The Canon of The Bible and The Apocrypha in The Churches of The East

Hovhanessian_DD_CB_978-1-4331-1035-1:NORMAN~1.
qxp 11/10/2011 11:32 AM Page 1
BIBLE IN THE CHRISTIAN ORTHODOX TRADITION

2
HOVHANESSIAN, ed.
The Canon of the Bible and the Apocrypha in the Churches of the East fea-
tures essays reflecting the latest scholarly research in the field of the canon
@
of the Bible and related apocryphal books, with special attention given
to the early Christian literature of Eastern churches. These essays study
and examine issues and concepts related to the biblical canon as well as
non-canonical books that circulated in the early centuries of Christian-
The Canon of the
ity among Christian and non-Christian communities, claiming to be
Bible and the
in the Churches of the East

The Canon of the Bible and the Apocrypha
authored by biblical characters, such as the prophets and kings of the Old
Testament and the apostles of the New Testament.
Apocrypha in the
@ Churches of the East
Vahan S. Hovhanessian holds a Ph.D. in biblical studies from Ford-
ham University. He is currently the chairman of the “Bible in the East-
ern and Oriental Orthodox Traditions” unit of the Society of Biblical
Literature (SBL) and an “Honourary Research Fellow” at Cardiff Uni-
@
versity, United Kingdom. He has published books, chapters in books,
and many articles in Arabic, Armenian, and English in the fields of
biblical and early Church studies. He is an ordained Bishop in the
Armenian Orthodox Church tradition and the Primate of the Armen-
ian Church of the United Kingdom and Ireland.
PETER LANG
Edited by
Vahan S. Hovhanessian
WWW.PETERLANG.COM
Hovhanessian_DD_CB_978-1-4331-1035-1:NORMAN~1.qxp 11/10/2011 11:32 AM Page 1
BIBLE IN THE CHRISTIAN ORTHODOX TRADITION

2
HOVHANESSIAN, ed.
The Canon of the Bible and the Apocrypha in the Churches of the East fea-
tures essays reflecting the latest scholarly research in the field of the canon
@
of the Bible and related apocryphal books, with special attention given
to the early Christian literature of Eastern churches. These essays study
and examine issues and concepts related to the biblical canon as well as
non-canonical books that circulated in the early centuries of Christian-
The Canon of the
ity among Christian and non-Christian communities, claiming to be
Bible and the
in the Churches of the East

The Canon of the Bible and the Apocrypha
authored by biblical characters, such as the prophets and kings of the Old
Testament and the apostles of the New Testament.
Apocrypha in the
@ Churches of the East
Vahan S. Hovhanessian holds a Ph.D. in biblical studies from Ford-
ham University. He is currently the chairman of the “Bible in the East-
ern and Oriental Orthodox Traditions” unit of the Society of Biblical
Literature (SBL) and an “Honourary Research Fellow” at Cardiff Uni-
@
versity, United Kingdom. He has published books, chapters in books,
and many articles in Arabic, Armenian, and English in the fields of
biblical and early Church studies. He is an ordained Bishop in the
Armenian Orthodox Church tradition and the Primate of the Armen-
ian Church of the United Kingdom and Ireland.
PETER LANG
Edited by
WWW.PETERLANG.COM
The Canon of the Bible
and the Apocrypha
in the Churches
of the East
BIBLE IN THE CHRISTIAN
@ ORTHODOX TRADITION
General Editor
Vol. 2
PETER LANG
New York y Washington, D.C./Baltimore y Bern
Frankfurt am Main y Berlin y Brussels y Vienna y Oxford
The Canon of the Bible
and the Apocrypha
in the Churches
of the East
Edited by
PETER LANG
New York y Washington, D.C./Baltimore y Bern
Frankfurt am Main y Berlin y Brussels y Vienna y Oxford
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
The canon of the Bible and the Apocrypha in the churches of the east /
[edited by] Vahan S. Hovhanessian.
p. cm. — (Bible in the Christian Orthodox tradition; v. 2)
Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and index.
1. Bible—Canon. 2. Apocryphal books. 3. Orthodox Eastern
Church—Doctrines. I. Hovhanessian, Vahan.
BS465.C37 220.1’20882815—dc23 2011044701
ISBN 978-1-4331-1035-1 (hardcover)
ISBN 978-1-4539-0529-6 (e-book)
ISSN 1947-5977
Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek.

Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the “Deutsche
Nationalbibliografie”; detailed bibliographic data is available
on the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de/.
The paper in this book meets the guidelines for permanence and durability
of the Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity
of the Council of Library Resources.
© 2012 Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., New York

29 Broadway, 18th floor, New York, NY 10006
www.peterlang.com
All rights reserved.

Reprint or reproduction, even partially, in all forms such as microfilm,
xerography, microfiche, microcard, and offset strictly prohibited.
Printed in Germany
Contents
Preface ............................................................................................... vii
The Canon of Scripture in the Orthodox Church ................................... 1

Eugenia Scarvelis Constantinou
The Prayer of Manasses: Orthodox Tradition and Modern Studies

in Dialogue ......................................................................................... 7
Daniel Alberto Ayuch
Testament of Solomon and Other Pseudepigraphical Material in

Aḥkām Sulaymān (Judgment of Solomon) ...................................... 21
Slavomír Čéplö (bulbul)
The Book of Wisdom of Solomon in the Armenian Church Literature

and Liturgy ....................................................................................... 39
Anushavan Tanielian
Visul Maicii Domnului (“The Dream of the Mother of the Lord”):

New Testament Romanian Amulet Text .......................................... 43
Nicolae Roddy
Banned from the Lectionary: Excluding the Apocalypse of John

from the Orthodox New Testament Canon ..................................... 51
Eugenia Scarvelis Constantinou
vi •C O N TE N TS •
New Testament Apocrypha and the Armenian Version

of the Bible ....................................................................................... 63
Notes .................................................................................................... 89
Bibliography ...................................................................................... 107
Index .................................................................................................. 111
Preface
T his is the third volume to be published by the “Bible in the

Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Traditions” unit of the Society
of Biblical Literature (SBL). The first volume was published in
2009 under the title Exegesis and Hermeneutics in the Churches of the
East, which included the papers presented and discussed at the SBL
meeting in San Diego, USA. The second volume, The Old Testament
as Authoritative Scripture in the Early Churches of the East, was
published in 2010 as the first volume in the new series “Bible in the
Christian Orthodox Tradition.”
The papers published in this book represent the latest scholarly
findings in the field of Apocrypha and the New Testament canon from
the perspective of the churches of the East. These findings were
presented and discussed at the July 2009 International Meeting of SBL
in Rome, Italy, and at the November 2009 Annual Meeting of SBL in
New Orleans.
These two sessions became two giant steps in strengthening the
foundation laid years ago through the establishment of the SBL unit as
a forum for a new scholarly endeavor to explore a critical examination
of biblical scholarship as founded and developed in the earlier
centuries of Christianity within the Orthodox churches in the East.
Sincere thanks to the steering committee members of the “Bible in
the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Traditions” unit of the SBL, and to
the scholars who chaired and moderated the sessions as well as those
who presented the fruits of their scholarly labor as part of the unit’s
program.
May the Lord continue blessing us as we strive to explore,
understand and teach His word.
Bishop Vahan Hovhanessian, Ph.D.

