Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 9781463236915

Table of contents :
Table of Contents
From the Editor
The Armenian Version of Aphrahat’s Demonstration Ten “On Shepherds”
Armenian Inscriptions and Graffiti at the Monastery of Mār Behnam and in Qaraqosh
John of Apamea and the Syriac Reception of Greek Thought
The Romance of Aḥiqar the Wise in the Neo-Aramaic MS London Sachau 9321: Part II
Five Kinds of Rewriting: Appropriation, Influence and the Manuscript History of Early Syriac Literature
Following the Footsteps of Father Fiey: Topographical Observations in ‘Aqrā and its Region
The Seventh North American Syriac Symposium
Members of the CSSS for 2014-2015

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, Colin S. Clarke

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 2014-2015 President: Amir Harrak Vice-President and Secretary-Treasurer: Khalid Dinno Members of the Board of Directors: 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 Ceremonial Cross inscribed in Armenian and Garshuni from Qaraqosh, Iraq

JOURNAL OF THE CANADIAN SOCIETY FOR SYRIAC STUDIES

Volume 15

Copyright © 2015 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 978-1-4632-0569-0 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

Daniel Kölligan, The Armenian Version of Aphrahat’s Demonstration Ten “On Shepherds”

3

Gagik G. Sargsyan and Amir Harrak, Armenian Inscriptions and Graffiti at the Monastery of Mar Behnam and in Qaraqosh

17

Adam Lehto,

33

John of Apamea and the Syriac Reception of Greek Thought

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

41

Kristian S. Heal, Five Kinds of Rewriting: Appropriation, Influence and the Manuscript History of Early Syriac Literature

51

Narmīn ‘Alī Amīn and Parwīn Badrī Tawfīq, Following the Footsteps of Father Fiey: Topographical Observations in ‘Aqrā and its Region

66

Aaron M. Butts, The Seventh North American Syriac Symposium

79

Members of the CSSS for 2014-2015

84

___________________________________________________________________________

FROM THE EDITOR

J

CSSS 15 (2015) contains a diverse range of articles which advance research in Syriac and cognate studies. We have managed once again to highlight both textual and archaeological research. Two articles in the latter area are all the more timely, given the current instability in Iraq. In “The Armenian Version of Aphrahat’s Demonstration Ten ‘On Shepherds,’” Daniel Kölligan of the University of Cologne tackles a topic in Armenian-Syriac studies and shows how keen the Armenian translator of Aphrahat was to produce a translation faithful to the original text. This does not mean, however, that his translation is literal: he sometimes provides two verbs, one almost auxiliary as in Semitic, even if the Syriac original has only one; he sometimes deviates from the Syriac, especially in biblical quotations where he relies on the Armenian version; he omits copulas, as is expected, and the fact that he sometimes opts for idiomatic Armenian expressions make him a good translator. It is likely (though not yet proven) that the translator followed the same practices in his translation of the other Demonstrations. Keeping with Armenian-Syriac topics, Gagik G. Sargsyan of the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography at Yerevan, Armenia, and the present writer embarked on publishing for the first time ever Armenian graffiti scratched on the stone walls of the Church of the martyr Mār Behnam, a structure whose fate is now unknown after it was captured in July

2014 by the infamous Islamic State. Included also in this article is an edition and translation of a bilingual Armenian-Syriac inscription that had been placed below a rare Khachkar dated to 1171. This typical Armenian cross, carved in relief, decorated one wall of the octagonal martyrium of Mār Behnam, but this 6th century edifice was dynamited by the Islamic State in 2015, turning the tomb and its epigraphic and iconographic treasures to dust. Adam Lehto, of the University of Toronto, turns his attention to Greek-Syriac encounters in his paper “John of Apamea and the Syriac Reception of Greek Thought.” From the time of Bardaisan in the 3rd century to the ‘Syriac Renaissance’ of the 13th and 14th, an engagement with various forms of Greek thought is an important component of each of the several Syriac Christian traditions. John of Apamea, who wrote in the first half of the 5th century, and who thus predates the major Syriac ecclesiastical divisions, should be recognized as a key figure in the early history of this engagement. He can be seen as someone who preserves features of the major sources of the 4th century yet clearly moves beyond them to a more nuanced and substantial interaction with Greek intellectual culture. Emanuala Braida, who completed her postdoctoral research at the University of Toronto in 2013, published an edition and translation of the Neo-Aramaic tale of Ahiqar in JCSSS 14 (2014). She now continues her investigation in “The Romance of Aḥiqar the Wise in the Neo-Aramaic MS London Sachau

___________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) — Page 1

From the Editor

____________________________________________________________________________________

9321: Part II,” where she concentrates on the ‘publication’ of the tale in Antiquity under the name of Aesop, exploring how it eventually reached Neo-Aramaic, modified and augmented, but also kept the ancient wisdom component of the longest-lived tale ever in the worldwide production of fables. The 2015 Spring Guest Lecture, “Five Kinds of Rewriting: Appropriation, Influence and the Manuscript History of Early Syriac Literature,” was presented by Kristian S. Heal of Brigham Young University and is now published here. The corpus of Syriac literature is a product not only of original authors but also of scribes who in the process of copying also attribute, appropriate, redact, extract, select, rework, and thus, in various ways, rewrite, activities which leave traces in extant manuscripts. Heal discusses five scribal practices in detail and rightly calls for a new comprehensive history of Syriac literature, a successor to Baumstark’s venerable Geschichte der Syrischen Literatur of 1922. The last paper, “Following the Footsteps

of Father Fiey: Topographical Observations in ‘Aqra and its Region,” is contributed by two scholars who specialize in the Christian monuments of Iraq. The authors call attention to the need for a systematic probe of the ecclesiastical geography of that country to add to the seminal work of the great scholar Jean Maurice Fiey (+ 1995), a task made all the more urgent given the destruction that Iraq is suffering at the present time. We are also grateful to Aaron M. Butts for contributing an informative report on the 7th North American Syriac Symposium, which was held at the Catholic University of America in July 2015.  The publication of JCSSS 15 was made possible thanks to the financial assistance of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, through its “Aid to Scholarly Journals” program. A.H. 15 October 2015

________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) — Page 2

______________________________________________________________________

THE ARMENIAN VERSION OF APHRAHAT’S DEMONSTRATION TEN “ON SHEPHERDS”1

DANIEL KÖLLIGAN UNIVERSITY OF COLOGNE

1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 1.1. Ever since Hübschmann’s epochmaking discovery in 18752 that Armenian is not an Iranian language, but forms an independent branch of the Indo-European language family, Armenian has been of substantial interest for Iranologists. By way of the huge amount of loan-words and calques of Iranian, specifically from Parthian and Middle-Persian, Armenian can enrich our knowledge of the history of the Iranian language family. Due to this overwhelming influx of Iranian material, the linguistic influence of other languages on Armenian was much smaller, limited mostly to Greek and Syriac. The present study explores Syriac influence on Armenian as reflected in the translation of one of the ‘demonstrations’ of Aphrahat, an important 4th century Syriac author. 1.2. As both the Armenian tradition itself and the textual evidence of the Armenian Bible translation ascribed to Maštocʻ seem to hint at Syriac influence on the Armenian version of the scriptures, research on Syriac-Armenian language contact has mainly focussed on the question of whether we have to assume two translations, the first

made from Syriac and the second from Greek, with the former leaving traces in the latter, or whether the one and only Greek-to-Armenian translation was influenced by Syriac indirectly due to the translators’ profound knowledge of the Syriac version. Both camps have had their proponents from early on, such as, on the one hand Robinson (1895)3 and Merk (1926),4 who argue for a translation first made on a Syriac text and, on the other hand, Macler (1919)5 and Lyonnet (1934, 1936),6 who regard the obvious Syriac elements in the Armenian text either as coincidental or as to some extent an unconscious influence of the translators’ knowledge of the Syriac version. Later studies, especially by Cox (1981) and Cowe (1992), have shown that there is little chance of an easy answer for the whole Bible and that it is more likely that the story is different for different parts,7 showing a stronger or weaker or in some cases no Syriac influence on the Armenian text.8 1.3. Following the Bible, other (mostly patristic) texts were translated from Syriac into Armenian9 with varying degrees of closeness to the original. Syro-Armenian language contact was not limited to trans-

________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 3

The Armenian Version of Aphrahat’s Demonstration Ten “On Shepherds” _________________________________________________________________________________

lations, however: 133 Syriac loan words are discussed by Hübschmann (1897)10 in his “Armenische Etymologie”, comprising both religious and technical terms for learning (e.g., tʻargman ‘translator’: Syr. targmānā; kʻahanay ‘priest’: Syr. kāhnā)11 and basic vocabulary items such as xanowtʻ ‘shop’: Syr. ḥānūtā; mašk ‘skin, hide’: Syr. mәškā ‘skin’; tłay ‘boy’: Syr. ṭalyā; połotay ‘street’: Syr. pәlāṭīā (< Gk. πλατεῖα) which point to a phase of bilingualism, especially in northern Mesopotamia and northern Syria, where the main cities of Syriac Christianity, Edessa (Arm. Urhay) and Nisibis (Arm. Mcbin), had a mixed population that included Syriac and Armenian speakers.12 1.4. This bilingualism is also evidenced by the Armenian historians of the oskedar, the “golden age” of the 5th century, e.g., by Łazar Parpecʻi’s account which informs us that Maštocʻ served as a royal scribe at the court of the Armenian king Xosrov (ch. 10), where they “conducted the business of the Armenian kings, decrees and edicts, in Syriac and Greek” and that the same bishop in his anxiety wept continuously on seeing the great effort and the even greater expense of the young men of Armenia, who at great cost and through long journeys and with continual distractions were spending their days in the schools of Syrian learning. For the worship of the church and the readings of scripture were conducted in Syriac in the monasteries and churches of the Armenian people. But the congregations of such a large country were quite unable to comprehend or profit from it, and the incomprehension of the Syrian tongue caused labour to the ministers and was unprofitable to the congregations.13

Consequently, one may assume that, in late antique Armenia, at least some mem-

bers of the cultural elite were fluent in Syriac in addition to a form of Iranian and Greek. 1.5. Among the texts translated from Syriac into Armenian are the Demonstrations of Aphrahat, the “Persian Sage” of the 4th century,14 whose work was ascribed to Jacob of Nisibis (+338) in the Armenian tradition.15 Of his twenty-three ‘demonstrations’ (which survive in their original Syriac in four mss., including three from the 5th and 6th centuries), nineteen have been preserved in the Armenian translation carried out probably in the 5th century,16 all now available in the edition of Lafontaine (1977-80), who counts thirty-five mss. from the 15th to the 18th centuries, a number that attests to the popularity of the text in Armenia. 1.6. In the translation of the Demonstrations we find both the addition of elements not found in the Syriac text and the omission of some elements, as pointed out by Lafontaine.17 In the case of omissions this is not always a simple translational mistake or a problem of textual transmission, but in some instances, e.g., the omission of the Syriac particles ger and den, appears to be the general policy of the translator. 1.7. In what follows various differences will be discussed that can be observed between the Syriac text of Demonstration 10 (“On Pastors”), as edited by Parisot (1894/1907),18 and the Armenian version.19 These differences can be classified roughly as follows: the apparently conscious addition of elements (2.), by double-translating a single Syriac element (2.1) or by adding other material, sometimes from original quotations (2.2); the lack of elements (3), which may represent a conscious omission (3.1)—such as that of the copula—or may be due to loss during the translation or the transmission of the text (3.2); differences in word-order (4.1) and possible scribal

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 4

The Armenian Version of Aphrahat’s Demonstration Ten “On Shepherds” _________________________________________________________________________________

errors (4.2); problems caused by the polysemy of a Syriac term (5), which lead to the use of calques (5.1), and possible cases of the wrong choice of meaning for a word (5.2). Finally, some instances of “free” translation that do not fit into any of the above categories will be discussed briefly in order to show that the translator was far from adhering slavishly to the Syriac text (6).

2. ADDITION OF ELEMENTS 2.1. Double translation of a single element 2.1.1. The asyndetic combination of two or more verb forms is a feature of Armenian that may have been influenced by Syriac.20 Its independence from the Syriac Vorlage in individual cases, however, is shown by its occurrence irrespective of the Syriac, e.g., in the following examples: Ch. 2 p. 107 l. 3 pәlag “he distributed” bašxeacʻ et “he distributed - gave” Ch. 8 p. 112 l. 4 rab baytā ʼaʻәlany lәbēt gazzā d-malkā “The steward brought me to the king’s treasure house.” hazarapetn ar ̃ taraw zis i town ganji arkʻowni “The steward took-brought me to the royal treasure house.” Ch. 2 p. 107 l. 7 w-kad mәnāyh(y) Dāwīd l-gәzārā dʻāneh “and when David counted the number/flocks of his herd” sksaw David handēs arñ el ew hamar ownel zhawticʻ xašancʻ iwrocʻ “David began to muster and count the flocks of his herds.”

In the last example, beside the addition of sksanim ‘to start’, the translator rendered mәnāyh(y) ‘he counted’ with handēs ar͂ nel ‘to muster’ and hamar ownel ‘to count’ (lit. ‘to take number’).

2.1.2. In other cases, the translator may have been influenced by scriptural quotations which led him to supply additional material not present in the Syriac (Aphrahat himself seems to quote by heart or to sometimes use a translation different from the Peshitta), e.g. in Ch. 3 p. 107 l. 19: b-yawmā d-ziqā “in the day of storm”: yawowrs migi marã xłi “in the days of the storm cloud” (lit. “of cloud of storm”)

Here Syr. ziqā “violent rain with wind,”21 is translated with Arm. mēg ‘cloud’ and marã xowł ‘storm’ (NBHL: “θύελλα, procella”).22 The Armenian version of the original quote, Ezek. 34.12, has: yawowr yorowm icʻē mēg ew marã xowł “on the day when there will be cloud and storm”23

and in the same verse we find yawowr migi ew marã xłi “in the day of cloud and storm”24

In addition, one may compare Deut. 4.11 ew xawar ew mēg ew marã xowł ēr “and there was darkness and cloud and storm”25 Deut. 5.22 owr xawarn, mēg ew marã xowł ēr “where there was darkness, cloud and storm”26

It would seem, then, that for the Armenian translator there were a number of passages with the phrase ‘in the day(s) of cloud and storm’, both in the Armenian version of Ezekiel and elsewhere, to warrant his translation of ziqā as mēg (ew) marã xowl / mēg marã xli, whether he checked the Armenian version of Ezekiel or quoted by heart. One could assume that he simply chose a double-word translation to capture the meaning of ziqā more adequately, but it seems unlikely that this led to the same translation as in Ezekiel incidentally.

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 5

The Armenian Version of Aphrahat’s Demonstration Ten “On Shepherds” _________________________________________________________________________________

2.1.3. Another possible case is ch. 5 p. 110 l. 7 b-zabnā d-ʼulṣānā: i žamanaki and vtangi nełowtʻeann “in the time of oppression/need”

Here the translator renders ʼulṣānā ‘oppression, narrowness, compression’ with vtang ‘danger, narrowness’27 and nełowtʻiwn ‘narrowness, need, tribulation.’28 Both in the Armenian version of the Old Testament and in non-translated Armenian texts, the combination of vtang and derivatives of neł- is frequent, cf. OT Zeph. 1.15 ōr nełowtʻean ew vtangi, LXX: ἡμέρα ϑλίψεως καὶ ἀνάγκης “the day of oppression and tribulation” Agath29 §86 towr inj zōrowtʻiwn hamberowtʻean nełowtʻean cʻawocʻ vtangis imoy “Give me the power to endure the affliction and pain of my torment.” Agath §174 kam nełescʻen zmez halacankʻ kam vtangescʻen zmez tanǰankʻ harowacocʻ “(Heaven forbid that …) or that torments oppress us or torture and persecution imperil us.” Movs. Dasxur. II.11 ew vtangeal nełacʻowcʻicʻ zašxarhs ew zcarã ys nora “(I shall not cease to fight the king of Persia) and menace and harass his land and people.” (Dowsett)30

2.1.4. The same reasoning may apply to Ch. 2 p. 107 l. 8 rugzā “wrath”: srtmtowtʻiwn barkowtʻean

The addition in the Armenian is not arbitrary here, either, since the combination of srtmtowtʻiwn and barkowtʻiwn or derivatives of the same word-families are frequent in the Armenian Bible (usually following the LXX). We may thus be dealing with a double translation probably triggered by such passages, cf. beside barkanal srtmtowtʻeamb (e.g. Gen. 39.19 barkacʻaw srtmtowtʻeamb “ἐϑυμώϑη ὀργῇ”) cases like

Num. 25.4 srtmtowtʻiwn barkowtʻean Tearñ , LXX ὀργὴ θυμοῦ κυρίου “the fierce anger of the Lord” Ps. 29.6 srtmtowtʻiwn ē i barkowtʻean nora, LXX ὀργὴ ἐν τῷ ϑυμῷ αὐτοῦ “the anger (is) in his mind”

and with inverse order Exod. 32.12 dadarea i barkowtʻenē srtmtowtʻean kʻoy “Turn from your burning anger.” LXX: παῦσαι τῆς ὀργῆς τοῦ θυμοῦ σου.

2.1.5. Even the seemingly trivial hendiadys of the interrogative adverbs ziard and orpēs ‘how’ may reflect Armenian usage, cf. Ch. 2 p. 106 l. 2: ʼellā meṭṭul d-niʼlpūn ʼaykannā: ayl zi owscʻin tʻe ziard kam orpēs “but that they might learn how and in which way” Agath §875 Ziard՞ kam orpēs՞ ełen ar ̃ kʻez Astowcoy skʻančʻelikʻn “How and in which way did these miracles of God happen to you?”

2.2. Other additional elements 2.2.1. As discussed in 2.1. in the case of vtang nełowtʻean, scriptural quotations often seem to lie behind a difference between the Syriac and the Armenian text. This is probably also the case in the following three examples (2.2.1.-2.2.3.): Ch. 2 p. 106 l. 15-16 ʼasged(w) l-ʻeglā “they worshipped the calf”: erkir pagin ortʻown xotakeri “They worshipped the grass-eating calf.” (xotakeri: Z patkerin)

Both readings xotakeri and patkerin may be supported by Ps. 105 (106) which the translator may have had in mind. ‘Grasseating’ occurs both in the Armenian Bible translation and in the Septuaginta: 19

Ararin ortʻ i kʻoreb ew erkir pagin patkeri, 20ew pʻoxecʻin zpʻars̃ iwreancʻ i nmanowtʻean ortʻow xotakeri “19At Horeb they made a calf and worshiped an idol. 20They exchanged their glorious

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 6

The Armenian Version of Aphrahat’s Demonstration Ten “On Shepherds” _________________________________________________________________________________

God for an image of a calf, which eats grass.” LXX: καὶ ἐποίησαν μόσχον ἐν Χωρηβ καὶ προσεκύνησαν τῷ γλυπτῷ·20 καὶ ἠλλάξαντο τὴν δόξαν αὐτῶν ἐν ὁμοιώματι μόσχου ἔσθοντος χόρτον.

It would seem, then, that the Armenian translator recalled the psalm and added the adjective from it. It is noteworthy that xotaker also occurs in the description of the heathen king Trdat transformed into a boar after he has unsuccessfully tried to rape the young nun Hripsimē:31 Agath §727 šrǰeal i tesil nmanowtʻean anasown xotaker gazanacʻ “He roamed about in the likeness of pasturing beasts.” (Thomson)32

For an Armenian reader of Aphrahat acquainted with the story of Trdat the additional xotaker might have rung a bell. 2.2.2. The seemingly negligible difference in the following case from chapter 3, which largely consists of a quotation from Ezekiel, may be explained in the same way: Ch. 3 p. 108 l. 5f reʻyā ṭābā rāʻēn a(n)tōn “you feed on the good pasture” ew dowkʻ zgełecʻiks zpʻapʻowks arawts yar͂ aǰagoyn čarakeikʻ “and the beautiful, soft meadows you grazed beforehand”

Beside the double translation of ṭābā as zgełecʻiks zpʻapʻowks, the Armenian text adds yar͂ aǰagoyn. Now, in Ezek. 34.14 we find ‘softness’ yarōts pʻapʻkowtʻean aracecʻicʻ znosa “I will let them graze on the fields of softness.”

and a few lines later both yar͂ aǰagoyn and gełecʻik ‘beautiful’: Ezek. 34.18 čʻicʻē՞jez bawakan zgełecʻik arōtsn yar͂ aǰagoyn aracel “Is it not enough for you to feed first / beforehand on the beautiful pasture?”

So both gełecʻik and pʻapʻowk on the one hand and yar͂ aǰagoyn on the other may have been taken from the original quote. 2.2.3. Likewise, in the following case the translator supplies material from the original source: Ch. 3 p. 107 l. 20 1

ʻamrā d-ʻānā lābšīn ʼa(n)tōn w- 2besrā d-šamīnātā ʼāklīn a(n)tōn “1the wool of the herd you wear and 2the meat of the fat (sheep) you eat_______”

2

zgērs owtēkʻ, 1zpapowksd aganikʻ zparartsd krčatēkʻ “2You eat the fat, 1 you wear the soft (wool), 3you slaughter the fat ones.” 3

Cf. Ezek. 34.3: Ard awasik 2zkatʻnd owtēkʻ, ew 1zasrd aganikʻ. 3zparartsn zenowkʻ. ew zxašn im očʻ aracēkʻ “But behold, 2you eat the fat, 1you clothe yourselves with the wool, 3you slaughter the fat ones, but you do not feed the sheep.”

Although the lexical elements differ (zgērs: zkatʻn, zpapowks: zasr, krčatēkʻ: zenowkʻ), the identical order of the single clauses may betray an influence from the original quotation. 2.2.4. A more difficult case is the translation of marʻītā ‘pasture; flock’: there is a tendency to translate this with xašn arawti ‘the flock of the meadow’ as in Ch. 1 p. 105 1.13 ʻal mar‘īteh ‘because of his flock’: Arm. vasn xašin arawti iwroy

This syntagm is frequent in the book of Psalms: Ps. 73.1 xašin arōti kʻoy, Ps. 78.13 xašn arōti kʻoy, Ps. 94.7, 99.3 xašn arōti nora, cf. also Jer. 23.1 o hoviwkʻ or korowsin ew cʻrecʻin zxašins arōti kʻoy, asē tēr “Woe be unto the pastors that destroy and scatter the sheep of my [Arm. your] pasture!, says the Lord.”

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 7

The Armenian Version of Aphrahat’s Demonstration Ten “On Shepherds” _________________________________________________________________________________

Usually, xašn alone renders Syr. ʻānā ‘herd’, which also occurs in combination with marʻītā: Ch. 3. p. 107 16 ʻānā d-marʻīty: zxašins arawti imoy: ch. 3. p. 109 1 xašinkʻ arawti imoy ch. 2 p. 107 l. 3 ʼarʻā bēt marʻītā: tełis arã wti “the place(s) of the herd”

However, marʻītā may also be translated with hawt ‘herd’: ch. 4 p. 109 l. 8-9: rišā d-kullāh marʻītā: glowx amenayn hawti33 “the head of the whole herd”

2.2.5. In many other cases, the translator adds material whose origin is not evident and which may have been added simply for the sake of clarity or because it was more idiomatic (unless one takes it to be a trace of a different Syriac text), e.g. Ch. 1 p. 107 l. 6 kad “when”: i žamanaki ibrew “at the time when” Ch. 1. l. 10 lā ʼeklet “I did not eat”: erbēkʻ očʻ keray “I never ate” Ch. 2 p. 107 l. 1-2 mašrītā kullāh dIsrāyēl “the whole army of Israel”: amenayn banaki ordwocʻn Israyeli “the whole army of the sons of Israel” Ch. 8 p. 112 l. 6 pәtīḥ w-šәbīq qәdām kul “(it lies) open and unguarded before all”34: bacʻeal tʻołeal kay ar͂ aǰi amenayn “it stands open and accessible before all”35

2.2.6. Finally, some additions may be simple mistakes, such as the additional negation not warranted by the Syriac text in ch. 9 p. 114 l. 1-2.: ʼethaggā b-hen b-kul ʻeddān w-hwayt ʻāmel l-meqqrā kәtābe ʼaylen d-metqren bʻidteh d-allāhā. “Be assiduous in them all the time and be eager in reading the books that are read in the church of God.”

Tʻewakoxeacʻ dow i dosa yamenayn žam ew ler dow vastakel ew očʻ zgirs ǝntʻernowl or yekełecʻwoǰ Astowcoy tear͂ n ǝnter͂ nown: “Be assiduous in them all the time and be eager and not reading the books that are read in the church of the lord God.”

Lafontaine deletes the negation in his apparatus (“lege < NSTWXYs”) and translation. Perhaps the translator read lmqr’ = l-meqqrā ‘to read’ as lā meqqrā ‘not to read’.

3. OMISSION OF ELEMENTS 3.1. The copula is sometimes omitted following the Syriac model: Yaʻqūb rāʻyā w-Yawsep rāʻyā wʼaḥāw(h)y rāʻawātā. Muše rāʻyā w-āp Dawīd rāʻyā w-ʻĀmūs rāʻyā. hālen kulhun rāʻawātā Ch. 1 p. 105 l. 15-16: Yakovb hoviw, Yovsēpʻ hoviw ew ełbarkʻ nora hoviwkʻ: Movsēs hoviw, Dawitʻ hoviw ew Amovs hoviw: Ays amenayn hoviwkʻ “Jacob was a shepherd and Joseph was a shepherd and his brothers were shepherds. Moses was a shepherd and David also was a shepherd and Amos was a shepherd. These were all shepherds.”

3.2. While the omission of the Syriac sentence connectors ger and den is a general policy, other cases may be due to a lacuna in the ms used, to the oversight of the translator, or to an error in the Armenian transmission of the text. Eight possible cases may be mentioned: 3.2.1. No Armenian form corresponding to Syr. šappīr in two instances (plus a missing verb form in the second case): Ch. 1 p. 105 l. 5 w-man d-lā mahpek l-gәzāreh šappīr

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 8

The Armenian Version of Aphrahat’s Demonstration Ten “On Shepherds” _________________________________________________________________________________

ew or očʻ šrǰē zhawts iwr _____ “and who does not lead his herd [Syr. ‘justly, rightly’]” Ch. 2 p. 106 l. 6 w-hāyden rәʻā w-dәbar šappīr lbәnāwhy “and then he herded and led rightly his sons” apa arã ǰnordeacʻ ordwocʻ iwrocʻ “then he led his sons”

3.2.2. Non-translation of saggiyā: Ch. 2 p. 106 l. 7 hwā mәdabrānā l-ʻammā saggiyā “He became/was the leader over a large army.” ełew arã ǰnord zawracʻ “He became leader of the troops.”36

3.2.3. A longer stretch of text has been lost in the following passage, probably due to a jump of the translator’s eye from the first ʻaynāk to the second: Ch. 3 p. 108 l. 19-21 meṭṭul hānā hā mәʻawarʼnā ʻaynāk dyamīnā w-mawbeš ʼnā dәrāʻāk dyamīnā. ʻaynāk dabәšuḥdā ḥārat tesme, w-’īdāk d-lā dabrā bәkīʼnūtā testraḥ. “Therefore, behold I will make blind thy right eye and I will wither up thy right arm. Thy eye which regarded a bribe shall be blinded, and thy hand which did not rule in righteousness shall waste away.” (Schaff 189837) vasn aysorik ahawasik kowracʻowcʻanem zakn kʻo aǰ ew gawsacʻowcʻanem zaǰ bazowks kʻo […] zi or očʻ ar͂ aǰnordeacʻ stowgowtʻeamb gawsascʻi: “Therefore, behold, I will blind your right eye and let your right arm become dry, [your right eye that was looking for a bribe, shall be blinded and your right hand that/] for he who did not lead with truth, shall dry up.”38

3.2.4. The same applies to ʼarʻā ʻearthʼ in ch. 8 p. 112 l. 15-17: w-ʼarʻā [d-snīqā ʻal mayyā l-meštā šātyā men mabbūʻā w-lā gāyzīn

māw(h)y. w-ʼarʻā] kad tešte tūb sәnīqā (h)y l-meštā w-mabbūʻā lā metbәṣar men mardīteh… “And the land that needs to drink in water, drinks of the fountain, but its waters fail not. And when the land drinks, it needs again to drink, and the spring is not lessened by its flowing.” (Schaff) ew erkir […] tʻepēt ew ǝmpicʻē sakayn darjeal karawti ǝmpeloy ew ałbewrn inčʻ očʻ nowazē i gnacʻicʻ iwrocʻ “And although the earth drinks, it again needs to drink, and the well does not diminish due to its running.”

