Transcribed Proper Names in Chinese Syriac Christian Documents 9781463216719

Table of contents :
TRANSCRIBED PROPER NAMES IN CHINESE SYRIAC CHRISTIAN DOCUMENTS
ERRATA

Citation preview

Transcribed Proper Names in Chinese Syriac Christian Documents

Analecta Gorgiana

127 Series Editor George Kiraz

Analecta Gorgiana is a collection of long essays and short monographs which are consistently cited by modern scholars but previously difficult to find because of their original appearance in obscure publications. Carefully selected by a team of scholars based on their relevance to modern scholarship, these essays can now be fully utilized by scholars and proudly owned by libraries.

Transcribed Proper Names in Chinese Syriac Christian Documents

Hidemi Takahashi



 2009

Gorgias Press LLC, 180 Centennial Ave., Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2009 by Gorgias Press LLC 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. 2009

‫ܙ‬



ISBN 978-1-60724-039-6

ISSN 1935-6854

This extract originally appeared in George A. Kiraz, ed., Malphono w-Rabo d-Malphone: Studies in Honor of Sebastian P. Brock, Gorgias Press, 2008, pages 631–662.

Printed in the United States of America

TRANSCRIBED PROPER NAMES IN CHINESE SYRIAC CHRISTIAN DOCUMENTS HIDEMI TAKAHASHI “Extensive” is one of the first adjectives that come to mind when one thinks of describing Dr. Sebastian Brock’s knowledge of and achievements in the field of Syriac studies. Extensive also is the geographical area in which Syriac was used in pre-modern times, stretching from one end of the Asian continent to the other.1 Such were the thoughts that prompted me to extend and venture, rashly on hindsight, beyond my usual area of research into the far eastern parts of the Syriac Christian world. Major advances have been made in the past decade in the study of Christianity in China in the Tang and Yuan periods, particularly in terms of publications that make the fruits of research accessible to those with little or no knowledge of Chinese.2 Despite the advances made, however, much uncertainty remains in the interpretation of the Tang-Dynasty Chinese A good idea of the extensiveness of the influence of Syriac was given by Dr. Brock in his keynote lecture at the IXum Symposium Syriacum (Kaslik, Sept. 2004), “Syriac Literature: A Crossroads of Cultures,” which, besides being published in PdO 31 (2006), 17–35, is also available in Japanese translation (by T. Ishiwata). 2 Notable among the recent publications in English are: the sections on the Tang and Yuan periods, respectively by P. Riboud and J. van Mechelen, in the Handbook of Christianity in China, vol. 1, edited by N. Standaert (2001); a new translation of the “Dunhuang documents” by L. Tang (2002); and the proceedings of the “First International Conference on Nestorianism in China” held in Salzburg in 2003 (edited and published by R. Malek in 2006), accompanied by a comprehensive bibliography of relevant publications and to be followed no doubt by the proceedings of the second conference held again in Salzburg in 2006, as well as those planned for the future. Useful in Chinese is the collected papers of Lin Wushu published in 2003, accompanied, again, by an extensive bibliography, as well as facsimiles of the Dunhuang Christian documents. Also useful for the facsimiles is Kawaguchi (2002). Interesting for those with Japanese are also the three papers by Deeg, Lin and Rong in the proceedings, published in 2007, of a symposium on “Religions in Chinese Script” held at Kyoto University in 2004. 1

631 [1]

632

TAKAHASHI

Christian (Jingjiao, ᬒᩍ)3 documents. One particularly frustrating feature of these documents is the transcribed proper names, a good number of which still defy identification. It is clear that in looking at these transcribed names one must consider how the characters used were pronounced when the documents were composed. This, however, does not seem to have been done in any systematic way. We might just give two examples to illustrate the point. Yoshiro Saeki, whose translation of these documents has for long been the most widely used in English,4 does occasionally mention the “old Chinese” pronunciation of the characters.5 When he suggested, however, the identification of ㈡⸃⪨ (no. 5.1.21 below) with the prophet Hosea, he must have been thinking only of the modern pronunciation of these three characters, which appears as “hè-sà-yē” in the Pinyin system of transcription and “ho4-sa4-yeh1” in the Wade-Giles, without giving a thought to their pronunciation in the Tang period, which has been reconstructed as “ƣâ-sât-᫞a” by Karlgren and “xˡa`-sat-jia” by Pulleyblank (for what he calls “Late Middle Chinese,” i.e., for the mid- to late Tang period). On another occasion, in considering the name ཬⅯ (no. 1.1.7 below), Saeki was led by the Japanese pronunciation of the characters, “kyşretsu,” to suggest an identification with “Cyriacus.”6 While the Japanese pronunciation does frequently reflect features of older pronunciation which are lost in modern Chinese, in this case, the Japanese pronunciation happens to be a long way away from either the modern “jí-liè” (Pinyin) or the reconstructed Middle Chinese “g’᫞˔p-l᫞ät” (Karlgren), “kˡip-liat”

3 “Chinese Nestorian” was the term widely used in the past. That it is inappropriate to apply the term “Nestorian” to the Church of the East is a point which Dr. Brock has been among the foremost in making (see, for example, Brock [1996]) and one which has by now been generally accepted by scholars of Syriac. That others are also taking note of the point may be seen in the fact that the term “Nestorianism in China” used in the title of the 2003 conference (cf. n. 2 above) has disappeared and been replaced by the term “Jingjiao” in the proceedings of that conference, as well as in the title of the 2006 conference. 4 For a criticism of the way in which Saeki and others have gone about translating these documents in the past, see the recent publications by Deeg (2005, 2006, 2007), who is now leading a project for producing a new translation of the documents at the Centre for Late Antique Religion & Culture in the University of Cardiff. 5 So, for example, at Saeki (1937) 93, 94. 6 Saeki (1937) 93.

[2]

TRANSCRIBED PROPER NAMES

633

(Pulleyblank, Late Middle), whereby the reconstructed pronunciation clearly favours the interpretation as “Gabriel,” already proposed by Heller in 1885.7 In contrast to the talk of extensiveness above, the scope of the present paper is a limited one. What is attempted below is merely to provide a list of the transcribed and otherwise relevant proper names that appear in TangDynasty Chinese Christian documents with their modern and reconstructed Middle Chinese pronunciations, along with the suggestions made by various scholars for the original names in Syriac (= syr.) and, occasionally, other languages (Middle Persian = MP; Sogdian = sogd.).8 In each case, the modern pronunciation is given in Pinyin (= PY) and the Middle Chinese pronunciation in Pulleyblank’s reconstruction for “Late Middle Chinese” (= PL). Pulleyblank’s reconstruction for “Early Middle Chinese” (= PE) and the reconstruction for Middle Chinese by Karlgren (= K) are also given where these were thought relevant or helpful. The suggestions for the Syriac (and Middle Persian etc.) equivalents are taken mainly from the standard translations, such as those of Pelliot and Saeki for the Xi’an Stele, and those of Saeki, Moule and Tang for the other texts. Other, often (to put it mildly) inventive, suggestions by Ito and others are included, mainly for the sake of record, especially when these occur in publications that are not so easily accessible outside Japan. Underlining will be used to indicate those suggestions one feels one can subscribe to with some confidence. The documents considered are the following.9 1. Da Qin Jingjiao liuxing Zhongguo bei [኱⛙ᬒᩍὶ⾜୰ᅧ☃]: “Stele on the Propagation of the Luminous Religion of Da Qin in China” 2. Xuting Mishisuo jing [ᗎ⫎㏞リᡤ⥂]: “Book of Jesus-Messiah” 3. Yishen lun [୍⚄ㄽ] (Tomioka manuscript): “Discourse on Monotheism,” including 3a. Yu dier [႘➨஧] (“The Parable, part two”); 3b. Yitian lun diyi [୍ኳㄽ➨୍] (“Discourse on the Oneness of the Ruler of Universe, part one”); 3c. Shizun bushi lun disan [ୡᑛᕸ᪋ㄽ➨୕] (“The Lord of the Universe’s Discourse on Alms-Giving, part three”)

Heller (1885) 107, 118f.; cf. Pelliot-Forte (1996) 255. Not included in the list are proper names and other transcribed words which were in common use also elsewhere in Chinese literature (including Chinese Buddhist literature) of the period, such as Ἴ᪁ (PY bŇ-sĩ; PL pua-sߦ: “Persia,” still used today), ᢶᯘ (PY fú-lín; PL fut-lim: “Rome, Roman Empire,” apparently via MP HrŇm) and 㜿⨶₎ (PY Ć-luó-hàn; PL ̋a-la-xan`: “Arhats,” from Sanskrit). 9 For general overviews of these documents in recent publications, see, for example, Riboud (2001) 2–7, Tang (2002) 103–124. 7 8

[3]

634

TAKAHASHI

4. Da Qin Jingjiao Sanwei mengdu zan [኱⛙ᬒᩍ୕ጾⵚᗘㆽ]: “Hymn in Adoration of the Holy Trinity” 5. Zun jing [ᑛ⥂]: “The Book of Honour” 6. Zhixuan anle jing [ᚿ⋞Ᏻᵹ⥂]: “Book of Mysterious Rest and Joy” 7. Da Qin Jingjiao Xuanyuan zhiben jing [኱⛙ᬒᩍᐉඖ⮳ᮏ⥂]: “Sutra on the Origin of Origin” 8. Da Qin Jingjiao Dasheng tongzhen guifa zan [኱⛙ᬒᩍ኱⪷ ㏻┿ṗἲㆽ]: “Hymn of Praise for the Transfiguration of Our Lord” No. 1 above is, of course, the so-called “Xi’an/Nestorian Stele,” the famous stone monument discovered in Xi’an in 1623/5 with the long inscription composed by the monk Jingjing (Adam) in 781. The proper names that occur in the main text of the stele have been the subject of much discussion in the past and it is difficult to add new insights here, but it will at least be seen that looking at the reconstructed Middle Chinese pronunciation helps us sometimes to confirm the suggestions made in the past and, on occasion, to decide in favour of one or another of the past suggestions. The main text of the stele is accompanied by a list of some seventy clerics, given, in most cases, in both Chinese and Syriac (or Persian in Syriac script). In the majority of cases the Chinese and the Syriac/Persian names are unrelated in sound or meaning, but in a handful of cases the sound of the Chinese name, especially in its Middle Chinese pronunciation, closely resembles the sound of the Syriac/Persian name. Sometimes the resemblance is only with a part of the Syriac/Persian name, no doubt due to the constraint of having to use only two characters in composing the Chinese names. Sometimes the desire to use Chinese characters with suitable meanings (we remember here that Chinese characters are ideographic) seems to have resulted in names with less exact, but still recognisable, correspondence in sound. When, for example, the name of Catholicos ʗnĆnĩšŇȨ was transcribed as ᑀᜑ (PY níng-shù; PL niajņ-˻yඉ; no. 1.1.13 below), this was no doubt meant to represent the sound “-nĩšŇȨ,” but probably intended also to represent the sense of the original name, since ᜑ (shù) means “kind, indulgent” or “to forgive, show mercy” and corresponds in meaning to Syriac “ʘnĆnĆ” (mercy). All such instances of “transcription,” including less certain cases, are marked with double asterisks [**] in parts 1.2 and 1.3 of the list below. In some cases, the Chinese names may be intended to represent something of the meaning only of the original names. These instances are indicated by single asterisks [*].

[4]

TRANSCRIBED PROPER NAMES

635

The remaining seven items were, or are supposed to have been, among the mass of documents discovered in the famous Cave no. 17 at Mogaoku near Dunhuang and made known to the world in the first half of the twentieth century. Documents nos. 2 and 3 are relatively long treatises in prose, which are, or were until recently, believed to have been composed in mid-seventh century. Doubts have been cast on the authenticity of these two documents, which were formerly in the possession, respectively, of Junjiro Takakusu and Kenzo Tomioka, by Lin,10 who, however, thinks that the forgers had some genuine Jingjiao documents on which they based their forgeries. This view is supported by some of the transcribed proper names dealt with below, which appear in forms that could not have been simply made up by twentieth-century forgers without knowledge of both Syriac and Middle Chinese. At the same time, some of the other proper names appear in what must be corrupt forms, more or less in line with the general level of corruption of the text as a whole, indicating that whoever copied these manuscripts often did not understand what they were copying. Nos. 4 and 5 are found together today on a single sheet of manuscript (Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Pelliot chinois 3847). The first, a text in verse, which contains only one recognisable transcribed proper name, has been identified as a paraphrase of the Great Doxology in Syriac (equivalent of the Latin Gloria in excelsis Deo).11 The second, of more concern to us here, contains lists of biblical figures and saints (section 5.1 in the list below) and of books (section 5.2). Most of the names in the first part of the list can be recognised as transcriptions of Syriac names, although several remain unidentified. Greater difficulty is encountered in the identification of the “holy books,” whose names include those that are clearly transcriptions and those that make good sense as Chinese words.

10

29.

Lin (2003) 186–228, id. (2006), id. (2007) 396–398; Nicolini-Zani (2006) 27–

11 As recent studies on the text, see Chen (2006); Deeg (2006) 120–125. Besides the black-and-white reproductions of the manuscript given in Saeki, Moule, Lin, Kawaguchi etc., a clear colour photograph can now be found in Baumer (2006) 190. It is interesting to note that this text, after its discovery, was set to music and included in the 1936 and subsequent editions of Putian Songzan (ᬑኳ㡴ㆽ, Hymns of Universal Praise), a standard hymnal used by the mainstream Chinese Protestant churches (see Li [2005]).