November 2011
•E U G E N I A S C A R V E L I S C O N S T A N T I N O U •
The Canon of Scripture in the

Orthodox Church
T he precise status, content and role of the canon in the Orthodox

Church escape easy definitions and explanations. The Eastern
Church never conclusively defined a canon of Scripture in an
authoritative statement such as those ultimately pronounced in the
West. Although the Orthodox Church is one Church, united in one
faith and historically connected to the early apostolic Church, it is also
simultaneously many separate, autonomously functioning churches.
The various Orthodox churches embrace a variety of practices and
traditions with respect to liturgics, iconography, lectionary and even
the canon of Scripture itself. Among the Orthodox Churches are both
Chalcedonian (“Eastern Orthodox”) and non-Chalcedonian (“Oriental
Orthodox”). The most unusual aspect of the canon of Scripture among
the Orthodox is that no official canon exists at all and the canon
remains somewhat loose.
The word “canon” (kanon in Greek) originally meant a reed or
measuring stick. It came to mean the applicable standard for
measurement: a ruler. The word “canon” was employed to refer to a
rule or Church law. With respect to the Bible, “canon” is the list of
books recognized as authoritative Scripture because when deciding
which books should be considered Scripture, the Church applied
certain standards. The canon of Scripture also demarcates those books
which may be read in Church.
The Septuagint
Some consider the consistent use of the Septuagint to be the most
distinctive characteristic of the Orthodox canon. The Septuagint was
2 •E U G E N I A S C A R V E LI S C O N S T A N TI N O U •
the Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures produced during the

mid-third century B.C. by Greek-speaking Jews, also known as
“Hellenistic” Jews, or Jews of “diaspora.” The collection of books
recognized as sacred among diaspora Jews tended to be larger than
among Jews in Judea and Galilee who read the Scriptures in Hebrew.
However, even among first century Jews no such thing as a completely
standardized and fixed canon existed, whether in Greek or in Hebrew.
Originally the Bible did not exist as a single volume but was more like
a library of books. As books were written, they were added to this
collection. “The Bible” was not a single volume and people called
these books “the Scriptures,” a collection of writings. Each book of
Scripture was written independently of the others, and was circulated
and hand-copied separately. Furthermore, the collections of different
congregations, whether among Jewish or Christian communities,
initially were not the same.
The books which now comprise our Bible were written, read,
copied and circulated along with other religious and spiritual books
individually at first. Over a period of time some of these books
acquired elevated status as people regarded them highly and began to
think of them as Sacred or Holy Scripture. Holy Scripture differs from
ordinary writing because it is recognized by the worshipping
community as God-inspired and authoritative. This distinction
indicates that the Jews, and later the Christians, realized that not all
religious books in their collections were equal in merit, authenticity or
value.
First century Judaism encompassed a variety of opinions on many
matters, including what constituted Sacred Scripture. The Sadducees
and Pharisees only agreed that the Torah, the first five books of the
Bible, was Scripture. Among the books found in the Dead Sea Scrolls
collection were many copies of books, which were very popular
among the residents of the Qumran community which produced the
scrolls, but which are not part of the Jewish canon today, including
Septuagint books. Exactly how they were viewed by the people of
Qumran—as “Scripture” or “not Scripture”—is unclear. The Church
emerged from this atmosphere of first century Jewish diversity. The
early Church, therefore, embraced a much less rigid concept of
“canon” and this is reflected in the Orthodox Church today.
•T H E C A N O N O F TH E S C R I P T U R E • 3
The early Church began in Judea among non-Hellenized Jews but

it soon attracted even larger numbers of Gentiles and Hellenistic Jews
who also accepted Jesus as the Messiah. The followers of Jesus, who
ultimately came to be known as “Christians,” were initially a group
within Judaism and not a separate religion. Jewish Christians were the
first to marshal passages from the Jewish Scriptures to passionately
assert that Jesus fulfilled the messianic prophecies. The Septuagint
was usually employed since most Jews in the Roman Empire were
Greek-speaking. Many Jews were not convinced that Jesus was the
Messiah and resented the hijacking of “their” Scriptures by the
“heretic” followers of Jesus. In time the movement, which came to be
known as “Christianity” separated from Judaism and the Jews
gradually associated the Septuagint with the Church. Eventually, the
Jews rejected all Greek translations of the Scriptures in favor of
Hebrew and settled on canon of twenty-two books.
But the Septuagint collection, which had been used by diaspora
Jews for approximately three centuries, contained additional books
other than those twenty-two and also some extra passages among
books which the Jews had accepted. These additional books and
passages in the Septuagint which were later excluded from the Jewish
canon, included the Books of the Maccabees, the Wisdom of Sirach,
Judith, Tobit, Psalm 151 and the hymn of the three youths, (an
extended version of Daniel 3). The early Church was by then separate
from Judaism and did not conform to the smaller Jewish canon. In
response to Jewish criticisms of the Septuagint canon and the use of
the Greek translation in general, Christians defended the Septuagint as
an inspired translation and collection, something which had also been
a long-standing Jewish tradition.
The Orthodox Church continues to utilize the Septuagint’s broader
canon since it was the canon of the apostles and the early Church. This
does not mean that the Orthodox Church rejects the Hebrew version of
the Bible. Rather, the acceptance of the Septuagint reflects the typical
Orthodox practice to follow the norms of the ancient Church. The
decision of the Jews to define a twenty-two book canon and exclude
some books already in use by the Christian Church was eventually
followed by the Protestant Reformers during the 16th century. The
Protestant canon of thirty-nine Old Testament books precisely matches
the Jewish canon of twenty-two books. The variation in number arises

from a difference in how the books are counted, because the Jews tend
to combine smaller books into one.
In response to the Protestant Reformation, the Catholic Church
held one of its most important councils, the Council of Trent in 1545.
At Trent, Catholics refused to reject the additional books of the
Septuagint. Because these books had been removed by the Jews
centuries earlier, Protestants adopted the Jewish canon for their Old
Testament and, like the Jews, rejected the additional Septuagint books
and labeled them “apocrypha.” The term “apocrypha” had been the
conventional designation for a book which is rejected from the canon
of Scripture. But the Council of Trent disagreed, establishing the
number of Old Testament books for Catholics as forty-six. While the
additional books are not entirely rejected from the canon, therefore not
“apocrypha,” Catholic Church decided that these books form a
secondary canon and designated them “deutero-canonicals.” The
deutero-canonical books are nevertheless Scripture and are found
without distinction in Catholic bibles among the other Old Testament
books. Although some Orthodox Christians refer to these additional
books as “deutero-canonicals” for ease of reference, strictly speaking
that term is a Catholic designation. For the Orthodox, no such
differentiation has ever been made between the “deutero-canonicals”
and other books. The Old Testament is typically said to number forty-
nine books for Orthodox Christians, but the exact canon remains
undefined for the Orthodox, both in content and number. For example,
4 Maccabees is at times included or Susanna might be counted
separately or as part of Daniel.
The unfortunate application of the term “apocrypha” by the
Protestant Reformers to the additional books of the Septuagint has
created some confusion. For Orthodox Christians, the apocrypha are
books which were never included in the canon of Scripture, usually
Christian books that were falsely attributed to apostles, such as the
Protoevangelium of James. Although the term also refers to heretical
Gnostic works, ordinary Orthodox Christians have no familiarity with
Gnostic books and they play no role in Orthodox church tradition
whatsoever.
•T H E C A N O N O F TH E S C R I P T U R E • 5
The New Testament Books