3.2.5. In the following case, the double maggān is translated into Armenian only once, either due to haplography or because the translator deemed the repetition unnecessary: Ch. 8 p. 113 l. 8-9 man d-šәqal maggān maggān wāle leh d-nettel ‘a(y)k d-šәqal “Who took for free, shall give for free as he took.” or ar͂ now jri part ē nma tal orpēs ar͂ n “Who takes for free, shall give as he took.”

3.2.6. A more complex case with considerable loss is Ch. 9 p. 113 l. 21-23 Meddem d-šeʼltāny d-lā mennāk ʼappistāk w-meddem d-lā bәʻayt meny yehbet lāk: Šeʼlet šmāk w-ketbet lāk: W-šeʼlet men napšy šeʼlatāk: wašeʼltāk ‘a(y)k meddem d-ʼeškәḥet lampāsūtāk hālen meddem d-ketbet lāk “Whatsoever thou hast asked of me, I have explained to thee without (receiving anything) from thee. And that which thou enquiredst not of me, I have given unto thee. I have asked thy name and written unto thee. I have asked of myself thy question, and I have answered thee as I was able, for thy persuasion.

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 9

The Armenian Version of Aphrahat’s Demonstration Ten “On Shepherds” _________________________________________________________________________________

Whatsoever I have written unto thee (… , meditate in these things at every time.)” (Schaff, modified) zor inčʻ harcʻer dow cʻis or inčʻ i kʻēn hawanecʻowcʻi kʻez inčʻ zor inčʻ xndrecʻer dow yinēn etow kʻez: ----orčʻapʻ inčʻ karacʻi es hawanecʻowcʻanel zkʻez zays inčʻ zor grecʻi kʻez “Whatever you asked from me I have explained to you, whatever you enquired from me, I have given to you. … as much as I could teach you I have written to you.”

Apart from the missing sentences, it is noteworthy that in the first phrase “gratis tibi exposui” (d-lā mennāk ’apistāk) the negation is not translated: d-lā mennāk → or inčʻ i kʻēn and in meddem d-lā bʻayt → inčʻ zor inčʻ xndrecʻer. Maybe these are haplographies of or očʻinčʻ in the first case and zor očʻinčʻ in the second. The doubling of inčʻ is suspicious.

4. OTHER DIFFERENCES 4.1. In a number of cases the word order differs in the Armenian version, e.g. Ch. 2 p. 106 l. 7 w-Yawsep rāʻe (h)wā 1ʻam ʼaḥaw(h)y 2 ʻānā “And Joseph was watching the herd together with his brothers.” ew Yovsēpʻ aracēr 2zxašins 1әnd ełbars iwr “And Joseph was watching the herds together with his brothers.”39

In most situations the reason for the deviation is not always obvious, but the Armenian Bible text may have exerted an influence in the following case: Ch. 2 p. 106 l. 20 1 ya(h)b 2napšeh 2

zanjn iwr 1ed “He gave himself.”

The position of the verb after its object may be compared with 1 Jn 3.16 zanjn iwr ed, Jn 13.37 zanjn im isk edicʻ “I will give myself;” Jn 13.38 zanjn kʻo dicʻes “You will give yourself.”

4.2. A scribal mistake may explain the following difference: Ch. 2 p. 107 l. 4 rәʻā tūb Dāwīd ʻānā d-ʼabū(h)y “David in turn was watching his father’s herd.” Hovoweacʻ darjeal Dawitʻ xašin hawtin iwroy “David in turn watched the herd of his herd.”

As seen above, the syntagm xašn arawti ‘the flock of (God’s) pasture’ is frequent, but xašn hawtin seems to be pleonastic and does not occur elsewhere. It is likely that the original text faithfully translated the Syriac d-ʼabū(h)y ‘his father’s’, հաւր իւրոյ hawr iwroy which was then changed into հաւտին իւրոյ hawtin iwroy during the transmission of the mss. This would be understandable since the whole demonstration is about flocks. More specifically, one might surmise a change from hawriwroy to *hawtiwroy , i.e. the sequence wr was read as t and then the whole sequence was miscorrected to hawtin iwroy.

5. SEMANTICS 5.1. Calques Beside well-known cases of Syriac calques in Armenian such as keankʻ ‘salvation’ (cf. ch. 1 meʼkulәtā d-ḥayye ‘the food of salvation’ - zkerakowr keancʻ),40 our text seems to offer two more cases: 5.1.1. šrǰem is used as ‘lead, graze sheep’, cf. Ch. 1 p. 105 l. 5 w-man d-lā mahpek l-gәzāreh: ew or očʻ šrǰē zhawts iwr “who does not lead his herd”

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 10

The Armenian Version of Aphrahat’s Demonstration Ten “On Shepherds” _________________________________________________________________________________

Mahpek ‘leading, moving’ is the participle of the causative stem (aph‘el) of √hpk ‘to turn, return’. Armenian šrǰem usually means ‘to turn, change, exchange’, while ‘to lead’ is given by the NBHL for the causative šrǰecʻowcʻanem. It might be, then, that the polysemy of hpak / ahpek was transferred onto the Armenian base verb.41 5.1.2. bažanem is used for ‘have a share’, cf. ch. 6 p. 111 l. 4-5: kāhne men madbәḥā wāle l-hōn lmeplag “it is right for priests to have a share from the altar” kʻahanayicʻn i sełanoy anti aržan ēr nocʻa bažanel “it was right for the priests to distribute from the altar” (Lafontaine: “sacerdotibus ab altari conveniebat eis dividere”)

Syr. plag means both ‘distribute’ and ‘have a share’, while Arm. bažanem only means ‘divide, distribute’. The opposition reoccurs in l. 8 kāhne d-men madbḥā pālgīn “the priests who take a share from the altar” kʻahanaykʻ or i sełanoy bažanen “the priests who distribute from the altar” (Lafontaine: “sacerdotes qui ex altari dividunt”)

Unless this is a case of a wrong choice of meaning for a polysemous term (see the following section), one might assume that the double meaning of plag was transferred onto its Armenian counterpart. 5.2. Polysemy 5.2.1. According to Payne Smith (1903: s.v.), ʻallānā means (1) “pastor, bishop, pontiff” and (2) “disciple.”42 In the context of the 10th demonstration talking about shepherds as leaders and servants of their superiors, the translator sometimes seems to have struggled to get at the intended meaning of the Syriac text:

w-ʼallep Mūšē rabbā1 ʻallānā2 ḥakkīmā3 d-yādaʻ l-mahpāku gәzārā lYešū‘ barnūn … “And Moses, the great1 and wise3 shepherd2 who knows how to lead his flock, taught Joshua Bar Nun …”

In the Armenian version the word order has changed and instead of the ‘great and wise shepherd’ we find ‘the wise master’ and a ‘pupil’ (ašakert): ch. 2 p. 106 l. 21-22 owsoycʻ vardapet1 imastown3 / Movsēs zašakert2 or gitē šrǰel zhawt, Yesow ordi Naweay “The wise3 master1 Moses taught the pupil2 who knows how to lead a flock, Joshua son of Naw…”

It is likely that the translator took rabbā to mean “master” and, perhaps as a consequence of this, ʻallānā to mean “pupil”. It still remains troubling that ḥakkīmā ~ imastown “wise” goes with Movsēs in the Armenian version whereas it follows the “shepherd/pupil” in the Syriac. Could it be that - unless the Armenian translator had a text with a different word order—a “wise disciple” was inconceivable? 5.2.2. Two similar instances may be pointed out: a. Ch. 5 p. 110 l. 18-20, where Syr. ʻallānā and talmīdā are both translated as ašakert ‘pupil, disciple’ in the Armenian version: w-ʻallānā d-hwā leh ʻal d-rәḥem quryā w-teʼgūrtā w-karme w-zayte w-pulḥānā lā ṣәbā d-nehwe leh talmīdā “But as for the leader who loves fields and merchandise and vineyards and olive trees and manual labour, [the Lord] does not want him to be his disciple.” (Lehto)43 “And he who was for him as a shepherd, because he loved fields and merchandise and vineyards and olive yards and tillage, did not wish to become his disciple.” (Schaff)44 Ew ašakert or ełew nora pʻoxanak zi sireacʻ na zagaraks zvačars̃ ew zaygis ew

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 11

The Armenian Version of Aphrahat’s Demonstration Ten “On Shepherds” _________________________________________________________________________________

zjitʻenis ew zgorcs očʻ kamecʻaw tʻe ašakert linicʻi na nora “And the pupil who became his substitute—since he loved the fields, merchandise and vineyards and oliveyards and works (of husbandry)—did not want to become his pupil.” (Lafontaine: “Et discipulus qui factus est ei, propterea quod dilexit ille agros, negotia et vineas et oleas et opera, non voluit ut discipulus fieret ille eius.”)

b. Ch. 6 p. 111 l. 1 lā tәqīmūn bәmarʻītā ʻallāne sakkle “Do not stand over the flock as foolish shepherds.” mi kacʻowcʻanēkʻ i hawti ast ašakerts anmits “Do no not place stupid pupils over the herd.” (Lafontaine: “(nolite) constituere super gregem discipulos stultos”)

It seems, then, that the Armenian translator generally equated ʻallānā with ašakert.45 Further research is necessary to see if this is a general pattern in the Armenian version of Aphrahat.

6. “FREE” TRANSLATION 6.1. As may have become clear by now, the Armenian translator does not always slavishly copy the Syriac. He allows himself variation in translating the same Syriac term, e.g. zәnay ‘ways, kinds’ (rāʻawātā ‘of the shepherds’ / ʻānā ‘of the herd’) is translated once as hovowowtʻiwn and once as irs hovowowtʻean: Ch. 2. p. 106 l. 4: w-mā dʼillep(w) znay rāʻawātā: ibrew owsowcʻanein zhovowowtʻiwn “when they had learned the ways of the shepherds” vs Ch. 5 p. 110 l. 2 znay ʻānā (yālpīn (h)waw): zirs hovowowtʻean

6.2. The translator chooses an apparently more idiomatic Armenian expression, e.g.

Ch. 1 l. 11 b-īmāmā ʼaklāny šawbā “at day the heat consumed me” i towē arewakēz linei i xoršakē “at day I was sun-burnt by the heat,”

which has an echo in Ełišē46 p. 201 cʻerek arewakēzkʻ ēin “at day they were scorched by the sun”

6.3. The translator sometimes does not use the obvious choice, a figura etymologica, one might have expected: Ch. 8 p. 112 l. 8 mesgā sāge “it greatly increases” ews kʻan zews bazmanay “it increases ever more”

Here a translation *bazmanalov bazmanay would have been possible, and, in fact, this type of translation does occur in other instances, e.g. in Ch. 9 p. 114 l. 11-12 kul meddem d-šāmaʻ a(n)t d-mebnā bāne qabbel “whatever edifying things you hear, receive” zamenayn inčʻ zor lses tʻe šinelov šinescʻē ǝnkal dow “whatever edifying words you hear, receive” l. 13 mesḥap sәḥupāy(h)y “completely overturn” korcanelov korcanē “he destroys completely” (lit. “destroying he destroys”)

6.4. In the following case, the model for the Armenian translation is not obvious: Ch. 1 p. 105 l. 12 (ʼaklany…) w-glīdā b-līlyā “and the cold at night (consumed me)” zcʻayg i cʻowrt pʻaytanayi “in the cold at night I grew stiff as wood”

The quotation is taken from Gen. 31.38-40, where Zohrapian’s edition gives:47 31.40 ew zcʻayg i cʻrtoy. hateal ēr kʻown yačʻacʻ imocʻ “And at night sleep was beaten from my eyes because of the cold.”

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 12

The Armenian Version of Aphrahat’s Demonstration Ten “On Shepherds” _________________________________________________________________________________

7. SUMMARY This short study of the Armenian version of Aphrahat’s 10th demonstration shows that, leaving aside divergences due to scribal mistakes, problems of text transmission and obvious misunderstandings of the original, the Armenian translator was keen to produce a faithful rendering of the

Syriac. At the same time he did not abstain from using idiomatic Armenian and from supplying additional material in the quotations from the Bible. It will be a matter of further research to see if and to what extent these patterns are repeated in the whole of the extant Armenian version of Aphrahat. An index of the translational equivalents might be a useful tool to start with.48

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 13

The Armenian Version of Aphrahat’s Demonstration Ten “On Shepherds” _________________________________________________________________________________

NOTES 1

This paper was written in the framework of the research project “Rappresentazioni linguistiche dell’identità,” financed by the Ministero italiano dell’Università e della Ricerca (PRIN 2010HXPFF2). I would like to thank Prof. Dr. Marina Benedetti (Siena) for enabling me to participate in this project, Dr. Margherita Farina (ibid.) and Prof. Dr. Amir Harrak (Toronto) for their help in all matters Syriac and the anonymous reviewer(s) for their many helpful remarks. Any remaining faults are of my own responsibility. The transliteration of Syriac follows that of K. Beyer in M. Lattke, Oden Salomos: Text, Übersetzung, Kommentar (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005), XIII-XIV. For a similar study on SyroArmenian translations cf. V. Calzolari Bouvier, “Notes sur la traduction arménienne du texte syriaque des Actes de Thècle,” in: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Armenian Linguistics, ed. D. Sakayan (Delmar, N.Y.: Caravan Books, 1996), 233-43. 2 H. Hübschmann, “Ueber die stellung des armenischen im kreise der indogermanischen sprachen,” ZVS 23 (1875) 5-49. 3 J.A. Robinson, “Euthaliana,” Texts and Studies I, 3 2 (1895) 72-82. 4 A. Merk, “Die armenischen Evangelien und ihre Vorlage,” Biblica 7.1 (1926) 40-72. 5 F. Macler, Le texte Arménien de l’Évangile d’après Matthieu et Marc (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1919). 6 S. Lyonnet, “La version arménienne des évangiles et son modèle grec,” Revue biblique 43 (1934) 69-87; S. Lyonnet, Les versions arménienne et géorgienne du nouveau testament (Paris: J. Gabalda, 1936). 7 Cf. e.g. Cox’s negative conclusion regarding Syriac influence on the Armenian translation of Deuteronomy, C.E. Cox, The Armenian Translation of Deuteronomy (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981), 301-27, whereas in his edition of the book of Daniel Cowe uncovered readings from the Syriac Peshitta and a Greek version in the oldest (pre-Ephesus) layer (Arm. 1), which was later revised following the Greek more strictly, cf. S.P. Cowe, The Armenian translation of Daniel (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1992).

8

Cf. for the discussion of these questions H. Lehmann, Students of the Bible in 4th and 5th Century Syria: Seats of Learning, Sidelights and Syriacisms (Santa Barbara: Aarhus University Press, 2008), 131-39; C. Cox, “The Syriac presence in the Armenian translation of the Bible, with special reference to the Book of Genesis,” Journal of the CSSS 10 (2010) 45-67 with further literature; E.G. Mathews, “Syriac into Armenian: The Translations and their Translators,” Journal of the CSSS 10 (2010) 22; C. Cox, “The Armenian Bible: Status Quaestionis”, in: Armenian Philology in the Modern Era. From Manuscript to Digital Text, ed. V. Calzolari (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 231-46. 9 For an overiew cf. Mathews (2010). 10 H. Hübschmann, Armenische Grammatik. Erster Teil. Armenische Etymologie (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1897 [repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1992]). 11 Cf. also E.G. Mathews, “Early Armenian and Syrian contact: reflections on Koriwn’s Life of Maštocʻ,” St. Nersess Theological Review 7 (2002) 8, and Mathews (2010:20-21). 12 Cf. also N. Garsoian, “Quelques précisions préliminaires sur le schisme entre les églises byzantine et arménienne au sujet du Concile de Chalcédoine. III. Les évêchés méridionaux limitrophes de la Mésopotamie,” REArm 23 (1992) 39-80; J. Greppin, “Syriac Loanwords in Classical Armenian,” in: Humanism, Culture, and Language in the Near East. Studies in Honor of Georg Krotkoff, ed. A. Afsaruddin and A.H. Zahniser (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1997), 247-251; and L. Van Rompay, “Armenian Christianity, Syriac contacts with,” in Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage, ed. S.P. Brock, A.M. Butts, G.A. Kiraz and L. Van Rompay (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2011), 33-37. 13 R. Thomson, The history of Łazar Pʻarpecʻi. Transl. by Robert W. Thomson (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1991). Cf. also Mathews (2010:21). 14 The name Aphrahat first occurs in Isho‘ bar Nun (+828). Before this the author was known simply as “Jacob, the Persian sage” (e.g. in the oldest ms. of his works, ms. London, Brit. Libr. Add. 17, 182 from 474

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 14

The Armenian Version of Aphrahat’s Demonstration Ten “On Shepherds” _________________________________________________________________________________

AD), cf. S.P. Brock, “Aphrahat,” in Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage, 24-25. On the mss. of Aphrahat cf. also T. Baarda, The Gospel quotations of Aphrahat the Persian sage (Amsterdam: Krips Repro B.V. Meppel, 1975), 1-2. 15 The Armenian translator speaks of Yakowb Mcbnay episkoposn (cf. Baarda 1975: 4). As the Demonstrations are provided with exact dates (1-10 from 336/7, 11-22 from 343/4, 23 from August 345) this ascription is impossible, cf. Baarda (1975:2), Brock (2011: 24-25). 16 G. Lafontaine, La version Arménienne des Œuvres d’Aphraate le Syrien (Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1977-80:I.V): “probablement dès la deuxième moitié du Ve siècle,” cf. also Mathews (2010:24). 17 G. Lafontaine, La version Arménienne des Œuvres d’Aphraate le Syrien (Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1977-80: XXIII fn. 55). 18 J. Parisot, Aphraatis sapientis Persae Demonstrations. Textum Syriacum vocalium signis instruxit, Latine vertit, notis illustravit Joannes Parisot. PS P. 1 (Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1894/1907). 19 Page and line numbers refer to Lafontaine’s edition. 20 See for exemple: “L’usage qui caractérise le plus les verbes arméniens est celui de grouper deux formes verbales personnelles, qui sont prononcées d’une manière continue et presque comme un seul mot, et qui constituent une sorte de petite unité;” A. Meillet, Études de linguistique et de philologie arméniennes. I. Recherches sur la syntaxe comparée de l’Arménien suivies de la composition en Arménien (Lissabon: Imprensa Nacional, 1962), 110; “Zwei Verba, die schnell auf einander folgende oder zusammenfallende Handlungen bezeichnen, oder von denen eins eine Modifikation des andern ausdrückt, stehen häufig unverbunden neben einander: šadar ayteh “er schickte und ließ ihn holen”, so besonders oft bei qadem “vorher tun” und asgi “viel tun”: qademn emarn “wir haben vorhergesagt,” asgi rxem “liebte viel;” K. Brockelmann, Syrische Grammatik: mit Paradigmen, Literatur, Chrestomathie und Glossar. 10. Aufl., unveränd. Nachdr. der 8. Aufl. (Leipzig: Verlag Enzyklopädie, 1965), §235; “... cases of tighter cohesion between the

two verbs, so that hardly any other word intervenes between them: Gn 27.14 ‘ezal nәsab ‘he went (and) took’, Ex 4.19 hәpok zel ‘go back’, qām ‘ezal ‘he got up (and) went’ …The two verbs mostly share [the] same subject and many of them indicate physical movement;” T. Muraoka, Classical Syriac: A Basic Grammar with a Chrestomathy, With a Select Bibliography Compiled by S.P. Brock. 2., rev. ed. (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2005), 80. 21 Cf. R. Payne Smith, J. Payne Smith, A Compendious Syriac Dictionary: Founded upon the Thesaurus Syriacus of R. Payne Smith, D.D (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1903) s.v. Cf. also R. Payne Smith, Thesaurus Syriacus. Collegerunt Stephanus M. Quatremere, Georgius Henricus Bernstein [et alii] ... Auxit, digessit, exposuit, edidit R. Payne Smith (Oxford: e typographeo Clarendoniano, 1879) s.v.: “pluvia vehemens cum turbine.” 22 NBHL = G. Awetikʻean, X. Siwrmēlean, M. Awgerean, Nor bargirkʻ haykazean lezowi (Venice, 1836-37 [repr. Erevan: Erevani Hamalsarani Hrat., 1979]). 23 This seems to reflect the text of the LXX, ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ὅταν ᾖ γνόφος καὶ νεφέλη. 24 Corresponding to LXX ἐν ἡμέρᾳ νεφέλης καὶ γνόφου and Peshitta b-yawmā d-ʻәnānā wd-ʻarpellā. In the first passage the Syriac Peshitta only has b-yawmā d-ziqā ‘in the day of the storm’ (beside a textual variant b-yawmā dzaddiqā “on the day of the righteous one”). Cf. M.J. Mulder (ed.), The Old Testament in Syriac according to the Peshiṭta Version, Part III Fasc. 3. Ezekiel (Brill: Leiden, 1993). 25 Cf. Cox (1981:92), see note 7. Deut. 4.11 Peshitta: ḥeššōkā w-ʻәnānā w-ʻarpellā “darkness and cloud and fog”. 26 Cf. Cox (1981:101). Deut. 5.22 b-ʻәnānā w-b-ʻarpellā “in cloud and fog”. 27 NBHL: “κίνδυνος periculum, discrimen ἀνάγκη necessitas συνοχή, στένον, -α coarctatio, angustia.” 28 NBHL: “στενότης, στενοχωρία, angustia, coarctatio. θλίψις, θλίμμα, affliction.” 29 Cf. R. Thomson, Agathangelos: History of the Armenians (Albany: State Univ. of New York Press, 1976). 30 Text: Ē. Mkrtičʻ (ed.), Movsesi Kałankatowacʻwoy Patmowtʻiwn Ałowanicʻ Ašxarhi (Tiflis 1912). Translation: C.J.F. Dowsett, The

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 15

The Armenian Version of Aphrahat’s Demonstration Ten “On Shepherds” _________________________________________________________________________________

history of the Caucasian Albanians by Movsēs Dasxuranc ̣i (London et al.: Oxford University Press, 1961). 31 On the Iranian background of this story see N. Garsoian, “The Iranian substratum of the ‘Agathangelos Cycle’,” in East of Byzantium: Syria and Armenia in the Formative Period, ed. N. Garsoian (Washington, D. C: Dumbarton Oaks. Center for Byzantine Studies, 1982), 175-86. 32 Cf. also Ps. 48(49).13 hawasareacʻ anasnocʻ “he became like the animals”. 33 Also l. 16 and p. 110 ch. 5 l. 4. 34 Cf. Parisot: “ad omnia [de quibus interrogatur] pervium facilemque se praebet.” 35 Cf. Lafontaine: “apertus relictus stat coram omnibus.” 36 Cf. also ch. 2 p. 106 l. 10 Syr. d-yatrān ḥmū(h)y “Iethro soceri sui”: Yotʻoray “of Jethro,” ch. 3 p. 107 l. 16: ʼāmar l-hōn “he says to them :” asē “he says”, ch. 3 p. 108 l. 10: hālen ʼenōn rāʻawātā yaʻneʼ w-šaple “These are the greedy and mean shepherds :” sokʻa en hoviwkʻ lirbkʻ ew varjkankʻ “These are the shameless shepherds, hirelings.” 37 P. Schaff, Nicene and post-nicene fathers. Ser. 2, Vol. 13; Gregory the Great, Ephraim Syrus, Aphrahat (1898 [repr. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1995]). 38 Cf. also Zech 11.17 Sowr ՛i bazowk noraew yakn iwr aǰoy. bazowk nora gōsanelov gōsascʻi, ew akn iwr aǰoy՝ kowranalov kowrascʻi “(Woe to the idol shepherd that leaveth the flock!) The sword shall be upon his arm, and upon his right eye: his arm shall be clean dried up, and his right eye shall be utterly darkened.” 39 Cf. also ch. 8 p. 112 l. 6-7 w-kad 1nesbōn 2 menneh 3saggiye: ew ibrew 3bazowmkʻ 1 ar͂ nowcʻown 2i nmanē “And (even) when many have taken from it.”, ch. 9 p. 114 l. 13-14 kipe 1l-benyānā 2qarbet: kʻarins 2matowcʻi 1i šinowac “I put the stones into the structure.” 40 See on this e.g. Lehmann (2008: 134-8, cf. n. 8) with a discussion of the loanword pʻrkem

(< Syr. praq) “save” and the calque kecʻowcʻanem “save” for the aph‘el ʼaḥyī “save” of Syr. ḥy’ (cf. ḥayye “life”). 41 Cf. also ch. 2 p. 106 l. 8 happek ʼenōn: šrǰēr znosa “he led them”, ch. 2 p. 106 l. 21-22 or gitē šrǰel zhawt “who knows how to lead the flock.” 42 Cf. also Payne Smith (1879:II.2879): “pastor, spec. pastor ecclesiae, praesul, antistes, … discipulus.” and K. Brockelmann, Lexicon Syriacum (Berlin: Reuther & Reichard / T. & T. Clark: Edinburgh, 1895 [repr. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2004]): “1. servus pastoris, 2. dux, superior, 3. clerici praeter episcopum.” 43 Adam Lehto, The demonstrations of Aphrahat, the Persian Sage (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2010), 256. 44 Cf. also P. Bruns, Aphrahat. Unterweiungen. Erster Teilband. Aus dem Syrischen übersetzt (Freiburg: Herder, 1991): “Wenn der Hirte aber Landgüter liebt, den Handel, Weinberge, Ölbäume und Ackerbau, dann will er nicht Jünger (Christi) sein.” 45 In ch. 4 p. 109 l. 12 ʻallānā actually has this meaning, ʻallep ʻallāne “he taught his pupils:” owsoycʻ ašakerts. 46 Cf. E. Tēr-Minasean (ed.), Ełišēi vasn Vardanancʻ ew Hayocʻ paterazmin (Yerevan: Haykakan SSṘ GA Hrat., 1957). Translation: R. Thomson, Ełišē. History of Vardan and the Armenian War: Transl. and commentary (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1982). 47 H. Zohrapian, Astuatsashunchʻ matean hin ew nor ktakaranatsʻ. A facsimile reproduction of the 1805 Venetian edition with an introduction by Claude Cox (Delmar, N.Y: Caravan Books, 1984). Also A.S. Zeytʻunyan, Girkʻ cnndocʻ. Kʻnnakan bnagir (Erevan: Haykakan SSH GA Hratarakčʻowtʻyown, 1985), 293. 48 Cf. Marcus’ index of the Armenian version of Philo, R. Marcus, “An Armenian-Greek Index to Philo’s Quaestiones and De Vita Contemplativa,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 53.3 (1933) 251-82.

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 16

______________________________________________________________________

ARMENIAN INSCRIPTIONS AND GRAFFITI AT THE MONASTERY OF MĀR BEHNAM AND IN QARAQOSH*

GAGIK G. SARGSYAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ETHNOGRAPHY (YEREVAN)

AMIR HARRAK UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO

A WEALTH OF INSCRIPTIONS IN THE MONASTERY OF MĀR BEHNAM

T

he monastery and nearby martyrium of Mār Behnam, some 35 km south east of Mosul and a ten minute drive from Qaraqosh, have been famous for the healing power of the holy Mār Behnam from at least the 13th century onward. For the epigraphist,1 this site is a museum of Syriac inscriptions, which have been chiselled with much skill on the local farsh-stone. Most of these inscriptions date to its latest major renovations during the mid-13th century. On an artistic level, the church and the martyrium reflect the best of Atabeg iconographic style, and they were both until recently the only surviving edifices from that period. Sadly, on March 19, 2015, the so-called Islamic State blew up the martyrium of Mār Behnam, turning it and its irreplaceable treasures into dust. Although Syriac inscriptions are dominant in Mār Behnam, a few Arabic inscriptions, one in Uighur and another in Armenian are also found there. While the Syriac, Arabic, and Uighur inscriptions have been discussed,2 the Armenian inscription has

never been properly published despite the fact that it precedes the mid-13th century renovations. Even the iconography of the khachkar which bears the Armenian inscription has never been included in the countless studies of this typically-depicted Armenian cross.3 Moreover, the monastery of Mār Behnam includes a number of Armenian graffiti that have never been analyzed by any scholar who has considered the art, architecture, or epigraphy of the edifice. The publication of the khachkar inscription and the Armenian graffiti is long overdue, and we present them here in pictures, hand copies, translations, and notes to make them known to scholars and at the same time to secure their survival.