[5]

636

TAKAHASHI

Text no. 6, whose title is mentioned along with those of no. 4 and 7 in the list in no. 5,12 is of some importance as the only one of the longer Dunhuang texts whose authenticity has not come under suspicion. No. 7 was, until recently, known to the world in two fragments. The first fragment, missing the end, is reckoned to be a genuine Tang Dynasty text.13 The second fragment (“Kojima Manuscript B”), purportedly containing the end section of the text, has come under strong suspicion of being a forgery.14 Any remaining claim that this fragment might have had to authenticity has now been dealt a serious blow by the discovery, in May 2006, of a ninth-century stone monument in Luoyang, which though damaged and missing its lower part, contains both the beginning and the end of the text in question.15 The text of the Xuanyuan zhiben jing16 as found in this monument has no resemblance to what we have in “Kojima Manuscript B.” It agrees, on the other hand, with the text in the first fragment, is about twice as long,17 and contains at least two more transcribed words. The authenticity of text no. 8 (“Kojima Manuscript A”), a short hymn, hung with that of “Kojima Manuscript B.” It will quickly be recognised that

Nos. 5.2.2, 5.2.3, 5.2.25 below. Although the single-sheet manuscript contains 26 columns of writing, Saeki apparently had access only to a transcript of the first ten columns and hence this part only was known to the scholarly world until a photographic reproduction of the manuscript was made available in the posthumous collection of Haneda’s works (Haneda [1958], plate 7; on the whole story of how the text was made known to the world, see Lin [2007] 392–394). For a new translation, with a detailed commentary, of the first five columns, see Deeg (2006) 125–130. 14 See Lin (2003) 156–174 (co-authored with Rong Xinjiang and originally published in 1996); Chen (1997); Nicolini-Zani (2006) 27; Lin (2007) 394–396; cf. Tang (2002) 119f., 123f., who, though, taking note of the doubts expressed by Lin, still held this fragment and text no. 8 to be genuine. 15 See Zhang (2007), which contains both a photograph and a transcription (in simplified characters) of the text. The monument is dated 829 A.D. 16 The character ⮳ (zhi) is missing in the title of this text as found in the (genuine) Dunhuang manuscript. It has been suggested that the character should be supplied on the basis of the title as found in the list in Zunjing (no. 5.2.2 below). This is now confirmed by the Luoyang monument. 17 The text as found in the Dunhuang manuscript begins in column 3 and ends in column 13 of the monument. The text in the monument goes on for nine more columns. 12 13

[6]

TRANSCRIBED PROPER NAMES

637

all the transcribed names that occur in this text are also to be found either in text no. 4 or 5, suggesting that that is where they were “cribbed” from. In looking at the proper names that occur in these documents, there is one more important factor that needs to be taken into account. This may be illustrated by using the transcribed word for the “Holy Spirit,” ├ヅᑀ೜Ἃ (PL luඉ-xa-niajņ-kyඉ-˻a̽; no. 5.1.3 below). Anyone with the least knowledge of Syriac will immediately recognise that this must be a transcription of “RşʘĆ d-QudšĆ,” but will be puzzled at the same time by the representation of Syriac “d-” by ¼niajņ” (PY níng, K nieng). In order to provide an explanation, one needs to take into account a number of features peculiar to the Northwestern (= NW) dialects of Middle Chinese, which can be deduced from the Chinese transcription of foreign words in other documents originating from the area, such as the Chinese Manichean texts, as well as the Tibetan transcription of the Qianwenzi (༓Ꮠᩥ, “Thousand Character Classic”) found in Dunhuang, which was used extensively by Luo (1933) in his reconstruction of these dialects. Three features are of relevance to us here. 1. Change of syllable-end “-t” to “-r” (or “-l”): The syllable-end “-t” is constantly represented by “-r” in the Tibetan transcription of the Qianwenzi,18 suggesting that the consonant at the syllable-end in such cases was pronounced not as a plosive but as a liquid. This helps us with the transcription we have seen above of “Gabriel” as PL “kˡip-liat,” as well as with such cases as PL “muat-jiam” = Mary (Maryam, no. 2.3 below), and PL “mua-sat-kjit-sߦ½ = Mar Sargis (no. 5.1.15). 2. The standard Middle Chinese “n-” is frequently, though not always, transcribed by “d-” in the Tibetan Qianwenzi, leading Luo to represent the sound in such cases as “nd-.”19 Several instances of the same phenomenon are also reported in Chinese Manichaean texts, among them an instance where the same character ᑀ (PL niajņ) we have seen above corresponds to Middle Persian “dĩ-.”20 Luo (1933) x, 69 etc.; see also Chavannes-Pelliot (1911) 522 n.1; Haneda (1923) 398f. = id. (1958) 405f.—Cf. the similar phenomenon in the Korean pronunciation of Chinese characters, where Middle Chinese “-t” constantly becomes “-l” (and “-r-” in liaison with following vowel). 19 Luo (1933) ix, 19, 22 etc. 20 ᑀⴙ (PY níng-wàn; PL niajņ-̄jyan; K nieng-m᫞wˍn; NW ndĚei-mbvän [Haloun-Henning]) < dĩbĆn (“epistles”), see Haloun-Henning (1952) 207; Yoshida (1986), list, no. 30; cf. also no. 5.2.16 below. For other instances of standard Chinese “n-” corresponding to Iranian “d-,” see Yoshida, ibid. no. 25–29. The case 18

[7]

638

TAKAHASHI

3. Loss of -ng: The syllable-end “-ng” (“-ņ”) is frequently unrepresented in the Tibetan transcription21 (as happens also in the Japanese pronunciation). This helps us with the second problem we have with the representation of Syriac “d-” by ᑀ (PL niajņ), as well as with such instances as PL ¼miajņ-thaj” = Matthew (Mattay, no. 1.3.22, 5.1.7). It has been said above that the undertaking whose results are presented here was entered into “rashly.” It did not take one long to realise that it was not such a good idea to attempt writing papers in an area one has little expertise in and that it would not be easy to gain new insights where those who were better qualified had trodden before. While not much that is new emerges from the list presented below, it is hoped nevertheless that this list will serve as a stimulus for further research, and that it will also help give some general idea of the extent to which Christianity became altered in sound, along with its alteration in content, as it entered the new cultural milieu of the “Middle Kingdom.”22 1.1. “Xi’an Stele,” Main Text:23 – 1.1.1 [III] 㜿⨶ヅPY Ć-luó-hē; K ·âlâ-Ʒâ; PL ̋a-la-xa: “God” (syr. AlĆhĆ); cf. 5.1.1. – 1.1.2 [IV] Ⰻ࿴PY liánghé; K l᫞ang-ƣuâ; PL liaņ-xˡua; Jap. ryŇ-wa: included here because of identification with “Eve” at Kawaguchi (2001) 23 (cf. syr. ʗawwĆ);24 of K “nieng-m᫞wˍn” < “dĩbĆn” also points to another feature of Northwestern Middle Chinese, namely a sound intermediate between “m” and “b,” represented by Luo as “mb-.” 21 See also Haneda (1923) 393f., 396–398 = id. (1958) 399f., 402–405; Pelliot (1912). 22 A good idea of how Christianity became altered at the textual level may be gained from comparing the Sanwei mengdu zan (text no. 4 here) with the Syriac, as well as the Sogdian, version of the Doxology (a close comparison of the Syriac and Chinese texts is made in Wu [1986]; for the Sogdian version, see Sims-Williams [1995]). Whereas the Sogdian version is a close, literal translation of the original, the Chinese text, as has been said, is a free paraphrase. Particularly interesting is the way in which the groups of three phrases in the original are turned into groups of four verses. 23 The numbers in square brackets indicate the column(s) where the name occurs in the monument or manuscript. The Roman numerals used for the Xi’an Stele correspond to those in the translation by Pelliot (Pelliot-Dauvillier [1984] 43– 49; Pelliot-Forte [1996] 173–180). For the longer Dunhuang documents I have followed the numbering accompanying the photographic reproductions at Lin (2003) 343–402. 24 Also interpreted to mean “wife” by Jin (1981) 46 (rejected by Tsunezuka [1997] 72 n.303).

[8]

TRANSCRIBED PROPER NAMES

639

“special goodness and just temperament” Moule; “excellent disposition” Saeki; “harmonie excellente” Pelliot.25 – 1.1.3 [IV] ፅṷPY suŇ-dĆn; K sâtân; PL sa-tan: “Satan” (syr. sĆʜĆnĆ; parth./MP sĆtĆn); cf. no. 3.1 below. – 1.1.4 [VI] ᘺ᪋ヅPY mí-shĩ-hē; K mji᩵-œi᩵-Ʒâ; PL mji-˻i-xa: “Christ” (syr. MšĩʘĆ); cf. 4.1, 5.1.2. – 1.1.5 [XII, XV] 㜿⨶ኼ [where ኼ = ᮏ] PY Ć-luóběn; K ·â-lâ-pu˔n; PE ̋a-la-p˔n’; PL ̋a-la-pun´; NW ̋a-la-pon; Jap. a-rabon/hon: “Yab-AlĆhĆ” Assemani;26 “Abraham” Saeki; MP anŇš-ruwĆn (“with immortal soul”) Ito;27 MP ĆrdĆbĆn (“protected by justice”) or ĆrdabĆn (“protected by law”) Deeg;28 “rabbouni” Wu;29 why not “rabban” (as honorific title for a monk)?30 – 1.1.6 [XVI, XVII] ⨶ྵPY luó-hán; K lâ25 ↛❧ึேࠊู㈷Ⰻ࿴ࠊ௧㙠໬ᾏ: “He then created the first man and bestowed on him an excellent disposition, superior to all others, and gave him to have dominion over the Ocean of created things” Saeki; “il réalisa et dressa le premier homme. Spécialement, il le doua d’une harmonie excellente (avec luimême?); il lui conféra l’hégémonie sur l’immensité des creatures” Pelliot. For other renditions, see Pelliot’s commentary ad loc., Pelliot-Forte (1996) 190f. As the insertion in brackets in Pelliot’s translation indicates, what is meant by “excellent harmony” given by God to Adam is not altogether clear (Pelliot himself understood the phrase to refer to the state of man before the Fall: “… J’ai supposé qu’il s’agissait de l’“harmonie” de la nature de l’homme avant le péché avec la nature du Créateur,” p. 191). “Eve” would, it has to be admitted, fit the context. 26 Assemanus (1728) DXL: “Oluopen Sinicum nomen est, si benè conjicio, ex Syriaco Jab-allaha formatum: nam Allaha, quod Deum significant, Sinae pronunciabant Olo, ut suprà dictum est §. 1. Jab verò, quod dedit sonat, aut brevitatis gratiâ rejectum est, aut ex genio linguae Sinicae in Puen mutatum, nominique Olo subjunctum.” Given the tendency we find elsewhere to combine “transcription” with “translation” (see, for example, no. 1.1.13 below), this suggestion, or some other involving a compound of “AlĆhĆ,” may be worth reconsidering. While “ኼ” (-běn; “origin, source”) does not correspond exactly to “yab” (“he gave”), if God is the “source,” he will also have been the one who “gave.” 27 Ito (1979) 300f., who suggests that “anŇš” was abbreviated and used as if it were a Chinese family name “㜿 (a-)” (!). In connection with “anŇš,” cf. no. 1.3.33 below. 28 Deeg (2007) 418f. The interpretation of 㜿⨶ (Ć-luó-) as MP “arda-” receives some support from an instance in a Chinese Manichaean text where 㜿⨶⦆ (PY Ć-luó-huʣn, PL ̋a-la-xˡuan`; K ·â-lâ-ƣuân) is found to correspond to MP “ardĆwĆn” (“the elect”; Taisho Tripitaka LIV, 1280c 3, 5, 10; see Yoshida [1986], list no. 11). 29 Wu (2001) 13; cf. Deeg (2007) 418. 30 For the addition of the prosthetic vowel before “r-,” cf. 㜿⨶⎧ (Ć-luó-zàn, PL ̋a-la -tsˡan`) < rĆzĆn, “secrets” (in the Manichean Monijiao Guangfo jiaofa yilüe ᦶᑽᩍගషᩍἲ൤␎ Taisho Tripitaka LIV, 1280b 18; Haloun-Henning [1952]

[9]

640

TAKAHASHI

ƣ߼m; PE la-˞˔m/˞am; PL la-xˡam: “Abraham” Saeki; probably “Abraham” Pelliot;31 MP “Rašn” or “RŇšan” Ito.32 – 1.1.7 [XVI] ཬⅯPY jí-liè; K g’᫞˔pl᫞ät; PE gip-liat; PL kˡip-liat; Jap. kyş-retsu: “Cyriacus” Saeki; “Gabriel” Pelliot (syr. Gabrĩ‚ēl); MP “Gulag” Ito33 (cf. Introduction above; 1.2.3 below). – 1.1.8 [XVIII] ై࿴PY jí-hé; K g’᫞ět-ƣwâ; PL kjit-xˡua; Jap. gi-wa: “George” (syr. Gĩwargĩs) Saeki; perhaps “Gigoē, diminutif de Giwargis” Pelliot;34 “GĩgŇy” Dauvillier35 (cf. no. 1.3.44, 5.1.16 below). – 1.1.9 [XVIII] ᬑㄽPY pʩ-lún; K p’uo-lu˔n; PE phˏ’-lw˔n; PL phuඉ´-lun: “Paul” Saeki;36 perhaps “Apollonius” Pelliot;37 MP “frĆrŇn” (“righteous, honest”) Jin (1983) 24.38 – 1.1.10 [XXIII] ఀ᪁PY yĩ-sĩ; K ·i-si᩵; PE ̋ji-siඉ/si; PL ̋ji-sߦ: “YazdbŇzĩd” Saeki, Pelliot (cf. 1.2.1 below); “Isaac” (syr. IsʘĆq) Bridgeman,39 Jin (1981) 64f., Kawaguchi (2001) 35. – 1.1.11 [XXVI] 㐩ፅPY dá-suŇ; K d’ât-sâ; PL tˡat-sa: “God-fearing, Christian” (MP tarsĆg; sogd. tarsĆk) Saeki, Pelliot.40 – 1.1.12 [XXXI] ⪀᳃ᩥPY yào-sēn-wén; K ᫞äu-޼᫞˔m-m᫞wˍng; PL jiaw`-˻˔m-̄jyn/̄un: “Sunday” (MP/parth.

