The Book of Sirach in the Armenian Biblical Tradition

Yakob Nalean and His Commentary on Sirach

Garegin Hambardzumyan

• Publisher: De Gruyter
• Year: 2015
• Print ISBN: 9783110431636
• eBook ISBN: 9783110429053
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblical Criticism & Interpretation

The extreme complexity of Sirach's text at times makes it almost impossible to come to one clear conclusion as regards certain issues. There are numerous differences between various translations of this deuterocanonical text. In addition, the Armenian translation, being a textual witness to not one but multiple parent texts, has its own complications.
This research provides a sustained theological reading of the Armenian text of Sirach on the basis of Yakob Nalean's commentary written in the 18th century. At the same time it places a great emphasis on the textual evaluation of the various versions of Sirach in Armenian. In this respect an attempt has been made to display the unique features of the Armenian Sirach within the wider scope of the scholarship of this biblical text. Through a comprehensive linguistic and theological analysis of some major parts of Sirach in Armenian, this study assesses the extent to which this book was in use amongst Armenians throughout the centuries. In particular, the numerous references to Sirach in both Armenian and non-Armenian patristic literature are examined, with the aim of dating the first translations into Armenian and tracing the development of the text in the Armenian medieval schools.

1Introduction

1.1 General Introduction

There has been growing interest in the Book of the Wisdom of Sirach over recent decades. Scholars have been particularly attracted to this book because of its almost encyclopedic coverage of a wide variety of topics, moral, theological and historical. Since the famous discovery of the Geniza MSS at the Qaraite Synagogue in Cairo, as well as the subsequent discoveries at Qumran and Masada, the book of Sirach has received significantly increased scholarly attention. Before these findings, the Hebrew text of Sirach had been considered extinct and only a few verses from the entire book were preserved in Hebrew Rabbinic literature. No serious textual analysis had been produced on any of the translations of Sirach prior to these new discoveries.

Straight after the new MSS were excavated, they were identified as copies of the original Hebrew text, that is, they were free from any direct dependence on Syriac or Greek texts.1 Solomon Schecter was the first scholar to identify the Geniza MSS and to publish them in 1899.2 Currently, about sixty-eight percent of the Hebrew text has been recovered and exposed to broader scholarship. The latest edition, comprising all of the extant Hebrew fragments, as well as a synopsis of all parallel Hebrew texts of Sirach, was published by Pancratius Beentjes in 2006.3

The role of Sirach as a part of the Writings (kətûvîm) of the OT has been a matter of dispute throughout the centuries and its use both in Rabbinic literature and in the Christian patristic tradition has given rise to a whole spectrum of arguments from later scholars.4 A fair proportion of these disputes have been with respect to the place of Sirach in the OT.

This is also true in the case of the Armenian text of Sirach. The status of this book within the canon of the Armenian Bible has never been clearly defined either by the ecclesiastical councils of the Armenian Church or by individual authors when referring to ancient canon lists. Furthermore, the Armenian translation of Sirach has not received sufficient attention from Armenian or Western scholars. Based on just a brief glace at the indexes of some major works in the field, it can be seen that the Armenian Sirach is yet to be thoroughly examined. Some Western scholars have even tended to dismiss the Armenian version of Sirach as a text of ‘secondary’ importance5, and have thus neglected to carry out any further textual investigation – a decision doubtless influenced by their lack of familiarity with the Armenian language. This has not been the universal response, however. Some others have carried out research, perceiving the valuable role of the Armenian translation as a textual witness to both Greek and Syriac texts.6

As the first research to be undertaken in the field of Armenian translation of Sirach, this study sets out to achieve not one but several goals. Firstly, research has been carried out into the place of Sirach within the Armenian biblical tradition, assessing the textual value of the Armenian version. In this area, this thesis seeks to advance the state of knowledge by demonstrating that Sirach was translated not in the 13th or 17th centuries as proposed by several scholars7 but not later than the first half of the 5th century. An exhaustive chart has been compiled to support this argument, containing a textual comparison of some key chapters of the Grabar text (Classical Armenian) with other translations, as well as references to Sirach which appear in medieval Armenian and translated literature.

The two sources of the Armenian text of Sirach, Syriac and Greek, have been studied far more than the Armenian itself. The Syriac Peshitta was used in the preparation of the first Armenian translation in around 406 C.E., which is known as the ‘P‛owt‛anaki’ (lit. hurried) version. Indeed, it was soon agreed by the Armenian translators of the ‘Golden Age’8 to produce a new recension in combination with Greek text.

The first one, which was done partly from the Syriac and partly from the Greek texts, was produced in the period between 405 – 6 AD, when Armenians created the alphabet, and the Council of Ephesus (431 AD). The second translation was a revision of the previous one with amendments from the new Greek text brought from Byzantium straight after the Council of Ephesus.9

It is known that the first Syriac translation was made from the Hebrew original. However, in the case of the translation of Sirach, it had additionally been influenced by Greek.10 Thus, it is difficult to determine clearly which parts were transmitted directly from Syriac into Armenian with no allusions to Greek. However, it is evident from an examination of the chapters of the Zôhrapean edition of the Bible, published in 1805,11 that on many occasions it follows the Syriac order of the chapters as well as the brevity of verses, which is characteristic of the Syriac text.12 Also, in a few instances the Armenian text has a cross sign (+) which combines two or more bicola into one verse. This is not typical for the Greek text of Sirach but occurs frequently in Syriac.13 Thus, this is another testimony that some of the Syriac influence is still preserved in the Armenian text. However, as stated above, the fusion of Syriac and Greek within the Armenian text is so strong that the surviving Syriac elements are almost unidentifiable.

