Of the classical armenian bible

THE VORLAGE AND THE TRANSLATION TECHNIQUES

OF THE CLASSICAL ARMENIAN BIBLE

I - A Brief Historical Background

King Tiridates II declared Christianity as the state religion of Armenia in the beginning of the 4^th century CE.¹ When Christianity became the state religion, according to Pawstos Biwzand, at the national council of Ashtishat, with the participation of the King and Catholicos, and the pesence of all the naxarars (the feudal lords of the land), charitable institutions were opened for the sick, needy and poor; and in various parts of the land schools were established for the training of the clergy. We read in Pawstos:

They sought and found suitable sites to build assylums for the poor, places where the sick, handicapped persons and those that suffered from various deseases were to find refuge. They also decided to construct houses for the lepers and established stipends for the upkeep of the places …The windows, orphans and the poor were provided with the means of livelyhood.²

And Pawstos continues saying that Catholicos Nerses the Great:

In all the cantons of Armenia, in different localities established schools. The languages of instruction in these schools were Greek and Syriac.³
In the southern and eastern cantons, bordering on Iran and Syria, where Christianity had penetrated from the south through the activity of missionaries coming from Edessa and Nisibis, the language of instruction in the schools and that used in the divine liturgy of the church was Syriac. In the western and northern cantons bordering the Eastern Roman Empire, where Christianity had reached them from Cappadocia, through missionaries from Caesaria, Sebastia and Melitine, the language used in the schools and in the churches was Greek.⁴
Unfortunately, Christianity could not resist the resurgence of the old pagan religion because the means of communicating the message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ was totally foreign to the population, they simply could not understand it, even if the king had decreed Christianity as the state religion. According to Lazar P’arpetsi, the members of the clergy:

Wasted their days by going on long trips to learn Syriac, because the language of the liturgy and the readings from scriptures in the churches and monasteries were in Syriac. Consequently, the Armenian people could neither understand anything from all that was read and sung, nor benefit from it, because Syriac was incomprehensible to them, thus the effort of the clergy and the people were in vain.⁵
The necessity of communicating the message of the Gospel to the people in a language they could understand was evident. Thy needed to find a way of writing and communicating the Gospel to the people. An alphabet was essential. Concerning the discovery of the Armenian alphabet and the translation of the scriptures we have a great deal of information in the Armenian historians of the 5^th century CE.⁶ The two main sources for the study of the Armenian translation of the Bible are: 1) The historians of the 5^th century CE – such as, Koriwn, Lazar P’arpetsi and Movses Khorenatsi; 2) The text of the translated Bible itself, where one can read and see the beauty of the work carried out.⁷
The Biography of St. Mesrop Mashtots written by is disciple Koriwn (ca 441-450), is our principle source on the discovery of the alphabet and the translation of the Bible. The other two historians, Lazar P’rpetsi and Movses Khorenatsi, rely on his account of the story. Of the two redactions of Koriwn’s work that has reached us, according to scholars, the longer biography seems to be the original. Koriwn recounts:

The blessed Mashtots, with the permission of the king and the consent of saint Sahak, took leave in the fifth year of king Vramshapuh of Armenia, taking along with him a group of young disciples. He went to the land of Arami,⁸ to the two cities of Asorik, called Edesia (Edessa) and Amid. He presented himself to the saint bishops, the first of whom was called Babilas and the second Akakios.⁹ … He divided his disciples into two groups, he set some to study Syriac in Edessa and the rest he appointed to study Greek, and sent them over to the city of Samusata.¹⁰
The famous school known as The School of the Persians, was in Edessa. This school was headed by the bishop of the city, called Rabulas (Raboulaj), who was bishop from 411-435 CE. This school was famous because it also taught the art of calligraphy – i.e., how to write characters in a nice manner.

The dates when Rabulas was bishop of Edessa are interesting, because if Mashtots went to Edessa after 411 CE, he could not have found the alphabet and started the translation of the Bible at the turn of the century – but that is beyond the scope of the present paper.

Again according to Koriwn, Mashtots spent his days in prayer and fasting, asking for divine guidance and enlightenment in his efforts to find the Armenian alphabet. Koriwn then says:

The God who grants all good things, bestowed him the good fortune of discovering the armenian alphabet.¹¹

Does this say anything about Armenian spirituality? Is there anything we need to learn from Mesrop Mashtots and his method of working? He started his work in prayer and fasting.