207); see further Yoshida (1986), list, nos. 72–75; also Yoshida (1983) 330 (suggesting the influence of Turkic in such prosthetic vowels). For ᮏ with ending “-un/-on,” representing an original ending in “-an/-Ćn,” cf. ᦶヅ⨶⸃ᮏ (PY móhē-luó-sà-běn PL mua-xa-la-sat-pun´) < MahrĆspand (Taisho Tripitaka LIV, 1282b 5; see Chavannes-Pelliot [1911] 544 n. 1; Yoshida [1986], list, no. 56); also see Chavannes-Pelliot [1913] 176 (ᮏ = “five,” apparently from MP pan˅, sogd. panÿ). 31 Pelliot-Forte (1996) 254f. See ibid. for other, earlier suggestions, including “John” (Italian translation of 1631; Gouvea) and Sanskrit “arhat (arhĆn)” (Gueluy). See further Forte apud Pelliot-Forte (1996) 382. 32 Ito (1979) 303 (followed by Jin [1981] 35, id. [1983] 24 and Tsunezuka [1997] 58), reading ⯊ (PY shè; PL ˻ia`; K œ᫞a) instead of ྵ for the second character. 33 Ito (1979) 303 (followed by Jin and Tsunezuka). On the MP name gwlky /Gulag/, see Gignoux (1986) 90, no. 397. 34 Pelliot-Forte (1996) 262. 35 Pelliot-Dauvillier (1984) 32. 36 So at Saeki (1937) 95. Saeki had earlier suggested “Ephrem” (so, for example, at Saeki [1911] 157). 37 Pelliot-Forte (1996) 263: “Le P. Heller (p. 49) a hésité entre Apollonius, Ephrem, Barnum et Paul (Paulus); … le second et le troisième noms sont à peu près invraisemblables ici du point du vue de la phonétique chinoise ancienne: Paul ne va guère, Apollonius est possible, sans plus.” 38 Followed by Tsunezuka (1997) 59. 39 See Pelliot-Forte (1996) 137. 40 For a discussion, see Pelliot-Forte (1996) 291f.

[10]

TRANSCRIBED PROPER NAMES

641

ēwšambat).41 – 1.1.13 [XXXI] ᑀᜑPY níng-shù; K nieng-œ᫞wo; PL niajņ˻iඉ`/˻yඉ`: The “Spiritual Lord (ἲ⋤) Ning-Shu” must be the same person as the “Catholicos-Patriarch ʗnĆnĩšŇȨ” (i.e., ʗnĆnĩšŇȨ II, 773–780) mentioned in the corresponding Syriac text. The Chinese name may be understood as a combination of transliteration (of “-nĩšŇȨ”) and translation, since “shù” (“kind, indulgent; to forgive, show mercy”) corresponds in meaning to “ʘnĆn-.” 1.2. “Xi’an Stele,” Names below the main text:42 1.2.1 [ൔ]㟋ᑉPY líng-bʣo; PL liajņ-puaw´: ądĆm mšamšĆnĆ bar YazdbŇzĩd (Ê؇ÍÁƒÎØ). – 1.2.2 [ൔ]⾜㏻PY xíng-tŇng; PL xˡja̽jņ-th˔wņ: SabranĩšŇȨ qaššĩšĆ. – 1.2.3 [୺ൔ]ᴗ฼PY yè-lì; K ng᫞ˍp-lji; PL ņiap-li`: Gabrĩ‚ēl qaššĩšĆ w-arkidiyaqŇn w-rēš ȨēdtĆ d-KumdĆn (~ÊâÍÜ). Probably intended as partial transcription [**]. Cf. 1.1.7 above. 1.3. “Xi’an Stele,” Names on the side faces [Left side, first row]: 1.3.1 [኱ᚨ]᭙㍯PY yào-lún; PL jiaw`-lyn: MĆr YŇʘannĆn apesqŇpĆ. – 1.3.2 [ൔ]᪥㐍PY rì-jìn; K ľŭ᫞Ăt-ts᫞Ăn; PL rit-tsin`: ĨsʘĆq qaššĩšĆ. – 1.3.3 [ൔ]㐶㉺PY yáo-yuè; K ᫞äu-j᫞wˍt; PL jiaw-yat (“distant/remote-cross over/exceed”): YŇ‚ēl qaššĩšĆ. Transcription [**]. – 1.3.4 [ൔ]ᘅ៞PY guʣngqìng; PL kuaņ´-khiajņ`: MĩkĆ‚ēl qaššĩšĆ. – 1.3.5 [ൔ]࿴ྜྷPY hé-jí; K ƣwâk᫞Ăt; PL xˡua-kjit: Gĩwargĩs qaššĩšĆ. Partial transcription [**]. Cf. 1.1.8. – 1.3.6 [ൔ]ᜨ᫂PY huì-míng; PL xˡjyaj`-miajņ: MĆhdĆd Gušnasp qaššĩšĆ (óéæüÍÄ ƒƒÌâ). – 1.3.7 [ൔ]ᑉ㐩PY bʣo-dá; K pâu-d’ât; PL puaw´-tˡat (“treasure”-“reach/be prominent”): MšĩʘĆdĆd qaššĩšĆ. The second character may be intended to represent the sound “-dĆd” [**]. – 1.3.8 [ൔ]ᢶᯘPY fúlín; K p’᫞u˔t-l᫞˔m; PL fjyt/fut-lim: Aprēm qaššĩšĆ. Transcription [**]. Cf. 5.2.28 below. – 1.3.9. No Chinese name: AbĆy (ÚÁ~) qaššĩšĆ. – 1.3.10. No Chinese name: DĆwĩd qaššĩšĆ. – 1.3.11 [ൔ]⚟ኖPY fú-shòu; PL fjywk/fuwk-˻ˡiw: MŇšē qaššĩšĆ. – [Second row] – 1.3.12 [ൔ]ᓫᩗPY chóng-jìng; PL t˻ˡ˔wņ-kiajņ`: BakkŇs qaššĩšĆ yiʘĩdĆyĆ. – 1.3.13 [ൔ]ᘏ࿴PY yán-hé; PL jian-xˡua: EliyĆ qaššĩšĆ yiʘĩdĆyĆ. – 1.3.14. No Chinese name: MŇšē qaššĩšĆ w-ĩʘĩdĆyĆ. – 1.3.15. No Chinese name: ȨAbdĩšŇȨ qaššĩšĆ wĩʘĩdĆyĆ. – 1.3.16. No Chinese name: ŠemȨŇn qaššĩšĆ d-qabrĆ. – 1.3.17 [ൔ]ᜨ㏻PY huì-tŇng; PL xˡjyaj`-th˔wņ: YŇʘannĩs mšamšĆnĆ w-y-d-‚ (ÀÊ؆, 41

177.

See Pelliot-Forte (1996) 309; also Chavannes-Pelliot (1913) 163–165, 174–

42 For the most complete treatment (transcription, translation and commentary) so far of the Syriac (Syriac-script) part of the stele, see DauvillierGuillaumont (1984).

[11]

642

TAKAHASHI

ĩʘĩdĆyĆ).43 – [Third row] – 1.3.18 [ൔ]ஜ♸PY gĆn-yòu; PL kan-iw`: AhrŇn. – 1.3.19 [ൔ]ඖ୍PY yuán-yĩ; K ng᫞wˍn-·᫞Ăt; PL ņyan-̋jit (“head/principal”-“one/first”): PeʜrŇs. The Chinese name may be intended to reflect the role of Peter as the head of the Apostles [*?]. – 1.3.20 [ൔ]ᩗᚨPY jìng-dé; PL kiajņ`-t˔ඉk: ĨyŇb. – 1.3.21 [ൔ]฼ぢPY lì-jiàn; K ljikien; PL li`-kjiaņ (“sharp/profit”-“see”): LşqĆ. Possibly intended as a transcription [**]. Cf. 5.1.5 below. – 1.3.22 [ൔ]᫂ὈPY míng-tài; K m᫞wˍng-t’âi; PL miajņ-thaj` (“light/bright/intelligent”-“great”): Mattay. Transcription [**]. Cf. 5.1.7 below. – 1.3.23 [ൔ]⋞䛇PY xuán-zhēn; PL xˡjyan-t˻in: YŇʘannĆn. – 1.3.24 [ൔ]ோᜨPY rén-huì; PL rin-xˡjyaj`: ĨšŇȨȨammeh (ÌãîÍýØ). – 1.3.25 [ൔ]᭙※PY yào-yuán; PL jiaw`-ņyan: YŇʘannĆn. – 1.3.26 [ൔ]᫛ᚨPY zhĆo-dé; PL t˻iaw-t˔ඉk: SabrĩšŇȨ. – 1.3.27 [ൔ]ᩥ᫂PY wén-míng; PL ̄jyn/̄un-miajņ: ĨšŇȨdĆd. – 1.3.28 [ൔ]ᩥ㈆PY wén-zhēn; PL ̄jyn/̄un-triajņ: LşqĆ. – 1.3.29 [ൔ]ᒃಙPY jş-xìn; K k᫞wos᫞Ăn; PL kiඉ/kyඉ-sin`: QŇsʜanʜĩnŇs. Possibly, partial transcription of “QŇsʜan-” [**]. – 1.3.30 [ൔ]᮶ጾPY lái-wēi; PL laj-̋yj: NŇʘ. – [Fourth row] – 1.3.31 [ൔ]ᩗ䛇PY jìng-zhēn; PL kiajņ`-t˻in (“respect/reverent”“true”): IzadspĆs (êòèƒÎØ~). The Chinese name (“revering the truth/the True One”?) may just possibly be intended to reflect the sense of the Persian name (“action de grâce à Dieu”;44 from MP yazad, NP ĩzad “God”; MP spĆs/ispĆs “service, thanksgiving”) [*]. – 1.3.32 [ൔ]㑏῟PY huánchún; PL xˡwa̽n-˻ˡyn: YŇʘannĆn. – 1.3.33 [ൔ]㟋ኖPY líng-shòu; PL liajņ˻ˡiw (“spirit”-“longevity”): ąnŇš, i.e., Biblical Enos, but the Chinese name may perhaps include a play on the sense of MP anŇš, “immortal” [*]. – 1.3.34 [ൔ]㟋ᚨPY líng-dé; PL liajņ-t˔ඉk: MĆr Sargĩs. – 1.3.35 [ൔ]ⱥᚨPY yĩng-dé; PL ̋iajņ-t˔ඉk: ĨsʘĆq. – 1.3.36 [ൔ]෨࿴PY chŇng-hé; K ᨔ’᫞ung-ƣwâ; PL trˡiwņ-xˡua: YŇʘannĆn. – 1.3.37 [ൔ]จ⹫PY níng-xş; PL ņiඉņkhiඉ/khyඉ: MĆr Sargĩs. – 1.3.38 [ൔ]ᬑ⃽PY pʩ-jì; K p’uo-tsiei; PL phuඉ´tsiaj` (“widespread/general”-“help across/help/save”): PusĆy (ÚèÍñ).45 Transcription [**]. – 1.3.39 [ൔ]⪺㡰PY wén-shùn; K m᫞u˔n-dŭ’᫞uĂn; PL ̄jyn/̄un-˻ˡyn` (“hear”-“obey”): ŠemȨŇn. The Chinese name may involve a See Dauvillier-Guillaumont (1984) 58, with n.4. So Dauvillier-Guillaumont (1984) 59 n.7. 45 On instances of this Persian name (pus, “son” + hypocoristic ending -Ćy) in Syriac, see Payne-Smith 3067; Dauvillier-Guillaumont (1984) 60 n.1; and, in connection with the fourth-century martyr by this name, Brock (1978) 169, 171f.; id. (1982) 4, 14. Simple “Pus,” written pwsy, as a proper name is registered at Gignoux (1986) 150, no. 782 (also id. [1979] 44). Here the Chinese vouches the presence of the ending -Ćy. 43 44

[12]

TRANSCRIBED PROPER NAMES

643

play on the sense of syr. šmaȨ (“to hear”) [*]. – 1.3.40 [ൔ]ග⃽PY guĆng-jì; PL kuaņ-tsiaj`: ĨsʘĆq. – 1.3.41 [ൔ]Ᏺ୍PY shʧu-yĩ; PL ˻iw´-̋jit: YŇʘannĆn. – [Right side, first row] – 1.3.42 [⪁ᐟ]⪨ᾙᦶPY yē-jù-mó; K ᫞a-k᫞u-muâ; PL jia-kyඉ-mua: YaȨqŇb qaššĩšĆ.46 Transcription [**]. – 1.3.43 [ൔ]ᬒ㏻PY jʥng-tŇng; PL kiajņ´-th˔wņ: MĆr Sargĩs qaššĩšĆ w-kŇrappesqŇpĆ ŠY‚NGTSW‚ (¿ÍèÿÅå½Ùü). For the last word, a rare instance of transcription from Chinese into Syriac, the suggestion that best fits the sound as well as the sense is that made by Pelliot: ୖᗙ (shàng-zuò, K ŭ᫞ang-dzuâ, PL ˻ˡiaņ`-t˻ˡua`), “upper seat,” used as a Buddhist term corresponding to Skr. sthavĩra (“elder”). – 1.3.44 [ൔ]䌬奏PY xuán-lʣn; PL xˡjyan-lam´: GĩgŇy (‹ÍÅÙÄ)47 qaššĩšĆ w-arkidiyaqŇn d-KumdĆn wamaqryĆnĆ. Cf. 1.1.8 above. – 1.3.45 [ൔ]ᑉ㟋PY bʣo-líng; K pâu-lieng; PL puaw´-liajņ (“treasure”-“spirit”): PawlŇs qaššĩšĆ. Probably intended, partly, as transcription [**]. – 1.3.46 [ൔ]⮑ヶPY shěn-shèn; K œ᫞˔m-ŭ᫞Ăn; PL ˻im´-˻ˡin`: ŠemšŇn qaššĩšĆ. Transcription [**]. – 1.3.47 [ൔ]ἲ※PY fʣyuán; PL fjyap/fa̽p-ņyan (“law”-“source”): ądĆm qaššĩšĆ. Perhaps with the idea of Adam as the “source” [*]. – 1.3.48 [ൔ]❧ኼPY lì-běn; PL lip-pun´: IliyĆ qaššĩšĆ. – 1.3.49 [ൔ]࿴᫂PY hé-míng; PL xˡua-miajņ: ĨsʘĆq qaššĩšĆ. – 1.3.50 [ൔ]ගṇPY guĆng-zhèng; PL kuaņ-t˻iajņ`: YŇʘannĆn qaššĩšĆ. – 1.3.51 [ൔ]ෆ⃈PY nèi-chéng; PL nuaj`-trˡiඉņ: YŇʘannĆn qaššĩšĆ. – 1.3.52 No Chinese name: ŠemȨŇn qaššĩšĆ w-sĆbĆ. – [Second row] – 1.3.53 [ൔ]ᓫᚨPY chóng-dé; PL t˻ˡ˔wņ-t˔ඉk: YaȨqŇb qankĆyĆ (“sacristan”). – 1.3.54 [ൔ]ኴ࿴PY tài-hé; PL thaj`-xˡua: ȨAbdĩšŇȨ. – 1.3.55 [ൔ]ᬒ⚟PY jʥng-fú; PL kiajņ´-fjywk/fuwk: YišŇȨdĆd. – 1.3.56 [ൔ]࿴ගPY hé-guĆng; PL xˡua-kuaņ: YaȨqŇb. – 1.3.57 [ൔ]⮳ᚨPY zhì-dé; PL t˻i`-t˔ඉk: YŇʘannĆn. – 1.3.58 [ൔ]⣱䛇PY fèng-zhēn; PL fˡjyawņ`/fˡ˔wņ`-t˻in (“respect”“truth”): ŠubʘĆ l-MĆran [*?] (cf. 1.3.31 above). – 1.3.59 [ൔ]ඖ᐀PY yuánzŇng; PL ņyan-ts˔wņ: MĆr Sargĩs. – 1.3.60 [ൔ]฼⏝PY lì-yòng; PL li`-jywņ`: ŠemȨŇn. – 1.3.61 [ൔ]⋞ᚨPY xuán-dé; PL xˡjyan-t˔ඉk: Aprēm. – 1.3.62 [ൔ]⩏⃽PY yì-jì; PL ņi`-tsiaj`: ZkaryĆ. – 1.3.62 [ൔ]ᚿሀPY zhì-jiĆn; PL t˻i`-kjian: QuryĆqŇs. – 1.3.63 [ൔ]ಖᅧPY bʣo-guó; K pâu-kw˔k; PL puaw´-kuඉk (“protect”-“country”): BakkŇs. Probably intended, partly, as 46 A similar transcription of “Jacob” is found in the so-called Chinese Manichean Hymnscroll (ᦶᑽᩍୗ㒊ㆭ, Xiabuzan): ⪨ಢᏒ PY yē-jù-fş; K ᫞a-k᫞up’᫞u; PL jia-kyඉ-fjyඉ/fuඉ (Taisho Tripitaka LIV, 1275a 27; see Yoshida [1986], list, no. 95, see also ibid. p.11 n.54). 47 Evidently a Persian name with hypocoristic ending -Ňy, for which DauvillierGuillaumont (1984) 60 n.2 could cite no other instances (also not in Gignoux [1986]).

