܼ ܹ ܵ .‫ܼܿܗܡ ܒ ܵ ܹ ܹ ܗ‬ ‫ܸܒ ܸܒ ܹ ܗ‬ ܹ̄ ‫ܼ ܐ‬ ܵ‫ ܵܗܕܟ‬.‫ܿܒ ܒ ܵ ܐ ܒ ܒ ܗ‬ ‫ܘܵ ܼ ܕ‬ ܹ ܸ ܸ ܼ ܸ ܼ ܹ ‫ܐ ܼ ܹ ܼܿܗܡ ܒ ܵ ܹ ܹ ܗ܆‬ ̄ ܿ ܵ .‫܆ ܒ ܿܘ ܼ ܵ ܐ ܵ ܒ ܼ ܸܬ ܓ ܵ ܼ ܟ ܸܒ ܵܒܐ ܕܐ ܵ ܵ ܐ‬41‫܆‬ ‫ ܘ ܸܐ ܢ‬.‫ܸܐ ܢ ܹ ܵ ܐ ܒ ܼ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܼ ܼ ܸܒ ܹ ܼ ܼ ܼܟ‬ ܿ ‫ܗܘ ܵܐ ܵ ܿ ܼ ܼ ܸܒ ܸ ܿ ܼܒ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܟ܆‬ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܵ ‫܆ ܒ ܘ ܼ ܼ ܒܐ ܕ ܸܒ ܼ ܘ ܹܬܗ ܘܐ ܹܬܐ ܼܒ ܼ ܼܪ ܼܟ‬42‫܆‬ ̈ ܿ ܿ ‫ܕܗܡ ܹܓ ܒ ܼ ܟ ܵ ܐ‬ ‫ܼܿ ܿ ܼܒ‬ ܼ ܹ ‫ܒ ܹ ܐ ܹܐ ܪ ̰ܓ‬ ‫ܵ ܹ ܆‬ ܵ‫ܟ ܿܓܒ ܵܐ ܿ ܵ ܐ ܿ ̈ ܬܐ‬ ܿ ܵ ܼ ܵ ܼ ܹ ‫܆ ܒ ܘ ܼ ܵ ܼ ܕ‬43‫܆‬ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܿ ܿ ܵ [557] ‫ܼ ܒ ܼ ܹ ܐ ܘ ܐ ܸ ܼ ܼ ܟ ܼ ܼ ܐ ܒ ܸ ܵ ܹܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܿ ܼܒ ܼ ܹ ܐ܆‬ .‫[܆ ܒ ܿܘ ܿ ܼ ܵ ܐ ܿܐܘ ܸܕ ܿܬ ܼܪܘ ܵܐ ܸܐ ܸ ܼ ܿ ܿ ܼ ̈ ܹ ܐ‬43a]‫܆‬ ‫ܘ ܵ ܐ ܸܐ ܸ ܕ ܼܪ ܼ ܹ ܐ ܿ ܵܗ ܹܘܐ ܼ ܿ ܼ ܵ ܐ܆‬ ܿ ܿ ̈ ‫ܒܐ ܿ ܼ ܼܘܟ ܵ ܹ̈ܪܕ ܹܪܐ‬ ܼ ܵ ܼ ܼ ‫܆ ܒ ܘ ܼ ܸܐ ܢ ܨܘ ܹ ܐ ܐ‬44‫܆‬ ‫ ܸܘܐ ܼܒ ܿ ܕ ܼ ܟ ܼܐܘܪ ܼ ܵܐ ܬܐ ܐ ܵ ܼ ܟ܆‬.‫ܿܕܘܫ‬ ܿ ‫܆ ܒ ܿܘ ܼ ܸܐ ܢ ܸܒ ܕ ܼܿܐܬ ܼ ܹ ܐ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܐ ܵܐ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܐ ܼܝ‬45‫܆‬ ܵ ܼ ‫ܵܬܐ ܒ ܵ ܵ ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ ܘ ܸܐ ܢ ܸܒ ܕ‬. ̇ ܵ ܹ ܼ ‫ܵܐ‬ ܹ ‫ܪܗ‬ ܿ ܵ ܵ ‫ܸ ̈ ܹ ܹܐ ܵܐ ܼ ܹ ܵ ̇ ܼܐ ܼܝ ܸ ܹ ܐ ܼ ܹ ̇ ܆‬ ‫܆ ܒ ܿܘ ܼ ܐ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܠ ܼܿ ܼ ܟ ܸܐ ܸ ܼ ܼܿ ܼܒ ܼܘܟ ܘ ܵ ܐ‬46‫܆‬ ‫̇ ܹ ܹ ܿ ܹ ܼܝ܆‬ ܸ

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 57

The Romance of Aḥīqār the Wise in the Neo-Aramaic MS London Sachau 9321 _____________________________________________________________________________________

47) My son, do not eat bread with someone who is not modest. 48) My son, do not envy the good fortune of your friend and do not rejoice in his misfortunes. 49) [558] My son, do not leave your first friend, because probably no one will take his place. 50) My son, do not go into the garden of lawyers and do not ask the hand of their daughters. 51) Order your dear one with nice words and speak before the governor to snatch him from the lion’s mouth. 52) My son, do not rejoice in your heart when your enemy dies. 53) My son, if a man stands in no space, the bird flies without wings, the hawk turns white as snow, and bitterness becomes sweet as honey, then it is possible for the fool to become a wise man. 54) My son, if you are a high-priest of God, [559] be more firm than cautious and come into His presence with purity. 55) My son, if you loan money to a poor man, you buy him and his children for yourself. 56) My son, a man without brothers and children [is] ill-treated and abandoned before his enemies. He is like a tree by the roadside. Whoever passes picks [its fruit] and the beasts and the birds make its leaves fall. 57) My son, do not say in your heart: “My lord is a fool and I am wise,” but ward him off with oaths and have pity on him. 58) [560] My son, do not number yourself among the wise when others did not praise you. 59) My son, do not speak too much before your master, so that you do not appear contemptible in his eyes. 60) My son, do not curse God in days of misfortune, for He might hear your words and be angry with you.

ܿ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܸ ‫܆ ܒ ܘ ܼ ܐ ܐ ܼ ܸ ܸ ܼ ܐ ܸܐ‬47‫܆‬ ‫ܵ ܼܹ ܆‬ ‫ ܘ ܵ ܐ‬.‫܆ ܒ ܿܘ ܼ ܵ ܐ ܵ ܸ ܿ ܒ ܵ ܼ ̈ܒ ܵ ܕ ܼܿ ܼܒ ܼܘ ܼܟ‬48‫܆‬ ‫ܼܿ ܸ ܿ ܒܒ ܼ ̈ ܵ ܵ ܕ ܼ ܹ ܆‬ ‫[ ܒ ܿܘ ܼ ܵ ܐ ܹ ܸܒ ܿ ܼ ܼܿ ܼܒ ܼܘܟ ܵ ܵ ܵܐ‬558] ‫܆‬49‫܆‬ ‫ܹ ܿ ܢ ܹ ܵ ܐ ܵ ܐ ܵܐ ܹܪܐ ܼܕܘ ܿ ܹ ܗ܆‬ ܿ ‫܆ ܒ ܿܘ ܼ ܵ ܐ ܿܐܘ ܹܪ ܿܬ ܸܒ ܵ ܵ ܐ ܕ ܼܿ ܼ ܵ ܐ ܹ̈ܪܐ‬50‫܆‬ ܵ ܿ ‫ܸܘܒ ܵܬܐ ܕ ܼܿ ܼ ܵ ܐ ܹ̈ܪܐ ܵ ܐ ܿ ܼ ܸܒ ܿ ܆‬ ܿ ܵܵ ܵ ܿ ‫܆‬51‫܆‬ ‫ܘܐ ܼ ܪ‬ ܼ ‫ܕ ܵ ܕ ܼ ܼ ܟ ܒ ܵ ̈ ܼ ܼܒ ܼ ̈ ܹ ܐ‬ ܵ ܵ ‫ܹ ܵ ܐ ܼܿܕܐܪ ܵܐ܆‬ ܹ ‫ܸ ܵ ܸ ܸܓ‬ ‫܆ ܒ ܿܘ ܼ ܵ ܐ ܵ ܸ ܟ ܹ ܒ ܼ ܼܟ ܓ ܿ ܸܕ ܸ ܕ ܼ ܼ ܟ‬52‫܆‬ ‫ܼܕ ܵ ܸ ܼ܆‬ ܵ ܵ ܵ̄ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܸ ‫܆ ܵ ܒ ܘ ܼ ܸܐ ܢ ܸ ܐ ܐ ܕ ܐ ܼܕܘ ܼ ܘ‬53‫܆‬ ‫ܨ ܐ ܕ ܵ ܐ ܓ ܼ ܵ ܹ̈ܐ ܘ ܿ ܼ ܼ ܸ ܪ ܿ ܼ ܵ ܐ ܸ ܼ ܿܬ ܵܓܐ‬ ܵ ܿ ܿ ‫ܸܕ ܼܒ ܵ ܐ ܸܐ ܿ ܼܓ ܵ ܐ ܿ ܼܒ ܵܐ‬ ܸ ‫ܘ ܼ ܹܐ ܼ ܼ ܐ‬ ‫ܕ ܼܿ ܼ ܵ ܐ ܕ ܵ ܸ ܼ ܿ ܼ ܵ ܐ܆‬ ܿ ܵ ܿ ‫ܵܐ‬ ܿ [559] ‫ܕܐ ܵ ܐ‬ ܼ ‫܆ ܒ ܘ ܼ ܸܐ ܢ ܼ ܹ ܬ‬54‫܆‬ ܼ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܵ ‫ܗܘܝ ܒ‬ ܹ ‫ܘܗ ܹܘܬ ܕܐܘ ܹܪܬ‬ ܸ ܵ ܹ ܸ ‫ܸܒ‬ ܸ ܼܼ ܵ ‫ܒ ܹ ̇ ܼ ܼܬܐ܆‬ ‫܆ ܒ ܿܘ ܼ ܸܐ ܢ ܹ ܸ ܿ ܵ ܹ ܐ ܵܬܐ ܸ ܸ ܵ ܐ‬55‫܆‬ ܵ ‫ܗܘ ܸܘܐ ܵ ̈ ܹ ܐ܆‬ ܼ ‫ܹ ܼܿ ܼܒ ܹ ܹ ܗ ܵ ܼ ܟ ܐ‬ ܵ ‫܆ ܒ ܿܘ ܼ ܓ ܿ ܪܐ ܕ ܿ ܼ ܹܿ ܗ ܼܿܐ ܼ ܸ ܸ̈ ܵ ܼ ܵܬܐ ܸܘܐ ܵ ܵ ܐ‬56‫܆‬ ‫ܼܘܙ ܵ ܐ ܸܘܬ ܼ ܵ ܐ ܵ ܸ ܹܕ ܸ ܹ̈ܐ ܕ ܹ ܆ ܸܘ ܵ ܹ ܐ‬ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܼ ܼ ܸ ܼ ‫ܕܐܘܪ ܵ ܐ ܘ ܼ ܠ‬ ܹ ܼ ‫ܐ ܼ ܵܐ ܕ‬ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܵ ‫ ܘ ܹ ܵ ܹ̈ܐ ܘ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܐ‬. ܹ ܸ ܹ ܸ ‫ܕ ܹ ܸܐ‬ ‫ܹ ܼ ܿ ܼ ܹܐ ܕ ܹ ܆‬ ‫܆ ܒ ܿܘ ܼ ܵ ܐ ܼܿܐ ܹ ܿܬ ܒ ܸ ܒ ܿ ܟ ܕ ܹܐ ܵ ܼܕܝ ܼܿ ܼ ܵ ܐ‬57‫܆‬ ܵ ܵ ̈ܵ ܿ ‫ܒ‬ ܿ ‫ܘܐ ܵ ܐ ܼ ܿ ܼ ܵ ܸܐܘܢ ܿ ܼܒ‬ ܹ ܹ ܵ ‫ܸܘ ܸ ܹ ܆‬ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܸ ‫[ ܒ ܘ ܼ ܐ ܹ ܵ ܓ ܵ ܼ ܟ ܸܐ‬560] ‫܆‬58‫܆‬ ‫ ܼ ܕ ܹ ܹ̈ܐ ܵ ܐ ܸ ܼܿ ܒ ܼ ܼ ܟ܆‬.‫ܼ ܿ ܼ ̈ ܹ ܐ‬ ‫܆ ܒ ܿܘ ܼ ܵ ܐ ܿ ܼ ܼ ܸ ܿܬ ܵܬ ܵ ܵ ܼ ܼܘܟ ܵ ܸ ܸܐ ܵ ܼܕ ܼܘܟ‬59‫܆‬ ‫ܕ ܵ ܐ ܹ ܸ ܿ ܼܘܙ ܵ ܐ ܒ ܹܐ ̈ ܹ ܆‬ ܿ ‫܆ ܒ ܿܘ ܒ ܿ ܵ ܐ‬60‫܆‬ ‫ܕܒ ܼ ܵ ܵ ܐ ܼ ܸ ܿ ܼܿܐ ܵ ܵ ܐ‬ ܼ ‫ܸ ܿ ܢ ܵ ܹ ܐ ܿ ܼ ̈ ܵ ܵ ܼ ܼܘܟ ܘ ܵ ̰ܓ ܸܓ ܸܐ ܿ ܟ܆‬ ‫ܵ ܼ ܕܵܐ‬

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 58

The Romance of Aḥīqār the Wise in the Neo-Aramaic MS London Sachau 9321 _____________________________________________________________________________________

61) My son, when your servants stand before you, do not hate one and favour another, because you do not know who among them will be at your side in the end. 62) My son, a servant who leaves his first master his work never reaches success. 63) [561] My son, make just judgement and you will ensure a peaceful old age. 64) My son, render your tongue sweet and your words pleasant, for the dog’s tail gets him bread but his mouth gets him beatings. 65) My child, do not let your mate tread on your foot or else he treads on your neck as well. 66) My son, do good to the man of God and you will also be honoured. 67) My son, do not quarrel with a man in his day [of power] and do not set yourself against the flowing of a river. 68) My son, a man’s eye is like [562] a spring which is not satisfied until it is full of dust. 69) My son, do not entertain those who quarrel, because from laughter comes quarrelling, from quarrelling fighting, and from fighting murder. Here Aḥīqār ended the words of wisdom that he taught to Nādān, his sister’s son. Then I, Aḥīqār, after imparting these teachings to Nādān, my sister’s son, thought that he would keep all these teachings in his heart, that he would stay in the king’s gate and that, thanks to him, I would enjoy sweet rest and a pleasant life. But he did just the opposite and did not listen [563] to my words, but dispersed them into the wind. He returned and said: “My father Aḥīqār grew old and his mind insane.” My son Nādān went after my wealth and all that I had earned, wasting it unsparingly. He tormented my hardworking servants in front of me and killed and sold my cattle and my mules as well. When I realized such deeds of his, I said to him: “My son, do not come near my wealth [again]! For it is said

‫ܵܗ ܿܘ ܼܝ ܼܓ ܼ ܿ ܼ ܵ ܼܬ ܼܘܟ ̈ ܼ ܹ ܐ‬ ‫ ܼܿ ܿ ܼܒ‬. ܿ ‫ܵ ܸ ܿ ܘ ܿ ܼ ܸ ܵ ܐ ܵܒ ܹܐ‬ ܵ ܿ ܵ ‫ܹܓ ܒ ܼ ܟ‬ ܹ ‫ܐ ܸܼ ܼ ܒ‬

‫܆ ܒ ܿܘ ܼ ܼ ܕ‬61‫܆‬ ‫ܵ ܼ ܟ ܵ ܐ ܼ ܵܐ‬ ‫ܕ ܵ ܐ ܼ ܿ ܸܐ ܿܬ ܕ ܹܐ‬ ‫ܒ ܼ ܼܿ ܼ ܵܬܐ܆‬ ‫܆ ܒ ܿܘ ܼ ܿܐܘ ܵܕܐ ܕ ܵ ܹܒ ܸܐ ܵ ܹܕܗ ܵ ܵ ܵܐ ܵ ܐ‬62‫܆‬ ܵ ܵ ‫ܹ ܵ ܐ܆‬ ܹ‫ܐ ܹ ܼ ܐ ܕ‬ ܵ ‫[ ܒ ܿܘ ܼ ܿܕܘܢ ܕ ܼ ܵ ܐ ܿܘܨܬܐ ܹܘ ܵ ܹܒ‬561] ‫܆‬63‫܆‬ ‫ܹ ܒ ܼ ܼ ܵܬܐ ܵ ܼܒ ܵ ܆‬ ܿ ܿܵ ܿ ܵ ‫ܘܒ ܼ ܵ ܐ‬ ܼ ‫܆ ܒ ܘ ܼ ܗ ܹܘܐ ܵ ܼ ܵܐ ܼ ܼ ܟ‬64‫܆‬ ‫ ܼܿ ܿ ܼܒ ܕ ܼܿ ܵܒܐ ܼܿܕ ܹܒ‬. ܵ ܼ ‫ܬܘ ܵ ܵܐ ܕ‬ ܼ ܹ ‫ܵ ܸܒ‬ ܵ ܵ ܵ ‫ܼܵ ̈ ܼ ܵ ܆‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ܹ ܹ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܹ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܸ ‫܆ ܒ ܿ ܵ ܐ ܕ ܵ ܐ‬65‫܆‬ ‫ܕܕ ܹ ܸܐ ܸ ܼܿܐ ܼ ܟ‬ ܹ ܼܼ ܿ ܿ ܵ ‫ܬܘܟ܆‬ ܼ ܼ ܸ ‫ܼ ܼܪܘܟ ܹ ܼ ܢ ܕ ܹ ܼܿܗܡ ܸܐ‬ ܿ ܵ ‫ܼܒ ܿ ܕ ܼܪ ܵ ܐ ܸܐ ܸ ܓ ܿ ܪܐ ܼܿܕܐ ܵ ܵ ܐ‬ ‫܆ ܒ ܿܘ‬66‫܆‬ ܼ ܵ ܿ ‫ܕܗܡ ܵܐ ܹ ܿ ܹ ܸ ܿ ܼ ܐ܆‬ ܼ . ܹ ܿ ‫܆ ܒ ܿܘ ܼ ܵ ܐ ܿܐܘ ܹܕ ܿܬ ܼ ܿ ܸܥ ܸܐ ܸ ܐ̄ ܵ ܵ ܐ ܒ‬67‫܆‬ ܵ ‫ܘ ܵ ܐ ܸ ܸ ܿ ܼܿܕܪ ܼ ܠ ܸ ܪܐ ܒܐ ܼ ܹ ܹ ܗ܆‬ ‫[ ܵ ܒ ܼ ܵܐܐ‬562] ܸ ‫܆ ܒ ܿܘ ܼ ܸܐ ܹ ܕ ܿ ܼܒ ܵ ܵ ܐ‬68‫܆‬ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܵ .‫ܗܘܠ ܕ ܹ ܵ ܐ ܼ ܵ ܼܐܘ ܐ‬ ܼ ‫̄ ̇ ܘ ܐ ܼ ܼܒܐܐ‬ . ܼ ܼ ܿ ܹ ‫܆ ܒ ܿܘ ܼ ܵ ܐ ܼ ܿ ܸ ܿ ܸܐ ܸ ܵܐ ܼ ܕ‬69‫܆‬ ܿܿ ܵ ܿ ܵ ‫ܓ ܵܐ ܵ ܿܘ ܵܐ‬ ̣ ‫ܼ ܼܒ ܕ‬ ̣‫ܘ‬ ܼܹ ܼ ‫ܵ ܿ ܼ ܵ ܵ ܹܘܐ ܼܿ ܹܐ ܹܘ ܼܿ ܹܐ ܵܒ ܹܐ ܸ ܵ ܐ܆‬ ‫ܸܘ ܹ ܐ ܹ ܵܐ ܼ ܵܐ ܼܿܐ ܼ ܿ ܼ ܵܬ ܵ ̈ ܵ ܕ ܸ ܼ ̱ ܹ ܗ ܕ ܿ ܹ ܵ ܐ‬ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܵ ‫ܵܒ ܹ ܪ ܵܐ ܼܕܝ‬ ܼ ܼ ‫ܬܐ ܵ ܢ ܸܒ ܕ ܼ ܹ ܗ܆ ܹܐ ܼܓ ܵ ܐ ܐ ܵ ܐ ܼܐ‬ ‫ܼ ܵ ܵ ܐ ܕ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܵܬܐ ܵ ܵ ܢ ܸܒ ܕ ܼ ܵ ܼ ܼ ܸ ܸܒ ܵ ܐ ܼܿܕܐܕ‬ ܵ ܵ ܿ ‫ ܘܒ ܵ ܒ‬. ‫ܒ ܿܒ‬ ܵ ‫ܪܐܐ‬ ܼ ܸ ܸ ܹ ‫ܼ ܵ ܐ ܹ ܸܒ ܐ ܹܪ‬ ܹ ܹ ܵ ܿ ‫ܵ ܼ ܵܐ ܸ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܵܬܐ ܘ ܼ ܵ ܹ ̈ܐ‬ ܹ ܸ ܼ ‫ܕ ܼ ܐ ܘ ܸܒ ܵܗ ܹܘ‬ ܵ ܿ ܿܿ ܿ ܸ ‫ܼܒ ܼ ̈ ܹ ܐ ܼܒ ܼ ܵܡ ܒ ܼ ܼ ܒ‬ ܹ ܹ ‫ܐܘܕ ܹ ܘ ܐ‬ ‫[ ܵ ̈ ܵ ܼ ܿ ܼܒ‬563] .‫ܸ ܵ ܹܪ ܿ ܼ ܼ ܸ ܸܓ ܹܕܒ ܿ ܼ ܵܐ‬ ܿ ܵ ‫ܕܒ ܿܒ ܿܐ‬ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܵ .‫ܹܘܕ ܹܐ ܹܗ ܘܐ ܼ ܹ ܹܐ‬ ܹ ܼ‫ܼ ܹ ܘ‬ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܼ ܼ ‫ ܸܘܕ ܹܪ ܹ ܵ ܢ ܒ ܘ ܼ ܒ ܸ ܪ ܐܠ ܕ‬. ܹ ‫ܼ ܼ ܒ‬ ܵ‫ܿܒ ܒ ܿ ܿܙ ܕ ܐ‬ ܵ ܵ ܹ ܹ ‫ܘ ܼ ܐ ܕ ܸ ܵܐ ܸܘ ܐ ܘ‬ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܿ ܵ ܿ ‫ܵܐ ܿ ܓ ܵ ܐ̈ܪ ܐ ܿܓ ܓ ܵܘ‬ ̈ ܿ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܼ ܼ ‫ ܐܘ ܹܕܐ ܕ‬.‫ܼ ܵ ܵ ܐ‬ ܼ ̰ܹ ̰ ܼ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܵ ‫ ܘ ܼ ܕ‬.‫ܘܗܡ ܸ ܵ ̈ ܼ ܘ ܿ ܹܕ ܵ ܼ ܼ ܸ ܐ ܸܘ ܹܒ ܐ‬ ܼ ܵ‫ ܐ‬. ܵ ‫ ܝ‬. ‫ܕ ܿ ܵܗ ܿܕܟ ̈ ܐ ܕ‬ ܹܼ ܹ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܹܼ ܹ ܼ ܹ ܿ ‫ܿ ܒ ܿ ܵܐ ܒ‬ ܵ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܒ‬ . ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܐܠ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ܹ ܼ ܸ ܼܼ ܸ ܸ ܼ ܼ ܵ ܸܼ ‫ܐ̄ ܼ ܐ‬

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 59

The Romance of Aḥīqār the Wise in the Neo-Aramaic MS London Sachau 9321 _____________________________________________________________________________________

in the proverbs: Let the eye not spare the hand that has not gained [anything].” Then I reported these things to my Lord the King, who ordered: “Let no one approach the wealth [564] of the scribe Aḥīqār as long as he lives.” Thereafter, Aḥīqār took Nāḇozardān, Nādān’s brother, to raise him in his house. So when Nādān saw that I had taken Nāḇozardān and established him in my presence in the house, evil rose in his eyes, he became jealous and conceived in his mind evil things. For this reason he said thus: “My father Aḥīqār grew old, his wisdom has diminished, and his words turned confused. Perhaps he will leave his wealth to my brother and banish me from his house.” Aḥīqār, on hearing Nādān’s words, reflected and thus said to Nādān: “What a pity for my wisdom to turn tasteless to you!” [565] When my son Nādān heard this he was grew very angry and harboured evil in his heart against me. He went to the king’s court to fulfil in deed the evil of his heart. Thus he wrote malignant letters in my name12 and went to the king’s gate to show the two letters he had written to kings who were enemies of Senḥārīḇ and Esarḥadom. He wrote in my name, one letter to the king of Persia and Elam Aḵīš son of Samḥālīm. Here is its content:13 “From Aḥīqār the scribe peace be to you, O king of Persia and Elam! When you receive this letter, march out quickly [566] and come to Aṯor. I will consign it into your hands without battle and without sword and you will dominate the kingdom without hindrance.” Then he wrote another letter [as if] from me to the Pharaoh, king of Egypt. Here is its content: “When this letter reaches you, march out to meet me on the peak beyond the plain14 on the twenty-fifth day of the month of August. And I will let you into Nineveh and you will enter the kingdom without fighting.” He [produced] these letters to look like my own letters and sealed them with my seal and threw them into one of

‫ܒ ܿ ܼ ܼ ̈ ܹ ܐ ܐ ܼ ܼ ܵ ܐ ܕ ܵ ܐ ܹ ܵ ̇ ܹܐ ܵ ܐ ܵ ܐ‬ ‫ܵ ܼܕ ܼܝ‬ ‫ܘ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܼܿܐ ܢ ܹ ܵ ܹ̈ܐ ܵܬܐ‬ ܵ ‫ ܕ ܵ ܐ ܵ ܼܘܒ ܓ ܼ ܐ̄ ܵ ܵ ܐ‬.‫ܸܘ ܵ ܐ‬ [564] ‫ܐܠ‬ ̰ ܼ ܸ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܵ ̈ ܼ ‫ܼܕܐ‬ ܹ ܹ ‫ ܼܒ ܸ ܪ ܸܕܟ‬.‫ܼ ܼܒܐ ܐ ܕ ܼ ܹ ܒ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܐ‬ ܵ ‫ܿܐ‬ ܵ ‫ܵ ܒ ܿ ܿܙ‬ ‫ܪܕ ܢ ܵܐ ܼ ܿ ܵ ܐ ܕ ܵ ܵ ܢ ܼ ܿܬܕ ܵ ܹܒ ܹܗ‬ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܵ ܵ ‫ܐ ܿܓ ܵ ܐ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܘ‬ .‫ܗ‬ ܼ ܹ ܹ ܹܼ ܼ ܹ ‫ܒ ܹܒ‬ ܼ ܸ ܸ ܵ ܵ ‫ܒܒ‬ ܿ ܵ ̇ ܵ ܿ ܸ ܼ ܹ ܹ ‫ܵ ܒ ܼܙܪܕ ܢ ܘ‬ ܼ ܹܹ ܼ ܵ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܼ ܕ ܕ ܹܪ ܹ ܵ ܵ ܢ ܒ ܼ ܹ ܗ‬ ܼ ܹ ܸ ‫ܹܒܐ ܹ ܹܘ‬ ܵ .‫ ܹܘ ܿ ܿܒ ܵܐܕܝ ܹ ܗ ܵܗ ܿܕܟ‬.‫ܼ ܿܬ ܵ ̈ ܵ ܼ ܵ ܕܒ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܵܬܐ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܕܒ‬ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܼܼ ܼ ܼ ܿ ‫ܗ ܘ ܓ‬ ܵ ‫ܿܐ‬ ܿ ̇ ܵ ‫ܸܘ ܼ ܒ‬ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܸ ܼ̰ ܹ ܹ ܼ ܸ ܹ ܸ ܼ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܵ . ܼ ܼ ‫ܐܠ ܕ ܼ ܹ ܬܐ ܐ‬ ‫ ܹ ܢ ܼ ܹܒ‬.‫ܹ ܗ‬ ܼ ܵ ܵ ܵ ̈ ܵ ‫ܿܐ ܵ ܿܬ‬ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܹ ‫ ܸܘ‬.‫ܘܐ ܵ ܐ ܹܒ ܵ ܸ ܼ ܹܒ ܹ ܗ‬ ܿ ܵ ܵ .‫ܘܗ ܼܿܕܟ ܹ ܹܗ ܵܬܐ ܵ ܵ ܢ‬ ܹ ‫ ܹܐ ܼܓ ܵ ܐ ܼ ܼ ܸܒ‬.‫ܕ ܵ ܢ‬ .‫ܸ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܼ ܸܕ ܸ ܵ ̇ ܼܿ ܼ ܵ ܹܓ ܒ ܼ ܟ‬ ܸ ܿ ܵ ܵ ‫ܢ ̰ܓ ܸܓ ܹܗ‬ ܼ ‫[ ܘ ܼ ܕ ܹ ܹ ܒ ܘ‬565] ܵ ܿ ܵ ‫̇ ܪܗ ܒ ܒ ܒ‬ ܼ ܹܸ ܹ ܹ ܼ ‫ ܘܐ‬. ܼ ‫ܸܐ‬ ܹ ܹ ܼ ‫ܼܒ ܼ ܐ ܘ‬ ܵ ܿ . ‫ܪܐܐ ܕ ܿ ܼ ܵܐ ܼ ܿܬܕ ܵ ܸ ܸܒ ܵܒ ܵ ܐ ܒ ܼ ܵ ܕ ܹ ܹܒ‬ ܼ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܼ ‫ܹ ܼ ܸܐ ܼܓ ܼܬܐ ܕܒ‬ ܹ ܸ ‫ܸܘܪ‬ ܹ ‫ܼ ܕ ܼ ܼܘ ܼܒ‬ ܿ ܿ ‫ܪܐܐ ܕ ܿ ܵܐ ܿܬܕ‬ ܵ ܿ ܵ‫ܵܪ ܿܘ ܐ ܿܓ ܬܐ‬ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܸ ܼ ܼ ܸ ܼ ܹܼ ܼ ܼ ܵ ܿ ̈ ܿ‫ܕ ܕ‬ ܹ ܸ ‫ܸܕ ܼ ܼܘ ܼܒ ܹ ܬܐ ܼ ܹ ܐ ܸܕ‬ ܼܼ ܹ ܼ ܿ ‫ܵ ܘܒ‬ ܿ ܵ ‫ܘܐ ܿ ܿ ܿܘܡ‬ ܵ‫ ܐ‬. ܼ ܼ ܼܸ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܸ ‫ܘܗ ܼܕܟ‬ ܼ ܹ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܵ ‫ܸܒ ܕ‬ ‫ܼܿ ܿ ܼܒ‬ ܼ ܼ ‫ܼܐ‬ ܼ ܼ ‫ܼ ܐ ܕ ܹܣ ܸܘܕ‬ ܵ ܵ ‫ܘܐܕ ܵ ̇ ܨܘ‬ ܿ ‫ ̣ ܼܿܐ ܼ ܿ ܼ ܵ ܼ ܵ ܼܵܒܐ‬.‫ܪܬ ̇ܗ‬ ܼ ܼܼ ‫ܼ ܵ ܼ ܆‬ ܵ ‫ܵ ܵ ܐ ܵ ܟ ܵܐ ܿ ܵ ܐ ܕ ܵ ܣ ܘ‬ ‫ܿ ܼ ܿܕ‬ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܵ ܿ ‫ܵܐܕܝ ܐ ܿܓ ܵܬܐ ܿ ܛ‬ ܿ ܿ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܘܗ‬ [ 566 ] ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܸ ܼܼ ܸ ܼ ܵ .‫ܐܬܘܪ‬ ‫ܘܐ ܵ ܐ ܸܒ ܸ ܵ ܸ ܵ ܿ ܒܐ ܼ ܼ ܼܘܟ ܕ ܵ ܐ ܼܿ ܹܐ ܸܘܕ ܵ ܐ‬ ܼܼ . ܵ ܼ ܼ ܿ ܿ ܼ ‫ܹ ܵܐ ܘ ܸܒ ܼܿ̇ܨܒ ܸ ܿ ܿ ܼ ܿ ܼ ܵܬ ̇ܗ ܕ ܵ ܐ‬ ‫ܼ ܵ ܼ ܵܬܐ‬ ‫ܸܘ ܼ ܼܘ ܼܒ ܹ ܵܓ ܸ ܵܬܐ ܸܐ ܿ ܼܓ ܼ ܵܬܐ ܸ ܵܬܐ‬ ܵ . ‫ܿ ܢ ܿ ܵܐ ܕ ܪ‬ ܵ ‫ܘܐܕ ܵ ̇ ܨܘ‬ ‫ ܿ ܼ ܿܕ‬.‫ܪܬ ̇ܗ‬ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܸ ܼ ܸ ܵ ‫ܿ ܵܐ ܵܐܕܝ ܐ ܿܓ‬ ܿ ‫ܪ‬ ‫ܐܘ‬ ‫ܛ‬ ‫ܟ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܓ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܬ‬ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܼ ܸ ܼ ܼ ܼܼ ܼ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܵ ‫ ܒ ܐ ܕ ܼ ܼ ܐ ܘ ܸܐ ܼܝ‬. ‫ܼ ̰ܓ ܹ ܼ ܸܕ ܒ ܼܕܕ‬ ܿ ‫ ܘܒ ܵܐܪ‬.‫ܐ‬ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܹ ܼ ‫ ܘܐ ܵ ܐ ܒ ܵ ܒ ܼ ܸ ܼ ܟ‬.‫ܒ ܿ ܼ ܼܒ ܼ ܿ ܼ ܐ‬ ܹ ܸ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܿ ̇ܵ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܼ ‫ ܸܘ ܼܘ ܹ ܹ ܐ‬.‫ܒܓ ܵܗ ܼ ܼ ܼܬܐ ܕ ܐ ܼ ܹܐ‬ ܿ ܵ ܵ ‫̈ܒ‬ ܵ ܼܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܼ ‫ ܘ ܹ ܹ ܼ ܝ ܒܐ‬. ܼ ܼ ‫ܸ ܼ ܼ ܼܒ‬ ܵ‫ܘ ܵ ܿ ܒ ܐܐ‬ ܼܸ ܼ ܹ ܸ .‫ܹ ܵ ܐ‬ .‫ܿ ܼ ܵܐ‬