The Greek version of Sirach has come down to us in two major recensions generally known as GI and GII. The latter is not preserved in a separate MS, however it can be reconstructed from Joseph Ziegler’s groups of origenic and lucianic MSS.14 Ziegler in his extremely valuable edition not only identifies the sources of extant Greek texts of Sirach but also indicates which textual witness belongs to which group.15 According to him, the Armenian text, together with the Old Latin and Syro-Hexaplaric texts, belong to what he classifies the origenic group, though in some instances with influences from the lucianic recension.

Another contribution of this thesis is the creation of a list cataloguing all the extant Armenian biblical MSS in the world which contain either complete or fragmentary passages from Sirach. This list will be a valuable tool for future researchers, and could be used for instance as a platform for makinga much needed critical edition of the Armenian text of Sirach. It may also help to determine the setting in which this piece of wisdom literature was used in Armenia and its role within Armenian biblical literature.

In the second part of this thesis, the focus of research turns to the only Armenian commentary on Sirach, which was written by Yakob Nalean in the 18th century.16 This commentary has suffered unjust neglect from scholars and has never been published. Although Gevorg Bambowkč‛ean17 and Tigran Sawalaneanc‛18 have written on Nalean’s commentary, both these scholars have treated it somewhat as an addition to the commentary on the Book of Lamentations by St. Grigor Narekac‛i. They present it as having a more empirical approach in contrast to the mystical and broadly allegorical commentary on the Book of Lamentations.19

Thus, this thesis seeks to uncover the unique contribution of Nalean’s commentary to the Armenian scholarship of Sirach. The text of the Commentary is preserved only in twelve MSS scattered over the world and they are examined for the first time in this work.

The primary reason for including Nalean’s work in this research is its importance as the only Armenian commentary on this biblical book and also the first Armenian kerygmatic (homiletic) commentary since medieval times.

Nalean’s work is also valuable for its all-encompassing character in terms of the scope of the subjects commented on. In this regard, there are many similarities between Sirach itself and Nalean’s commentary, in that they both set out to teach their readers how to conduct a righteous life which is shaped by wisdom and which has happiness as the final destination of one’s life: ‘Happy is the one who meditates on wisdom’.20 Within his substantial work, Nalean not only gives profound explanations of all the verses of Sirach, but also responds to the political and social situation of his time. He was influenced by Armenian national motives, and his commentary is conditioned by the context in 17th–18th century Armenia as well as in the Armenian communities abroad. An interesting example is the short poem called ‘

’ (Grow up!), which Nalean brings into his commentary when commenting on Sir. 10:15, ‘The Lord plucks up the roots of the nations, and plants the humble in their place’.21

Nalean’s use of Sirach attests, first, to his fascination with this great book of wisdom, and second, to the great importance given to the latter by Armenian teachers of the Church.

1.2 General Plan of the Research

The first part of the introduction is a summary of the issues and arguments addressed in the thesis. It clarifies the major objectives upon which the whole work is based. The literature survey included in this passage helps to grasp the current state of the scholarship of the Armenian Sirach both in Armenia and around the world. The chapter also contains an observation on Yakob Nalean’s unique commentary presented in detail in the final chapter of this thesis. A treatment of some concerns regarding the date and authorship as well as major literary influences of Sirach can be found in the second part of the introduction.

In the second chapter of the research I present a background study of the Armenian text of Sirach which forms a basis for further discussions. This is followed by one of the two main sections of the thesis. After discussing the date of the original text of Sirach and its first Greek translation in the introduction I confine my study to the Armenian translation, its date and the sources of Armenian texts of Sirach. A large quantity of patristic references to Sirach in Classical Armenian, which supports an early date for the translation, has been engaged for the first time.

Within this chapter all sources of the Armenian text of Sirach are examined: Hebrew as a parent text of all translations and respectively Syriac and Greek as first and second sources.

The second part of this chapter is comprised of a list of all the extant Armenian MSS of Sirach. From research in the catalogues, as well as personal investigations in a number of major libraries and MS depositories which are known to contain Biblical texts in Armenian, I have been able to combine all the data into one list which makes it possible to find any MS containing Sirach, either as part of an entire Bible MSS or copied separately.

In the same part of the chapter a thorough examination is undertaken of the major printed versions of the Armenian Sirach and the texts of the recently discovered Jerusalem and Yerevan MSS. This passage also introduces the four passages or verses which are found...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Acknowledgments
• Contents
• Abbreviations
• 1 Introduction
• 2 The Armenian Version of Sirach
• 3 Yakob Nalean’s commentary on Sirach
• 4 The Main themes of Sirach discussed by Yacob Nalean
• 5 Conclusions
• Bibliography
• Index of names
• Subject index
• Endnotes