Although some discussion existed among Fathers of the Church about
the acceptance of certain Old Testament books, for the most part the
Septuagint canon was inherited from the Jews and adopted in its
totality by the Church. “Scripture” for first and second century
Christians meant the Jewish Scriptures. Apostolic writings were not
immediately recognized as Scripture when they were penned during
the first century. Although the earliest Christians knew of apostolic
writings, the life and teachings of Christ were primarily passed along
orally for many generations. Christians even considered oral tradition
superior to writing because one always knew and had confidence in
the trustworthiness of one’s teacher. Books, however, were copied by
hand, and one could never be certain that any book was a faithful copy
of what the author had actually written, or even whether the book had
in fact been composed by that author.
By the late second century, the increased distance from the time of
the apostles prompted Christians to think differently about apostolic
books. The actions of Marcion and Tatian also contributed toward the
creation of a Christian canon. Marcion, a presbyter from Asia, had
entirely rejected three of the gospels—Matthew, Mark and John—and
had created his own highly edited version of Luke. Tatian, a Syrian
Christian, had blended all four into one large gospel in the Syriac
language which was dubbed Diatessaron (“through four”), which
became very popular among Syrians. But most Christians decried the
mutilation of the apostolic writings. Prominent figures such as
Tertullian and Irenaeus vigorously protested the activities of Marcion
and Tatian in their books and condemned all tampering with written
apostolic testimony.
The mutilation and adulteration of apostolic writings awakened
Christians and compelled them to realize that apostolic books were
also inspired Holy Scripture to be preserved and protected. By the end
of the second century, Christians were citing and refer to apostolic
writings in the same manner as the Jewish Scriptures. The terms “Old
Testament” and “New Testament” first appeared around the year 200,
showing that Christian writings had at last been accepted as equally
authoritative and inspired. A milestone had been achieved in the
development of the canon. But a new question arose: which books

belonged in this New Testament?
A general consensus existed by the year 200 in both the East and
West for the core of the canon: our present fourfold gospel corpus,
Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of Paul, 1 John, 1 Peter and
Revelation. Although a small minority of Christians had objected to
the Johannine writings, the Gospel, 1 John and Revelation were
accepted as apostolic and genuine early in the life of the Church and
never faced serious opposition. But what about other books?
A number of factors contributed to the difficulty of defining the
precise limits of a canon or even thinking about Christian writings as a
set of Scripture which could stand alongside the Old Testament. Since
each congregation possessed a different collection of books, no
standardized Christian canon existed. Collections began to be created,
such as the epistles of Paul, but even those letters were gathered
gradually and haphazardly by individual congregations as Christians
changed domicile, traveled for various purposes, or through deliberate
exchanges of documents between communities. Even the most widely-
traveled second century Christian who had visited many different
congregations would probably never encounter the entire New
Testament canon we now possess.
As books were exchanged, not all congregations readily accepted
all books. The rapidity of a given book’s acceptance by a local
congregation would depend upon a number of factors, including but
not limited to whether the book appealed to the congregation on a
spiritual or inspirational level, whether it contained words of the Lord,
and whether it was apostolic. Initially no apparent need to delineate a
canon existed, just as the Jews had used a wide variety of books long
before they had fixed their canon. But this changed as the number of
Christian writings grew. Pseudonymous and apocryphal books also
mushroomed, both in an effort to promote divergent theologies and to
preserve earlier oral traditions. Dogmatic questions also pressed upon
the Church as heresies took hold and began to threaten orthodox
Christianity. A New Testament canon was needed.
•D A N I E L A L B E R T O A Y U C H •
The Prayer of Manasses:

Orthodox Tradition and Modern
Studies in Dialogue
T his fifteen verse document is an important testimony of how

Early Eastern Christians interpreted the Old Testament texts
and how the concept of the Scriptural canon was evolving in
those Christian communities.
Based on modern studies (see among others Charles and Vriezen)
we can affirm that the prayer of Manasses was written in a Greek-
speaking Jewish community. Antioch is to be suggested as the place of
writing, because of the strong relationship of the prayer tradition with
the Didascalia (early third century) and because of other arguments
that shall be discussed below. The prayer was written to urge the
community leaders not to fall into idolatry and to repent of this sin.
The Prayer of Manasses, despite its canonical content, has never been
part of the canon of the Old Testament, nor of the manuscripts of the
Septuagint. Only the Alexandrinus manuscript registers it as an
appendix to the Psalms under the title of “the Odes”. We deduce, in
agreement with most scholars, that this prayer was written during the
first century BC (Denis 678). The so-called Prayer of Manasses in
Qumran is unrelated to our writing (4Q381 33,8–11; Denis 679).
The text used here is the one published in Rahlfs’ LXX (II. 180–
181). More detailed information on the manuscripts and versions can
be found in Charles’ introduction (612–619). In this paper the prayer
will be quoted in English according to the New Revised Standard
Version as it appears in BibleWorks 7, unless noted otherwise.
This paper investigates the canonical dimension of the prayer
attributed to King Manasses. For this purpose we shall first study its
intertextuality by analyzing the central message of the stories in
8 •D A N I E L A L B E R T O A Y U C H •
Manasses 2Kings and 2Chronicles. Within this research we shall also

examine whether there are similar patterns in the Old Testament and
how they work. In the second instance we will study the prayer
contents and its relation to the canonical texts. Throughout this paper
we are interested in studying the interpretative approach of early
Christians, particularly as it is shown in the Didascalia and the
Apostolic Constitutions which adopted the text as part of the liturgical
order of their Antiochian communities that later on spread throughout
the Christian East and West.
Regarding the methods of interpretation, we shall build on Tarazi’s
theory that the Old Testament narrative texts are to be read as “edify-
ing stories” (in Hebrew: meshalim), i.e., as an interpretation of histori-
cal events that has been written as a similitude of the events with the
aim of moving the reader to a certain action (Tarazi 22–27). So we
will see how the interaction of Manasses’ mashal with the religious
experience of a particular community has led to the creation of a new
writing to express their faith. Moreover, the theories on the role of the
biblical narrator as explained in detail by Marguerat have often been
adopted (167–198).
One King, Two Narratives: The Deuteronomistic Version
In the Hebrew canon 1–2 Kings are seen as a single book that forms
together with Joshua-Judges and 1–2 Samuel the triptych of Prior
Prophets. Therefore, these books are introduced to be read first of all
as the revelation of God’s word to his people and not as the kings’
annals. The narrative of Manasses comes in the third part of the Book
of Kings (2Kgs 18–25) and as a prelude to its grand finale that leads
Judah to the exile in Babylon after the destruction of Jerusalem and its
temple. Chapter 21, which deals with two wicked kings, Manasses and
Amon, is inserted between the narratives of two great kings, Hezekiah
(2Kgs 18–20) and Josiah (2Kgs 22–23). This is the first account on
Manasses that appears in the Old Testament canon, and it mirrors the
key features of the Deuteronomistic theology: Fidelity to God is the
conditio sine qua non to inherit the land and to prosper. The temple is
the center of true worship and the other great pillar of Deuteronomistic
theology. However, if the people fell into idolatry, they shall be
•T H E P R A Y E R O F M A N A S S E S • 9
considered as a foreign nation and be handed over to the oppression of

the world. Israel's monarchs have proven to be impious and sinful, but
the house of David will prevail because God has promised to hold it
forever (González Lamadrid, 144). Manasses is the most defective
king. This is why the Deuteronomist had no hesitation in condemning
him. The paragraph of 2Kgs 21:11–16 has no parallel in the Book of
Chronicles and expresses the atrocity of Manasses’ deeds who
becomes the antitype for those who believe in the Law of Moses. The
condemnation comes in the mouth of the prophets (v. 10), this is how
the Deuteronomist asserts that the true representatives of divine
revelation are the prophets, not the kings.
In this context comes the story about Manasses as the most
unfaithful and idolatrous of all kings. Already the writing of his name
in Hebrew suggests deceit. The names of Manasses (hvnm) and Moses
(hvAm)1 written in Hebrew are very similar without the Masoretic
vocalization; only a tiny tick leads the reader between the two
extremes of that who gave the Law to the people and the one who
trespassed it the most conducting the people to forget their faith. Both
these names form a paronomasia (Schökel 47–49), of which the reader
must take great care when reading the text.
According to Thiele, Manasses reigned from 696–642 BC (Hicks
499).2 In his extended 55 years of reign, Judah remained a vassal of
Assyria; in the annals of Esarhaddon we read that the kingdom paid
tribute to the empire (ANET 291). In 2Kgs 21:2 we can see the Deu-
teronomist giving carefully the details of Manasses’ perverse behavior
in order to emphasize by comparison the merits of his predecessor
Hezekiah and his successor Josiah. The charges against Manasses re-
mind us those that were raised against the kingdom of Israel in 2Kgs
17, and let us imply that the same destiny awaits Judah. In vv. 3 4 Ma-
nasses undoes his father’s reforms (cf. 18:4) and profanes that temple
that in the Deuteronomistic theology was the center of holiness and
worship (González Lamadrid 54–55). An unforgivable sin. See also
vv. 7–8. In v. 9 Manasses is portrayed as the Jeroboam of Judah who
led people to that sin that in the end would inevitably destroy them all.
One King, Two Narratives: The Chronicler Version