Then he gathered his disciples, who were with him in Edessa, and went to Samusata to join the others who were sent there to learn Greek. In Samusata he met a certain Greek grammarian and calligrapher called Hropanos ( `Rfinuj or `Ropanoj), who was expert in writing and shaping characters.¹² Hropanos helped him fashion and refine the characters he had invented. Khorenatsi adds:

Rising up from his prayer he fashioned our alphabet, refining the characters he had prepared, with the help of Hropanos, by adapting them to the Greek sounds.¹³
In was in Samusata that Mashtots embarked on the translation of the Bible, in collaboration with his two disciples, Hovhan Ekeghetsatsi and Hovsep Baghnatsi. Koriwn continues:

He began to translate the scriptures starting with the Proverbs of Solomon. Solomon at the beginning of his book recommends that one should familiarize himself with wisdom saying, ÖÖֳݳã»É ½ÇÙ³ëïáõÃÇõÝ »õ ½Ëñ³ï, ÇÙ³Ý³É ½µ³Ýë ѳÝ׳ñáÛ: (To know wisdom and instruction, and to perceive words of understanding).¹⁴ This verse was written by the same scribe who also taught the disciples how to write the letters as well.¹⁵
It is interesting to note that the Vorlage, the base text, from which the book of Proverbs was translated is not indicated by any of the Armenian Historians. Since Samusata was in Syria under Iranian control, even if it was a Greek speaking city, the translation could have been done from Greek or Syriac.
Mashtots and his disciples then returned to Armenia to continue the work they had began in Samusata. And Koriwn adds:

At that time the blessed and desirable land of Armenia became indeed marvellous; for through the two companions – viz., Catholicos Sahak and Mesrop Mashtots – suddenly arrived to our land Movses the Law giver with all the group of the Prophets, the proficient Paul with the band of the Apostles, along with the world Saving gospel of Christ. They all spoke Armenian.¹⁶
Movses Khorenatsi gives a very interesting detail:

Mashtots immediately embarked upon the translation of the scriptures, beginning wisely with the Proverbs of Solomon, and all the twenty two canonical books (Ú³ÛïÝÇ)¹⁷ and the New Testament.

I do not agree with the rendering of Prof. Thomson in his translation of Khorenatsi where he translates Ú³ÛïÝÇ as “Famous”. The 22 books are nothing but the Hebrew canon of scriptures which was according to the number of the Hebrew alphabet. Thus, the first five books of Moses known as the Torah was considered one book. The two books of Samuel were regarded as one book, similarly the two books of Kings and the two books of Chronicles. The 12 Minor prophets were regarded as one book. Thus the sum of these books is 22. The information given by Khorenatsi about the 22 canonical books, indicates that in the first translation of the Bible, there were no Deuterocanonicals. The Syriac originally did not have them either. These were probably added during the subsequent revision on the base of the LXX manuscripts that were brought to Armenia after the council of Ephesus 431 CE.

II – The Question of VORLAGE
It is generally accepted among scholars that there has been at least two translations of the Bible into Armenian: the first done before the Ecumenical council of Ephesus of 431 CE; and the second, the revision of that translation on the basis of the LXX manuscripts brought from Constantinople on their way back to Armenia by the bishops. Some scholars think that the first translation was done from Syriac and then revised on the basis of the LXX manuscripts; other, however, think that both the translation and revision were done from the Greek. Finally, there are others who think that some of the books were originally translated from Syriac and others from Greek, but all were revised on the basis of the Greek manuscripts brought after 431 CE. There are some scholars who think that there has been three translations of the Bible into Armenian.¹⁸
The world of scholarship has discovered two different translations of Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, I-II Chronicles and Wisdom of Jesus Ben Sirach. Generally, it is thought that one represents the first translation made from Syriac, and the other the revision from the Greek.¹⁹ The two books of Chronicles have been the subject of a great contrversy: Khalatiants thinks that the first translation done before 431 CE was from the Syriac, and the revision was from the Greek.²⁰
A.Baumstark and L. Ter-Petrossian have both studied the Armenian Psalter and both have come to the conclusion that there are affinities between the Armenian translation of the Psalms and the Syriac. But interestingly, the list of affinities they present diverge from one another at a number of points.²¹ Bo Johnson indicates that we see affinities between the Armenian I Samuel and the Peshitta. In his view, one of the best indices for the study of this problem is the change of word order due to Syriac.²²
I myself have worked on the Armenian Genesis and compared it with the Syriac Peshitta and the Greek Septuagint. I have shown that there are 30 places in Genesis, where the Armenian has additions that come from the Syriac; there are 12 cases where the Armenian, following the Syriac, has omitted a word or a sentence; and there are 29 proper names that come from the Syriac because their transcription is different than that of the Greek forms.²³ We should keep in mind the possibility that the Vorlage of the first translation of the Armenian Bible could have been an older version than the Peshitta – such as, Siniatic Syriac – as some scholars think is the case of the New Testament.²⁴