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 60

The Romance of Aḥīqār the Wise in the Neo-Aramaic MS London Sachau 9321 _____________________________________________________________________________________

the king’s rooms. Afterward, he wrote again another letter to me [567] in the king’s name: “From Esarḥadom to Aḥīqār, scribe of my lordship, peace! When you get this letter, gather all the troops at Mount Ṣāḥu and from there head for the peak of Nešrē, on the twenty-fifth day of the month of August. When you see I am coming near you in battle, marshal the army against me, as a man who is ready to fight, for messengers have come to me from Pharaoh, King of Egypt, to know [the size] of my army and how my troops are.” Then my son Nādān gave one of the letters to the king as if he had just seen it, [568] he took it and read it before my Lord, King Esarḥadom. When [the king] heard it, he was furious with the scribe Aḥīqār and spoke thus: “O God, what wrong have I done so that Aḥiqār was drawn to do this to me?” Then Nādān answered and said to the king: “My Lord the King, do not be annoyed and do not be distressed. Come, let us go out now to climb the peak of Nešre as it is written in this letter. There you will know the truth of these matters and whatever you command will be done.” When the king ordered that they should go and climb the peak to see if this thing was true, [569] then my son Nādān went with my Lord, King Esarḥadom, and they came to find me and the army that was with me on the peak of Nešrē. When I saw he was coming towards me, I marshalled the army against him as if to fight, relying on that letter that my son Nādān had sent me. Then the king, seeing I did thus, put on a sombre face and turned back on the advice of my son Nādān who said to him: “My Lord the King, return to your palace and stay calm. I will take Aḥīqār prisoner in fetters and chains and I will deliver him [570] into your hands, since he has perpetrated these things against you.” After leaving the king, Nādān came to me and said: “My father, I swear to your God that for this thing you have done King Esarḥadom has greatly

ܵ .‫ܿ ܼ ̈ ܵ ܐ ܕ ܿ ܼ ܵܐ‬ ‫ܼ ܼܘ ܼܒ ܹ ܵܓ ܸ ܵܬܐ‬ ‫ܘܒ ܸ ܪ ܸܕ‬ ܹ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܵ . ܼ ‫ܸ ܐ ܕ ܼ ܐ ܹܓ ܒ‬ [567] ‫ܸܐ ܼܓ ܼܬܐ ܸ ܬܐ‬ ‫ܸܐ ܼܿ ܼ ܿ ܿܘܡ ܼܿܐ ܼ ܿ ܼ ܵ ܼ ܵ ܼܵܒܐ ܸܕ ܵ ܼܕ ܼܝ ܵ ܵ ܐ܆ ܿ ܼ ܕ‬ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܿ ̇ ܼܵ ܿ ܿ ‫ܼ ܪܐ‬ ܼ ܼ ܸ ‫ܵܒ ܹ ܐ ܼܕ ܼܝ ܸܐ ܼܓ ܬܐ ̰ܓ‬ ܵ ‫ ܒ ܿ ܵ ܐ‬.‫ ܸܘ ܵ ܵ ܐ ܿ ܩ ܵ ̰ܓ ܼ ܵ ܕ ܸ ܹ ܐ‬. ܼ ‫ܕܨ‬ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܿ ‫ ܘ ܼ ܕ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܕ ܼ ܸ ܢ‬.‫ܕ ܼ ܼ ܐ ܘ ܸܐ ܼܝ ܒ ܼ ܼܒ ܼ ܼ ܐ‬ ܵ ܿ ܿ ‫ܒ ܵ ܵܒܐ ܓ ܒ ܟ‬ ‫ܨܘܦ ܿ ܼܒ ܼ ܿ ܼ ܼ ܼܿ ܹ ܿ ܼܓ ܼܒ ܐ‬ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܹ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܿ ‫ܵ ̇ ܹ ܪ ܼ ܹܐ ܼ ܼܒ ܸܕ ܼ ܕ ܹ̈ܪܐ ܕ ܸ ܢ‬ ܹ ܼ‫ܕ‬ ܿ ‫ܿ ܵܐ ܕ ܪ ܐ‬ ̇ ܵ ̄ ‫ ܕ ܿ ܐܝ ܵ ܵ ܐ‬. ‫ܓ ܒ‬ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܹ ܸ ܼ ܼ ܼܵ ܹ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܹ ‫ ܘ ܼ ܕ ܹܒ‬.‫ ܘܕ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼܬ ܼܝ‬.‫ܼ ܼ ܕ ܹܐܬ ܼܝ‬ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܸ ܸ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܹ ‫ܵ ܢ ܒ ܘ ܼ ܬܐ ܼ ܐ ܼ ܐ ܸܐ ܼܓ ܬܐ‬ ܵ ܵ ‫[ ܘ ܵ ܵ ̇ ܘ‬568] ̇ ܵ ܵ ܵܵ ܹ ܹ ܹ ܹ ܸ ܹ ܼ ܸ ‫ܼ ܵܐ‬ .‫ܸܐ ܼܕܝ ܿ ܼ ܵܐ ܸܐ ܼܿ ܼ ܿ ܿܘܡ‬ ܵ ܿ ܵ ‫ܿܐ‬ ܿ ܼ ܼ ܸ ‫ܘ ܼ ܕ ܹ ܹ ܼ ܒ ܼ ܐ ̰ܓ ܹܓ ܹܗ ܹܐ‬ ܵܿ ܿ ܵ ‫ܵ ܵ ܵܒܐ‬ ܸ ‫ ܵܐ ܼܐ ܵ ܐ ܵ ܐ ܓ ܵ ܵ ܐ‬.‫ܘܗ ܼܕܟ ܹ ܹܗ‬ ܼ ‫ܐܘܕ‬ ܼ ܼ ܵ ܵ ‫ܵܬܐ ܿܐ‬ ܿܵ ‫ ܸܐ ܿ ܼܓ‬. ܼ ‫ܕܐ ܹܘ ܼܕ ܒ‬ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܹ ‫ܕܗ ܼܕܟ ܹ̰ܓܒ‬ ‫ ܵ ܐ ܿ ܼ ̰ܓܓ ܹ ܿܬ‬.‫̰ܓ ܼ ܹܘܒ ܹ ܵ ܵ ܢ ܘ ܹ ܹܗ ܵܬܐ ܿ ܼ ܵܐ‬ ܿ ‫ܘܓܒ‬ ܿ ‫ܵ ܼܕ ܼܝ ܿ ܼ ܵܐ ܼ ܕ ܵܙ ܿ ܼ ܼܿܕ ܵܗܐ ܼܿ ܼ ܟ‬ ܹ ܼ ܿ ‫ܵܒܐ‬ ܵ ܵ .‫ܒܐ ܿܕ ܼܝ ܹܐ ܿ ܼܓ ܵܬܐ‬ ܼ ܼܼܼ ܹ ܼ ‫̰ܓ ܹ ܼ ܕ ܸ ܹ ܐ ܸܕ ܕ‬ ‫ܘ ̣ ܵܬ ܵ ܐ ܒ ܼ ܿ ܼ ܼܐܘܟ ܼ ܿ ܼ ܼ ܵܬܐ ܼܿܕܐ ܢ ܼ ̈ ܹ ܐ ܘ ܿ ܠ‬ .‫ܸ ܼܝ ܕ ܼܿ ܸ ܿܬ ܸܒ ܵܒ ܹܐ‬ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܼ ‫ܼ ܹ ܐ ܼܕܐ‬ ܼ ܹ ‫ܼ ܕ ܼܐܘ ܹ ܹܗ ܼ ܐ ܕ‬ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܿܵ [569] ‫ܓ ܹ ܼ ܕ ܼ ܼ ܝ ܼ ܿ ܼ ܼܬܐ ܕ ܼ ܐ ܸܐ ܼܓ‬ ̰ ‫ܵ ܵ ܢ ܒ ܿܘ ܼ ܹܐ ܹ ܹܐ ܵ ܼܕ ܼܝ ܸܐ ܼܿ ܼ ܿ ܿܘܡ‬ ܹ ܸ ܿ ‫ ܘܬ‬.‫ܿ ܵܐ‬ ܿ ܿ ‫ܵܐ ܵ ܐ ܘ‬ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܵ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܕܘ‬ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܸ ܼ ܼ ܸ ܼ ܹ ܿ ܿ ‫ ܘ‬.‫ܒ ܵܓ ܵ ܕ ܐ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܕܐ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܼ ܹ ̰ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܹ ܸ ܼ ܹ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܼ ܹ .‫ܸܨ ܼ ܼܒ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܹ ܬܐ ܼ ܹܐ‬ ܵ ‫ ܹܐ ܿ ܼܓ ܵ ܐ‬. ܼ ‫ܵ ܝ ܹܐ ܿ ܼܓ ܬܐ ܸܕ ܼ ܹܕ ܹܗ ܵ ܼ ܵ ܵ ܢ ܒ ܿܘ‬ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܹ ܹ ‫ܼ ܐ ܕ ܼ ܹ ܹ ܹ ܼ ܵܗ ܼܕܟ ܼ ܐ ܼ ܼ ܪ‬ ܿ‫ ܕ‬. ‫ܒܓ ܕ ܒ ܵ ܿ ܵܬܐ ܕ ܵ ܵ ܢ ܒ ܿܘ‬ ܵ ‫ܘܕ ܐ ܗ‬ ܹ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܹ ܹ ܹ ܸ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܵ ‫ܹܒ ܼ ܼܘܟ‬ ܼ ‫ ܐ ܸܐ ܼܕ ܼܝ ܼ ܐ‬. ܹ ܵ ‫ܹ ܹܗ‬ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܵ ‫ܗܘ‬ ܼ ‫ܕ ܐ‬ ܼ ܼ ‫ܼܐ‬ ܹ ‫ ܘܐ ܵ ܐ ܹܒ ܐ ܸܪ‬.‫ܗܘܝ ܼ ܼ ܐ‬ ܼ ‫ܸܘ‬ ܵ ܵ ܵ ̈ ܵ ܵ ̈ ‫ܬܘܟ‬ ܼ ܼ ‫[ ܒܐ‬570] ܹ ܸ ‫ܼ ܐ ܒ ܹ ܹ ܐ ܘ ܸ ܼ ܸܘ‬ ‫ ܼ ܕ ܕ ܹܐ ܹܗ‬.‫ܼܿ ܿ ܼܒ ܸܕ ܼܐܘܕ ܹ ܼܿܐ ܼܕܝ ̈ ܹ ܐ ܸܐ ܼ ܟ‬ ܵ ܿ ‫ܓܒ‬ ̣ ‫ܵ ܵܢ‬ ܼ ‫ܹܓ ܒ‬ ܹ ܹ ܼ ‫ ܐ‬.‫ܼ ܐ‬ ܹ ܹ ܿ ‫ܵ ܟ‬ ܵܿ ‫ܒܐ ܼܕ‬ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܵ ܼ ‫ ܼܒܐ ܼܘܟ ܵܐ ܵܒܒ‬. ܼ ܹ ܹ ‫ܘ‬ ܵ ܵ ‫ܐܘ ܼܕ ܼ ܟ ܹ ܸ ܼܿ ܒ ܼ ܐ‬ ܸ ‫ܼ ܐ ܹܕ‬

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 61

The Romance of Aḥīqār the Wise in the Neo-Aramaic MS London Sachau 9321 _____________________________________________________________________________________

praised you and exalted you because you obeyed the orders of his letter. Now he sent me to you that we may both appear in his presence alone. Discharge the troops so that everyone goes to his house.” Thereafter, I let the army go and went with Nādān before the king and greeted him. On seeing me he said to me: “So you have come, Aḥīqār, my scribe and governor of my kingdom, [571] you who were [so] dear to me. I tell you: go home and never come before me again, now that you have changed your love to hate and became among my enemies.” Then he took and gave me those letters that Nādān had written in my name, as if I had written myself, and sealed with my seal. When I read them I was amazed, trembling and fearful, and my tongue was tied; when I tried to say a word from the words of wisdom I could not. Then Nādān shouted at me and said: “Give an answer! Leave the king’s presence, [572] O fool and ill-fated old man! Bring your hands for the fetters and your feet for the chains!” After which the king turned his face from me with indescribable anger. He ordered the executioner whose name was Nābosmīḵ, saying to him: “I command you to take Aḥīqār, go and kill him, throw his head a hundred cubits from his body.” Then I, Aḥīqār, paid homage to the king and said to him: “My Lord the King, may you live forever! As you wanted my death, let your order be [executed], but because I have no guilt as far as I know, (thus) I beg the King my Lord that I may be killed at the gate of my house [573] and that my corpse be given to my servants so that they may bury me.” Then the king said to the executioner: “Go at once and do as Aḥīqār had said.” Then we all left the king’s presence and I sent a letter to my wife Ešpaġnē to come out to meet me with a thousand young ladies in elegant and beautiful clothes to mourn and weep over me before my death. And [I also described] to my aforementioned wife to go home and prepare food and drink of various kinds on the table

‫ܸ ܵ ܸ ܼ ܟ ܘ ܹ ܿ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܟ ܿ ܼ ܵܐ ܸܐ ܼܿ ܼ ܿ ܿܘܡ‬ ܿ .‫ܵ ܵ ܐ ܕܐ ܿܓ ܬܗ‬ ‫ܘܕ ܵܗܐ ܸ ܵ ܹ ܼܝ‬ ܼ ‫ܸܒ ܸ ܹ ܼ ܟ‬ ܹ ܼ ܸ ܼ . ‫ܹܓ ܹܒ‬ ‫̇ ܼ ܹ ܐ ܸܒ ܼ ܿ ܼܿܕ ܢ‬ ‫ܿ ܼܒ ܼ ܼܪܘܟ ܕ ܹ ܼ ܟ‬ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܿ ‫ ܵܒ ܸ ܪ‬.‫ܿ ܕ ܵܐ ܹܒ ܹ ܗ‬ ܹ ‫ܹܘ ܼܒ ܩ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܿܬܕ ܵܙ‬ ܿ ‫ܘܬ ܼ ܸܐ ܸ ܵ ܵ ܢ ܿ ܹܓ ܸܒ‬ ‫ܸܐ ܿ ܼܓ‬ ܹ ܼ ܼ ܼ ‫ܼ ܹܒ‬ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܵ‫ܐ‬ ܼ ܹ ܸ ‫ ܘ ܼ ܕ‬. ܹ ‫ܼ ܐ ܸܘ ܒ ܼ ܹ ܼܝ ܸܒ‬ ‫ ܐ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܟ ܵܐ ܼܿܐ ܼ ܿ ܼ ܵ ܼ ܵ ܼܵܒܐ ܕ ܼ ܼܐܝ‬. ܼ ܵ ‫ܹ ܹܗ‬ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܿ ‫ܕܘ ܼ ܿܬ ܵܘܐ‬ ܸ ‫[ ܹܘ ܼ ܒ ܵ ܐ ܕ ܼ ܼ ܼܬ ܼܝ ܐ ܹ ܐ ܼ ܹ ܬ‬571] ܿ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܹ ܹ ‫ ܼ ܸܢ ܵ ܼ ܟ ܼ ܹܒ ܼ ܵ ܘ ܐ‬. ܼ ‫ܸܒܐ ܵܐ ܸܐ‬ ܵ ܵ ‫ܵܐ‬ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܿ ‫ ܼܕ ܵܗܐ ܕ ܹܐ ܐ ܒ ܹܐ ܼ ܘ ܼܟ‬.‫ܼܒ ܹ ܐ‬ ܸ ܼ ܵ ܵ ̈ ‫ ܒ ܹ ܪ ܸܕ ܼܟ‬. ܼ ܼ ‫ܹ ܹ ܹܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܸ ܼ ܼܬܐ ܘ ܸ ܼ ܼܟ‬ ܿ ‫ܐ ܿܓ ܵܬܐ ܵܐ ܿ ܕ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ܼ ܼ ܸ ܼ ‫ܼ ܹ ܹ ܸܘܗ ܸܒ‬ ܹ ܼ ܼܼ ܹ ܼ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܿ ‫ܒ ܬܐ ܕ ܝ ܕ‬ ܵ ‫ܵ ܵܢ‬ ܼ ܸ ܼ ܸ ܼ ܼ ܵ‫ܓ ܵ ܐ ܘܪܐ ܐ‬ ܵ ܿ ܼ ܼ ‫ܒ‬ ܼ ܹ ܼ ̰ ܼ ܼ ܸ ܼ ܸ ܸ ‫ ܘ ܼ ܵܕ‬.‫ܗܘ ܼܪܝ‬ ܿ ‫ ܘ ܿ ܕ ܓ ܿܒ‬. ܵ ܵ ܿ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܼ̰ ܼ ܼ ‫ܸܘܙܕ ܼ ܐ ܘܐ ܼ ܼ ܐ‬ ‫̈ ܕ ܸ ܼ ̱ ܼܵ ܘ ܵ ܐ‬ ‫ܿ ܼ ܿ ܿ ܹ ܐ ܵܬ ܹ ܼ ܵ ܼ ܵ ܐ‬ ‫ܼ ܹ ܹ ܸܐ ܼ ܵ ܵ ܢ ܘ ܹ ܹܗ‬ ‫ ܸܐ ܿ ܼܓ ܵ ܐ‬. ܼ ܹ ‫ܗ ܹܒ‬ ܵ ‫ܿܘܠ‬ ܿ ܵ ‫ܿ ܼ ܵܐ ܵܐ ܵ ܿ ܼܒܐ‬ ܼ .‫̰ܓ ܹ ܒ‬ ܼ ܵ ̈ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܵ ‫ܘܗܠ ܐ ܼ ܼܬ ܼܘܟ‬ ܼ ‫[ ܼ ܼ ܐ ܵܐ ܼ ܓ ܐ ܒ ܼ ܐ‬572] ܿ ܵ ‫ ܘܒ ܸ ܪ ܸܕ‬.‫ܘܐ ܵ ܼ ܼܘ ܼܟ ܵ ܵܬܐ ܸ ̈ ܿ ܹ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܼ ܵ ܹܐ‬ ܼ ‫ܼ ܸ ܹ ܿ ܼ ܵܐ ܼܿ ܼ ̈ܘ ܹܬܗ ܸ ܼ ܒ ܸ ܼ ܵ ܕ ܵ ܐ‬ .‫ܼܿ ܼ ܵܐ ܸ ܵ ܿ ܹ ܐ‬ ܵ ܿ .‫ܸܘ ܼܐܘ ܹ ܹܗ ܼ ̰ܓ ܕ ܸ ܹ ܵ ܿܒ ܿ ܼ ܘ ܹ ܹܗ‬ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܿ ‫ܟ‬ ܼ ܼ ܸ ܼ‫ܹ ܘ‬ ܼ ‫ܠ ܼܐ ܼ ܵ ܘ‬ ܵ‫ ܐ ܿܓ ܵ ܐ ܕ ܬܐ‬.‫ܿ ܗ ܐ ܵ ܐ ܕܪܐܐ‬ ܼ ܹ ܹ ܸ ܹ ܹ ܼ ܼ ܼܸ ܹ ‫ܹܪ‬ ‫ ܼ ܼ ܵܐ ܵ ܼܕܝ‬. ܼ ܵ ‫ܿ ܼ ܵܐ ܵܐ ܵ ܐ ܼܿܐ ܼ ܵ ܘ ܹ ܼܝ‬ ܵ ܿ ‫ܗܘܠ ܼܿܐ ܿ ܼܒ ܸܕ ܸ̰ܒ ܹ ܼ ܟ ܒ ܸ ܼ ܼ ܕ‬ ܼ ‫ܼ ܐ‬ ܿ ܿ ܿܿ ܵ ܹ ܼ ‫ܼ ܼ ܟ ܵܗ ܹܘܐ ܼ ܼܒ ܕ ܼ ܼ ܓ ܵ ܵ ܐ ܕ ܕ‬ ܵ‫ܸ ܵܗ ̇ܘܐ ܸ ܒ ܿ ܼܪܐܐ‬ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܸ ‫ܸ ܸ ܸ ܸ ܼܕܝ ܼ ܐ ܕ‬ ܿ [573] ܼ ‫ܕܒ‬ ‫ܘܗܡ ܵ ܹ ܗ ܼܒ ܼ ܵ ܐ ܼܿ ܓ ܼܝ ܵܬܐ ܿܐܘ ܹ̈ܕܐ‬ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܵ . ‫ ܹܐ ܼܓ ܐ ܹ ܹܗ ܼ ܐ ܬܐ ܼ ̰ܓ‬. ܼ ܼ ‫ܕ ܼ ܼ ܼܬܕ ܼ ܼܒ‬ . ܼ ܿ ܼ ‫ܼ ܼܒ ܿ ܼܕ ܿ ܼ ܼ ܵ ܐ ܸܕ ܕ ܹ ܹܗ ܼܿܐ‬ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܵ ‫ܘܒ ܸ ܪ ܸܕ‬ ‫ܿ ܼ ܵܐ‬ ܼ ܸ ܼ ܼ ‫ܸܘ ܼ ܹܕ ܼܝ ܵܬܐ ܿ ܼܒ ܼ ܼ ܹܐ ܼܿ̇ ܼܓ ܹܐ ܼ ܵ ܼܵܒܐ ܼ ܿܬܕ ܵ ̇ ܵ ܐ‬ ܵ ܵ ‫ܗ‬ ܵ ‫ܿܐ ܵܐ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܒ ܒ‬ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܼ ܸ ‫ܼ ܸܐ‬ ܸ ܸ ܼ ܼ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܿܵ ܵ .‫ܿ ܼܬ ܼܝ‬ ܼ ‫ܘ ܸ ܬܐ ܼܬܕ ܼ ܼܕܝ ܘܒ ܼ ܸܐ‬ ܿ ܵ ‫ܘܬܕ‬ ܵ‫ܕܐ ܵܪܐ ܿܒ ܕ ܵܬܐ ܼ ܒ ܵ ܘ ܵ ̇ ܵܪܐ ܐ ܵ ܐ‬ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܸ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܵܵ ܿ ܿ ‫ܕܬ ܹ̈ܪܙܐ ܼܬ ܹ̈ܪܙܐ‬ ܼ ‫ܼ ܘܪܐ‬ ܼ ‫ܸܘ ܐ‬

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 62

The Romance of Aḥīqār the Wise in the Neo-Aramaic MS London Sachau 9321 _____________________________________________________________________________________

and to pour fine old wine with her own hands for all the king’s servants and hangmen. Then my wife [574] Ešpaġnē, very wise and able, did as I ordered her. After they ate and drank, they got drunk and fell asleep in their spots. Then I, Aḥīqār, said to the hangman: “Turn your eyes toward God, the creator of the heavens, and remember the bread and water that we ate together! And I know I have committed no wrong or sin. It is Nādān who set this trap and betrayed me. So do not associate yourself with my sin, do not kill me oppressively, remember and call to your mind the day that Senḥārīḇ, father of this king, was angry with you and ordered me to kill you. When I realized that you were [575] guiltless, I hid you and did not kill you, until the king’s anger was placated and he remembered your merits and ordered me to bring you before him. He treated you well and rewarded you with great gifts. Now hide me and repay me for what I did for you. Behold, I have in prison a guilty slave whose name is Medyāpar, who deserves to die for his evil deeds. Release him now and let him put on my clothes. Take out those drunken men who are with you and let them kill him in such a way that they will not suspect whom they are murdering, throw his head a hundred cubits from his body, and give his corpse that they may bury him.” [576] The announcement flew in Aṯor and Nineveh that Aḥīqār was killed. Then the hangman and my wife Ešpaġnē arranged for me a hidden place underground, fourteen cubits long and seven wide, under the threshold of the door. They let me in and hid me inside it; they brought me bread and water. They left me and went away and informed the king: “Aḥīqār is killed as you ordered.” When the news spread through Aṯor and Nineveh they wept for me and said: “We lament you, Aḥīqār, able scribe, expert in hidden matters. Who will dare be like you?” Then King Esarḥadom called Nādān [577] and said to him:

ܵ ܿ ‫ܘܕܪ ܵܐ ܵܬܐ ܿ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܵ ܵ ̈ ܹ ܐ ܕ ܿ ܼ ܵܐ ܘ ܿ ܼ ̰ܓ ܵ ̈ ܹ ܐ ܸ ܐ‬ ܼ ܿ ‫ܪ ܵ ܵܐ‬ ‫[ ܹܐ ܼܿ̇ ܼܓ ܹܐ‬574] ܼ ܼ ‫ ܸܐ ܿ ܼܓ ܵ ܐ ܿ ܼܒ‬.‫ܘܐܬ ܼ ܵ ܐ ܒܐ ܼ ܵ ̇ܗ‬ ܼ ܸ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܿ ̇ ‫ܸܕ‬ ‫ܸ ܼܕ‬ ܼ ܼ ܼ ‫ܼܒ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼܪܒ ܼ ܘ‬ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܿ ̇ ܿ ܼ ‫ܕ ܸ ܼ ܸ ܵ ܘ ܼ ܕ ܐ ܼ ܸ ܼ ܹܘ ܹ ܼ ܸܘ ܼܪܘ‬ ‫ܕ ܹ ܼ ܿ ܼ ܒ ܼܘ ܼܿ ܼ ܹܐ ܿ ܼܓ ܵ ܐ ܵܐ ܵ ܐ ܼܿܐ ܼ ܵ ܐ ܼ ܹ ܼܝ ܵܬܐ‬ ‫ ܿ ܸܪܡ ܼ ܵ ܼܘܟ ܹܓ ܹܒ ܼܿܐ ܵ ܵ ܐ ܵܒ ܿܘ ܵܐ ܸܕ ܿ ܼ ܵܐ‬. ܵ ‫ܿ ܼ ̰ܓ‬ ‫ܸܘܕ ܼ ܿ ܪ ܸ ܼ ܵ ܐ ܘ ܵ ܵܐ ܕ ܼ ܼ ܸ ܿ ܼ ܹܒ ܼ ܵ ܹ̈ܕܐ ܹܘ ܼ ܿ ܹܐ ܢ‬ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܼ ܼ ‫ܐܘ ܼܕ ܹ ܸܐ‬ ܸ ‫ܕ ܼ ܼ ܓ ܵ ܵ ܐ ܸܘ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܘ ܵ ܵ ܢ‬ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܿ ‫ ܿܒ ܿ ܡ ܵܐ‬. ܵ ܸ ܼ ܹܼ ܹ‫ܘ‬ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ‫ܐ ܐܘ ܸܪܬ ܸܒ‬ ܼܼ ‫ܘ ܿ ܼ ܹ ܿ ܼ ܒ ̇ ܹ ܹ ܸܘܕ ܼ ܿ ܪ ܘ ܸ ܼ ܼ ܵܒ ܼ ܟ ܿ ܵ ܐ‬ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܵܵ ܸ ܼ ܸ ‫ܸܕ ̰ܓ ܹܓ ܹܗ ܹܐ ܼ ܟ ܼ ܸ ܼ ܼ ܒܒܐ ܼܕܐ ܼܕ ܼ ܐ ܸܘ‬ ‫[ ܓ ܵ ܵ ܐ‬575] ‫ ܘ ܼ ܕ ܐ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܕ ܿ ܼ ܼܘܟ‬.‫ܕ ܿ ܼ ܸ ܼ ܟ‬ ܿ ܵ ‫ܗܘܠ ܕ ܵ ܸ ܼ ܹ̰ܓ ܿ ܹܓ‬ ܼ ‫ܸ ܵ ܸ ܼܟ ܘ ܐ ܸ ܼ ܸ ܼܟ‬ ‫ܕ ܿ ܼ ܵܐ ܸܘܕ ܼ ܹ ܹܗ ܵ ܒ ܼܵܒ ܼ ̈ ܼܘܟ ܸܘ ܸ ܼ ܹ ܘ ܸ ܵ ܸ ̈ ܸܪ ܼ ܟ‬ ܿ ܵ ܵܵ ܵ ‫ܟ‬ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܹ ‫ܐܘܕ ܹ ܼܪ ܵ ܐ ܸܐ ܼ ܟ ܹܘ ܸܒ‬ ܹ ‫ ܹܘ‬. ܹ ‫ ܸܘ ܵ ܼ ܼ ܼܿܗܡ ܵܐ ܸ ܿ ܼܿܕ ܵܗܐ ܹܘ ܿܘ ܼ ܸܕ‬.‫ܼܿ ܿܒ ܼ ܹ ܐ‬ ‫ܕܘ ܼܕ ܼ ܸܐ ܼ ܟ ܵܘ ܹ ܐ ܹܐ ܿܬ ܼܝ ܼ ܵܐ ܿܐܘ ܵܕܐ ܓ ܼ ܼܿ ܵ ܬ ܼ ܵ ܐ‬ ܸ ܵ‫ܐ‬ ܵ‫ܬܐ‬ ܵ ܿ ‫ܵ ܿ ܘܓ‬ ܿ ܼ ܸ ܹ ܹ ‫ܒ ܼ ܹܒ ܘ‬ ܸ ܹ ܼ ܼܼ ܵ ܿ ܿܿ ̈ ܵ ‫ܹܒ‬ ‫ܵ ܸ ܹ ܼܕܗܐ ܘ ܼ ܕ‬ ܹ ܵ ܼ ‫ܼ ܼܒ ܒ‬ ܵܵ ‫ ܘ ܿ ܼ ܹ ܓ ܼ ܹ̈ܪܐ ܵܐ ܼ ̈ܪܘ ܹ ܐ ܕ ܸܐ ܼ ܟ ܘ ܼ ܕ‬. ܼ ܼ ‫̰ܓ‬ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܼ ܼ ‫ܼ ܕ ܐ ܼܪܐ‬ ܹ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܼ‫ ܘ‬. ܼܸ ܿ ‫ܿ ܗ ܐ ܵ ܐ ܕ̈ܪܐܐ‬ .‫ܘܗܠ ܼܿ ܼܓ ܹܗ ܼ ܿܬܕ‬ ܼ ܹ ܸ ܹ ܹ ܼ ܹ ‫ܹܪ‬ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܵ ‫[ ܼ ܼܒ ܼ ܼ ܘ ܸ ܨ ܸ ܒܐ ܼܬܘܪ ܘ ܼ ܹ ܐ‬576] ܵ ‫ܿܕܐ‬ ‫ܼ ܵ ܐ ܹܐ ܿ ܼܓ ܵ ܐ ܿ ܼ ̰ܓ ܐܕ ܘ ܸܐ ܼܿ ܹܓ ܹܐ‬ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܹ ܵ ‫ܕܘ‬ ܿ ܵ ‫ܼ ܵ ܼ ܼܿܐ ܵܕܐܐ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܐܘ‬ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܸ ܼ ܼ ‫ܼܒ‬ ܵ ܿܿ ܿ ̇ܵ ܵ ‫ܕ̈ܪܐܐ ܘ ܵ ܵ ̇ ܿ ܒ ܵܐܐ ܘ ܿ ܕ ܐ‬ ܼ ܹ ܹ ܼ ܼ ܸ ܹ ܼ ‫ܕ ܼ ܪ ܼ ܼܐܪ ܼܒ‬ ܼ ܼ ܿ ‫ܒܓ ܵ ̇ܗ ܘܕܪ‬ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܼ ܸ ‫ܕܬܪܐܐ ܘ ܸ ܵܒ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܘ‬ ܼ ܹ ܸ ܼ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܼ ‫ܘܙ‬ ܼ ܼ ‫ܹܓ ܒ ܼ ܸ ܼ ܐ ܘ ܐ ܘ ܸ ܼ ܼܒ‬ ܸ ܿ ܵ‫ܐ‬ ܵ ‫ ܿܕܐ‬.‫ܵܬܐ ܿ ܵܐ‬ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼܹ ܼ ‫ܘ‬ ܹ ܸ ܵ ܵ ‫ܒܐ ܼܬ ܿܘܪ‬ ܸ ܹ ‫ܵܨ‬ ܹ ܸ ‫ ܘ ܼ ܕ‬.‫ܼ ܼ ܟ‬ ܵ‫ ܹ ̇ ܸܐ ܼ ܟ ܐ‬.‫ܼ ܸܕܕ ܿ ܼ ܸܐ ܼ ܘ ܹ ܼܿ ܝ‬ ‫ܘ ܼ ܹܐ‬ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܵ ‫ܵܐ ܘ ܵ ܵ ܵܐܐ ܕ ܼ ̈ ܐ ̈ ܐ ܘ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ܼ ܼ ‫ܼܐ‬ ܹ ܸ ܹ ܼ ܵ ܿ ܵ‫ܿ ܐ‬ ܵ ܵ ‫ ܸܐ ܼܓ ܐ‬.‫ܸ ܼ ܼܬ ܼܘܟ‬ ܼ ܸ ‫ܸܒ‬ ܹ ܸ ܵ ܵ ܵ . ܹ ‫[ ܘ ܹ ܹܗ‬577]‫ܹܐ ܼܿ ܼ ܿ ܘܡ ܢ‬

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 63

The Romance of Aḥīqār the Wise in the Neo-Aramaic MS London Sachau 9321 _____________________________________________________________________________________

“Go and do mourning over your father Aḥīqār just like the custom of the whole world.” Nādān left to go home, but did not do any mourning; on the contrary, he gathered wicked and prodigal people and began to eat, drink, dance, and sing. Nādān started to grab my servant maids, stripped them, and sought to do evil things with them. He did not even respect my wife, who brought him up as if he were her son, and sought to strip her naked and sleep with her. I, Aḥīqār, could hear from under the ground the screams of my family caused by my son Nādān, and I began to pray with supplication before God and beg mercy on their behalf. [578] He heard my laments from the bottom of the ground and a few days later sent Nābosmīḵ to comfort me in my heart. He brought me bread and water. When he sought to leave I begged him to pray to God to save me from this place. He prayed and said: “Merciful and blessed God, remember Aḥīqār whose hope is in you, and deliver him from this prison.” When Pharaoh heard that Aḥīqār the wise was killed, he rejoiced greatly and wrote a letter which he sent, saying: “From Pharaoh, the King of Egypt, to Esarḥadom, King of Aṯor and Nineveh, [579] peace and tranquillity! O King, let it be known that I wish to build for myself a fortress between heaven and earth. I wish that you send me from your side an architect who will build it as I like and who is able to answer every question. If you are able to send me such a man I will send you three-years’ taxes of Egypt and all its regions, but if you are unable to find such a man send with our messenger who is there with you taxes for three years from Aṯor and Nineveh.” When King Esarḥadom read this letter, he gathered [580] all his nobles, wise men, philosophers, wizards and astrologers and said to them: “Who among you can answer Pharaoh the King?” They replied to King Esarḥadom, saying: “Let our Lord the King know the truth that