The historical background of the Chronicler is different. We are in the
Second Temple era and the people, who have assumed as part of their
identity the exile crisis, known that there is no even a remote
possibility of a new monarchy. We are most probably in the early
fourth century B.C. (North 558s). The Chronicler looks to the kings
with less harshness than the Deuteronomist did and hopes that the
Second Temple system might guide the people in this new era under
the the ministry of the priests and the Levites. Manasses is not
condemned in spite of his evil deeds. This permissive attitude of the
Chronicler together with his narrative on Manasses’ exile and return
have caused big skepticism among those scholars who sought in the
text a historical chronicle. Today, narrative criticism sees with other
eyes this story and looks for its pragmatic function in the reader’s
response.3 It is precisely this pragmatic aspect of the narrative what
inspired a writer to create the Prayer of Manasses.
The Chronicler does know the version of 2Kings and uses it as a
source many times verbatim. For instance, the list of Manasses
transgressions in v.9 is similar to that in 2Kgs 21:2–9 and reflects
exactly what is said in Jer 7:31 in order to assert that “he violated all
the laws contained in the book.” However, several modern interpreters
see that the absence in the Deuteronomistic version of the scene where
Manasses repents and converts is a valid reason to accuse the
Chronicler of having included “tendentious” data that were not
available in the sources they had at hand (Oesterley 296 ).
Nevertheless, Hicks insists that the Chronicler is faithful to the
sources throughout the book (500). It is evident that the role of
Manasses’ narrative in 2Kings and 2Chronicles has different
connotations. On the one hand, The Deuteronomist highlights above
all the king’s corruption and how he can spoil God’s plans and lead
the people astray. On the other hand, the Chronicler underlines how
the conversion of the leader can help all people to prosper to the point
of becoming a guide for future generations. Indeed, both authors write
two versions of the same mashal. The Deuteronomist writes it based
on the Exile experience, while the Chronicler does it based on the
experience of the organization of the Second Temple. On the one
hand, the Deuteronomist searches for the reasons that led to the crisis
so that the reader does not repeat the same mistakes. On the other
hand, the Chronicler takes a step further and gives guidelines for a
new era of communication between God and his people.
For both authors Manasses plays a role model: for doom in the first
account and for conversion in the second one. After all, the Chronicler
is not an idealistic dreamer. Also in his account we read that last kings
of Judah sinned again and were the reason why God commanded the
Exile (2Chr 36:1 21). But once again God intervened and sent Cyrus
of Persia in order to build a new temple in Jerusalem helped by those
who still believed in Him. The Chronicler ends the first work with the
phrase: “Whoever is among you of all his people, may the Lord his
God be with him! Let him go up” (2Chr 36:23). To this end follows
the diptych of Ezra-Nehemiah, who most probably were the
Chronicler’s direct ancestors. Manasses’ end of life serves as a
prototype, as a king who suffered the exile and came back to rebuild
the Temple of the Lord. Even the wall reconstruction can be
historically linked to him (590 North; Hicks 506). However, this
narrative on the reestablishment of the cult in Jerusalem is, first of all,
a mashal that serves as a prototype for the Chronicler’s readers who
live and thrive in the New Jerusalem.
The harm caused by Manasses’ idolatry is so great that even the
reform fails to change the people’s cultic misbehavior who continued
to offer sacrifices at the high places (2Chr 33:17). This is a warning to
the Second Temple priests to watch for those things that are still to be
done, lest they return to the exile. In this tension of what has been
achieved and what still needs to be done comes the prayer of Manasses
to move people to change and repent.
The Intertextuality
Having highlighted the different approaches of the Deuteronomist and
the Chronicler, who far from contradicting, they complement each
other, it can be said that the Prayer of Manasses is an important key to
understand the reading of the Old Testament in the Early Judaism of
the Antiochian Diaspora4 and how this way of reading was also prac-
ticed in the first century Christian church. The short title “Prayer of
Manasses” that we read in Rahlf’s LXX and the longer one “Prayer of
Manassas, King of Judah, when he was holden captive in Babylon” in
the Vulgate relate the prayer with the Chronicler’s narrative and set a
method of intertextuality.
Definitely, the clearest example of intertextuality is available in the
Didascalia version of the prayer, a text that was written in the Antio-
chian region in the early third century by a Jewish Christian who was
strongly acquainted with the Old Testament (Altaner 84–85). This text
had such authority that it was translated into Syriac, Latin, Arabic, and
Ethiopian, and later on was incorporated as a key source of the Apos-
tolic Constitutions. In a chapter where the main theme is the Bishop’s
task to watch for repentance and conversion, the author urges him to
follow the example of God when Manasses showed penitence and con-
trition. In this context comes the mashal of Manasses with the follow-
ing introductory sentence: “It is written in the fourth Book of
Kingdoms and likewise in the second Book of Chronicles…” (ii, 22).
The author braids the texts of both sources with some variations5 and
when he comes to the prayer, he introduces it in full text. Manasses’
repentance in the Didascalia goes beyond what is said in Chronicles:
“And he served the Lord only, with all his heart and with all his soul,
all the days of his life: and he was accounted righteous.” This last pre-
dicative is very important to the author of the Didascalia because it
implies that repentance opens the doors of salvation.
With the firm purpose to exhort bishops to accept those who re-
pent, the author of the Didascalia has not hesitated to write his own
version of the two ancient accounts on Manasses and to include this
exemplary penitential prayer, which he must have from a source con-
taining canonical and non-canonical writings. The writer followed
both the Deuteronomistic teaching on idolatry as the worst sin against
God, and the Chronicler’s teaching on repentance and contrition. The
keyword to understand the text of the Didascalia is repetition, a very
well-known principle of interpretation of texts in both Testaments.
Consider the example of the narrative repetitions between 1–2Kings
and 1–2Chronicles; or those Psalms that are present in 1–2Chronicles
and 1–2Kings and appear again in the Book of Psalms. The New Tes-
tament builds on the same principle of repetition, as well. Let us men-
tion for instance the four versions of Jesus Life in the four Gospels and
the Book of Acts that has no problem to narrate three different ver-
sions of Saul’s vision on his road to Damascus.
The key for interpreting the story of Manasses is explicitly men-
tioned in the Didascalia with the saying: “It behoves thee, O bishop, to
have before thine eyes those things which happened of old time, that
tou mayest learn by comparison the healing of souls” (ii. 22). To
Learn by comparison is the key to understand the principle of elabo-
rated repetitions that allow the reader to discover new horizons of in-
terpretation in a classic text, to which have been added certain
variations. Genette and Kaestli define intertextuality as a literary de-
vice in which a text B is created with regard to a text A and in a rela-
tionship different from the one of a commentary (Kaestli 288–290).
The relationship is the revised repetition with variations that produce
the intended effect of updating the story for the new circle of readers
to whom the author addresses his writing. This sort of intertextuality is
more specifically called hypertextuality (Marguerat 177).
Beyond the hypertextuality we also find several patterns of inter-
textuality in the Old Testament between a narrative and a prayer in-
spired in it. The most influential examples are undoubtedly those of
the Psalter. There are a collection of psalms with introductions to King
David’s life as it stays in the Deuteronomistic history. All together,
there are thirteen psalms of this kind, twelve of them are in the first
and second book of the Psalter and the last is, is at the end of the fifth
book.6 David’s image in these titles is that of a righteous and suffering
David who utters these hymns in the crucial moments of his life. Di-
rectly related to the Prayer of Manasses is, of course, the title of Ps 51,
which expresses the repentance of David, after having heard the
prophecy of Nathan against his sin. The title leads us immediately to
2Sam 12:1 13 where the only words said by David are his confession:
“I have sinned against the Lord” (v. 13). 2sam 12 does not even allude
to a repentance prayer said by David, which could subsequently have
inspired the psalm, unless the words in v. 20 “David rose from the
ground…went into the house of the Lord, and worshiped” should be
understood as the narrative framework for this penitential prayer. Nev-
ertheless, the title of Ps 51 can only refer to this page of David’s life
which is completely absent in Chronicles, where David cannot be seen
as a sinner.
Another important example to be mention is the prayer of Solomon