ARMENIANS IN UPPER MESOPOTAMIA If the claim made by the Syriac Jacob of Edessa4 and the Armenian Movsēs Khorenats‘i5 that king Abgar of Edessa was of Armenian descent has any significance, it highlights the fact that the Armenian and the Syriac peoples had lived together in northern Syria and Mesopotamia since at least the dawn of Christianity. Armenian and Syriac chronicles and colophons high-

________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 17

Armenian Inscriptions and Graffiti at the Monastery of Mār Behnam and in Qaraqosh _________________________________________________________________________________________

light these contacts throughout the centuries practically to the present day, and cities like Edessa, Amid, and Nisibis, among many others, had strong contingents of both Armenian and Syriac speakers. At the literary level, contact between Armenian and Syriac is well-documented6 and continued into the 20th century.7 Many Syriac sources were translated into Armenian and some, such as the chronicle of Michael the Syrian, were translated twice,8 while many works of St. Ephrem survive only in Armenian translations. Ecclesiastical communion between the Armenian Apostolic and Syriac Orthodox churches strengthened even more the religious and social ties of their members. No wonder then that we see Armenian graffiti left by Armenians coming to the monastery of Mār Behnam (called Mar Bahnor or Bahnawr) from as far away as Antioch, seeking blessing and forgiveness.

tomb of Mār Behnam inside the martyrium was built in 1300 but most of the lapidary art, including a bilingually inscribed Armenian khachkar, date to an earlier time. As stated above, the martyrium, with its khachkar, inscriptions, and art, was blown up in 2015, and the fate of the monastery, which contains the Armenian graffiti, remains, at least for now, in the hands of the so-called Islamic State. A Rare Khachkar in the Martyrium of Mār Behnam (Plate 1) The sculptured and inscribed panels inside the martyrium turned it into a small museum of lapidary art. Chief among these panels was the slightly eroded Armenian khachkar, fixed on the wall to the right side of the grave as the following sketch shows:

THE MARTYRIUM OF MĀR BEHNAM AND ITS MONASTERY The octagonal martyrium was built most probably in the course of the sixth century as a baptistery, a Mesopotamian counterpart of the Byzantine church and baptistery of St. Simeon in Syria. The monastery of Mār Behnam was originally a hostel for the pilgrims who flocked to the martyrium to be blessed at the tomb of Mār Behnam and also to baptise their babies—a practice that continued to very recently. At some point during the 13th century, drastic changes in the architecture of the martyrium took place: its main gate was blocked, and the nearby baptistery was changed into a vestibule providing access to the martyrium through two tunnels. In that same century the church in the monastery was entirely renovated with the best of Atabeg or LateAbbasid art, turning a blocked arcade into a new baptistery indicated by epigraphy and depictions. The ornamental façade of the

The slab bearing the inscribed khachkar measured 70 by 40cm, and was made of the local farsh-stone used in northern Mesopotamia since ancient Assyrian times. Compared with a great number of other khachkars, the one at Mār Behnam proved to be unique in that it bore stylistic features known in plaques of crosses originating in Mesopotamia. The top part of the cross was fitted inside a horseshoe arch. An elaborate frame ascended from its right side and continued just above the arch, and then descended and continued to its left side. From the horizontal bars intertwined rosaces emanated, three on each side, an arrangement known in plaques coming from Ḥira and elsewhere in Mesopotamia.9 Below the horizontal bars of the frame

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 18

Armenian Inscriptions and Graffiti at the Monastery of Mār Behnam and in Qaraqosh _________________________________________________________________________________________

symmetrical registers were carved, the first made of square bands of interlaces, the second of symmetrical stylized flowers, and the third of birds. The stylized flowers are reminiscent of similar designs found in Samarra and Takrit, while the birds (and other figures) are known in Armenian church architecture but less frequently in Near Eastern art. The cross is typically Armenian, including the two clusters of grapes hanging from the horizontal bars of the cross. The space below the cross was filled with grape leaves, geometrical designs, and what appear to be two four-petal flowers placed inside circles. It is quite possible that the khachkar of Mār Behnam was funerary, judging at least from its inscription: “I Sargis son of Bakhtes erected this divine Cross as an intercession for Patron Gond…” The second part of the inscription read as follows: “Whoever among you worships (this Cross), ask Christ to have mercy for him” (see below). To be sure, asking for mercy need not be exclusively for the dead, but because the one who installed the khachkar (Sargis) did it on behalf of another person, the cross might have been funerary. The Syriac inscription states

the content differently, in that Sargis son of Bakhtes is the Gond: “May God forgive our Gond Sargis son of Bakhtes…” It is quite possible that the Syriac translator misunderstood the Armenian inscription. The four-line Armenian inscription, inserted inside panels, was placed below the khachkar and underneath it the Syriac was chiselled. Both inscriptions were slightly eroded (the latter part of the Syriac was damaged) as was also the case of the ornamental cross. The Armenian inscription, never properly published before, reads as follows: ՈԻ: /1171/ ԹՎԻՆ ԵՍ ՍԱՐԳԻՍ ՈՐԴԻ ԲԱԽՏԵՍԱ ԿԱՆԿՆԻ Զ / ԸՆԿԱԼ ԶԽԱՉՍ Ի ԲԱՐԵԽԱՒՍՈՒԹԻ[ՒՆ] ՊԱՏՐՈՆ / ԳՈՆԴԻՆ ՈՐՔ ԶԻ ԵՐԿՐՊԱԳԷՔ ՅԻՇԵՍՋԻՔ Ի ՈՂՈՐՄԵՍ / ՑԻ ՆՄԱ ԵՒ ՁԵԶ OW:[1171] T’VIN YES SARGIS VORDI BAXTESA KANKNI Z A[STVA]TSӘNKAL ZXAČS I BAREXAWSUTI[WN] PATRONGONDIN VORK’

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 19

Armenian Inscriptions and Graffiti at the Monastery of Mār Behnam and in Qaraqosh _________________________________________________________________________________________

YERKRPAGEK’ YIŠESDJIK’ I K’[RISTO]S ZI VOGORMES C’I NMA YEV DZEZ “IN THE YEAR 1171 I, SARGIS, SON OF BAKHTES, ERECTED THIS DIVINE CROSS AS AN INTERCESSION FOR PATRON GOND. WHOEVER WORSHIPS [THIS CROSS], ASK CHRIST MERCY FOR HIM AND YOU.” The Syriac inscription reflects the second part of its Armenian counterpart, including the personal name and the title: !

‫ܐ‬

‫ܕ‬ ‫ܒـ[ܐ‬

!

‫ܐ ܓ‬ ‫ܕܐ]ܪ‬

‫ܐ‬ ‫ܒ ܒܐ‬ ! ‫ܗܪ ܐ‬

’LH’ NḤS’ L-GWNDNY DYLN SRKYS BR B’KTYS D-’[RYM L-ṢLYB]’ ḤYA HRK’ “MAY GOD FORGIVE OUR GUNDINI, SARKĪS SON OF BAKHTES WHO ELE[VATED!] THE LIVING! [CROS]S HERE!”10 The personal name Bakhtes and the title gond are quite rare in Armenian. The former occurs only once, on the margins of the colophon of a Matenadaran Gospel, copied in 1211 in Sebastia, where a different hand added: “and brother Bakhtes, patran [possibly patron] Sargis.”11 It is remarkable to see in both the inscription and the colophon not only the unique name Bakhtes, but also Sargis and the honorific title ‘patron’. In the Syriac inscription the title was “the gond of ours” and bore the marker of the direct object as expected in this jussive expression: “may God forgive our gond…” The final yōd in GONDNY is obviously not the possessive pronoun and may possibly be a final nūn ( ) for emphasis. The date in the inscription was very suggestive in that the khachkar belonged

not to the time of the 13th century major renovations of the church in the monastery and of the façade of the grave in the martyrium, but to an earlier restoration which involved the church’s sanctuary. Here a marble slab fixed in the wall at a 3.25m height stated that the altar was renovated “in the year one thousand four hundred and seventy-five [of the Greeks], which is the year fiv[e hundred] and fifty-nine of the Arabs (AD 1164), in the day[s of the bles]sed Fathers, our [Patriarchs] Mōr Atha[nasius of Syria]n Antioch, and Mōr Ewannis [of Alexandria], in the year during which Mōr Igna[tius], mafriōnō of the Ea[st], died.” It seems that Sargis son of Bakhtes found in the renovation of the altar an opportunity to offer the khachkar to the monastery. It is also possible that the khachkar was placed in the sanctuary but was later removed and installed inside the martyrium during the mid-13th century renovations since not all the inscriptions and sculptured slabs that the martyrium contained related to the burial of Mār Behnam. The restoration of the Syriac inscription is based on the content of the Armenian.

ARMENIAN GRAFFITI IN THE MONASTERY Over the centuries Mār Behnam attracted countless pilgrims and visitors, some of which unscrupulously incised their names on the walls of the church inside the monastery, whether in Armenian, Arabic, or Syriac, so as to attract the favours of the popular martyr Mār Behnam. The 20th century witnessed a number of important publications12 about the art and epigraphy of the martyrium and the monastery, but curiously none discussed or even noticed the existence of the Armenian graffiti on the wall of the church of the monastery. The Arabic graffiti fared no better, but the Syriac ones have recently been published. In what follows, all

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 20

Armenian Inscriptions and Graffiti at the Monastery of Mār Behnam and in Qaraqosh _________________________________________________________________________________________

identified Armenian graffiti are presented in hand copy, Armenian script, and translation. The emblem of Nerses

figures and elegant Syriac inscriptions. The inner side of the right jamb of the gate shows an intricate emblem carefully incised in the shape of a tiara inside which a highly stylised cross is depicted, with four interlaced ribbons placed on the four sides of the cross. The artistic composition seems to belong to an important personality whose name actually occurs in the inscription, but the squeezed text, which looks like casual jotting incised on the right side of the tiara, does not seem to fit a dignitary: Upper inscription: ՆՈՐՍԷՍ ՄԱ Պ ԾԱՌԱՅ ԱՄՆԻ S[UR]B NORSES MA P TSARAY AMNI A[STTSO]Y (Words in Italics): “NORSES (for NERSES?), SERVANT OF GOD.” ՍԲ մապամնի could be an abbreviation for St Mār Behnam, but the remaining words are not decipherable. (Lower inscription):

The north-west gate, called the Gate of the Apostles Peter and Paul, which leads inside the church, is highly decorated with human

ԵՍ ՆՈՐ [Ս]ԷՍ ՈՐ ԵԿ Ի Մ ԱՐՊԱՀ ՆԱՒՐ ԶԱՅՍ ՍԿԱՐԴ ԱՅ ՄԵՂԱՑ ԹՈՂՈՒ ԹԻՒՆՍՆ

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 21

Armenian Inscriptions and Graffiti at the Monastery of Mār Behnam and in Qaraqosh _________________________________________________________________________________________

YES NOR [S]ES VOR YEK I S[UR]B M ARPAH NAWR ZAYS SKARD AY MEĞAC’ TOĞU TIWNSN “I AM NOR[S]ES WHO CAME TO SAINT MAR BAHNOR; (HE WHO) READS THIS (MAY HE ASK) ABSOLUTION FOR (MY) SINS.” The Syriac title Mār is part of the martyr’s name, reminiscent of the name Marbena encountered in late Syriac sources. The emblem and the words “servant of God” suggest that Narses was an important ecclesiastical leader. The Catholicos Nerses IV of Cilicia would be a good candidate, but he died in 1173, a century before the major renovations of the facade of the Church. Stephen’s Graffito The other jamb of the same north-west gate, near the bottom, bears the following graffito, along with a number of ornamental crosses, all clearly incised on the bottom slab:

ԵՍ ԳՐԵՄ ՍՏԵՓԱՆՈՍ Ո Ր ԶԱՅՍ ԳԻՐՍ ԿԱՐԴԱՅ ԵՒ ԻՄ ՄԵՂՍ Ն ԹՈՂՈՒԹԻՒՆ ԽՆԴՐԵ ՈՂՈՐՄ ԻՒՐ: ՔԱՆԶ ԵՔՈԺ(?) YES GREM STEP’ANOS VO R ZAYS GIRS KARDAY YEV IM MEĞS N TOĞUTI[WN] XNDRE A[STVA]TS VOĞORM IWR:K’ANZ YEK’OŽ “I WROTE THIS STEPANOS; WHOEVER READS THIS WRITING LET HIM ASK ABSOLUTION FOR MY SINS LORD HAVE MERCY” Probably the graffito belongs to the same period as Gorg of Antioch’s graffito (see below). The word ‘wrote’ is apparently represented by a dialectal form. The last two lines do not make sense, though the last four letters in the penulti-

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 22

Armenian Inscriptions and Graffiti at the Monastery of Mār Behnam and in Qaraqosh _________________________________________________________________________________________

mate line could be read as an unfinished word: ‘because’. Gorg of Antioch’s Graffito

“IN THE NAME OF GOD, I PRIEST GORG FROM ANTIOCH CITY BECAME BROTHER OF MAR BAHNAWR … EACH YEAR FOUR DRAMS.” It may be assumed that Gorg (Georg) each year donated to the monastery four drams (an Armenian monetary unit). Two letters are illegible: in the beginning of the 5th row, after letter Ր, and in the 6th row, after letter Դ). Taking into account that there are two graffiti dated to the 19th century, this one can be dated to the 18th or 19th century. Morans’ (?) Graffito

The other jamb of the same north-west gate bears the following graffito. It is incised on the top slab, and begins with a Maltesetype cross familiar in Syriac and Armenian art repertoires: ՅԱՆՈՒՆ ԵՍ ԳՈ ՐԳ ԷՐԷՑ Ի ԱՆՏԻՈՔ Ք ԱՂԱՔՀԵՑ ԵՂԷ ԵՂԲԱ ՅՐՆ ՄԱՐ ՊԱՀՆԱՒՈ Ր?ԳԱՄՅԱՄԷՆ ՏԱՐ Ի Դ?ԴՐԱՄ YANUN A[STTSO]Y YES GO RG EREC’ I ANTIOK’ K’ AĞAK’HEC’ YEĞE YEĞBA YRN MAR PAHNAWO R?GAMYAMENTAR I D?RAM

This superficially incised graffito is located on the right jamb of the north-west gate below Nerses’s emblem (number 1 above), and it reads as follows: Մ(?)ՈՐԱՆՍ ՀՈՎԱԿԻՄԵԱՆ

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 23

Armenian Inscriptions and Graffiti at the Monastery of Mār Behnam and in Qaraqosh _________________________________________________________________________________________

M(?)ORANS HOVAKIMEAN “MORANS HOVAKIMEAN” The letter ‘m’ in the first line is not secure. The form looks like the full name of a pilgrim, but ‘morans’ as a first name is questionable. One wonders if the Syriac word ‘moran’ with the Armenian suffix -s means in this case ‘(to) our Lord;’ the pilgrim, possibly from northern Mesopotamia and in contact with Syriac people, could have been familiar with this basic word and found its use appropriate for the place.13

ԻՇԵՑԷՔ Ի ՍՄԲԱՏՍ T’ANDZRAC’ E[A]LS MEĞAWK’Y IŠEC’EK’ I K’[RISTO]S SMBATS “BURDENED BY SINS REMEMBER IN CHRIST, ME SMBAT” Interestingly, the graffito echoes the Syriac inscription located just beside it: “The sinner Šem‛ūn ‛Abd-Allāh.”14 Karapet of Sebastia’s Graffito

Smbat’s Graffito

This graffito is located on the south-west gate leading inside the church, very close to the inner jamb corner. The gate is surrounded by intertwined stylised crosses, and the graffito is incised to the right side of the crosses. It reads as follows: ԹԱՆՁՐԱՑ Ե[Ա]ԼՍ ՄԵՂԱՒՔՅ

This graffito is located on the left jam of the south-west gate, leading inside the church, just above Smbat’s graffito (just above). It is incised quite deep in the stone which renders the inscription very clear. The stonecutter divided the text into three sections, the middle one containing the date (year 1884), some ten years before the major massacre of Armenians in 1895 at the hands of the Turks and the Kurds:

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 24

Armenian Inscriptions and Graffiti at the Monastery of Mār Behnam and in Qaraqosh _________________________________________________________________________________________

ԵՍ ՍԵԲԱՍՏԻ ԵԱՑԻ ԿԱՐԱ ՊԵՏ ԳԱՐԱԿ ԷՕԶԵԱՆՍ ----ՀՈՍԵԷԿԻ ----1884 ----յունվար 12

YES SEBASTI EAC’I KARA PET GARAK EOZEANS -----

HOS YEKI -----

1884 -----

HUNVAR 12

---------------------------------------“I KARAPET KARAKEOZIAN OF SEBASTIA CAME HERE ON JANUARY 12 1884.” Sostanes’s Graffito The graffito is located below that of Karapet of Sebastia (see just above):

ԵՍ ՍՈՍԹԱՆԵՍ [Մ]ԵՂ ԱՅՊԱՐՏՍ ԳՐԵՑ ԵՔ Ի ԱՂԱՒԹ Ս ՁԵՐ ՅԻՇԵՑԷ ՁԵԶ Ք ՈՒ ՈՂՈՐՄԻ Ա ՄԵՆ YES SOST’ANES [M]EĞ AYPARTS GREC’ EK’ I S[UR]B AĞAWT’ K’ U A[STVA]TS DZEZ VOĞORMI A MEN

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 25

Armenian Inscriptions and Graffiti at the Monastery of Mār Behnam and in Qaraqosh _________________________________________________________________________________________

“I SOSTANES THE SINFUL WROTE (THIS): REMEMBER (ME) IN YOUR HOLY PRAYERS AND MAY GOD HAVE MERCY AMEN.” The name ‘Sostanes’ is attested in Armenian historiography and epigraphy between the 11th and the 16th centuries, but it is rare. The graffito can be dated to the 18th or th 19 century.

CEREMONIAL CROSS FROM QARAQOSH Qaraqosh, or Baghdēdē, or Bēt-khudēdā, is an important town inhabited exclusively by Syriac Catholic and Orthodox people, although Armenians must have lived there for many centuries as they did in the nearby towns of Karamles and Bartelli.15 The inhabitants of all these towns still speak Aramaic for some three millennia. In 1575 the traveller Leonhart Rauwolf visited “Carcuschey” and later published the following description: Soon after noon a great way off before us, appear’d a great markettown, Carcuschey, where we arrived by night, and fix’d our camp without and pretty near to it. This is quite inhabited by Armenians which we could presently find by the alteration of the language and their habit. They received us very willingly, and let us want for nothing.16

It must be remembered, however, that the term Armenian is often confused with Aramean, and since Qaraqosh was mostly a Syriac city which until recently spoke “Aramaic”, Rauwolf’s “Armenians” might in fact refer to “Arameans”. This does not mean that there were no Armenians in Qaraqosh, since our Armenian inscriptions

and graffiti point to their active presence there. Qaraqosh is dotted with churches, some of which are very old, exhibiting traditional church architecture which dates back to the 6th century at least. Tragically, this city was invaded by the Islamic State, which put its population to flight. These refugees left behind their houses, churches, manuscripts, and a wealth of liturgical furniture, including a rare ceremonial cross (plate 2) inscribed in Syriac, Garshuni, and Armenian, all of which is now lost to the invaders. The cross was originally owned by the Syriac Orthodox monastery of Muqurtāyā (or Naqurtāyā or Nuqurtāyā)17 but later on it became the property of the Syriac Catholic church of al-Ṭahira “the Virgin (Mary).” It is made of silver and measures 30 by 30cm. In shape it is typically Syriac and Armenian, its ends terminating in small protrusions, and it was originally used in processions as the handle attached at the bottom suggests. It is dated to the Seleucid year 1941 (= 1629/30). Two Armenian inscriptions appear on the front of the cross, ornamented with three semiprecious stones and another small cross located in the centre, on the top and right arms of the cross. The Right Arm of the Cross This part of the Cross is highly decorated with a miniature stylized cross surrounded with bulbs, geometrical designs located near the centre, floral shapes emanating from a semi-precious stone, round and red, and a ribbon traced around the outside of the figure. Syriac, Garshuni and Armenian inscriptions fill the empty space, the Syriac and Garshuni deeply incised and legible, and the Armenian rather lightly traced. As a whole, the style and decoration of the cross is typical for the 17th to the 19th centuries. The Armenian inscription reads as follows:

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 26

Armenian Inscriptions and Graffiti at the Monastery of Mār Behnam and in Qaraqosh _________________________________________________________________________________________

incised cross which is surrounded by floral designs. The Garshuni inscription is inserted one line above the stone and another below the incised cross. The Armenian inscription reads as follows:

ՈՒՍԹԱՅ ՍԱՐՈՒԽԱՆ ՇԻՆԵՑ ԽԱՉ ԸՆԿԷՐ ԽԱԲԱՐ UST’A SARUXAN ŠINEC’ XAČ ӘNKER XABAR USTA (MASTER) SARUKHAN MADE (THE) CROSS FRIEND KHABAR The word ԸՆԿԷՐ (friend) has never been recorded in Armenian epigraphy; it should probably be understood here as ‘collaborator’. The name ‘Khabar’ is first recorded in the 17th century, and is very rare. The pet name ‘Khabarik’ (little Khabar) is also known. There is no correllation between the Armenian statement and the Garshuni, which says: “of the village Bukhdēdā.”18 The Top Arm of the Cross The decoration of this part of the ceremonial cross is similar to the one found in the right arm of the cross. The Armenian inscription is squeezed above the semiprecious stone and between this and the

ԸՌԱՅԲԱՅԱԲՏՈՒ ԱՅՎԱՆԻՑ ԽԷՐ ԽԱ ՉՇԻ ՆԵՐ ՆՂԿԱ ՅՂԱՐԱՅՂՈՒՇ ӘRAYBAYABTOW AYVANIC’ XER XA ČŠI NER NĞKA YĞARAYĞU Š

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 27

Armenian Inscriptions and Graffiti at the Monastery of Mār Behnam and in Qaraqosh _________________________________________________________________________________________

Only lines 4-6 make sense: ԽԱՉ ՇԻՆԵՐ “made the cross.” The last word ՂԱՐԱՅՂՈՒՇ is the toponym Qaraqosh of Turkish origin: “the black bird.” Here too there is no correspondence between the Armenian inscription and the Garshuni one, except for the verb (“was fashioned”):

̈

‫ܪܒܐܢ ܘܪܒܐܢ ܐܙܪ‬

‫ܒܐ‬ ‫ܐܘ‬ ‫ܐܒ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ! ̈ ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܐܨ ܐܒ‬ ̈ ‫ܣ‬ ‫ܝܒ‬ ‫ܐܬܬܨ ܨ ܒܐ ܗ ܐ ܒ‬ ‫ܐ ܐ ܒ ܐܨ ܐ‬ ‫ܘܪܒ‬ ‫ܪܒ ܒ ܐ‬ ‫ܗܕܐ‬ ‫ܐܘ‬ ‫ܝ‬ ‫ܐܙܪ ܗܡ ܘܓ‬ ‫ܝܒ ܒܒ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫̈ ܐܨ ܐ‬ ‫ܕ ܐ ܬ‬

‫ܐ ܗܕܐ‬

’WQF ‘BD-’LLH WRBN ‘’ZR MN QRYT BWKDYD’ BWKDYD’ HD’ ’L-ṢLYB LLY DYR N’QRT FY SNT ’ṢM’B LYWN ’TTṢYR ṢLYB’ HN’ BYWMY MRY BSLLYWS ’YŠ‘Y’ BŠNT ’ṢM’ ’WQFW HD’ ’L-ṢLYB RBN ‘BD-’LLH WRBN ‘’ZR HM WJM‘ ’L-MWMNYN LLDYR MRY YWḤN’ ’L-DYLMY ’LDY BQRB BKDYD’ FY SNT ’ṢM’ (Garshuni:) ‛Abd-Allāh the rabbān and ‛Āzar the rabbān, of the village Bukhdēdā (repeated twice!) have endowed this cross to the monastery of Naqert(āyā) in the year 1941! of Greece (or: of the Greeks = AD 1629/30). (Syriac:) This cross was fashioned during the time of Mōr Basīliyōs Ēsha‘yō in the year 1941. (Garshuni:) Rabbān ‛Abd-Allāh and rabbān ‛Āzar, along with the congregation of the faithful, endowed this cross to the Monastery of Mār Yūḥanōn (John) of Daylam,19 which is near Bakhdēdā, in the year 1941.20

It seems that the Armenian inscription refers only to the (Armenian) goldsmith “Master Sarukhan” who fashioned the cross, while the Garshuni inscription commemorates the (Syriac) people who offered the cross to the monastery of Naqertāyā located near Qaraqosh. It is interesting to note that the SyriacGarshuni inscription always uses the (Syriac?) toponym Bukhdēdā or Bakhdēdā (for probably Bēt-Khudēdā), whereas the Armenian inscription gives the Turkish name Qaraqosh “Black-Bird.” It is quite possible that two different scribes wrote the Syriac and Garshuni inscriptions given the difference in spelling the town’s name but also due to the mistaken date in the first inscription.

CONCLUSION As these Armenian inscriptions and graffiti from the Plain of Nineveh show, epigraphy sheds valuable light on people, architecture, and pieces of art. The khachkar’s inscription divulged the names of those who donated this rare piece of art to the martyrium of Mār Behnam as early as 1171, and we are also informed about the name of the one who fashioned the ceremonial cross of Qaraqosh dated to 1629/30. The graffiti are also significant in that one is linked to an Armenian coming from as far away as Antioch, while another was left by an Armenian who came to the monastery from Sebastia in 1884, both seeking the protection of the holy martyr. Finding Armenian inscriptions in the Plain of Nineveh, a hub of Syriac culture, highlights the already wellknown Armenian and Syriac symbiosis throughout the centuries. The fact that the khachkar is now lost forever and that the monastery of Mār Behnam and the ceremonial cross are in the hands of the destructive Islamic State highlight the importance of the editio-princeps of the Armenian inscriptions.