ܵ ‫ܐܘܘܕ ܿ ܵ ܵܐ ܵܬܐ ܵܒ ܿܒ ܟ ܿܐ‬ ܿ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܵܐ ܹܕܗ‬ ܸ ܼ ܸ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܵ ܿ ܵ ‫ܒ‬ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܼ ܹ ܹ ܹ ܼ ܼ ‫ ܸܘ ܸ ܹ ܿ ܢ ܘܐ‬.‫ܐ‬ ܹ ܼ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܐܘ ܼܕ ܹ ̰ܓ ܼ ܸ ܼܝ ܼ ܵ ܵܐ ܿ ܼܒ‬ ܸ ‫ܘ ܐ‬ ܹ ܹ ܸ ܼ ‫̰ܓ‬ ܵ ‫ܐ̄ ܵ ̈ ܐ ܒ ̈ ܐ‬ ܵ‫ ܹܘ ܼ ܹܪ ܿ ܼ ܒ ܼ ܼ ܵ ܵ ܐ ܘ ܸܒ ܵ ܐ‬.‫ܘܐ ̈ ̈ ܹ ܐ‬ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܹܼ ܵ ܹܵ ܵ ܵ ܼܵ ܼ ̈ ܿ ܼܿ ‫ܐܪ ܵܐ‬ ‫ܢ ܸܒ‬ ܸ ܸ ‫ܘ ܸܒ ܼ ܐ ܘ ܸܒ ܐ ܘ‬ ܼ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܿ ‫ܘ‬ ̈ ̈ ‫ܗܘܠ‬ ܼ ‫ܼ ܼ ܵ ܘ ܸܒܐ ܵܐ ܸ ܼܿ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܐ ܒ ܼ ܹ ܐ‬ ܼ ܼ ܿ ‫ܕ ܿܒ ܕ‬ ̇ ܵ ‫ܿ ܼ ܵܕܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܸ ܹ ܼ ܸ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܸ ܵ . ̇ ܵ ‫ܘܕ ܐ‬ ܵ ̇ ܵ ‫ܕ ܵܓ‬ ̇ ‫ܘܐ ܵ ܐ‬ ܸ ܸ ܹ ܹ ‫ܸ ܵ ܐ ܐ ܒ ܹܐ‬ ܿ ܵ ‫ܪܐܐ ܵ ܵ ܐ ܕ‬ ܵ ‫ܿܐ ܵ ܿ ܐ ܵ ܐ ܸ ܿ ܕ ܿܐ‬ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܵ‫ ܸܘ ܼ ܹܪ ܼ ܵܐ ܐ‬.‫ܕ ܸܐ ܵ ̈ ܹ ܐ ܕܒ ܼ ܵ ܹ ܒ ܿܘ ܼ ܵ ܵ ܢ‬ ܹ ܿ ܵ ‫[ ܿܒ‬578] ‫ܵ ܿ ܐ ܵ ܼ ܿܐ ܵ ܵ ܐ ܘ ܿ ܵ ܐ‬ ܹ ܼ ܹ ܹ ܸ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܵ ‫ܵ ܐ ܿܕܐ‬ ̈ .‫ܪܐܐ‬ ܼ ̣ ܵ‫ܹ ܸ ܵ ܼ ܼ ܕ‬ ܼ ܹ ܹ ‫ܸܘ‬ ܿ ܵ ̈ ܿ ‫ܘ ܕܪܗ ܵܒ ܪ ܿ ܵ ܐ‬ ܼ ‫ܵܒ‬ ܸ ܹ ܼ ‫ܹܓ ܒ‬ ܹܹ ܼ ܸ ܿ ‫ ܘ ܬ‬. ‫ܘ ܐ ܒ ܒ‬ ܵ ܸ‫ܘ‬ ܵ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܼ ܸ ܹܸ ܸ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܵ ܵ ‫ܼ ܵܵܐ‬ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܹ ‫ ܘ ܼ ܕ ܒ ܸܐ‬.‫ܸ ܼ ܐ ܘ ܵܐ‬ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܵ ‫ܒܓ ܹ ܗ ܼܬܕ ܵ ܹ ܐ ܬܐ ܼܐ ܵ ܐ ܸܕ ܵ ܸ ܼ ܼܐ ܼܕ ܼܕܘ ܵܐ‬ ܵ‫ܼܿ ܵ ܐ‬ ܵ‫ ܵܐ ܼܿܐ ܵ ܐ‬.‫ܘܐ ܼ ܹ ܹܗ‬ ܹ ܹ ‫ܸܘ ܼܘ‬ ܵ ‫ܘ ܒ ܵ ܐ ܕ ܿ ܪ ܿܐ‬ ܵ ‫ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܒܓ ܸ ܟ‬ ‫ܪ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ܼ ܹ ܹ ܹ ܹ ܼ ܸ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܵ . ‫ܵܐ ܼܕ ܼܝ ܼ ܿ ܹܒ‬ ܹ ܼ ‫ܸܘ‬ ܵ ‫ܵ ܐ ܿܐ‬ ‫ܢ ܕ‬ ‫ܼܕ‬ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܹܿ ܸ ܵ ܼ ܸ ܹ ܹ ܵ ‫ܼܿ ܼ ܵ ܐ‬ ܹ ‫ ܸܘ ܼ ܼܘ ܼܒ‬. ܼ ‫ܹ ܼ ܼ ܼܬܐ ܼܪܒ‬ ܹ ܼܸ ‫ܸ ܼ ܢ ܿ ܼ ܵܐ‬ .‫ܸܐܓ ܬܐ ܸܘ ܼ ܹܕ ܹܗ ܘ ܹ ܹܗ‬ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܿܿ ܿ ܵ ‫ܕ ܹ ܹܪ‬ [579] ‫ܬܐ ܸܐ ܼ ܼ ܿ ܘܡ ܼ ܐ ܕܐܬܘܪ‬ ܿ ܵ ܵ‫ ܵܗ ܹܘܐ ܕ ܼ ܿ ܹܐܬ ܵܐ ܿ ܼ ܵܐ ܕܐ ܐ‬.‫ܘ ܼ ܹ ܐ ܵ ܵ ܐ ܘ ܼܿ ܵ ܐ‬ ܼ ܵ ‫ܿ ܼ ܵܐ‬ ‫ܕܒ ܹ ܵ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܵ ܐ ܿ ܼ ܵ ܐ ܹܒ‬ ܼ ‫ܵ ܼ ܹܗ‬ ‫ ܸܘ ܿ ܵ ܹ̰ܓܒ ܼ ܸܕ ܼܿ ܹܪ ܿܬ ܼܝ ܸ ܸܓ ܒ ܼ ܟ ܼ ܵܐ‬.‫ܼܿܐܪ ܵܐܐ‬ ܵ ‫ܓ ܼ ܵܪܐ ܵܨ ܿ ܵܐܪ‬ ‫ܕܒ ܹ ܵ ̇ ܸܕ ܕ ܼ ܹܒ ܵܐ ܵ ܐ ܹܘܕ ܵ ܹ ܐ‬ ܼ ‫ܵ ̰ܓ ܹ ܒ ܼ ܸܐ‬ ‫ܼ ܵܐ ܵ ܐ ܘ ܸܐ ܢ ܵܗ ܹܘܒ ܼ ܟ ܼ ܿܬܕ‬ ܸ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܿܵ ̈ ܼ ܼ ܼ ‫ ܹ̰ܓ ܹ ܐ ܕ ܸ ܪ ܹ ܘ‬.‫ܼ ܹܪܬ ܼܝ ܗ ܼܕܟ ܓ ܪܐ‬ ܵ ‫ܼܿܐ ܼܬ‬ ‫ ܘ ܸܐ ܢ ܐ‬. ̇ ܵ ܼ ‫̈ܪܘ ܼ ܵܬܗ ܕ ܸ ܿ ܼ ܼ ܸ ܸ̈ܐ ܸܒ ܸ ܼܿ ܸܪ ܼ ܟ‬ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܵ ‫ܼ ܕܪܐ ܕ‬ ܸ ‫ܵܗ ܹܘܒ ܼ ܟ ܕ ܼ ܹ ܬ ܵܗ ܼܕܟ ܓ ܪܐ ܵ ܹ ܪ ܸܐ‬ ܿ ܵ ܿ ‫ ܼ ܕ‬.‫ܸܕ ܸܓ ܒ ܼ ܟ ܹ̰ܓ ܹ̈ܐ ܕ ܸ ܼ ܸ ܸ̈ܐ ܕܐܬܘܪ ܘ ܼ ܹ ܐ‬ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܸ ܵ ܸ .‫ܹ ܹ ܼ ܐ ܸܐ ܼ ܼ ܿ ܘܡ ܐ ܼܕ ܼܝ ܸܐ ܼܓ ܬܐ‬ ‫[ ܵܐ ܵܙ ̈ܕ ܹ ܐ ܘ ܼ ܿ ̈ ܼ ܹ ܐ ܘ ܼ ܵ ܿ ܹ̈ܐ ܘ ܼ ܼܿ ܹ ܐ‬580] ܼ ܿ ܼ ‫ ܵ ܼ ܸ ܵ ܼ ܼ ܢ ܐ ܼ ܹܒ‬. ܼ ܿ ܹ ܹ ‫ ܘ‬.‫ܘ ܵ ܵ ܹ ̈ܐܐ ܒ ܵ ̈ ܼ ܹܒܐ‬ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܼ ‫ ܸܘ ̰ܓ ܼ ܹܘܒ‬.‫ܕܙ ܹ ܿ ܸܘ ̰ܓ ܹ ܒ ܬܐ ܸ ܼ ܢ ܼ ܐ‬ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܿ ‫ ܼ ܕ ܵ ܹ ܐ ܸܐ ܼܕ ܢ‬.‫ܘ ܹ ܼ ܝ ܬܐ ܼ ܐ ܸܐ ܼ ܼ ܘܡ‬ ‫ܿ ܼ ܵܐ ܹܕܒ ܼ ܿ ܼ ܼ ܵܬܐ ܼܿܕܐ ܢ‬

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 64

The Romance of Aḥīqār the Wise in the Neo-Aramaic MS London Sachau 9321 _____________________________________________________________________________________

Aḥīqār the wise [would alone solve] such questions and problems. But see now who is nominated in his place, call and ask him.” Then the king called Nādān and gave him the letter. Nādān replied to Esarḥadom, saying: “My Lord the King, concerning the request of Pharaoh the king, who can construct a building between heaven and earth? [581] Not even the gods can! Perhaps it is an error of the scribe!” On hearing Nādān’s words, the king grew very sad, came down from his throne and sat in the midst of ashes, saying: “What a pity, Aḥīqār the wise man and expert in hidden matters! Alas! He who is to bring me the good news by telling me that Aḥīqār is [still] alive, I will give to that bearer of good tidings half of my kingdom!” Then Nābosmīḵ, [upon] hearing the king’s words, drew near and bowed down to him, saying: “My Lord the King, may you live forever! Behold Aḥīqār is still alive and is hiding underground. [582] Do not weep. Order him to come to you.” When the king heard this, he got up at once from the midst of ashes, went up onto the throne again and ordered that Aḥīqār be brought out of his place. Nābosmīḵ went and brought him from underground to stand before the king. They both bowed down before King Esarḥadom, who looked upon Aḥīqār and saw that his personal appearance had changed and that his whole body was in disorder, having lost his colour. The king was sorry for him, wept and said: “O Aḥīqār! I did not commit either fault or sin [against you]. It was your son Nādān who harmed you in deception!” Aḥīqār replied, saying: [583] “My Lord the King, now that I see you [again] let all that has passed be forgotten, because God has made me worthy of seeing your attractive face.” The king replied and said: “May the God of Aḥīqār be blessed and glorified for He delivered him from this oppression. Aḥīqār, go to the bathing house, shave and take a bath, and go home, eat and drink for forty days15 until

‫ ܿ ܼܒ ܼܿ ܡ‬.‫ܒ ܼ ܿܘ ܹܐ ܘ ܿ ܼ ܵ ̈ ܵ ܼ ܵ ܼܿܕܐ ܼ ܵ ܼ ܿ ܼ ܵ ܐ ܼܿܘ ܵ ܐ‬ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܹ ‫ܼ ܐ ܒ ܼܘ‬ ܹ ܼ ܹ ܼ ‫ܼ ܼܝ ܼ ܐ ܼ ܼ ܕ‬ ‫ܵ ܵܢ‬ ‫ܿ ܼ ܵܐ‬ ‫ ܹܐ ܿ ܼܓ ܵ ܐ‬.‫ܹܘ ܵܒ ܹ ܹܗ‬ ܹ ܹ ܿ ‫ ܸܘ ̰ܓ ܼ ܹܘܒ ܹ ܵ ܵ ܢ‬.‫ܹܐܝ ܹܐ ܿ ܼܓ ܵܬܐ‬ ܹ ܸ ܼ ܸ‫ܘ‬ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܹ ̄ ‫ ܸܐ ܼ ܼܕܝ ܼ ܐ ܵ ܐ‬.‫ܘ ܹ ܹܗ ܬܐ ܸܐ ܼ ܼ ܿ ܘܡ‬ ‫ܹ ܵܐ ܸ ܼ ܢ ܿ ܼ ܵܐ ܵ ܼ ܐ ܼ ܹܒ ܹ ܒ ܵ ܵܐ ܹܒ ܵ ܵ ܐ‬ ܵ ‫ܿ ܵܐ ܿܐ‬ ܿ [581] ‫ܪܐܐ‬ . ‫ܘܗܡ ܵ ܐ ܼܿܐ ܵ ܹ ̈ ܐ ܐ ܼ ܿ ܼܒ‬ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܹ‫ܒ‬ ܵ ܵ ܵ‫ܿ ܐ‬ ܵ ̇ ܵ ܵ ̄ ‫ܿ ܼܒ ܼ ̣ ܸܓ ܐ‬ ܼ ܹ ܹ ‫ ܘ ܼ ܕ‬.‫ܕ ܼ ܼܒܐ‬ ܵ ܿ ܵ ‫ܵܬ ̈ ܵ ܼ ܵ ܕ ܵ ܵ ܢ‬ ܹ ‫ܸܐ‬ ܹ ܸ ‫ܼ ܿ ܐ ܼ ܒ ܼ ܐ ܸܘ‬ .‫ ܹ ܹܗ‬.‫ܼ ܪ ܼ ܕ ܼ ܹ ܘ ܼ ܼܘ ܼܒ ܹ ܸܐ ܸ ܸ ܵ ܐ‬ ‫ܹ ̇ ܸܐ ܼ ܟ ܵܐ ܼܿܐ ܼ ܿ ܼ ܼ ܿ ܼ ܵ ܐ ܘ ܵ ܵ ܵܐܐ ܕ ̈ ܼ ܹ ܐ‬ ܿ ̈ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܼ ‫ܼ ܹ ܐ ܼܓ‬ ܹ ‫ܼ ܒ ܹ ܼܝ ܸܘܒ ܸ ܵ ܼ ܼܕܘ‬ ܵ ‫ܼܿܐ ܼ ܿ ܼ ܒ ܼ ܵ ܹ ̈ܐ ܸܒ ܵ ܸܒ ܵ ܹ ܵܐ ܵ ܐ ܵܬܐ ܿ ܼܒ ܵ ܐ ܼܿ ܵܓܐ‬ ‫ ܸܐ ܿ ܼܓ ܐ ܹ ܹ ܵ ܿܒ ܼ ܼ ܵ ܵ ܐ‬.‫ܕ ܼ ܵ ̇ ܿ ܼ ܼ ܼܬ ܼܝ‬ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܹ ܹ ‫ܸܘ ܹ ܕ‬ ܹ ‫ܕ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܕ ܼ ܐ ܸܘ ܼܘ ܼܒ‬ ܵ .‫ܘ ܗ‬ ܿ ܿܿ ܵ ܿ ܹ ‫ ܐܘ‬. ‫ܼܕ ܼܝ ܼ ܐ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼܐ ܼܒ‬ ܹܹ ܹ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܿ [582] ‫ܼ ܵܐ ܼ ܼܬܪܐܐ‬ ‫ܼܿܐ ܼ ܵ ܼ ܵ ܐ ܒ ܼ ܵ ܹ ̈ܐ ܸܘ‬ ܿ ‫ܵ ܐ ܵܒ‬ ܵ ‫ܿ ܕ ܿܬܕ ܵܐ ܿܬܐ‬ ܹ ܼ ܹ ܹ ܹ ‫ ܼ ܕ‬.‫ܼ ܟ‬ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܵ ̣ ܹ ܸ‫ܸ ܐ ܼ ܼ ܐ ܘ‬ ܹ ܹ ‫ܼ ܐ‬ ܵ ‫ܿ ܬܘ ܐ ܿܐ‬ ‫ܼܘ ܵܐ‬ ‫ܼ ܪ ܼ ܸܘ ܼܐܘ ܹ ܹܗ‬ ܼ ܼ ܹܼܼ ܵ ‫ܘ‬ ܿ ܿ ܸ ܼ ܹ ܸ ܸ ܼ ܼ ‫ܘܐܙ ܹ ܵ ܒ‬ ܹ ܼ‫ܕ‬ ܹ ܿ ‫ ܵܒ ܪ ܕ ܕ‬.‫ܵ ܿ ܵܐ‬ ܵ ‫ܿܐ‬ ܵ ‫ܪܐܐ ܘ‬ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼܸ ܸ ܸ ܹ ܸ ܸ ܵ ܿ ‫ܬܪ ܿܘ ܘܐܓ ܕ ܗ‬ .‫ܒܐ ܼ ܿ ܼ ܿ ܼ ܵܐ ܸܐ ܼܿ ܼ ܿ ܿܘܡ‬ ܼ ܹ ܹܼ ܸ ܹ ܼ ܼ ܿ ܿ ܹ ‫ܼ ܨܘ‬ ܸ ܸ‫ܘ‬ ܹ ܹ ܼ ܼ ‫ܸܕ‬ ܹ ܹ ܼ ‫ܸܘ‬ ܵ ܿ ܹ ‫ܼ ܼ ܹܒ‬ ܹ ‫ܒ ܼ ܸ ܒ ܐ ܼ ܹ ܓ ܼ ܹ ܘܓ‬ ܵ ܿ ܵ ‫ܘ ܗ ܵܐ ܿܐ‬ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܼ ܼ ܹܹ ܹ ܹ ܼ ‫ܹ ܼ ܐ ܹ ܬܐ ܼ ܐ ܸܘܒ‬ ܿ ‫ܵܐ ܵ ܐ ܿ ܿ ܓ ܵ ܵ ܐ‬ ‫ܘܗܡ ܵ ܐ ܵ ܵ ܐ ܿ ܼܒ ܒ ܿܘ ܼ ܟ ܵ ܵ ܢ‬ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܵ ܵ ܸ ‫ܗܘ‬ ܼ ‫ܐ‬ ܼ ‫ܐܘܕ ܹ ܸܐ ܼ ܟ ܒ‬ ܹ ‫ ܸܘ ̰ܓ ܼ ܹܘܒ‬. ‫ܒ ܸ ̣ ܹܓ‬ ܵ ܵ ‫[ ܐ ܵ ܕܝ ܿ ܵܐ ܿܕ ܵܗܐ ܒ‬583] .‫ܿܐ ܿ ܘ ܗ‬ ܼ ܹܼܸ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܹܹ ܼܼ ܼ ܼ ܿ‫ܝ ܕ‬ ܵ ܿ ‫ܕ ܟ‬ ‫ܼܒ ܼ ܵ ܐ ܼܿ ܿ ܼܒ‬ ‫ܠ‬ ܼܼ ܹ ܹ ܹ ܼ ܸ .‫ܼ ܗ ܵܐ‬ ‫ܕ ܹ ܸ ܹ ܹܗ ܼ ܼܿܐ ܵ ܵ ܐ ܼ ܸ ܼ ܵ ܕ ܼܿ ܿ ܼ ܟ‬ ‫ ܵܗ ܹܘܐ ܒ ܼ ܼ ܵܐ ܹܘ ܿܒ ܼ ܪ ܼ ܵܐ‬.‫̰ܓ ܼ ܹܘܒ ܹ ܿ ܼ ܵܐ ܘ ܹ ܹܗ‬ ܿ ܿ ܵܿ ܵ ‫ ܼܙܝ‬.‫ܵܐ ܼܕܝ ̇ ܼ ܵܐ‬ ܹ ܸ ܼ ܹ ‫ܼܐ ܵ ܐ ܼܕܐ ܼ ܼ ܕ‬ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܿ ‫ܘ‬ ܿ ‫ܕܐܘܪ‬ ܸ ܼ ܼ ‫ܵܐ ܼܐ‬ ܸ ܼ ܼ ‫ܼ ܿ ܼ ܘ ܸܓ ܘܐ ܸܘ‬ ܿ ܿ ‫ܗܘܠ‬ ܼ ‫ܹܒ ܼ ܼܘܟ ܐ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܠ ܘ ܹܐ ܼ ܼܐܪܒ ܼ ܹ ܹ̈ܐ‬

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 65

The Romance of Aḥīqār the Wise in the Neo-Aramaic MS London Sachau 9321 _____________________________________________________________________________________

you grow fit again and then come to me.” Aḥīqār went and did according to the king’s order. After twenty days, he returned to King Esarḥadom and bowed down before him to the ground. [584] Then the king brought out the letter of the Egyptian king, and showed it to Aḥīqār; he took it from the king’s hands, read it, and understood all that it contained. Aḥīqār said to the king: “My Lord the King, do not be concerned. I will go to Egypt to answer Pharaoh and interpret all his questions; I will bring back the taxes for three years from Egypt. I will humble all your enemies with the help of God, my Lord the King.” When the king heard Aḥīqār’s words he rejoiced and his heart was filled with joy. Then he gave Aḥīqār and his wife great gifts, [585] and promoted the hangman Nābosmīḵ to a much higher rank, and honoured him with great praise. The day after, I, Aḥīqār wrote a letter to my wife Ešpaġnē and thus said to her: “When you receive this letter in your hands, order the hunters to catch two eaglets for us; make ready two great cages for them, prepare hemp ropes two thousand cubits long and entrust Nābolḥal and Ṭapšālīm to the wet nurses to breast-feed them. Feed the eaglets a lamb to eat every day that they grow well, and while the children are small and light put them on the eaglets’ backs every day [586]; tie the ropes to the eaglets’ feet [while they are flying] in the air, and see that the children ride on their backs while they are small so as to learn to carry them. Teach the children to shout these words while riding on the eaglets’ backs up in the air: “Bring mortar, and plaster, and stones, for us the idle builders; they want to build a castle in the air.” After this, pull the eaglets down to earth again, and shut them in the cages. Send me a word that I may know the progress of this matter.” My wife Ešpaġnē, who possessed great wisdom, did all [587] I had ordered her to do, and she sent word to me.

ܿ ܿ ܿ ‫ ܸܘܕ ܹܐ ܹܗ‬. ܼ ‫ܹܓ ܒ‬ ܼ ‫ܕ ܼ ܹ ܼܿܙ ܼ ܵ ܐ ܘ ܹܐ ܼܓ ܵ ܐ ܼܿܗ‬ ܿ ܿ ‫ ܹܘ ܵܒ ܸ ܪ ܸܐ ܼܝ‬.‫ܐܘܕ ܹ ܼ ܵ ܹ ܼ ܵ ܕ ܿ ܼ ܵܐ‬ ܸ ‫ܼܐ ܼ ܼ ܸܘ‬ ‫ܼ ̈ ܵ ܼ ܵ ܕܐ ܹ ܹܗ ܼܿܐ ܼ ܿ ܼ ܿ ܼܓ ܵ ܐ ܼ ܹ ܵܬܐ ܹܓ ܹܒ ܿ ܼ ܵܐ‬ .‫ܸܐ ܼܿ ܼ ܿ ܿܘܡ ܸܘ ܸ ܕ ܹ ܵ ܹ ܸܐ ܹ ܸܐ ܸ ܼܿ ܼ ܵܘ ܹ ̈ܬܗ‬ ‫[ ܸܐ ܿ ܼܓ ܵ ܐ ܿ ܼ ܵܐ ܼ ܸ ܹ ܹܐ ܿ ܼܓ ܵܬܐ ܕ ܿ ܼ ܵܐ‬584] ܵ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܿ ̇ ܵ ܵ ܼ ‫ܕ ܸ ܹܪ ܘ ܸ ܼ ܼ ܹ ̇ ܬܐ ܼܐ ܼ ܼ ܘܐ‬ ܸ ܸ ‫ܗܘ‬ ̇ ̇ ܵ ܵ ‫ܐ ܵ ܐ ܕ ܿ ܵܐ ܘ‬ ‫ܼ ܸ ܼܝ‬ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܸ ‫ܸܘ‬ ܹ ܸ ‫ ܵ ܐ ܼ ܿܬܐ ܹ ܿ ܼ ܿ ܵ ܐ‬.‫ܸܕ ܿܒ ܵܓ ܵ ̇ܗ ܘ ܹ ܹܗ ܼܿܐ ܼ ܿ ܼ ܵܬܐ ܿ ܼ ܵܐ‬ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܵ ‫ܸ ܹܪ‬ ܼ ‫ܼܕܝ ܼ ܐ ܘ ܐ ܼ ̰ܓ ܸܬ ܐ ܵ ܐ ܸܒ ܵܙ‬ ‫ܘ ܹܒ ܵ ܸܒ ܵ ̰ܓ ܵ ܐܒ ܵܬܐ ܸ ܼ ܢ ܘ ܼ ܿ ܼ ܼ ܒ ܼ ܿܘ ܹܐ‬ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܼ ܼ ܸ ‫ܕ ܼ ܹ ܹܒ ܼ ܸ ܼ ܸܘ ܸ ܢ ܹ̰ܓ ܵ ܹ ܐ ܕ ܸ ܹܪ ܕ‬ ܿ ܵ ̈ ‫ܼ ܿ ܼ ܸܕ ܹ ܹ̈ܐ ܕ ܼ ܼ ܟ ܒ ܿ ܢ‬ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܸ ‫ܸ ܹܐ ܘ ܸܒ‬ ‫ ܼ ܕ ܸ ܸ ܿ ܼ ܵܐ‬.‫ܼܿܕܐ ܵܐ ܵܗܐ ܵܐ ܵ ܼܕܝ ܿ ܼ ܵܐ‬ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܿ .‫ܪܘܙ ܹ ܘ ܹ ܹ ܹ ܹܒ ܸ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܵܬܐ‬ ܸ ܼ ܼ ‫ܼܬ ܵ ̈ ܼ ܼܕܐ‬ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܿ [585] ܼ ̈ ܼ ‫ܘܒ ܼ ܹ ܗ‬ ܼ ܼ ܼ ‫ܹܐ ܼܓ ܐ ܗ ܸܒ ܹ ܬܐ ܼܐ‬ ܵ ‫ܘܓ‬ ܿ ܿ ܿ ̣ ‫ܹ ܵܐ‬ ܼ ܼ ܼ ‫ܵܒ‬ ܸ ܸ ܼ ‫ܼܒ ܼ ܹܐ ܘ‬ ܵ ܼܿ ܵ ܿ .‫ܪܓܐ ܼܒ ܼ ܸ ܵܐ ܘ ܹ ܿ ܼ ܹܒ ܹ ܼ ܒ ܼ ܐ‬ ܼ ܿ ܵ‫ܵܐ ܵ ܐ ܿܐ ܿ ܐ ܿܓ ܵܬܐ ܬܐ‬ ܿ ܵ ‫ܘܕ ܬ‬ ܼ ܸ ܼܼ ܼ ܼܼ ܸ ܿ ܼ ‫ܐ ܼ ܼܘ ܼܒ‬ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܼ ܸ ‫ » ܹܒ‬.‫ ܼܒ ܼ ܼ ܘܐ ܼ ܹ ܼܝ ܵ ̇ ܵܗ ܼܕܟ‬ƣNjܹ ƪ̣ Ǘǡ ܼ ‫ܹܐ‬ ܿ‫ ܿ ܕ ܿ ܵ ̈ܐ ܬܕ‬.‫ܕܐܕܝ ܐ ܿܓ ܵܬܐ ܐ ܵܟ‬ ܿ ܵ ܼ ܹ ܸܼ ܼ ܼ ܸ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܵ ‫ܬ ܹܪܐ ܼܿ̇ ܼ ܹ ܐ ܕ ܹ ܐ ܘ ܿ ܼ ̇ ܸ ܪ ܵ ܿ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܬ ܹܪܐ ܼܿ ܼ ̈ܘ ܹ ܐ‬ ܵ ܿ ܵ ̇ ܿܵ ܵ ‫ܕܗ ܼܿܘܝ ܼ ܿ ܼ ܹ ܐ ܬ ܹܪܐ‬ ܸ ܸ ‫̈ܪ ܹܒܐ ܘ ܼ ̇ ܸ ܼ ܼ ܵ ܼ ܕ‬ ܿ ‫ܿܐ ̈ܐ ܵܕ̈ܪܐܐ‬ ܿ ܼ ܿ ‫ ܿ ܼ ܿ ܵ ܼ ܵ ܵ ܒ‬.‫ܘܗܠ ܵܬܐ ܸܐ ܹ ̈ ܐ‬ ܼ ܹ ܹ ܼ ܼ ܵ ܿ ‫ ܘ‬. ܿ ܿ ‫ܿܬܕ‬ ܵ ܿ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܼܕ ܼܡ ܵ ܐ‬ ܸ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܵ ‫ ܘ ܿ ܼ ܼ ܼܒ ܼ ܕ ܼ ܡ ܐ ܵ ܹ ܐ ܿܙܘ ܹ̈ܪܐ‬. ܼ ‫ܵܬܐ ܸ ܹ ܐ ܼ ܿܬܕ ܪ ܿ ܼܒ‬ ‫[ ܿܙܘ ܹ̈ܪܐ ܕ ܵ ܐ‬586] ܼ ܿ ܼ ‫ܸܐ ܸ ܼ ܵ ܹ̈ ܐ ܸ ܹ ܐ ܵ ܵ ܐ ܕ‬ ܵ ܿ ܵ ̇ ܿܵ ܿ ܵ ‫ܒܐ ̈ ܵ ܵ ܕ ܐ‬ . ‫ܒܓ ܸ ܕ ܵ ̰ܓ‬ ܹ ܸ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܵ ܼ ‫ܼ ܐ ܸܘ ܪ‬ ܿ ܿ ܵܵ ܿ ܵ ܼ ܼ ‫ܸܘܐ ܵ ܹ ܐ ܙܘ ܹ̈ܪܐ ܼ ܕ ܼܪ ܼܒ ܼ ܸܐ ܸ ܼ ܼܿ ܼ ܐ ܕ‬ ̇ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܿ ‫ܝ‬ ܿܵ ܸ ܼ ܹ .‫ ܘ ܼ ܕ‬. ܼ ܼ ‫ܙܘ ܹ̈ܪܐ ܼܬܕ ܵ ܼ ܐ‬ ܿ ‫ܐ ܵ ̈ ܐ ܿܙܘ ܹ̈ܪܐ ܼܬܕ ܹ ܼ ܸܐ ܸ ܼ ܵ ܵ ܐ ܕ ܸ ܹ ܐ ܼ ܕ‬ ܵ ‫ܼܿܐ ܼ ܹܒ ̇ ܐ ܒ ܵ ̰ܓ ܿ ܵܗ ܼܿܕܟ ܼܿܗ ܼ ܿ ܼ ܸ ܵ ܐ ܘ ܹܓ ܵ ܐ‬ ܵ ܵ ܿ ‫ܕܒ‬ ܵ ‫ ܘ ܹ ܿܒ‬.‫ ܕ ܿܒ ܵ ܹ ̈ܐ ܼܿܘ ܿ ܿܒ ܼ ܐ‬.‫ܘ ܹ ܐ ܹ̈ܐ‬ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܿ ܿ‫ܿ ܐ ܘ‬ ܵ‫ܿܐ̈ܪܐܐ‬ ܿ‫ ܵܒ ܪܕ ܓ ܘ‬. ܿ ‫ܒ ܵܓ‬ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܹܼ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܹ ܹ ܿ ̰ ܿ ܵ ܵ ̈ ܵ ܵ ܵ ‫ܼ ̰ܓ ܐܒ‬ ‫ ܸܘ ܹ ܪ‬.‫ܘ ܵ ܹܒ ܼ ܝ ܒܓ ܹ ܕ ܼ ܼܘ ܹ ܐ‬ ܿ ܵ ‫ܕ ܿ ܐ ܢ ܒܐ ܵ ܵ ܐ‬ ܿ «.‫ܕܐܕܝ ܼ ܵ ܐ‬ ƣNjܹ ƪ̣ Ǘǡ ܼ ܹ ܸ ܼ ܼ ܼ ‫ܘܗܡ ܹܐ‬ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܿ [587] ‫ܼܒ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܒ ܼ ܐ ܼ ܼ ܐ ܘܘܐ ܘ ܼ ܠ ܐ‬ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܿ ̇ ܿ ܿ .‫ܒܓ ܹ ܗ‬ ܼ ‫ܕ ܸ ܼ ܸ ܵ ܹ ܐܘܕ ܹ ܘ ܸ ܸ ܐ‬

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 66

The Romance of Aḥīqār the Wise in the Neo-Aramaic MS London Sachau 9321 _____________________________________________________________________________________

After a few days, I, Aḥīqār, told [the king] that I would go to Egypt because the time had come for me to go. So I gave orders and took a great army with me. After marching for a day, we stopped in a wide space in the plain. Then I let the eaglets out of their cages, tied their feet with the ropes, put the children on their backs and they flew through the air until they were out of sight. Then the children began to shout from the eaglets’ backs in the sky: “Bring us plaster, mortar, and stones, because the masons [588] and workers have no work and they want to build a castle high in the sky.” Then I pulled [on the ropes] and [the eagles] came down. When [the army] heard this, they rejoiced greatly. Aḥīqār’s entrance before Pharaoh, King of Egypt: When I, Aḥīqār, entered Egypt with my soldiers, I went to the king Pharaoh, and his servants informed him: “Behold, the man you wanted from the king of Aṯor has arrived. What do you order now?” Then Pharaoh ordered that they should give us—I and my soldiers—lodging; there-after Pharaoh ordered me to go in, [589] and I paid him homage. Then he asked me: “What is your name?” And I replied: “Abīqām is the name of your servant, one of the ants of Esarḥadom, King of Aṯor and Nineveh.” Upon hearing this, Pharaoh was angry with me and said: “Am I so much despised by your lord that he sends an ant to answer me? Now go to your lodging, Abīqām, and come to me tomorrow.” The next day, Pharaoh ordered all his dignitaries to put on clothes of red silk and to go to him. The king also dressed in purple (and) red and took his seat on the throne, surrounded by all his servants [590] and dignitaries. Then he ordered them to bring me into his presence and said to me: “O Abīqām, who do I look like, and who do my troops resemble?” I said to him: “My Lord, you look like the image of Bêl and your servants his dignitaries.” Then he said to me: “O Abīqām,