in Wisdom 9, which belongs to the same period of Manasses’ Prayer
and is also linked to a text of the Deuteronomistic history (1Kng 3:5–
10). In this sentence the author of Wisdom develops freely the brief
text of 1Kng 3 and transforms it into a model prayer to beseech for
divine wisdom and the understanding of God’s mysteries. This is a
clear evidence of how biblical texts were processed in the first century
BC.
Interpretation
The Prayer of Manasses is undoubtedly a penitential psalm, as Schökel
defines the gender for those psalms that contain a confession of sins
(Schökel 1994, 104). Its parallel prayers in the Psalter are Pss 6; 32;
38; 51; 102; 103 and 143. Undoubtedly, among them, Psalm 51 is the
closest one in form and content. It is understandable that the prayers
added in an appendix to the book of Psalms do not carry exactly the
title “Psalms” in order to avoid their fusion within the canonical book
itself. The Greek text is introduced by the word “prayer” (proseuch.)
which in Hebrew corresponds to the term tefillah (hL'piT). These two
words match as the title of a penitential prayer in Psalm 102 according
to BHS and LXX. Furthermore, Schuller says that the Hebrew term is
often used in Qumran for penitential prayers (220–221).
While Charles suggests only three main sections in the prayer
(612) and Vriezen prefers a detailed segmentation of every element
(553), I propose a structure that agrees with the general lines drawn by
Charles and with Schökel’s definition of the penitential psalms:
1–4 An invocation of the Lord

5–7 The Lord and the sinner
8–10 A confession of sin
11–13 An supplication for forgiveness
14–15 A final doxology
In the following paragraphs we will comment on those aspects of

the prayer that are directly related to the main question of this paper:
the canonicity of the Prayer and its relation to the Deuteronomistic and
the Chronicler’s narratives. We will focus on the reading of the Old

Testament canon reflected in this prayer, as well as on its influence in
the Early Syrian Christian Tradition, which led the author of Did-
ascalia to include it in his work. For this brief commentary we read the
Alexandrinus text (Fifth Century), since it is the shortest version and
has been published in Rahlfs’ LXX (1962, 180–181). The text varia-
tions in the Syriac and Latin translations are indicated, as well.
The Invocation (vv. 1–4)

The opening invocation functions as a confession of orthodox
faith. The vocative “oh Almighty” (pantokra,twr) is the translation of
“(Lord) of the hosts” (tAab'c) and occurs 10 times in both the Dtr and
the Chr narratives. The names of the ancestors chosen here are the
classic ones “Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.” The author does neither
name the prophets, nor less common characters of the Jewish apocry-
phal literature (Let us mention, for instance, Enoch, Adam, Baruch or
Asthenet). In other words, in this prayer Manasses seeks for the an-
cient scriptural roots using the language of the Law and the Prophets.
God is the supreme and final authority, the creator (o` poih,saj), whom
all fear (v. 4). The phrase “your terrible and glorious name” in v. 3
stands out. It emphasizes God’s sovereignty (cf. Ps 111:9). This con-
fession of faith is the prior step to the supplication for forgiveness. The
penitent delivers himself in confidence to the supreme authority, the
one who keeps the order on the world and decides about the future.
The concept of “righteous” (di,kaioj) as a synonym for "believer"
occurs already in this section and is one of the many elements that
highlight the Jewish background of the prayer. Justice (dikaiosu,nh) is
one of the major Deuteronomistic theological arguments (see 1Sam
26:23; 2Sam 8:15; 22:21; 1Kgs 10:9) reflected in the prayer. In v. 8
the term reappears twice in plural form to designate the assembly of
believers in the Lord. Finally, in v. 9 comes the noun “sin” (avdiki,a)
which derives from the same stem and in its strict sense means “injus-
tice.”
The four participles in vv. 2–3 are also a remarkable feature in the
prayer: You who made (o` poih,saj), you who shackled (o` pedh,saj),
you who confined (o` klei,saj), and you who sealed (sfragisa,menoj).
All these participles come in Aorist (three in active voice and a one in
middle voice). They are a typical feature of Biblical prayers, where the
participle replaces the divine name in vocatives in order to emphasize
a certain divine quality (see Ps 136 and Schökel 1993,1557). The four
participles here describe God’s action as the Creator who set every-
thing in detail so that the power of evil will not prevail over good.
The Lord and the Sinner (vv. 5–7)

This section is divided into two causal clauses (starting with o[ti…)
and work as a preamble to the confession of sin (vv. 8 10) and the
supplication for forgiveness (vv. 11 14).
Inasmuch as the four participles stand out in the invocation, in this
praise to compassion, which seeks to capture the divine benevolence,
there are four adjectives with alpha privativa that suggest a Greek au-
thorship. These adjectives are: Unbearable (a;stektoj), unendurable
(avnupo,statoj), immesurable (avme,trhto,n) and unsearchable
(avnexicni,aston). They describe three main qualities of the Divine:
Glory, wrath and mercy. None of these three features are unknown in
the Old Testament books, by which the author undoubtedly is inspired.
And as expected, in the second causal clause (v. 7) the penitent will
stop to contemplate the most appropriate quality for the situation:
God’s mercy (to. e;leoj), which appears in this section twice and occurs
again as the last argument of the supplication (v. 14). As a matter of
fact, to talk of a compassionate and merciful God is to speak of the
Scriptural God. In the Greek literature contemporary to the prayer
mercy does neither belong to the divine qualities, nor to the human
virtues (Löning, 68–69). For Socrates it is a shame to try to awaken
the judge’s mercy (Plat Ap 34c 35b) and a judge who decides on the
base of mercy behaves unjustly. This is not the case in the Old Testa-
ment literature, where God’s mercy is the only convincing argument
for salvation and forgiveness (Deut 30:3; Isa 55:7; Ps 51:1). Therefore,
Manasses in this prayer follows unconditionally the scriptural tradition
and seeks for God’s forgiveness pleading for the strongest argument of
all: God’s mercy.
In verse 7 we have a long addition to the Alexandrian text that is
found in the Apostolic Constitutions and in the Latin version of the
prayer (Charles 621).7 The theme of repentance is developed in a way
that seems to reflect rather the background of the Apostolic Constitu-
tions author. The contents of this addition do not contradict in any-

thing the rest of the prayer; it rather stresses God’s readiness to for-
give.
The Confession of Sin (vv. 8–10)