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 28

Armenian Inscriptions and Graffiti at the Monastery of Mār Behnam and in Qaraqosh _________________________________________________________________________________________

Plate 1: Khachkar inscribed in Armenian and Syriac, AD 1171 Martyrium of Mār Behnam (Plain of Nineveh, Iraq); destroyed by the Islamic State in 2015 _________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 29

Armenian Inscriptions and Graffiti at the Monastery of Mār Behnam and in Qaraqosh _________________________________________________________________________________________

Plate 2: Ornamental Cross inscribed in Armenian and Garshuni, AD 1629/30 From Bēt-Khudēdā-Qaraqosh (Plain of Nineveh, Iraq); lost to the ‘Islamic State’ in 2014 _________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 30

Armenian Inscriptions and Graffiti at the Monastery of Mār Behnam and in Qaraqosh _________________________________________________________________________________________

NOTES * Both authors would like to wholeheartedly thank Dr. Arman Akopian for the great help while writing this paper and for his keen interest in its epigraphic material. 1 See Amir Harrak, Syriac and Garshuni Inscriptions of Iraq, Recueil des inscriptions syriaque, 2 (Paris: Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres, 2010), vol. 1, 305. 2 Uighur: J. Halévy, “Déchiffrement et interprétation de l’inscription ouïgoure,” Journal Asiatique (Septembre-Octobre) 291-92; Niu Ruji and Amir Harrak, “The Uighur Inscription at the Mausoleum of Mār Behnam, Iraq,” Journal of the CSSS 4 (2004) 66-72 ; Syriac: Harrak, Syriac and Garshuni Inscriptions of Iraq. 3 See among others Khatchkar, Documenti di architettura Armena 2 (Milan: Edizioni Ares, 1970). 4 Chronicon Jacobi Edesseni, (in) E.W. Brooks, Chronica Minora III, T. CSCO 5/Syr. 4, pp. 281-282; V. CSCO 6/Syr. 6, p. 211 (Paris & Leipzig, 1903). 5 R.W. Thomson, Moses Khorenats‘i, History of the Armenians (Harvard University Press: Cambridge MA, 1978), 171ff. 6 J.J.S. Weitenberg, “Armeno-Syrian Cultural Relations in the Cilician Period (12th– 14th c.),” in The Syriac Renaissance: A Period of Interreligious and Intercultural Dialogue, Eastern Christian Studies 9, ed. H. Teule et al., (Leuven: Peeters, 2010) 341-352; E. G. Mathews, Jr., “Syriac into Armenian: The Translations and their Translators,” Journal of the CSSS 10 (2010) 20-44; H. Takahashi and J. J. S. Weitenberg, “On the Shorter SyriacArmenian Word List in Ms. Yale Syriac 9,” Journal of the CSSS 10 (2010) 68-83. 7 Arman Akopian, “Babylon, an ArmenianLanguage Syriac Periodical: Some Remarks on Milieu, Structure, and Language,” Journal of the CSSS 10 (2010) 84-99. 8 A. B. Schmidt, “Die zweifache armenische Rezension der syrischen Chronik Michaels des Grossen,” LM 109 (1996) 299-319 9 Nasir Al-Ka‘bi, “A New Repertoire of Crosses from the Ancient Site of Ḥira, Iraq,” JCSSS 14 (2014) 93 and fig. 7. 10 Harrak, Syriac and Garshuni Inscriptions of Iraq, # AE.02.02.

11

Մայր Ցուցակ Հայերեն Ձեռագրաց Մաշտոցի անուան Մատենադարանի, հատոր Գ, Երևան, 2007, էջ 1625-1626 (Main Catalogue of Armenian Manuscripts of Mashtots Matenadaran, vol. III [Yerevan, 2007], pp. 1625-1626). 12 Henri Pognon, Inscriptions sémitiques de la Syrie, de la Mésopotamie et de la région de Mossoul (Paris, Imprimerie nationale, 1907), 132-142; Iġnāṭiūs Afrām II [Raḥmānī], “Ātār dayr mār Bihnām [The Monuments of Mār Behnam],” al-Ātār al-šarqiyyā (Oriental Antiquities) 1 (1928) 1, 189-204; Afrām ‘Abdāl, ‫ܕܐ‬ ‫ ܕ ܐ ܕ ܝ ܒ‬Quelques vestiges historiques du couvent de Mār Behnam le martyr près de Mossoul (Beyrouth: Publication du Patriarchat Syrien Catholique d’Antioche, [no date]; Jean Maurice Fiey, Assyrie chrétienne: contribution à l'étude de l’histoire, de la géographie ecclésiastiques et monastiques du nord de l'Iraq (Beyrouth: Dar el-Machreq, 1965), vol. 2. 565-613; Id., Mār Behnam (Baghdad, Iraqi Ministry of Information, 1970). 13 Kind notes by Dr. Arman Akopian. 14 Harrak, Syriac and Garshuni Inscriptions of Iraq, #AE. 01.09. 15 On these Christian towns that are now occupied by the Islamic State see Fiey, Assyrie chrétienne, vol. 2, 354-469. In Arabic and based on epigraphy and manuscripts see Behnām Sōnī, Baġdēdā fī nuṣūs suriāniyya wagaršūniyya wa-‛arabiyya min bidāyat al-qarn al-sābi‛ ilā nihāyat al-qarn al-tāsi‛ ‛ašar [Baġdēda in Syriac, Garshuni and Arabic texts from the 7th Century to the End of the 19th Century], (Rome, 1998). 16 A Collection of Curious Travels and Voyages, Containing, Dr. Leonhart Rauwolf’s Journey Into the Eastern Countries, viz. Syria, Palestine, or the Holy Land, Armenia, Mesopotamia, Assyria, Chaldea, etc., translated from the Original High Dutch, by Nicholas Staphorst. Part II. Containing Travels into Greece, ... To which are Added, Three Catalogues of Such Trees, ... as Grow in the Levant. By J. Ray, F.R.S (London: Printed for Olive Payne, and Thomas Woodman, and William Shropshire, 1738), 165. 17 On this Syriac Orthodox monastery recently renovated see Conrad Preusser, Nord-

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 31

Armenian Inscriptions and Graffiti at the Monastery of Mār Behnam and in Qaraqosh _________________________________________________________________________________________

mesopotamische Baudenkmäler altchristlicher und islamischer Zeit (Leipzig, 1911), 14 and plates 21-22. The various spellings of the monastery’s name confuse its etymology. 18 Harrak, Syriac and Garshuni Inscriptions of Iraq, # AD.01.01. The title and name “Abbot Ṣarūkhān Hantariān” reported as being part of the Armenian inscription (see Behnām Sōnī, Baġdēdā fī nuṣūs suriāniyya wa-garšūniyya wa‛arabiyya, p. 427) are obviosuly erroneously deciphered.

19

The identity of John of Daylam (7th century) is controversial, since his stories are mixtures of extraordinary events, contradictory statements, and tendentious claims; naming the monastery after him is highly problematic; on his life see Sebastian Brock, “A Syriac Life of John of Dailam,” Parole de l’Orient 10 (19811982) 123-89. On the monastery see J. M. Fiey, Assyrie Chrétienne, vol. 2, p. 609-613. 20 Harrak, Syriac and Garshuni Inscriptions of Iraq, # AD.01.01.

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 32

______________________________________________________________________

JOHN OF APAMEA AND THE SYRIAC RECEPTION OF GREEK THOUGHT

ADAM LEHTO UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO

O

ne of the most intriguing largescale features of Christian history is the extent to which it has been shaped by an engagement with various forms of Greek philosophy. While only traces of this phenomenon can be found in the New Testament, the 2nd century witnessed the growth of a vigorous Christian movement that began to respond to, and to be influenced by, the surrounding Graeco-Roman culture. Some Christian authors began to understand the following of Christ as a commitment to the highest possible philosophy, now based firmly on divine revelation instead of merely human speculation, but also affirming and deepening any hints of real wisdom that might have been attained previously among the Greeks. Here it is crucial to remember that, in the ancient world, the pursuit of philosophy was never merely an abstract intellectual exercise, but encompassed all aspects of human experience and aimed at the transformation of the self.1 Thus it would not have seemed odd for a religious community to express its core beliefs, values, and practices in philosophical terms, and in fact there was no clear boundary between the religious and the philosophical. Though present to one degree or another in many

places across the Roman world, this Christian philosophical culture put down deep roots in Alexandria, as seen in the writings of Clement and Origen, of whom the latter in particular would exert a powerful influence on subsequent developments in theology and spirituality. The mention of Alexandria is also a reminder that Christian ‘philosophers’ were following in the footsteps of like-minded Jews of previous generations, Philo of Alexandria being the most well-known. The prior hellenization of Judaism played a crucial role in the shaping of Christian intellectual culture. In many ways this story is so familiar that we forget to be astonished at the powerful attraction that Greek thought held for many Christian teachers, not only in this early period but for many centuries to come. Things could have turned out quite differently, though I suspect that without this engagement with Greek thought, Christianity would have followed a rather different path in the Latin West, Byzantium, and the Christian East. It is difficult to imagine the shape of Christian theology or monastic thought and practice in any of these regions of the Christian world in the absence of this dynamic interaction with hellenistic thought. That being said, it is

________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 33

John of Apamea and the Syriac Reception of Greek Thought _________________________________________________________________________________________

important to avoid simplistic models of the development of Christian intellectual culture and spirituality. In its various expressions, including and perhaps particularly its religious expressions, human culture exhibits a complex hybridity and flexibility that later scholars can only partially reconstruct.2 Anyone interested in understanding the Christian appropriation and adaptation of Greek thought would do well to consider Syriac sources alongside the more familiar Greek and Latin ones. In all of its branches, Syriac Christianity, or, to be more precise, the few within it who had received an advanced education, participated in this fascinating experiment, and made significant contributions along the way. Below, I will highlight a figure who is only slowly receiving the attention he deserves: the early 5th century monastic writer John of Apamea, who was one of the earliest Syriac authors to reflect a substantial engagement with hellenistic thought, even if it pales in comparison with later developments. It may be useful first of all to briefly establish some reference points in the history of Syriac engagements with Greek thought. This will help us to place John in a larger context and to understand what he represents within this historical process.3 The mature phases of this engagement have received a fair amount of attention. I refer to that small group of Syriac scholars of various theological persuasions, who, between the 9th and 11th centuries, participated at the highest level in the intellectual culture that was developing in the Muslim world, a culture centred in the Abbasid capital of Baghdad.4 While Syriac scholars could not be said to have initiated the development of this intellectual culture, their participation in it was facilitated by skills and interests developed over several centuries in the translation and interpretation of Greek philosophical and medical texts.

Moreover, despite increasingly difficult social and political conditions, Syriac intellectual culture continued, in a somewhat attenuated form, into the 14th century, in what is often referred to as the ‘Syriac Renaissance’.5 But if we wind the clock backwards from the high point of, say, the 10th century in Baghdad, we can trace a growing interest in these texts among Syriac scholars, stretching back into the two centuries prior to the emergence of Islam. A key figure, but by no means the only relevant example, is Sergius of Reshaina, who died in 536. A physician with wide intellectual interests, Sergius, like so many Christian intellectuals of his day, studied in Alexandria, and is the first Syriac scholar whose name we can associate with translations of, and commentaries on, Aristotle.6 By this point the corpus of Aristotle, especially his works on logic, had been fully integrated into the Neoplatonic academy at Alexandria. In the Syriac-speaking world, Sergius displays an unprecedented level of sophistication in his understanding and use of Aristotelian logic and physics, and, as John Watt has recently made clear, intended to write commentaries on the rest of the Aristotelian corpus.7 At the same time, as both translator and commentator, Sergius played a major role in the transmission to Syriac Christianity of the monastic (and highly Platonized) theologies of Evagrius and Pseudo-Dionysius, authors whose influence would echo down the centuries in both the East and West of the Christian world.8 Sergius, then, in the early 6th century, represents a very important ‘reference point’ in any narrative of Syriac engagements with Greek thought. The author I wish to particularly highlight here, John of Apamea, was active a little less than a century before Sergius, some time prior to the Council of Chalcedon, at least according to the currently accepted arguments on the dating of his works.9 Like Sergius, John too is an im-

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 34

John of Apamea and the Syriac Reception of Greek Thought _________________________________________________________________________________________

portant reference point in the history of Syriac intellectual (and monastic) culture.10 Unlike the case of Sergius, however, it has proven difficult to demonstrate any obvious links with Greek sources, pagan or Christian. For example, in a recent article, Sebastian Brock, who has published a number of studies of John of Apamea over his long career, stated that there is no definitive evidence in John’s works of any direct influence from the writings of Evagrius.11 Nor does John seem to be depending, at least in any obvious way, on any of the Cappadocian or Antiochene Fathers. Further study is needed to confirm or modify these observations. Despite the lack of any clear links with Greek sources, however, there can be no question that John represents a form of hellenized Christianity.12 A brief examination of a few features of his work will illustrate this hellenistic influence, and will allow us to consider what John represents in the development of Syriac Christianity. In some ways, John makes our task very easy by overtly expressing his philosophical sympathies. Near the beginning of one of his works, the Dialogues with Thomas, John makes the standard claim that the only way to draw near to truth is by following the path of virtue, which means keeping God’s commandments. He then illustrates his point by referring to certain schools of Greek philosophy: “[T]he Epicureans,” he says, “who have turned away from a reliable path, have ended up entirely in error, so much so that all their thinking remains corporeal, and they do not think that there is anything beyond this world. With respect to human nature, they do not think that there is anything beyond the body. But those who are Platonists, who cherish the way of freedom, find knowledge which is greater than their own, and the hidden nature that is in them makes its strength known in them.”13 No further explanation is provided, but this sympathy with Plato-

nism, properly qualified of course, is a well-known feature of a major strand of early Christian literature from Justin Martyr to the Cappadocian Fathers and beyond. We find no such sympathies, however, in the trio of major Syriac sources from the 4th century: the work of Aphrahat, of Ephrem,14 and the so-called Book of Steps. The words of John just quoted come in response to a long opening statement by Thomas, who begins by saying, “In the education that I received... I gained knowledge that was made up of many opinions, and went to the limit of all that is visible to the eyes. Now I wish to attain knowledge that goes beyond the body.” These words set the agenda for the entire set of six dialogues. As Thomas explains, he is requesting instruction concerning “the hope that is to come”, and pleads ignorance since the senses of his soul have not yet been trained. He poses the question, “[H]ow is it that despite the soul that is in us, our whole intelligence is corporeal, and that we do not think spiritually, though the nature of the soul is spiritual?”15 With slight modifications, the response that John gives could have come from any Platonist: “[A]t its creation, [the soul] is complete in all of its senses; it has intelligence and knowledge and the rest [of the senses of the soul]. But as long as it is imprisoned in the body, and not separated from it by its knowledge, its senses are unable to function, unless it has first gone out from the womb of the body into the spiritual world. As long as it is in that physical world, its senses are silent and do not display their strength. Though [the spiritual senses] are greatly moved by a divine revelation when they are operating in the spiritual world, while [the soul] is imprisoned in the body, it moves in the image of the body. When it considers spiritual images, it sees in them the images of the body. But when [the soul] departs from the body completely and [enters] the spiritual world, where its think-

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 35

John of Apamea and the Syriac Reception of Greek Thought _________________________________________________________________________________________

ing is not imprisoned by the body, then [its] spiritual senses begin to show their strength in a spiritual way...” 16 No pagan Platonists would speak so easily of creation or divine revelation, nor would they go on, as John does, to cite Paul on the transformation of the body in the world to come. But the dominant theme in all of John’s writings is the training of the soul to direct its gaze beyond embodied experiences and to seek the wisdom that can only be found in the realm of the spirit. It is a theme, of course, with roots in the dialogues of Plato, as, for example, these words of Socrates from the Apology, written more than seven centuries before John: “I spend all my time going about trying to persuade you, young and old, to make your first and chief concern not for your bodies nor for your possessions, but for the highest welfare of your souls.”17 Over time, more and more complex analyses of the nature of the soul and its passions, along with various techniques to manage or even eliminate these passions and restore the soul’s proper vision, developed in the various schools of Greek philosophy, but especially in Platonism. The great French historian of philosophy Pierre Hadot has taught us to think of these techniques as “spiritual exercises”; his discussion of their role in the various schools of Greek philosophy in late antiquity is required reading for anyone trying to understand an important influence on Christian monasticism.18 As it turns out, the nature and training of the soul is the main focus of another of John’s works, entitled, appropriately, On the Soul, recently given an English translation by Mary Hansbury.19 Here the author explains at length a model of the spiritual life that is reflected in all of his writings, one in which a person seeking God advances from the level of the body to the level of the soul, and perhaps reaches in some limited way the level of spirit, though this final level can only be fully experi-

enced after the soul is freed from the physicality of the present age. The model is supported by various biblical proof texts, drawing heavily on certain key passages from Paul. But it can also be seen as a Syriac Christian contribution to the centurieslong discussion about the soul in Greek philosophy. In this respect it deserves to be compared with similar models in Origen and Evagrius, though John, unlike such well-known Christian hellenists, refrains from any significant interaction with theories drawn from pagan sources.20 Following in their footsteps, even if he fails to acknowledge (or perhaps even to perceive) their influence, John’s purpose in this work is to provide a description of the nature of the soul, along with a diagnosis and system of treatment for its various maladies. As he states in the passage just referred to, “[I]t is not only the naming of these passions which I wanted to enumerate, what they are, how they occur and the cause of their growth, but also about their healing.”21 But John then cuts the discussion short with a simple acknowledgement of the variety of opinions on the origin and nature of the passions, followed by references to more pressing matters. Yet as with his hellenized Christian predecessors, the ultimate goal is for the soul, an essentially spiritual entity, to be gradually liberated from any sort of corporeal thinking and feeling so as to participate fully in the realm of the intellect. In that realm, which is the full presence of God, the soul’s native powers are finally able to express themselves without reserve. In his Dialogues with Thomas, John emphasizes that the knowledge that the soul enjoys in the next life is non-mediated, free from the constraints of physical representations: “For in that place,” he says, “there is no image by which [God] might reveal himself to them, nor any shapes or colours by which he might be seen by them. Rather, the truth of the knowledge of [God] is revealed to them without any intermediar-

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 36

John of Apamea and the Syriac Reception of Greek Thought _________________________________________________________________________________________

ies, according to their capacity.”22 This direct gaze is possible due to the noncomposite nature of the soul: essence and function are one. As John puts it: “[A] spiritual entity is not something distinct from its vision, as if it had many parts. Rather, if it sees, all of it is vision. We do not place its vision outside of its knowledge, for [its knowledge] is its vision.”23 Much more would have to be said to adequately explain John of Apamea’s understanding of the life of the soul, in particular as it relates to his doctrine of creation, his soteriology, and his christology. This would in turn correct the impression I may have given up to this point that John is more Platonic than Christian, even if these two categories proved to have a very permeable boundary in Late Antiquity. Enough has been said here, I trust, to show that John was a significant early participant in the Syriac reception of Greek thought. What, then, is John’s significance in the overall history of this reception? To answer this question we need first to understand that, in parallel with the ways in which our author participates in the broader philosophical discussions of his day, he also makes use of many themes that we also find in the major 4th century Syriac sources that I mentioned earlier. Readers familiar with Aphrahat, Ephrem, and the Book of Steps will certainly hear echoes of these sources in John’s works. For example, Aphrahat had said that the person who truly believes that God exists will obey his commandments.24 John says much the same thing, though it plays no major role in his analysis: “God has put first the cause which makes human beings observe the remaining commandments. If they do not keep to that initial principle in order to know Him, that He is the one God, nor will they be able to love Him.”25 Ephrem had emphasized the divine mysteries hidden in all created natures, and had allowed for the reading of the ‘Book of Nature’ as com-

plementary to the far more important ‘Book of Scripture’.26 Likewise, the idea that God’s wisdom is hidden in creation is encountered in the opening lines of John’s Dialogue on the Soul: “Now everything which has power for motion and colour in its aspect, consists of two mysteries: its outward appearance and the creative workmanship of God which is within it. Because of this, someone whom God is ready to create, that these natures might serve Him, and by them He might draw him to an understanding of His wisdom, his structure in the world must be made with the two powers of a double substance: that at the manifest sight of these amazing beauties which shine from all the natures, this manifest substance of the body and the concealed substance of the soul might take delight in the wisdom which is hidden in them.”27 In the case of the Book of Steps, the portrait of the ‘perfect one’ in that text lines up fairly well with John’s description of the person living on the level of the spirit.28 Many more lines of continuity could be traced. When these lines are seen together with his participation in the wider philosophical culture, I would suggest that John represents a major confluence of Greek ideas about the soul and its progress with more traditional Syriac approaches to the spiritual life. This confluence undoubtedly extends beyond the confines of the debate about the soul into other areas of John’s thought. The extent to which John’s hellenization was shaped by direct exposure to Greek Christian authors, perhaps in Syriac translation, has yet to be determined. But we should also be open to a more nuanced model of Syriac engagements with Greek thought. John does indeed mark an important transition, but was it just beginning in his day? Were there no Syriac Christians before him interested in Greek thought? Obviously there were. We need only think of Bardaisan, active in Edessa in the late

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 37

John of Apamea and the Syriac Reception of Greek Thought _________________________________________________________________________________________

2nd and early 3rd century, not to mention an interesting group of philosophicallyoriented texts translated into or composed in Syriac in the 3rd and 4th centuries, and included in the same 7th century manuscript that contains Bardaisan’s sole surviving work.29 We must also remember that Ephrem took great pains to respond to the followers of Bardaisan in the mid-4th century. In short, Syriac Christianity, or at least part of it, was hellenized virtually from its beginning. John of Apamea does indeed

constitute an important reference point, but only one. The 5th century in which he lived certainly represents an important chapter in the story of Syriac encounters with Greek thought, but much had already happened and much more would take place afterwards.30 We can only hope that the Syriac engagement with intellectual culture might be revived in the contemporary world, now not in conversation with Greek thought, but with the full range of modern knowledge.

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 38

John of Apamea and the Syriac Reception of Greek Thought _________________________________________________________________________________________

NOTES 1

See Pierre Hadot, Philosophy as a Way of Life (Oxford: Blackwell, 1995). 2 I would add that as expressions of human culture, our own scholarly activities also participate in this hybridity, though we typically refrain from shining the analytical spotlight back upon ourselves. 3 For a broad and concise overview of the history of Syriac Christianity in its original homeland, including some helpful discussions of the development and transmission of intellectual culture, see Sebastian P. Brock, “Two Millennia of Christianity in Iraq,” Islam and ChristianMuslim Relations 21/2 (2010) 175-184. 4 Good entry points into this period include John W. Watt, “The Strategy of the Baghdad Philosophers: The Aristotelian Tradition as a Common Motif in Christian and Islamic Thought,” in Redefining Christian Identity: Cultural Interaction in the Middle East since the Rise of Islam, eds. J. J. van Ginkel, H. L. Murre-Van den Berg, and T. M. Van Lint (Leuven: Peeters, 2005), 151-165, and Sidney Griffith, The Church in the Shadow of the Mosque (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008). 5 See Herman Teule, “Gregory Barhebraeus and his Time: the Syrian Renaissance,” Journal of the CSSS 3 (2003) 21-43; The Syriac Renaissance, eds. Herman Teule, Carmen Fotescu Tauwinkl, Bas ter Haar Romeny, and Jan van Ginke (Leuven: Peeters, 2010) 6 On Sergius see the insightful analysis in Daniel King, “Origenism in Sixth Century Syria: The Case of a Syriac Manuscript of Pagan Philosophy,” in Origenes und sein Erbe in Orient und Okzident, ed. Alfons Fürst (Münster: Aschendorff Verlag, 2011), 179-212. 7 See John Watt, “From Sergius to Mattā: Aristotle and Pseudo-Dionysius in the Syriac Tradition,” in Interpreting the Bible and Aristotle in Late Antiquity: The Alexandrian Commentary Tradition between Rome and Baghdad, eds. Josef Lössl and John W. Watt (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2011), 239-257. 8 For a discussion of the importance of Sergius in the transmission of the Dionysian writings to the Syriac world and in the preservation of somewhat less ‘doctored’ version of the Di-

onysian teachings, see István Perczel, “The Earliest Syriac Reception of Dionysius”, Modern Theology 24/4 (2008) 557-571. 9 The arguments of A. de Halleux have generally been accepted; see his “Le milieu historique de Jean le Solitaire,” Orientalia Christiana Analecta 221 (Rome, 1980), 299-305. 10 Cf. Brouria Bitton-Ashkelony, ““More Interior than the Lips and the Tongue”: John of Apamea and Silent Prayer in Late Antiquity,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 20/2 (2012) 303-331; the author argues that, in his treatise On Prayer, John “developed a coherent and innovative theory of silent prayer, thus marking a new stage in the history of Syriac spirituality and attesting to a new religious sensibility” (320). 11 See Sebastian P. Brock, “Some Paths to Perfection in the Syriac Fathers,” Studia Patristica 51 (2011) 77-94. 12 Apamea was an important centre for various schools of Greek philosophy (see J. Balty, “Apamea in Syria in the Second and Third Centuries A.D.”, The Journal of Roman Studies 78 (1988) 91–104; Martin Ferguson Smith, “An Epicurean Priest from Apamea in Syria,” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 112 (1996) 120-130; Mark Edwards, “Numenius of Apamea,” in The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity, vol. 1, ed. Lloyd Gerson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 115-125, though one should not assume that proximity to such a centre was necessary for exposure to hellenistic ideas among Christian authors. 13 Unless otherwise indicated, all translations of John are my own. For the Syriac text of the Dialogues with Thomas, see Johannes von Apamea. Sechs Gespräche mit Thomasios, Der Briefwechsel zwischen Thomasios und Johannes und Drei an Thomasios gerichtete Abhandlungen. Syrischer Text, Patristische Texte und Studien 11, ed. Werner Strothmann (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1972). The passage quoted here is from pp. 6-7 (Syr. lines 179-187). 14 Some may object to the inclusion of Ephrem on this list, given Ute Possekel’s demonstration that Ephrem was quite familiar with a wide range of Greek cosmological terms and concepts, and must have had some sort of

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 39

John of Apamea and the Syriac Reception of Greek Thought _________________________________________________________________________________________

hellenistic education (see Evidence of Greek Philosophical Concepts in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian, Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, vol. 580 (Louvain: Peeters, 1999)). One of Possekel’s crucial observations, however, is that “[f]or Ephrem, Hellenic thought is a theologically neutral device, of which he avails himself as suitable for his theology” (235; cf. 97). It has not been shown that Ephrem significantly relies on Greek thought to construct the core of his own theological and spiritual views, but only that he is adept at using it to point out the errors of heretics. What I am arguing here is that with John of Apamea, we begin to see a more porous boundary between Syriac Christian theology and spirituality on the one hand and Greek thought on the other. I would add that this is true whether or not we can show Evagrian influence. In general, in our efforts to reconstruct something as complex as the hellenization of an entire branch of Christianity, we should keep in mind that the process had multiple modes and stages which combined and overlapped in various ways. István Perczel makes a similar point about how we should understand ‘Origenism’ in the Syriac milieu (“Earliest Syriac Reception”, 566). 15 Strothmann, Johannes von Apamea, 8 (Syr. 189-191). 16 Strothmann, Johannes von Apamea, 9-10 (Syr. 228-241). 17 Apology 30a6-b1, as given in The Collected Dialogues of Plato, eds. Edith Hamilton and Huntingdon Cairns (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961). 18 See Hadot, Philosophy as a Way of Life, Part II. 19 Mary T. Hansbury, John the Solitary on the Soul, Texts from Christian Late Antiquity

32 (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2013). 20 A partial exception to this rule may be found at the very end of his first Dialogue on the Soul, where he refutes the idea of certain “others” that the soul is stirred up by the three passions of discernment, love and anger. John limits the influence of these passions to the body alone. 21 Hansbury, John the Solitary on the Soul, 82. 22 Strothmann, Johannes von Apamea, 75 (Syr. 147-152). 23 Strothmann, Johannes von Apamea, 78 (Syr. 227-231). 24 Dem. 23.62; cf. 1.11, where Luke 15:8 (the parable of the lost coin) is said to signify the Israelites, who ‘lost’ the first commandment by worshipping Baal, which then caused them to lose the other nine. 25 Hansbury, John the Solitary on the Soul, 12. There is a passage dealing with the same theme on p. 142 of Hansbury’s translation which is also strongly reminiscent of Aphrahat. 26 For a discussion of Ephrem’s understanding of the natural world as symbolic, see Sebastian Brock, The Luminous Eye (Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 1992), 53-59. 27 Hansbury, John the Solitary on the Soul, 4. 28 Bitton-Ashkelony confirms this impression (“John of Apamea and Silent Prayer”, 32425). 29 See King, “Origenism”, 190, where he draws on Ute Possekel, “Der ‘Rat der Theano.’ Eine Pythagoreische Sprungsammlung in syrischer Überlieferung,” Le Muséon 111 (1998) 7-36. 30 In particular, the study of Aristotle takes on a much higher profile in later centuries (see Watt, “From Sergius to Mattā”).