[‫ܵܒ ܹ ܪ ܼܿ ܵ ܐ ܼ ̈ ܵ ܵ ܵܐ ܵ ܐ ܼܿܐ ܼ ܵ ܹ ܼܝ ܵܬܐ ] ܐ‬ ܿ ܵ ‫ܸ ܹܪܢ ܼܿ ܿ ܼܒ ܸܕ ܹ ܹ ܼܿܙ ܼܒ ܵ ܐ ܕ ܼܪ ܸ ܹܒ‬ ܼ ‫ܕܙ‬ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܼ ܼ ܼ ‫ܹܐ ܼܓ ܵ ܐ ܗ ܸܒ ܹ ܼ ܼ ܵ ܐ ܸܘ ܸ ܼ ܸܐ‬ ܿ ܿ ̇ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܼ ܸ ‫ ܘ‬.‫ܼ ܒ ܼ ܬܐ ܘ ܼ ܕ ܹ ܼ ܼܐܘܪ ܼ ܐ ܕ ܼ ܐ ܵ ܐ‬ ܵ ܵ ‫ܒܘ‬ ‫ܪܘ ܼ ܵ ܒ ܿ ܼ ̰ܓ ܸ ܵ ܼ ܵ ܹܐ ܿ ܼܓ ܵ ܐ‬ ܹ ‫ܼ ܵܐ ܕ ܼ ܐ‬ ܼ ܼ ܿ ‫ܐ ܿ ̈ܘ ܐ ܘܐ ܝ‬ ܿ ܵ ‫ܒܐ‬ ܹ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܹ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܵ ܿ ̇ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܵ ̈ ܿ ‫ܵ ܹ ܐ ܘ ܼ ܪ ܼ ܼܒ ܼ ܹ ܐ ܹ ܐ ܙܘ ܹ̈ܪܐ ܸܐ ܸ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܘ ܹ ܼ ܝ‬ ܿ ܵ ‫ ܹܐ ܿ ܼܓ ܵ ܐ ܐ ܵ ܹ ܐ ܿܙܘ ܹ̈ܪܐ‬.‫ܗܘܠ ܕ ܵ ܐ ܹ ܼ ܵ ܐ ܸ ̈ ܹ ܐ‬ ܼ ‫ܒ ̰ܓ‬ ‫ ܹܓ ܵ ܐ‬. ܿ ‫ܼ ܹܪ ܿ ܼ ܸ ܵ ܿ ܹ ܐ ܸܐ ܸ ܼ ܵ ܵ ܐ ܕ ܹ ܹ ܐ ܒ ܵ ̰ܓ‬ ܵ ‫ܕܒ ܵ ܹ ̈ܐ ܘ ܼܿ ̈ܐ ܹ ܐ‬ ‫ ܼܿ ܿ ܼܒ‬. ܼ ܿ ܿ ܼ ܿ ‫ܘ ܸ ܵ ܐ ܘ ܹ ܐ ܹ̈ܐ‬ ܵ ܵ ‫[ ܿܒ ܼ ̈ ܐ ܘ ܼ ܿܒ‬588] .‫ܕܒ ܹ ܿ ܼ ܪܐ ܸ ܵܐ ܹܒ ܿ ܼ ܵܐ‬ ܹ ܼ ܼ ܿ‫ܿ ܐܕ‬ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܼ ܼ ܹ ‫ ܼ ܕ‬. ܼ ܼ ܸ ܼ ‫ܹܐ ܼܓ ܵ ܐ ܸ ܼܓ ܸ ܼ ܸܘ‬ ‫ܸ ܼܝ ܹ ܼ ܿ ܼ ܸ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܵܬܐ܇‬ ܵ ‫ܿܐܘ‬ ‫ܪܬܐ ܼܿܕܐ ܼ ܿ ܼ ܵ ܸ ܸ ܼ ܢ ܿ ܼ ܵܐ ܕ ܸ ܹܪ ܆‬ ܼ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܸ ‫ܼܕ‬ ܼ ‫ܐ ܵ ܐ ܼܐ‬ ܼ ܼ ‫ܐܘ ܼܝ ܸ ܹ ܪ ܸܐ ܸ ܼ ܬܐ ܕ‬ ܵ ܿ ܵ ‫ܸܓ ܸܒ‬ ܹ ܼ ‫ܸ ܼ ܢ ܼ ܐ ܘ ܸ ܸ ܼܐ‬ ܼ ܹ ܼ‫ܐ‬ ܵ ‫ܓ ܿ ̈ ܵ ܬܗ ܿܕܘ ܓ ܿ ܵܪܐ ܕܒܐ ܟ ܿ ܵܐ‬ ܿ‫ܕܐܬܘܪ‬ ܼ ܹ ܹ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܼ̣ ܿ ܿ ܵ ‫ ܸܘ ܸ ܹ ܸ ܼ ܢ‬.‫ ܿ ܼ ܵ ܐ ܼ ܹ ܬ ܕܗ ܹܘܐ‬. ܹ ܹ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܵ ‫ ܵܒ ܸ ܪ‬.‫ܘܬܐ ܼ ܵ ܼܬ ܼܝ‬ ܼ ܵ ܼ ‫ܹܘܗ ܸܒ ܼ ܵ ܼ ܼܕܘ‬ ܵ [589] ‫ܢ ܘܐܘ ܝ‬ ‫ܸܕ‬ ܼ ܸ ܹ ܼ ܹ ܹ ܹ ܸ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܵ ‫ ܹܐ ܼܓ ܐ ܹ ܹܗ‬. ܹ ܹ ܼ ܼ ܼ ‫ܸܘ ܸ ܼܕ‬ ܵ ‫ ܝ ܿܐ ܿܒ‬.‫ܟ‬ ܿ ‫ܵܐ‬ ܵ‫ ܹ ܵ ܐ‬.‫ܕܐܘ ܼܕܘܟ‬ ܼ ܸ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܸ ܹ ܼ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܵ ̈ ܵ ܿ ‫ ܘ ܼ ܕ‬.‫ܹ ܹܐ ܕ ܹܐ ܼ ܼ ܘܡ ܼ ܐ ܕܐ ܼܬܘܪ ܘ ܼ ܹ ܐ‬ ܵ ‫ܹ ܹ ܸ ܼ ܢ ̰ܓ ܹܓ ܹܗ ܸܐ ܼ ܘ ܹ ܹܗ‬ ‫ܕܗ ܼܿܕܟ ܐ ܼ ܸ ܢ‬ ܿ . ܼ ‫ܼܪܙ ܼ ܹܓ ܸܒ ܹܐ ܵ ܼܕܘܟ ܕ ܹ ܵ ܵ ܐ ܵ ܸ ܼܪܝ ܸܕ ܵ ̰ܓ ܸ ܒ‬ ܵ ܿ ܵ ‫ܵܐ ܿܐ ܿܒ‬ ܿ ܵ ܿ ‫ܘܨ ܐ ܕܐ ܿܘܕ‬ ܼ ܼ ܼ ‫ܼܕ ܵܗܐ‬ ܼ .‫ܼ ܼ ܟ‬ ܿܵ ܵ . ‫ܓܒ‬ ‫ ܸܘ ܸ ܹ ܸ ܼ ܢ ܼ ܒܒ ܹ ܐ‬. ܼ ܿ ܸ ܼ ‫ܘܐ ܵ ܐ ܐ‬ ܼ ܹ ܿ ‫ܿܨ ܵܐ ܓ ̈ ܐ‬ ܿ‫ܕ‬ ܿ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܕܐ‬ ܸ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܼ̰ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼܿܵ ܼ ܵ ܹ ܼ‫ܕ‬ . ܼ ‫ܿ ܐ ܘܐ ܼܬܝ ܹܓ ܒ‬ ܿ ܿ ‫ܿ ܵܐ‬ ‫ܪܓ ܵ ܐܢ‬ ‫ܘܗܡ ܿ ܼ ܵܐ‬ ̣ ‫ܼܐ‬ ܼ ܹ ‫ܹܒ‬ ܿ ‫ܘ‬ ̈ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܪ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐܘ ܹܕܗ‬ ܼ ܹܼ ܼ ܼ ܸ ܸ ܹ ‫ܘܬܘ ܼܒ‬ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܿ ܵ ܵܵ ܵ ܵ ‫ ܒ ܸ ܪ ܸܕ‬. ܹ ‫[ ܼܘ̈ܪܒܒ ܹ ܐ ܕ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܕܪ‬590] ܹ ܸ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܵ . ܼ ‫ܹܓ ܹܒ ܘ ܹ ܹܗ ܵ ܼ ܐ ܼܐܒ‬ ܼ ܼ ܼ‫ܘ ܸ ܒ‬ ܵ ‫ܵ ܘ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܬܝ‬ ܵ ‫ ܹ ܼܝ‬. ܼ ‫ܵ ܒ‬ ܹ ܼ ܼܼ ܼ ܼ ܿ ‫ܘܐܘ ܼܕܘܟ‬ ‫ܵ ܼܕܝ ܵܐ ܹ ܿ ܵ ܹ ܿ ܼܿ ܵ ܐ ܹܒ‬ ܹ ܵ ܵ ‫ܵܐ ܿܐ ܿܒ‬ ܿ ̈ ܵܵ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܵ ‫ܹ ܐ ܕ ܼ ܹ ܹܐ ܼܓ ܵ ܐ ܹ ܹܗ‬

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 67

The Romance of Aḥīqār the Wise in the Neo-Aramaic MS London Sachau 9321 _____________________________________________________________________________________

go now and come back here tomorrow.” The king ordered his men to put on clothes of white thread16 and to show up at his presence. The king also dressed [in this way] and sat on his throne while his dignitaries placed themselves before him. He ordered me to come before him and said to me: “O Abīqām, who do I look like, and who do my dignitaries resemble?” I said to him: [591] “You [resemble] the sun and your dignitaries are its rays.” Then he said: “[Go] to your lodging and tomorrow come to me.” The king ordered his dignitaries to put on clothes of shining silk, and the king also dressed up in the same way. He sat on the throne and ordered me to go before him. He said to me: “O Abīqām, who do I look like now, and who do my dignitaries look like?” I answered: “You are the moon and your dignitaries are the stars.” He said to me: “Go to your lodging and tomorrow come to me.” The king ordered his dignitaries to put on patchy clothes and [to place] red curtains in the palace. The king dressed up [592] in purple and sat on his throne. He ordered me to come before him and said: “O Abīqām, who do I look like, and who do my dignitaries resemble?” I said: “You look like the month of April and your dignitaries like its camomile flowers.” On hearing this, the king felt great joy and said to me: “O Abīqām, this time I will ask you, if you know everything you have compared me with. Your lord, King Esarḥadom, who does he resemble and his dignitaries who do they look like?” Then I said to him: “Far be it from me to mention the name of my Lord the King while you are seated on the throne. Stand up and then I will tell you who [593] my Lord, the King of Aṯor, is like.” Then Pharaoh stood up from the throne, and I said to him: “My lord Esarḥadom is like the lord of the winds and his dignitaries like thunderbolts. When he wishes, the wind blows and the rain falls making mud; he orders the thunders to burst and the thunderbolts to fall;

ܵ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܿ ‫ܘܨ ܐ ܵܗܐ ܼ ܟ܆ ܸܘ ܸ ܹ ܿ ܼ ܵܐ ܹܒܐ‬ ܼ ‫ܼ ܼܕܗܐ‬ ̈ ܵ ܵ ̇ ‫ܕ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܿܬܕ ܿ ܼ ܼܒ ܼ ̰ܓ ܼ ܹ ܐ ܼ ܹ̈ܪܐ ܼ ܸ ܸ ܘ ܼܪܝ‬ ܵ ܿ ܿ . ‫ܓܒ‬ ܼ ܸ ‫ܘܗܡ ܼ ܐ ܸܒ ܹ ܘ ܼ ܼܘ ܼܒ ܹ ܸܐ‬ ܹ ܹ ܿ ܵ ‫̈ ܐ‬ ܵ ܹ ܹ ܼ ‫ܼܘ̈ܪܒܒ ܹ ܐ ܕ‬ ܹ ܼ‫ܼܪ ܼ ܕ‬ ܹ ܼ ܵ ‫ܵܐ ܿܐ ܿܒ‬ ܵ ‫ܘ ܵ ̇ ܪܝ‬ ܵ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܹܹ ܹ ܼ ܹ ܸ ‫ܸܘ‬ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܵ ‫ ܹ ܼܝ‬. ܼ ‫ܼ ܼ ܒ‬ ܹ ܼ ܼ ‫ܹ ܘ̈ܪ ܹܒܐ ܕ‬ ܿ ܿ ‫ܵܐ‬ ‫ܸ ܵ ܐ ܼܘ̈ܪ ܵܒܒ ܹ ܐ ܕ ܼ ܼ ܟ‬ ܹ ܹ ܹ ܹ [591] ܵ ܿ‫ܘܨ ܵܐ ܕܐܘܪ‬ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܼ ‫ ܓ ܼ ܹ ܬܐ ܹ ܹܗ ܵ ܼܘ ܼ ܟ‬.‫ܼ ܗ̈ܪ ܼ ܹܐ‬ ܿ ܿ ‫ ܸܘ ܸ ܹ ܐ ܿ ܼ ܵܐ‬. ܼ ‫ܹܓ ܒ‬ ܼ ‫ܹܒܐ ܕ ܼ ܹ ܼܬܕ ܼ ܼܒ‬ ܵ ܵ ̈ ܿ . ܹ ‫ܘܗܡ ܿ ܼ ܵܐ ܵܗ ܼܿܕܟ ܹܒ‬ ܼ ܼ ܿ ܼ ‫̰ܓ ܼ ܹ ܐ ܸܒ ܹܐ ܕ‬ ܼ ‫ܘܬ‬ ܹ ܼ ‫ܘ ܼ ܼܘ ܼܒ ܹ ܸܐ ܸ ܼ ܪ ܼ ܿ ܕ ܼ ܹ ܸܘ ܼܐܘ ܹ ܹܗ‬ ܵ ‫ܵܐ ܐ ܿܒ‬ ܵ ܵ‫ܵ ܼ ܵ ܹ ܿܕܗܐ‬ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܹܹ . ܹ ܼ ܵ ܵ ܵ ‫ܘܪ ܹܒܐ ܕ ܼ ܼ ܵ ܼ ܵ ܿ ܼ ܹ ܹ ܹ ܵܐ ܹ ܿ ܹ ̄ ܪܐ ܘܪ ܹܒܐ‬ ̈ ܵ ܿ ‫ܘܨ ܵܐ‬ ܿ ‫ܕܐܘܪ‬ ܼ ‫ܕ ܼ ܼ ܟ ܸ ܼ ܹܒܐ ܹ ܹ ܿ ܼ ܼ ܹܒ ܼ ܼܘܟ‬ ‫ ܸܘ ܸ ܹ ܼ ܵܒܒ ܹ ܐ ܕ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܿܬܕ ܿ ܼ ܼܒ ܼ ̰ܓ ܼ ̈ ܹ ܐ‬. ܼ ‫ܹܓ ܒ‬ ܿ ‫ ܘ ̈ܪܐ‬.‫ܿܬ̈ܪܙܐ ܿܬ̈ܪܙܐ‬ ܵ ‫ܕܗ ܵ ܐ‬ ‫ܿ ܹܐ‬ ‫ܕܗ ܼܿܘܝ‬ ܼ ܹ ܸ ܹ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܸ ‫[ ܼ ܼ ܹܐ ܘ ܼ ܼܘ ܼܒ ܹ ܸܐ‬592] ܹ ‫ܘ ܼ ܐ ܼ ܸܒ‬ ܼ ܹ ܹ . ‫ܼ ܪ ܼ ܕ ܼ ܹ ܸܘ ܸ ܹ ܘ ̇ ܹ ܼܝ ܹܓ ܹܒ‬ ܵ ܵ ‫ܵܐ ܿܐ ܿܒ‬ . ܼ ‫ܵ ܼ ܵ ܹ ܘܪ ܹܒܐ ܕ ܼ ܼ ܵ ܼ ܵ ܒ‬ ܼ ܼ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܿ ‫ܼ ܼ ܐ ܕ ܼ ܘܪ ܹܒܐ ܕ ܼ ܼ ܟ ܼܒ ܼ ܒ ܼ ܹܐ‬ ܹ ܹܹܹ . ܹ‫ܕ‬ ܵ ‫ܵܬܐ ܿܪܒ‬ ܵ‫ܿ ܐ‬ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼܼ ܸ ܹ ܼ ܸ ܼ ܹ ܹ ‫ܕ‬ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܵ ‫ܘ ܹ ܹ ܼ ܵܐ ܼܿܐܒ ܼ ܵ ܼܐܕ ܼܓ ܐ ܸܒ ܼܐ ܸ ܼ ܟ ܸܐ ܢ‬ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܵ ‫ܵܐ ܕ‬ ‫ ܸܐ ܵ ܼܕܘܟ ܿ ܼ ܵܐ‬.‫ܒܓ ܹ ܗ‬ ܼ ܸ ܼ ܼ ܸ ܸ ܵ ܵ ‫ܐ ܿ ܿ ܿܘܡ‬ . ܼܿ ܵ ܼ ܵ ܹ ‫ܼ ܵ ܹܒ ܘ̈ܪ ܹܒܐ ܕ‬ ܼ ܼܹ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܵ ‫ܕܬ ܼ ܸܢ ܸ ܐ ܸܕ ܼܕܝ‬ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܹ ‫ܹܐ ܼܓ ܵ ܐ ܹ ܼܝ‬ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܵ ‫ܼ ܪ ܼ ܕ ܼ ܼ ܟ ܿ ܼܒ ܼܿ ܡ‬ ܸ ‫ܼ ܐ ܘܐ ܸ ܼ ܼ ܼܒܐ ܸܐ‬ ܵ ‫ܿ ܠ ܐ ܿܐ ܵ ܼܘܟ ܘܐ ܿܓ ܒ ܿܐ ܼ ܟ‬ ܼ ܼ ܸ ܸ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܸ ܼ ܹ ܵ ܵ [593] ܵ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܹ ܹ ܸ ‫ ܹܐ ܼܓ ܐ‬.‫ܼܕܝ ܼ ܐ ܕܐ ܼܬܘܪ‬ ܵ ܵ ‫ܝ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܪ‬ ‫ܘܒ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܪ‬ ‫ܢ‬ ̣ ܼ ܸ ܹܼ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܹ ܹ ܸ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܿ ‫ܸ ܐ ܼ ܐ ܕ ܼ ܐ ܼܘ̈ܪܒܒ ܹ ܐ‬ ‫ܵ ܼܕܝ ܼܿ ܼ ܘܡ‬ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܵ ‫ܒ ܐ ܕ‬ ܵ ܼ ܹ ܸ ܼ ܹ ܵ ‫ܹ ܐ ܼ ܐ ܸܘ‬ ܹ ܼ‫ܕ‬ ܹ ‫ܹ̰ܓܒ‬ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܵ ‫ܸ ܪܐ ܹܘ ܓ ܹܒ‬ ܸ ‫ܼ ܐ ܘ ܸ ܓ ܸ ܬܐ ܸܐ‬ ܿ‫ܿܓ ܿܓ ܵ ܵ ܘ ܵܓ ܓ ܘܒ ܐ ܘ ܿ ܒ‬ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܹ ܹ ܼ ܹ ܸ ܼ ܼ ܼ

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 68

The Romance of Aḥīqār the Wise in the Neo-Aramaic MS London Sachau 9321 _____________________________________________________________________________________

he destroys the statue of Bêl and disperses his servants; he prevents the sun from shining and its rays from being seen; he keeps the moon from showing itself with the stars; he orders the mountainous region to give forth wind and thunder; rain and hail fall [594] and the flowers and all the roses of the month of April are destroyed and will fall.” On hearing these things, Pharaoh the king marvelled greatly, got angry and said: “O man, tell me what is your real name?” Then I replied: “I am Aḥīqār, the scribe.” Then the king said to me: “We heard that Aḥīqār was killed, how can this be?” I replied to him again: “Praise be to the merciful Lord who saved me from injustice and dismissed evil men and betrayers. Since they told my lord false things about me, and he ordered me to be killed, [595] my God delivered me from death. Blessed be whoever believes in Him.” Then Pharaoh replied and said to me: “Go home, Aḥīqār; return to me tomorrow and bring me some news that has never been heard either by me or by any of the nobles of Egypt.” I went home and started to think about what news [Pharaoh] had ever heard. Then I, Aḥīqār, took a sheet and thus wrote: “From Pharaoh, King of Egypt, to Esarḥadom, King of Aṯor and Nineveh, peace! You know, my dear brother that [sometimes] brothers need brothers and kings [need] kings. Behold, [since] at this [596] time I need money to spend and my treasures have run out, I ask your brotherhood to lend me nine hundred talents of gold. In a short time, I will return your gold without delay.” I sealed the letter and went to King Pharaoh, who then said to me: “O Aḥīqār, did you bring me an answer about the news that has been asked?” Then I said: “Yes, my Lord.” I took out the letter and delivered it into his hand. When he read it before his dignitaries, they were astonished and exclaimed: “In truth, such news was never heard in Egypt!” [597] Then I said to him:

‫ܼܿܨ ܵ ܐ ܘ ܼ ܵ ܵ ̈ ܹ ܐ ܕ ܼ ܹ ܹ ܿ ܼܒ ܸܒ‬ ‫ܹܘ ܼ ܵ ܼܘ ܼܒ ܹܒ‬ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܼ ܹ ‫ܸ ܐ ܕ ܐ ܸܒ ܪܐ ܼܘܕ ܐ‬ ܹ ܼܿ ܸ ‫ܘ‬ ܵ̄ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܿ ‫ܹ ܪܐ ܕ ܐ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܐ‬ ܸ ܼ ‫ܼ ܸ ̈ ܹ ܐ ܼܙܗܪ ܼ ܹ ܐ ܕ ܼ ܹ ܹܘ‬ ܵ ܵ ̈ܵ ‫ܼ ܹܪ ܼ ܵ ܹܘ ܼ ܿ ̄ ܼܵܒܐ‬ ܼ ܸ ܸ ‫ ܹܘ‬.‫ܼ ܹܒܐ‬ ܸ ‫ܸܐ‬ ܵ ܵ ܿ ̈ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܵ .‫ܿ ܹ ܐ ܘܓ ܼܓ ܼ ܹܘ ܸ ܸܐ ܼܬ ܐ ܸ ܐ ܘ ܸܒ ܕܐ‬ ܿ ܹ ‫[ ܙ̈ܪ ܼ ܹܒܐ ܘ ܹܒ ܼ ܼ ܼܪܝ ܸ ܼ ܹ ܐ ܕ‬594] ܼ ܸ ‫ܹܘ‬ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܼ ‫ܘܘ̈ܪܕܗ ܕ‬ ܼ ܹ ̄ ‫ ܼ ܕ ܹ ܐ‬. ܼ ܼ ܼ ‫ܼܿ ܼ ܐ‬ ܹ ܵ ܿ ‫ܢ ܿ ܵܐ ܿܐ ܢ ܵ ̈ ܐ ܒ ܬ ܒ‬ ܵ ‫ܬܬܐ ܿܪܒ‬ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܸ ܹ ܸ ܹ ܸ ܼ ܵ ‫ܼ ܹܐ ܸ ܼ ܟ‬ ‫ ܐ ܼ ܼ ܪ‬.‫ܸܘ ̰ܓ ܹܓ ܹܗ ܐ ܼ ܹ ܹܐ‬ ܼ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܵ ‫ ܹܐ ܿ ܼܓ ܵ ܐ ܹ ܼܝ ܐ ܐ ܼܐ ܼ ܐ ܼ ܸ ܢ‬.‫ܒ ܼ ܿ ܼ ܼ ܵܬܐ ܵܐ ܿ ܼܓ ܼܒ ܐ‬ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܵܵܵ ܼ ܼ ‫ ܼܐ‬.‫ ܒ ܸ ܪ ܕ ܸ ܹ ܹܗ ܵ ܼ ܼ ܐ‬.‫ܼ ܼܒܐ‬ ܿ .‫ܼ ܵ ܐ ܕ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܵ ̇ ܵܐ ܼܕܝ‬ ‫ܼܿܕܐ ܼ ܵ ܸ ܹ ܐ‬ ܼ ܹ ܵ ܿ ܵ ‫ܵܓ ܵܬܐ ܼ ܒ ܵ ܐ ܵܬܐ‬ ܸ ‫ܵܐ ܼ ܵ ܐ ܕ‬ ܹ ܹܹܹ ܼ ̄ ܵ ܵ ̈ ܵ ̇ ̈ ̈ .‫ܸ ܸܓ ܘ ܸ ܸ ܕܐ ܹ ܐ ܒ ܼ ܹ ܐ ܘ ܼ ܐ ܹ ܹܐ‬ ܼ ܸ ܼ ܿ ܵ ܿܿ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܸ ܼ ‫ܼ ܼܒ ܸܕ ܼܘ ܸܓ ܼ ܸܐ‬ ܸ ‫ܼܝ ܼ ܐ ܸܘ‬ ܵ ܿ [595] ‫ܵ ܐ‬ ܵ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܹ‫ܹ ܕ‬ ܼ ܸ ܼ ܸ ܼ ‫ܘܐ‬ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܵ . ܹ ‫ܼ ܕ ܸ ܬ ܼ ܐ ܸܐ‬ ‫ ܼ ܼܒܐ‬.‫ܸ ܵ ܐ‬ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܼ ܹ ܹ ‫ܸ ܼܢ ܼ ܐ ܘ‬ ܹ ‫ܼܐ ܼܓ ܵ ܐ ̰ܓ ܼ ܸܘܒ‬ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܵ . ܼ ‫ܘܨ ܐ ܼܿܗ ܼ ܹܓ ܒ‬ ܼ ܵ ‫ܼ ܐ ܼܐ ܼ ܸܐ ܸ ܹܒ ܵ ܼ ܼܘܟ‬ ܵ ܿ ̇ ܵ‫ܿ ܐ‬ ܵ ‫ܘܗܡ‬ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܸ ‫ܘ ܹܐ ܼ ܪ ܵ ܼ ܼ ܐ ܬ ܹ ܼ ܕ ܐ‬ ܿ ܿܵ ܵ ̇ ܵ ‫ܵܐ‬ ܸ ܼ ܹ ܼ ‫ ܘܐ‬. ܼ ‫ܹ ܐܬܐ ܹܒܐ ܕ ܸ ܹܪ‬ ܵ‫ ܕܐ ܵ ܐ ܵܬ ܵ ܐ‬. ܵ ‫ܒܓ‬ ܼ ܹ ܹ ܼ ܸ ܼ ܸ ܼ ‫ܹܒ ܼ ܼ ܸܘ ܼܘ‬ ܵ ‫ ܿܐ ܿܓ ܵ ܐ ܵܐ ܵ ܐ ܿܐ‬. ܿ ̇ ܵ ‫ܿ ܐ‬ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܸ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܵ ‫ܼܿܘܪ ܵ ܐ ܸܘ ܼ ܼܘ ܼܒ ܼ ܗ ܼܕܟ܇ ܸ ܼ ܢ ܼ ܐ ܕ ܸ ܹܪ‬ ܵ ‫ܵܬܐ ܐ ܿ ܿ ܿܘܡ ܿ ܵܐ‬ .‫ܕܐ ܼܬ ܿܘܪ ܘ ܼ ܹ ܐ ܵ ܵ ܐ‬ ܼ ܼ ܼܹ ܵ‫ܐ ̈ ܬܐ‬ ܿ ‫ܿ ܵ ܐ ܿܕܐ ܵ ܵܬܐ‬ ܿ ‫ܐ ܿܘܐ ܵܐ ܵܐ‬ ܼ ܼ ܸ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼܼ ܿ ‫ܘܗܘ ܐ‬ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܵ‫[ ܿܙܒ ܐ‬596] ‫ܒܐܕ‬ .‫ܼ ܐ‬ ‫ܘ ܼܿ ܐ‬ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܼܼ ̇ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܵ ̈ ̈ ܼ ‫ܼ ܸ ܢ ܘ ܹܙܐ ܬܐ ܼ ܪܘ ܹܐ ܘ ܼ ܼ ܙ ܵ ܼ ܼ ܹܬ‬ ‫ܿ ܼ ܸܒ ܵ ܐ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܵܬܐ ܕ ܼ ܼ ܟ ܼ ܿܬܕ ܸ ܹ ܼ ܸܬ ܵܐܐ ܹܐ ̈ ܹ ܐ‬ ܵ .‫ܼܿ ܐ ܕܗ ܵܒܐ‬ ‫ܘܒ ܸ ܪ ܼ ܵܐ ܼܿܙ ܼܒ ܵ ܐ ܸ ܵ ܐ ܵ ܹ ܐ ܸܪ ܹ ܹܐ ܼ ܟ‬ ܼ ܸ ܹ ܵ ‫ܐ ܿܓ‬ ܵ ܿ ܿ ‫ܕ ܗܒ ܟ ܕ ܵ ܐ‬ ‫ܘܙ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܬ‬ ‫ܘ‬ . ܼܼ ܸ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܹܼ ܸ ܼ ܸ ܼ ܼ ܵ .‫ܹܓ ܒ ܸ ܼ ܢ ܿ ܼ ܵܐ‬ ‫ܘܒ ܹ ܪ ܼܿܐ ܵܓ ܹ ܹܗ ܵ ܼ ܵܐ‬ ܸ ܿ ‫ܿܓ ܵܐܒ‬ ܿ ‫ܿܐ‬ ܵ ‫ܟ‬ ‫ܕܬ ܹ ܼ ܵ ܕ ܸ ܸ ܼ ܟ‬ ‫ܬ‬ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܼ ̰ܼ ܼ ܼܼ ܼ ܵ ‫ܐ‬ ܿ ‫ ܿܐ‬. ̇ ܵ ‫ܐ‬ ܿ ܵ ‫ܘ‬ . ‫ܕܝ‬ ‫ܝ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܓ‬ ܼ ܼ ܸ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܼ ܸ ܸ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܵ ‫ܐ ܿܓ‬ ̇ ܵ ܵ ̇ ܵ ܵ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܘ‬ .‫ܗ‬ ‫ܒܐ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܬ‬ ܸ ܸ ܼ ܹ ܹ ܹ ܼ ܹܼ ܿ ܵ ‫ ܘܐ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܝ‬. ܼ ܿ ‫ܵ ܸ ܪ ܹܒܐ ܕ ܼ ܹ ܒ ܹ ܿ ܼ ܹܘ ܼ ܸ̰ܓܒ‬

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 69

The Romance of Aḥīqār the Wise in the Neo-Aramaic MS London Sachau 9321 _____________________________________________________________________________________

“Thus Egypt is in debt and has to repay this debt to Aṯor and Nineveh.” Then the Egyptians admitted that they had to pay the mentioned debt. Then King Pharaoh said to me: “O Aḥīqār, I want you to build me a castle between heaven and earth, two thousand cubits tall.” I replied, saying: “O Lord, I will build you a castle such as you order, but you must [provide] stones, plaster, and mortar, while I will [provide] builders and workers.” Pharaoh said: “So be it.” I at once let [598] the eagles out of the cages and put the children on their backs. I tied the ropes to their feet and the eagles flew while the children shouted, saying: “Bring us plaster, mortar and stones because Pharaoh’s craftsmen and workers are idle and they want to build a castle between heaven and earth for Pharaoh!” They also cried, saying: “Pour wine and give it to us to drink, O Egyptians!” When the Pharaoh and his dignitaries saw this, they were greatly astonished. Then Aḥīqār took a stick and struck the Pharaoh’s dignitaries so that they may bring up for the builders stones [599] and plaster. Afflicted by the blows, these fled to their homes. Then Pharaoh said: “O Aḥīqār! What have you done? Are you possessed? Who can bring what they are asking for into that high sky?” Then I said to him: “If my Lord, King Esarḥadom, were here he would have built two castles in one day!” Then he said to me: “Stop building now, go home, and come to me tomorrow.” Then I went [home] as he ordered me and then went back to him. He (=Pharaoh) said to me: “O Aḥīqār, how about the affair of your Lord Esarḥadom’s stallions [600] that neigh in Aṯor while our mares here hear their cries and abort?” Thereafter, I went out and caught a fox in a garden and began to torment it before Pharaoh until I made it cry out and groan. King Pharaoh called me