The previous section concludes with the phrase “human suffering”
and that is the key issue of this paragraph, which can be summarized
with the word “sin”. Several synonyms of “sin” occur to describe the
harm caused by the disobedience to God. The verb “sin” (a`marta,nw)
and its derivatives (a`martwlo,j a`marti,a) appear 4 times. Then there are
the terms “transgressions” (avnomi,ai) and “iniquities” (avdiki,ai) in v. 9,
“iron fetter” (desmo,j si,dhroj), “evil” (to. ponhro.n) “abominations”
(bdelu,gmata) and “offense” (prosocqi,smata) in v. 10.
Against all these tribulations there is only one choice, to repent and
return to God. The key term is, of course, metanoia (meta,noia), which
appears twice in this section (v. 8) and again in the supplication
(v. 13). Manasses confesses having committed all possible faults and
does not develop any argument or excuse. To counterpart the situation,
the penitent shows a complete submission to God, his judge. He does
not even use the argument of having been created or born in sin, like
David does in Ps 51:5.
The rhetorical figure of verb repetition (Schökel 1987, 99–100)
appears here for the first time and will again be used twice in the sup-
plication (vv. 12 13). This kind of repetition is also to be found in As-
thenet’s confession and entreaty (Joseph and Atheneth 12:5–12). The
first two repetitions highlight the multitude of sins committed by Ma-
nasses and the third one underscores the appeal for forgiveness of sins.
The Syriac version of verse 9 is longer.8 Charles compares it with
the Mozarabic version and deduces that, because of its shape and vo-
cabulary, the added phrase may have been part of the original text.
The Supplication for Forgiveness (vv. 11–14)

The most solemn moment in the prayer comes in v. 11 with the
rhetoric figure “I bend the knee of my heart” (kli,nw go,nu kardi,aj).
The heart is here personified in a similar way as in Rom 2:29, where
Paul talks about the circumcision of the heart. Both texts cannot lead
but to Jer 31:33, where the new covenant with the people is written in
the heart, i.e., that inner part of the human being that thinks and feels.
Repentance is so deep that the human decision center is submitted to
God, making possible a direct and close relationship with the Creator.
Formerly it was sin what led his heart to perdition and suffering. The
penitent now hopes to find comfort in God’s goodness. Joel 2:13
shares this way of thinking as well:
Rend your hearts and not your clothing. Return to the Lord, your God, for
he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love,
and relents from punishing.
The underlined text is identical with v. 7 in the prayer. This shows

Joel’s influence on the Prayer of Manasses author, as well.
It is exactly here where the term “salvation” occurs in direct con-
nection with mercy. Mercy is the penitent’s only cause for hope. Oth-
erwise, he knows what to expect and expresses it with three
prohibitive verbs: Do not destroy me, do not be angry with me, do not
condemned (v. 13).
Two new divine qualities are tackled in this section. Both of them
belong to the semantic field of the royal court: goodness (crhsto,thj)
in v. 11 and benevolence (avgaqwsu,nh) in v. 14. These two concepts
have a high occurrencen the Septuagint and describe God as a reigning
sovereign, who has a positive attitude towards his servants. These
terms remind the Orthodox reader that benevolent attitude to be seen
in the Pantocrator’s icons, where Christ blesses the beholder with the
right hand, while with his left one holds the scripture with a call for
conversion.
The Final Doxology (v. 15)

As in all penitential psalms, the final promise is to praise the Lord
forever. This implies a commitment not to sin again. To praise does
not only mean to chant hymns, but above all a complete life turn ac-
cording to God’s will. IT means to profess faith publicly, in saying and
in deeds. The verb used here is “to praise” (aivne,w) and has all this the-
ological connotation in the LXX Psalter. Finally, the penitent con-
cludes as he began, confessing God’s glory and majesty.
Conclusions
Having come to the end of this paper and as a conclusion about the is-
sues raised in the introduction concerning the canonical value of the
prayer and its relationship with the Old Testament texts, we can sum
up the results as follows. The prayer is strongly linked to the theology
of the Chronicler without neglecting the Deuteronomistic principles.
The author is interested in highlighting the option for repentance for
those who live under the threat of idolatry and have to learn to live
again according to the Lord’s revelation.
The prayer is related to the book of Psalms in several ways. In the
title it takes the pattern used in Psalms about David’s life and classifies
the text as a “prayer” based on the penitence prayer patterns of the
Psalter. From then on the direct references to specific Psalms and pro-
phetic writings have been shown in the interpretation.
The Prayer of Manasses is far from the Messianism developed in
Alexandria, and does not show a particular interest in the Temple cult,
nor in the priest ministry. The author seems to be a Jew of the Diaspo-
ra who aims to move the readers to return to the old lineage of the
Genesis.
Given all this evidence of canonicity the scholar would pose the
question why the prayer of Manasses has not become a part of the Old
Testament canon. The reasons are diverse and have been presented
throughout the paper. Here a summary on the issue: The Prayer of
Manasses was written in Greek in a late period, when the LXX was al-
ready well known in the Diaspora. Our author uses it first entry is
listed first on the top line.
The origin of the prayer seems to be neither Palestinian nor Alex-
andrian, which were the two major centers for the formation of the Old
Testament canon in its two versions: the short one in Hebrew and the
long one in Greek.
The prayer contents seem to create a formal conflict with the Deu-
teronomistic mashal on Manasses. It is true that this conflict is also
present in the Chronicles, as well. However, the prayer is too short a
text to develop the needed arguments that would explain its variation
to the Deuteronomistic version. Besides, the fact that it was written in
Greek prevented its assimilation within the Chronicles, as the Did-

ascalia author did later on.
The Prayer of Manasses has found its way into the Eastern Christi-
anity and has found its place in the liturgy order to enhance the theol-
ogy of forgiveness and to show that there is no worst sin than to
abandon the blessings given by the faith in the God of the revelation.
Its theology of mercy as the only plausible reason to obtain divine for-
giveness is far away from a theology of a deserved and attained justifi-
cation. This is how the Prayer of Manasses has found acceptance
among Christians who understood the incarnation as the sublime act of
divine mercy.
•S L A V O M Í R Č É P L Ö ( B U L B U L )•
Testament of Solomon and Other

Pseudepigraphical Material in
Aḥkām Sulaymān
(Judgment of Solomon)
T he Arabic text which is the subject of this paper was first

brought to scholarly attention by Georg Graf in his seminal
Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur1. Graf in-
cludes Judgments of Solomon (JSol) in his overview of legends con-
cerning David and Solomon, doing so on two occasions: first he iden-
tifies an Arabic translation of the Testament of Solomon2 (TSol) in
Vaticano arabo 448, fols. 39r–54r, yet without naming the work it con-
stitutes a part of. A little later, he lists JSol as a separate work (29r–
54r) consisting of five distinct parts, including the previously men-
tioned translation of TSol3.
Having failed to capture the interest of scholars of pseudepigrapha
and apocrypha for some time, the next significant reference to JSol
comes with James H. Charlesworth’s The Pseudepigrapha and
Modern Research4. Charlesworth, however, merely cites Graf’s
identification of an Arabic translation of TSol5 and with another
reference to Graf includes JSol as item no. 10 in his list of twelve
Solomonic apocrypha (the “Solomon Cycle”)6. Thanks to the well-
deserved authority of The Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research, all
subsequent research on TSol continues to include Vat. ar. 448 as an
Arabic recension in their overview of manuscript witnesses7, yet so
far, no attempt has been made to study this work.
It is the purpose of this paper to remedy that and to show that JSol
does not in fact contain a translation of any known recension of TSol,
although it does draw heavily from it. We will further show that JSol
22 • S L AV O M Í R Č É P L Ö ( B U LB U L )•
is a compilation of canonical, pseudepigraphical and legendary mate-

rial relating to King Solomon, some of it known previously, other not,
that celebrates Solomon’s wisdom and his power over demons. Along
with bringing attention to previously unknown manuscript witnesses,
we will briefly examine the structure and the content of this work, ana-
lyze its substantial connection to the Testament of Solomon and see
what insights JSol can provide into pseudepigrapha and their place in
Eastern and Oriental versions of the Bible.
Manuscript Witness
Known Manuscripts
1. VAT. AR. 448 - Vaticano arabo 448. Egypt (?), 17th century8. Paper,
i+212 fols. numbered in Coptic numerals (original scribe) and western
numerals (cataloguer), 15 lines per page, careless partially vocalized
Egyptian nasḫī.
According to the Arabic fihrist written on fol. i, the manuscript
contains the following works:
Work Fihrist Cat. fols.