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 40

______________________________________________________________________ THE ROMANCE OF AḤIQAR THE WISE IN THE NEO-ARAMAIC MS LONDON SACHAU 9321: PART II

EMANUELA BRAIDA UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO

I

n the Journal of the CSSS 14 (2014), the edition and translation of the Neo-Aramaic version of the tale of Aḥiqar was published,1 and in the present issue, the analysis of its origins and contents are the subject. The Romance of Aḥiqar the Wise is wit-

nessed in its oldest form by a 5th century B.C. Aramaic papyrus found in Elephantine, Upper Egypt, in the years 1906-7. It is one of the best known narrative texts of ancient times, and its elaborate ramifications influenced the late-ancient and medieval literatures of both East and West, ensuring it lasting and flourishing fame until very recent times. More than a century before the discovery of the Aramaic papyrus, the story of Aḥiqar appeared in printed form in the Western world as a tale entitled Histoire de Sinkarib et de ses deux visirs. This tale was drawn from an Arabic version of the romance, translated into French and enclosed as a supplement to the Arabian Nights in a large collection of fairy tales edited by Denis Chavis and Jacques Cazotte in 1788.2 At the end of the 19th century, and even more so after the discovery of the text of Elephantine, the academic world began to be interested in the story of Aḥiqar from a

literary point of view. In 1913 an extensive collection of late Western and Eastern versions was published, thus gathering together a wealth of information about almost all the versions known at the time.3 Contemporaneously, François Nau played his part in deepening the study of Aḥiqar in the Syriac region.4 The Neo-Aramaic Aḥiqar attracted some early attention as well. In 1896 Mark Lidzbarski published a German translation of the bilingual Arabic-Turoyo version preserved in the MS Sachau Berlin 339.5 The text was written in Arabic and translated into Turoyo by the deacon Eša‘yo from the village of Qillith, not far from Midyat, in the year 1880 at the request of Eduard Sachau.6 This text is the only literary Turoyo version known to us.7 The Sachau collection lists also a bilingual Arabic-Sureth Aḥiqar preserved in MS London Sachau 9321 (f. 536b-620b), a version written in the Alqosh koine dialect on pages b of the manuscript and provided on the opposite pages a with an Arabic translation. The Sachau collection now in London lists eight manuscripts purchased in 1923 by the British Museum.8 Among these documents are preserved a number of letters addressed to

________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 41

The Romance of Aḥiqar the Wise in the Neo-Aramaic MS London Sachau 9321: Part II _________________________________________________________________________________________

Sachau by his Iraqi correspondents. Thanks to these letters, we know that the priest Jibrail Quryaquza9 wrote some ‘Fellichi’10 texts (Aḥiqar being among them) and their Arabic translations in Baghdad around the year 1897. A hand-written note by Sachau on the same manuscript confirms that the copyist acted on behalf of the German scholar.11 Jibrail Quryaquza showed much more care in compiling the Sureth than the Arabic text. While the Arabic pages are written in a careless cursive handwriting, the Neo-Aramaic ones are neat and fully vocalized. The direct source on which the Sureth text depends is unknown. Since there are no other Sureth Aḥiqar manuscripts to our knowledge,12 we should exclude the possibility that the story was just copied from an original now lost. The most likely hypothesis is that Jibrail translated one or more Syriac versions of Aḥiqar into NeoAramaic and adjusted an Arabic version to compose the Arabic translation, as evidenced by some unclear passages in the text. This assumption could be supported by the relationship linking this text with the Syriac MS Sachau Berlin 336 (f. 17b-57), dated 1883-1884 and copied at Telkepe, Iraq,13 and especially the Syriac MS Graffin, which was written in the monastery of Rabban Hormizd near Alqosh by the priest Elyas in 1908.14 Although London Sachau 9321 is older than Graffin and cannot be one of the Vorlagen used by Jibrail, all three manuscripts partly depend on a common Syriac recension. The strongest elements that link London Sachau 9321, Graffin and Sachau Berlin 336 are the right sequence of the kings (Sennacherib as Esarhaddon’s father), whereas the order is usually reversed; the prayer Aḥiqar addresses to the idols before resorting to God; the presence of titles dividing the text into chapters; and the alternation between first- and third-person points of view. Similarly, the

Turoyo Sachau Berlin 339 has some structural analogies with the Syriac Sachau Berlin 336 and differs in several points from the Arabic tradition despite its Arabic Vorlage. If Sachau Berlin 336 was probably put together with an older version of an Arabic translation, as Nöldeke supposed,15 this manuscript would witness a certain degree of crossbreeding among different traditions.

AḤIQAR’S ROMANCE ACCORDING TO ITS LATE VERSIONS Originating as a court romance and a book of wisdom intended to celebrate the figure of the upright and faithful official of the royal administration, the story of Aḥiqar lost part of its close connection with Assyrian court literature over time and acquired a tinge of folklore and adventure. According to the late versions,16 Aḥiqar tells the story of a rich, highly-esteemed counsellor of the king of Assyria, wellknown for his wisdom and well-loved at court, whose only sorrow is that he is unable to have children. After seeking in vain the advice of astrologers and the answer of the gods, Aḥiqar finally turns to the one true God for help. To make up for the situation, God instructs Aḥiqar to take his sister’s son as his own child. He brings him up in comfort, educates him and finally suggests to the king that he should become his substitute at court. The king, struck favourably by the young man, decides to take him into his service and discharges Aḥiqar, now grown old, so that he might enjoy well-deserved rest. So Aḥiqar starts to educate Nadan by means of sayings containing wise advice on practical, ethical and social behaviour. Narratively speaking, the insertion of Aḥiqar's educational summa at this point in the story seems to be a questionable and untimely choice, since it comes

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 42

The Romance of Aḥiqar the Wise in the Neo-Aramaic MS London Sachau 9321: Part II _________________________________________________________________________________________

after Aḥiqar has given his son a fine education and has presented him at court, and after the king has already taken him into his service. Despite the efforts of his adoptive father, however, Nadan turns out to be a bad man, ungrateful and malevolent, although the precise reason of his resent is far from clear. Nadan acts so spitefully and violently that Aḥiqar himself complains to the king and calls another nephew to play Nadan's role in his house. Concerned about his inheritance, Nadan hatches up an elaborate trap to discredit his father in the eyes of the king by accusing him of high treason. He writes three letters, two addressed to the king of Assyria's enemies and one to Aḥiqar, thus providing proof of his treachery. Then he perpetrates a spectacular hoax involving the Assyrian army deployed by Aḥiqar against the king.17 The king is seriously frightened and condemns Aḥiqar to death. He delegates the task to an official who was once freed from similar accusations some time before, thanks to Aḥiqar; and now this official returns the favour to his friend. With the complicity of Aḥiqar's wife, Ešfagne, the former counsellor is hidden in a hole dug under the threshold of his house, and a slave is killed in his stead. Time passes and news of the death of the wise man spreads. The king of Egypt, pleased by Aḥiqar’s disappearance, takes advantage of the favourable political situation to send the king of Assyria a letter in which he challenges him to send a man able to build a castle suspended between heaven and earth. Since no one at the Assyrian court is capable of carrying out such intricate affairs, the king is overcome by despair and regrets bitterly the death of his wise minister. At that point, the official takes advantage of the situation and reveals to the king that Aḥiqar is still alive. The king orders the ex-minister to be brought back to

court immediately, and Aḥiqar finally returns to the presence of the king, still dirty and weak after his long segregation. Strangely enough, neither the ill-treated father, nor the mocked king, nor anyone else seems to remember the existence of Nadan the traitor; and Nadan, for his part, apparently does not try to escape and get to safety. Having restored him to his previous position, the king informs Aḥiqar about Pharaoh’s letter. Aḥiqar says he is able to solve the matter in the king’s name and promptly devises a plan. From the court, he sends a letter to his wife entrusting to her the various tasks necessary for the preparation of his plan. The reader is left to wonder why Ahiqar delegates these affairs when he himself is not engaged in other matters. Nevertheless, the strategic plan is thus revealed to the reader in great detail. In addition, all the later versions of this story repeat the whole mechanism of the plan a few pages later during the journey to Egypt. Of course, when Pharaoh asks Aḥiqar to start work, instead of finding a turning point in the story, the whole plan is pointlessly described for the third time.18 Having prepared his trick, Aḥiqar sets out for Egypt incognito,19 but inexplicably in the company of a large army, which he actually never uses and which luckily does not alarm the Egyptians. The device of the hero travelling incognito serves no particular narrative purpose and is in fact very short-lived. In Egypt, Aḥiqar first solves a series of vacuous riddles put to him by Pharaoh, and then he is asked to bring some news never heard before by the court. Aḥiqar writes a fake letter passing himself off as Pharaoh, in which he asks the king of Assyria for money with a commitment to return it soon. When he reads it, Pharaoh and his dignitaries are amazed and unwisely acknowledge that they never heard that before. Aḥiqar, however, is not satisfied with beating the odds and adds: “So Egypt

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 43

The Romance of Aḥiqar the Wise in the Neo-Aramaic MS London Sachau 9321: Part II _________________________________________________________________________________________

owes this money to Assur.” This seems to be an odd argument in the mouth of a wise man, since his inconsistent syllogism actually means: Pharaoh does not know he has asked the king for money, ergo Pharaoh owes money to the king. It is evident that the solution of this riddle is illogical and inadequate, bearing witness to a text that is by now corrupt.20 At the end of the long series of riddles, and after witnessing the staging of the children on the backs of eagles, Pharaoh finally realizes he has been outdone in shrewdness. He overwhelms Aḥiqar with presents and sends him home. In Assur, the king offers him half of his kingdom as a reward, but Aḥiqar refuses every offer and asks the king for his treacherous son instead, so that he can take revenge on him. Having got Nadan under his authority again, he puts him in chains, beats him severely, and eventually turns to the sadistic side, throwing him into a stinking latrine and threatening him with immanent and painful death. After this episode, he teaches him a second series of proverbs about punishment and penalties, until Nadan swells up like a leather bottle, bursts and falls apart into a thousand pieces. The complete plot of Aḥiqar as I have summarized it here is known to us only in the late versions. They show a narrative scheme made up of a short prologue devoted to an introduction to the hero and the foregoing events, two episodes and an epilogue. The first episode is set in Assyria and contains the story of Nadan’s betrayal and Aḥiqar’s sentence and escape from death. The second episode includes Aḥiqar’s journey to Egypt and his answers to Pharaoh. The epilogue is devoted to Aḥiqar’s return to his homeland and Nadan’s death. A hortatory section comes just before the short prologue, and another just after the very short epilogue, in this way framing almost the whole narrative body of the text. The narrative scheme of the late versions is not

the original one, however, and does not correspond to the text found in the Elephantine version.

THE ELEPHANTINE PAPYRUS According to the reconstruction of the Aramaic papyrus from Elephantine, the narrative section takes up the first nine columns and does not alternate with the proverbs. Of these nine columns only the first five have come down to us, so that we can know, with a number of gaps, the prologue and the first half of the Assyrian events up to the plan to save Aḥiqar from the deathsentence.21 Since the lacuna in the four other columns is quite small, they could certainly not have included a wordy, articulated narration like that of the late versions. The hortative section in the papyrus is not split up into two series and comes at the end of the story. A comparison of the plot of the story preserved in the Elephantine text and the corresponding tranche from the late versions brings out a number of differences and shows how the story has undergone a series of modifications that have changed its original nature in the course of time. In the very defective columns I-II (lines 1-31) Aḥiqar relates in the first person how he grew old performing the highest offices at the court, why he adopted and instructed his sister's son as his successor, and the ingratitude of the young man who requited his kindness with calumny. Because of the gaps in the papyrus, there are two narrative elements which cannot be inferred from the Elephantine text, namely the precise reason why the nephew started to develop a grudge against Aḥiqar and the way he cast discredit on his uncle in the eyes of the king. These elements must have been developed in lines 24-31 of the second column of the papyrus22 and, since there is not much space, the description must also have been rather restricted.

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 44

The Romance of Aḥiqar the Wise in the Neo-Aramaic MS London Sachau 9321: Part II _________________________________________________________________________________________

Following the calumny of the young man, the king condemns to death his former advisor and entrusts the task to an official to whom Aḥiqar was a benefactor some time before. The officer and his men ride away on their horses and, after three days, find Aḥiqar as he walks among the vineyards completely unaware. Having learned of his death sentence, Aḥiqar urges the mercy of his colleague, who hides him among his servants, as it seems inferable from a defective passage of the text (lines 32-48).23 A eunuch slave of Aḥiqar is slain instead of his master, so that his body can be shown to the king as evidence of Aḥiqar’s death. The rest of the story is missing. The only certain detail is that the nephew is still alive when the enunciation of the proverbs begins, since his uncle is speaking directly to him. The hortative part is a collection of sayings with educational purpose and no particular narrative originality. Essentially, the Aramaic text provides no clue to reveal exactly what the wisdom of its hero consists of besides the list of proverbs; and the only proof of cunning—the pretence that Aḥiqar is dead—seems to be the work of the official rather than of Aḥiqar himself. Because of this lack of duplicity, there is good reason to imagine that the original figure of Aḥiqar embodied a refined idea of wisdom, probably nearer to pietas or humanitas than to the deceitfulness which the late versions have transmitted.

THE LIFE OF AESOP The only witness later than the Elephantine papyrus and earlier than the Syriac version is the story of Aḥiqar inserted in the Life of Aesop, an anonymous fictional biography of the Greek fabulist Aesop, composed around the second century of our era. Aesop is depicted as a mute Phrygian slave, extraordinarily ugly and rude, who turns into a clever man after the goddess Isis mi-

raculously gives him the power of speech. From that moment on, he teaches people about the practical applications of intelligence, as opposed to the uselessness of abstract philosophy.24 In all respects the character of Aesop represents the opposite of Aḥiqar, as witnessed by the text of Elephantine. The story of Aḥiqar is very marginal in the context of the narrative development of Aesop, since the author summarizes and re-works the early plot a great deal and adapts the original hero to literary ends very different from the original ones. Nonetheless this is the oldest extant document in which the Egyptian episode and many of the elements that characterize the later Aḥiqarian narratives appear.25 The narrative scheme of the story of Aḥiqar included in Aesop consists of two narrative episodes separated by a single hortative section. The first episode (chaps. 103-108) roughly corresponds to the plot known from Elephantine, though the story is set in Babylonia instead of Assyria. The first episode is followed by the brief hortative section (chaps. 109-110), which concludes with the death of the adopted son. Only after his death does the second narrative episode about Aesop’s journey in Egypt begin. It is much longer and more articulated (chaps. 111-123) than the Babylonian one, and it includes an almostcomplete version of the scheme that returns in the late versions, except for the omission of two riddles.26 The structure of the Aḥiqarian text inserted in Aesop differs therefore from that of the early Aramaic one and from the late versions as well. Firstly the hortative section splits the narrative part in two, and secondly the motif of Nadan’s death is not the ending of the story, though it is common to all the late versions and most likely to the Elephantine text as well. The beginning of the Greek episode (chaps. 103-104) is devoted to the facts that lead the adoptive son to hate his father. Nadan’s alter

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 45

The Romance of Aḥiqar the Wise in the Neo-Aramaic MS London Sachau 9321: Part II _________________________________________________________________________________________

ego has a dangerous affair with a concubine of the king Lycurgus, and Aesop discourages and reproaches his son. Tired of these reproaches, he decides to bring discredit to his father, accusing him of treason in a forged letter written in Aesop’s name to the enemies of the king. The gullible king condemns his adviser and entrusts the task to a benefited officer. How the official hides Aesop remains unexplained, but we find a number of similarities with the late narratives when the former advisor reappears before the king “dirty, with long hair and pale from his long segregation.”27 The motif of the dark, filthy hiding-place common to the late versions is here included, though only hinted at. On the reappearance of Aesop, the king declares that he wishes to put the guilty man to death, but the merciful Aesop dissuades him, explaining that death would end by hiding the shame of the wicked actions while, if he lived, his son would be punished by his own sense of guilt (chap. 107).28 When king Lycurgus delivers the young man into the hands of Aesop, he tries to ‘rehabilitate’ him with a series of educational sayings; but the man, heartbroken with remorse, lets himself die of hunger.29 The character of Aesop and Aḥiqar as he is portrayed in the late versions seems here to undergo a shift: Aesop becomes magnanimous, Aḥiqar unexpectedly revengeful. All things considered, Aesop's compassion seems to get better results than Aḥiqar's duress since the son, grieved and ashamed, decides to commit suicide by refusing food, and Aesop even wears mourning for him.30 In the other versions, Nadan tries desperately and ineffectually to work on his uncle’s presumed mercy but does not really seem to repent, and his sudden, weird and overly-quick death seems more like divine punishment than an extreme act of remorse. After his son’s death, Aesop prepares to face Pharaoh and the building of a castle

suspended between heaven and earth. He captures four eagles and teaches them to “transport children” (cap. 111),31 then he leaves for Egypt in great style, with the vast retinue suited to his rank, taking with him birds and children. From this point onwards, the Greek episode discloses almost completely the narration as the late versions will share. However the above-mentioned episode of the “news never heard before”32 appears in a completely different position. It comes at the end of the series of riddles and texts that the Pharaoh puts Aesop through, and it deals with and explains fully the subtle trick devised by Aesop to get out of the fix.33

A LITERARY ANALYSIS From this short overview,34 it is clear that the Aḥiqar story in the Life of Aesop has greater cohesion than the plot of the late versions, particularly concerning the Egyptian episode, in which the character of Aesop moves quite at ease playing a role tailor-made for him. What is less credible is Aesop’s sudden, incongruous wish to have an heir, which moves him to take as a son a young man he had met in Babylonia.35 This adoption in the Aesop story seems like an unessential part of the plot, functional merely insofar as it introduces the pronouncement of the proverbs. Yet this is the only element we can trace back with certainty to the story of Aḥiqar as it has come down to us from the Elephantine papyrus. The role of the riddle-solver, so well suited to Aesop, appears on the contrary extraneous to the ancient Aḥiqar, whereas in the late versions the hero takes on more and more Aesopic features as the story proceeds. The overlapping of these two literary motifs—the wise man and the riddlesolver—creates a sort of alienation of the hero and a split in the organization of the story. The problematic relationships between father/son and wisdom/unreliability

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 46

The Romance of Aḥiqar the Wise in the Neo-Aramaic MS London Sachau 9321: Part II _________________________________________________________________________________________

seem to get lost after Aḥiqar is re-instated at court. At this point the reader’s attention is caught by other features, the treatment of which grows even more detached from the first part of the story, and the task of unifying the two episodes falls to the brief epilogue. The theme of the journey in Aesop comes after the proverbs and the son’s death, the opposite of what one would hence expect from the Elephantine text, where the proverbs end the story. This change of order seems to detract from the general plot of the story, since it makes it impossible for Aesop to wreak final vengeance after his return to Egypt. However, if we assume that the original Aḥiqar did not contain a final vengeance and that the story would have ended with a theoretical demonstration of wisdom by the list of the proverbs, then we should also assume that the insertion of the Aḥiqar motif in the Greek novel would mirror the Elephantine text and its original ending. Everything that comes afterwards might not form part of the original plot, and the Egyptian episode might be inserted in Aesop as a completely new invention or else, more probably, on the basis of other sources still unknown to us. Centuries later, the anonymous author of the 'late version prototype' would have amalgamated and superimposed the original Aḥiqar character coming from the Aramaic romance to the events taken tout court from Aesop, maybe for the purpose of lengthening the “new” tale. To make his story end with the proverbs and the son’s death, as the ancient text did, the author would then have doubled the list of proverbs, putting the original one, intended to form the son’s character, at the beginning of the story and leaving the other one, now of a punitive nature, in its original place at the end. The punitive goal of this hortative section (which constitutes an innovation on the late versions, since it appears neither in

Aesop nor in the Aramaic text) can only be justified from a literary point of view by a radical change in the ending of the work. As we have seen, Nadan’s death in the late versions is very different from the death of Aesop’s son. Since we do not know what the version of the Elephantine text was, let us suppose that the Greek author borrowed the ending of the story without making any important changes. Therefore, the son’s suicide would not constitute an innovation in the Greek story, whereas it was the original ending of the Aramaic Aḥiqar. The reason for which the author of the late version changed this ending could be that the suicide was no longer considered opportune or didactically acceptable, by reason of the Christian setting of the new text. While the young man might well have expressed his repentance and post mortem rehabilitation through suicide in the pagan versions, such an ending would have been ethically wrong in a Christian text. However, by replacing the suicide of a penitent with the punishment of a guilty man (a supernatural death probably modelled on that of another traitor, Judas, Acts 1:18), the close connection which linked the “positive” wisdom of Aḥiqar’s sayings with the death of his son would have been missing. After making the character of the young man wholly negative so he would embody the role of the “villain”, the author needed to highlight the warning nature of the proverbs in the second part. The addition and re-modelling of such a large part of narrative material might explain, on the one hand, the logical discrepancies which grew up and overlapped in the late versions and, and on the other hand, the change in the character of Aḥiqar, who becomes quite shrewd though he does not give up his role as a moralizing educator. Notwithstanding the narrative flaws in the new Aḥiqar, it became very widely

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 47

The Romance of Aḥiqar the Wise in the Neo-Aramaic MS London Sachau 9321: Part II _________________________________________________________________________________________

known in the East and in the West, giving rise to a number of versions in various Western (Paleoslav, Serbian, Russian, Romanian) and Eastern (Syriac, Arabic, Ar-

menian, Paleoturkish, Georgian, Ethiopian and Neo-Aramaic) languages, and giving exceptional longevity to a literary text originating as a court romance in Assyria.

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 48

The Romance of Aḥiqar the Wise in the Neo-Aramaic MS London Sachau 9321: Part II _________________________________________________________________________________________

NOTES 1

E. Braida, “The Romance of Aḥiqar the Wise in the Neo-Aramaic MS London Sachau 9321,” Journal of the CSSS 14 (2014) 50-78. 2 D. Chavis and J. Cazotte, “Histoire de Sinkarib et de ses deux visirs,” in La suite des Mille et une nuits: Contes arabes, XXXIX, Supplement à Cabinet des Fées (Genève, Paris, 1788), 266-361. 3 F.C. Conybeare, J.R. Harris and A. Smith Lewis, The Story of Ahikar, from the Aramaic, Syriac, Arabic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Old Turkish, Greek and Slavonic Versions (Cambridge 1913, 2nd rev. ed.). 4 F. Nau, Histoire et sagesse d'Aḥikar l'Assyrien (fils d'Anaël, neveu de Tobie), traduction des versions syriaques, avec les principales différences des versions arabes, arménienne, grecque, néo-syriaque, slave et roumaine (Paris 1909). 5 M. Lidzbarski, “Geschichte des weisen Achikâr,” in Geschichten und Lieder aus den neuaramäischen Handschriften der königlichen Bibliothek zu Berlin, Beiträge zur Volks- und Völkerkunde (Weimar 1896, 1st ed., HildesheimNew York 1973, 2nd ed.), I, 1-77 (Arabic and Turoyo); II, 1-41 (German). 6 Eduard Sachau (1845–1930) taught Semitic languages at the Royal University of Berlin, published many studies pertaining to the Syriac field, travelled in Northern Mesopotamia in the early 1880’s, and made contact with Surethspeaking scholars and copyists. He commissioned and acquired from them a number of manuscripts containing Syriac, Arabic and Neo-Aramaic texts and translations. 7 To date, this text remains the only known written Turoyo version. An oral version told by a speaker of Mlahso was put in writing in recent years by Sh. Talay, “Die Geschichte und die Sprüche des Aḥiqar im neuaramäischen Dialekt von Mlaḥsô,” in W. Arnold and H. Bobzin (eds.), «Sprich doch mit deinen Knechten aramäisch, wir verstehen es!» 60 Beiträge zur Semitistik. Festschrift für Otto Jastrow zum 60. Geburtstag (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2002), 695-712. 8 The London Sachau collection has been described in A. Mengozzi, “The Neo-Aramaic

manuscripts of the British Library: Notes on the study of the durikyātā as a Neo-Syriac genre,” Le Muséon 112 (1999) 459-494. 9 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 some 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). 10 The early German scholars called them Fellichi after the Arabic term for peasant or farmer. 11 See MS London Sachau 9321, f. 696-701. 12 A further Sureth text of Aḥiqar was written by R. Muḥattas, Kunnāšā d-taš‘itā w-matlē d-’Aḥiqar ḥakkimā ‘am mēmrā d-Ploṭarqos wmeddem meddem men Pardaysā d-’abāhātā (Trichur: Mar Narsay Press, 1941, 1st ed., 1961, 2nd ed.). In this book Muḥattas translated into Sureth three works having in common a sapiential and educational purpose, i.e., Aḥiqar, a passage from the Ethikon by Plutarcos, and the Paradise of the Fathers, which is a collection of sayings from the Christian Oriental tradition. The Aḥiqar text has also been privately edited in electronic form by Muhattas' son, Dyodors, in Toronto in 2005. Since the story of Aḥiqar was collected on the basis of the already printed Syriac, Arabic and Armenian texts, it is not a new source, but a sort of summa of the known versions. (See Emanuela Braida, “The NeoAramaic Version of Rubel Muhattas,” in A. Monti (ed.), Roads to Knowledge. Hermeneutical and Lexical Probes (Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso, 2006), 23-26. 13 Nau (1909), 79. 14 F. Nau, “Documents relatifs à Ahikar,” ROC 21/3 (1918-1919) 274-400. 15 Theodore Nöldeke, Untersuchungen zum Achikarroman, Abhandlungen der königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen (Berlin, 1913), 51-54. 16 The plot of the story is summarized here according to the Neo-Aramaic version of the MS London Sachau 9321, but almost all the late Syriac and Arabic versions invariably follow the same order, with the single exception of some Arabic texts in which one of Pharaoh’s riddles is missing.

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 49

The Romance of Aḥiqar the Wise in the Neo-Aramaic MS London Sachau 9321: Part II _________________________________________________________________________________________ 17

The demotic fragment A seems to refer to this episode. Cfr. M.C. Betrò, “La tradizione di Aḥiqar in Egitto,” in R. Contini and C. Grottanelli (eds.), Il saggio Aḥiqar (Brescia: Paideia 2005), 177-192. 18 The Neo-Aramaic version compiled by Muhattas overlaps with the Syriac and the Arabic versions, thus repeating the episode four times. 19 Only the Armenian versions do not accept this motif, and in them the hero does not come before Pharaoh in disguise. 20 For an analysis of this episode, see E. Braida and S. Destefanis. “I fratelli hanno bisogno dei fratelli e i re dei re. Ipotesi sull’origine di un episodio contenuto nelle versioni siriache e arabe del Romanzo di Aḥiqar,” in A. Monti (ed.), Essays in Honour of Fabrizio Pennacchietti (Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso, 2008), 35-41. 21 R. Contini, “Il testo aramaico di Elefantina,” in Il saggio Aḥiqar, R. Contini and C. Grottanelli (eds.) (Brescia: Paideia, 2005), 113-115. 22 Ibid., 118. 23 Ibid., 121. 24 E. Finkelpearl, “Lucius and Aesop Gain a Voice: Apuleius Met. 11.1-2 and Vita Aesopi 7,” in S. Panayotakis, M. Zimmerman and W. Keulen (eds.), The ancient novel and beyond (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 43. 25 Two extremely fragmentary demotic papyri have sometimes been numbered among the evidence in favour of a possible Aḥiqar version dating from before the Aesop Romance and containing the so-called Egyptian episode (Cfr.

Betrò [2005], 178). However, in my opinion, the two demotic extracts are too slight and incomplete to establish their exact content. The suggested dating, 1st century A.D., is also uncertain and neither of the two fragments seems to refer with certainty to the actual Egyptian episode in Aesop or in the late versions. 26 In Aesop there is no mention of the riddles of the ropes of sand or of the broken mill, which come last in the late versions. They do, however, appear in the Babylonian Talmud, Bekhorot 8b, in the setting of a competition of wisdom between Rabbi Joshua ben Hananiah and the wise men of Athens. (Cfr. Nau [1909], 66-67 and F. Briquel, “Construis-moi un château dans le ciel. Remarques sur un motif de conte, d’Aḥiqar à Thomas,” The Harp 20 [2006] 60). 27 C. Grottanelli and E. Dettori, “La Vita Aesopi,” in R. Contini and C. Grottanelli (eds.), Il saggio Aḥiqar (Brescia: Paideia 2005), 170. 28 Grottanelli-Dettori (2005), 170. 29 Ibid., 171. 30 Ibid., 171. 31 Ibid., 171. 32 See infra, p. 43. 33 Braida-Destefanis (2008), 35-41. 34 For a more detailed literary analysis of the narrative patterns of the story, see E. Braida, “Il Romanzo del saggio Aḥiqar: una proposta stemmatica,” in F.M. Fales and G.F. Grassi (eds.), Camsemud 2007. Proceedings of the 13th Italian Meeting of Afro-Asiatic Linguistics, Udine, May 21st-24th, 2007 (Padova: Sargon, 2010), 49-64. 35 F. Ferrari (ed.), Romanzo di Esopo (Milano: Rizzoli, 1997), 31.