ܿ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܵ ‫ܵ ܐܕܝ ܵܬ‬ ̇ ܵ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܼ ܸ ‫ܒ ܼ ܿ ܼ ܼܬܐ ܐ‬ ܼ ‫ܹ ܐܬܐ‬ ܵ ‫ܒ ܸ ܹܪ‬ ‫[ ܼܿܐ ܿ ܼܓ ܹ ܼܝ ܵ ܿ ܼ ܼ ܿ ܼܒ ܼܿ ܡ‬597] ‫ܘܒ ܸ ܪ‬ ܵ‫ܵ ̇ ܕ ܵ ܵ ܵܐܕܝ ܕ ܵ ܐ ܿܬܕ ܿ ܐ ܬܐ‬ ܼܼ ܹ ܸ ‫ܸ ܹܪ‬ ܹ ܼ ܵ ܹ ܹܼ ܼ ܵ ‫ܵܐ ܼܬ ܿܘܪ ܘ ܼ ܹ ܐ‬ ‫ܘܒ ܸ ܪ ܸܕ‬ ‫ܹܒ ܿ ܼ ܹܐ ܿ ܼ ܼ ܸ ̈ܪ ܹ ܐ‬ ܵ ‫ ܵܓ ܹ ܵܬܐ ܹ ܼܝ ܵ ܼ ܸ ܼ ܢ‬.‫ܹ ܼܵܒ ܵ ܐ ܕ ܹ ܵ ܐ ܕ ܼ ܼ ܐ‬ ܵ ܵ ‫ܿ ܼ ܵܐ ܵܐ ܼܿܐ ܼ ܿ ܼ ܒ ܸ ܼ ܟ‬ ‫ܕܒ ܹ ܿ ܵ ܼ ܿ ܼ ܪܐ‬ ܼ ܸ ̈ ܿ ܵ ‫ܿ ܼ ܵܐ ܼܿܐ ܵܪܐܐ‬ ‫ܕܗ ܹܘܐ ܸ ܵܐ ܬ ܹܪܐ ܼܐ ܹܐ ܵܕ̈ܪ ܹܐܐ‬ ‫ܸܒ‬ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܵ ‫̰ܓ ܼ ܹܘܒ ܼ ܘ ܹ ܼܝ ܒ ܸ ܼ ܟ ܐ ܹܐ ܼܕܝ ܼ ܪܐ ܹܕ‬ ‫ ܵ ܸ ܹ ܐ ̇ ܹܐ ܘ ܹܓ ܵ ܐ ܘ ܸ ܵ ܐ ܸ ܼ ܟ‬.‫ܸܕ ܸ ܼ ܟ ܸܐ ܼ ܟ‬ ܵ ܿ ܿ ‫ ܘ ܿܒ ܵ ̈ܐ‬.‫ܵܗ ܿܘܝ‬ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܹ ‫ ܹܘ ̰ܓ ܼ ܹܘܒ‬. ܼ ܹ ‫ܘܨ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܐ‬ ̇ ܵ ܵ ‫ ܸܘܒ‬.‫ܼ ܢ ܘ ܗ ܼ ܼ ܕ ܵܗ ܿ ܹܘܐ ܵܗ ܿܕܟ‬ ܸ ܹܹ ܼ ܵ̇ ܿ ܼܸ ̈ ‫ܪ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܐ‬ [ 598 ] ‫ܐ‬ ܼ ܹ ܼ̈ ܼ ܼܵ ܼ ܹ ܼ ̣ ܹ ܸ ‫ ܘܐ ܼ ܹ ܼܝ ܿ ܼ ܹ ܐ‬. ܼ ܼܿ ܵ ܼ ‫ܐ ܵ ܹ ܐ ܿܙܘ ܹ̈ܪܐ ܸܐ‬ ܸ ̈ ܿ ̇ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܸ ‫ܼܒܐ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܘ ܹ ܼ ܝ ܸ ܹ ܐ ܘܐ ܵ ܹ ܐ ܙܘ ܹ̈ܪܐ‬ ܼ ܹ ܿ ܿ ܿ ‫ܘ ܿ ܝ ܓ ܵ ܐ ܘ ܵ ܐ ܘ ܐ ̈ܐ‬ ܼ ܹ ܹ ܹ ܹ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܿ ܿ ̈ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܿܿ ̈ ‫ܼ ܹܐ‬ ܼ ‫ܕܨ ܼ ܐ̈ܪ ܼ ܹ ܐ ܕ ܸ ܼ ܢ ܼ ܵ ܐ ܘ ܼ ܐ ܹ ܐ ܼܘ‬ ܵ ‫ܿܒ ܼ ̈ ܼ ܐ ܘ ܼ ܿܒ‬ ‫ܕܒ ܼܿ ܿ ܼ ܪܐ ܵܬܐ ܸ ܼ ܢ ܿ ܼ ܵܐ ܸܒ‬ ܹ ܼ ܼ ܵ ‫ܵܐ‬ ܿ .‫ܿ ܵܐ ܿܐ ܵܪܐܐ‬ ‫ܘܐ ܼܝ ̄ܗ ܵܘܐ‬ ‫ܡ‬ ‫ܘܗ‬ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܵ ܿ ‫ܵܐ‬ ‫ܐܘ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ ܼ ܕ‬.‫ܘܗ ܼ ܿ ܼ ܕ ܵ ܼܘܟ ܵܐ ܹ ̈ܪ ܹ ܐ‬ ܸ ܼ ܼ ܸ ‫ܕ‬ ܼܵ ܵ ܿ ܿ ‫ܼܒ ܼ ܐ‬ ܹ ܼ ‫ܼ ܹ ܹܗ ܸ ܼ ܢ ܘ̈ܪ ܹܒܐ ܕ‬ ܼ ‫ܼ ̰ܓܒ‬ ܿ‫ܵ ܒܐܸ ܕ ܢ ܬܕ‬ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܼ ܼ ܸ ܹ ܹ ܹ ܼ ‫ܘ ܸ ܹ ܼܐ ܼ ܼ ܸܘ‬ ‫ ܼ ܕ‬.‫[ ܵܒ ܵ ܹ ܐ‬599] ‫̄ ܼܒ ܼ ܹ ܐ ܹ̈ܐ ܘ ܹ ܵ ܐ ܵܬܐ ܵܒ ܵ ܹ ܐ‬ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܵܵ ‫ ܹܐ ܿ ܼܓ ܵ ܐ ܹ ܹܗ‬. ܼ ܿ ܼ ‫ܵܒ‬ ̣ ܼ ‫ܸܐ‬ ܼ ‫ܼ ̈ ܼ ܐ ܹܪ‬ ܵ ‫ܢ ܵܐ ܿܐ‬ ܵ ܵ ܹ ‫ܵܐ‬ ܼ ܸ ܼ ܼ ܼ .‫ܐܘܕ ܼ ܟ ܕ ܼ ܵ ܹܐܘܬ‬ ‫ܐ ܼ ܹܒ ܼ ܿܬܕ ܿ ܼ ܹ ܐ ܿܐܘ ܸ ܼܝ ܹܕ ܼܿܐ ܼܝ ܿܐܘ ܿܪܘ ܵ ܐ‬ ܿ ܵ ‫ܵ ܼܝ ܹܐ ܼܿ ܼ ܿ ܿܘܡ‬ ܹ ܵ ܵ ‫ ܒ ܹ ܪܕ ܹ ܹ ܼܝ‬.‫ܸܕ ܼ ܵܐ‬ ܵ ܵ ‫ܼ ܐ ܐ ܼ ܵܐ ܬܪܐ ܿ ̈ܪܐ‬ ‫ܒܒ ܹܐ‬ ‫ܿ ܼ ܵܐ ܐܢ ܵܗ ܹܘ ܵ ܐ‬ ܹ ܼ ܹ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܿ ‫̄ܗ ܵܘܐ ܒ ܼ ܵܐ ܿ ܵ ܐ ܼܓ ܹ ܬܐ ܹ ܹܗ ܵ ܼ ܫ ܼܕ ܵܗܐ‬ ܵ ܿ . ܼ ‫ܘܨ ܐ ܼܿܗ ܼ ܹܓ ܒ‬ .‫ܘܙܝ ܹܒ ܼ ܼܘܟ‬ ܼ ‫ܹ ܒ ܵ ܵܐ‬ ܼ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܵ . ‫ܘܓ ܼ ܹ ܵܬܐ‬ ܸ ‫ܼܐ ܼܓ ܵ ܐ ܐ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܸܕ ܕ‬ ܼ ܼܸ ܿ ܿ ‫ܕ ܹܐ ܼܝ‬ ܹ ܼ ܼ ܼ ‫ ܕ‬. ܼ ܼ ‫ ܹ ܹ ܼ ܵܐ ܼܐ‬. ‫ܹܓ ܹܒ‬ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܿ [600] ‫ ܸܕܒܓ ܸ ܕ‬.‫ܸܒ ܐ ܕ ܼ ܹ ܐ ܕܐ ܕܘܟ ܼ ܼ ܘܡ‬ ܵ ‫̈ ܵ ܿܢ‬ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܼ ܼ ‫ܐ ܼܬܘܪ ܵ ܸܗܠ ܬ ܐ ܸܘ ܼ ܼܐܝ‬ ܹܵ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܵ .‫ܐ ܼ ܵܐ‬ ‫ܹ ܼ ܒ ܹܐ‬ ‫ܘܒ ܸ ܪ ܼܐ ܿ ܼܓ‬ ܼ ܼ ܿ ‫ܹܘ‬ ܵ ̄ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܼ ܸ ‫ܸܘܐ ܹܪ ܼ ܼ ܐ ܸܬ ܐ ܸ ܼ ܐ ܸܒ ܵ ܐ ܘ‬ ܵ̄ ܵ ‫ܿܓ ܓ ܿ ܪܐ‬ ܵ ܵ ‫ܸ ܼܢ‬ ‫ܗܘܠ‬ ܼ ‫ܐܘܐ ܸܬ ܐ‬ ܹ ̰ ̰ ܵ ‫ ܘ‬.‫ܕ ܼ ܵ ܵ ܐ ܘ ܵ ܵ ܐ‬ ܵ‫ܢ ܿ ܐ‬ ܼ ܼ ܸ ܼ ܹ ܹ ܹ ܹ ܸ

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 70

The Romance of Aḥīqār the Wise in the Neo-Aramaic MS London Sachau 9321 _____________________________________________________________________________________

and said: “Why are you tormenting this fox?” Then I said to Pharaoh, the king: “This fox has harmed me greatly, my Lord, for I had a rooster with a wonderful voice which told me the hours of the night and was given as a gift to me by my Lord Esarḥadom. [601] In this night the fox went to Aṯor and ate my rooster.” Then Pharaoh said to me: “O Aḥīqār, I see sign of madness in you. How could a fox go from Egypt to Aṯor in a single night, eat your rooster, and come back here as more than three hundred and sixty parasangs lie between them?” Then I said: “My Lord the King, it is just as my lord’s horses neigh there and your mares abort here.” Then the king said: “Your reply is very good, [602] but solve this riddle for me: a builder put up a column, constructing it with eight thousand seven hundred sixtythree bricks, and covering it with three hundred and sixty five stones. On the top he planted twelve cedar trees, on every cedar he stuck thirty branches and on each branch two bunches of dates, one white and another black.” Then I replied to Pharaoh the King: “[Even] the herdsman of cattle of Aṯor and Nineveh know this riddle! The builder is God, who created the year which is the column. He gave [603] the year eight thousand seven hundred and sixty-three hours, and made the days of the year three hundred and sixty five. The twelve cedars are the twelve months of the year. Every cedar has thirty branches, that is thirty days, and every branch has two bunches, one white and one black, which are the day and the night”. Thereafter, Pharaoh said to me: “O Aḥīqār, twine two ropes of sea-sand for me.” I said: “Order, my Lord, to bring me two ropes from your stores so that I may make such a rope.” The king said to me: “O Aḥīqār, if [604] you do not make the ropes for me, I will not give you the tribute of Egypt.” Then I went behind the house and made

.‫ܘ ܹ ܹ ܼ ܵܬܐ ܿ ܼ ܵ ܐ ̄ ܹ ܿܬ ܿ ܼ ̰ܓ ̰ܓ ܿ ܹܪܐ ܵܐ ܼܕܝ ܸܬ ̄ ܵ ܐ‬ ܿ ‫ܒܐܝ ܸ ܵ ܵ ܐ ܹ ܼܝ ܵܬܐ ܸ ܼ ܢ ܿ ܼ ܵܐ ܼܿܕܐܕ ܸܬ ̄ ܵ ܐ‬ ܵ ܼܿ ‫ܸ ܿ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܼܝ ܵܐ ܸܐ ܵ ܼܕ ܼܝ ܸܒ ܐ ܼ ܼ ܵܘܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ܼ ‫ܼܒ‬ ܸ ܹ ܵ‫ ܘ ܹ ܐ‬.‫ܼ ܵܐ ܕ ܼ ܵܐ ܿ ܼ ܼ ܵܐ ܵ ܵ ܐ ܼ ̰ܓ ܵܒܐ‬ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܿ ܿ ܵܵ ܿ ܵ ܸ ‫ ܘ ܼܝ ܼ ܼ ܿ ܘܡ‬.‫ܸܐ ܸ ܼ ܐ ̈ ܕ ܹ ܹ ܐ‬ ‫ ܹܘ ܿܒ ܼܿܐܕ ܹ ܹ ܐ‬. ܵ ܹ ܼ ܼ ܵ [601] ܹ ܵ ‫ܵ ̄ ܸܒ‬ ܵ ܵ̄ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܼ ܼ‫ܼ ܐ ܕ‬ ܹ ܸ ܼ ‫ܸܙ ܸ ܐ ܸܬ ܐ ܐ ܼܬܘܪ ܘ ܸ ܐ‬ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܼ ܼ ‫ܹ ܕܐ‬ ܼ ܼ ‫ܼܐ ܼܓ ܵ ܐ ܸ ܼ ܢ ܹ ܹ ܼ ܵܐ ܼܐ‬ ܿ ܿ ܵ ‫ܕܬܐ ܵ ܐ‬ ‫ ܸܕ‬.‫ܵ ܐ ܕ ܹܕ ܵ ܼ ܵܬܐ‬ ‫ܒܓ ܼܘܟ‬ ܸ ‫ܼ ܵܐ‬ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܵ ‫ܕܙ ܹ ̣ ܸ ܹܪ‬ ܼ ܼ ‫ ܸܒ ܐ‬.‫ܐ ܼܬܘܪ ܒ ܼ ܐ ܹ ܹ ܐ‬ ܿ ܵ‫ܵ ܐ ̈ ܐ ܘ ܿ ܿ ܐ ܘ ܿܕܐ‬ ܿܵ ܵ ܹܵ ܼ ܸ ܹ ܵ ܼ ܿ ܼ ܿ ܸ ܵ ܹ ܵ ܹ ܸ ‫ܸܒ ܿ ܼ ܼ ܵ ܸܒ ܵ ܸܒ‬ ‫ ܼܐ ܼܓ ܐ ܐ ܼ ܹ ܼܝ ܐ‬.‫ܕ ܼ ܼ ܟ ܘܐ ܹܬܐ ܓ ܹ ܬܐ ܐ ܼ ܐ‬ ‫ܵ ܸܗܠ ܼ ܹ ܐ ܕ ܹܐ ܵ ܼܕ ܼܝ ܵܬ ܵ ܐ‬ ‫ܵ ܼܝ ܿ ܼ ܵܐ ܸܕ‬ .‫ܘ ܿ ܿ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܵ ܼ ܿܘ ܼ ܼ ܢ ܵܐ ܼ ܵܐ‬ ܿ ܵ ܿܿ ܵ ܿ ܵ ‫ܵܒ ܸ ܪ ܸܕ‬ ܹ ̄ ‫ܹ ܹܗ ܼ ܐ ܼ ܒ ܼ ܐ ܼܪ ܐ‬ ܵ ܵ ܵ ‫ܸ ܼ ܐ ܼܕܝ ܿ ܼ ܼ ܐ ܵܒ ܵ ܵܐ‬ ‫[ ܿ ܼܒ ܼܿ ܡ‬602] ‫ܵ ̰ܓ ܵܐ ܿܒ ܼ ܟ‬ ܿ ‫ ܘ ܿ ܸ ܵܒ ܹ ܹ ܹ ܿ ܿ ܼ ܵܐ ܼܿܐ ܹ̈ܐ‬.‫ܒ ܹ ܹ ܼ ܵܐ ܼ ܼ ܵܕܐ‬ ̇ ܵ ܿ ̈ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܵܿ ܿ ܸ ‫ ܘ‬. ܼ ܵ ‫ܘ ܼ ܼܒܐܐ ܸܐ ܹ ܐ ܘ ܸ ܼ ܼ ܘ ܹܐ ܼ ܓ ̈ܪ‬ ܹ ܸ ̈ ܿ ܵ ܿ ̈ ܵ ܵܿ ‫ܹܐܠ‬ ܹ ‫ ܸܘ ܼܘ ܼܒ‬.‫ܸܒ ܼ ܸܐ ܹ ܐ ܘ ܼ ܐ ܸܘ ܼ ܵ ܹ ܐ ܹܐ‬ ‫ ܘ ܼ ܸܪ ܿ ܹ ܒ ܿ ܿ ܠ‬.‫ܸ ܹ ܬ ܹܪܐ ܼܿ ܐ ܼ ܵ ܹܐ ܸܕ ܸ ܵ ܪܐ‬ ܵ ‫ܸ ܵ ܪܐ ܵ ܼ ܼ ܵ ܿܒ ܼ ̈ ܹ ܐ ܹܘ ܿܒ ܿ ܼ ܕ ܼ ܵܐ ܵ ܿܒ ܼ ̈ ܹ ܐ ܬ ܹܪܐ‬ ̈ ܿ ܵ ܿ .‫ܘܐܘ ܸ ܵ ܐ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܐ‬ ‫ ܼ ܵܐ ܼ ܵ ܪܐ‬.‫ܕܬ ܹܐ‬ ܹ ‫ܼ ̈ ܹ ܹܐ‬ ܵ‫ ܿ ܐ ܵ ܵ ܐ ܕܒ ܵ ܬܐ‬.‫ܢ ܿ ܵܐ‬ ܵ‫ܿܐ ܿܓ ܵ ܐ ܝ ܬܐ‬ ܼ ܼ ܸ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܵ ܿ ‫ܕܐܬ‬ ܿ ‫ ܵܒ ܵ ܵܐ ܼܿܐ ܵ ܵ ܐ‬.‫ܵܐ ܼܕܝ ܿ ܼ ܼ ܵ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܪ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܿ ܵ ‫ܐܬܐ‬ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܵ ̇ ܵ ‫ܘܐܗ‬ ܼ ܹ ‫ ܸܘܕ ܹܪ‬.‫ܼ ܼ ܕܐ‬ ܹ ܹ ‫̄ ܹ ܸܕܒ‬ ̈ ܿ ̈ ܵ ‫[ ܼܿ ܐ ܵ ܼ ܵ ܕ ܵ ̄ ܵ ܬ ܿ ܼ ܵܐ ܼܐ ܹܐ ܘ ܼܿ ܼܒܐܐ ܹܐ ̈ ܹ ܐ‬603] ܿ ܿ ܵ̄ ܵ‫̈ ܕ‬ ܵ ̈ ܿ ܹ ܸ ܼ ‫ܘ ܸ ܼ ܼ ܸܘ ܼ ܼ ܐ ܵ ܼ ܸܘ‬ ܿ ܿ ̈ ܿ ‫ܸ ܵ ܹ̈ܪܐ‬ ‫ܵ ܼ ܵ ܹܐ ̈ ܹ ܐ ܘ ܿ ܸ ܵ ܐ ܸܘ‬ ܼ ‫ ܵ ܹܘܬ ܹܪܐ‬.‫ܹ ܐ‬ ܼ ‫ ܘ ܿ ܼ ܠ ܸ ܵ ܪܐ ܵ ܼ ܼ ܵ ܿܒ ܼ ̈ ܹ ܐ‬. ܵ ̄ ܵ ‫ܬ ܹܪܐ ܼܿ ܼ ܿ ܹ ܐ ܕ‬ ܵ ‫ܿ ܐ‬ ܵ ܿ ܿ ̈ ܿ ܵ ‫ܒܓ ܹ ܗ ܬ ܹܪܐ‬ ܼ ܼ ‫ ܘ ܼ ܕ ܵ ܒ ܼ ܐ ܐ‬.‫ܼ ܼ ܹ ܵܐ‬ ܹ ܼ ‫ ܿ ܵ ܐ ܘ ܹ ܹ ܐ‬.‫ ܼ ܵܐ ܼ ܵ ܪܐ ܘ ܸ ܵ ܐ ܿ ܵ ܐ‬.‫ܼ ̈ ܹ ܹܐ‬ ‫ܼ̄ܿ ܆‬ ‫ܵܓ ܼ ܸ ܵܬܐ ܸ ܼ ܢ ܹ ܹܗ ܵܐ ܼܿܐ ܼ ܿ ܼ ܒ ܿܘ ܼ ܬ ܹܪܐ‬ ‫ܼܿ ܕ‬ ‫ ܹ ܼܝ ܵܐ ܹܐ ܵ ܼܕܝ‬.‫ܿ ܸ ̇ܒ ܹ ܐ ܹ ܵ ܐ ܕ ܵ ܵ ܐ‬ ܿ ܿ ‫ܹܒ ܼ ܵ ܕ ܼ ܵܒ ܹ ܐ ܼ ܵܐ ܼ ܼܿ ܼܒ ܵ ܐ ܼܿܕܐ ܼܒ ܸ ܢ‬ ܼ ܼ ܼ ‫ܸܕ‬ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܵ [604] ‫ ܹ ܹܗ ܵ ܼ ܼ ܐ ܵܐ ܼܐ ܼ ܼ ܸܐ ܢ‬.‫ܸ ܼ ܹܬܗ‬ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܵ .‫ܿ ܸ ܼ ̈ܒ ܹ ܐ ܐ ܼܐ ܼܒ ܸ ܬ ܼܝ ܓ ܼ ܼ ܕ ܸ ܪ ܸ ܐ ܵ ̄ ܸܒ ܼ ܟ‬ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܼ ‫ܼܐ ܼܓ ܵ ܐ ܐ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܒ ܹ ܪ ܹܒ ܼ ܹܘ ܸ ܒ‬

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 71

The Romance of Aḥīqār the Wise in the Neo-Aramaic MS London Sachau 9321 _____________________________________________________________________________________

two holes in the wall, through which the sun penetrated into the holes. I dropped the sea-sand which [seemed] to twist like a rope. I said to the king: “Order your servants to take the ropes!” Then Pharaoh said: “Aḥīqār, behold, we have a millstone that works prodigiously well, but one of its [stones] is broken, and I wish you to mend it for us.” Pharaoh’s servants rolled it before me. Then I saw another stone much smaller than that one, also broken. [605] I took it up and carried it before Pharaoh, saying to him: “You know, my Lord the King, that I am a foreigner and I have not brought my mending tools with me. Order your friends, the shoemakers who are in your city, to cut off a slice of this stone and I will sew it up at once.” Then Pharaoh and his dignitaries marvelled at the wise man Aḥīqār, praised him and said: “Blessed be the Lord, who gave you wisdom and skill, Aḥīqār!” Aḥīqār’s departure from Egypt and his return to Esarḥadom, King of Aṯor and Nineveh: [606] When he saw that he had been defeated by the scribe Aḥīqār, who explained and solved all his riddles and obstacles and [no longer] had any excuse, Pharaoh delivered the money and taxes for three years from all the land of Egypt, and he also gave him the nine hundred gold talents mentioned in the letter. He gave innumerable gifts to all my servants and my troops. Thereafter, he gave Aḥīqār permission to go to his country with his army. I kissed the king’s knees and returned to Aṯor in great victory. I came before King Esarḥadom with honour [607] and my head high, and he rejoiced greatly when he saw me. He made me sit on his right and he said to me: “O Aḥīqār, my scribe, ask me for anything you like and desire!” I said to him: “May the King my Lord live forever! Everything you wish to give me, give it rather to the hangman Nābosmīḵ, because

ܵ ܵ .‫ܐܘܪܐ ܸ ܵ ܐ ܒ ܼ ܵܒ ܹ̈ܒܐ‬ ܹ ‫ܒܓ ܼ ܕܐ ܬ ܹܪܐ ܹ ܵܒ ܹ̈ܒܐ ܹܘ‬ ‫ܘ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܼܝ ܹ ܵ ܐ ܕ ܵ ܵ ܐ ܒ ܼ ܵܒ ܹ̈ܒܐ ܘ ܹ ܹ ܐ ܸܒ ܼ ܵ ܵܐܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܐܘ ܹܕܐ ܕ ܼ ܼ ܟ‬ ‫ܿܕ‬ ‫ ܘ ܹ ܼܝ ܵܬܐ ܿ ܼ ܵܐ‬.‫ܼ ܼ ܼܿ ܼܒ ܵ ܐ‬ ܿ ܿ ܿ ̈ܿ ܵ ܼ ܼ ‫ ܹܵ ܵ ܹܗ ܸ ܼ ܵܢ ܵܐ ܼܐ‬. ‫ ܘܒ ܸ ܪ ܸܕ‬.‫ܕ ܼ ܼ ܸ ܼܒ ܹ ܐ‬ ‫ܼ ̰ܓ ܵܒܐ‬ ‫ܼܿܘ ܹ ܐ ܸܐ ܼ ܿܬܢ ܼ ܵ ܐ ܹ ܐ ܵܐ ܕ ܿ ܼ ̰ܓ ܪܐ ܕ ܼܿ ܿܒ ܼ ܐ‬ ‫ܼ ܵ ̇ ܼ ܵ ܐ ܸ ܼܿ ܼ ܼܿܘ ܵ ̇ ܬ ܹܒ ܵܬܐ ܿ ܼ ܿ ܸܒ ܼ ܿܬܕ‬ ܹ̄ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܵ ‫ܹ ܸ ̇ܗ ܵ ܼ ܘ ܸ ܵ ܪ ̇ ܵ ܼ ܿܐܘ ܹ̈ܕܐ ܕ ܸ ܼ ܢ‬ ܵ ‫ܿܙܘ‬ ‫ܼܿܐ ܿ ܼܓ ܵ ܐ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܹ ܐ ܵܐ ܸ ܵܬܐ ܕ ܼ ܵ ̇ ܸܒ‬ ‫ܪܬܐ‬ ̇ ܵ ‫[ ̄ ܵ ̇ ܘ ܿ ܵ ̇ ܘ ܵ ܪ‬605] ‫ܸ ܵ ̇ ܹܘ ܿܬܒ ܵܬܐ‬ ܸ ܸ ܸ ܼ ܸ ܸ ܵ ܵ‫ ܵܗ ܹܘܐ ܕ ܼ ܿ ܹܐ ܿܬ ܐ‬. ܹ ܵ ‫ܸ ܼ ܢ ܘܐ ܼ ܹ ܼܝ‬ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܿ ‫ܐܘܢ ܼ ܼ ܵܐ ܘ ܵ ܐ‬ ܸ ‫ ܕܐ ܵ ܐ ܐ ܼ ܐ ܿ ܼܓ ܼܒ‬.‫ܹܐ ܼܕܝ ܼ ܐ‬ ܵܵ ‫ܹܐ‬ ‫ܿܕ‬ .‫ܵ ܹ̈ ܐ ܸܕ ܼ ܵ ܹܐ‬ ܼ ‫ܼ ܹܬ ܼ ܿ ܸܐ‬ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܿ ̄ ‫ܕ ܼ ܼ ܟ ܼ ܵ ܹܐ ܕ ܼ ܼ ܸܒ ܼ ܼܘܟ ܘ ܼ ܐ ܼ ܼ ܐ ܼܕܝ‬ ‫ ܼܿܐ ܿ ܼܓ ܵ ܐ‬.‫ܹ ܐ ܵܐ ܹ ܵ ܐ ܼ ܿܬܕ ܼ ܹ ܸ ܵ ̇ ܵ ܿ ܼ ܼ ܢ ܿ ܼ ܼ ܵ ܐ‬ ܵ ܿ ܿܿ ‫ܒܐ ܼ ܿ ܼ ܼ ܿ ܼ ܵ ܐ‬ ܹ ܼܿ ‫ܸ ܼ ܢ ܘ̈ܪ ܹܒܐ ܕ‬ ܼ ܼ ‫ܼ ܹ̰ܓܒ‬ ‫ܘ ܸ ܿ ܼ ܿ ܼ ܹ ܘ ܹ ܼ ܝ ܒ ܼ ܼ ܵ ܹ ܵ ܵܐ ܸܕܗ ܸܒ ܹ ܵ ܼ ܟ‬ ‫ܸ ܹ ܵ ܸܘ ܼ ܼܘ ܵܬܐ ܵܐ ܼܿܐ ܼ ܿ ܼ ܆‬ ܵ ‫ܘ ܿܕܐ‬ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܵ ‫ܪܬܐ‬ ‫ܸ ܹܪ‬ ̣ ܼ ܸ ܼ ܼ ‫ܼܕܐ‬ ܵ ‫ܕܐ ܿ ܿ ܿܘܡ ܿ ܵܐ‬ ‫ܕܐ ܼܬ ܿܘܪ ܘ ܼ ܹ ܐ܆‬ ܼ ܼ ܼܹ ̣ ‫̣ܓ ܼ ܵܒܐ‬ ܹ ܹ ‫[ ܼ ܕ ܼ ܹ ܹ ܕ‬606] ܿ ܵ ‫ܿܐ‬ ܵܵܵ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܹ ‫ܸܘ‬ ܹ ܸ ܼ ‫ܼ ܼܒܐ ܹܘ‬ ̈ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܼ ܸ ܹ ‫ܘܕܪ ܼ ܹ ܗ ܘ ܐ ܸ ܹ ܐ ܸܐ‬ ܹ ܼ ‫ܼ ܼ ܹܐ ܕ‬ ܼ ‫ܸ ܸ ܡ ܼܿܐ ܿ ܼܓ ܵ ܐ ܸ ܼ ܢ ܒ ܼ ̣ܓ ܹܒ ܹ ܵ ܐܠ ܘ ܸ̰ܓ ܹ ܐ‬ ܿ ܵ ‫̈ ܐ ܕ ܵ ̇ ܿܐ‬ ܿ ‫ܪܐܐ ܕ ܸ ܹܪ‬ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܹ ‫ܘܗܡ ܗ ܸܒ‬ ܹ ܸ ܼܼܹ ‫ܕ‬ ܿ‫ܵܒܐ ܒܐܝ‬ ܵ ܵ ܹ ‫ܸܬ ܐܐ ܸܐ ̈ ܹ ܐ ܼܿ ܐ ܕܗ ܵܒܐ‬ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ‫ܕܘ ܐ‬ ܹ ܵ ܼ ܸ ܹ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܵ ̈ ܿ ܵ ‫ ܹܘܗ ܸܒ ܹ ܬܐ ܼ ܼ ܐܘܕ ܼܝ ܘ ܼ ܼܬ ܼܝ‬.‫ܹܐ ܿ ܼܓ ܬܐ‬ .‫ܼ ܵ ܵ ܼ ܵ ܕ ܵ ܐ ܸ ܵ ܵ ܐ‬ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܵ ‫ܕܕ ܸܐܪ‬ ‫ܵܒ ܸ ܪ ܸܕ‬ ܼ ܼ ‫ܼܕ ܼܘܪ ܬܐ ܼܐ‬ ܹ ‫ܸܘ‬ ܵ ܿ ‫ ܸܘ ܸ ܼ ܒ ܼ ̈ܪ ܵܐ ܕ ܸ ܼ ܢ‬.‫ܼ ܵ ܼ ܵܬܐ ܕ ܸܐ ܹ ܼܿܐ ܼܬ ܹܪܗ‬ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܵ ‫ܐܘ ܼܝ ܹܓ ܸܒ‬ ܹ ‫ܒܓ ܹ ܒ ܼ ܼܬܐ ܼܪܒ ܼ ܸܘ‬ ̣ ‫ܸܘܕ ܹܐ ܼܪܝ ܐ ܼܬܘܪ‬ ܵ ܵ ܵ‫ܬܐ‬ ܿ ܿ ‫ܿ ܼ ܵܐ‬ ܼ ܼ ܹ ‫[ ܘ‬607] ‫ܹܐ ܼ ܼ ܿ ܘܡ ܒܐ ܼ ܿܐ‬ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܸ ‫ ܘ‬. ܼ ܼ ‫ܸ ܼ ܼ ܼܬܐ ܼܪܒ ܼ ܸܒ‬ ܹ ܼ ܹ ‫ܕ ܹܪ ܐ ܸܘ‬ ܿ ܿ ‫ܹ ܵܐ ܿܐ‬ ܿ ܼ ‫ܼܒ ܼܘ‬ ܼܼ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܹ ‫ܼ ܿ ܹܐ ܕ ܼ ܹ ܘ‬ ܵܵܵ ‫ܿ ܒ ܹ ܼ ܿ ܠ ܵ ܐ ܹܕ ܵ ̰ܓ ܹܒ ܼ ܟ‬ ܼ ܼ ‫ܼ ܼܒܐ ܕ‬ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܼ ܼ ܼ ‫ܼܝ ܼ ܐ‬ ܹ ܵ ‫ ܼܐܝ ܹ ܼܝ‬.‫ܘ ܹ ܹ ܬ‬ ‫ ܼ ܵ ܐ ܕ ܵ ̄ ܸܒ ܿ ܼ ܵܗ ̇ ܹܘܐ ܵܬܐ ܵ ܿܒ ܿ ܼ ܿ ܼ ̰ܓ ܵ ܐܕ‬. ‫ܼܿܐ ܿ ܼܒ‬

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 72

The Romance of Aḥīqār the Wise in the Neo-Aramaic MS London Sachau 9321 _____________________________________________________________________________________

I am living this life thanks to his wisdom, my Lord the King.” Then the King of Aṯor began asking me about all I had done before Pharaoh, King of Egypt. And I told him every single thing while he listened with amazement. Then I delivered [608] all that Pharaoh had given me, and finally I paid homage to King Esarḥadom and said: “Now I ask the Lord for you that He may ever grant you peace and prosperity. I do not wish anything from the possession of my Lord, but surrender to me my son Nādān, so that I may judge him according to your order and instruction.” Then the king ordered and they delivered to me my sister’s son Nādān, who was bound in fetters. I took him home, I began to punish him with great severity and gave him a thousand blows on his back, a thousand on his shoulders, a thousand on his belly, [609] a thousand on his buttocks, and a thousand on his legs. Every day I beat him likewise, and when he begged for respite, I threw him into the latrine so that he could breathe its stench. I gave him enough bread and water to keep him alive. I delivered him into the hands of young Nābolḥal and Ṭapšālīm to watch him and told them: “Write down what I say to that wretched one whom I honoured and loved. He did not understand but wished my death and the end of my life.” Then Aḥīqār said to Nādān, his sister’s son thus: 1) My son, it is said in the Proverbs: [610] “Who he does not listen with his ears is made to listen behind his neck.” Nādān replied saying to me: “Why are you angry with me, Aḥīqār? It is said in the scriptures: ‘Do not return evil with evil.’ ” Then Aḥīqār said: 2. My son, I honoured you, I fed you and I brought you before the royal throne, and you made me lose my post and wished my death. But God has saved me from oppression, for God, praise to Him, humbles the proud and heals the broken-hearted.