[13]

644

TAKAHASHI

transcription [**]. – 1.3.64 [ൔ]୍᫂PY míng-yĩ; K m᫞wˍng-·᫞Ăt; PL miajņ̋jit: ȨAmmĆnŠ‚ēl. Perhaps partial transcription (of “-mĆnŠ‚ēl”) [**]. – [Third row] – 1.3.65 [ൔ]ᘅᚨPY guʣng-dé; PL kuaņ´-t˔ඉk: Gabrĩ‚ēl. – 1.3.66. No Chinese name: YŇʘannĆn. – 1.3.67 [ൔ]ཤ⏒PY qù-shèn; PL khiඉ`/kˡyඉ`˻ˡim`: ŠlēmŇn. – 1.3.69. No Chinese name: ĨsʘĆq. – 1.3.70 [ൔ]ᚨᘓPY déjiàn; PL t˔ඉk-kian`: YŇʘannĆn. 2. Xuting Mishisuo jing. 2.0.1 [1] ᗎ⫎PY xù-tĩng; K z᫞wo-t’ieng; PE zˣඉh-th˖jņ; PL sˡiඉ`/sˡyඉ`-thiajņ; Jap. jo-chŇ (“order”-“listen to”): “Jesus” Haneda (syr. ĨšŇȨ);48 MP yazd, “God” Ito;49 “listen to in sequence” Tang (2002) 145; delete ᗎ and simply read ⫎ as “listen to” Deeg.50 – 2.0.2 [1] ㏞リᡤPY mí-shĩ-suʧ; PL mjiaj-˻i-˻˔ඉ´/˻uඉ´: emended to ㏞リヅ (PY míshĩ-hē; PY mjiaj-˻i-xa) by Haneda;51 MP *mŇxšišn “salvation” Ito.52 · 2.1 [2] ᘺ᪋ヅPY mí-shĩ-hē; PL mji-˻i-xa: “Christ” (syr. MšĩʘĆ); cf. 1.1.4, 2.0.2 above and 2.5, 2.9 below. – 2.2 [2] ᗎፅPY xù-suŇ; PE zˣඉh-sa; PL sˡyඉ`-sa: adjective qualifying God, perhaps “[qad]dĩšĆ” Deeg;53 emended to ᗎ፠PY xù-pó; PE zˣඉh-ba; PL sˡyඉ`-pˡua and interpreted as “Yehovah” by Haneda,54 followed by Saeki and Tang; “Sabaoth” Burkitt.55 – 2.3 [116, 117, 48 Haneda (1926) 142 (= id. [1958] 263), reading ᗎ as “ye” (cf. no. 2.2) and suggesting emendation of ⫎ (tĩng) to ᩝ (shù, cf. 3.3, 3.10 below), 㰡 (shʩ, cf. 2.4 below) vel sim (also ⪽⫄ [PY cŇng; PL tsh˔wņ], Enoki [1993] 214). Saeki (1937) 147, in following Haneda, saw no need for emendation, believing, with the help of the Japanese pronunciation “chŇ” of ⫎, that ᗎ⫎ could be read as “Ye-chu” in what he calls “old Chinese.” See also Moule (1930) 59. For a critique, see Deeg (2007) 420f., where other, rather out-of-the-way, suggestions are also mentioned (“preface” [Foster]; Gk. “sŇtēr” [Chao]; “Tatian’s Diatessaron” [Yao]). 49 Reported by Jin (1981) 37, 40. 50 Deeg (2007) 423, pointing to the possibility of ᗎ having been mistakenly copied from the next line. Deeg goes on to suggest a possible reconstruction of the whole title as: ⫎㏞リヅ!ᡤㄝ!⥂, “Book of listening to the preaching of the Messiah.” 51 Haneda (1926) 127, 141f. (= id. [1958] 250, 262f.). 52 Reported by Jin (1981) 37, 40. “MŇxšišn” is a hybrid word made up by Ito, from “bŇzišn” and “mŇxš,” both meaning “salvation.” On instances of “mŇxš” (< Skr. mokʛa) in Manichean Parthian, see Durkin-Meisterernst (2004) 234 (and for “mokš” in Sogdian, Gharib [2004] 221, no. 5526). 53 Deeg (2007) 423f. 54 Haneda (1926) 128f. (= id. [1958] 250f.). Haneda’s argument for reading ᗎ (K z᫞wo; Old Chinese [Karlgren] *dz᫞o) as “ye-” rests on its cognation with ண (PY yú; PL jiĈ/jyĈ; K ᫞wo; Old Chinese [Karlgren] *d᫞o; see Karlgren [1958] 41). It will be remembered that “Yehovah” was not a name for God current in Syriac Christianity.

[14]

TRANSCRIBED PROPER NAMES

645

120] ᮎⰏPY mò-yàn; K muât-᫞äm; PE mat-jiamh; PL muat-jiam`: “Mary” (syr. Maryam). – 2.4 [121, 124] ⛣㰡PY yí-shʩ; PL ji-˻iඉ´/˻yඉ´: “Jesus” Haneda (ĨšŇȨ). – 2.5 [124] ㏞ᖌヅPY mí-shĩ-hē; PL mjiaj-˻޴-xa: cf. 2.1 above. · 2.6 [127] ⅲ᲍ᖌᩡ56 PY wş-lí-shĩ-liʣn; K ·uo-lji-ʛi-l᫞äm; PE ̋ˏ-li˻i-liam’; PL ̋uඉ-li-˻޴-liam´: “Jerusalem” Haneda (syr. ņrišlēm).57 – 2.7 [129] ㏙㞴PY shù-nán; K dŭ’᫞uĂtnân; PE ̉wit-nan; PL ˻ˡyt-nan: “Jordan” Haneda (syr. YŇrdnĆn); cf. 2.11 below.58 – 2.8 [129] ⱝ᫃PY ruò(rĂ)-hşn; PE ˭ˣak(˭ia’)-xw˔n; PL riak(ria´)-xun: “John” Haneda (syr. YŇʘannĆn); cf. 2.10 below. – 2.9 [130, 133bis, 135 etc.] ᘺᖌヅPY mí-shĩ-hē; PL mji-˻޴-xa: cf. 2.1 above; 3.4 below. – 2.10 [132] ㇂᫃PY gʩ/yù-hşn; PL k˔wk/jywkxun: “John”; cf. 2.8 above. – 2.11 [133] ከ㞴PY duŇ-nán; PL ta-nan: “Jordan” Haneda; cf. 2.7 above. – 2.12 [153, 155, 159] ∇⨶㒔ᛮPY pí-luódŇu(dş)-sĩ; K b’ji-lâ-tuo-si; PE bji-la-tˏ-sˣ; PL pˡji-la-tuඉ-sߦ: “Pilate” (syr. PĩlaʜŇs). – 2.13 [165] ギྃPY qì-jù; PE kˣt-kuඉh; PL kit-kyඉ`: “Golgotha” Saeki (syr. GĆgultĆ).59 3. Yishen lun [3b. Yitian lun diyi]. – 3.1 [186] ፅከ㑣PY suŇ-duŇ-nà; PL sa-ta-na`: “Satan” Saeki (syr. sĆʜĆnĆ); cf. no. 1.1.3 above.60 – 3.2 [194] ཀྵᛣ61 PY cĆn-nù; PL tsham-nuඉ`: “devil,” “Syriac ‘Shada’” Saeki62 (i.e., syr. šêdĆ, Àƒ½ü). – [3c. Shizun bushi lun disan] – 3.3 [214] ᐈᛣ⩸ᩝPY kè-nùyì-shù; PL khja̽ik-nuඉ`-̋jiaj`-˻uඉ`: “Holy Jesus (kâdôš YîšôȨ)” Haneda;63 “Christ Jesus” Tang.64 – 3.4 [250, 256 etc.] ᘺᖌヅPY mí-shĩ-hē; cf. 2.9 See Moule (1930) 59 n. 69. ᩡ: ഻: with ⅇ in place of ௕ in the manuscript; ᨱ: ཱྀ above ཪ in the manuscript. 57 As was pointed out by Haneda (1926) 142 (= id. [1958] 264), it is somewhat surprising to find Jesus being born in Jerusalem. 58 The correspondence of PL ˻ˡ- to syr. “y-” is problematic, but cf. no. 3.5 below. 59 Saeki (1937) 160. 60 Written ⿸ከ㑣 (PY shĆ-; PL ˻a̽-) at Tang (2002) 168, presumably by oversight. 61 ཀྵ so the manuscript; usually in the commoner forms ཧ, ཨ in printed editions. 62 Saeki (1937) 202. 63 Haneda (1918) 144 (= id. [1958] 238f.); cf. Müller (1904) 61 (for further instances of “kâdôš/qâdôš,” ibid. 69, 70, 71, 78); Durkin-Meisterernst (2004) 201, s.v. “k’dwš”; also Yoshida (1983) 327 (ఞ㊰ᖌ [PY jiĆ-lù-shĩ; PL kˡia-luඉ`-˻޴] < q’dwš, in the Manichean Xiabuzan, Taisho Tripitaka LIV, 1274a 4–9). 64 So in the main text of the translation at Tang (2002) 170, but “probably a rendering of the Syriac ‘Kadosh-ishu’” in the footnote. 55 56

[15]

646

TAKAHASHI

above. – 3.5 [252, 255 etc.] ▼ᛛ[ே] PY shí-hş; PE d̉iajk-xw˔t; PL ˻ˡaikxut: “Jews” Saeki,65 Tang (syr. yihşdĆyĆ, MP ˅ahşd); “Iscariot” Jin, Kawaguchi66 (syr. skaryŇʜĆ). – 3.6 [258] ᐤᜳPY jì-xĩ; PE ki˔h/kih-sit; PL ki`-sit: “Caesar” (syr. Qesar, Qĩsar). – 3.7 [264, 274 etc.] 㜿ㄯPY Ć-tán; PE ̋a-d˔m/dam; PL ̋a-tˡam: “Adam” Saeki, Jin, Kawaguchi67 (syr. ądĆm); “talk nonsense” Tang (2002) 173f. – 3.8 [286] ጦ⩦PY yáo-xí; PE jiaw-zip; PL jiaw-sˡip: “Joseph [of Arimathea]” Saeki (syr. Yawsep). – 3.9 [345] [▼ᅧ]ఀ኱[ᇛ] PY yĩ-dà-chéng; PE ̋ji-da’; PL ̋ji-tˡa`: “Judea” Saeki68 (syr. YihşdĆ); “Jerusalem” Tang. – 3.10 [363f.] ⩸ᩝPY yì-shù/shʩ; PL ̋jiaj`˻uඉ`/˻uඉ´: “Jesus”; cf. 3.3 above. 4. Sanwei mengdu zan. – 4.0 [1] ୕ጾⵚᗘㆭPY sĆn-wēi-méng-dù-zàn; PL sam-̋yj-m˔wņ-tˡuඉ`-tsan`: included here because of Saeki’s interpretation, firstly, of ጾⵚᗘ (PY wēi-méng-dù) as “baptism” (syr. ȨmĆdĆ) and, then, of ⵚᗘ (PY méng-dù) as indicating a hymn to be sung while seated, “Motwa” (i.e., “mawtbĆ”).69 – 4.1 [21]: ᘺ᪋ヅPY mí-shĩ-hē: see no. 1.1.4. 5. Zunjing. · 5.1.1 [2] 㜿⨶ヅPY Ć-luó-hē: See no. 1.1.1 above. – 5.1.2 [2] ᘺ᪋ヅPY mí-shĩ-hē: See no. 1.1.4. – 5.1.3 [3] ├ヅᑀ῞ἋPY lú-hēníng-jù-shĆ; K luo-Ʒâ-nieng-k᫞u-ʛa; PL luඉ-xa-niajņ-kyඉ-˻a̽: “Holy Spirit” (syr. RşʘĆ d-QudšĆ). On the correspondence of “d-” to “níng,” see above.70 – 5.1.4 [4] ⍜⨖㞴[ἲ⋤]71 PY yú-hʣn-nán(nàn); K ᫞u-Ʒân-nân; PL jyĈ-xan´nan(nan`): “John” (syr. YŇʘannĆn). – 5.1.5 [4] ├ఞPY lú-jiĆ; K luo-ka; PL Saeki (1937) 238–241, comparing the word with terms for “Jews” occurring in later (14th century onwards) documents, such as ᮑᛛ (zhú-hş) found in the Yuanshi (History of Yuan Dynasty). 66 Jin (1981) 130; Kawaguchi (2002) 237. 67 Saeki (1937) 213f.; Jin (1981) 133; Kawaguchi (2002) 238. 68 Saeki (1937) 244. Saeki’s explanation of ▼ᅧ (shí-guó), “stone/rockcountry,” as “Syria” seems redundant given his earlier identification of ▼ᛛ (PY shí-hş, no. 3.5 above) as “Jew.” 69 Saeki (1937) 269–271. On this, and for a new interpretation of the title, see Deeg (2006) 120f. 70 One need not dwell here on Ito’s interpretation of ᑀ೜Ἃ (níng-jù-shĆ) as MP nywš̮g /niyŇšĆg/, “hearer, auditor” (see Jin [1979] 324f., id. [1981] 37–39). In the Chinese Manichaean Xiabuzan, niyŇšĆg is found transcribed as ఼㐖Ἃ (PY nʥyú-shĆ, K ľji-᫞u-޼a; Taisho Tripitaka LIV, 1279b 21; Yoshida [1986], list no. 65; Tsui Chi [1943] 215). 71 All the names in nos. 5.1.4–5.1.25 are followed by the title ἲ⋤ PY fʣ-wáng (“law”-“king”). In nos. 5.1.4 and 5.1.21, the character ⋤ is missing in the manuscript but should no doubt be supplied. 65