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 50

______________________________________________________________________ FIVE KINDS OF REWRITING: APPROPRIATION, INFLUENCE AND THE MANUSCRIPT HISTORY OF EARLY SYRIAC LITERATURE*

KRISTIAN S. HEAL BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY

A

rno Penzias and Robert Wilson won the 1978 Noble Prize in Physics because of the noise in their experiment. While using the large communications antenna owned by Bell Laboratories, these two astronomers were frustrated by the presence of “a persistent background noise […] that made any experimental work impossible. The noise was unrelenting and unfocused [and] came from every point in the sky.”1 They spent a year trying to eliminate this noise, but without success. When they turned to Robert Dickie at Princeton for help, he explained that they were, in fact, recording the cosmic radiation left over from the Big Bang. Text critics are faced with a similar problem. As the classic handbook by Paul Maas states, “The business of textual criticism is to produce a text as close as possible to the original.”2 But in the process of preparing an edition the text critic is constantly frustrated by the persistent noise caused by the variation between the manuscripts and this “original” text. Some of this noise stems from the kind of accidental errors endemic to scribal activity. However, as Michael Driscoll has observed, “Scribes, particularly in vernacular traditions, frequently make deliberate changes”

to their texts, not only “correcting what they perceived to be errors or infelicities,” but also intervening more deliberately by, “shortening the text …, or expanding it, either stylistically, through rhetorical elaboration, or materially, through the addition of new episodes or descriptive passages.”3 As a result, any text critic working with a substantial manuscript tradition has the almost Sisyphean task of eliminating the noise of so-called bad manuscripts, shorter or longer recensions, abbreviated versions, misattribution, misappropriation, scribal emendation and so on. Nonetheless, editions are produced, whether through a Lachmannian commitment to stemmatic criticism, or, following Joseph Bédier, by selecting and reproducing a best text (the approach taken in most Syriac editions).4 In both cases, the objective is to present the best or most original attainable version of a text, or the text with the least “noise.” However, is this noise similarly significant? Is there value in viewing the scribal tradition of a given work as a purposeful and active transmission, rather than as the negligent degeneration of the primordial text? There is certainly clear evidence that scribal activity in the Syriac tradition was

________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 51

Five Kinds of Rewriting: Appropriation, Influence and the Manuscript History of Early Syriac Literature _________________________________________________________________________________________

purposeful and active. David Taylor, for example, has recently drawn attention to the verbs in scribal colophons “that specifically refer to the activity of collecting and assembling scattered materials ( , ), and one, , that is usually used of literary composition rather than copying and transcribing.”5 Though Taylor notes that is used more often “of literary composition rather than copying and transcribing,” he nevertheless concludes that in this particular case “it is more plausible, if a little dull, [that the scribe] was in all likelihood only the copyist of the work.”6 What is less dull, however, is to recognize in deploying a stock formula here, Stephanos is actually a witness to a tradition of scribes as collectors, compositors and rewriters.7 In fact, as we shall see, the manuscripts indicate repeatedly that scribal activity involved attribution, appropriation, domestication, extraction, redaction, invention, selection, reworking, and remaking.8 In other words, scribes not only copied but rewrote Syriac literature.9

REWRITING, MANUSCRIPT CULTURE AND THE PROCESS OF LITERARY PRODUCTION When Jonathan Bate observed that “Literary writing means the rewriting of existing literature,”10 he is not simply echoing Emerson’s statement that “Only an inventor knows how to borrow.”11 Rather, he is asserting that writing is the complex coupling of absorption and creativity, that the ingestion of “the works of literature that they make their own help [writers] to shape the works they create.”12 In fact, as T.S. Eliot notes, the way a writer borrows from other writers and works is “one of the surest tests” of their superiority or inferiority. “Immature [writers] imitate,” he says, while “mature [writers] steal; bad [writers] deface what they take, and good [writers]

make it into something better, or at least something different.”13 Hence Ezra Pound’s adage, “Be influenced by as many great artists as you can, but have the decency either to acknowledge the debt outright, or to try and conceal it.”14 Mature Syriac authors are receiving an increasing measure of well-justified attention, as recent studies on Ephrem, the Book of Steps, and Philoxenus illustrate.15 Studying mature writers means, in part, being sensitive to pervasive allusion, to scripture, liturgy, or earlier authors.16 Fortunately, the ground-breaking work of Robert Murray on the language and typology of the early Syriac tradition has been extended by Sebastian Brock and Manolis Papoutsakis, among others, showing clearly the richness and subtlety of mature Syriac authors from the classical period.17 However, we have to agree with the literary historian who lamented that, “Literary history is ruthless towards the unsuccessful.” The problem is that, “Most histories of [literature] are just a chronological sequence of accounts of individual [authors]. What we need is perspective rather than chronology.” Thus the need to advocate a history of literature that is “based on what happened in [the literature] itself, rather than in certain prominent and successful [authors]—a history of the turf rather than of winners only, of consumers rather than producers. We need a history of the struggle rather than the achievements.”18 In part, then, this essay is an attempt to peer behind the looming figures of the successful, in order to see the struggle to produce Syriac literature—to see past the great authors that emerge like sequoia out of the undergrowth and look instead at the undergrowth from whence they sprang. Guided by Mr. Bate and Mr. Eliot we will look at the phenomenon of literary borrowing and rewriting in its various forms as a means of illuminating the struggle to create Syriac literature. In so doing, I am engaged in a

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 52

Five Kinds of Rewriting: Appropriation, Influence and the Manuscript History of Early Syriac Literature _________________________________________________________________________________________

similar task to the so called new philologists, who are equally concerned about “the processes of literary production.”19 I will also be engaging with the work of codicologists who are interested in exploring the nature of manuscript cultures.20 A manuscript culture encompasses all aspects of the production, reading and dissemination of manuscripts. This essay overlaps with the concerns of students of Syriac manuscript culture to the extent that both are interested in the manuscript history of Syriac literature. A literary history that is told only on the basis of critical editions is a partial history. Of course, the history of Syriac literature is to a great extent necessarily partial because of the vagaries and fortunes of Syriac manuscripts themselves. Many manuscripts have survived for an improbably long time,21 while many others have deteriorated, sometimes simply disintegrating on the shelves before they could be copied. Entire collections have been destroyed in wars and other conflicts. Many collections are in jeopardy at the present time. However, some manuscripts are waiting to be found, or have only recently been rediscovered (the new finds at St. Catherine’s and Deir al-Surian most excitingly, because of the inclusion of numerous ancient codices).22 And there are still discoveries of individual works to be made in well-known collections. As Huygens observes, “The great number of texts … preserved in, or known from, just one manuscript makes us realize how much we owe to pure chance, or have sheer bad luck to blame for. The fact that quite a few texts, which we know to have been written, have still not been discovered cannot be explained exclusively by the unimaginable losses incurred during the many centuries which followed their appearance; it is due to the relatively small number of people who really do look for them.”23 I also want to draw a distinction between rewriting and editorial revision. By

the latter I mean the kind of scribal activity that is primarily concerned with modernizing the lexis of a text, or its grammar or syntax, or the more pedantic work of correcting or collating a text during or after the process of copying.24 Such activity also operates on a continuum, ranging from simple corrections, to larger editorial projects, such as Jacob of Edessa’s revision of the Old Testament. Such editorial revisions are certainly of interest, but they fall outside the scope of this essay. Finally, a note about the sources for the study. Without trying to be exhaustive, I have gathered illustrative examples of types of rewriting from a variety of texts and genres. However, my work on the Syriac Joseph corpus has proven to be a particularly productive source of examples for such a study. Though this corpus contains notable works by well-known authors, anonymous, derivative and fragmentary works predominate, such that the process of delimiting this corpus often involved delving into the messy humus of Syriac literature. In fact, this essay began as an attempt to answer the question of whether these seemingly peripheral, literarily contingent texts are in fact witnesses to a fertile Syriac scribal culture. The specimens of rewriting, borrowing and appropriation taken from the Syriac Joseph corpus and other texts can be classified into five different types.

TYPE 1. ATTRIBUTION AND REATTRIBUTION A simple and pervasive mode of rewriting is re-attribution.25 We are familiar with the use of reattribution to domesticate appealing works by theologically aberrant authors.26 Less well studied are the numerous instances of re-attributing marginal memre and madrashe in order to place them under the protection of the outstretched wings of

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 53

Five Kinds of Rewriting: Appropriation, Influence and the Manuscript History of Early Syriac Literature _________________________________________________________________________________________

the great Syriac poets.27 We may turn to the superb cycle of twelve memre on Joseph to illustrate this phenomenon. The three memre from this cycle that were copied in a sixth century manuscript (BL Add. 12,166), were attributed, correctly it seems, to Balai of Qenneshrin.28 By the ninth century, however, memre from the cycle are being transmitted anonymously, though in the company of works by Jacob of Serugh and Ephrem (BL Add 14,590). Between then and the early thirteenth century a process of reattribution occurred, since we find Solomon of Baṣra citing the entire cycle in familiar terms, and holding it in high regard because it had been written “by the Blessed Mor Ephrem.” 29 All manuscript copies subsequent to Solomon of Baṣra likewise attribute the authorship to Ephrem, and several include the majority of the cycle. As Huygens notes, many of the great authors of Christian antiquity had numerous works attributed to them because, “many a scribe could not, or would not, resist the temptation to mask anonymous— or his own—writings with more famous names, and thus try to enhance their credibility or assure their very survival.”30 Though this work has long been recognized by modern scholars as one of the best poems in Syriac literature,31 its literary merits alone were not sufficient to ensure its survival. It was already being transmitted piecemeal in the earliest manuscripts, doubtless because of its length. Was it saved through an act of reattribution? It is certainly arguable that it would not have survived in its entirety except for the protection of the name of Ephrem.32 We may likewise consider the likely fate of three surviving anonymous works on Joseph had they not been reattributed variously to Narsai, Jacob of Serugh, or both authors.33 These three works, though possessing their own attractions, are far from being the elegant, mature composi-

tions that can be genuinely ascribed to the authors whose names protect them.34 Yet, protect them they did. However, it is not really the quality of the work that concerns us here. Rather it is the action of the scribe who vicariously rewrote these texts by simply reattributing the opening or concluding formula.35 What are we to make of this practice? Certainly it needs to be placed in the context of the pedantic concern to resolve authorship questions that we see in the letters of Jacob of Edessa and George Bishop of the Arabs.36 There also seem to be literary sensibilities at play, often in tension. For example, the efforts of Jacob of Edessa to expose the multiple authors behind the Isaac corpus seem to be resisting the simplification of the Syriac literary tradition and corresponding loss of literary memory that the process of reattribution often entails. Yet the simplification of the tradition is suggestive of a desire to associate significant works with respected authors (though what is meant by “significant” deserves further reflection). Interestingly, modern scholars are more than occasionally complicit in the business of reattribution in order to protect or promote our texts, as demonstrated by the modern struggles over the authorship of the Joseph cycle attributed to Balai. As David Taylor notes, it is the “natural tendency of … editors to date [unattributed texts] as early as possible and to assign them to known writers.”37 This is natural in part because scholars yearn for context, both historical and literary, and the anonymous text seems to disturb their sensibilities. However, philologists need to be selfaware since, as Huygens notes, “vanity plays its role here: it is nicer to have one’s name associated with famous than with obscure writers.”38 Anonymity does not necessarily ensure obscurity. Some anonymous works take on a certain canonical status, such as the Book

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 54

Five Kinds of Rewriting: Appropriation, Influence and the Manuscript History of Early Syriac Literature _________________________________________________________________________________________

of Steps or the Acts of Thomas, because of their evident importance, though most do not and remain unstudied and marginal until granted significance for some other reason than their authorship. Sebastian Brock has, for example, demarginalized the substantial corpus of anonymous dialogue poems written between the fourth and sixth centuries, by taking the time to produce careful editions and translations, and demonstrating their value to the liturgical life of the Church, and to the Syriac literary and exegetical tradition.39 TYPE 2. EXTRACTION FROM SINGLE OR MULTIPLE WORKS Literary aspiration can be observed in the process of collecting extracts from single works, or compiling extracts from multiple works into a new work. In fact, collecting and compiling extracts represents a meaningful portion of late antique and medieval scribal and literary activity.40 Although such collections may be common, uncommon care is required to ferret out the provenance of what can easily be misapprehended as unique texts.41 But this sort of source criticism is only the first step in comprehending these compilations, which invite further enquiry into their collection principles, literary and religious function, reception history, and the reading, scribal and devotional practices that prompted their creation. The composition, sources and functions of monastic anthologies of ascetical extracts are proving to be fertile ground for exploration, as the ongoing research by Gregory Kessel is demonstrating.42 Anthologies of extracts from homiletic works also deserve attention. An interesting and unstudied example of this type is St. Mark’s Convent, Jerusalem, Ms. 163, which contains extracts from a variety of texts, including three short pieces on Jo-

seph previously identified as independent works. Of these, two are taken from an anonymous work on Joseph in multiple meters, and one is as yet unidentified.43 An interesting sub-class of the extracted text is the arrangement of several extracts into a new continuous narrative.44 A simple example is the short work on prayer attributed to Abraham of Nathpar, which turns out to be an only slightly reworked version of a work by John the Solitary on Prayer, prefaced with an extract taken from Aphrahat’s fourth demonstration.45 Rather than seeing Abraham of Nathpar at work, it is more likely that this compilation is the product of a later East Syriac scribe obligingly sacrificing Abraham’s name to domesticate a work on prayer. More complex is the “Memra on the Mysteries, Types and Figures of Christ,” which is made up from extracts of authentic works by Jacob of Serugh. Of the 330 lines in the work, 167 are supplied by 42 identified extracts taken from 10 different memre.46 What is not yet clear is whether the remaining lines are the work of the redactor or were similarly borrowed from other memre. In this instance we are able to identify many of the extracts from surviving memre by Jacob. What is intriguing is that once this type of rewritten work is recognized as a literary form, we are compelled to ask ourselves if other examples exist. For example, is the “Selections (‫ )ܓ ̈ܒ ܐ‬from Mar Aba, Disciple of the Blessed Mar Ephrem” such a work?47 We can observe an early medieval reaction to such a compilation in Hunayn ibn Ishaq’s assessment of a work attributed to Galen: “This book,” he states, “is falsely ascribed to Galen. It is not by him, nor another of the ancients, but by someone more recent, who compiled it from Galen’s books.”48 More important than the attribution, perhaps, is the fact that Hunayn concludes his comments with an evaluation of the weakness of the compiler, who, like

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 55

Five Kinds of Rewriting: Appropriation, Influence and the Manuscript History of Early Syriac Literature _________________________________________________________________________________________

some inept tailor, had bequeathed the world something inelegant and ill-fitting. Hunayn’s evaluation seems to indicate that compiling extracts was a recognized and viable literary activity; though one that could be done well or badly.

TYPE 3. ABRIDGING OR EPITOMIZING SINGLE WORKS Three Syriac Joseph texts result from the activity of abridging or epitomizing single works.49 The best known of these is the third memra in the so-called Pseudo Narsai cycle. In several manuscripts this short piece serves as a bridge between an apocopated pair of memre by one author, and a lone memra composed more than a century later by another author. In order to join these two texts a scribe borrowed and abridged the relevant portion of the cycle attributed to Balai. Even though the adjacent texts are written in 12 syllable lines, this scribe left the abridgement in the original 7+7 syllable meter of the Balai cycle. We do have a single witness to further scribal revision in which this abridged portion is turned into 12 syllable lines, but this revision belongs properly to our fifth type of rewriting, discussed below. A survey of the manuscript witnesses to the memre on Joseph attributed to Jacob of Serugh revealed two previously unidentified examples of the noble art of abbreviation.50 The portion of the Joseph cycle found in Vatican Syriac 543, ff. 62r-64r is an abridged extract from the first memra by Jacob. Another unidentified extract, found in Birmingham Mingana Syriac 546, is a reworked section of Jacob’s second memra on Joseph, provided with a new opening section. Both of these manuscripts are comprised primarily of abbreviated memre of this type. Clearly these texts are being repurposed for new settings, whether liturgical, com-

munal, or personal. Perhaps the selections indicate literary preferences—favorite mementos from a larger work too impractical or expensive to maintain, the origins of which would, as the manuscript came into the hands of new readers, either not be recognized or lost. It is certainly reasonable to say that these extracts allow us to view Syriac literature from the vantage of the consumers rather than the producers. Yet, these extracts also constitute a new text; a contingent, rewritten text, but authored none the less.

TYPE 4. REDACTION AND EMENDATION Much scribal rewriting involved redaction and emendation, a form of rewriting that could involve contracting or expanding certain sections of a text. This is a type of scribal intervention in which sections of a work may be rewritten, or new material added, but most of the original work remains intact in the new composition. The Cave of Treasures is a well-known example.51 A typical case is the two recensions of the memra on Mary and Joseph, the second being an expansion of the first through the addition of homiletic material and a new ending and found, among other places, in Vatican Syriac 117. This was “a process,” observes Brock, “that has resulted in a sad loss of the overall dramatic effect.”52 Brock’s evaluation of the expanded recension of the homily on Mary and Joseph is the appropriate response of a text critic. Such sentiments naturally result in this kind of scribal activity being confined to the cutting room floor, or to an apparatus or appendix, displaced from context and dismissed from study. Yet, though some aspect of the original work is compromised through this activity—in this case the dramatic effect—we cannot disregard the fact that this new version is a witness to new

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 56

Five Kinds of Rewriting: Appropriation, Influence and the Manuscript History of Early Syriac Literature _________________________________________________________________________________________

literary sensibilities, like some baroque renovation of a medieval church. Jacob’s memra on the Seven Sleepers of Ephesus was likewise expanded between the 7th or 8th century witness found in Vatican Syriac 115 and the late-16th century witness found in Vatican Syriac 217.53 Similarly, in the memra on the Magi attributed to Isaac of Antioch we can see scribal intervention between the 6th century Vatican Syriac 120 (f. 197b-209a) and the 12th century Vatican Syriac 117, ff. 70b (col. I)-73b (col. III).54 Once again, the few places where we can observe this phenomenon indicate an element of Syriac manuscript culture that should be considered by anyone reading or editing texts that only survive in later manuscripts. A particularly interesting example of this redaction process takes on the form of paratextual migration. The earliest known witness of the 9th century commentary by the monk Severus was copied within a few decades of the original composition by Shem‘un of Ḥisn Manṣur, a scribe working in the Monastery of the Seven Martyrs near Perrhe. In the process of copying the commentary, Shem‘un inserted additional notes and comments as paratextual marginalia. This paratextual material was incorporated into the body text of the commentary when it was copied in what is today British Library Add. 12,144 and Dayr al-Suryan Syr. 15.55 This clear example of the migration of paratext to body text alerts the attentive reader to further possibilities of the manuscript history of Syriac literature, particularly in the commentary genre.

TYPE 5. RECOMPOSITION Recomposition, as a type of rewriting, protrudes further from the undergrowth. By recomposition we mean the conscious absorption of the language, structure and themes from a single text in the production

of a new text. Recomposition sometimes involves rewriting a text in a different form, such as in prose or verse, or in another meter. Recomposed texts demonstrate a sustained dependence on their Vorlage, rather than the just the sort of initial impetus that was given, for example, to T.S. Eliot by Lancelot Andrewes’ 1622 Christmas day sermon in the composition of The Journey of the Magi.56 An interesting series of three texts from the Joseph corpus illustrates well the possibilities of recomposition. The Syriac History of Joseph, a prose text written in the early 5th century is the basis of a pair of verse homilies written in twelve syllable lines that survive under the name of both Narsai and Jacob of Serugh. This work Christianizes and further dramatizes its Vorlage, recasting it firmly in the popular genre of the dramatic dialogue poem. This pair of verse homilies were subsequently rewritten in alternating metres, a metrical phenomenon that is not, as Murray supposed, “a peculiarity of Cyrillona,”57 since it is found both in this Joseph text, in the memra on Aaron sometimes attributed to Jacob of Serugh, and the memra on David and Uriah found in Vatican Syriac 464, ff. 81r-98v. This new Joseph text in multiple meters, though clearly derivative, also incorporated its own distinctive elements and themes. There are numerous other instances of this type of rewriting where a biblical passage provides the basic text, ranging from Ephrem’s commentary on Genesis and Exodus to elaborately rewritten narrative poems based on biblical passages. Other instances are based on existing Syriac works, such as Narsai’s twenty-ninth memra, written in twelve-syllable lines, which was rewritten in seven-syllable lines and now listed by Mingana as Narsai’s thirtieth memra.58 Not infrequently, texts are migrating between prose and verse. For example, there is a prose version of the mem-

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 57

Five Kinds of Rewriting: Appropriation, Influence and the Manuscript History of Early Syriac Literature _________________________________________________________________________________________

ra of Elia of Qartmin on Philoxenus.59 These pieces certainly help make plausible M. van Esbroeck’s claim that the memra on Andrew the Apostle was based on a lost Syriac prose original.60 A recently noticed example of recomposition is attributed directly to Michael the Syrian. The Life of Abhay, as published by Bedjan, 61 includes an editorial note at the end of the text stating that Patriarch Michael had produced this “arrangement” (‫ܐ‬ ) of the vita in AG 1496 (AD 1184/5).62 Recently, Sebastian Brock identified another witness of this Life in Bodleian Library, Marsh 13 (ff. 1v-61v), a hagiographical manuscript dated to 1176/7 that contains an unusual collection of saints’ lives. This Oxford manuscript was written nearly a decade earlier than Michael’s “arrangement” of the life, and “is thus an important witness to an earlier form of the text,”63 one that permits us to see Michael’s literary sensibilities at work. The multiple recensions of the lives of Syriac saints belong to this category of rewriting. Rather than multiplying examples, it may be worth asking what it is that makes a text suitable for recomposition. Is it the text’s narrativity? Certainly numerous biblical narratives were rewritten in the form of Syriac narrative poems, and hagiographical texts were rewritten based on earlier versions or accounts.64 As a result, recomposition is the type of rewriting that facilitates the greatest imaginative and creative engagement with an existing text. It is this form of rewriting that is capable of producing the highest works of art in a literature.

CONCLUSION: REWRITING, MANUSCRIPT CULTURE AND LITERARY HISTORY Sebastian Brock notes in A Brief Outline of Syriac Literature that Rubens Duval’s 1907 La littérature syriaque “remains the

best general introduction” to Syriac literature, and that Anton Baumstark’s 1922 Geschichte der syrischen Literatur is still “the standard work, indispensable for all serious study of the subject.”65 Given the significant amount of scholarship that has been produced since 1922 it is certainly time to start laying the foundation for a new history of Syriac literature!66 How might this essay contribute to such a foundation? Firstly, as Lucas Van Rompay has shown, an important aspect of a new literary history is the history of the reception of the works of a particular author in the tradition.67 Notably, the reception of an author is indicated in the shape of their work as it was transmitted, rather than as we find it in the critical editions. As Huygens observed, if an ancient “work had any influence at all, then its influence was almost certainly exerted, not by the autograph itself, but by copies.”68 This is not only an argument for recording variants (even of manuscripts of secondary textcritical value), but also for considering the various manifestations of a particular text and the difference that each instance might have on its reception. This even applies to the biblical text, as contemporary studies have shown.69 Among the most important contentions of this essay, then, is that renewed study of the manuscripts is not only vital for understanding literary development, but also for writing a new history of Syriac literature. Nevertheless, a new history of Syriac literature will surely incorporate the kind of literary analysis that demands recovering, as far as is possible, the earliest form of a text through text criticism. Moreover, an appreciation of the topography and stratigraphy of manuscript culture illustrated in this essay will facilitate the employment of applicable theoretical models for advancing the study of Syriac literature. Further advances in our understanding of the migration and transformation of Syriac literature

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 58

Five Kinds of Rewriting: Appropriation, Influence and the Manuscript History of Early Syriac Literature _________________________________________________________________________________________

will not only come at the hands of Bloom’s study of the Anxiety of Influence, but also from contemporary advances in adaptation theory, to name only two potentially profitable approaches.70 However, this study suggests that writing the literary history of a particular period will also demand giving due consideration to the manuscript history of Syriac literature in that period. Thus, it

is not enough to appreciate that manuscripts provide an interesting vantage point from which to consider how books were read and received in antiquity.71 Rather, it is also necessary to consider the related question of the relationship between reading and rewriting, and between Syriac manuscript culture and the manuscript history of Syriac literature.

