International congress of byzantine studies belgrade, 22 27 august 2016

BYZANTINE LITERATURE IN TRANSLATION ‒ PART 2
Chairs: 
Elguja Khintibidze, Gohar Sargsyan
Elguja Khintibidze
, 
Modification of the Byzantine
 Story of Barlaam and Ioasaph; 
Changes in its Scholarly Investigation and Further Perspective of the Study Problem
Natela Vachnadze
, 
Kartvelology in the Service of History of Byzantine Literature: 
Old Georgian Translation of Athenagenes ‘Life
’
Eka Dughashvili
, 
On the One Aspect of the Old Georgian Translation Technique 
(As Exemplified by the Old Georgian Translations of the Byzantine Hymnography)
Eliso Elizbarashvili
, 
Byzantine – Old-Georgian Documented Dictionary
Gohar Sargsyan
, 
The Armenian Translation of Gregory Nazianzen’s Theological Epistles (101, 102) 
in the Context of the Greek Archetype and Its Manuscript Tradition
Varduhi Kyureghyan
, 
Armenian Commentaries on Canon Tables: Analysis of the Sources

---

419
Elguja Khintibidze
Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia; 
[e-mail]
Modification of the Byzantine 
Story of Barlaam and Ioasaph
; 
Changes in its scholarly investigation and further perspective of the study problem
One of the most popular stories of the 12
th
and 15
th
centuries 
The Edifying Story of Barlaam 
and Ioasaph
(BI) was spread in Western European literature through a Latin translation of an 
original Greek version. Starting from Sanskrit, BI penetrated into the Greek world through Arabic 
or Georgian languages. 
The 20
th
century Byzantine studies identify the two most plausible authors of the story. One 
is John Damascene, the greatest Byzantine Saint Father, of an Arabic origin, serving at the junction 
of the 7
th
and 8
th
centuries, and the other – Saint Euthymius the Athonite, an educated monk of 
Georgian origin, serving on Mount Athos in the 10
th
and 11
th
centuries. 
The authorship of John Damascene is supported by the tradition of Latin and Greek publications 
of the story and by a prominent Byzantine scholar, F. Dölger.
The theory of the authorship of Euthymius 
the Athonite is based upon Georgian, Greek and Latin independent records of the 11
th
century. 
The authorship of Euthymius the Athonite, supported by the Georgian philological school as well 
as by many prominent European Byzantine researchers, was opposed by German outstanding scholars. 
Recent decades have witnessed a drastic change in the German school of Byzantine studies with 
respect to this issue. By studying the Greek manuscripts and revealing different versions of Greek BI, 
by studying the terminology of the Greek version of the story in parallel with Georgian and Arabic 
relevant contexts and by observing Byzantine sources of BI has convinced European Byzantine scholars 
that the Greek BI is created by Euthymius the Athonite based upon the Georgian version.
Employing scientific methodology and argumentations in an attempt to assert the novelty 
of Byzantine studies are in full accord with the studies fulfilled by Georgian scholars on the same 
subject. At the same time it should be noted that the Georgian sources do not fully support two 
different solutions of the subject as suggested by Germans scholars. 
1. R. Volk: First version of BI, translate from Georgian by Euthymius the Athonite → 
Menologion
of
Symeon Metaphrasters → Methaphrastes revision of BI by Euthymius the Athonite.
2. I. Grossman: Translation of Euthymius the Athonite → Methaphrastes revision, performed by 
an unknown author.
BI cannot have been translated
 
by Euthymius the Athonite before the creation of 
Menologion
, 
as Euthymius himself bases his translations on Symeon Metaphrastes’ works. 
The version of BI represented in Kiev’s manuscripts from 1021, written on Mount Athos, must 
have been reproduced by Euthymius himself. All of the records from Mount Athos in Latin and 
Georgian and dating back to the 11
th
century, refer to the authorship of only Euthymius the Athonite.

---

420
In the first quarter of the 11
th
century, a spiritual leader (
the Epitrophos
) of the monasteries of 
Mount Athos was Euthymius the Athonite. At the time he was engrossed in intensive scholarly activities 
and had a close connection with the Byzantine Royal Court. Therefore it is less plausible that the story, 
previously translated by him, would have been reproduced by someone else at the Mount Athos.