1. Ecclesiastes ‫اوله كتاب قوھلت ھو الجامع‬ 1–20
2. Song of Songs 21 ‫تانيه كتاب نشيد االنشاد في عدد‬ 21–28r
3. Judgments of Solomon 29 ‫كتاب االحكام للسًيد سًلمان في عدد‬ 29–54r
4. Wisdom 59 ‫كتاب الحكمه في عدد الورق‬ 59–88r
5. Proverbs 89 ‫كتاب االمتال في عدد‬ 89–141
6. Tobit 142 ‫كتاب طوبي ابن طوبي في عدد‬ 142–158
7. Esther 159 ‫كتاب استير االسًرايليه في عدد‬ 159–167
8. A commentary on the Lord’s prayer 170 ‫تفسير ابونا الدي في السًموات في عدد‬ 170–180r
9. Judith 181 ‫كتاب يوديد العبرانيه في عدد‬ 181–212
10. A letter by Hermes the Wise (?) 215 ‫كتاب رسالة الحكيم ھرمس في عدد‬ ?
The final work, however, appears to be missing from the volume, as

are fols. 55–58 and 169; fol. 168 is vac. This is the manuscript origi-
nally studied and cited by Graf.
Section Folios
1. A refutation of those who claim Mary was not called ‘The 1–25
Mother of God’
2. A dispute between the monk Ibrāhīm and a muslim prince 26–47
ʿAbd ar-Rahmān concerning the veracity of the Christian faith
3. A letter sent from Cyprus to Taqīy ad-Dīn ibn at-Taymīyya of 48–65r
•T E S T A M E N T O F S O L O M O N • 23
Damascus
4. A dispute between the monks Satiricus and Andrew and 65v–112r
ʿAmrān the Jew
5. Four books of the Old Testament with an introduction 112v–185
6. Judgments of Solomon 186 –203
7. A dispute between a Christian and a Jew 203v–220r
8. A commentary on the Lord’s Prayer by Anbā Andrew 220v–221r
9. A commentary on the Nicene Creed, a chapter from Kitāb 221v–227r
maǧmūʿ uṣūl ad-dīn by Ibrāhīm ibn al-ʿAssā’ī and Abū Iṣḥāq
al-Mu’taman
10. 19 responses to theological questions by St. Athanasius of 227v–231
Alexandria
11. 23 responses by St. Gregorius of Nysse to his student 232–256
Ephrem
12. A privilege granted to all Christians by Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd 257–261
Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Muṭallib
2. BNF AR 214 - Bibliothèque Nationale de France Fonds Arabe 214

(previous designations: Regius 385, Ancien Fonds 880). Egypt, 1254
AM / 1538 AD. Paper, 262 folios numbered in Coptic numerals, 285
mm x 210 mm, 17 lines per page, fine partially vocalized Egyptian
nasḫī9.
De Slane’s and Troupeau’s descriptions divide the manuscript into
twelve sections which for the most part correspond with individual
works:
Section 5, however, contains five distinct works in Arabic: translations

of Ecclesiastes (114v–126), Song of Songs (126–131), Wisdom of
Solomon (131v–150), Proverbs (150v–185v) and a translator’s intro-
duction to Wisdom and Proverbs (112v–114), all written in the same
hand as JSol. In the introduction, the translator makes a brief reference
to Solomon’s lost works:
Solomon left three thousand proverbs and one thousand and five songs, but
they perished and were lost during the captivity of the Children of Israel.
And of the proverbs, only this book remained and the book of Qohelet, and
of the songs, only the Song of Songs.
No mention, however, is made of JSol. Although Graf was well

acquainted with the Arabic mss collections of the Bibliothèque Natio-
nale, he does not mention this manuscript.
3. Coptic Museum 31 - A 17th century manuscript identified by Graf

and cited10 with a note “zwischen Sap und Sir” which presumably re-
fers to folios where JSol can be found.
4. Coptic Museum 67 - In addition to the previous manuscript, the

Coptic Museum Ms. 67 also contains of an edition of JSol11, seeming-
ly unkown to Graf. We haven’t had the opportunity to examine either
of the Coptic Museum manuscripts.
5. Dayr Mār Mīnā 120 - A Christian Arabic manuscript kept at the li-
brary of the Cloister of Saint Menas at Cairo. JSol occupies folios 34r–
53v12. We haven’t had the opportunity to examine this manuscript.
Relationship Between Available Known Manuscripts

It is immediately apparent that the one thing tying Vat. ar. 448 and
BnF 214 together is the fact that both contain a collection of Solomon-
ic writings which include the canonical (Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Prov-
erbs and Wisdom of Solomon), as well as the non-canonical (JSol).
The relationship of both sets of canonical books will need to be exam-
ined closely to determine the textual history of both translations. As
for JSol, both recensions are remarkably close in wording, appearance
(the general title, the titles of the first three sections) and in their dis-
tinct linguistic features. Considering the fact that BnF 214 is the older
of the two witnesses, one would be tempted to hypothesize that Vat.
ar. 448 is a copy of BnF 214. However, several indicators speak
against that. First, BnF 214 is relatively consistently vocalized while
Vat. ar. 448 is not and where it is, the vocalization is different. Sec-
ondly, there are a number of differences that could not have arisen had
the scribe of Vat. ar. 448 copied BnF 214. The most notable of those is
the name of the king of the Gentiles who appears in stories V and VIII
(see manuscript division below). Where BnF 214 with its clear nasḫī
unmistakably reads ‫[ ناوون‬n’wwn], Vat. ar. 448 has ‫[ ياوون‬y’wwn].
Whether both these witnesses ultimately rely on a single older one or
whether the textual history of JSol is more complicated than that re-
mains to be seen.
Origin and History

Judgments of Solomon assembles material of different origin into a
relatively coherent narrative, much reminiscent in its style and form of
Arabic popular literature, especially popular romances13. While it is
immediately obvious that JSol has been compiled from various
sources, some of it possibly translated from at least two languages, it is
also clear that the compiler made a significant effort to tie the stories
together both conceptually and in terms of chronology. Beyond that,
however, the manuscripts themselves offer very little insight into the
origin and the process of compilation of JSol. Indeed the only fact we
can be certain of is that this work in its form currently known to us
originated in Egypt’s Christian milieu some time before 1538. With
the exception of the first two parts, the language of JSol clearly be-
trays its origin through a number of dialectal features typical of Egyp-
tian Arabic (‫ ت‬and ‫ د‬for ‫ث‬and ‫ ذ‬consistently throughout, ‫ بحري‬and ‫قبلي‬
for “north” and “south”, respectively, the dialectal cohortative particle
‫ خلي‬and so forth). Even the narrative itself shows signs of adaptation of
foreign elements to Egyptian sensibilities, as in Story VIIIa, where in
the middle of the narration, the previously nameless and unimportant
country of ‫ ناوون‬/ ‫ ياوون‬king of the Gentiles suddenly grows in im-
portance and is identified with Egypt.
It is equally difficult to trace the ultimate origin of all constituent
parts of JSol. Except for the first two sections, translations of well-
known passages from the canonical Old Testament, only one story can
be directly traced to older material (story V and the Coptic Legend of
Solomon and Thabor). We will show below that at least four other sto-
ries (IV, VI, VII and VIII) incorporate various motifs from the Testa-
ment of Solomon and thus must be counted under those relying on
older material, albeit indirectly. We also include here story X which
shares a basic narrative motif with one of the legends from an Old
Russian collection of Solomonic lore known under the name Sudy Sol-
omona14 (“Judgments of Solomon”) preserved in various manuscripts
of Paleya tolkovaya15.
As for the remaining parts of the narrative, the text itself suggests
that at least some of those stories (most notably VI and IX) were trans-
lated into Arabic – problems with identification of characters and their
names, repetitiveness, some uncharacteristic syntactic structures and
curious lexical choices are evidence of translation or at least adapta-

tion from another language.
Finally, it is remarkable that very little in JSol, with the possible
exception of the structure of stories IX and X and the concept of cas-
tles floating in the air in story VI, is similar to or reminiscent of any of
the many works of Muslim Arabic Solomonic literature. It is our hope
that further research will shed more light on the relationship of JSol to
both Christian (Greek and Coptic) and Islamic Solomonic lore.
Origin and History