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 59

Five Kinds of Rewriting: Appropriation, Influence and the Manuscript History of Early Syriac Literature _________________________________________________________________________________________

NOTES *

I am grateful to Amir Harrak for inviting me to present this paper to the Canadian Society of Syriac Studies. A stimulating discussion followed, and I am thankful for valuable comments from Amir Harrak, Kyle Smith and Ashoor Yousif. Glen Cooper (BYU), Carl Griffin (BYU), Jan Van Ginkel (VU Amsterdam) and Lucas Van Rompay (Duke University) also offered valuable suggestions to various drafts. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Sixth North American Syriac Conference (Duke University, 2011). 1 Bill Bryson, A Short History of Nearly Everything (New York: Broadway Books, 2003), 11-12. 2 Paul Maas, Textual Criticism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1958), 1. 3 M. J. Driscoll, “The Words on the Page: Thoughts on Philology, Old and New,” in Creating the Medieval Saga: Versions, Variability and Editorial Interpretations of Old Norse Saga Literature, eds. Judy Quinn and Emily Lethbridge (Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark, 2010), 87-104, with citation from page 87. 4 A useful survey of the text-critical approaches, including those of Karl Lachmann (1793-1851) and Joseph Bédier (1864-1938), is found in Erik Kelemen, Textual Editing and Criticism: An Introduction (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2009), 73-120. For approaches to textual criticism in Syriac studies see, Alessandro Mengozzi, “Past and Present Trends in the Edition of Classical Syriac Texts,” in Comparative Oriental Manuscript Studies: An Introduction, eds. Alessandro Bausi et alii (Hamburg: Comparative Manuscript Studies, 2015), 435-39. For the limits of Lachmannian terminology see most recently, Tjamke Snijders, “Work, Version, Text and Scriptum: High Medieval Terminology in the Aftermath of the New Philology,” Digital Philology: A Journal of Medieval Cultures 2 (2013) 266-96. 5 David G. K. Taylor, “A Stylistic Comparison of the Syriac Ḥimyarite Martyr Texts Attributed to Simeon of Beth Arsham,” in Juifs et Chrétiens en Arabie aux Ve et Vie Siècles regards Croisés sur les Sources, eds. Joëlle

Beaucamp, Françoise Briquel-Chatonnet and Christian Julien Robin (Paris: Association des amis du Centre d’histoire et civilization de Byzance, 2010), 148. Taylor is referring to the colophon composed by Stephanos bar Mattai in 932 recorded in Alex Moberg, The Book of the Himyarites: Fragments of a Hitherto Unknown Syriac Work (Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup: 1924), xx-xxi: “Stephanos, a greater sinner than all born of women, labored ( ), and collected ( ), and took great care (‫) ̣ܦ‬, and was diligent ( ̣ ‫)ܐܬ‬, according to his poor power; and as far as he was able he gathered together ( ̣ ) and composed ( ̣ ) this spiritual composition (‫ ) ̇ ܐ‬which is in this book, and some of the teachings of the holy orthodox Fathers, to the profit of himself and of everyone who will read the book.” 6 Taylor, “Stylistic Comparison,” 148-49. 7 Taylor notes that, “Two other hagiographical manuscripts of a similar date preserve similar colophons, in which the verbs refer only to the bringing together of disparate materials within a single volume, which suggests that Stephanos may be using stock formulae.” One is British Library Add. 14,650 (Wright, Catalogue, III, 1107), dated to A.D. 875, which states that, “Simeon the sinner was diligent and composed ( ‫ )ܘ‬this spiritual composition for his own benefit and that of Joseph, his brother and disciple.” The other is British Library Add. 17,174 (Wright, Catalogue, III, 1076), dated to A.D. 929, which states that, “May all who read pray for all who labored (‫) ̣ ܝ‬, and took care (‫) ̣ ܦ‬, and collected ( ), and composed ( ) this spiritual composition (‫ܐ‬ ) according to his power, that he might be shown mercy through the love of humanity of Jesus, God, the judge of the living and the dead.” See, “Stylistic Comparison,” 149, n 56. 8 On the role of extracts and epitomes in manuscript culture, see most recently, Sébastien Morlet, Lire en extraits: Lecture et production des textes, de l’Antiquité à la fin du Moyen Âge. (Paris: Presses de l’université Paris-Sorbonne, 2015). 9 A phenomenon that has been much more extensively considered with respect to other manuscript cultures. See, for example, the fascinating study of medieval Latin manuscript culture and rewriting in Tjamke Snijders, Man-

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 60

Five Kinds of Rewriting: Appropriation, Influence and the Manuscript History of Early Syriac Literature _________________________________________________________________________________________

uscript Communication: Visual and Textual Mechanics of Communication in Hagiographical Texts from the Southern Low Countries, 900-1200 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2015). I am grateful to Dr. Snijders for sharing an advance copy of the chapter on rewriting. 10 Jonathan Bate, English Literature: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 22. 11 Emerson, “Plato the Philosopher” in Representative Men. 12 Bate, English Literature, 25 13 T. S. Eliot, The Sacred Wood: Essays on Poetry and Criticism (London: Metheun & Co., 1920), 114. 14 Ezra Pound, “A Few Don’ts by an Imagiste,” Poetry 1.6 (March 1913) 202. 15 Thomas Kremer, Mundus primus. Die Geschichte der Welt und des Menschen von Adam bis Noach im Genesiskommentar Ephräms des Syrers, CSCO 641 (Leuven: Peeters, 2012); Kristian S. Heal and Robert A. Kitchen, eds., Breaking the Mind: New Studies in the Syriac “Book of Steps” (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2014); David A. Michelson, The Practical Christology of Philoxenos of Mabbug (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014). 16 As R. B. C. Huygens counsels, “If you do not know the Bible, don’t edit any text at all without first having familiarized yourself with the typical flavour of biblical language;” Ars Edendi: A Practical Introduction to Editing Medieval Latin Texts (Turnhout: Brepols, 2000), 11. 17 Robert Murray, Symbols of Church and Kingdom: A Study in Early Syriac Tradition, revised ed. (London: T & T Clark, 2004); Sebastian P. Brock, “Clothing Metaphors as a Means of Theological Expression in Syriac Tradition,” 11-38 in Typus, Symbol, Allegorie bei den östlichen Vätern und ihren Parallelen im Mittelalter. Internationales Kolloquium, Eichstätt 1981, eds. Margot Schmidt and Carl Friedrich Geyer, Eichstätter Beiträge 4 (Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 1982); Manolis Papoutsakis, “The Making of a Syriac Fable: From Ephrem to Romanos,” Le Muséon 120 (2007) 29-75. 18 Jacob Isaacs, The Background of Modern Poetry (London: G. Bell and Sons, 1951), 2-3.

19

Driscoll, “Words on the Page,” 92. Interest in manuscripts as artifacts is not new, but the rejuvenation and vitality of research in this area is evidenced in the new series, Studies in Manuscript Cultures, published by de Gruyter. 21 Sebastian Brock lists fifty dated manuscripts before the 600 CE in, “A Tentative Check List of Dated Syriac Manuscripts up to 1300,” Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies 15 (2012) 21-48. 22 Sebastian P. Brock, Catalogue of Syriac Fragments (New Finds) in the Library of the Monastery of Saint Catherine, Mount Sinai (Athens: Mount Sinai Foundation, 1995); Philothée du Sinaï, Nouveaux manuscrits syriaques du Sinaï (Athènes: Fondation du Mont Sinaï, 2008); Sebastian P. Brock and Lucas Van Rompay, Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts and Fragments in the Library of Deir alSurian, Wadi al-Natrun (Egypt), Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 227 (Leuven: Peeters, 2014). 23 Huygens, Ars Edendi, 25. This point is nicely illustrated by Sebastian Brock’s discovery of the second part of the works of Isaac of Nineveh; Sebastian P. Brock, “Lost - and found: Part II of the works of St Isaac of Nineveh,” Studia Patristica, vol. 18 part. 4 (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1990), 230-33. 24 For example, the position of the particle is normalized by the 6th century scribe of Aphrahat’s 8th demonstration (personal conversation with Aaron Butts). 25 For example, of the 22 known letters of George Bishop of the Arabs, Jack Tannous has identified 11 “in a variety of other Greek and Syriac texts with different attributions;” see, Jack Tannous, “Syria between Byzantium and Islam: Making Incommensurables Speak” (PhD dissertation, Princeton, 2010), 11. Further discussion and details in his, “Between Christology and Kalam? The Life and Letters of George, Bishop of the Arab tribes,” in Malphono wRabo d-Malphone: Studies in Honor of Sebastian P. Brock, ed. George A. Kiraz (Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias Press, 2008), 671-716. Several examples of reattributed memre are given in the notes of Sebastian P. Brock, “The Published Verse Homilies of Isaac of Antioch, Jacob of Serugh, and Narsai: Index of Incipits,” Journal 20

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 61

Five Kinds of Rewriting: Appropriation, Influence and the Manuscript History of Early Syriac Literature _________________________________________________________________________________________

of Semitic Studies 32 (1987): 279-313, esp. 309-312. 26 Examples are given in Sebastian P. Brock, “Crossing the Boundaries: An Ecumenical Role Played by Syriac Monastic Literature,” in Il monachesimo tra eredità e aperture. Atti del simposio “Testi e Temi nella Tradizione del Monachesimo Cristiano” per il 50o anniversario dell’Istituto Monastico di Sant’Anselmo; Roma, 28 maggio – 1o giugno 2002, eds. Maciej Bielawski and Daniel Hombergen, Studia Anselmiana 140, Analecta Monastica 8 (Roma: Pontificio Ateneo S. Anselmo, 2004), 221-238. 27 Cf. Sebastian P. Brock, “The Transmission of Ephrem’s madrashe in the Syriac Liturgical Tradition,” Studia Patristica, vol. 33 (Leuven: Peeters, 1997), 490-505, who notes on 495, “Not surprisingly, many madrashe which on internal grounds cannot possibly be by Ephrem nonetheless get attributed to him. More unexpected, however, is the fact that on occasion genuine material by Ephrem can lurk under another poet’s name.” 28 The valuable recent study by Robert Phenix follows Baumstark and Brock in accepting this sixth century attribution. However, his long chapter on the authorship question, though a useful survey of scholarship on Balai, adduces no new evidence to support this attribution. See, Robert Phenix, The Sermons on Joseph of Balai of Qenneshrin (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 14-71. Text critics would, perhaps, have advised making more of the early attribution in BL Add. 12,166. As Huygens notes, for example, “Other criteria lacking, I think one may assume that the manuscript attribution to a certain author becomes more plausible if this author was less well known at the time.” Ars Edendi, 21. 29 In defense of his brevity he protests that “because many have caused the story of the blessed Joseph to be written at length—even the blessed Mor Ephrem wrote his story in twelve memre, including everything that happened to him from his childhood until his death, and another memra on the translation of his bones—we have turned aside from the writing of the story at length, lest we depart from the goal we have set ourselves in gathering together this collection;” E. A. Wallis Budge, The

Book of the Bee: The Syriac Text Edited from the Manuscripts in London, Oxford, and Munich with an English Translation, Anecdota Oxoniensia, Semitic Series 1.2. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1886), text p. . 30 Huygens, Ars Edendi, 20. 31 For example, by Anton Baumstark, as noted by Andrew Palmer, “The Influence of Ephraim the Syrian,” Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies 2 (1999): 85 fn. 3. Interestingly, it is the literary merit of the poem that led both Bedjan and Palmer to incline towards accepting the later reattribution—as Palmer observes, “if Balai was such a good poet, it is surprising that so little of his work is known.” 32 This and other works reattributed to Ephrem also provide valuable material for evaluating the reception of Ephrem, and the construction of the image of Ephrem by the medieval reader. On reattribution to Ephrem, see Sebastian P. Brock, “In Search of Ephrem,” Khristianskij Vostok 6 (2013) 13-77, esp. 19-20 and 44-45. 33 For more details see Kristian S. Heal, “A Note on Jacob of Sarug’s Memre on Joseph,” Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies 14 (2011) 27-35, esp. 33-34. 34 While respecting the value of studying the manuscript history of Syriac literature, it should also be noted that this proclivity towards reattribution has resulted in the dilution of the literary heritage of several important Syriac authors, most notably Ephrem. As Sebastian Brock notes, “it is only now, in our own lifetimes, that we are in a position to encounter the real St Ephrem, who has hitherto had to hide behind the misleading medieval tradition where his genuine works had been sadly abbreviated and where many mediocre poems ‘in the metre of Ephrem’ had misleadingly been attributed to him.” Brock, “In Search of St Ephrem,” 20. 35 The list of reattributed works is substantial, and this phenomenon deserves to be studies more extensively. 36 George responds to questions about the identity of the “Persian Sage.” See William Wright, The Homilies of Aphahaates, The Persian Sage (London: Williams and Norgate, 1869), 3-4, with the letter reproduced on 19-37. Jacob responds to the identity of various authors with the name Isaac. See, Paul Bedjan,

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 62

Five Kinds of Rewriting: Appropriation, Influence and the Manuscript History of Early Syriac Literature _________________________________________________________________________________________

Homiliae S. Isaaci Syri Antiocheni (Paris: Otto Harrassowitz, 1903), iv-vi. 37 Taylor, “Stylistic Comparison,”143. 38 Huygens, Ars Edendi, 21. 39 See most recently Sebastian P. Brock, The Treasure House of Mysteries (Yonkers N.Y.: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2012), and my review in Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies 17 (2014) 369-71. 40 For example, the ninth century compilation found in British Library Add. 17,193 recently described in Sebastian P. Brock, “An excerpt from a Letter to the people of Homs, wrongly attributed to Ephrem,” Oriens Christianus 86 (2002) 1-12, esp. 1-4. 41 See, for example, Geoffrey Herman, “Notes on the Recently Published Discourse on Priesthood (BL Add. 18295, ff. 137b-140b),” Journal of Semitic Studies 54 (2009) 389-91, which shows that what was thought to be an unknown independent work is in fact an extract from a larger known work. 42 For example, Grigory Kessel, “Syriac Monastic Miscellanies,” in Comparative Oriental Manuscript Studies: An Introduction, eds. Alessandro Bausi et alii (Hamburg: Comparative Manuscript Studies, 2015), 411-414. See also, Herman G. B. Teule, “Les compilations monastiques syriaques,” in Symposium Syriacum VII: Uppsala University, Department of Asian and African Languages, 11–14 August 1996, Orientalia Christiana Analecta 256, ed. René Lavenant (Roma: Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 1998), 249-264. 43 Ff. 106b-109a, “Memra on Joseph in the meter of Mor Jacob,” is an extract, beginning with line 7, from an anonymous cycle on Joseph written in multiple meters, the first part of which was published in M. Engel, Die Geschichte Josephs nach einer syrischen Handschrift der königl. Bibliothek in Berlin. Teil 1 (Berlin: Rabbiner-Seminar, 1895). Ff. 109a-111a, “Another Memra on the Sons of Jacob in the Meter of Mor Jacob,” presents the episode where Benjamin and his brothers being apprehended with the cup (Gen. 44:1-13), and is as yet unidentified. Ff. 111a-113a, “Another, on Benjamin and Joseph in the Meter of Mor Balai,” is a second extract from the anonymous cycle. 44 Henning Lehmann coins the term “florilege homily” to describe such a text. See his,

“The Nobel Art of Abbreviating – In the Light of Some Texts Attributed to Severian of Gabala,” in Students of the Bible in 4th and 5th Century Syria: Seats of Learning, Sidelights and Syriacisms (Aarhus University Press, 2008), 155-169, quoting from 163 (this paper is reprinted from the Proceedings of the Danish Institute at Athens I, ed. Søren Dietz [Athens, 1995], 221-227). 45 Sebastian P. Brock, “John the Solitary, On Prayer,” Journal of Theological Studies 30 (1979) 85. 46 J.A. Konat, “A Metrical Homily of Jacob of Serugh On the Mysteries, Types and Figures of Christ: Authentic or Compilation?” Le Muséon 118 (2005) 71-86. 47 Edmund Beck, Nachträge zu Ephraem Syrus, CSCO 363, Syr. 159 (Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1975), 72-76. 48 The text in question is On the Anatomy of the Instruments of the Voice. I cite the translation of John Lamoreaux, Hunayn ibn Ishaq: The Risala on His Galen Translations (Provo: Brigham Young University Press, forthcoming). 49 Lehmann refers to such abbreviation as the “subtraction technique,” in which blocks of text are removed and minor smoothing or alteration occurs to maintain the legibility of a text (“The Nobel Art of Abbreviating,” 160). 50 Heal, “A Note on Jacob of Sarug's Memre on Joseph,” 219. 51 Numerous examples of the differences between recensions and individual manuscript witnesses are given in Clemens Leonhard, “Observations on the Date of the Syriac Cave of Treasures,” in The World of the Aramaeans III: Studies in Language and Literature in Honour of Paul-Eugène Dion, eds. P. M. Michèle Daviau et alii (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 255-93. 52 Sebastian P. Brock, “Dramatic Dialogue Poems,” in IV Symposium Syriacum, 1984: Literary Genres in Syriac Literature (Groningen – Oosterhesselen 10-12 September), Orientalia Christiana Analecta 229, eds. Han J.W. Drijvers et alii (Roma: Pontificium Institutum Studiorum Orientalium, 1987), 135-147, citing from 142. 53 The edition is found in Paulus Bedjan and Sebastian P. Brock, eds., Homilies of Mar Ja-

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 63

Five Kinds of Rewriting: Appropriation, Influence and the Manuscript History of Early Syriac Literature _________________________________________________________________________________________

cob of Sarug / Homiliae Selectae Mar-Jacobi Sarugensis (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2006), vol. VI, 324-330. Study and translation in Sebastian P. Brock, “Jacob of Serugh’s Poem on the Sleepers of Ephesus,” in “I Sowed Fruits into Hearts” (Odes Sol. 17:13): Festschrift for Professor Michael Lattke, Early Christian Studies 12, eds. Pauline Allen, Majella Franzmann, and Rick Strelan (Strathfield, NSW: St Paul’s Publications, 2007), 13-30. 54 We see similar scribal interventions in the memre on Joseph preserved in Vatican Syriac 117. 55 For additional information and bibliography see, Lucas Van Rompay, “Severos, Commentary of the Monk,” in Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage, eds. Sebastian P. Brock, Aaron M. Butts, George A. Kiraz and Lucas Van Rompay (Piscataway N.J.: Gorgias Press, 2011), 367. 56 See Pat Rogers, ed., An Outline of English Literature, 2nd edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 165-66. 57 Murray, Symbols, 122. On Cyrillona see now, Carl W. Griffin, “Cyrillona: A Critical Study and Commentary” (PhD dissertation, The Catholic University of America, 2011). 58 See, Judith Frishman, The Ways and Means of the Divine Economy: An Edition, Translation and Study of Six Biblical Homilies by Narsai (Leiden: Universiteit Leiden, 1992), 15 (study); ibid, “Narsai’s Homily for the Palm Festival – Against the Jews: For the Palm Festival or against the Jews?” in IV Symposium Syriacum, 1984: Literary Genres in Syriac Literature (Groningen – Oosterhesselen 10-12 September), Orientalia Christiana Analecta 229, eds. Han J.W. Drijvers et alii (Roma: Pontificium Institutum Studiorum Orientalium, 1987), 217-229, citing 221 59 See Stephen Gero, Barṣauma of Nisibis and Persian Christianity in the Fifth Century, CSCO 426, Subs. 63 (Louvain: Peeters, 1981), 11, n. 62; Alphonse Mingana, “New Documents on Philoxenus of Hierapolis, and on the Philoxenian Version of the Bible,” The Expositor VIII, 19 (1920) 149-160, citing 153. 60 Michel van Esbroeck, “Actes syriaques d’André attribués à Éphrem,” in Symposium Syriacum VII: Uppsala University, Department of Asian and African Languages, 11–14 August

1996, Orientalia Christiana Analecta 256, ed. René Lavenant (Roma: Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 1998), 85-105; see also, ibid., “A Ballad about Saint Andrew and the Cannibals, Attributed to Saint Ephraim,” Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies 2 (1999) 27-36, citing 34. This memra appears to be written partly in 12, partly in 7+7 syllable lines. 61 BHO 10. Edition published in Paul Bedjan, ed., Acta martyrum et sanctorum, 7 vols. (Paris: Otto Harrassowitz, 1890-97), vol. VI, 557-616. 62 Note taken from British Library Add. 12,174, f. 98. 63 Sebastian P. Brock, “A West Syriac Life of Mar Shabbay (Bar Shabba), Bishop of Merv,” in Bibel, Byzanz und Christlicher Orient: Festschrift für Stephen Gerö zum 65. Geburtstag, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 187, eds. D. Bumazhnov, E. Grypeou, T.B. Sailors and A. Toepel (Leuven: Peeters, 2011), 259-280, citing from p. 260. 64 Muriel Debié notes that because Thomas of Marga’s Book of Governors was based upon earlier hagiographical texts it “casts light on a now entirely lost corpus of lives;” see, “Writing History as ‘Histories’: The Biographical Dimension of East Syriac Historiography,” in Writing ‘True Stories’: Historians and Hagiographers in the Late Antique and Medieval Near East, ed. Arietta Papaconstantinou (Turnhout: Brepols, 2010), 43-75, citation on 66. 65 Sebastian P. Brock, A Brief Outline of Syriac Literature, Moran Etho, 2nd edition (Piscataway N.J.: Gorgias Press, 2011), 132; Rubens Duval, La littérature syriaque, 3rd edition (Paris: Libraire Victor Lecoffre, 1907); Anton Baumstark, Geschichte der syrischen Literatur mit Ausschluß der christlich-palästinensischen Texte (Bonn: A. Marcus und E. Webers Verlag, 1922). 66 Sergey Minov’s “A Comprehensive Bibliography on Syriac Christianity” lists 2356 works published by 1922 and 15515 works published since then (http://www.csc.org.il/ db/db.aspx?db=SB). Accessed September 16, 2015. 67 “Mallpânâ dilan Suryâyâ. Ephrem in the Works of Philoxenus of Mabbog: Respect and Distance,” Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies 7 (2004) 83-105. For an exemplary treatment of

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 64

Five Kinds of Rewriting: Appropriation, Influence and the Manuscript History of Early Syriac Literature _________________________________________________________________________________________

the reception of a late antique author see, Karla Pollmann, ed., The Oxford Guide to the Historical Reception of Augustine (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013). 68 Ars Edendi, 29-30. 69 See for example the recent excellent study by Claudio Balzaretti, The Syriac Version of Ezra-Nehemiah: Manuscripts and Editions, Translation Technique and Its Use in Textual Criticism, Biblica et orientalia 51 (Roma: Gregorian & Biblical Press, 2013). 70 Harold Bloom, The Anxiety of Influence,

2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997); Julie Sanders, Adaptation and Appropriation (New York: Routledge, 2006); Linda Hutcheon and Siobhan O’Flynn, A Theory of Adaptation, 2nd ed. (London: Routledge, 2013). 71 A significant contribution to this most interesting subject is made by Philip Michael Forness, “Narrating History through the Bible in Late Antiquity: A Reading Community for the Syriac Peshitta Old Testament Manuscript in Milan (Ambrosian Library, B. 21 inf.),” Le Muséon 127 (2014) 41-76.

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 65

______________________________________________________________________ FOLLOWING THE FOOTSTEPS OF FATHER FIEY: TOPOGRAPHICAL OBSERVATIONS IN ‘AQRĀ AND ITS REGION

NARMĪN ‘ALĪ AMĪN & PARWĪN BADRĪ TAWFĪQ* UNIVERSITY OF SALĀḤ-AD-DĪN, ERBIL

T

he seminal work of the late Father Jean Maurice Fiey1 is fundamental for the study of ecclesiastical geography of Iraq, and is far more informative than the works of Badger, Pognon, Preusser, Gertrude Bell,2 and other Orientalists and travellers. Fiey visited a great number of sites that witness to flourishing Christian communities in the past, and noted, sometimes briefly, remains of their churches, shrines, and monasteries, and traced their histories on the basis of meticulous study of manuscripts. His threevolume Assyrie chrétienne is thus an indispensable guide to Christian remains throughout the entire country. Since he undertook his investigations more than six decades ago, one wonders what remains in situ among the religious buildings that he visited and described, given the successive wars that have plagued Iraq ever since the early 1970s and the consequential hemorrhaging of a centuries-old Christian presence across the region. One also wonders whether or not there are sites that have not been included in his publication. In April 2014 an international conference on the history of ‘Aqrā was convened by the University of Dehōk in the city of ‘Aqrā, and in it Father Fiey was extensively quoted in

a variety of papers, giving incentive to a small group of participants, headed by the present writers, to assess the Christian remains in ‘Aqrā and its region in situ. The present article details some of our findings which, though not comprehensive, nonetheless stress the need to undertake systematic missions in ‘Aqrā and elsewhere to record the remains of Christianity in Iraq.

CHRISTIAN ‘AQRĀ ‛Aqrā, located some 120 km southeast of Dehōk, is mentioned in the monastic History of the 9th century bishop Thomas of Margā under the name ’Aqrā (alif instead of ‛ayn).3 The same work also mentions other villages and sites located around this town, including Sharmen, Shosh and Neram-Gunduk,4 the first two still known by their names to this day. ‘Aqrā is familiar in Arab geographies and histories, including a work by Yāqūt al-Ḥamawī, who mentions it as an “impregnable fortress on the mountains of Mosul; its inhabitants are Kurds and it is located to the east of Mosul and known as ‘Aqr al-Ḥumaydiyyā;”5 Thomas of Margā’s ‘Shosh’ is also mentioned by Yāqūt, who describes it as a mighty fortress famous for its “pomegranate seeds.”6

________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 66

Following the Footsteps of Father Fiey: Topographical Observations in ‘Aqrā and its Region _________________________________________________________________________________________

The Christian presence in ‘Aqrā has continued from the 9th century to this day, and its name frequently occurs in Syriac manuscripts from the 17th century onward.7 Father Fiey visited several localities in ‘Aqrā, including its towns and villages, including Shosh (or Bashosh = Bēt-Shosh), Neram-Gunduk, Sapespa, and the monastery of Mār ‘Awdīsho (see below),8 and the historical information he provided about each of these places is very useful. In some places, there is still room to supplement details about the traces of these Christian buildings, particularly in the face of the various rebuilding projects taking place in the north of Iraq. The city of ‘Aqrā The history of ‛Aqrā is relatively well known, at least since the time of Thomas, bishop of Margā. In terms of Christian monuments, nothing remains from the distant past unlike some places in the Plain of Nineveh where some buildings date to the Atabeg period (13th century) if not even earlier. The Chaldeans owned a church in the city of ‘Aqrā dated to before 1890, but several decades later it had become dilapidated and thus was rebuilt and expanded in 1948, as commemorated in one inscription: “On the place of the old church that was built after the name of Mart Mariam, this church was built, much longer and wider than the former one, after the name of our Lady of Rosary…”9 (figs. 1 and 2). The plan of the church is non-traditional in that the sanctuary is entirely open and the altar stands right against its wall. More typically a wall would separate the sanctuary from the nave. The church has one nave with pillars along its two lateral sides. The outer walls are built with polished stones, and its original gate, now blocked with stones, still holds its commemorative inscriptions. The church is currently abandoned and its structure has suffered erosion and decay; it may even disappear completely if the top of the

mountain is restructured for commercial purposes. Not far from the church there is an extensive structure cut inside the mountain with partitioned rooms (fig. 3), reminiscent of the refectory of the monastery of Rabban Hormuzd on the mountain of Alqosh. No inscriptions or incised crosses have been found there and thus the identity of the site is open to question, but if we believe Asahel Grant, who visited the city of ‘Aqrā in 1839, “(The Christians) in the town have become Chaldeans (i.e. Papists), and they and the Jacobite Syrians have each a church excavated from the rocks of the mountain.”10 Fiey also refers to this cave-church, which he attributes to the Orthodox Syriacs and names it after St. George. According to Fiey, there were three interconnected caves. The first cave measures 4 m in length; the central cave measures 4.5 m deep and 12 m wide, and served as the church; the third cave is a shrine with a small altar.11 This description, along with the closeness of the man-made “cave churches” to the stone-built church, suggests that the caves might have served at one point as churches. The Village of Divry At the time of Thomas of Margā this site was called Dūrā or Dūrē12 and was located in the Malkā Valley (naḥlā d-malkā). It was there that John of Dailam lived in the early stage of his monastic life; his memory was apparently perpetuated in a tree called “the tree of Mār Yōḥannan.”13 Nowadays, the village is inhabited exclusively by Muslim Kurds. A ruined church with one nave and built with unpolished blocks can still be seen there. The village of Dinarta Inhabited today by Kurds, this site was originally a Christian place given the church that it contains. This single-nave church, along with its outside gallery, is in

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 67

Following the Footsteps of Father Fiey: Topographical Observations in ‘Aqrā and its Region _________________________________________________________________________________________

good condition, and is constructed of stones. According to Nicholas al-Jeloo, “Dinarta was established in the early 1930s by families from Kalati or Qalonta, who after years of wandering finally settled there. It was abandoned for a time in 1945, then resettled until 1960 when it was finally abandoned. The chapel in Dinarta (converted from house), was called Derina.”14 The village of Khardes This village is located in Sapespa, to the east of the Khāzir River and south of the district of Naḥlā. It is mentioned by Thomas of Margā, and it must have been a sizable settlement given the fact that manuscripts have survived from two churches there, one dedicated to the Virgin Mary and another to the very popular Mart Shmuni. These manuscripts were commissioned in and soon after 1715.15 Fiey wrote that the church of the Virgin Mary was still standing (i.e., in the 1960s). The Christian village suffered at the hands of the Kurdish ‘Uthman Agha, and in the early 1900s there were only a few Christian families, but the town was utterly destroyed in 1961 during the war between the Kurds and the Iraqi government. Today the destroyed church is still visible with its double naves and a courtyard. It was built with unpolished stone, one of which contains the remains of a Syriac inscription.16 The village of Sharmen This site is named Shalmat by Thomas of Margā, who locates it in Sapespa,17 between Mār ‘Awdishō (see below) and Ḥelaptā. Mār Aḥḥā, who became the Abbot of Bēt-‘Ābē and Metropolitan of Margā, was educated and eventually buried there.18 A church built in his name survived as late as the year 2000.19 Several manuscripts dated between the 13th and the 18th centuries originated in Sharmen. Fiey mentions that there were three churches in it: one with two naves dedicated to Mār Aḥḥā,

another that had been turned into a mosque, and another in ruins but with one of its walls still standing.20 Todays’ Sharmen has indeed at least three Christian buildings. The first, a church with one nave built with polished blocks, was turned into a house, still standing and inhabited (fig. 4). The church must have had a gallery since the wall contains several holes which must have held wooden beams to support a gallery roof. The gallery’s flat floor is still visible, and it was under this gallery that liturgical prayers used to take place in the hot summer. The church’s round-topped gate is relatively small, matching the small size of the church. The floor of the church is below street level (fig. 5), highlighting the relatively old age of the building. Several stones bear geometrical crosses, and one of them decorates the landing of the staircase. The roof, entirely of stone blocks, is corbelled. In one corner, the bottom part of a basin is buried in the ground and partially covered by discarded house furniture. It could well be an old and disused baptismal basin since there is another monolithic font, discarded in another corner of the church, that is surely baptismal since its bottom is perforated for the water to run out. The altar, built against the wall with stone blocks, survives partially. The other Christian building shows a slightly wider gate with a round top, leading inside a house that must have originally been the church of Mār Aḥḥā. Fiey gives a description of this church that was still standing and functioning in his days and up to the year 2002.21 According to him, the church had two parallel naves, oriented west-east, and its main gate “perçée dans la façade sud.”22 This church is now a house that could not be visited (fig. 6). The exterior wall, quite visible, is built with polished blocks, but it is largely hidden behind rooms built against it. Nonetheless, the gate has survived intact, with its round top