[16]

TRANSCRIBED PROPER NAMES

647

luඉ-kja̽: “Luke” (syr. LşqĆ); cf. 1.3.21 above. – 5.1.6 [4] ᦶ▴㎡PY mó-jʩcí; K muâ-k᫞u-zi; PL mua-kyඉ´-sˡߦ: “Mark” (syr. MarqŇs). – 5.1.7 [4] ᫂ὈPY míng-tài; K m᫞wˍng-t’âi; PL miajņ-thaj`: “Matthew” (syr. Mattay); cf. 1.3.22 above. – 5.1.8 [5] ∹ୡPY móu-shì; K m᫞ᵁu-œ᫞äi; PL m˔w-˻iaj`: “Moses” (syr. MŇšē); cf. 5.2.26 below. – 5.1.9 [5] ከᜨPY duŇ-huì; K tâƣiwei; PL ta-xˡjyaj`: “David” (syr. DĆwĩd); cf. 5.2.5 below. – 5.1.10 [5] ᬒ㏻PY jʥng-tŇng; K k᫞ˍng-t’ung; PL kiaiņ´-th˔wņ: unidentified; cf. 1.3.43. – 5.1.11 [5] ᑌ㊰PY bʣo-lù; K pâu-luo; PL puaw´-luඉ`: “Paul” Moule, Saeki (syr. PawlŇs); cf. 5.2.19 below. – 5.1.12 [6] ༓║PY qiĆn-yʣn; K ts’ien-ngĈn; PL tshian-ņja̽n´ (“thousand”-“eye”): “Gregory (?)” Saeki;72 Jin suggests influence of Mithraism;73 “guardian angel” Wu (2001) 22. – 5.1.13 [6] 䛽ᑀ㐓PY nuó-níng-yì; K nâ-nieng-᫞Ăt; PL na-niajņ-jit: “Hanan-ishu” Saeki (syr. ʗnĆnĩšŇȨ; cf. 1.1.13 above); “Daniel” (syr. DĆnĩ’el/DĆnĩyel, so Wu [2001] 23). – 5.1.14 [6] ⩹ⰏPY mín-yàn; K m᫞Ăn-᫞äm; PL min-jiam` (mín: “kind of precious stone”; yàn: “beautiful”): “Simeon” Saeki (cf. 5.1.18 below); “MĆnušÿihr” or “MĆnē” Ito;74 why not Mary?75 – 5.1.15 [6]: ᦶ⸃ྜྷᛮPY mó-sà-jí-sĩ; K muâ-sât-k᫞Ăt-si; PL mua-sat-kjit-sߦ. – syr. “MĆr Sargĩs” Moule, Saeki. – 5.1.16 [7] ෘ࿴ྜྷᛮPY yí-hé-jí-sĩ; K ngji᩵-ƣuâ-k᫞Ătsi; PL ņi-xŴua-kjit-sߦ: “George” Moule, Saeki (syr. Gĩwargĩs). – 5.1.17 [7] ᦶἄྜྷᛮ PY mó-mò-jí-sĩ; K muâ-mu˔t-k᫞Ăt-si; PL mua-mut-kjit-sߦ: “Mar Bacchus” Saeki (syr. MĆr BakkŇs);76 “Mar Magis (?)” Tang. – 5.1.18 [7] ᒲ✫‫ܗ‬PY cén-wěn-sēng; PL t˻ˡ˔m-̋un´-s˔ඉņ: “Simon Peter” (sogd. ŠemȨŇn Sang, where “sang” = “stone, rock”) Haneda77 (cf. 6.2 below); “This may mean ‘the vigilant and watchful saint’ i.e., St. Gregory (?)” Saeki (1937) 273 (cf. Gk. ·Ε΋·ΓΕνΝ). 73 Where Mithra himself is said to have been “thousand-eared” (hazaņra-gaoša) and “ten-thousand-eyed” (baēvar˔-ÿašman), Jin (1979) 326. 74 See Jin (1979) 327. 75 So also Wu (2001) 23f. Cf. no. 2.3 (ᮎⰏ) above and ⁹Ⰿ (PY mʣn-yàn; PL muan´-jiam`; “Maryam,” as mother of Mani, in Guangfo jiaofa yilüe, Taisho Tripitaka LIV, 1280a 5; cf. Yoshida [1986], list, no. 58). Ⰿ, the second character in all three cases, is one that is normally used of feminine beauty. 76 For the correspondence of “m” with “b,” see n. 20 above. The representation of “-kŇs” by ྜྷᛮ (PY jí-sĩ) can be explained as being due to the influence of nos. 5.1.15–16. 77 Haneda (1929) 13 = id. (1959) 281. For instances of “ŠemȨŇn Sang” in Sogdian, see Müller (1912) 32f., 79 (T.II. B12, verso, 14 = Luke 6.14; T.III. 99a, verso, 8 = John 21.7: ŭƍƏ ķŴƖƊƣ); Gharib (2004) 375, no. 9288 (s.v. šmƣwn snk). ‫ܗ‬ (PY sēng), of course, is the word usually used for Buddhist monks and by extension also for Jingjiao monks in the Xi’an Stele (see sections 1.2–3 above). It appears in 72

[17]

648

TAKAHASHI

“JĆmĆsp” Ito.78 – 5.1.19 [8] ᘘᅄ⪷ἲ⋤PY niàn-sì-shèng-fʣ-wáng; PL ripsߦ`-˻iajņ`-fjyap-yaņ (“twenty-four-holy-law-king(s)”): i.e., the authors of the books of the Old Testament, Saeki et al.79 – 5.1.20 [8] ᠇㞴⪨80 PY xiànnán-yē; PL xian`-nan-jia: “Hananiah” Moule, Saeki (1937) 274 (syr. ʗannanyĆ).81 – 5.1.21 [8] ㈡⸃⪨ hè-sà-yē; PL xŴa`-sat-jia: “Azariah” Moule (syr. ȨAzaryĆ); “Hosea” Saeki, Tang (syr. HŇšaȨ); “(Joseph) ʗazzĆyĆ” Wu (2001) 29. The Middle Chinese sound of the name, as well as the juxtaposition with Hananiah and Mishael (cf. Daniel 1:6 etc.), clearly favours Azariah. – 5.1.22 [8] ᙗἋ᭥82 PY mí-shĆ-yè; PL mji-˻a̽-jiat: “Mishael” Moule (syr. MĩšĆ’ēl); “Michael” Saeki (1935) 619, id. (1937) 274, Tang, Wu (syr. MĩkĆ’ēl); “Makhikha” Saeki (1943) 362. – 5.1.23 [8] ፅ⨶ suŇ-luó; PL sa-la: “Silas” Saeki (syr. SilwanŇs); MP “sĆlĆr” (“leader/master”) Ito;83 “Saul” Tang, Wu (syr. ŠĆwĆl). The nearest in sound, if women can be admitted to the list (cf. no. 5.1.14 above), is “Sarah” (syr. SarĆ). – 5.1.24 [9] ▞├PY jù/qú-lú; PL kyඉ`/kŴyඉ`-luඉ: “Gabhruna?” Saeki (1935) 619, “Gur” Saeki (1937) 274 (what biblical figure or saint Saeki meant by this the full form ‫ܗ‬ఞ (sēng-qié, < Sanskrit sa‫ޚ‬gha) with the same ᒲ✫ (cén-wěn) in no. 6.2 below. Perhaps we have here again a combination of “transcription” and “translation” (although it is somewhat strange to see Simon Peter being called a “monk”). 78 Reading ᓋ/銧 (PY líng; PL liajņ) instead of ᒲ (PY cén) and evidently confusing PY “l” with “r,” which he argues can represent a “j” sound. This, perhaps the most acrobatic of Ito’s suggestions, is reported by Jin (1979) 328. 79 The phrase ᘘᅄ⪷ (“twenty-four holy [ones]”) also occurs as a designation for the authors of the Old Testament in the Xi’an Stele (in column VII; cf. the commentary ad loc. in Pelliot-Forte [1996] 206). The idea that the phrase refers to the “prophets,” though rejected by Pelliot, may be worth reconsidering in the light of the tradition of referring to the “twenty-four prophets” in Syriac going back to the Gospel of Thomas. 80 ⪨: Saeki printed 㑣 (PY nʣ/nuó, PL na) both here and for the third character of no. 5.1.21 in his editions of the text (Saeki [1935] 623; id. [1937], Chinese text, p. 74; id. [1943] 352), but has ⪨ for both in his explanation of the text (Saeki [1935] 619, id. [1943] 362). Lin (2003) 126 prints 㑣 here, but ⪨ in no. 5.1.21. Weng (1996) 209 has ⪨ for both instances, as does the manuscript (see, for example, the plates opposite Moule [1930] 53, Saeki [1935] 622; the picture is less clear at Lin [2003] 347). 81 Saeki had earlier suggested identification of this ᠇㞴⪨ with Catholicos “Khanan-ishu II” (cf. 1.1.13 above) and no. 5.1.13 above with “Khanan-ishu I” (Saeki [1935] 619). 82 ᭥: without the lower, right-to-left diagonal stroke in the manuscript. 83 Reported by Jin (1979) 329.

[18]

TRANSCRIBED PROPER NAMES

649

remains a mystery); “GuryĆ” Jin;84 “Kyros” Wu85 (syr. Kşreš/QiyŇrē) – 5.1.25 [9] ሗಙPY bào-xìn; PL puaw`-sin` (lit. “report”-“message”): “The Saint announcing the Glad Tidings: St. John the Baptist (?)” Saeki (cf. 5.2.29); “(angel) Gabriel” Wu (2001) 31; MP “pus” (“son”) Ito (cf. no. 1.3.38 above).86 – 5.2.1 [10] ᖖ᫂ⓚᵹ⥂PY cháng-míng-huáng-lè-jĩng; PL ˻ˡiaņ-miajņ-xˡuaņ-lak-kjiajņ (lit. “eternal light royal joy [book]”):87 unidentified. – 5.2.2 [10] ᐉඖ⮳ᮏ⥂PY xuĆn-yuán-zhì-běn-jĩng; PL syanņyan-t˻i`-pun´-kjiajņ: see Text no. 7. – 5.2.3 [10] ᚿ⋞Ᏻᵹ⥂PY zhì-xuánĆn-lè-jĩng; PL t˻i`-xˡjyan-Ƣan-lak-kjiajņ: see Text no. 6. – 5.2.4 [11] ኳᑌ⸝⥂PY tiĆn-bʣo-zàng-jĩng; PL thian-puaw´-tsˡaņ`-kjiajņ (“heavenly treasure store”): Breviary (?) (syr. Bēt GazzĆ, lit. “house of treasure”).88 – 5.2.5 [11] ከᜨ⪷⋤⥂PY duŇ-huì-shèng-wáng-jĩng; PL ta-xˡjyaj`-˻iajņ`yaņ`-kjiajņ: cf. 5.1.9 above; ͆Psalms” (or, rather, the Psalter for liturgical use?). – 5.2.6 [11] 㜿ᛮ▞฼ᐜ⥂PY Ć-sĩ-jù/qú-lì-róng-jĩng; PL Ƣa-sߦkyඉ`/kŴyඉ`-li`-jywņ-kjiajņ: “Gospel” Chavannes-Peliot, Saeki (syr. EwangeliyŇn).89 – 5.2.7 [12] ‐ඖ⥂PY hún-yuán-jĩng; PL xˡun-ņyan-kjiajņ (“absolute life”):90 unidentified. – 5.2.8 [12] ㏻ⵏ⥂PY tŇng-zhēn-jĩng; PL 84 Jin (1979) 329, mentioning the word in the sense of “lion cub.” For Gurya as an early Edessan martyr, see, for example, Segal (1970) 83ff. Jin, ibid., also reports Ito’s suggestion of “qĆrē” (one who calls). 85 Wu (2001) 30, suggesting identification with the sixth-century East Syrian author Cyrus (Qiyore) of Edessa. 86 Reported by Jin (1979) 329f. 87 The literal translations, without hyphens, given here and in what follows are those of Moule (1930) 56f. Similar, though slightly different, translations can be found in Saeki (1937) 274f. and Tang (2001) 185–187. 88 See Moule (1930) 56 n.62. 89 Reading ⴙ (PY wàn; PL ̄jyan) instead of ᛮ (PY sĩ), Chavannes-Pelliot (1913) 136 (cf. no. 5.2.16 below). Followed by Saeki (1935) 621, id. (1937) 274, id. (1943) 364, who, however, writes ᜠ (PY ēn; PL Ƣ˔n) for ᛮ Haneda (1951) 3f. (= id. [1958] 295f.), comparing the two suggestions, considers ⴙ more suitable for representing “-wan-.” Saeki had earlier proposed syr. “atlĩʜĆ” (Gk. “athlētēs”) in his The Nestorian Monuments in China, London, 1916 (see Saeki [1935] 621, id. [1943] 364). A quite different transcription of “Euangelion” is found in Chinese Manichean texts: ᠕㍯ PY yìng-lún; PL ƢiĈņ`-lyn (Taisho Tripitaka LIV, 1280b 15, 1283a 12 [respectively, in Monijiao Guangfo jiaofa yilüe and in the so-called Traité manichéen Ἴ᪁ᩍṧ⥂]; see Haloun-Henning [1952] 194 n. 61, 205, 212; Yoshida [1986], list, no. 16). 90 “Self-existing Life Book” Saeki; “Book of Simple and Natural Beginning” Tang.