III The Nature and Techniques of Translation of the Armenian Bible

The Armenian translation of the Bible generally is a literal one. On the whole it shows the characteristic of a modern translation. The translators analyzed each word as to its semantic components and utilized that component which fitted the context best. They further analyzed the syntax of the sentences and turned paratax into hypotax and vice versa depending on the requirement of the Armenian language. These translation principles and techniques were implemented consciously. The Armenian translators were familiar with the grammatical and linguistic works of the Greek rhetoricians and have translated them along with the scriptures. In the preface to the Commentary on the Octateuch, attributed in the Armenian manuscripts to Cyril of Alexandria but which is the work of Eusebius of Emesa, the author explains that there is nothing more dangerous than to translate word for word – i.e., literally. It is worth while to quote a passage from the preface, because it indicates the grasp the Armenian translators had on the theory and practice of translation:

Si l’on veut traduire le sens de toutes les langues avec les mêmes mots, on n’arrivera pas à exprimer la pensée des mots qui sont dits. En effet, il y a beaucoup de mots particuliers à chaque langue qui, s’il demeurent là où ils sont, semblent beaux, lumineux, compréhensibles et convenables à ceux qui en usent, mais si l’on transpose ces mêmes mots dans d’autres langues, ils ne présentent pas bien le sens de la pensée. Nous en trouvons beaucoup et de toutes sortes dans la langue des Hébreux et dans celle de leur voisins, le syriaque. Or, chez les traducteurs de l’AT, on voit beaucoup d’obscurités chez ceux qui ont traduit d’après les mots pour avoir l’air de faire une oeuvre plus exacte: dans leur zèle de traduire d’après les mots, ils n’ont pas pris garde à la succession des pensées, qui était gâtée par les mots. C’est le défaut que les savants imputent à Aquila: ne prétendant à rien qu’à traduire et à sauvegarder les mots tels quels, il fut, quant à l’expression du sens, jugé défectueux par les autres (traducteurs) qui, sans se souciter (la forme) des vocables, se sont efforcés d’exprimer leur sens avec évidence; c’est justement là tout l’effort de la traduction … Si l’on ne se conforme pas à cette méthode, on multiplie les difficultés pour les lecteurs, du fait qu’on ne s’exerce pas à éclaircir la pensée par l’expression et qu’on impose de force à l’enchaînement qui se présente un autre sens que les mots eux-même ne sauraient accepter.²⁵
But who was Aquila about whom even the Armenian translators speak? Before answering that question we should ask, what was the nature and character of the Armenian translation? It can be described by 4 characteristics:

1. 
   The Armenian Bible translates not the words but their meaning;
   
2. 
   The Armenian Bible translates the same morpheme in the original by more than one word according to the context;
   
3. 
   The Armenian Bible tries to make clear the meaning by making explicit what is implicit in the text and by leaving implicit by what is redundant;
   
4. 
   Finally, the Armenian Bible tries to adapt the text in such a way that the cultural differences, which are an impediment to comprehension, are brought to the minimum – Cultural Adaptation.
   