ܵ ܵ ܵ ݅ ܿ ܿܿ ܼ ‫ܼ ܼܒ ܹܕܒ ܹܒ ̰ܓ ܼ ܼܬܐ ܕ ܸ ܼ ܹ ܗ ܸܒ ܼ ̈ܐܐ ܸܘܢ ܐ‬ ܿ ‫ ܵܒ ܸ ܪ ܸܕ‬.‫ܵܐ ܹܐ ܵ ܼܕܝ ܿ ܼ ܵܐ‬ ܼ ܹ ‫ܼ ܹܪ‬ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܹ ‫ܼ ܠ ܵ ܐ ܸܕ‬ ܼ ‫ܐܘܕ‬ ܸ ‫ܕܐ ܼܬܘܪ ܒ ܼܪܝ ܸܐ‬ ‫ ܘ ܸ ܵ ܸ ܹ ܸܐ ܸ ܼ ܵ ܐ‬. ‫ܸ ܼ ܢ ܿ ܼ ܵܐ ܕ ܸ ܹܪ‬ ܵ ܵ ܸ ‫ ܘ‬. ‫ܗܘ ܵ ܹ ܐ ܘ ܸ ܵ ̰ܓ‬ [608] ܹ ܸ ܼ ‫ܸ ܼܿ ܼ ܘܐ‬ ܹܵ ܵ ܵ ܸ ‫ܓ ܼ ܹ ܬܐ ܼ ܠ ܹ ܼܝ‬ ܼ ‫ܕܘ ܹ ܐ ܸ ܼ ܢ ܸܘ ܸ ܼܕ‬ ܵ ‫ܵܒ ܸ ܪ ܸܕ‬ ‫ܿ ܼ ܵܐ ܼܿ ܼ ܿ ܿܘܡ ܘ ܹܐ ܹ ܼܝ ܿ ܼܒ‬ ‫ ܵ ܼ ܟ ̣ ܵ ܵܐ ܒ ܵ ܐ ܹ ܼ ܼ ܵܬܐ ܕ ܵ ̄ ܹܒ‬. ‫ܿ ܼ ܸܒ‬ ‫ ܘ ܵ ܐ ܹ ܵ ܸ ܢ ܵܐ ܵ ܐ ܸ ܼܝ‬.‫ܼ ܟ ܵ ܵ ܐ ܸܘܒ ܵ ܵ ܐ‬ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܵ ‫ܵ ܵ ܢ ܒ ܿܘ ܼ ܼ ܿܬܕ‬ ܼ ‫ܐܠ ܕ ܼܕܝ ܸܐ ܐ ܼܗ‬ ‫ܵ ܸ ܸܐ ܸ ܒ ܼ ܵ ܼ ܟ ܹܘܒ ܵ ܹ ܼ ܼܘܟ ܼܿܐ ܿ ܼܓ ܵ ܐ‬ ܵ ܵܵ ܵ ܹ ܵ ܵ ܹ ‫ܸ ܹ ܿ ܼ ܵܐ ܘ‬ ܼ ܼ ܼ ‫ܼ ܢ ܸܒ ܕ‬ ܼ ܵ ܿ ܵ ̈ [.‫ܗܘ ܼܐ ܼ ܐ ܒ ܹ ܹ ܐ‬ ܼ ‫ܼܕ ܐ‬ ܿ ܿ ܵ ‫ܹܒ ܼ ܹܘ ܼ ܹܪ ܼ ܹ ܵ ܼ ̰ܓ ̰ ܹܪܐ‬ ܼ ‫ܘ ܼ ܹܒ‬ ܵ ̈ ܿ ‫ܿܐ ܵܐ‬ ܿ ܵ ‫ܵܬܐ ܿܪܒ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܬ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ܼ ܹ ܸܼ ܼ ܸ ܸ ܸ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܹ‫ܒ‬ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܿ ‫ܵܗ‬ ܿ ܵ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܸ ‫ܘܐ ܐ ܸܐ‬ ܹ ‫ܘܐ ܐ ܸܐ ܸ ܼ̈ܪܘ‬ ܹܼ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܵ ̈ ܵ .‫ܘܐ ܐ ܼܐ ܹ ܗ‬ ‫ܬ ܹܒ‬ ܼ ܼ [609] ܸ ‫ܘܐ ܐ ܸܐ‬ ܿ‫ܘ ܕ ܵܒܐ ܵ ܐ ܬܕ‬ ܿ ܵ ܵ ̄ ܵ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܹ ‫ܘ ܼ ܕ ܼ ܡ ܗ ܼܕܟ ܹ ܗܘܐ‬ ‫ܵ ܹ ܒ ܿ ܼ ̰ܓ ̰ܓ ܵ ܐ ܼ ܿܬ ܹ ܵ ܹ ܕ ܵ ܹ ܪ ܼ ܼ ܵܐ ܸ ܵܐ‬ ܵ ‫ܘ ܼ ܵ ܐ ܘ ܵ ܵܐ ܼ ܿܬܕ‬ . ܹ ‫ܕܒ ܹܗ ܒ ܿ ܼ ܼ ܵ ܵ ܐ ܵ ̄ ܸܒ ܵ ܐ‬ ܸ ܿ ܼ ܿ ‫ܘ ܸ ܼܿ ܸ ܹ ܒܐ ܼ ܵ ܐ ܕ ܵ ܿܒ‬ ܼ ܵ ܼܿ‫ܘ‬ ܿ ܿ ‫ܘܘ‬ ܿ ‫ܵܗ‬ ܿ ܵ ܵ ̈ ܼ ‫̣ܓ‬ ‫ܬܘܢ‬ ܼ ܼ ܵ ‫ܼܬܐ ܕ ܼ ܼ ܹܵ ܘ ܹ ܼܝ‬ .‫ܕ ܵ ܼ ܹܒ ܘܢ ܵܐ ܼ ܼ ܿܬ ܵ ̈ ܼ ܵ ܼܿܕܐ ܸ ܵ ̇ ܵܬܐ ܿ ܼ ܵܓ ܵ ܐ ܒ ܼ ܵ ܐ‬ ܵ ܿ ܵ ‫ܵܐܕܝ‬ ܼ ܹ ܹ ‫ܕܗ ܼܕܟ ܸ ܼ ܿ ܸ ܹ ܘ ܸ ܼ ܿ ܸܒ ܹ ܘ ܐ‬ ܵ ܵ .‫ܗܘ ܪ ܸ ܹ ܸ ܼ ܘ ܵ ܼܿ ܵܬܐ ܕ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܵ ܹ ̈ܐ‬ ܼ ‫ܹ ܐ‬ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܵ ‫ܼܐ ܼܓ ܐ ܹ ܹܗ ܼܐ ܼ ܼ ܬܐ ܢ ܹܒ ܕ ܼ ܹ ܗ ܗ ܼܕܟ܆‬ ̈ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܼ [610] ‫܆ ܒ ܘ ܼ ܐ ܼ ܼ ܐ ̄ ܹ ܒ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܐ‬1‫܆‬ ‫ܕ ܵ ܐ ܵ ܹ ܐ ܒ ܵ ܹ ܗ ܵܒ ܹ ܪ ܵ ܿ ܼ ܹܬܗ ܿ ܼ ܹ ܐ ܼ ܹ ܆‬ ܵ ‫̰ܓ ܼ ܹܘܒ ܹ ܵ ܵ ܢ ܘ ܹ ܹ ܼ ܵܬܐ ܼ ܹ ܿܬ ̰ܓܓ ܼ ܐ‬ ܵ ‫ ܵ ܐ ܼܿ ܹܐ ܿܬ‬.‫ ܐ̄ ܼ ܹ ܓ ܿ ܼ ܵ ܼܵܒܐ‬. ܼ ܿ ܼ ‫ܸܐ ܼ ܵܐ ܼܿܐ‬ . ܼ ܿ ܼ ‫ ܵܓ ܸ ܵܬܐ ܹ ܹܗ ܼܿܐ‬. ܵ ܼ ‫ܒ ܼ ܵ ܿ ܼܒ ܼܿ ܠ ܒ‬ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܹ ‫܆ ܒ ܘ ܼ ܐ ܵ ܐ ܸ ܼ ܿ ܸ ܼ ܟ ܘ ܸ ܼܕܒ ܸ ܼ ܟ ܘ‬2‫܆‬ ܿ ‫ܘܐ‬ ܵ .‫ܟ‬ ܵ ܿ ܼ ܸ ܼ ܹ ܸ ‫ܼ ܪ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼܬܐ‬ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܸ . ܼ ܸ ‫ܹ ܹ ܒ ܹ ܬ ܼܝ ܹ ܹ ܼ ܘܒ ܹܐ ܼ ܟ‬ ‫ܼܿܐ ܵ ܐ ܸ ܼ ܵ ܸ ܼ ܕ ̇ ܼ ܵ ܐ ܸܘ ܵ ܐ ܼܿ ܿ ܼܒ‬ ܵ ܿ ‫ܵ ܹ ܐ ܵ ܹܐ ܘ ܵܐ ܹ ܿ ܼܓ‬ ܹ ‫ܼܕܐ ܵ ܐ ܼ ܼܒ ܵ ܐ ܸܐ‬ ‫ܸܒ ܼܒ ܼ ܹ ܐ ܕ ܸ ܵܒܐ܆‬ ‫ܼ ܵ ܹ ̈ܐ‬ ‫ܵܐ‬ ܵ ܹ ‫ܼ ܵܐ‬

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 73

The Romance of Aḥīqār the Wise in the Neo-Aramaic MS London Sachau 9321 _____________________________________________________________________________________

3. My son, you became like the scorpion that plunged its sting into the stone but did not [even] feel it. [611] Then it stung a needle, and it said to the scorpion: “Behold, my sting is stronger than yours!” 4) My son, you became to me as one who gathers stones to throw at God, but stones do not reach Him; thus he gets a great sin. 5) My son, you became to me like a goat standing over a twig of madder to eat from it. The madder said to the goat: “Why are you eating from me? Your skin gets tanned by me!” The goat replied: “I will eat you while I live and [then] I will tan my skin with the blood of your roots!” 6) My son, you became a person [612] who sees [someone] trembling with cold, but he takes water and pours it on his head. 7) My son, you should know that [even] if the pig’s tail were seven cubits long, it would not take the place of the horse, not even if its bristles turn soft as silk. 8) My son, I said you would replace me, inherit my position, and acquire my teachings and all my deeds. But you did not accept my teaching, nor did you listen to my words, nor did you gain anything from God who also did not listen to your voice. 9) My son, to me you became like the lion [613] who met a donkey at midday time. The lion said to the donkey: “May your coming be in peace!” The donkey replied: “May your greeting go to him who tied me up [last] night; otherwise I would not see your face.” 10) My son, you became to me as the trap placed on a manure heap; a sparrow said to it: “What are you doing here?” It replied: “I am praying to God Almighty.” Then the sparrow asked again: “And what is this stuff you are placed on?” The trap replied: “It is the stick on which I lean when I pray.” The sparrow

ܿ ̇ ܵ ‫ܵ ܵܒܐ ܕ ܼ ܪ‬ ܹ ܸ ‫ܗܘ ܼ ܟ‬ ܹ ܼ ‫܆ ܒ ܘ‬3‫܆‬ ܼ ܹ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܿ ̇ܵ ܵ ̇ [611] ‫ܼܕ ܒ ܼ ܗ ܒ ܼ ܪܐ ܘ ܐ ܪ ܹܐ ܹ ܒܓ ܗ‬ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܵ .‫ܸܘ ܹ ̇ ܹܒ ܼ ܵ ܵ ܐ ܘ ܹ ̇ܗ ܼ ܵ ܵ ܐ ܬܐ ܹ ܼܵܒܐ‬ ܵ ‫ܼܼܵ ܆‬ ‫ܼܿܘ ܹ ܐ ܼܿܕ ܒ ܼ ܿ ܼ ܸܒ‬ ܼܼ ܿ ܵ ̄ ܹ ܸ ‫܆ ܒ ܘ ܼ ܸ ܼ ܟ ܵ ܼ ܸ ܐ ܵ ܐ ܸܕ‬4‫܆‬ ܵ ̈ ܿ . ܼ ܿ ܵ ‫ܼܐ ܵ ܵ ܐ ܘ ܹ ܐ ܹ ܵ ܐ‬ ‫ܹ ܐ ܹ̈ܐ ܕܪ ܸ̰ܓ‬ ܵ ‫ܵ ܼ ܵ ܪ ܵܒܐ܆‬ ܹ ‫ܸܘ ܵ ܸ ܼܬ‬ ܿ ̇ ܵ ܹ ܼ ‫܆ ܒ ܘ‬5‫܆‬ ܹ ‫ܗܘ ܼ ܟ ܵ ܼ ܟ ܹ ܸܐ ܵܙܐ ܸܕ‬ ܵ ܵ ‫ܐܠ ܵܓ ܐ ܕ ܿ ܵܬܐ‬ ‫ ܐ ܼ ܹ ܐ‬. ܹ ܹ ‫ܕܐ ܼ ܵ ܐ‬ ܼ ܹ ܹ . ܼ ܸ ܼ ܵ ܼ ‫ܿ ܼ ܵܬܐ ܵܬܐ ܸܐ ܵܙܐ ܵܬܐ ܿ ܼ ܵ ܐ ܼܿ ܐ‬ ܵ ܿ ܵ ‫ ܐ ܼ ܹ ܐ ܸܐ ܵܙܐ‬. ܹ ‫ܒܓ ܝ ܼܿ ܼܒ ܼܐܝ‬ ܼ ܼ ‫ܕ ܸܓ‬ ܵ ܵ ‫ܒܐ‬ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܼ ‫ܒ ܼ ܼ ܸܐ ܐ‬ ܼ ܼ ‫ ܸܘܒ ܸ ܐ ܼܕܘܪ‬. ܼ ܵ ܸ ‫ܹܓ ܼܝ ܸܒ ܼܿܨ ܼܒ ܵܐܢ܆‬ ܿ ‫[ ܸܕ ܼ ܵ ܹ ܐ‬612] ‫ܗܘ ܼ ܟ ܹ ܐ ܵ ܵ ܐ‬ ܹ ܼ ‫܆ ܒ ܘ‬6‫܆‬ ܵܵ ܵ ܵ ‫ܼ ܵܬܐ‬ ܸ ܵ ܸ ‫ܵܐ ܘ‬ ܹ ܹ ‫ܕ ܼ ܹ ܹܒ ܐ ܐ‬ . ܹܹ‫ܒ‬ ܵ‫܆ ܒ ܿܘ ܵܗܘܐ ܕ ܿ ܐ ܿܬ ܕܐ ܢ ܿܕ ܵܒܐ ܕ ܘ ܵܪܐ ܿ ܒܐܐ‬7‫܆‬ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼܸ ܼ ܼ ܸ ܸ ܼ ܹ ܼ ‫ܕ̈ܪ ܹܐܐ ܵ ܸ ܟ ܵܐ ܵܐ ܹܪܐ ܼܕܘ ܼ ܵ ܕ ܼ ܹ ܐ ܘ ܼ ܕ ܼܿܗܡ‬ ܿ ‫ܵܗ ܼܿܘܝ ܸ ܹ̈ܐ ܕ ܼ ܹ ܼܪ ܼ ܹ ܐ ܹ ܼ ܵ ܸܬܕ ܕ ܼ ܿ ܼ ܆‬ ܵ ‫܆ ܒ ܿܘ ܵܐ ܵ ܐ ܝ‬8‫܆‬ ‫ܕܐ ܹ ܿ ܹܒ ܿ ܿ ܼܒ ܵ ܿ ܼ ܘ ܹܒ ܵܐ ܹܪ ܿܬ‬ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܿ ܵ ‫ܕܘ ܘܒ‬ ܿ ‫ܵ ̈ ܘܕܘ ܵܒ ܝ‬ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܹ ܼܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܿ ‫ܿܒ ܿ ܡ ܵܐ‬ ܵ‫ܵ ܵ ܐ ܒ ܟ ܿܘ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܐ‬ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܹ ܼ ܼ ܼܼ ܼܼ ܵ‫ܝ ܬܐ‬ ܵ ܿ ‫ܘܗܡ ܐ‬ ܼ ‫ܹ ܼܟ‬ ܼ ܹ ‫ܼ ܹܨ ܼ ܟ‬ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܿ ‫ܿܐ ܵ ܵ ܐ‬ ‫ܼ ܟ܆‬ ܼ ‫ܘܗܡ ܐ‬ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܹ ‫ܗܘ ܐ‬ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܵ [613] ‫ܼܐܪ ܐ‬ ‫ܗܘ ܼ ܟ‬ ܹ ܼ ‫܆ ܒ ܘ‬9‫܆‬ ܹ ܼ ܵ ܵ ̇ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܵ .‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕ ܼ ܹ ܹ ܐ ܼ ܐ ܒ ܸ ܐ ܕ ܹ ܓܐ‬ ܿ ܵ‫ܗܘ ܐ‬ ‫ܵ ܵܐ‬ ‫ܘ ܹ ܹܗ ܼܿܐܪ ܵܐ ܵܬܐ ܼ ܵ ܵܐ‬ ܵ ‫ ܹ ܗ ܼ ܵ ܵܐ ܵ ܼ ܟ ܵܬ ̇ ܸ ܵ ܐ ܵܒ‬.‫ܐ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܼܘܟ‬ ‫ܐܘܐ‬ ܹ ܵ ܵ‫ܐ‬ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܼ ‫ܕ ܸ ܐ ܹ ܼܝ ܒ ܸ ܐ ܕܒ ܼ ̈ܪ ܹ ܐ ܘ ܼ ܼ ܙ‬ ܿ ܿ .‫ܨܘ ܼ ܟ‬ ܼ ܼ ܵ ܹܼ ܿ ܵ ̇ܿ ܹ ܼ ‫܆ ܒ ܘ‬10‫܆‬ ܹ ܼ ܵ ‫ܗܘ ܼ ܟ‬ ܸ ‫ܼ ܼ ܐ ܕ ܸܐ‬ .‫ ܹ ܹܗ ܵ ܵ ̇ ܒ ܼ ܬ ܼ ܵܐ ܵ ܐ ܿܐܘ ܼܿܕ ܿܬ ܵܐ ܼ ܵܐ‬.‫ܼ ܵ ܐ‬ ܿܿ ̇ܵ ‫ܵ ܿ ܹ ܐ ܵܬܐ ܼܿܐ ܵ ܵ ܐ ܹ ܵܐ ܹ ܹܗ‬ ܼ ‫ܹ ܗ ܼܘ‬ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܼ ܹ ‫̣ܓ ܹ ܬܐ ܒ ܼ ܬ ܼ ܐ ܘ ܼ ܹ ܐ ܐ ܼܕܝ ܕ ܼ ܼ ܬ‬ ܿ ܵ ̇ܿ ̇ ܵ ܵ ܵ ̇ ܵ ‫ܒܓ ܵ ̇ܗ‬ ܼ ܸ ‫ܕ ܼ ܵܢ‬ ܼ ܼ ‫ܸܐ ܹ ܹ ܗ ܼ ܼ ܐ‬ ‫ ܹ ܹܗ ܒ ܼ ܬ ܼ ܵܐ‬.‫ܸܒ ܿ ܼ ܵܬܐ‬

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 74

The Romance of Aḥīqār the Wise in the Neo-Aramaic MS London Sachau 9321 _____________________________________________________________________________________

asked: “What have you got in your mouth?” The trap said: “It is [614] the food and drink for those who come near me.” The sparrow said: “So I will come near and eat too!” The trap said: “Come near!” The sparrow went up to eat and the trap caught it by its neck. Then the sparrow retorted to the trap: “If this is your bread for the hungry, may God not accept your alms; if this is your fasting and prayer to God, may God not accept either your fasting or your prayer and may He grant you no good!” 11) My son, you became to me like a wheat [615] louse, which brings no profit and causes damage. 12) My son, you became to me like a dog that goes into a house to get warm from the cold and when it gets warm starts to bark at the people of the house. 13) My son, you became to me like the pig that went to wash up in the baths with noble people, and after he washed up and left the baths, he saw mud and wallowed in it. 14) My son, the dog that does not eat its prey, this becomes food for the wolves. 15) My son, the hand that does not work and produce will be cut off. 16) My son, the eye [616] that looks on a bawdy thing will be plucked out. 17) My son, I showed you the king’s face and raised you to great honour, but you rewarded me with evil instead of good. How then will you reward him who does evil to you? 18) My son, you were to me like the cat which was told: “Stop stealing and the king will give you a gold collar!” It said: “I will not give up the art of my father and mother.” 19) My son, I fed you every excellent food but you [617] did not feed me with even simple bread. [While] I was hidden and invisible, you gave yourself to drinking; moreover, you sought to fornicate with my women who brought you up.

ܵ ‫ ܹ ̇ܗ ܼܿ̇ ܼ ܵܐ ܵܐ ܼܕܝ‬. ܼ ܵ ܸ ‫ܘ ܼ ܹ ܐ ܿܐܘ ܕ ܼ ܹ ܐ ܒ‬ ‫[ ܐ ܼ ܼ ܵ ܵ ܐ ܹ ܹܘ ܵ ܵܐ ܵܬܐ ܵܐ ܼ ܹܕ ܵܐ ܼ ܿܬܝ‬614] ‫ ܹ ܹܗ ܒ ܼ ܿܬ ܼ ܵܐ ܿ ܼܒ ܼܿ ܡ ܼܿܗܡ ܵܐ ܵ ܐ ܹܒ ܿ ܿ ܼ ܹܒ‬. ܼ ‫ܹܓ ܒ‬ ܵ ‫ ܹ ̇ܗ ܼܿ̇ ܼ ܵܐ ܼܘ ܼܒ ܘ ܹ̰ܓܓ ܹ ܒ ܼ ܿܬ ܼ ܵܐ‬. ܹ ܼ ‫ܘ ܸܒ ܿ ܼܿܐ‬ ̇ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܿ ‫ܼ ܿܬܕ ܵܐ ܹ ܘ ܹ ܼܐܪ ܵ ܹ ܼ ܼ ܵܐ ܒ ܿ ܼ ܹܿܬܗ ܼܐ ܿ ܼܓ ܵ ܐ‬ ‫ ܹܐ ܢ ܵܗ ܹܘܐ‬.‫̰ܓ ܼ ܹܘܒ ܹ ܒ ܼ ܿܬ ܼ ܵܐ ܘ ܹ ܹܗ ܵܬܐ ܼܿ̇ ܼ ܵܐ‬ ܵ ‫ܼ ܹ̈ܐ ܼܿܐ ܵ ܵ ܐ ܵ ܐ‬ ‫ܹ ܼ ܼ ܟ ܵܬܐ‬ ܹ ܼ ‫ܕܐܕ‬ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܵ ‫ ܘ ܹܐ ܢ ܵܗ ܹܘܐ ܕܨܘ ܼ ܟ‬.‫ܸܒ ܼ ܸܙ ܼܕ ܼ ܕ ܼ ܼ ܟ‬ ‫ܵܐ ܼܕܝ ܸܘܨ ܿ ܼܬ ܼܘܟ ܵܬܐ ܼܿܐ ܵ ܵ ܐ ̄ ܿ ܼ ܵ ܐ ܵ ܹܒ ܵ ܐ‬ ܵ ܵ ܿ ‫ܨܘ ܟ‬ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܼ ܿ ܹ ܹ ‫ ܘ ܐ‬.‫ܘܗܡ ܐ ܨ ܼܬ ܼܘܟ‬ ܼ ܵ ܵ ܵ ‫ܼܐ ܵ ܐ ܸܐ ܼ ܟ ܒ ܼܒ ܟ܆‬ ܿ ܵ ܿ [615] ‫ܗܘ ܼ ܟ ܵ ܼ ܹ ܵ ܼ ܐ‬ ܹ ܼ ‫܆ ܒ ܘ‬11‫܆‬ ̇ ܵ ܵ ‫ܕ ܿܘ ܵܐ ܒ ܸ ̈ ܐ ܘ ܐ‬ ‫ܐܘ ܵܕܐ ܐ ܹ ܵ ܐ ܿ ܼܒ ܼ ܵܒ ܿ ܹ ܐ‬ ܹ ܼ ܵ ܸ ‫ܸ ܼܿ ܒ ܐ܆‬ ܿ ‫ܗܘ ܼ ܟ ܵ ܼ ܹ ܼܿ ܵܒܐ ܹܕ ܵܐ ܼ ܹܒ‬ ܹ ܼ ‫܆ ܒ ܘ‬12‫܆‬ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܹ ‫ܼ ܹܪ‬ ܸ ܸ ܼ ‫ܹܒ ܼ ܼ ܼܬܐ ܸ ܼ ܐ ܘ ܼ ܕ‬ ‫ܸ ܼܵܒ ܼ ܵܐ ܸܐ ܸ ܐ ܵ ܹ ̈ ܐ ܕ ܹܒ ܼ ܵ ܆‬ ܵ ܿ ܹ ܵ ܼ ‫܆ ܒ ܘ‬13‫܆‬ ܹ ܼ ܵ ‫ܗܘ ܼ ܟ‬ ܹ ‫ܼܘܪܐ ܸܕܙ‬ ܵ ̈ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܼ ‫ܸܐ ܸ ܐ ܹ ܐ ̈ܪ ܹܒܐ ܸ ܼ ܵܐ ܒ‬ ܹ ܹ ܼ ‫ܘ ܼܕ‬ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܼ ܹ ܹ ‫ܹܘ‬ ܹ ܸ ܼ ‫ܐ ܹܘܡ ܓ ܼ ܪ‬ ܹ ܹܼ ܵ ‫ܒܓ ܹ ܗ܆‬ ܿ ‫ܹ ܹܗ‬ ‫܆ ܒ ܿܘ ܼ ܼܿ ܵܒܐ ܕ ܵ ܐ‬14‫܆‬ ܹ ܵ ܵ ܿ ‫ܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܐܒܐ ܹܒ ܿ ܵܗ ܹܘܐ܆‬ ܼ ܹ ܹ ‫ܬܐ ܹܕ‬ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܵ‫܆ ܒ ܿܘ ܐ ܼ ܐ ܕ ܐ ܼ ܼ ܐ ܹܘ ܿ ܐ ܒ ܸ ܐ‬15‫܆‬ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܵ ‫ܸ ܐܬܐ܆‬ ܵ ܿ ܵ ‫ܹ ܼܝ‬ ‫[ ܕ ܼ ܹ ܐ‬616] ‫܆ ܒ ܿܘ ܼ ܼ ܐ‬16‫܆‬ ܵ ܿ ‫ܪܬܐ܆‬ ܼ ܼ ‫ܼ ܵܐ ܒ ܸ ܵ ܐ‬ ܿ ܿ ‫ܵܐ ܵ ܐ‬ ܿ ‫ܨܘ ܵܐ ܕ ܿ ܼ ܵܐ ܸ ܿ ܼ ܼ ܸ ܼ ܟ‬ ܼ ܼ ‫܆ ܒ ܵܘ‬17‫܆‬ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܵ ‫ ܘ ܿܒ ܿ ܠ ܵ ܒ‬.‫ܟ‬ ܼ ܸ ܼ ܸ ‫ܸܘ ܐ ܼ ܐ ܪ ܵܒܐ‬ ܼ ܼ ܸ ܵ ‫ ܿܒ ܿ ܡ ܿܐܕ ܕܘܕ ܐ ܐ ܼ ܟ ܒ‬.‫ܵ ܿܬܝ‬ ܵ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܹ ܼ ܸ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܸ ܿ ܹ ܿ ܼ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܵ ܐ ܒ ܼ ܸܐ ܹܬܗ܆‬ ܵ‫ܵ ܬܐ‬ ‫܆ ܒ ܿܘ‬18‫܆‬ ܼ ܹ ܹ ܼ ܵ ‫ܗܘ ܼ ܟ‬ ܵ‫ܿܓ ܵ ܒ ܬܐ‬ ܵ ܵ ܼ ‫ܐ ܿܝ‬ ̇ ܵ ܵ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼܵ ܼ ܹ ܹ ܼܹ ܼ ‫ ܹ ̇ܗ ܵܐ ܵ ܐ‬.‫ܘ ܸܒ ܿ ܵܐ ܸܘ ܼܕ ܵ ܼ ܿ ܼ ܵܐ ܿ ܵ ܐ ܕ ܸܕܗ ܼܵܒܐ‬ ܵ ܵ ‫ܵܨ‬ ‫ܕܒܒ ܼ ܘ ܹ ܼ ܵ ܐ ܼܿ ܼܒ ܿ ܼ ܵ ܐ܆‬ ܹ ܵ ‫ܵܐ ܵ ܐ ܿ ܠ ܐ ܿ ܵ ܿܒ‬ ܿ ‫܆ ܵܐ ܒ‬19‫܆‬ ‫ܘ‬ ܼ ܼ ܼܼ ܼ ܵ ܼ .‫ܟ‬ ܿ ‫[ ܼ ܵ ܐ ܵ ܐ‬617] ‫ܘܐ ܹ ܿ ܸ ܼ ܵ ܐ‬ ܼ ܸ ܼ ܼܸ ܵ ܿ ‫ܘܐ‬ ܵ .‫ܵܐ‬ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܵ ‫ ܘܐ ܐ‬. ܹ ‫ܹ ܼ ܼܒܐ‬ ܼ ‫ܼ ܐ ܸܘ‬ ܹ ܿ .‫ܒ ܵ ܵܐ ܼ ܿ ܐ‬ ‫ܹ ܵ ܿ ܹܐ‬ ‫ܘܗܡ ܒ ܹܐ ܼ ܟ‬ ܼ ܹ ܼܼ ܹ ‫ܹܐ ̈ ܹ ܐ ܕ ܼ ܼ ܕ ܸ ܼܿ ܒ ܹ ܼ ܟ܆‬

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 75

The Romance of Aḥīqār the Wise in the Neo-Aramaic MS London Sachau 9321 _____________________________________________________________________________________

20) My son, I brought you up as a splendid cedar and you humbled me and made me fall in the dust with all your pitfalls. 21) My son, I thought I had built for myself a strong tower in which I could protect myself from my enemies, and that the Lord would save me from them. [But] while I wished you well, you repaid me with evil. Now I want to sew up your eyes, cut out your tongue, and take off your head with the sword. [618] Then Nādān replied to Aḥīqār, saying: “[God] forbid you do evil instead of good! Act with me according to your goodness and forgive me all what you hitherto spoke about, since I have made God my enemy by my sins, yet He always accepts the oath of penitents [on the condition that] they sin no more. Accept me too, and I will be the servant of your horses, the caretaker of your swine-herd, and the sweeper of your dirt. I shall be called the wicked man and you the good man!” Then Aḥīqār said to him: 22) “My son Nādān, the old age of an eagle [619] is better than the youth of a stinking crow.” 23) My son, it was said to a wolf: “Keep away from the presence of the sheep, lest their dung fall on you.” The wolf said: “I will not go away, because the sheep’s dung is medicine for my eyes.” 24) My son, they took a wolf before a scribe so as to learn. The teacher said to it: “Say ālap, bēth” and the wolf answered, saying: “Lamb, kid in my belly.” 25) My son, when I taught you I said to you that God is a just sovereign and an upright judge. Those who do good He repays with good and those who do evil [620] He repays with evil, and their punishment is the torment of burning hell. Since between me and you there is no judge but God, He will repay you as you are.”

ܵ ܿ ܵܵ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܼ ‫܆ ܒ ܘ ܼ ܸ ܼ ܸܒ ܼ ܟ ܸ ܹܐ ܼ ܪܐ ܼ ̰ܓ ܒ‬20‫܆‬ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܵ ‫ܘܐ ܹ ܿ ܹ ܿ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܬ ܼܝ ܹܘ ܼܐܘ ܸ ܵ ܸ ܼ ܸ ܬ ܼܝ ܒ ܼܿ ܒ ܼ ܼܘ ܼ ܵܬܐ‬ ̇ ܿ ‫ܕ ܼ ܼ ܵ ܼ ̈ ܼܘܟ܆‬ ‫܆ ܒ ܿܘ ܼ ܵܐ ܵ ܐ ܼ ܼܿ ܹܒ ܵ ܐ ܹܕܒ ܹ ܼ ܵ ܼ ܒ ܼ ܪ ܵ ̰ܓܐ‬21‫܆‬ ܵ ‫ܿ ܵܐ‬ ܵ ܿ ̈ܵ ‫ܒܓ ܹ ܗ‬ ܼ ܼ ܼ ‫ܹ ܹܐ ܕ‬ ܸ ܹ ‫ܕ‬.‫ܼܙ ܼ ܐ‬ ‫ ܸܒ ܵܐ ܵ ܐ ܒ ܹܐ ܼ ܵ ܼ ܟ‬. ܹ ܸ ܼ ܸ ܵ ܼ ܹ ‫ܘ ܵ ܵܐ‬ ܿ ܿ ܿ ‫ܘܐ‬ ܵ ܵ‫ܵܒ‬ ‫ܐܬ ܼܝ ܒ ܼ ܵ ܘ ܼ ܸܒ ܼܿܕ ܵܗܐ‬ ܹ ܹܼ ܹ ܼ ܵ‫ܐ‬ ܿ ܵ‫ ܘܓ‬.‫ܵ ܟ‬ ܼ ܼ ‫ܕ ܹ ܸ ܐ ܹ ܼ ܟ ܘ ܼ ܸܐ ܢ‬ ܸ ܵ‫ܵ ܢ‬ ‫[ ܼܿܐ ܿ ܼܓ ܵ ܐ‬618] ‫ܼܿ ܸ ܪ ܼ ܟ‬ ܹ ‫̰ܓ ܼ ܹܘܒ‬ ܵ ‫ܘ ܹ ܹܗ ܵܬܐ ܼܿܐ ܼ ܿ ܼ ܸ ܹ ܸܐ ܼ ܟ‬ ‫ܕܗ ܼܿܘܝ ܸ ܼ ܟ‬ ܵ ܵ ܵ ‫ܵ ܼܵܒ ܼ ̈ ܼܘܟ ܼܒ ܿ ܪ‬ ܸ ‫ܒ ܼ ̈ ܵ ܼ ܸܐ ܐ ܸܐ ܢ ܵ ܼܵܒ ܼ ܘ‬ ‫ܸܐ ܼ ܘ ܼܒ ܿ ܩ ܵ ܼ ܼ ܠ ܸ ܼ ܼܝ ܹܕ ܼ ܸܕ ܼ ܟ‬ ̈ ܿܿ ܵ ܵܿ ܼ ܵ ‫ ܼ ܼܒ ܕ ܼ ̰ܓ ܹܓ ܼܝ ܼܐ ܐ ܹܒ‬.‫ܘ ܹ ܼܘܟ‬ ܿ ܿ ܵܵ ܵ ܵ ܵ . ܼ ܿ ܵ ‫ܕܬ ܵ ܹ̈ܒܐ ܘ ܼ ܐܢ ܸܕ‬ ܼ ܹ ‫ܸܘܒ ܐ ܹ ܼ ܼܬܐ ܒ‬ ܵ ܿ ܹ ‫ܹܘ ܒ ܿ ܼ ܼܿܗܡ ܵܐ‬ ‫ܕܗ ܸܘܢ ܼ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܐ ܕ ܼ ̈ ܵ ܼ ܼܘܟ‬ ܵ .‫ܘ ܿ ܐ ܵ ܵ ܐ ܕ ܘܪܘܟ ܘ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܐ ܕܙܒ ܕ ܟ‬ ‫ܘܐ ܵ ܐ‬ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼܸ ܹ ܼ ܸܹ ܵ ܵ ‫ܵܐ ܿܓܒ ܵܐ ܒ ܵ ܐ‬ ‫ܘܐ ܹ ܿ ܿ ܼܓ ܼܒ ܐ ܵ ܼܵܒܐ܆‬ ܼ ܹ ܸ ܸ ‫ܸܒ‬ ܼܼ ܿ ܿ ܵ . ܼ ܼ ‫ܵܓ ܸ ܵܬܐ ܹ ܹܗ ܹ ܼܐ‬ ܿ ‫[ ܒ‬619] ‫܆ ܒ ܿܘ ܵ ܵ ܢ ܒ ܵܬܐ ܕ ܵܐ‬22‫܆‬ ܹ ܼܼ ܸ ܼ ܹ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܵ ‫ܐ ܼ ܵ ܐ ܸ ̰ܓ ܼ ܼ ܼܬܐ ܕ ܼ ܐ ܸ ܐ܆‬ ‫܆ ܒ ܿܘ ܼ ܹ ܼܝ ܵܬܐ ܹܕܐ ܼܵܒܐ ܪ ܿ ܩ ܿ ܼ ܼ ܼܒ ܼ ܼ ܵܬܐ‬23‫܆‬ ‫ ܹ ܹܗ ܹܕܐ ܼܵܒܐ‬. ܼ ܼ ܿ ܹ ܵ ‫ܕ ܸܐ̈ܪ ܹܒܐ ܕ ܵ ܐ ܵܐ ܼ ܿܬܝ ܸܐ ܼ ܟ‬ ܿ ‫ܵ ܐ ܼ ܹ ܸܒ ܵ ܹ ܿ ܼ ܼ ܕ ܸܐ̈ܪ ܹܒܐ ܼܿܕܪ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܼ ܵܬܐ‬ ‫ܹܐ ̈ ܼ ܆‬ ܿ ܵ ‫܆ ܒ ܿܘ ܼ ܼ ܹܒ ܼ ܝ ܹܕܐ ܼܵܒܐ ܹܓ ܸܒ ܕ ܼ ܵܐ ܵ ܐ‬24‫܆‬ ܿ ܿܵ ܿ ܿ ܼ ‫ܼܬܕ ܵ ܸ ܹ ܹܗ ܵ ܹ ܐܘ ܼ ܹ ܵ ܵ ܐ ܐ ܼ ܼ ܪ ܐ‬ ܵ ‫ܹܕܐ ܼܵܒܐ ܘ ܹ ܹܗ ܵ ܐ ܹܓ ܵܐ‬ ܼ ‫ܹܒ‬ ܹ ‫̰ܓ ܼ ܹܘܒ‬ ‫ܒ ܵ ܼ܆‬ ܿ ‫ܸ ܵ ܵ ܐ ܕ ܹ ܿ ܼ ܸ ܼ ܟ ܹ ܼܝ ܵ ܼ ܟ‬ ܼ ‫܆ ܒ ܘ‬25‫܆‬ ܵܿ ܿ ‫ܐ ܵܐ‬ ‫ܘܕ ܵ ܵ ܐ ܿܘ ܵܨܐ ܵܬܐ‬ ܹ ܹ ̄ ‫ܼܕܐ ܵ ܐ ܼ ܵ ܵܵ ܐ‬ ܼ ܵ ܵ ܵ ‫ܵ ܐ ܿ ܵ ̈ܒ‬ ܵ ‫ܕܐܘܕܝ ܵ ̈ܒ‬ ܿ ‫ܿܐ ܢ‬ ‫ܘܬܐ ܼܿܐ ܢ‬ ܼܼ ܼܼ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܼܼ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܵ ̈ ̈ ܵ ‫ܐ‬ ‫[ ܹ ܼ ܒ ܼ ܼ ܘ ܼ ܐܨ‬620] ܼ ܼ ‫ܸܕ ܼܐ ܼܒ ܼ ܼܝ ܒ‬ ܵ ܵ ܼ ܹ ‫ ܸܒ‬.‫ܕ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܕ ܵܒܐ ̄ ܹ ܒܓ ܼ ܵ ܵ ܐ ܕ ܼ ܪܐ‬ ܵ ܵܿ ܵ ܵ ‫ܗܘ‬ ܼ ‫ ܘܐ‬.‫ܹܒ ܼ ܘ ܹܒ ܼ ܟ ܵ ܵ ܐ ܸܐ ܐ ܼܐ ܵ ܐ‬ ‫ܒ ܵ ܼ ܼ ܟ ܕ ܸ ܸܕ ܵ ܸܒ ܿ ܆‬

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 76

The Romance of Aḥīqār the Wise in the Neo-Aramaic MS London Sachau 9321 _____________________________________________________________________________________

26) My son, you have confirmed the proverb which is often recited: “Him whom you have begotten, call him your son and him whom you have brought up call him your slave.” 27) My son, you confirm this too: “[But] if he is your sister’s son, strike him against the wall and throw him on the ground.” God who knows hidden things and repays every man according to his deeds, good or bad, will repay you as you deserve. For this reason, I will abstain from saying [621] anything to you. When the fool Nādān heard these words, he swelled up immediately, just like a swollen skin-leather, and died and every part of him ended. As is said in the proverbs, he who does good, the Lord rewards him with good; likewise, the evil one is rewarded according to his evil. The story of Aḥīqār is ended.