[19]

650

TAKAHASHI

th˔wņ-t˻in-kjiajņ (“reach truth”): unidentified. – 5.2.9 [12] ᑌ᫂⥂PY bʣomíng-jĩng; PL puaw´-miajņ-kjiajņ (“precious brightness”): unidentified. – 5.2.10 [12] ബ໬⥂PY chuán-huà-jĩng; PL trˡyan-xwa̽`-kjiajņ (“preach conversion”): “Acts of the Apostles?” Saeki, Tang. – 5.2.11 [12] ⨊㑇⥂PY qìng-yí-jĩng; PL khjiajņ`-jyj-kjiajņ (“complete bequest?”): “Book of Job?” Pelliot (Pelliot-Forte [1996] 217); “Book on Charity” Saeki.91 – 5.2.12 [13] ཎ㟰⥂PY yuán-líng-jĩng; PL ņyan-liajņ-kjiajņ (“original spiritual power”): unidentified. – 5.2.13 [13] ㏙␎⥂PY shù-lüè-jĩng; PL ˻ˡyt-liak-kjiajņ (“transmit summary”): “Catechism?” Saeki, Tang. – 5.2.14 [13] ୕㝿⥂PY sĆn-jì-jĩng; PL sam-tsiaj`-kjiajņ (“three moments”92): identified as a Manichean text by Chavannes-Pelliot (cf. 5.2.16, 5.2.31 below).93 – 5.2.15 [13] ᗥワ⥂PY zhēng-jié-jĩng; PL triĈņ-khjit-kjiajņ (“summon”-“examine”): so the text in Lin (2003) 127, Weng (1996) 212, which is closest to what we have in the manuscript;94 followed by Moule (“[Seek ask?] book”); ᗥㄘ⥂PY zhēng-gào-; PL triĈņ-kaw`- (“summon”-“inform/admonish”): written thus by Saeki in his Japanese commentaries, which he understands as a text explaining the faith and goes on to identify with syr. “¾ĆâšÍÜ = Khutama” (did he mean ʘuttĆmĆ, ¾ĆâšÍÏ, “concluding prayer”?);95 ᚤワ⥂PY wēi-jié-; K mjwei-k’᫞Ăt-; PL ̄jyj-khjit-; Jap. bi-kitsu-: so the text at Saeki (1935) 624, id. (1937), Chinese text, p. 75; followed by Tang (“Book

These suggestions are based on the association of the phrase ⨊㑇 here with the sentence ୙⪹㈌㈈♧⨊㑇᪊ᡃ in the Xi’an Stele (column IX): “ils n’amassent pas de richesses, donnant pour eux-mêmes l’exemple de renoncement absolu” Pelliot (Pelliot-Forte [1996] 174); “They neither accumulate property nor wealth; but giving all they possess, they set a good example to others” Saeki (Saeki [1937] 56) [emphasis added]. 92 i.e., past, present and future; so Moule, following Chavannes-Pelliot. “The Three Spheres Book” Saeki. “Book of Three Borders” Tang. 93 Chavannes-Pelliot (1913) 133f.; cf. id. (1911) 502; also Haneda (1912) 242– 244 (= id. [1958] 230f.); Taisho Tripitaka LIV, 1281a 1–11 (end of Monijiao Guangfo jiaofa yilüe). 94 In the manuscript the first character looks as if it is composed of: ᙵ+ ᒣ/(⋤ + ୿), i.e., with ᒣ above both ⋤ and ୿. 95 “The Chêng-ch’i Sûtra (lit. Restraint-fulfilling Book)” Saeki (1937) 275, in his English translation. It is not clear what characters he has in mind here. One suspects ᚪワ (PY zhēng-jié), but Giles-Wade “ch’i” should correspond to Pinyin “qi.” 91

[20]

TRANSCRIBED PROPER NAMES

651

of Tiny Complications”); “Micah” Jin;96 ⃆ㄘ⥂PY chéng-gào- (⃆: “clear water”): so Kawaguchi (2002) 286f., which he goes on to suggest might be a Manichean text. – 5.2.16 [14] ᑀᛮ⥂PY níng-sĩ-jĩng; PL niajņ-sߦ-kjiajņ (“peaceful thought”): MP niyĆyišn (“praise, prayer”) Ito (cf. no. 5.2.22 below);97 emended to ᑀⴙ⥂ (PY níng-wàn-, PL niajņ-̄jyan-) and identified as a Manichean text by Chavannes-Pelliot.98 – 5.2.17 [14] ᐉ⩏⥂PY xuĆn-yì-jĩng; PL syan-ņi`-kjiajņ (“proclaim righteousness”) “outline of Christian doctrine” Saeki.99 – 5.2.18 [14] ᖌ฼ᾏ⥂100 PY shĩ-lìhʣi-jĩng; PL ˻޴-li`-xaj´-kjiajņ: syr. šlĩʘĆ/ē (“apostle[s]”); “Apostle’s Creed” Saeki;101 “Book of Creeds” Tang; “Acts” Wu (2001) 33f. – 5.2.19 [14] ᑌ㊰ἲ⋤⥂PY bʣo-lù-fʣ-wáng-jĩng; PL puaw´-luඉ`-fjyap-yaņ`-kjiajņ: cf. 5.1.11; “Pauline Epistles” Saeki, Tang. – 5.2.20 [14] ฽Ἑᚊ⥂PY shĆn-hélʱ-jĩng; PL ˻a̽HRŴa-lyt-kjiajņ: “The Book of Zachariah” Saeki, Tang (syr. ZkaryĆ).102 – 5.2.21 [15] ⸤฼᭶ᛮ⥂PY yì-lì-yuè-sĩ-jĩng; PL ņjiajj`-li`-ņyatsߦ-kjiajņ: “George” Saeki (syr. Gĩwargĩs),103 but cf. 5.1.16 above; “Julius?” Jin (1979) 331 mentions this as a possibility, then rejects it on the ground that ᚤ does not begin with m- (despite what we see of Karlgren’s reconstruction above). 97 See Jin (1979) 331, id. (1981) 39. 98 Chavannes-Pelliot (1913) 136 (see also id. [1911] 556; cf. no. 5.2.6 above); followed by Saeki (1935) 622 (also id. [1943] 365; cf. id. [1937] 279), who, however, writes ᜠ, rather than ⴙ, for ᛮ (cf. no. 5.2.6 above). ᑀⴙ⥂ is mentioned in the Traité manichéen (Taisho Tripitaka LIV, 1283a 15; cf. n. 45 above). Along with the similar-sounding Ἶⴙ (PY ní-wàn, PL niaj-̄jyan), which occurs in a similar context in the Guangfo jiaofa yilüe (Taisho Tripitaka LIV, 1280b 17), ᑀⴙ is recognized by Yoshida (1986), list, no. 30, as representing MP dĩbĆn in the sense of “epistles” (cf. n. 20 above; identification of Ἶⴙ with “Epistles” had been made earlier by Haloun-Henning [1952] 194 n. 61, 207). 99 Saeki (1935) 622, id. (1943) 364, understanding ⩏ as “meaning,” “doctrine,” rather than “justice.” Cf. id. (1937) 275: “lit. Declaring Meaning Book”; so also Tang (2002) 186: “Book of Propagating the Doctrine.” 100 ᖌ: without the first, top-left stroke in the manuscript, as printed in Lin (2003) 127. 101 So in his Japanese works (Saeki [1935] 622, id. [1943] 365), though not in his English translation. “Acts” would have been ruled out here for Saeki by his identification of no. 5.2.10 with that book. 102 So also Wu (2001) 34f., who suggests as a possibility, along with the Old Testament Book of Zachariah, the Ecclesiastical History of Zacharias Rhetor, which seems somewhat unlikely. 103 So also Wu (2001) 35f., who here again suggests the rather unlikely identification with (the West Syrian) George of the Arabs. 96

[21]

652

TAKAHASHI

Tang (syr. YşliyŇs); possibly, “Gregory”? (syr. GrĩgŇriyŇs). – 5.2.22 [15] ᑀ⪨㢇⥂PY níng-yē-yí-jĩng; PL niajņ-jia-ji-kjiajņ: so Lin (2003) 127; MP niyĆyišn (“praise, prayer”) Ito (cf. no. 5.2.16 above);104 ᑀ⪨㡻⥂PY níngyē-dùn-; PL niajņ-jia-tun`-: “burial service” Saeki;105 ᑀ⪨㢐⥂PY níng-yētian-; PL niajŅ-jia-thiajŅ-: “Testament” (syr. diyatĩqĩ) or “(Tatian’s) Diatessaron” Wu (2001) 26. – 5.2.23 [15] ൤๎ᚊ⥂106 PY yí-zé-lʱ-jĩng; PL ņi-ts˔Ĉk-lyt-kjiajņ: “Ceremonial rules laws (or a transcription?)” Moule (1930) 56; “probably Kashkul” Saeki.107 – 5.2.24 [15] ∇㐤ၨ⥂PY pí-è-qʥ-jĩng; PL pˡji-̋at-khjiai´-kjiajņ: “Book of Solace” Saeki;108 MP paygĆm (“message, revelation”) Ito;109 “book of blessings” Wu.110 – 5.2.25 [16] ୕ጾㆽ⥂PY sĆn-wēi-zàn-jĩng: cf. no. 4 above. – 5.2.26 [16] ∹ୡἲ⋤⥂PY móu-shì-fʣwáng-jĩng; PL m˔w-˻iaj`-fjyap-yaņ`-kjiajņ: “Book of Moses”; cf. 5.1.8. – 5.2.27 [16] ఀ฼⪨⥂PY yĩ-lì-yē-jĩng; PL Ƣji-li`-jia-kjiajŅ: “Elijah” Moule, Saeki (syr. EliyĆ). – 5.2.28 [16] 㐤ᢶᯘ⥂PY è-fú-lín-jĩng; PL Ƣat-fjyt/futlim-kjiajŅ: “Ephrem” Moule, Saeki (cf. 1.3.8 above); “Epistle to the Romans” Jin;111 the possibility of MP Ćfrĩn (“prayer”) might also be considered.112 – 5.2.29 [17] ሗಙἲ⋤⥂PY bào-xìn-fʣ-wáng-jĩng; PL puaw`-sin`-: cf. 5.1.25. – 5.2.30 [17] ᘺ᪋ヅ⮬ᅾኳᆅ⥂PY mí-shĩ-hē-zìzài-tiĆn-dì-jĩng (“Messiah self existent in heaven and earth”): “treatise on See Jin (1979) 333. “The Ning-yeh-tun sûtra, which we identified with the Syriac word ‘Ni-dha’ or ‘A-nidh’ meaning a burial service” (Saeki [1937] 256; cf. id. [1935] 622, id. [1943] 366), where Saeki is presumably thinking of Syr. ȨnĆdĆ (“departure [from this world]”). 106 ൤: with ᙵ instead of ை in the manuscript, as printed in Lin (2003) 127. 107 Not in his English translation, but in his Japanese works, Saeki (1935) 622, id. (1943) 366. 108 Saeki (1935) 622, id. (1943) 366, identifying the word with “ĴĥŤƀŨ (Baiak/Buiyak),” by which he presumably means buyyĆ‚Ć, ¿½ØÍÁ (+ second person suffix?). 109 See Jin (1979) 333, id. (1981) 39. Cf. Mod. Pers. payĠambar, “prophet.” 110 Wu (2001) 36f., pointing, besides to class. syr. “brĆkĆ”, to such forms as Palestinian Aramaic “birkĆ” and Neo-Syriac “birkĆ/birkē” as forms that would be closer to the Chinese (without, however, consideration of how such forms might have reached China before the eighth century). 111 Jin (1979) 334 (on ᢶᯘ [PY fú-lín] as “Rome, Roman Empire,” see n. 8 above). 112 “ąfrĩn” occurs in the form 㜿ᢶ⬍ (PY Ć-fú-yìn; PL ̋a-fjyt-jin`) in the list of the Manichean scriptures in the Guangfo jiaofa yilüe (Taisho Tripitaka LIV, 1280b 21; cf. Haloun-Henning [1952] 194 n. 61, 208; Yoshida [1986], list, no. 5). 104 105

[22]