1. 
   The Armenian Bible translates not the words but their meaning:
   

Aquila, to whom Eusebius of Emessa refers, was a gentile sent by Emperor Hadrian to Palestine in 128 CE to supervise the rebuilding of Jerusalem. While there he converted to Judaism and became a disciple of Rabbi Akiba who advocated extreme literalism in his translational approach. Aquila adhered to this principle whole heartedly and implemented it in his translation of the Hebrew OT into Greek. Let us take one example to indicate what I mean:

Genesis 1.1 reads #r,a'h' taew> ~yIm;V'h; tae ~yhil{a/ ar'B' tyvireB. Which is translated in the LXX as vEn avrc||||||||||||||h|/ evpoi,hsen o` Qeo.j to.n ouvrano.n kai. th.n gh/n, a literal translation of the Hebrew. But this was not satisfactory to Aquila because en arch is not the equivalent of tyvireB.. The root of the Hebrew word is Rosh which means head. Thus, it should have that component of meaning. He therefore rendered it by en kefalaion which basically means the head of a column, the capital. How did God create the heavens and the earth on the capital of a column is a mystery to me. The Greek verb evpoi,hsen was not the equivalent of the Hebrew ar'B' which means ekthsen. He also translated the sign of the accusative tae by “with”. And since heavens was in plural in Hebrew, it should have been translated in plural in the Greek as well, even if the Greek does not accept such a construction, so he translated it as follows:

en arch ekthsen o` Qeo.j twn ouranon kai thn ghn

In translating in this manner, he did violence to the Greek Language. The Armenian translators were aware of this kind of mistranslation and tried to avoid it at all cost.

2. 
   The Armenian Bible Translates the same word by more than one word according to the context
   

See Apostellw in Genesis

8.7 send the raven

19.13 the 3 messangers were send to Abraham

26.27 Jacob was sent from Gerara

31.4 Jacob send and called his wives

38.7 Juda was to send a kid to Tamar.

3. 
   The Armenian Bible tries to make clear the meaning by making explicit what is implicit in the text and by leaving implicit by what is redundant
   

6.4 – ÌÝ³Ý Çõñ»³Ýó áñàð¸Æê

8.13-Ú³Ù뻳ÝÝ ³é³çÝáõÙ, àñ ²ôð ØÆ ¿ñ ³ÙëáÛÝ. The Greek has the feminine article only.

20.16 - »õ ³Ù»Ý³ÛÝ Î²Ü²Üò, áñ Áݹ ù»½ »Ý. The Greek again has only the feminine definite article.

24.31-»Ï Ùáõï Æ îàôÜ, ³õñÑÝ»³É ﻳéÝ. The Greek has only “enter”.

4. 
   Finally, the Armenian Bible tries to adapt the text in such a way that the cultural differences, which are an impediment to comprehension, are brought to the minimum – Cultural Adaptation
   

18.6- ¶ðÆôê »ñÇë ³É»ñ, the Greek has “Metra” which was not familiar.

37.28 – í³×³é»óÇÝ … ùë³Ý ¸²ÐºÎ²ÜÆ. The Greek has twenty silver.

43.16-в¼²ð²äºî, the Greek has epi tes oikias autou, he who is over his house.

CONCLUSION

The Armenian translation of the Bible could have had two sources but it constitutes a synthesis in which the Syriac and Greek vorläge have been poured into the mould of the Armenian language and culture, producing a homogenous and uniform text. Through the use of various particles, suffixes, pronouns and adverbs the Armenian translation shows a precision which is often lacking in the two base texts. Often the simple parataxix of the vorlage was turned into hypotaxis to make the logical relation between clauses clear. These amplifications in he form of explicit information and cultural adaptations have given the Armenian translation a clear and unconfused meaning and character.

The translators show no poverty in their use of vocabulary and have a considerable skill in handling synonyms, they were well aware of the polysemy of words. In their desire to avoid monotony and be more precise, they have rendered the same morpheme found in the original by more than one equivalent, trying to distinguish the various connotations and denotations a word may have in a given context. Conversly, one and the same Armenian lexeme was used to render several equivalents in the vorlage.
In a diaspora situation, when we as a people are cut from our land and our roots, the only way we can survive is by keeping the Bible in the centre of our national and ecclesiastical lives. Look at North Africa, there are no indigenous Christians today, but till the middle of the 7^th cenury it was a great centre of Christianity, even the great Chuch father and theologian, St Augustine, was born there. Why did not Christianity survive the Islamic onslaught? I think because they did not have a translation of the Bible in their vernacular. I hope that the 1700^th anniversary will put the Bible back in the centre of Armenian religious and national life.