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 68

Following the Footsteps of Father Fiey: Topographical Observations in ‘Aqrā and its Region _________________________________________________________________________________________

part bearing at least three Maltese-type crosses placed inside circles carefully cut in relief (fig. 7). Fortunately, these crosses were not smeared as others have been elsewhere (as in Kharjawa; see below). The third Christian building is inaccessible with its only visible element being a triangular “window” or the top of a gate, an unusual architectural element in Kurdish buildings (fig. 8). Badger visited the village in 1844 and found it “inhabited exclusively by Nestorians,”23 while in 1961 there were some ninety-six Chaldeans living side by side with Kurds, according to Fiey. The village was emptied of its Christian inhabitants most probably during the wars between Kurds and the Iraqi government. The village of Shosh Thomas of Margā refers to this as “Bashosh the village of Sapespa,” in which the school of Abraham bar-Dashandash was built.24 Fiey does mention a church there, but states that the local Agha owned a “castle,” which proved to be useful in the war launched by Barzānī in 1914.25 In fact the castle was originally the church of Shosh. The ancient site of Shosh shows a ruined but distinguishable building, looking like the ancient churches in this region with their unpolished stones and their domes. Kharjawa This not very old village is located some ten km away from ‘Aqrā on the slope of a small mountain on which is found a great cave whose source of water irrigates its fields. A stream of water (near which remnants of water-powered mills are still visible) also provides the settlers with water and continues to reach the nearby village of Barrakē. The most visible monument in Kharjawa is a church, approximately 300 square metres in size, built with stones on the top of the mountain by the bishop of

‘Aqrā Paul Sheikho (later Chaldean patriarch), who dedicated it to St. Joseph. Unfortunately, the church is abandoned and is in a lamentable condition: its outer wall has collapsed, filling the courtyard and the church with debris, and its door is dislocated. The church has a single nave on whose east wall stands the altar, which is accessed by three steps within a niche. A room flanks each side of the altar, one for the priestly vestments and another for storing liturgical books. The stone church replaced an older one built with sun-dried bricks. The priest Stephen Katcho, who visited the village in 1918 in a pastoral mission in ‘Aqrā, mentioned that it was dedicated to St. John. At that time, half the village’s population, some thirty families, was Chaldean Christian, visited by a priest who used to reside in the village of Khirpe.26 The village was emptied of its Christian population sometime in 1974, during the war between the Kurds and the Iraqi government. Toward Qala Dayrā “the fortress of the monastery” A few minutes away from Kharjawa one encounters a village named Barrakē. It was visited by Fiey in the mid-twentieth century and he found a church dedicated to the Virgin Mary.27 Already at that time the village was Kurdish (famous for its tobacco) as it is now, and the aforementioned church can no longer be seen. The village looks quite primitive, judging from its irregular houses and the building materials that have been used. It is located at a height, dominating a deep valley. A difficult path leads to several other humble villages, among them Ḥatar and Sar-darya, until one reaches Qala Dayra. This village is situated in the middle of a wide pasture surrounded by mountains, one of whose valleys overlooks the Zāb River. The village is primitive looking, and its buildings (a mosque, a school and a few

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 69

Following the Footsteps of Father Fiey: Topographical Observations in ‘Aqrā and its Region _________________________________________________________________________________________

houses) do not reflect the meaning of its name: the “fortress of the monastery.” Fiey did not notice the remains of a monastery but quoted the archives of the Iraqi Department of Antiquities, which claimed that its walls were as high as one metre.28 One can currently see on the top of the mountain the remains of an extensive “fortress,” including outer walls and a tannūr made of burnt bricks, which might be of ancient Assyrian origin. Below the mountain are the remains of a ‘great monastery’ with plenty of pottery sherds and burnt bricks reddish in colour. While these might be ancient Assyrian, the building is of a late date, and thus the region takes its name from this ‘monastery’. Thomas of Margā, who mentions a great number of monasteries in the region of ‘Aqrā, does not seem to refer to this one, a fact which suggests that its foundation was later than his time. Even so, later written sources are completely silent about it. MONASTERY OF MĀR ‘AWDĪSHO Perhaps the most important monument in this survey is the monastery of Mār ‘Awdīsho, located slightly to the north-west of the village of Gunduk, the place called by Thomas of Margā Neram d-Rā‘awātā “Neram of the shepherds.” Fiey gives details about the history of this edifice after the early 17th century but provides very little information about the building itself, which now stands straight but is partially ruined and abandoned. The most striking feature of the edifice from the outside is that the upper part is an addition on older walls, and both types of walls are built with polished stones (figs. 9). The building is accessed through a very narrow door (fig. 10), the lintel of which still bears a stylised cross. The inside (fig. 11) contains the church, which has a single nave leading to the sanctuary, the latter being tripartite as all churches in Mesopotamia were. Niches can still be seen in-

side the sanctuary on what remains of the original wall. The altar, which is mostly in ruin, is accessed by three steps, and not far away from it, in the nave, there is a basin which must have contained the remains of a holy man. Interestingly, the museum of Dehōk owns a stone cover, inscribed in Syriac, the dimensions of which fit the size of the basin. Between the top part of the walls and the corbelled ceiling of the church there are several windows for aeration and their existence indicate that there was originally no second floor on the top of the church. The second floor built on the top of the church has obviously been more recently installed, as indicated by the addition of the outer walls, easily identified by the different stones with which they are built. Fiey rightly mentions that the current size of the church is much smaller than the original one of which there remain walls to the south of the building. Even with these walls the monastery might not have been extensive, since there are no indications of foundations beyond the church, and one wonders where the monks lived and worked. The monastery’s environment is striking. It is surrounded by mountains, one of which contains a wide cave containing a series of “pagan” scenes cut in relief, not unknown to modern archaeologists (Fig. 12). Three partially damaged panels carved on the rock show hunting and pastoral scenes, as well as divine beings, including a seated deity. Stylistically, the art is that of the Early Dynastic period (ca. 26002350 BC).29 Interestingly, Ishō‘dnaḥ of Baṣra comments concerning the famous monastery of Bēt-‘Ābē as follows: The holy Mār Jacob (founder of Bēt-‘Ābē …) went to the region of Margā to the south of the region in the place called Bēt-‘Ābē. It had many forests and reeds and was in the past a place of idols. He built in in it a sublime church.30

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 70

Following the Footsteps of Father Fiey: Topographical Observations in ‘Aqrā and its Region _________________________________________________________________________________________

Could the “place of idols” be the aforementioned Early Dynastic panels, and if so, could the monastery of Mār ‘Awdīsho be the famous monastery of Bēt-‘Ābē, so much celebrated by Thomas of Margā? The north of Iraq contains a number of mountain reliefs, the most famous among them is Bavian and Khinis (on the Gōmal)—the latter is mentioned by Thomas of Margā.31 A number of churches were built on top of pagan temples, and thus the association between Ishō‘dnaḥ’s statement and the topography of the region of Mār ‘Awdīsho, though interesting, is not fully secure. The date of the foundation of Mār ‘Awdīsho is not known, and its first mention is in a letter of the patriarch Elijah VIII to Pope Paul V dated to 1610. Budge visited the monastery in 1850, where he found a priest and a nun living there. The monastery was renovated during the 19th century and as late as 1956 by the bishop of ‘Aqrā (later patriarch) Paul Sheikho.32 The building is now abandoned but it is hoped that the Antiquity Department in Iraqi Kurdistan will oversee its renovation, as it marks a venerable period of Christianity in Iraq. The village of Nerwa On the road from Qala Dayrā one can reach the village of Nuhawa and from there the entrance of ‘Aqrā on the side of the Bakhma dam. On this road, a number of important Christian villages are located, and in Nuhawa itself there are a few Christians still living alongside the Muslim majority. The Iraqi Department of Antiquities and Heritage claims that there were remains of an ancient monastery named after Mār Paul, but in this case it may be quoting local people and not necessarily existing ruins. To the north of the village of Bakhma, the village of Pia is located beside the Cave of Ḥājī, a Neolithic site. After half an hour’s walk on a difficult road, but which is also blessed with sources of water, the

village of Nerwa appears on the mountain slope, not on the plain as Fiey wrote,33 and the remains of yet another monastery are visible, including foundations, walls, and an arcade which might have been part of the monastic church. The east side of the valley is dotted with as many as two hundred monastic cells cut inside the mountain, one of which has a square entrance and four benches or beds. This one is called the Groom’s Cave, perhaps in reference to Jesus. An old Christian cemetery whose tombs are oriented eastward lies near the village. The lands around the monastery are called in Kurdish Ishkaft dayrā, lit. “the monastery’s cave,” i.e. “ecclesiastical land.” The site offers a variety of pottery pieces awaiting scholarly study. Buṣīl (or Barṣī) is another village in the district of Gārīn, mentioned by Thomas of Margā,34 and about it he states that Mār Babai, during the 7th century, had established a school in it. There are no Christian traces in Buṣīl, but only those of an old mosque, namely a large rectangular stone. Above the old village and beside a source of water, a stone bearing the depiction of a snake was found, along with the remains of another mosque.

FINAL REMARKS These topographic observations, along with mentions of Christian settlements in the region of ‘Aqrā, although both by no means exhaustive, highlight the need to undertake systematic missions to record what remains of those settlements. Father Fiey made an outstanding contribution in this regard and there are attempts to continue his work,35 but systematic missions in the region would reveal even more Christian sites and perhaps even monuments that could further help to reveal the history of Syriac Christianity in this part of the often troubled Middle East.

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 71

Following the Footsteps of Father Fiey: Topographical Observations in ‘Aqrā and its Region _________________________________________________________________________________________

NOTES *Dr. Narmin Ali Amin is professor of archeology at the university of Salāḥ-al-Dīn in Erbil. Her doctoral thesis was entitled Les églises et monastères du « Kurdistan irakien » à la veille et au lendemain de l’Islam, thèse de doctorat présenté à l’université de Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines (mai, 2001); Dr. Parwīn Badrī Tawfīq has recently defended her thesis (in Arabic) entitled The History of the Monasteries of ‘Aqrā, ‘Amadiyya and Dehōk (University of Dehōk in ‘Aqrā, 2014). 1 Jean Maurice Fiey, Mossoul chrétienne, Recherches publiées sous la direction de l’Institut de Lettres orientales de Beyrouth, t. XII (Beyrouth: Imprimerie catholique, 1959); Jean Maurice Fiey, Assyrie chrétienne: contribution à l'étude de l’histoire, de la géographie ecclésiastiques et monastiques du nord de l'Iraq, 3 vols. (Beyrouth: Dar el-Machreq, 1965-1986). 2 See respectively, George Percy Badger, The Nestorians and their Rituals, 2 vols. (London: Joseph Masters, 1852) ; Henri Pognon, Inscriptions sémitiques de la Syrie, de la Mésopotamie et de la région de Mossoul, (Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1907) ; Conrad Preusser, Nordmesopotamische Baudenkmäler altchristlicher und islamischer Zeit (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1911) ; Gertrude Bell, Amurath to Amurath (London: Macmillan, 1924). 3 Liber superiorum seu Historia Monastica auctore Thoma Episcopo Margensi, ed. Paulus Bedjan (Paris: Leipsig, 1901), 145. 4 Ibid, 145. 5 Shahab al-Dīn Yāqūt al-Ḥamawī, Mu‛jam al-buldān, no editor (Beirut: Dār Ṣādir, 1986), vol. 4, 136. 6 Ibid., vol. 1, 372. 7 Jacques-Marie Vosté, “Catalogue des manuscrits Syro-Chaldéens conservés dans la bibliothèque épiscopale de ‛Aqrā,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 5 (1939) 368-406 ; see also Yūsuf Ḥabbī, “Makhṭūṭāt abrašiyyat ‛Aqrā [The Manuscripts of the Diocese of ‛Aqrā],” in Fahāris al Makhṭūṭāt al-suriāniyya fi al-‛Irāq [Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in Iraq] (Baghdad: al-Majma‛ al-‘Ilmī al-‛Irāqī, 1981), 6-73.

8

Fiey, Assyrie chrétienne, vol. 1, pp. 247-

267.

9

Amir Harrak, Syriac and Garshuni Inscriptions of Iraq, Recueil des inscriptions syriaques, 2 (Paris: Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres, 2010), # BK.01.01. 10 Asahel Grant, The Nestorians or the Lost Tribes (London, 1841), 42. 11 Fiey, Assyrie chrétienne, vol. 1, 266. 12 Liber superiorum, 94 13 Albert Abūnā, Kitāb al-ru’asā’ ta’līf Tūmā ’Usquf al-Marj (Book of Superiors Composed by Thomas Bishop of Margā), 92 and note 3. 14 Private communication. 15 David Wilmshurst, The Ecclesiastical Organisation of the Church of the East, 13181913, CSCO Subsidia vol. 592 (Louvain: Peeteres, 2000), 159-160. 16 Harrak, Syriac and Garshuni Inscriptions of Iraq, # BM 01. 17 Liber superiorum, 145 18 Ibid., 112-125. 19 Fiey, Assyrie chrétienne, vol. 1, 260. 20 Ibid., 262-263. 21 The latter date is provided by Dr, Nicholas al-Jeloo (private communication). 22 Fiey, Assyrie chrétienne, vol. 1, 262. 23 Badger, The Nestorians and their Rituals, vol.1, 389. 24 Liber superiorum, p. 145. 25 Fiey, Assyrie chrétienne, vol. 1, p. 258. 26 Written report by Stephen Katcho published by Buṭrus Ḥaddād in ‘Abrašiyyat ‘Aqrā al-Kaldāniyya [The Chaldean Diocese of ‘Aqrā] (1918), 22. 27 Fiey, Assyrie chrétienne, vol. 1, pp. 269. 28 Ibid., 269. 29 See among others Julian Reade and Julie Anderson, “Gunduk, Khanes, Gaugamela, Gali Zardak: Notes on Navkur and Nearby Rock-Cut Sculptures in Kurdistan,” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 103 (2013) 68-122. 30 Le livre de la chasteté, publié et traduit par J.B. Chabot (Rome, 1896), # 34, 22 (Syriac), 20 (French). 31 The Book of Governors: The Historia Monastica of Thomas Bishop of Marga A.D. 840, edited from Syriac manuscripts in the British museum and other libraries by E.A. Wallis

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 72

Following the Footsteps of Father Fiey: Topographical Observations in ‘Aqrā and its Region _________________________________________________________________________________________

Budge (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2003), 328:21 (Syriac). 32 Fiey, Assyrie chrétienne, vol. 1, 255. 33 Ibid., 268. 34 The Book of Governors, 143 (Syriac).

35

See mainly Father Albert Abūnā Diyārāt al-‘Irāq (The Monasteries of Iraq) (Baghdad, 2012), which lists monasteries on the basis of manuscripts and existing buildings and archaeological remains.

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 73

Following the Footsteps of Father Fiey: Topographical Observations in ‘Aqrā and its Region _________________________________________________________________________________________

Figure 1: ‘Aqrā City: The Chaldean Church of Our Lady of Rosary, External View

Figure 2: ‘Aqrā City: The Chaldean Church of Our Lady of Rosary, Internal View

____________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 74

Following the Footsteps of Father Fiey: Topographical Observations in ‘Aqrā and its Region _________________________________________________________________________________________

Figure 3: ‘Aqrā: Churches inside the Mountain

Figure 4: Sharmen: The Church from the Outside

____________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 75

Following the Footsteps of Father Fiey: Topographical Observations in ‘Aqrā and its Region _________________________________________________________________________________________

Figure 7: Sharmen: Church of Mār Aḥḥā (Top side of the Gate)

← Figure 5: Sharmen: Church from the Inner gate Area

Figure 6: Sharmen: Church of Mār Aḥḥā, External View

____________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 76

Following the Footsteps of Father Fiey: Topographical Observations in ‘Aqrā and its Region _________________________________________________________________________________________

Figure 8: Sharmen: Remain of an Old Church

Figure 9: Gunduk: Monastery of Mār ‘Awdīsho: External View

____________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 77

Following the Footsteps of Father Fiey: Topographical Observations in ‘Aqrā and its Region _________________________________________________________________________________________

Figure 10: Gunduk: Monastery of Mār ‘Awdīsho, Gate

Figure 11: Gunduk: Monastery of Mār ‘Awdīsho, Inside

Figure 12: Gunduk: ‘Idols Cave’ near the Monastery of Mār ‘Awdīsho

____________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 78

______________________________________________________________________

THE SEVENTH NORTH AMERICAN SYRIAC SYMPOSIUM (NASS VII)

AARON MICHAEL BUTTS CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA

T

he Seventh North American Syriac Symposium (NASS VII) was convened at the Catholic University of America, Washington, DC, June 21-24. Held every four years, the North American Syriac Symposium brings together university professors, graduate students, and scholars from the United States and Canada as well as from Europe, the Middle East, and India, in particular from the State of Kerala. The Symposium offers a unique opportunity for exchange and discussion on a wide variety of topics related to the language, literature, and cultural history of Syriac Christianity, which extends chronologically from the first centuries CE to the present day and geographically from Syriac Christianity’s homeland in the Middle East to South India, China, and the worldwide diaspora. The first North American Syriac Symposium met at Brown University in 1991. It was followed by symposia at the Catholic University of America (1995), the University of Notre Dame (1999), Princeton Theological Seminary (2003), the University of Toronto (2007), and Duke University (2011).1 With the most recent symposium, the Catholic University of America became the first university to host this prestigious event for a second time. As

proposed and voted upon at the business meeting of NASS VII, the Eighth North American Syriac Symposium will be organized by Kristian Heal at Brigham Young University in the summer of 2019. NASS VII boasted over sixty academic papers.2 The papers covered a wide array of topics in Syriac studies. There were papers dedicated to most major Syriac authors, including Aphrahaṭ, Ephrem, Isaac of Antioch, John the Solitary, Jacob of Serugh, Narsai, Gabriel Qaṭraya, Jacob of Edessa, Isaac of Nineveh, Dadisho‘ Qaṭraya, John of Dalyatha, George bishop of the Arab tribes, Mushe bar Kipho, Barhebraeus, and Khamis bar Qardaḥe, as well as to some lesser known ones, such as Lazarus of Beth Qandasa. Papers also dealt with, inter alia, the Bible, liturgy, theology, and hagiography. In addition, no less than a dozen papers discussed topics related to the Islamic context of Syriac Christianity, including the Qur’ān, historiography under Islam, and contacts and conflicts with Islam. A selection of the papers presented at NASS VII will be published by CUA Press in a volume edited by Aaron M. Butts and Robin Darling Young. One of the many highlights of NASS VII was the large number of papers pre-

________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 79

The Seventh North American Syriac Symposium (NASS VII) _________________________________________________________________________________________

sented by graduate students (twenty-six in total). The quality of many of these graduate student papers was truly impressive, and this speaks to the bright future ahead for Syriac studies. The Nijmeh Kiraz Award for the best graduate student presentation was awarded to Blake Hartung (Saint Louis University) for his paper on ‘The Significance of Astronomical and Calendrical Theories for Ephrem’s Interpretation of the Three Days of Jesus’ Death’. The selection committee for this award consisted of Susan A. Harvey (Brown University; chair); Kristian Heal (Brigham Young University); Scott Johnson (University of Oklahoma); Janet A. Timbie (The Catholic University of America); and Lucas Van Rompay (Duke University). In addition to the regular papers, there were four plenary lectures: Bas ter Haar Romeny (VU University Amsterdam), ‘How Greek was Syriac Christianity?’; Dorothea Weltecke (University of Konstanz), ‘On sources for the social and cultural history of Christians during the Syriac Renaissance’; Adam Becker (New York University), ‘The Invention of the Persian Martyr Acts’; and Joseph Amar (University of Notre Dame), ‘Making Ephrem One of Us’.3 Each of these lectures provided a broad, far-reaching perspective by a leading expert in the field. The ground covered in the plenary lectures, with a nuanced and sophisticated command of the source material, was inspiring. On Monday evening of NASS VII (June 22), there was a Tools Session, organized and chaired by Scott Johnson (University of Oklahoma), which highlighted ongoing Digital Humanities projects dedicated to Syriac studies. A Syriac Language Pedagogy Workshop was held on Tuesday afternoon (June 23) of the symposium. This was organized by Ute Possekel (Harvard Divinity School) and included a group of scholars with many years of experience in teaching the Syriac language: J. F. Coakley

(School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London); Kristian Heal (Brigham Young University); Ute Possekel (Harvard Divinity School); Monica Blanchard (The Catholic University of America); and George Kiraz (Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute). On Tuesday evening (June 23), Robin Darling Young organized a forum on Creating a Syriac Cultural Archive, chaired by Fr. Ron Roberson CSP of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, during which the Syriac Heritage Project was launched. This project, which is directed by Young, seeks to establish a digital repository for the preservation and dissemination of the cultural record of Syriac communities.4 The Tuesday evening forum also provided an opportunity for symposium participants to reflect on the current situation in the Middle East and the irreparable losses being suffered by Christian communities there. Throughout NASS VII, there was an exhibit of manuscripts, objects, and photographs related to Syriac studies in the May Gallery of the John K. Mullen of Denver Memorial Library.5 This wonderful exhibit was curated by the ever-resourceful Monica Blanchard (The Catholic University of America) as well as the indispensable Michelle Datiles (The Catholic University of America). The items in the exhibit are all permanently housed in the Institute of Christian Oriental Research Library (ICOR) and derive ultimately from the collection of Rev. Dr. Henri Hyvernat (18581941), affectionately known as ‘the grand old man of the university’, who was the first professor appointed to the faculty of the new Catholic University of America and who would go on to play such an important role in its Department of Semitic and Egyptian Languages and Literatures. As a souvenir, all participants received a series of postcards featuring pictures from Hyvernat’s trip to the Middle East in 18881889.

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 80

The Seventh North American Syriac Symposium (NASS VII) _________________________________________________________________________________________

NASS VII was attended by over one hundred and twenty-five participants. The Catholic University of America was especially well represented with participants from that institution including the acting dean of the School of Arts and Sciences, Claudia Bornholdt, the acting dean of the School of Theology and Religious Studies, Paul McPartlan, as well as the president of the Catholic University of America, John Garvey. Many of the participants, however, had a longer distance to travel, including participants from across North America. Syriac scholars from Canada in attendance included Robert Kitchen, Kyle Smith, Rami Tanous, and Ashoor Yousif. In addition to North America, a number of scholars came from as far as Europe, the Middle East, India, and even Australia. Two bishops were in attendance at NASS VII, their excellencies Saad Sirop Hanna, Auxiliary Bishop of the Chaldean Patriarchate in Baghdad, and Francis Y. Kalabat, Bishop of the Chaldean Eparchy of Saint Thomas the Apostle of Detroit. NASS VII was held under the auspices of the North American Supervisory board, which consists of Joseph P. Amar (University of Notre Dame); Aaron M. Butts (The Catholic University of America); Philip M. Forness (Princeton Theological Seminary, student representative); Sidney H. Griffith

(The Catholic University of America); Amir Harrak (University of Toronto); Susan A. Harvey (Brown University); George A. Kiraz (Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute); Kathleen McVey (Princeton Theological Seminary); Lucas Van Rompay (Duke University); and Robin Darling Young (The Catholic University of America). The planning and organizing of NASS VII fell largely to the local steering committee, which consisted of Aaron M. Butts (The Catholic University of America; organizer); Robin Darling Young (The Catholic University of America; chair); Monica J. Blanchard (The Catholic University of America); Scott Fitzgerald Johnson (then of Dumbarton Oaks, now of the University of Oklahoma); Joel Kalvesmaki (Dumbarton Oaks); Stephen D. Ryan (Dominican House of Studies); Shawqi Talia (The Catholic University of America); Janet A. Timbie (The Catholic University of America); and Lev Weitz (The Catholic University of America). NASS VII received generous support from the following entities at the Catholic University of America: School of Arts and Sciences; Center for the Study of Early Christianity; School of Theology and Religious Studies; Department of History; Department of Semitic and Egyptian Languages and Literatures; and the Institute of Christian Oriental Research (ICOR).

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 81

The Seventh North American Syriac Symposium (NASS VII) _________________________________________________________________________________________

NOTES 1

For the history of the North American Syriac Symposium, see S. P. Brock and A. M. Butts, “Syriac Conferences,” in Sebastian P. Brock, Aaron M. Butts, George A. Kiraz, and Lucas Van Rompay (eds.), Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage (Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2011), 389-390. 2 The full program is available at .

The abstracts for the papers are available at: . 3 More information about these speakers is available at: . 4 For more information about this project, see . 5 A guide to this exhibit is available at .

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 82

The Seventh North American Syriac Symposium (NASS VII) _________________________________________________________________________________________

Figure 1: Keynote Speakers: Adam Becker, Dorothea Weltecke, Bas ter Haar Romeny, Joseph Amar (from left to right)

Figure 2: Participants at the Seventh North American Syriac Symposium The Catholic University of America, June 21-24, 2015

________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) ― Page 83

___________________________________________________________________________ THE CANADIAN SOCIETY FOR SYRIAC STUDIES

MEMBERS OF THE YEAR 2014-2015

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 BENJAMIN, Renya, Woodbridge ON BIHNAN, Adnan, Brampton ON BOERO, Dina, Watsonville, CA BORBONE, Giorgio Pier, Pisa, ITALY

BOUJIKIAN, Stephen, ON BRAIDA, Emanuela, Toronto ON BRIQUEL CHATONNET, Françoise, Paris, FRANCE 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 FAIBISH, Neil, Toronto ON FATHI, Jean, Toronto ON FRAME, Grant, Philadelphia PA GODBOUT, Alain, Halifax NS HALLAJI, Numan, Mississauga ON HUMPHTYS, Peter, Peterborough, ON HANNA, Michael D., West Bloomfield, MI HARRAK, Amir, Toronto ON HARRAK, Ryan, Toronto ON HARRAK, Sarah, Toronto ON HARVEY, Susan A., Lincoln RI HIRSCH, Antoine, Toronto ON HUMPHRYS, Peter, ON ISSAK, Rev. John, Hamilton ON

___________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) — Page 84

Members of the Year 2014-2015 ____________________________________________________________________________________

JONES, Loreina, Toronto ON JOHNSON, Nola J., Toronto ON JWAIDEH, Albertine, King City ON KASSIR, Zuhair, Milton ON KIRAZ, George, Piscataway NJ KITCHEN, Robert A., Regina SK KYDD, Ronald, Colborne ON LEHTO, Adam, Waterloo ON LONDES, Arlette, Thornhill ON MACAULAY, JAMES, Vancouver BC MORRISON, Craig, Rome, ITALY MOUSSA, Helene, Toronto ON MUSA, Sinan, Mississauga ON POSSEKEL, Ute, Reading MA POIRIER, Paul-Hubert, Quebec PQ RASSAM, Suha, Surrey, UK RICE, Bradley, Montreal PQ

RUSSELL, Paul, Chevy Chase MD SABBAGH, Rayya, Mississauga ON SALEH, Walid, Toronto 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 THEKKEPARAMBIL, Jacob, Kerala INDIA WHATELY, CONOR, Winnipeg MB WERYHO, Jan, Lasalle PQ YACOUB, Fr. Jack, Toronto ON YOUNAN, Nadia, Maple ON YOUSIF, Ashoor, Toronto ON ZAIYOUNA, Ahsan, Thornhill ON

________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 15 (2015) — Page 85