‫܆ ܒ ܿܘ ܼ ܼܬ ܹܒ ܿ ܵ ̇ ܸܐ ܼ ܟ ܹܐܝ ܵܬ ܹ ܼ ܵ ܸܕ ܹ ܵ ܐ‬26‫܆‬ ܿ ܵ ܿ ‫ܗܘ ܼ ܟ ܼ ܹ ܒ ܿܘ ܼ ܟ‬ ܸ ܼ ‫ ܼܐܕ ܕ‬. ܼ ܼ ܿ ‫ܘܐܘ ܕ ܼ ܪ ܼܒ ܹ ܼ ܟ ܼ ܹ ܿܐܘ ܼܕܘܟ܆‬ ܿ ܿ ‫ ܹܐ ܢ ܸܒ ܕ‬. ̇ ܵ ܼ ‫ܘܐ ܼܕ ܕ ܼ ܵ ̇ ܼܬ ܸ ܵ ܵܐܕ‬ ܼ ܼ ‫܆ ܒ ܘ‬27‫܆‬ ܵ‫ܒܓ ܵܕܐ ܘܐ ܿܐܪܐܐ‬ ܿ ܵ ܼ ܼ ܸ ܸ ܹ ‫ܘ‬ ܹ ܼ ‫ܼ ܼ ܼܘܟ ܐ‬ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܿ ̈ ܵ ̈ ܵ . ܹ ‫ܹ ܘ ܵ ܼ ܐܐ ܕ ܼ ܹ ܐ ܹ ܹ ܐ ܼܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܬ‬ ‫ܹܘܒ ܵ ܹ ܐ ܼ ܠ ܐ ܵ ܵ ܐ ܹ ܼܵܒ ܹ̈ܐ ܕ ܹ ܸܐ ܢ ܵ ܹ̈ܒܐ‬ ܵ ‫ܗܘ ܹܒ ܵ ܹ ܼ ܟ ܸܕ ܕ ܼ ܹ ܿܬ‬ ܼ ‫ܘ ܸܐ ܢ ܒ ܼ ̈ ܹ ܐ ܐ‬ ܿ [621] ‫ܵ ܵܗܐ‬ ܵ ܸ ܼ ܸ ‫ ܘܐ ܵ ܐ‬.‫ܸ ܼ ܸ ܠ‬ .‫ܼܿܐ ܸ ܼ ܟ ܸ ܼܝ‬ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܵ ̈ܿ ܵ ܹ ܸ ‫ ܵ ܢ ܼ ܼ ܐ‬. ܼ ܵ ‫ܘ ܼ ܕ ܹ ܹ ܐ ܼ ܼܬ‬ ܿ ܵ ܵ ‫ܗܘ ܹ ܹ ܹܙ ܵ ܐ ܕ ܼ ܹ ܐ ܼ ܼ ܵܐ‬ ܹ ‫ܼ ܼ ܐ ܼܒܐܕ ܹ ܼܐܬܐ ܹܘ‬ ̈ ܿ ‫ ܕ ܸ ܕ ܼ ܹ ܐ‬.‫ܼ ̈ܪ ܹ ܐ ܸܕ ܵ ܹ ܗ‬ ܼ ܹ‫ܘ ܹܼ ܹ ܘ‬ ܵ ‫ܕܐܒ ܵ ܒ ܵ ܵ ܒ ܵ ܒ‬ ܵ ‫ܐ ܵܐ ܒ ܿ ̈ ܐ‬ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܹ ܹ ܹ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼܸ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܵ ‫ܼ ܐܐ܆‬ ܹ ‫ܘܗܡ ܒ ܼ ܐ ܒܒ ܼ ܹ ܗ ܒ‬ ܼ ‫ܵܐ‬ ‫ܸܬ ܵ ̇ ܸ ܹ ܵܬܐ ܼܿܕܐ ܼ ܿ ܼ ܆‬

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 77

The Romance of Aḥīqār the Wise in the Neo-Aramaic MS London Sachau 9321 _____________________________________________________________________________________

NOTES 1

For a thorough linguistic study, see E. Coghill, The Neo-Aramaic dialect of Alqosh, University of Cambridge, 2003 (PhD diss.). 2 Whilst trying to stay close to the original punctuation, in the digital reproduction of the text I preferred not to mark the ‘hard’ variant of the letters (single dot above) in order to minimize the number of diacritics. 3 There is no occurrence in this text of the combination—characteristic in Eastern printed texts—a + p with a little semicircle under the letter which acts as a diphthong and pronounced [o]. 4 H. Murre-van den Berg, From a Spoken to a Written Language: The Introduction and Development of Literary Urmia Aramaic in the Nineteenth Century (Leiden: De Goeje, 1999), 140. 5 Jibrail, born in Telkepe (Iraq), studied with Yusuf Azarya, author of two Sureth poems both entitled “Joseph, son of Jacob”. At the age of fourteen he moved to Baghdad, where part of his family already lived. A few years later Jibrail entered the Patriarchal Seminary of Mosul where he took his vows in 1893 (see MS London Sachau 9321, f. 243-369).

6

The verbal forms kemǧāwebīlēh, “they answered him,” and dayrēh, “he went back,” ܿ confusingly written ‫ܡܓܘ ܼܿܒܝ ܹܠܝ‬ ‫ ܸܟ‬and ‫ܝܪܝ‬ beܹ ‫ܕܐ‬, ܹ tray the uncertainty of the scribe in this passage where the narrative mode suddenly and unnecessarily switches from first-person to third-person view. 7 Lit. “the house of the idols.” 8 The term pengorta (probably from the Pers., pangara “kettle”) is not attested elsewhere. The text is probably corrupt, since the Arabic version reads ǧamrat ʾaw ǧaḏwat nār “coil and ember fire.” 9 Ad sensum. 10 Cfr. Gn 14:6; Dt 1:2; Ez 35:7. 11 The text is probably corrupt, since the Arabic version reads instead: “so that they be not to you as wounds to the head.” 12 Lit. “from my mouth.” 13 Lit. “image, description.” 14 Probably corrupt passage. The Arabic version misinterprets this passage and reads:ʾilā al-buqʿat al-wāqiʿat fī ǧihat al-tayammun, “in the place that is in the direction of the good omen.” 15 The text erroneously states “forty years.” 16 Lit. “of white crimson.”

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 78

______________________________________________________________________ EVIDENCE OF CHRISTIANITY IN HATRA

HIKMAT BASHIR AL-ASWAD FORMER DIRECTOR OF THE HATRA ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT

H

atra (Arabic: al-Ḥaḍar; Syriac: Ḥuṭrā) is located 110 km southwest of Mosul, and is a unique city in terms of its geographical location along a historical trade route. Its architecture boasts fantastic palaces and temples, and its archaeological wealth includes numerous statues and Aramaic inscriptions.1 Its historical development and role in the continuity of culture is also impressive. It was an independent kingdom during the Parthian period in which several cultures met: Mesopotamian and Semitic, Iranian, and Hellenistic—a fact that highlights its eclectic architectural and artistic styles and religious beliefs gathered from different ethnic and cultural groups. East met West in Hatra and the outcome was a unique culture in which the Hellenistic influence is the most visible. Hatra has much in common with Edessa on the Upper Euphrates. Both share Semitic culture, the Aramaic language, political and administrative organization, and the heavy influence of Hellenistic and Parthian culture. Edessa and Hatra are both caravan cities, but Edessa, unlike Hatra, played that role as early as the beginning of the second millennium BC,2 whereas the region of Hatra did not become involved in trade until some eighteen centuries later when the

city was founded. Moreover, Edessa became the centre of Semitic Christianity at an early date, whereas Hatra showed no presence of Christianity, until recently when an inscription in Syriac placed around a cross was uncovered.

HISTORICAL OUTLINE AND MODERN RESEARCH According to historical sources and archaeological discoveries, Hatra was built and settled in the second century B.C. Its history is usually divided into three stages: a formative period; the rule of the marya ‘lord,’ and the rule of malka ‘kings.’3 The formative period is the least known since archaeological excavations concentrated so far on surface buildings and seldom reached deep down settlements where Assyrian remains possibly lie. Cities like Hatra would not originate all of a sudden, especially if they were located near water resources, in this case the valley of Tharthar. Other cities neighbouring Hatra have very long histories: The antiquity of Aššur, which shares many affinities with Hatra during the Parthian period, is well-known, Erbil is a city attested in Syriac, Imperial Aramaic, and Assyrian sources, and Urhay/

________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 79

Evidence of Christianity in Hatra _________________________________________________________________________________________

Edessa, which is known in the Parthian period but also in Assyrian and Syriac sources. Hatra could well have existed in ancient times, and some titles attested in local Aramaic inscriptions, including rabba, ‘chief, sheikh’ and rab bayta ‘house (or temple) chief,’ could have been used by tribal leaders much earlier than the period of the marya ‘lord’. The period of the marya extends from ca. 85 A.D. to ca. 158 A.D., and in it several leaders bearing Semitic and Persian names were called “lords”. Many of the spectacular buildings in Hatra are dated to this period: The north iwan is referred to in two inscriptions (nos. 243, 244) dated to Seleucid 429 (A.D.117/118) and Seleucid 416 (A.D. 104/105); temple XI is mentioned in inscription 80 dated to Seleucid 449 (137/138); inscription 343 dated to Seleucid 463 (A.D. 151/152) mentions the east side of the city wall Gate. Other monumental inscriptions refer to rulers of the period too. This is the case of several iwans and the temple of the triad maran “our lord,” martan “our lady,” and bar-marayn, “the son of our lords,” all built by Walgash “the lord” before he took up the title “king” in 158. During the first and second centuries A.D., Hatra had its protective wall which resisted Roman invasion. In 116 A.D. Trajan pitched camp against the city to besiege it, but according to the 4th century Antiochene historian Ammianus Marcellinus his army almost perished there.4 Dio Cassius gives the reasons behind this humiliating failure: This city is neither large nor prosperous, and the surrounding country is mostly desert and has neither water (save a small amount and that poor in quality) nor timber nor fodder. These very disadvantages, however, afford it protection, making impossible a siege by a large multitude, as does also the Sun-god, to whom it is consecrated; for

it was taken neither at this time by Trajan nor later by Severus, although they both overthrew parts of its wall. Trajan sent the cavalry forward against the wall, but failed in his attempt, and the attackers were hurled back into the camp. Indeed, the emperor himself barely missed being wounded as he was riding past, in spite of the fact that he had laid aside his imperial attire to avoid being recognized; but the enemy, seeing his majestic gray head and his august countenance, suspected his identity, shot at him and killed a cavalryman in his escort. There were peals of thunder, rainbow tints showed, and lightnings, rain-storms, hail and thunderbolts descended upon the Romans as often as they made assaults. And whenever they ate, flies settled on their food and drink, causing discomfort everywhere. Trajan therefore departed thence, and a little later began to fail in health.5

The period of the malka-rulers extends from the year 158 (time of Walgash II) to the year 241, the last year of the last malka Sanatruq II (200-241). It was the time of building, money striking, and commercial expansion. In 198, Septimus Severus failed to invade the city as the quotation from Dio Cassius (see above) shows. Monumental temples, the creation of numerous statues of high personalities bearing heavy Parthian influence, and the maintenance of an effective defensive system mark this period. In 241 A.D. Hatra fell at the hands of the Sassanians, and while it lost its political and military power, it seems that life continued in some part of it as remains in the residential houses that were lately excavated suggest. Irregular stones, unlike the characteristically polished ones used in the buildings of Hatra, have been discovered in the construction of one grave tower, which also served as a defensive post. This type of stone must be late although no fixed date is available for that building. The Roman historian Ammianus Marcellinus says that the

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 80

Evidence of Christianity in Hatra _________________________________________________________________________________________

city had long lain abandoned when he passed by it in 363 A.D. with the armies retreating from the failed campaign against Ctesiphon.6 This means that Hatra was no longer a political entity and had no government to take care of its gigantic palaces and temples, which crumbled when it fell, but daily life must have continued in some part of it. The inscribed cross subject of this paper is another indication of the survival of Hatra. Hatra has attracted quite a bit of scholarly attention, in terms of architecture, epigraphy and art. The first archaeologists to explore the impressive architecture of Hatra were Germans led by the archaeologist of Aššur Walter Andrae, who published two books on the site.7 The few Aramaic inscriptions appended to his books initiated interest in the epigraphy of Hatra. Systematic excavations of the site began in 1951 and have continued virtually to the present time. The late chief archaeologist Fouad Safar was the first to dig the site and to publish foundational studies, including first editions of inscriptions, in the Iraqi journal Sumer. He was followed in digs by outstanding Iraqi archaeologists, including Muḥammad ‘Alī Musṭafa, Behnam AbūlṢūf, Waṭiq al-Ṣāliḥī, Najīb Gīsō, Mājid ‘Abd-Allāh al-Shams, and Hāzim al-Najafī. These archaeologists uncovered most of Hatra, including its city wall and gates, the Great Temple dedicated to the sun-god Shamash, and a number of small temples dedicated to such deities as the triad maran, Martan and bar-Marayn, Allāt, and Nergol. Archaeological reports were also progressively published in Sumer, and in the meantime, two major books on the history and culture of Hatra also appeared.8 It should also be noted that during the late 1960s and 1970s, several buildings of Hatra were reconstructed by professional stonecutters recruited from the region of Mosul. Between 1988 and 1994, I was the Director of Excavations of the site, and in my own digs

Temple XIV dedicated to the goddess Nannai was uncovered in addition to the “open altar” found in the Great Temple. Also in 1989 the University of Mosul participated in excavations with an archaeological team led by Dr. Jabir Khalīl Ibrāhim, uncovering a building located to the north of the wall of the Great Temple, which they called the Square Temple—the small temple had a characteristically rectangular plan. Foreign archaeological missions also participated in the excavations beginning in 1980, when a Polish archaeological team led by Michaɫ Gawlikowski, Warsaw University, began work on the city wall and the defensive system of Hatra.9 Among the discoveries of their excavations were traces of an ancient wall located not far away from the wall of the Great Temple. In 1986, an expedition from the University of Turin, headed by R. Vinco Ricciardi,10 examined a residential area located north of the Great Temple where the rich “House A” was uncovered having a central courtyard with an iwan and altar, material culture, and wall paintings. Studies of this wealth of finds were published in scholarly journals, including Mesopotamia published by the same university. The Aramaic inscriptions of Hatra attracted as much attention as its architecture. By the time Hatra was a functioning city, its Aramaic language was still the lingua franca of the Near East, a position it had held since Achaemenid times. Aramaic then was divided into its dialects, Hatran in Upper Mesopotamia, Old Syriac in Upper Syria, Palmyrene in central Syria, and Nabatean in southern Syria and beyond. While the script of Hatra has affinities with scripts known to southern Mesopotamia, Iran, and Central Asia, it differs markedly from the Edessene (Syriac), Palmyrene and Nabatean ones. We mentioned earlier that the archaeologist Fouad Safar, while conducting digs in situ, progressively published the inscriptions as they were uncovered. Syriac and Arabic

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 81

Evidence of Christianity in Hatra _________________________________________________________________________________________

helped the author to translate and explain the contents, and his editions have the additional significance of making the inscriptions available for the first time. In Europe, many studies and partial publications of the Hatran inscriptions began with Andrae in 1912, but the systematic editions appeared much later. In 1969, Basile Aggoula, a native of Barṭelli near Mosul, began editing and publishing the inscriptions in the journal Syria, and in 1991, his Inventaire des inscriptions hatréennes appeared.11 In 1981 and 1994, the Italian edition of the Hatran inscriptions was published by Francesco Vattioni12 in two volumes (the second one published posthumously). Numerous are the studies published on individual inscriptions, and on the contents, paleography, grammar, and lexicography of all of them, by numerous Middle-Eastern, European, and NorthAmerican scholars, including S. Abbadi, alṢāliḥī, R. Bertolino, A. Caquot, R. Degen, F. Rosenthal, and J. Teixidor. All these publications highlight the literary wealth of Hatra, and as the new inscription published in the present article shows, the site can still surprise us with new literary discoveries. One word ought to be said about the art of Hatra, where remarkable statues of deities, kings, princes, and princesses are seen always in face, in addition to several depictions in relief and signs incised on building stones. It is an eclectic art in which Hellenistic, Parthian, and local influences meet in every production, with solemn but attractive depictions of men and women.13 The countless signs and symbols incised on the building stones of Hatra seem not to have been studied and the ones published in the present article hopefully will attract some attention given their varied shapes and sometimes enigmatic significance.

EVIDENCE OF CHRISTIANITY IN HATRA As a caravan city, Hatra must have been connected with several cities on the trade

routes within greater Mesopotamia, including Erbil, Sinjar, Nisibis, Takrit, and Ctesiphon, and all of them became prominent Christian centres. They shared financial interests, the same language (Aramaic), and a common cultural environment—Semitic in character, at least in the first centuries of Christianity. Hatra was exposed to the new religion when it was still a state and after its demise, and this is evidenced in Syriac literary sources and in archaeology. While the beginning of local Christianity is shrouded in darkness, by the second half of the second century we hear of local people who became prominent in the formation of Christianity, including Tatian the “Assyrian” who wrote the Syriac Diatessaron ca. 170 A.D. This version of the gospels proved to be very popular in early Syriac Christianity up until the time of St. Ephrem (d. 373 A.D.) and even after him. Bardaisan, “the Aramean Philosopher,” author of the book The Laws of the Countries (written by his disciple), lived in Edessa at the royal palace of King Abgar VIII. The first firm date of a highly organised church in Mesopotamia with bishops and a leader among them was 410 A.D., in which year a synod was held in Seleucia-Ctesiphon under the patronage of the Sasanian king Yazdgard I, confirming the primacy of the episcopal see of Seleucia-Ctesiphon.14 Perhaps the best literary evidence pointing to Christianity in Hatra is Bardaisan, “the Aramean Philosopher,” in his Laws of the Countries produced in Edessa in the Syriac language. Here it is said: What shall we say about our new Christian people which Christ had established in every place and country? Wherever we are found we are called Christians, in accordance with the only name of Christ ... The brothers in Gaul do not have intercourse with males, nor do those in Parthia take two wives nor are those in Judah circumcised. Our sisters among the Geli

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 82

Evidence of Christianity in Hatra _________________________________________________________________________________________

and Kushanians do not have intercourse with foreigners, and those in Persia do not take their daughters in marriage. Those in Media do not abandon their dead, or bury (people) alive, or give them for dogs to devour. Those in Edessa do not kill their wives or their sisters who commit adultery, but avoid them, leaving them to the judgment of God. Those in Hatra do not stone thieves.15

Elsewhere in the same book, Bardaisan is quoted as saying: “A law was established in Hatra that the one who steals a small object, even if of little value, he must be stoned.”16 Eusebius of Caesarea quoted this passage from the Book of the Laws of Countries as follows: “Among the Atri (people of Hatra) he who steals anything worth an obol is stoned.”17 It is interesting to note in the long extract above how each city or country is mentioned with a characteristic ‘crime’ that was known to it in particular. Some Sasanian rulers, for example, did indeed take their sisters as wives, thereby preserving purity of blood as they believed, and the Zoroastrians did for sure expose their dead people to scavengers to be devoured rather than leaving them to defile earth with their burials. That the people of Hatra stoned thieves is also corroborated by Aramaic texts coming from Hatra itself. Hatra text 281, for example, stipulates that “the one who steals a tent, or a rod, or a spade, or an ax, or a shovel, or a trough, or a lever, or an adze from the work-place of (the god) Bar-marayn, and the one who carries away any of these jugs belonging to the Son of our Lords, the dream has shown: he shall be stoned!”18 Although Bardaisan’s long passage may sound rhetorical, there is enough reason to believe that what he said contains some truth. Particularly important is Bardaisan’s statement that “(Christians) in Hatra do not stone thieves,” as this provides concrete evidence that there were Christians in Hatra

in Bardaisan’s day, around 200 or in the early third century, and that they had started distinguishing themselves from their nonChristian environment.

THE INSCRIBED CROSS OF HATRA The spectacular buildings of Hatra, including pagan temples and palaces and impressive statues of rulers and gods, have little to do with Christianity. This is reminiscent of the situation in Edessa in the same time period—the first centuries of our era—when the Old Syriac inscriptions and the beautiful mosaics and coins reflect a non-Christian environment. Nonetheless, the slab found in Hatra exhibiting a stylised cross and a Syriac inscription around it points to a Christian presence there in the midst of its “pagans” population.

During the 1967-68 season of excavations, the Iraqi archaeologists digging near the Great Temple, called in Hatran inscriptions haykla rabba “the great temple” and bet-elaha “the (sun)-god house”, and there they uncovered a marble slab, 24 cm high,

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 83

Evidence of Christianity in Hatra _________________________________________________________________________________________

‫ܣܗܡܐ‬

‫ܫܝܡܘܢܐ‬ ‫ܒܪ‬

20 cm wide, and 5/6 cm thick, which bears a stylised cross surrounded by a short Syriac inscription. The exact place was the front of the gate dubbed “of Naṣru,” located to the west side of the north wall, and which overlooks the temples’ quarters. The inscribed slab was given on the spot the number Hatra 429/13 and later on the additional number Iraqi Museum 73097. The stylised cross is made of deeply incised and intersecting lines which widen up at the ends of the arms of the cross. Two double lines contour the cross and at the ends of its arms they form double superimposed triangles. The cross sits on a rectangle traced with double incised lines, and is divided in the inside with two checkmarks separated by a vertical line. From the two upper corners of the rectangle two rather rigid lines emanate upward, in the shape of streams of water. The general shape of the cross with the two streams reminds one of the many similar crosses found in Mesopotamia, mostly on plaster, as in Qusair, Ḥīrā, Takrit, and Bazian near Sulaimaniyya in Iraqi Kurdistan; these crosses also recall the typical Armenian cross called Khashkar.19 Such stylised crosses were in vogue in Mesopotamia probably as early as the fifth century if not even earlier,20 when Christianity was well established and highly organized. The cross of our inscription is rudimentary and unsophisticated, a fact which suggests that the slab is private and perhaps early in date, but how early is not known. The inscription, in Syriac and not in Hatran Aramaic, surrounds the upper part of the cross and reads vertically as follows:

“Shimona son of Sahmā”21

Shimona is another form of Shmona, ‫ܫܡܘܢܐ‬, the name of one of the earliest martyrs of Edessa who was martyred along with Deacon Ḥabīb and Gurya, ‫ܓܘܪܝܐ‬, during the reign of Diocletian at the beginning of the fourth century.22 The name does not seem to be popular in Aramaic and Syriac onomastica, and the association with the early-fourth-century martyr may suggest an early date of the present inscription and its cross. Sahmā is not an Aramaic name even though it ends with the Aramaic article –ā. The name is relatively familiar in Arabic onomastica not in the sense of the usual vocabulary sahm “arrow,” but in the sense of “thin, meagre.”23 The form Sahm is attested in Himyarite and Safaitic epigraphy as well as in Nabatean inscriptions as Šahmū.24 The name Saḥmā is not attested in any of the onomastica. The paleography reflects the old age of the inscription. The šīn as an upside down triangle is reminiscent of the same shape of letter found in the earliest manuscripts. Here the letter is not acutely curved at the top as in later manuscripts although the top is not as straight as the letter of the slab.25 The mīm closed at the bottom is peculiar since the letter is usually open at this spot in nearly all manuscripts. The representation of the olaf is not consistent: in the first name it is Serto and in the second name it is Estrangela, but this inconsistency is also attested in a Syriac inscription found in the region of Apamea dated to 516 A.D.26 The hē of the patronym is highly unusual, having no counterpart in early (or late) Syriac epigraphy and manuscripts. In shape it is reminiscent of one of the forms of the he in Hatran inscriptions (see for ex. number 381), although here the letter has a little tale at the upper end of the symbol;27 compare between the he in Hatra (1) and the same letter in our Syriac inscription (2): 1)

2)

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 84

Evidence of Christianity in Hatra _________________________________________________________________________________________

In fact the Syriac he of the inscription is closer in look to the ḥet than to the he letter in Hatran epigraphy. The confusion of the Syriac he with the Hatran one may be due to the stonecutter who must have been native of Hatra, and who may not have been skilled in chiselling Syriac inscriptions. When he faced the awkward shape of the Syriac he, his familiarity with Hatran letters must have interfered when he cut the Syriac letter. If the association of both shapes of the he letter is acceptable, one would then say that the inscription was prepared in Hatra and that a local stonecutter cut it for a Christian or Christians who commissioned it. This makes sense since the slab was found d in the rubbles of the Gate of Naṣru, indicating that it was somewhere there at the time of the destruction of Hatra in 241 A.D. There remain several questions about the inscription in its context of Hatra, albeit not easy to answer. For example, why was a Christian inscription in Hatra largely written with the Edessan Syriac script rather than with the Hatran one? Was the use of the Syriac language and script already firmly established among Christians of greater Mesopotamia? Or could Shimona be a tradesman from Osrhoene stationed in Hatra where he decided to leave an inscription which includes his full name and the obvious symbol of his faith? Interestingly, the name Shimona is not attested in the four hundred or so inscriptions of Hatra, while the form Shmona is found in the region of Edessa as mentioned earlier. The relation between the inscription and the cross in the slab is also hard to explain, although this combination is attested in personal seals dated to the Sassanian period.28 Whether or not the slab is funerary or commemorative, or the inscription was created at the same time as the cross or perhaps was added later, is equally unknown. The date of the inscription is no less puzzling since the number of early Syriac

Christian inscriptions is too limited to compare between our inscription and extant early inscriptions. Despite the many unanswered questions, the inscribed slab remains a unique artifact coming from Hatra, and it is strong evidence that there was some kind of Christian presence in that caravan city. Moreover, the slab is not the only archaeological piece of evidence pointing to this presence. There are also depictions of Christian crosses incised on the stones of Hatran buildings presumably by Christian stonecutters and/or builders.

CROSSES ON STONE BUILDINGS Hatra’s architects and stonecutters used polished stone and plaster to build walls of monumental buildings. Both faces of walls are thus built where the space between the stones were filled with liquid plaster mixed with crushed stones. What is remarkable there is that various signs were deeply incised on the walls of the buildings scattered in different parts of the city, easily seen with the naked eye. These signs are dubbed by archaeologist “signs of builders or of stonecutters,” probably as means to identify the men responsible of building the walls. The size of the signs is generally 2 to 5 cm each and they were incised carefully in the centre of each stone on the surface. Each stonecutter or sculptor had his own mold made of wood or metal such as bronze or lead, which he posed on the stone to mark his sign to incise with a chisel. Some of these signs in metal were exhumed during archaeological excavations.29 More than five hundred signs mark such buildings as temples, fences, gates, defensive towers, residential homes, and cemeteries. Some signs are abstract; others are mere Aramaic, Syriac, ancient Arabic, and Greek letters of the alphabet, while others were Latin numbers, cuneiform shapes, or geometrical symbols. Several signs are cruciform, grouped in this article in categories

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 85

Evidence of Christianity in Hatra _________________________________________________________________________________________

Crosses of Hatra

which we tentatively identified with names. Not all the cruciform signs are necessarily Christian crosses, but those that we identify as such are not doubtful, and the Syriac inscribed cross discussed above adds credibility to their Christian identity. None in the swastika category for example seems to be Christian, given the popularity of this symbol since prehistoric times in Mesopotamia.30 This may also be true for what we called “baptismal crosses,” which might not be at all baptismal, although the first one which looks like a star is attested inside circles in Syrian churches, as in Bashahuk above the church’s door.31 In what we called “GreekByzantine” category, the first and last crosses are hardly anything other than Christian crosses. The first cross is attested in seals from the Sassanian period showing religious men holding such crosses and Pahlavi inscriptions,32 while the last cross is the well-known Jerusalem type also attested in early Syriac manuscripts.33 St. Andrew’s crosses may not reflect the

section by this title but the so-called Celtic crosses, especially the first two ones are indeed Christian crosses attested in graffiti in the church of Deiruni in Syria; this and other crosses were carved by pilgrims on the east wall of this church.34 The so-called basic crosses must be Christian, at least some of them, unlike the cruciform symbols or even the so-called Basque crosses which may not be Christian at all. The origins of individual symbols, even if they look truly Christian, are hard to ascertain, and much caution should be used in using the crosses as evidence of Christianity in Hatra prior to its fall in 241 A.D. Nonetheless, the discovery of the slab bearing a conspicuous Christian cross inscribed in Syriac gives some credibility that some of the crosses incised on building blocks were indeed Christian.

CONCLUSION The Syriac Christian remains in Hatra are very important for many reasons.

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 86

Evidence of Christianity in Hatra _________________________________________________________________________________________

Firstly, the remains give credibility to the claim made by Bardaisan, a very early ‘Christian’ author, about the spread of Christianity in Mesopotamia and elsewhere during the second half of the second century of our era. True, the discovery in Hatra of Aramaic inscriptions mentioning stoning thieves had already attracted scholarly attention which linked it with Bardaisan’s claim.35 But the many crosses on the monumental buildings in that now ruined city and the discovery of a Syriac inscription around a stylized, although slightly austere, cross, are concrete evidence that Christianity was indeed present in Hatra perhaps as early as the second century. Secondly, the Christian archaeological evidence suggests that the Christians of Hatra are not only local people, but also individual stonecutters and builders who never hesitated to mark their building sections with the most obvious Christian symbol, the cross. The Parthians were generally open to different religions and practices, and perhaps the cross, a basic linear shape, did not yet raise the eyebrows of local ‘pagans’ about its Christian connotation and symbolism. Nonetheless, the Christians of Hatra were commended through their good behaviour if we believe Bardaisan’s claim that “they did not stone thieves.” Thirdly, the depiction of the various crosses is highly significant, in terms of archaeology and art. There are not too many

crosses depicted and engraved on stones that early in the history of Christian art and archaeology, and yet we find them in Hatra. The inscribed cross somehow crudely executed seems to be the precursor of those beautiful crosses professionally carved on gypsum and found throughout Mesopotamia, as in Hira, Qusair, and Bazian. The simple Hatran cross in turn betrays its early age, perhaps the early 4th century, even though Hatra was destroyed in 241. We have said earlier that life continued in Hatra after its fatal destruction, and this is also true with regard to the major Assyrian capital Nineveh. Centuries after the fall of mighty Assyria, archeologists found out that part of the palace of Sennacherib was reused as late as the thirteenth century of our era. Interestingly for this paper, Christian artifacts, including highly stylized crosses and lamps decorated with crosses, were found in the restored part of Sennacherib’s palace.36 Fourthly, the Syriac inscription around the stylized cross is written in the Syriac Edessan script, and the combined names are not necessarily Syriac, but they may well be Aramaic. This is not as important as the fact that it shares with several hundreds of inscriptions of Hatra the same tongue, used as early as the beginning of the first millennium before our era and basically until today, in its Syriac dialect, in the Syriac liturgies of the various Middle Eastern churches.