Manuel M. Jinbachian

5 rue de Londres

F-67000 Strasbourg

FRANCE

1 On the date and circumstances of the conversion of Armenia see L.M. Chaumont, Recherches sur l’histoire d’Arménie (Paris 1969) 131-164; Fr. Tournebize, Histoire politique et religieuse de l’Arménie (Paris 1910) 400-462; L. Duchesne, The Early History of the Church (London 1924) III 366-369; B.J. Kidd, A History of the Church (Oxford 1922) III 419ff; J.R. Palanque, L’Expansion Chretiénne, I: Les églises des royaumes d’extreme Orient, in Fliche et Martin, Histoire de l’église (Paris 1936) I 430f; M. Ormanean, Azgapatum, in Armenian (Istanbul 1912) I col 71-118; H. Manandyan, Kennakan Tesut’yun hay Joghoverdi Patmut’yan (Erevan 1957) II pt 1, 116-128.

2 Biwzand, Bk IV, ch 4.

3 Ibid.

4 On the two currents see N. Adontz, Armenia in the Period of Justinian (Lisbon 1970) 270-275; E. Ter-Minassiants, Die armenische Kirche in ihren Beziehungen zu den syrieschen Kirchen, in Text und Untersuchungen (Leipzig 1904) bd. XXVI, s. 1-29; G. Garitte, La Narratio de Rebus Armeniae, in Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium (CSCO) (Louvain 1967) vol. 132, sub 4, 73-102.

5 Lazar P’arbetsi, Patmut’yun Hayots (Erevan 1982) ch 10; Biwzand, Bk III, ch 13.

6 On the invention and date of the Armenian alphabet see J. Marquart, “Über das armenische Alphabet in Verbindung mit der Biographie des hl. Maschtotz,” tr. A. Vardanean, in Handes Amsorya (Vienna 1911) vol XXV 529-544, 673-684; vol. XXVI (1912) 41-54, 199-216, 657-666, 742-750; P. Peters, “Pour l’histoire des origines de l’alphabet arménien,” Revue des Etudes Arménien (REA) (Paris 1929) IX 203-237; A. Hovhannissian, “L’alphabet arménien et son action historique,” REA, Nouvelle Série (NS) (Paris 1965) 361-373; H. Manandyan, “Hay gereri giwti taret’vi hartsi shurtch,” in Mesrop Mashtots (Erevan 1962) 85-116; R. Grousset, Histoire de l’Arménie, des origines à 1071 (Paris 1947) 171-177.

7 For a German translation of the work of Goriwn see S. Weber, “Koriun: Beschreibung des Lebens und Sterbens des hl. Lehrers Mesrop,” in Bibliotek der Kirchenväter, Ausgewähltete Schriften armenischer kirchenväter, ed O. Bardenhewere et.al. (Munchen 1927) bd. LVII, s. 196-232; For a French translation of the shorter redaction see J.-R. Emin, “Gorioun, Biographie de saint Mesrob,” in V. Langlois, Collection des historiens anciens et modernes de l’Arménie (Paris 1869) 9-16; for a French translation of other historians: Moïse de Khorène, Ibid, 45-175; Lazare de Pharbe, Ibid, 253-368; for an English translation of Khorenatsi, see R.W. Thomson, Movses Khorenatsi, History of the Armenians (Cambridge, Mass. 1978).

8 The land of Arami, is the country of Arameans also known as Asorik, today known as Syria.

9 See A. Vööbus, History of the School of Nisibis, in CSCO, vol 266, sb. T. 26 (Louvain 1965) p. 9, n. 13. M. Abeghean in his work Koriwn, Vark Mashtotsi (Cairo 1954) p. 109, n. 63, corrects Babilas as Rabula.