TRANSCRIBED PROPER NAMES

653

the incarnation of the Messiah,” Saeki.113 – 5.2.31 [17] ᅄ㛛⥂PY sì-ménjĩng; PL sߦ`-mun-kjiajņ (“four gates”): identified with a Manichean work on astronomy/astrology by Chavannes-Pelliot114 (cf. 5.2.14 above); “Ptolemy’s Tetrabiblos (as translated into Syriac by Severus Sebokht)” Wu (2001) 41f. – 5.2.32 [17] ၨ┿⥂PY qʥ-zhēn-jĩng; PL khjiai´-t˻in-kjiajņ (“opening truth”): “Book of Revelation?” Tang.115 – 5.2.33 [18] ᦶ⸃ྜྷ᪁⥂PY mó-sà-jí-sĩjĩng; PL mua-sat-kjit-sߦ-kjiajņ: cf. 5.1.15. – 5.2.34 [18] ឿ฼Ἴ⥂PY cí-lì-bŇjĩng; PL tsˡߦ-li`-pua-kjiajņ: “Cross” Saeki (syr. ޼lĩbĆ). – 5.2.35 [18] ⅲἋ䛽⥂PY wş-shĆ-nà-jĩng; PL ̋uඉ-˻a̽-na`-kjiajņ: “Hosanna” Moule, Saeki116 (syr. ŇšaȨnĆ); i.e., the rite for Palm Sunday? 6. Zhixuan anle jing. – 6.1 [8 etc.]117 ᘺ᪋ヅPY mí-shĩ-hē: cf. 1.1.4. – 6.2 [12 et passim] ᒲ✫‫ܗ‬ఞPY cén-wěn-sēng-qié; PL t˻ˡ˔m-̋un´-s˔ඉņkŴia: cf. 5.1.18. – 6.3 [38, 42] ᄶᔌ118 PY luŇ-jĩ; PL la-xˡjiaj: “Spirit” (syr. rşʘĆ) Saeki (1937) 286, 308f., Tang (2002) 190; syr. “lakmĆ” Wu (2001) 31f., cf. Lin (2007) 391; neither suggestion is very close to the sound of the Chinese. 7. Xuanyuan zhiben jing. – 7.1 [2 = IV]119 㑣⸃⨶PY nà-sà-luó; PL na`-sat-la: “Nazareth” (syr. NĆʛrat). – 7.2 [11, 18 = VII, X] 㜿⨶ヅPY Ćluó-hē: cf. 1.1.1.120 – 7.3 [XIV] ᘺ᪋ヅPY mí-shĩ-hē: cf. 1.1.4 above. – [XV]

Saeki (1935) 622, id. (1943) 366. Chavanes-Pelliot (1913) 143, 169f. 115 It will be remembered that the Book of Revelation was not part of the Syriac (Peshitta) Canon, as Tang herself was aware (Tang [2002] 120 n. 49). 116 So in Saeki (1937) 275, but “Book of Hosea” (reading ⪨ [PY yē] for 䛽 [nà]) in id. (1935) 622, id. (1943) 365. 117 Here, where no photographic reproduction of the whole text is available, I follow the printed text in Haneda (1958) 274–280 in numbering the columns. 118 ᔌ: Haneda has this character in col. 42, but ✍ (PY jĩ/qʥ; PL kjiaj/khjiaj´) in col. 38; Saeki has ᔋ (variant form of ᔌ) in both places; Weng (1996) 178 has ᔌin both. 119 Arabic numerals: column number in the Dunhuang manuscript (Haneda [1958], plate 7); Roman numerals: column number in the Luoyang monument (Zhang [2007] 65f., 73). 120 㜿⨶ヅ: also in the postscript to the text (column XXVII) and in the opening words in the space to the right of the title of the text in the Luoyang monument. The latter reads: “Ύί㜿⨶ヅࠊΎί኱ጾຊࠊΎί […],” which must be a translation of the Trisagion. 113 114

[23]

654

TAKAHASHI

├ヅ㑣PY lú-hē-nà; PL luඉ-xa-na`: “spiritual”? (syr. rşʘĆnĆ);121 cf. 5.1.3 above. 8. Dasheng tongzhen guifa zan. – 8.1 [1] 㜿⨶ヅPY Ć-luó-hē: cf. 1.1.1, 5.1.1 above. – 8.2 [11] ⍜⨖㞴ἲ⋤PY yú-hʣn-nán-fʣ-wáng: cf. 5.1.4 above. – 8.3 [12] ኳᑌ⸝⥂PY tiĆn-bʣo-zàng-jĩng: cf. 5.2.4 above. – 8.4 [12] ከᜨ⪷⋤⥂PY duŇ-huì-shèng-wáng-jĩng: cf. 5.2.5 above. – 8.5 [13] 㜿ᛮ▞฼ᚊ⥂PY Ć-sĩ-jù-lì-lʱ-jĩng: cf. 5.2.6 above (second last character has been altered).

121 The text at the top of column 15 reads: ├ヅ㑣㧓✲❵┿จᖖᵹ⏕࿨: “The spiritual one embodies the ultimate truth and eternal happy life” (?) [with thanks to my colleague Takahiro Nakajima for this interpretation].

[24]

TRANSCRIBED PROPER NAMES

655

BIBLIOGRAPHY N.B. For the European titles of Chinese and Japanese articles, those given in the actual publications have been used as far as possible. Where no European translations are given, the titles have been translated by myself and marked with an asterisk.122 Jingjiao: Roman Malek (ed.). Jingjiao. The Church of the East in China and Central Asia, Sankt Augustin: Institut Monumenta Serica, 2006. Assemanus, Joseph Simonius (1728). Bibliotheca Orientalis Clementino-Vaticana … tomi tertii pars secunda, Rome: Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide. Repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 2000. Baumer, Christoph (2006). The Church of the East. An Illustrated History of Assyrian Christianity, London: I. B. Tauris. Brock, Sebastian (1978). “A Martyr at the Sassanid Court under Vahran II: Candida,” Analecta Bollandiana 96, 167–181. Repr. in id., Syriac Perspectives on Late Antiquity, London: Variorum Reprints, 1984, no. IX. ________. (1982). “Christians in the Sasanid Empire: a Case of Divided Loyalties,” in S. Mews (ed.), Religion and National Identity (Studies in Church History 18), Oxford: B. Blackwell, p. 1–19. Repr. in Syriac Perspectives …, no. VI. ________. (1996). “The ‘Nestorian’ Church: a lamentable misnomer,” in J. F. Coakley & K. Parry (ed.), The Church of the East: Life and Thought (= BJRL 78/3), Manchester, p. 1–14. Repr. in S. Brock, Fire from Heaven. Studies in Syriac Theology and Liturgy, Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006, no. 1. ________. [translated by Takumi Ishiwata] (2006). “Shiria-go bungaku: Shobunka no jşjiro” [ࢩࣜ࢔ㄒᩥᏛ㸸ㅖᩥ໬ࡢ༑Ꮠ㊰, Syriac Literature: A Crossroads of Cultures], Asian Cultural Studies (International Christian University Publications 3–A) 32, 157–176. Chavannes, Éd[ouard], & P[aul] Pelliot (1911). “Un traité manichéen retrouvé en Chine” [part 1], JA 10e sér. 18 (nov.-dec. 1911), 499–617.

122 The English (and Chinese) titles of Deeg (2007), Lin (2007) and Rong (2007) given below are those of the original symposium papers as found on the programme of the symposium (http://coe21.zinbun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/is-religion2004.html.en, and … html.ja).

[25]

656

TAKAHASHI

________. (1913). “Un traité manichéen retrouvé en Chine (deuxième partie),” JA 11e sér. 1 (jan.-fév. 1913), 99–199, (mars-avril 1913) 261– 394. Chen Huaiyu [㝞᠜Ᏹ] (1997). “Suowei Tangdai jingjiao wenxian liangzhong bianwei bushuo” [ᡤㅝ၈௦ᬒᩍᩥ⋙ඳ✀㎪ഇ⿵ㄝ, Supplementary Notes on the Authentication of Two So-called Tang Nestorian Documents], Tang Yanjiu [၈◊✲] 3, 41–53 (English summary, p. 52f.). ________. (2006). “The Connection between Jingjiao and Buddhist Texts in Late Tang China,” Jingjiao, 93–113. Dauvillier-Guillaumont (1984). = “Deuxième partie. Inscriptions syriaques de la Stèle de Si-ngan-fu, par Jean Dauvillier. Texte revu et complété par Antoine Guillaumont,” in Pelliot-Dauvillier (1984). Deeg, Max (2005). “Verfremdungseffekt beim Übersetzen und „Wieder“übersetzen der chinesischen Nestorianica,” Ulrich Berner et al. (ed.), Das Christentum aus der Sicht der Anderen. Religionswissenschaftliche und missionswissenschaftliche Beiträge, Frankfurt am Main: Otto Lembeck, p. 75–104. ________. (2006). “Towards a New Translation of the Chinese Nestorian Document from the Tang Dynasty,” Jingjiao, 115–131. ________. (2007) [translated by Takashi Furumatsu]. “Gareki no yama kara Kami wo horu—KeikyŇ-bunken to kenkyş no ideorogĩ” [⎰♟ࡢ ᒣ࠿ࡽ⚄ࢆ᥀ࡿ̿ᬒᩍᩥ⋙࡜◊✲ࡢ࢖ࢹ࢜ࣟࢠ࣮, Digging out God from the Rubbish Heap—The Chinese Nestorian Documents and the Ideology of Research], in Institute for Research in Humanities, Kyoto University (ed.) [ி㒔኱Ꮫேᩥ⛉Ꮫ◊✲ᡤ⦅], Chşgoku ShşkyŇ Bunken Kenkyş [୰ᅧ᐀ᩍᩥ⋙◊✲, Studies on Chinese Religious Literature*], Kyoto: Rinsen Book Co., p. 411–426. Durkin-Meisterernst, Desmond (2004). Dictionary of Manichaean Middle Persian and Parthian (Dictionary of Manichaean Texts III/1), Turnhout: Brepols Enoki, Kazuo [ᴮ୍㞝] (1964). “Nestorian Christianism in China in Medieval Times according to Recent Historical and Archaeological Research,” in Atti del convegno internazionale sul tema: L’Oriente cristiano nella storia della civiltà (Accademia nazionale dei Lincei, Anno CCCLXI, Quaderno N. 62), Rome: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, p. 45–77. Repr. (with title “Nestorian Christianity …”) in Studia Asiatica. The Collected Papers in Western Languages of the Late Dr. Kazuo Enoki, Tokyo: Kyuko-Shoin, 1998, p. 475–523.

[26]

TRANSCRIBED PROPER NAMES

657

________. (1993). “TŇdai no Furin-koku ni kansuru ichi mondai (Hashikoku shşchŇ Arakan Kyş mei no Furin-koku)” [၈௦ࡢᡶⴂᅜ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ୍ၥ㢟 (Ἴ᪁ᅜ㓂㛗㜿⨶᠍ୣ㖭ࡢᡶⴂ ᅜ), One Problem concerning Fulin-Guo: Fulin-Guo in the Inscription of the Persian Chieftain Aluohan Qiu*], in Enoki Kazuo Chosaku-shş [Collected Works of Enoki Kazuo], vol. 3: ChşŇ-Ajia-shi III [History of Central Asia III], Tokyo: Kyuko-Shoin, p. 210–243. Originally published in Kita-Ajia GakuhŇ 3 (1944). Gharib, B[adr al-Zaman] (2004). Sogdian Dictionary (Sogdian, Persian, English), Tehran: Farhangan Publications. Gignoux, Philippe (1979). “Les noms propres en moyen-perse épigraphique,” in Ph. Gignoux, R. Curiel, R. Gyselen & Cl. Herrenschmidt, Pad NĆm i YazdĆn. Études d’épigraphie, de numismatique et d’histoire de l’Iran ancien, Paris: Klinksieck, p. 35–100. ________. (1986). Noms propres sassanides en moyen-perse épigraphique (= M. Mayrhofer & R. Schmitt [ed.], Iranisches Personennamenbuch II/2), Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Haloun, G., & W. B. Henning (1952). “The Compendium of the Doctrines and Styles of the Teaching of Mani, the Buddha of Light,” Asia Major N.S. 3, 184–212. Haneda, TŇru [⩚⏣஽] (1912). “HashikyŇ zankyŇ ni tsuite” [Ἴ᪁ᩃṬ⥂࡟ᑵ࡚], The TŇyŇ-GakuhŇ 2/2, 227–246. Repr. in Haneda (1958) 215–234 [with French summary “A propos du Po-sseukiao-ts’ang-king récemment découvert,” in French section, p. 80f.]. ________. (1918). “KeikyŇ kyŇten Isshin-ron kaisetsu” [ᬒᩃ⥂඾୍㷊ㄽゎ䃚], Geibun [⸤ᩥ/ி㒔ᩥᏥ᭳] 9/1, Jan. 1918, 141-144. Repr. in Haneda (1958) 235–239 [with French summary “Explications du Yi-chen-louen ୍⚄ㄽ, texte sacré nestorien retrouvé à Touen-houang,” p. 81f.]. ________. (1923). “Kan-Ban taion Senjimon no dankan” [₎ⶽᑞ㡢༓Ꮠᩥࡢ᪇⡆], The TŇyŇ-GakuhŇ 13/3, 390–410. Repr. in Haneda (1958) 396–419 and Pl. 11 [with French summary “Fragments d’une copie du Ts’ien-tseu-wen ༓Ꮠᩥ avec transcription tibétaine,” p. 110f.]. ________. (1926). “KeikyŇ kyŇten JochŇ-Meishisho-kyŇ ni tsuite” [ᬒᩃ⥂඾ᗎ⫎㏞リᡤ⥂࡟ᑵ࠸࡚], in T. Haneda (ed.), NaitŇ-hakushi kanreki shukuga shinagaku ronsŇ [ෆ⸨༤ኈ㑏ᬺ⚃㈡ᨭ㑣Ꮵㄽྀ Sinological Studies in Honour of Konan Naito*], Kyoto: Kobundo, 117–148. Repr. in Haneda (1958) 240–269 [with French summary “À

[27]