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 87

Evidence of Christianity in Hatra _________________________________________________________________________________________

NOTES 1 On Hatra see Michael Sommer, Hatra: Geschichte und Kultur einer Karawanenstadt im römisch-parthischen (Mainz: Zabern, 2003). On the inscriptions of Hatra see B. Aggoula, Inventaire des inscriptions Hatréennes (Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1991); Klaus Beyer, Die aramäischen Inschriften aus Assur, Hatra und dem übrigen Ostmesopotamien (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998); F. Vattioni, Le iscrizioni di Ḥatra, AION Suppl. 28 (Napoli, 1981). 2 See Amir Harrak, “The Ancient name of Edessa,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 51 (1992) 209-214. 3 R. Bertolino, Manuel d’épigrahie hatréenne (Paris: Geuthner, 2008), 13-14. 4 Ammianus Marcellinus, XXV.8.4, trans. J.C. Rolfe, Loeb Classical Library 315 (Cambridge and London, repr. 1986), 539. 5 Cassius Dio LXVIII 31-32:1, trans. Earnest Cary, Loeb Classical Library (Harvard: Harvard University Press, 1925), Vol. VIII, 420-21. 6 “[W]e approached Hatra, an old city lying in the midst of a desert and long since abandoned.” Amm. Marc. XXV.8.4, trans. J.C. Rolfe, Loeb Classical Library 315 (Cambridge and London, repr. 1986). 7 W. Andrae, Hatra nach Aufnahmen von Mitgliedern der Assur-Expedition der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft, Wissenschaftliche Veroffentlichung der Deutscher Orient Gesellschaft, Teil I (Leipzig, 1908), Teil II (Leipzig, 1912). 8 Fu’ād Safar and Muḥammad ‘Alī Muṣtafa, Al-Ḥaḍar madīnat al-shams [Hatra, the City of the Sun] (Baghdad, 1974); Mājid ʻAbd-Allāh alShams, al-Ḥaḍar al-‘āṣima al-‘arabiyya [Hatra the Arab Capital] (Baghdad, 1988). 9 M. Gawlikowski, “Fortress Hatra. New Evidence on Rampart and their History,” Mesopotamia 29 (1994) 147-84. 10 See reports on these excavations by R. Vinco Ricciardi, “Preliminary Report on the 1987 Excavation at Hatra,” Mesopotamia 23 (1988) 31-42; “Second Preliminary Report on the Excavation at Hatra (Season 1988),” Mesopotamia 25 (1990) 37-45; “Archaeological Research at Hatra, Preliminary Report on the 1989 Season,” Mesopotamia 17 (1992) 189-198;

“Preliminary Report on the 1995 Excavations at Hatra,” Mesopotamia 33 (1998) 261-273. 11 B. Aggoula, Inventaires des inscriptions hatréennes; the book contains inscriptions 1 to 387. 12 Francesco Vattioni, Le iscrizioni di Hatra (I) (Napoli: Istituto orientale di Napoli, 1981), II (Napoli: Istituto orientale di Napoli, 1994). 13 D. Homès-Fredericq, Hatra et ses sculptures parthes: étude stylistique et iconographique (Istanbul, Nederlands HistorischArchaeologisch Instituut, 1963). 14 J.-B. Chabot, Synodicon orientale ou recueil des synodes nestoriens (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale: 1902), 18 (Syriac), 254 (French translation). 15 F. Nau, Bardesanes: Liber Legum Regionum, PO II (Paris 1907), 606f. 16 Ibid., 591. 17 E.H. Gifford (trans.), Eusebius of Caesarea: Praeparatio Evangelica (1903), VI.10:148. 18 The Aramaic text is in Aggoula, Inventaire des inscriptions hatréennes, 133. 19 Khashkars (“cross stone” in Armenian) are highly stylised crosses found in Greater Armenia as early as the 9th century, and those attested in Northern Mesopotamia between the 12 and 13th centuries represent one type of this shape of the cross; A. Harrak, Syriac and Garshuni Inscriptions of Iraq, RIS 2 (Paris: Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres, 2010), vol. 1 Text, 348. 20 See Narmen Muhammad Amen Ali, “The ‘Monastic Church’ of Bāzyān in Iraqi Kurdistan,” Journal of the CSSS 8 (2008) 74-84, esp. 76 and figs. 9 to 12. 21 I thank Professor Amir Harrak for deciphering this inscription for me. 22 F.C. Burkitt, Euphemia and the Goth with the Acts of Martyrdom of the Confessors of Edessa (1913), 90-110 (translation), ‫ܟܗ –ܓ‬ (Syriac). 23 G. Ryckmans, Les noms propres sudsémitiques, Bibliothèque du Muséon 2 (Louvain, 1934), 147. 24 See respectively J.K. Stark, Personal names in Palmyrene Inscriptions (Oxford??), p. 113, and Littmann, Safaitic Inscriptions (Leiden, 1943), #33ob. The name, including its diminutive Suhaym, is amply attested in the Is-

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 88

Evidence of Christianity in Hatra _________________________________________________________________________________________

lamic period; see Abū Muḥammad ‘Alī bin Aḥmad al-Andalusī, Jamharat Ansāb al-‘Arab [Corpus of Names of the Arabs], edited by ‘Abd-al-Salām Muḥammad Hārūn (Cairo: Dār al-Ma‘ārif, 1982), 209 et passim, and 413 for the diminutive). 25 William Hatch, An Album of Dated Syriac Manuscripts (Boston: The American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1946), pl. II A.D. 495460) et passim. 26 See A. Harrak, “Notes on Syriac Inscriptions, I: The Inscription of Ma‘ar-Zayta (Syria),” Orientalia 64 (1995) 110-119. 27 Bertolino, Manuel d’épigraphie hatréenne, 28-29. 28 Lerner, Christian Seals of the Sasanian Period (Leiden: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul, 1977), Plate 1, nos. 4 and 5. 29 Ḥikmat Bashir al-Aswad, “Al-‘alāmāt almaḥfūrah ‘alā al-abniyah al-ḥajariyyah fī alḤaḍar [The signs carved on stone buildings in Hatra],” Sumer 51 (2001-2002) 218-221.

30

Henri Frankfort, The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient (Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin, 1969), 1 and fig. 1b. 31 Ignacio Peña, The Christian Art of Byzantine Syria ([England]: Garnet Publishing, 1997), 172. 32 Lerner, Christian Seals of the Sasanian Period, pls. II 10 and esp. 12, and IV 23. 33 See for exemple Jules Leroy, Les manuscrits syriaques à peintures conservés dans les bibliothèques d'Europe et d'Orient (Paris, Librairie orientaliste P. Geuthner, 1964), 256-57 and Album, pl. 2 :3. 34 Peña, The Christian Art of Byzantine Syria, 148. 35 See the short but the latest bibliography on Bardaisan in S.P. Brock, “Bardaiṣan (154-222),” in S.P. Brock, A.M. Butts, G. Kiraz, and L. Van Rompay, Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2011), 56-57. 36 St. J. Simpson, “Christians at Nineveh in Late Antiquity,” Iraq 67 (2005) 285-294.

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 89

______________________________________________________________________

A NEW REPERTOIRE OF CROSSES FROM THE ANCIENT SITE OF ḤIRA, IRAQ

NASIR AL-KAʻBI UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO AND UNIVERSITY OF KUFA

INRODUCTION

T

hree consecutive seasons of archaeological digs took place in the years 2007, 2009, and 2011, in the region of Ḥira, near the holy city of Najaf, in the south of Iraq.1 The digs were in fact ‘rescue missions’ prompted by the rapid construction of the Al-Najaf al-Ashraf International Airport, located to the southern side of the city of Najaf. This area, which is about five square kilometres in size, contains hills inside which the ancient city of Ḥira is buried, and the runway of the airport now extends to the edges of these hills, destroying some of them.2 The hills had not been touched by archaeologists for eighty years, not since an archaeological team from the University of Oxford conducted excavations on the north side of the site in 1931.3 The three seasons of excavations by Iraqi archaeologists revealed a large number of multi-functional buildings and facilities, both secular and religious in nature, and in the latter case, the Christian remains are conspicuous.4 For a large amount of artefacts were found there made of clay, gypsum, and bronze, including an impres-

sive number of gypsum plaques showing stylized crosses and oil lamps decorated with crosses and other ornamental motifs. The twelve plaques depicted with stylized crosses form an excellent repertoire, comparable to another group of plaque-type crosses excavated in the site of Ain Sha’ia near al-Najaf,5 although the plaques of Ḥira are remarkable in their physical condition and in their variety of ornamental crosses. The repertoire highlights the Christian identity of the excavated area in Najaf, being none other than ancient Ḥira, known in Syriac sources as Ḥirta, rich in monasteries and churches. Judging from the synods of the Church of the East, bishops administered the city from the year 410 to 790.6 Islamic sources talk about the diyarāt alasāqifa “monasteries of the bishops,” and Ibn Hishām wrote a work which he entitled The Book of Ḥira and the names of the Churches and Monasteries.7 Other Islamic sources concerning the advent of Islam in Ḥira claim that the invading Arabs moved the sun dried bricks from the city’s buildings in order to re-use them when constructing the nearby city of Kufa—this in lieu of forcing the city’s Christian inhabitants to pay the jizya-poll tax. Whatever the

________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 90

A New Repertoire of Crosses from the Ancient Site of Ḥira, Iraq _________________________________________________________________________________________

case, the present repertoire of crosses (and there may be additional ones hidden inside the unexcavated hills) was not turned into lime by the invaders but survived to reach us almost entirely intact. The gypsum crosses were found in front of gates of main rooms and corridors of buildings in Ḥira8 where they must have been wall-mounted on their tops as ornamental and protective devices. When the bricks were extracted from the buildings, their gates and walls collapsed, since the archaeologists found only the crosses and building foundations relatively intact. If the Islamic sources prove wrong, then the crosses collapsed when Ḥira was abandoned by its Christian inhabitants sometime after the 8th century. The crosses were carefully retrieved during the excavations, cleaned from the dust accumulating on them, and given final museum numbers after they were shipped to the Iraq Museum (hereafter IM) in Baghdad, although some are still awaiting to be catalogued. The present article is a preliminary study of these gypsum crosses which are quite unique in that they all derive from one single archaeological site. We classified them into four categories on the basis of the shapes of the crosses and their surroundings to facilitate their iconographic analysis, comparing them with other crosses previously found in such archaeological sites as Ain-Sha’ia,9 Bazyan in Iraqi Kurdistan,10 Quṣair near Najaf,11 and Tell-Quyunjik in Nineveh.12 Other crosses were also found in Ḥira, one in bronze, two imprinted on clay lamps, and one incised on a lump of clay, which we will cover in our iconographic analysis.

CLASSIFICATION OF GYPSUM CROSSES As said above, we classified the crosses according to shapes, and these are: 1) Golgotha Cross (7 in total); 2) Double Cross

(one in total); 3) Stream Cross (3 in total); and 4) Foliage Cross (2 in total)

1) Golgotha Cross: IM 002422 (figure 1) IM 059922 (figure 2) IM 224184 (figure 3) Uncatalogued (figure 4) Uncatalogued (figure 5) Uncatalogued (figure 5) Uncatalogued (figure 7) The common feature of all these crosses is this Christian symbol resting on Golgotha or the Calvary, a motif known in countless depictions of ornamental crosses in sculpture13 and manuscripts.14 Nonetheless, the gypsum plaques showing this motif differ in other motifs and decors. For example, the first cross (figure 1), intact and slightly decorated, is inserted inside a decorative frame made of two parts: the left, upper, and right arms of the frame which consist of a continuing zigzag pattern placed inside two parallel lines, and the lower thicker arm which is decorated with four Maltashaped crosses placed side by side. The zigzag motif is very popular in these plaque-type crosses, and the cross found in Nineveh the zigzag decorate the cross itself.15 The two corners of the upper arm are filled with an elongated flower projecting outwards. An arch decorated with a zigzag pattern rests on two archivolts posed against the right and left arms of the frame. As for the highly stylized cross, its upper, horizontal, and lower parts are all made of hollow triangles ended on all their edges with round blobs, a customary motif in late antiquity of almost all crosses notwithstanding their material. The Golgotha feature is decorated with a small Malta-shaped cross. The Golgotha Cross in figure 2 is a replica of the one in figure 1, except for its stylized cross which is undecorated and its small sized Golgotha. It is worth noting

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 91

A New Repertoire of Crosses from the Ancient Site of Ḥira, Iraq _________________________________________________________________________________________

that the arch in both cases reflects an architectural feature abundantly attested in excavated buildings, and thus we can consider the two crosses as “made in Ḥira”. The Golgotha Cross in figure 3 shows an eroded mountain, but here too the cross, which is made of triangles ended with blobs on their angles, occupies the entire space. Its frame is simple and on each side of the lower bar of the cross a diamond is placed in relief. What makes this particular cross unique, however, are traces of possibly an inscription detected on both sides of its upper bar. The traces are not decorative and must not be taken for rays emanating from the centre of the cross, since in this case one would expect them below the horizontal bar of the cross so as to create parallelism. In fact all ornamental crosses, whether in manuscripts or in sculpture, show no decor around the join of their upper and lower bars. The inscription is eroded and its decipherment, based on other attestations in inscribed crosses, is tentative at best. It reads: ‫“ ܢܝܫܐ ܕܚܝܐ‬Mark of life”.

The words ‫“ ܢܝܫܐ ܕܚܝܐ‬mark of life” and ‫“ ܐܬܐ ܕܫܝܢܐ‬sign of peace” are found in old church buildings16 and in the archaeological site of Quṣair located to the south of Kerbala, near the Ukhayḍir castle.17 If our decipherment is correct, the Syriac inscription would be the first ever attested in Ḥira. The Golgotha Cross in figure 4, eroded, also rests on an almost effaced Golgotha. Although the plaque misses a few frag-

ments, its decor is still visible: The cross made of triangles ended on the edges with blobs; a frame made of zigzag pattern placed between parallel lines; and an incomplete triangle above the cross, perhaps a gable, is seen below what remains of an arch resting on a pillar—the right side of the arch and its pillar are missing. Unlike all other plaques depicted with ornamental crosses, which are rectangular in shape, the present one is square. The plaque of figure 5, which misses its lower part, can be considered a Golgotha Cross, for it stands within an architectural setting as is the case of all crosses in the present repertoire. Its uniqueness resides in the arch above the cross, surmounted by a pointed roof, the kind of which is attested in a fragment from Bazyan showing a traditional cross surmounted by the same structure, all depicted with various colours.18 At first sight, this architectural arrangement reminds one of the aedicule and the pillars of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, as depicted in the Rabbula Gospel,19 or even better, in the bronze censer of Takrit which is most probably of Palestinian origin.20 Another scene in the Rabbula Gospel shows Jesus enthroned between four monks under a very similar architectural setting.21 Nonetheless, what looks like a roof may well be a floating ribbon attested in Sassanian coins, crowns, and elsewhere,22 and also in Christian art, namely in seals.23 The ribbon in the cross of Bazyan is much clearer than that of Ḥira in figure 5. The arch of the Golgotha Cross in Ḥira rests on pillars as is clear on its right side. The cross is traditional with its blobs seen on the edges of what survive from the cross. The plaque has an unrefined frame seen mostly at the top of the plaque. The plaque in figure 6, fragmentary, shows a partial Golgotha on the right side of the lower fragment. The corners of its frame are decorated from the inside with an elongated flower, and the background of

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 92

A New Repertoire of Crosses from the Ancient Site of Ḥira, Iraq _________________________________________________________________________________________

the ornamental cross is flat. The cross is traditional with the blobs ending its corners and which touch the outer frame, but what makes it somehow unique is the linear cross incised where the two bars of the cross intersect. Finally, the plaque in figure 7, which we will study with the Stream Cross (see below), shows Golgotha represented not as a mountain but as a three-step structure. This structure is known in many ornamental crosses, including the one from Bazyan whose Golgotha is made of four steps, in addition to Armenian Khatchkar-crosses (xač‘k‘ar) which depict the steps in various numbers as parallel zigzags.24 2) Double Cross: IM 11422 (figure 8) What survived from this gypsum plaque is mostly its lower part, exhibiting the right angle of the frame and the right arm and the lower bar of the cross. The frame is decorated with small incised crosses joining each other, and its corners are ornamented each with a curve. The central cross is traditional with the blobs ending its corners, but it is also ornamented in the inside with another cross in relief. What makes it a Double Cross is the outer circular cross surrounding the central, traditional, cross. The circular cross is decorated with small squares incised between its edges, and each of its outer corners is filled with a two-petal flower. The Double Cross is best attested in the present plaque; otherwise two fragments seem to show the same decor, one from Ḥira,25 and another from nearby Ain Sha’ia.26 3) Stream Cross: Uncatalogued (figure 7; see above) IM 224188 (figure 9) IM 224274 (figure 10) The Stream Cross is a very popular type of cross in Syriac and Armenian iconogra-

phies, and its name is here conveniently coined after the two streams that emanate upward from the bottom of the cross, on both sides of its lower bar, unlike the Foliage Cross in which the branches bend left and right (see below). Water signifies life, and more specifically in Syriac Christianity, spiritual life coming from the water of baptism or from the side of Christ crucified on the cross.27 The Stream Cross in figure 7 survived complete but in two equal size fragments. It does not have a frame but shows an ornamental cross, traditional with blobs at the corners of its triangular bars, inside an elaborate architectural setting. Two pillars end upward with trapezoid-shaped and fluted imposts, on which a horseshoe arch and a rectangular structure around the arch rest. The pillars, seemingly fluted, rest on elongated bases. As for the rectangular structure, its frame is decorated with braided ropes, and surrounded on the outside with rosaces, two on the right and on left sides and four above it. The rosace as a decorative motif is attested elsewhere in Ḥira,28 and in nearby Ain Sha’ia in a fragment of a plaque-type cross.29 The slightly eroded cross of Ḥira whose bars are fluted sits on a three-step structure from which two streams of water gush upward reaching the middle of the lower bar of the cross. The fragment plaque in figure 9 shows the exact upper part of the Stream Cross in figure 7, and thus it can be classified as Stream Cross. Another gypsum plaque, figure 10, shows more or less the Stream Cross. The surface of the entire plaque is flat, and no detail in it is shown in relief, unlike all other gypsum plaques of the present repertoire. The cross is unusual in that its horizontal bar ends on both sides not with blobs but with thick vertical bars (├──┤), but the corner of the upper bar, which is almost flat, end with blobs as expected. The cross sits on a quite large mountain,

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 93

A New Repertoire of Crosses from the Ancient Site of Ḥira, Iraq _________________________________________________________________________________________

from the base of which two streams ascend straightly upward, touching the ends of the horizontal bar. On both sides of the cross some kind of pillars are seen in relief supporting the undistinguishable structure located above the cross. The Stream Cross is known in a very nice plaque, although slightly missing its top from Bazyan30 and in Armenian art where the streams are highly stylized.31 4) Foliage Cross: IM 224201 (figure 11) Uncatalogued (figure 12) Talbot Rice calls this type of cross a Leaved Cross.32 While in the Stream Cross water gushes to the top, in the Foliage Cross two plant branches ascend, bending here and there, one on each side of the lower bar of the cross. This type of cross is as popular in Christian art as the previous one, as is seen from its frequent representation in manuscripts,33 in Ḥira,34 in Armenian khatchkar35 (the foliage with cones), in earthenware from Nishapur, and also in Byzantine and Italian monuments.36 Rice, who excavated the site of Ḥira in the early 1930s, thought that this type of cross originated in Mesopotamia and spread out to other cultures.37 The shape of the plaque in figure 12, although eroded, can still be guessed. The plaque does not have a frame and the cross occupies the whole space. The general shape of the cross reflects its traditional representation in this repertoire, but what makes it quite unique is the fact that its bars are made of grape leaves. Grape leaves obviously form an important motif in Christian art, since grapes refer to the blood of Christ in the Eucharistic context. Nonetheless, the depiction of the cross in this manner may reflect the agricultural environment of Ḥira, for the region where it was excavated was and still is particularly rich in vineyards of various kinds. Grape

leaves also decorate the walls and especially the entrances in the ruined building of Ḥira.38 What emanates from the bottom of the cross spreading to both sides of the lower bar is eroded and its decorative components are lost. We may have here two leaves each on one side of the bar, but their rudimentary shapes can be those of wings, a Sassanian motif amply attested in Armenian crosses from the fifth century onward.39 Unlike the Stream Cross which sits on step, the present cross has no base whatsoever. There is another specimen of the Foliage Cross, the cross in figure 11. This a fragment in which most of the cross has survived, and it is traditional with some of its blobs still visible. From the bottom of the cross two branches emanate each on one side of the lower bar. One can argue that the branches may be streams, or even wings seen in some Armenian Khatchkars,40 but the fact that the motif curves toward the bar and ends with some kind of flowers suggest that they are foliage. An Armenian cross bearing the similar motif was considered with hesitation as wings,41 and thus it may well be foliage too. It seems that the end of branches are also seen on both sides of the upper bar of the cross. Assuming that they are indeed the ends of braches, do they continue their emanation from the bottom of the cross? The cross is too fragmentary to answer this question.

OTHER CROSSES Other attestations of crosses are known to Ḥira thanks to the late excavations of its ruins. We present them individually hereafter for their own merits. 1) Bronze Cross: IM 2241360 (Figure 13) This unique cross in Ḥira is made of two slightly trapezoid bars attached with a

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 94

A New Repertoire of Crosses from the Ancient Site of Ḥira, Iraq _________________________________________________________________________________________

bronze nail in the middle. The top arm of the cross has a hole that was probably for a chain that was not uncovered—it must have been removed since the hole or the loop is damaged. The cross must have been encrusted with semi-precious stones, the traces of which were detected on the surface of the cross. The manufacture and the material of this cross differ from those found in Bazyan,42 Takrit,43 and near Jabal Berri in northeastern Saudi Arabia,44 since none of these is encrusted with valuable stones. Could the Ḥira cross be that of an abbot or a bishop? 2) Oil Lamps with Crosses: IM 224210 (figure 14a, b, c) Uncatalogued (figure 15a-b) Christian oil lamps bearing crosses are countless and are known throughout Christendom, and thus Ḥira is not devoid from them. The oil lamp in figure 14 has two crosses, one near its mouth and another one, more elaborate, decorates the bottom of the lamp. The latter is the highly simplified Jerusalem Cross placed inside a circle, more or less like the final stop in manuscripts (), but the cross is straight. The lamp in figure 15 has a more elaborate cross at its bottom: it is in fact a double cross, the inside one being linear while the outer one which surrounds it is rounded. The shape of this cross is somewhat reminiscent of the one in plaque 7 (see above). 3) Cross on clay bullet: Uncatalogued (figure 16) The cross on this round piece of clay looks like the Jerusalem Cross, especially the endings of the two bars of the cross. The only difference between both depictions of the cross is that our clay shows dots instead of small crosses where the two bars of the cross intersect.

DATE(S) It is a pity that no Syriac texts were discovered with the crosses in Ḥira to give us fixed dates or hints of dates on the basis of paleography. In fact no such texts have ever been uncovered either during the excavations by Rice in the early 1930s or during the digs conducted by the Iraqis between 2007 and 2014. This being said, nothing in the plaque-type crosses suggests a date, including Sassanian motifs, such as ribbons and wings that were also used centuries after the advent of Islamic, as in the case of many Armenian khatchkars that are decorated with wings. The sizable number of plaques and their various styles suggest that they were made over a long period. They were definitely made before the advent of Islam if we believe the claim mentioned above that the Muslims built Kufa with the bricks of Ḥira’s walls, and since the plaques were found mainly in entrances of buildings. Nonetheless, life in Ḥira continued at least until the end of the eighth century, the time of its bishop Joel who is attested in the acts of a synod in 790,45 and thus it is not farfetched to fix the date of the plaques between the fifth and the eighth centuries.

CONCLUSION We mentioned that no Syriac texts have been uncovered in Ḥira thus far, but these beautiful plaque-type crosses may compensate for the lack of inscriptions. They tell us about one aspect of Christianity in Ḥira, that this religion was rooted in this city and in the Sassanian period and culture since the crosses bear some artistic features of Persian art. It is interesting that the crosses were not found in churches but in simple buildings, most probably houses, which tells us about the faith of the people of Ḥira in this greatest Christian symbol fixed in their houses for protection and decoration.

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 95

A New Repertoire of Crosses from the Ancient Site of Ḥira, Iraq _________________________________________________________________________________________

The crosses also tell us about the importance of Ḥira in creativity in art and architecture, for Talbot Rice wrote about one type of cross as follows: “This leafed cross is a motif of considerable importance in the whole of East Christian art. It is common in the Byzantine era, especially in

the eighth and following centuries, and appears both in a naturalised and in a stylised manner. It is also to be found frequently in Armenia. There can be no doubt that these various examples are related to the Hira crosses, and all alike are derived from the same original.”46

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 96

A New Repertoire of Crosses from the Ancient Site of Ḥira, Iraq _________________________________________________________________________________________

Fig. 1 Golgotha Cross

Fig. 3 Golgotha Cross

Fig. 2 Golgotha Cross

Fig. 4 Golgotha Cross

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 97

A New Repertoire of Crosses from the Ancient Site of Ḥira, Iraq _________________________________________________________________________________________

Fig. 5 Golgotha Cross

Fig. 6 Golgotha Cross

Fig. 7 Golgotha Cross Stream Cross

Fig. 8 Double Cross

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 98

A New Repertoire of Crosses from the Ancient Site of Ḥira, Iraq _________________________________________________________________________________________

Fig. 9 Steam Cross

Fig. 12 Foliage / Wing Cross

Fig. 10 Stream Cross

Fig. 11 Foliage Cross

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 99

A New Repertoire of Crosses from the Ancient Site of Ḥira, Iraq _________________________________________________________________________________________

Fig. 13 Bronze Cross

Fig. 14a, b, c Oil Lamp

Fig. 15a, b Oil Lamp

Fig. 16 Clay Bullet Cross _________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 100

A New Repertoire of Crosses from the Ancient Site of Ḥira, Iraq _________________________________________________________________________________________

NOTES 1

I would like to thank my supervisor Prof. Amir Harrak who guided me in this study and in my postdoctoral research. 2 See Nasir al-Ka‛bi, “Report on the Excavations of Ḥira in 2010-2011,” JCSSS 12 (2012) 60-61. 3 D. T. Rice, “Ḥira,” JRAS 19 (1932) 250-268; id., “The Oxford Excavations at Hira 1931,” Antiquity 6 (1932) 276- 291; id., “The Oxford Excavation at Hira,” Ars Islamica 1 (1934) 54-73 4 On Christianity in Ḥira see Erica Hunter, “The Christian matrix of al-Ḥira,” in C. Jullien (ed.), Les controverses des chrétiens dans l’Iran Sassanide (Paris, 2008), 41–56. 5 On the crosses of Ain Sha’ia see Yasuyoshi Okada, “Reconsideration of Plaque-Type Crosses from Ain Sha’ia,” Al-Rāfidān 9 (1990) 103-112. 6 J. B. Chabot, Synodicon orientale ou recueil des synodes nestoriens (Paris : Imprimerie Nationale, 1902), 673. 7 Ibn Nadīm, al-Fihrist, edited by Riza Tajaddud (Beirut, 1988), 108-109; Nasir alKa‛bi, “Muṣannafāt al-Ḥīrah al-ḍa’i‘a limu’llifiha Hishām ibn al-Kalbī,” Iraqi Scientific Review (2010) 132-143 (in Arabic). 8 “Report of the (Directorate) of Archaeology and Heritage Mission in Ḥīra: Season of 2007;” (in Arabic; unpublished). 9 Okada, “Reconsideration of Plaque-Type Crosses from Ain Sha’ia.” 10 Narmen Muhammad Amen Ali, “The ‘Monastic Church’ of Bāzyān in Iraq Kurdistan,” JCSSS 8 (2008) 74-84. 11 A. Harrak, Syriac and Garshuni Inscriptions, Recueil des inscriptions syriaques, tome 2: Iraq (Paris: Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres, 2010), volume 2: Plates, 133: AE.01.13; 282 : AE.01.16. 12 J. Simpson, “Christians at Nineveh in Late Antiquity,” Iraq 67/1, (2005) 285-94. 13 Harrak, Syriac and Garshuni Inscriptions, vol. 1, 647, vol. 2, plate 135: GA.01.03. 14 Jules Leroy, Les manuscrits syriaques à peinture, Album (Paris: Librairie orientaliste, 1964), pl. 4 1-4, pl. 5 1-2 et passim. 15 Simpson, “Christians at Nineveh in Late Antiquity,” fig. 7.

16

See, for example, in the monastery of Mār Behnam: Harrak, Syriac and Garshuni Inscriptions, vol. 1, 320, vol. 2, plate 135: AE.01.16, where ‫(“ ܕܚܝܐ‬mark) of life” is replaced by ‫“ ܙܟܘܬܐ‬sign of victory.” 17 Harrak, Syriac and Garshuni Inscriptions, vol. 1, 647, vol. 2, plate 282: GA.01.03. 18 Narmen Ali, “The ‘Monastic Church’ of Bāzyān in Iraq Kurdistan,” 84 figure 12 (the right side). 19 Leroy, Les manuscrits syriaques à peinture, pl. 32 (lower register); John Beckwith, Early Christian and Byzantine Art (Hermandsworth, 1970), 62, pl. 45. 20 A. Harrak, “The Incense Burner of Takrit: An Iconographical Analysis,” Eastern Christian Art 3 (2006) 49-50 and pl. 7. 21 Beckwith, Early Christian and Byzantine Art, 137, pl. 113. 22 Matteo Compareti, “The Spread Wings Motif on Armenian Steles: Its Meaning and Parallels in Sasanian Art,” Iran and the Caucasus 14 (2010) 204-205 et passim. 23 Judith A. Lerner, Christian Seals of the Sassanian Period (Istanbul, 1977), 7-8. 24 Documents of Armenian Architecture: Khatchkar, Facoltà di Architettura del Politecnico di Milano 2 (Milano 1977), pl. 23. 25 “The Oxford Excavations at Hira 1931,” 283 fig. f. 26 Okada, “Reconsideration of Plaque-Type Crosses from Ain Sha’ia,” p. 104 #8. 27 See A. Harrak, Jacob of Sarug’s Homily on the Partaking of the Holy Mysteries, The Metrical Homilies of Mar Jacob of Sarug, Fascicle 17 (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2009), 9. 28 Rice, “The Oxford Excavations at Ḥira” fig. 18 (fragment). 29 Okada, “Reconsideration of Plaque-Type Crosses from Ain Sha’ia,” p. 104 # 4-1. 30 Narmen Ali, “The ‘Monastic Church’ of Bāzyān,” 83 figure 10. 31 Documents of Armenian Architecture: Khatchkar, pl. 22. 32 D. Talbot Rice, “The Leaved Cross,” Byzantinoslavica 11 (1950) 72ff. 33 Leroy, Les manuscrits syriaques à peinture, pl. 5 figure 1 and 2, 7 figure 1. 34 “The Oxford Excavations at Hira 1931,” 283.

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 101

A New Repertoire of Crosses from the Ancient Site of Ḥira, Iraq _________________________________________________________________________________________ 35

Documents of Armenian Architecture: Khatchkar, pl. 26. 36 Lerner, Christian Seals, 7. 37 Ibid. 38 Rice, “The Oxford Excavations at Hira 1931,” 289 fig. c et passim. 39 Compareti, “The Spread Wings Motif on Armenian Steles,” 204, esp. figure 1, et passim. 40 Ibid. Here is what the author says about an Armenian cross which resembles the one from Ḥira: “they (the assumed wings) are all smaller and not well-defined.” 41 Ibid., 228 fig. 6.

42

Narmen Ali, “The ‘Monastic Church’ of Bāzyān,” 83. 43 Amir Harrak, “Recent Archaeological Excavations in Takrit and the Discovery of Syriac Inscriptions,” JCSSS 1 (2001) 30, 37. 44 D.T. Potts, “Nestorian Crosses from Jabal Berri,” Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 5 (1994) 61-65. 45 Chabot, Synodicon orientale ou recueil des synodes nestoriens, 673. 46 Rice, “The Oxford Excavation at Hira,” 73.

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 102

___________________________________________________________________________ THE CANADIAN SOCIETY FOR SYRIAC STUDIES

MEMBERS OF THE YEAR 2013-2014

Honorary Member BROCK, Sebastian, Oxford, UK GRIFFITH, Rev. Sidney H., Gaithersburg MD VAN ROMPAY, Lucas, Durham NC Corporate Members GORGIAS PRESS, Piscataway NJ SALAM Social Club, Toronto ON GENERAL DIRECTORATE OF SYRIAC CULTURE AND ARTS, Erbil, IRAQ Life Members BADWI, Fr. Abdo, Kasilik, LEBANON DAVID, Sargon, Scarborough ON DINNO, Khalid, Mississauga ON EMMANUEL, Mar Emmanuel, Toronto ON GREATREX, Geoffrey, Ottawa ON GREATREX, Marina, Ottawa ON MALAS, Gabriel, UK MURAD, Janan, Mississauga ON SMITH, Helen, Toronto ON Members ABBA, Bishop Yusif, Baghdad, IRAQ AFRAM, Zyad, Mississauga ON AKOPIAN, Arman, Yerevan, Armenia ALIBERTIS, Demetrios, Toronto ON ALKABI, Naseer, Toronto ON BADOVINAC, J. & Ed. Mississauga ON BASMAJI, John, Markham ON

BEAULIEU, Paul-Alain, Toronto ON BENJAMEN, Alda, Washington DC BENJAMIN, Renya, Woodbridge ON BIHNAN, Adnan, Brampton ON BOERO, Dina, Watsonville, CA BORBONE, Giorgio Pier, Pisa, ITALY BOUJIKIAN, Stephen, Scarborough, ON BRAIDA, Emanuela, Toronto ON BRIQUEL CHATONNET, Françoise, Paris, FRANCE BROWN, Kenneth, Aberdeen MD BOUTROS, Ramez, Toronto ON BUTTS, Aaron, New Haven CT CASSIS, Marica, St. John’s NL CLARKE, Colin S., Hamilton ON CONTINI, Riccardo, Rome, Italy CORBETT, John H., Kingston ON COX, James, King City ON DAWOID, Fatdal, Täby, SWEDEN DEBIÉ, Muriel, Paris, FRANCE DESREUMAUX, Alain, Paris, FRANCE DINNO, Deena, Mississauga ON DODD, Erica, Victoria BC DOHLER, Anna, Toronto ON DONABED, Sargon, Toronto ON FAIBISH, Neil, Toronto ON FATHI, Jean, Toronto ON FOREN, Symon, Toronto ON FRAME, Grant, Philadelphia PA GODBOUT, Alain, Halifax NS

___________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) — Page 103

Members of the Year 2012-2013 ____________________________________________________________________________________

HANNA, Robert, Mississauga ON HARRAK, Amir, Toronto ON HARRAK, Ryan, Toronto ON HARRAK, Sarah, Toronto ON HARVEY, Susan A., Lincoln RI HIRSCH, Antoine, Toronto ON ISSAK, Rev. John, Hamilton ON JOHNSON, Nola J., Toronto ON JWAIDEH, Albertine, King City ON KASSIR, Zuhair, Milton ON KIRAZ, George, Piscataway NJ KITCHEN, Rev. Robert, Regina SK KYDD, Ronald, Colborne ON LAWSON, Todd, Toronto ON LEHTO, Adam, Waterloo ON LONDES, Arlette, Thornhill ON MICHELSON, David, Nashville TN MORRISON, Rev Craig, Rome, ITALY MOUSSA, Helene, Toronto ON ORAHA, Alhan, Toronto ON POSSEKEL, Ute, Reading MA POIRIER, Paul-Hubert, Quebec PQ MOUSSA, Helene, Toronto ON NINAN, Mathew, Brampton ON

ORAHA, Alhan, Toronto ON POSSEKEL, Ute, Reading MA POIRIER, Paul-Hubert, Quebec PQ RASSAM, Suha, Surrey, UK ROMENY, R. B. ter Haar, Leiden, NL ROYEL, David, San Jose CA SALEH, Walid, Toronto ON SHAMOUN, Ashorina, Mississauga ON SMINE, Rima, Los Altos Hills CA SMITH, Kyle, Toronto ON TANOUS, Rami, Toronto ON TARZI, Habib, Unionville ON TARZI, Albert, Unionville ON TARZI, George, Unionville ON TARZI, Salwa, Unionville ON TAWEEL, al-, Elias, Mississauga ON TREIGER, Alexander, Halifax NS THEKKEPARAMBIL, Rev. Jacob, Kerala INDIA WERYHO, Jan, Montreal PQ YACOUB, Fr. Jack, Toronto ON YOUSIF, Ashoor, Toronto ON ZAIYOUNA, Ahsan, Thornhill ON ZAVARO, Suhail, El Cajon CA

________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) — Page 104