10 See Koriwn ch. 7.

11 Koriwn ch 8.

12 See Koriwn, op cit, P’arpetsi ch. 10, Khorenatsi Bk. III ch 53.

13 See Khorenatsi Bk. III ch 53.

14 Proverbs 1.1 in Armenian but 1.2 in LXX.

15 Koriwn ch 9; Khorenatsi Bk III ch 53.

16 Koriwn ch 11.

17 On the question of Ú³ÛïÝÇ canonical books see H.S. Anassian, Haykakan Matenagitutiwn (Erevan 1959) vol I cols 898-910; A. Baumstark, Geschichte der syrischen Literatur, mit Ausschluss der christlisch-palästinensischen Texte (Bonn 1922) 2ff; R. Duval, La Literature Syriaque (Paris 1907) 30; S. Jellicoe, The Septuagint and Modern Study (Oxford 1968) 246; H.B. Swete, The Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint (Cambridge 1887-1894) 220ff.

18 See H. Ajarian, “Timot’eos Kuz ew Surb Grkeri Noraber T’argmanut’iwnk’,” Shoghakat (Vagharshapat 1913) vol. I 1-22; Bo Johnson, “Armenian Biblical Traditions in Comparison with the Vulgate and Septuagint,” Medieval Armenian Culture, University of Pennsylvania, Armenian Texts and Studies 6 (UPATS) (Chico 1984) 357.

19 For Ecclesiastes see N. Biwzandatsi, Koriwn Vardapet ew Norin T’argmanut’iwnk’ (Tbilissi 1900) 384; N. Akinean, “Surb Grki Hayeren T’argmanut’iwne.” Handes Amsoreay (Vienna 1935) 550-563; Tzovakan (N. Pogharean), “Joghovoghi hin hay t’argmanut’iwnnere,” Sion (Jerusalem 1936) 45ff). H. Voskean, Yerg Yergotsi Arachin ew Yerkrord T’argmanut’iwnk’ (Vienna 1924), thinks that both the translation and revision, or second translation, were from the Greek

20 Gr. Khalatiants, “A ew B Mnatsordats Grk’eri Asorerenits Hay T’argmanut’iwne,” Ararat (Vagharshapat 1896) 311-317; idem, Girk Mnatsortdats Est Hnagoyn T’argmanut’ean (Moscow 1899); N. Pogharean, “Mnatsordats Girk’erun Hin Hay T’argmanut’iwnnere,” Sion (Jerusalem 1937) 109-114; L. Ter-Petrossian, “La plus ancienne traduction arménienne des chroniques,” RE A, NS, vol XVIII (Paris 1984) 215-225.

21 A. Baumstark, “Der armenische Psaltertext. Sein Verhaltnis zum syrischen der Pesittâ und seine Bedeutung für die LXX-forschung,” Oriens Christianus, NS, bd XII, XIV (1922-1924) (Bonn 1925) pp 180-213; bd I (1927) pp 158-169, 319-333, bd II (1927) pp 146-159; L. Ter-Petrossyan, “Saghmosneri hayeren t’argmanut’iwne ew nera nakhorinake,” Etchmiadzin (1984) I 41-41, IV 37-45, VI 58-64, IX 49-57.

22 Johnson, “Die hexaplarische Recension des I Samuel Buches der Septuaginta,” Studia Theologica Lundensia (Lund 1963) XXII; -----, “Dvie armenische Bibelübersetzung als hexaplarische Zeuge in I Samuelbuch,” Coniectanea Biblica, OT series (Lund 1968) II.

23 M. M. Jinbachian, Les Techniques de Traduction dans la Genèse en Armenian Classique (Lisbonne 1998).

24 For a general discussion on the subject see also Vööbus, op cit, 150; S. Lyonnet, “Les origines de la version arménienne et le Diatessaron,” Biblica et Orientalia (Rome 1950) t. 13; J.M. Alexanian, “The Armenian Gospel Text from te fifth through the fourteent centuries,” Medieval Armenian Culture, UPATS, 6 (Chico 1984) 381-384; G.A. Egan, “An Analysis of the Biblical Quotations of Ephrem” CSCO vol. 443, t. 66 (Louvain 1983) 24ff; B. Metzger, “Versions-Armenian,” The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (New York 1962) vol IV 749-760.

25 The French translation is by J-P Mahé, “Traduction et Exégèse: Reflections sur l’example arménien,” in Mélange Antoine Guillaumont (Genève 1988) 249.