658

TAKAHASHI

propos de Su-t’ing-mi-che-souo-king ᗎ⫎㏞リᡤ⥂, texte sacré nestorien,” p. 82f.]. ________. (1929). “KeikyŇ kyŇten Shigen-anraku-kyŇ ni tsuite” [ᬒᩃ⥂඾ᚿ⋞Ᏻᵹ⥂࡟ᑵ࠸࡚], The TŇyŇ-GakuhŇ 18/1, 1–24. Repr. in Haneda (1958) 270–291 and Pl. 6 [with French summary “À propos du texte sacré nestorien: Tche-hiuen-an-lo-king ᚿ⋞Ᏻᵹ⥂,” p. 83]. ________. (1951). “Taishin-KeikyŇ DaishŇ-tsşshin-kihŇsan oyobi TaishinKeikyŇ Sengen-shihon-kyŇ zankan ni tsuite” [኱⛙ᬒᩃ኱⪷㏻┾ ṗἲㆭཬࡧ኱⛙ᬒᩃᐉඖ⮳ᮏ⥂Ṭ༹࡟ࡘ࠸࡚], TŇhŇgaku 1, 1–11. Repr. in Haneda (1958) 292–307 and Pl. 7 [with French summary “À propos du Ta-ts’in-king-kiao-ta-cheng-t’ong-tchen-kouei-fa-tsang ኱⛙ᬒᩃ኱ ⪷㏻┾ṗἲㆭ et de fragments du Ta-ts’in-king-kiao-siuan-yuan-tche-penking ኱⛙ᬒᩃᐉඖ⮳ᮏ⥂,” p. 84]. ________. (1958). Haneda-hakushi shigaku ronbun-shş II [⩚⏣༤ኈྐᏛㄽᩥ㞟, ୗᕳ]/Recueil des oeuvres posthumes de Tôru Haneda, II. Études linguistiques et religieuses, Kyoto: Tôyôshi-Kenkyûkai, Société pour l’étude l’histoire de l’Extrême-Orient, Université de Kyôto. Heller, Joh[annes] Ev[angelist] (1885). “Das nestorianische Denkmal in Singan fu,” Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 9.74–123. Ito, GikyŇ [ఀ⸨⩏ᩍ] (1979). ZoroasutĆ kenkyş [ࢰࣟ࢔ࢫࢱ࣮◊✲, Studies on Zoroaster], Tokyo: Iwanami-Shoten. Jin, Naomichi [⚄┤㐨] (1979). “KeikyŇ hibun ikyŇ no kanji hyŇki ni mieru saigaiteki yŇso ni tsuite” [ᬒᩍ☃ᩥ࣭㑇⤒ࡢ₎Ꮠ⾲グ࡟ࡳ࠼ࡿ ሰእⓗせ⣲࡟ࡘ࠸࡚, On Iranian Elements in Nestorian Inscription and its Sutras], The Society for Near Eastern Studies in Japan (compiled by), Collected Papers for the Twenty-Fifth Anniversary of the Establishment of the Society for Near Eastern Studies in Japan [᪥ᮏ࢚࢜ࣜࣥࢺᏛ఍๰❧஧༑஬࿘ᖺグᛕ࢚࢜ࣜࣥࢺᏛㄽ㞟], Tokyo: TŇsui ShobŇ Publishing, 1979, p. 321–340. ________. (1981). KeikyŇ nyşmon [ᬒᩍධ㛛, Introduction to Jingjiao*], Tokyo: KyŇbunkan. ________. (1983). “Taishin KeikyŇ ryŇkŇ Chşgoku hi ni tsuite” [኱⛙ᬒᩍὶ⾜୰ᅜ☃࡟ࡘ࠸࡚, On the Da Qin Jingjiao liuxing Zhongguo bei*], TŇzai-KŇshŇ [ᮾす஺΅] 2/1, 20–28. Karlgren, Bernhard (1957). Grammata serica recensa, Stockholm: Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities. Kawaguchi, Kazuhiko [ᕝ୍ཱྀᙪ] (2002). KeikyŇ: Shiruku-RŇdo wo higashi ni mukatta Kirisuto-kyŇ [ᬒᩍ㸸ࢩࣝࢡ࣮ࣟࢻࢆᮾ࡟ྥ࠿ࡗࡓ

[28]

TRANSCRIBED PROPER NAMES

659

࢟ࣜࢫࢺᩍ, Jingjiao: Christianity that Travelled East on the Silk Road*], Tokyo: E-Grape. Li Zhigang [ᮤᚿ๛] (2005). “Dunhuang shishi zhong de yishou gulao shengshi—Da Qin Jingjiao Sanwei mengdu zan” [ᩔ↥▼ᐊ୰ⓗ୍ 㤳ྂ⪁⪷リ㸫“኱⛙ᬒᩍ୕ጾⵚᗘㆽ,” An Ancient Hymn from the Dunhuang Grotto—“Da Qin Sanwei Mengdu Zan”*], Yibao [⩼ሗ] (http://www.ebaomonthly.com/ebao.html), vol. 14, Sept. 2005. Lin Wushu [ᯘᝅṦ] (2003). Tangdai Jingjiao zai yanjiu [၈௦ᬒᩍ෌◊✲, New Reflections on Nestorianism of the Tang Dynasty], Beijing: Zhongguo Shehui Kexue Chubanshe. ________. (2006). “Additional Notes on the Authenticity of Tomioka’s and Takakusu’s Manuscripts,” in Jingjiao, p. 133–142. ________. (2007) [translated by Hiroki Nakanishi]. “Kanbun ManikyŇ kyŇten to KeikyŇ kyŇten no kyoshiteki hikaku” [₎ᩥᦶᑽᩍ⥂඾࡜ᬒᩍ⥂඾ࡢᕧどⓗẚ㍑, A Wide-Scale Comparison of Chinese Manichean and Nestorian Scriptures, ₎ᩥᦶᑽᩍ⥂⯅ᬒᩍ⥂அᏹやẚ㍑], in Institute for Research in Humanities, Kyoto University (ed.), Chşgoku ShşkyŇ Bunken Kenkyş [୰ᅧ᐀ᩍᩥ⋙◊✲, Studies on Chinese Religious Literature*], Kyoto: Rinsen Book Co., p. 377–409. Luo Charngpeir [⨶ᖖᇵ, Luo Changpei] (1933). Tang Wudai Xibei fangyin [၈஬௦す໭᪉㡢, The Northwestern Dialects of Tarng and Five Dynasties] (Academia Sinica. The National Research Institute of History and Philology Monographs, Series A, No. 12), Shanghai [Shanqhae]. Moule, A. C. (1930). Christians in China before the Year 1550, London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. Müller, F[riedrich] W[ilhelm] K[arl] (1904). “Handschriften-Reste in Estrangelo-Schrift aus Turfan, Chinesisch-Turkistan. II. Teil,” APAW 1904, Anhang, Nr. 2. Repr. in F. W. K. Müller et al., Sprachwissenschaftliche Ergebnisse der deutschen Turfan-Forschung, Teil 3, Leipzig: Zentralantiquariat der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik, 1985, 7–123 [1–117] & Tafel I-II. ________. (1912). “Soghdische Texte. I.,” APAW 1912, Nr. 2. Repr. in Sprachwissenschaftliche Ergebnisse, Teil. 3, 199–309 [1–111] & Tafel IX-X. Nicolini-Zani, Matteo (2006). “Past and Current Research on Tang Jingjiao Documents,” in Jingjiao, p. 23–44. Pelliot, Paul (1912). “Kao-tch’ang, Qoÿo, Houo-tcheou et Qara-Khôdja,” JA 10e ser. 9, 579–603.

[29]

660

TAKAHASHI

________. [& Jean Dauvillier] (1984). Recherches sur les chrétiens d’Asie Centrale et d’Extrême-Orient. II, 1: La Stèle de Si-ngan-fu (Oeuvres posthumes de Paul Pelliot), Paris: Fondation Singer-Polignac. ________. [edited with supplements by Antonino Forte] (1996). L’Inscription nestorienne de Si-ngan-fou, Kyoto: Scuola di Studi sull’Asia Orientale/Paris: Collège de France, Institut des Hautes Études Chinoises. Pulleyblank, Edwin G. (1991). Lexicon of Reconstructed Pronunciation in Early Middle Chinese, Late Middle Chinese, and Early Mandarin, Vancouver: UBC Press. Riboud, Pénélope (2001), “Tang,” in N. Standaert (ed), Handbook of Christianity in China. Volume One: 635–1800 (HdO IV/15/1), LondonBoston-Köln: Brill, p. 1–42. Rong Xinjiang [ᴿ᪂Ụ] (2007) [translated by Tokio Takata]. ¼TŇdai no Butsu DŇ nikyŇ kara mita gedŇ—KeikyŇto½ [၈௦ࡢష࣭ 㐨஧ᩍ࠿ࡽぢࡓእ㐨̿ᬒᩍᚐ, Heresy in the Eyes of Tang Dynasty Buddhism and Daoism: The Nestorian Christians, ၈௦ష㐨஧ᩍ║୰ⓗእ㐨—ᬒᩍᚐ], in Institute for Research in Humanities, Kyoto University (ed.), Chşgoku ShşkyŇ Bunken Kenkyş [୰ᅧ᐀ᩍᩥ⋙◊✲, Studies on Chinese Religious Literature*], Kyoto: Rinsen Book Co., p. 427–444. Saeki, P[aul] Yoshiro [బ఑ዲ㑻] (1911). KeikyŇ hibun kenkyş [ᬒᩃ☃ᩥ◊✲, The Nestorian Monument in China], Tokyo: JirŇShoin. Repr. Tokyo: Ozorasha, 1996. ________. (1935). KeikyŇ no kenkyş [ᬒᩃࡢ◊✲, Studies on Jingjiao*], Tokyo: TŇhŇ Bunka Gakuin, TŇkyŇ Kenkyşjo [ᮾ᪉ᩥ໬Ꮵ㝔ᮾி◊✲ᡤ]ࠋ ________. (1937). The Nestorian Documents and Relics in China, Tokyo: Toho Bunkwa Gakuin/Maruzen. ________. (1943). Shina-Kirisuto-kyŇ no kenkyş [ᨭ㑣ᇶ╩ᩍࡢ◊✲, Studies on Chinese Christianity*], vol. 1, Shunjusha/ShŇhakukan Shoten. Repr. Tokyo: Meicho-Fukyşkai, 1979. Segal, J. B. (1970). Edessa. ‘The Blessed City,’ Oxford: Oxford University Press. Repr. Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2001. Sims-Williams, Nicholas (1995). “A Sogdian Version of the «Gloria in Excelsis Deo»,” in Rika Gyselen (ed.), Au Carrefour des religions. Mélanges offerts à Philippe Gignoux (Res Orientales VII), Bures-sur-Yvette: Groupe pour l’Étude de la Civilisation du Moyen-Orient, p. 257–262. Taisho Tripitaka LIV = Junjiro Takakusu [㧗ᴋ㡰ḟ㑻] (ed.), The Taisho Shinshu Daizokyo (The Tripitaka in Chinese) [኱ṇ᪂ಟ኱ⶶ⥂], vol. 54,

[30]

TRANSCRIBED PROPER NAMES

661

Tokyo 1928. Repr. Tokyo: Society for Publication of the Taisho Tripitaka, 1977. Tang, Li [၈Ⳁ] (2002). A Study of the History of Nestorian Christians in China and Its Literature in Chinese. Together with a New English Translation of the Dunhuang Nestorian Documents, Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Tsui Chi (1943). “ᦶᑽᩍୗ㒊ㆭ Mo Ni Chiao Hsiao Pu Tsan ‘The Lower (Second?) Section of the Manichaean Hymns’ Translated by Tsui Chi,” BSOAS 11, 174–219. Tsunezuka, Akira [ᖖሯ⪽] (1997). “Taishin KeikyŇ ryşkŇ Chşgoku hi wo meguru shomondai—KeikyŇ to Nesutoriusu-ha Kirisuto-kyŇ no shşkyŇshigaku-teki ichi ni tsuite no ichi-kŇsatsu” [኱⛙ᬒᩍὶ⾜୰ᅜ☃ࢆࡵࡄࡿㅖၥ㢟̿ᬒᩍ࡜ࢿࢫࢺࣜ࢘ࢫὴ ࢟ࣜࢫࢺᩍࡢ᐀ᩍྐᏛⓗ఩⨨࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ୍⪃ᐹ, Problems surrounding the Da Qin Jingjiao liuxing Zhongguo bei—A Study on the Religio-Historical Position of Jingjiao and Nestorian Christianity*], M.Litt. Dissertation, Faculty of Letters, The University of Tokyo. Weng Shaojun [⩝㓽ߋ] (1996). Hanyu Jingjiao wendian quanshi [≹䈝ᬒᩍᩥ඾䈐䟺, Chinese Jingjiao Documents: Commentary and Exegesis*], Beijing: Sanlian Shudian. Wu Chiyu [੣඼᫟] (1986). “Jingjiao Sanwei mengdu zan yanjiu” [ᬒᩍ୕ጾⵚㆽ⹿✲, A Study of the Jingjiao Sanwei mengdu zan,” Zhongyang Yanjiuyin Lishi Yuyan Yanjiusho Jikan [୰ኸ⹄✲㝔↧ྐㄒゝ⹿✲ᡤ㞟ห] 57/3, 411–438. ________. (2001). “Tangdai Jingjiao zhi fawang yu zunjing kao” [၈௦ᬒᩍஅἲ⋤⯅ᑛ⥂⪃, A Study on fawang and zunjing in TangDynasty Jingjiao*], Journal of the Dunhuang and Turfan studies [ᩔ↥ྤ㩃␒◊✲] 5, 13–58. Yoshida, Yutaka [ྜྷ⏣㇏] (1983). “Manichaean Aramaic in Chinese Hymnscroll,” BSOAS 46/2, 326–331. ________. (1986). “Kan’yaku Mani-kyŇ bunken ni okeru kanji-onsha sareta chşsei-Iran-go ni tsuite” [₎ヂ࣐ࢽᩍᩥ⊩࡟࠾ࡅࡿ₎Ꮠ㡢෗ ࡉࢀࡓ୰ୡ࢖ࣛࣥㄒ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㸦ୖ㸧, On Middle Iranian Words Transcribed into Chinese Characters in Chinese Manichean Documents, Part 1*], KŇbe-shi Gaikokugo-Daigaku Gaikoku-gaku Kenkyş (Annals of Foreign Studies, Kobe City University of Foreign Studies) 17, 1–15 [“list” = the list of transcribed words on unnumbered sheets between pages 4 and 5 of the article]. Zhang Naizhu [ᕐ஀⩮] (2007). “Ba Henan Luoyang xin chutu de yijian Tang-dai Jingjiao shike” [㊙Ἑ༡὜㜶᪂ฟᅵⓗ୍௳၈௦ᬒᩍ▼้,

[31]

662

TAKAHASHI Postscript to the Nestorian Stone Inscription of the Tang Dynasty Newly Found in Luoyang], Xiyu Yanjiu [すᇦ◊✲] 2007/1, 65–73.

[32]

ERRATA p. 639, n. 26, line 2, for “signicant” read “significant” p. 658, Jin (1983), for “Taishin KeikyŇ ryŇkŇ” read “Taishin KeikyŇ ryşkŇ”

[33]