When describing the contents of JSol, Graf identifies five separate nar-
ratives, the final one being the alleged translation of TSol. Upon closer
examination, however, it becomes obvious that the structure of JSol is
slightly more complex. The following table provides an overview of
our division of JSol into individual stories based on both external clues
(titles, rubrics, less formal division marks such as the phrase ‫)و بعد دلك‬,
as well as the progression of the narrative:
No. Brief description BnF Ar 214 fols. Vat. ar. 448 fols.
I Solomon asks God for wisdom – 1 Kings 3:4–15 186r 29r –29v l. 13
II Solomon and the two harlots – 1 Kings 3:16–28 186v:1–187r :6 29v :14–31r:1
(Solomon’s first judgment)
III Joachim and his daughters Mary and Martha (Solo- 187:7–189v:8 31r:1–34v
mon’s second judgment)
IV Demons prevent people from worshipping at the 189v:9–191v:2 35r–37r:15
Temple, Solomon is given a ring to control them and
forces them to work on the Temple
V ‫[ ناوون‬n’wwn] / ‫[ ياوون‬y’wwn] king of the Gentiles 191v:2–192v:5 37r:15–39r:2
visits
VI 365 demons rebel against Solomon 192v:5–193v:13 39r:2–40v:5
VII A demon steals food from one of the workers 193v:13–194v:10 40v:5–41v:13
VIIIa ‫[ ناوون‬n’wwn]/ ‫[ ياوون‬y’wwn]king of the Gentiles 194v:10–196r :7 41v:13–43v
writes to Solomon asking him to rid him of the de-
mon who plagues his land (Egypt)
VIIIb Solomon sends his servant with the ring to capture 196r:7–198r:12 44r–47r:2
the demon
IXa Queen of demons sinks ships, ‫[ كرام‬kr’m] king of 198r:12–199r:17 47r:2–48v:6
‫[ دارس‬d’rs] writes to Solomon asking to rid him of
her; Solomon sends his servant who brings her to
him; Solomon interrogates her and learns her name
– ‫[ تادورا‬t’dwr’] among the demons, ‫االردميس‬
[’l’rdmys] among the people
IXb Solomon asks the queen of demons to recount her 199r:17–201r:5 48v:6–51r:8
sins, she tells the story of how she blinded a man
named ‫’[ ورول‬wrwl] and 10/12 servants in the Temple
X A man named ‫[ قستاردس‬qst’rds] dies and leaves his 201r:5–203r 51r:8–54
three sons a puzzling testament (Solomon’s
third judgment)
These stories are arranged in chronological order with the construction

of the Temple serving as the main indicator of a story’s place on the
timeline. Thus in stories I through III, there is no Temple yet, instead a
‘sanctuary’ (‫ )ھيكل‬is mentioned. Story IV takes place around the time
the foundations for the Temple (‫ )بيت ﷲ‬were laid and its conclusion is
tied directly to the beginning of story V. Three years have passed in
story VI and the events of the remaining stories seem to follow one
another, with the exception of the flashback in IXb, where once again
references are made to a sanctuary (‫)ھيكل‬.
While the exact relationship of individual constituent parts of JSol
to each other in terms of their history is unclear, it is obvious that a
significant effort has been made to shape them into a coherent narra-
tive. Thus for example, story VIIIb references God’s promise from
story I to award Solomon riches and power, stories V and VIIIa are
tied together by the character of the king of the Gentiles and the final
story once again recounts a judgment made by Solomon after a detour
into his dealings with demons.
In the following sections, we present a brief summary of the con-
tents of individual stories highlighting where appropriate details sig-
nificant for our understanding of the work.
The Canonical Introduction (Stories I and II)

We begin with the retelling of Solomon’s dream at Gibeon
(1 Kings 3:4–15) and of his most famous judgment (1 Kings 3:16–28).
Both stories are essentially a translation of the canonical version, but
not entirely. First, the reaction of the women to Solomon’s test is quite
different from 1 Kings 3:26. In JSol, it is the mother of the dead boy
who speaks first. As for the other woman,
‫ و َسجدت للملك سُليمان وقالت له اسمع يا َسيدي‬.‫وان االمره الدي لھا الولد الحي وق َعت علي االرض‬
‫ وادا قَمت كل يوم نطرته في شوارع المدينه تسليت به‬.‫الملك اد ِف َع الولد الحي لھده وال تھلكه‬
And then the mother of the living boy fell to the ground, prostrated herself
before Solomon and said: “Oh my Lord the king, give the living boy to this
woman and do not kill (lit. destroy) him, so when I rise every day and see
him in the streets of the city, I can rejoice in him.”
This addition cannot be found in either the canonical Old Testament or

the Septuagint, nor have we been able to find it in any other versions
of the Bible.
Secondly, story II is the first time we encounter Solomon’s boy-

servant (‫ )غالم الدي لسليمان‬who will go on to play an important role in
Solomon’s dealings with demons. In story II, he is the one who is told
to fetch the sword, as opposed to unspecified ‘they’ in 1 Kings 3:24.
Joachim’s Daughters and Trial by Water (Story III)

We learn of a man named Joachim and his two daughters: Martha
the older and righteous one and Mary the younger who is full of deceit
and corruption. One day people find a dead baby left at the door to the
sanctuary (‫)ھيكل‬. Outraged and wanting to punish the perpetrator as
Moses’ law (‫ )ناموس موسى‬requires, they inquire with the priest as to
where this sin originated and he points to the house of Joachim.
Immediately suspicious of Martha, the people seek Solomon’s advice
who has her undergo a trial by water: the priest prays over water, then
sprinkles it over Martha and sends her out to the desert. When she
comes back alive proving that she’s innocent, people turn on the
priest, but Solomon defends him deciding to administer a trial by
water of his own. He prays over the baptismal pool in the sanctuary
asking God to reveal the guilt of anyone who enters the pool and cover
them with boils. When Martha is submerged into the water seven
times, she emerges safe and healthy. Solomon then orders Mary to
dive into the water. When she emerges covered with boils, she is
punished as God’s law requires and people praise Solomon’s wisdom.
The Gift of the Ring (Story IV)

Sometime after laying the foundations of the Temple (‫)بيت ﷲ‬,
Solomon is on his way to bring offerings there, when he finds himself
once again confronted with the clergy. This time, the priest refuses to
take his offerings and scolds him for the sorry state of things in his
kingdom. The priest reminds Solomon that from the day he became
king, great demons (‫ )شياطين‬have been coming to many people and
prevented them from worshipping at the Temple. “God made you a
king over his people,” says the priest, “so go and pray to him and ask
him to give you the power of demons.” Having heard this, Solomon
retires to the Temple where he prays to God all night. When God
finally appears, He tells Solomon not to worry about the priest and the
demons, because “I will give you a ring16 (‫ )خاتم‬to drive them away
and to keep them under your control. You will bind them with my
name. This I will teach you and also how you can order them to cut
stones for the construction of the Temple your are building in my
name.” And God gives Solomon the ring and tells him His
Magnificent Name (‫ )االسم العطيم‬which Solomon can use to control the
demons. Solomon brings his offering, exits the Temple and
immediately assembles all the demons and orders them to bring and
cut stones. Demons gather stones from mountains everywhere and
they do so in the night, so that when one evening, there were no stones
available for the next day, in the morning there are enough stones for
ten thousand men to work with for one whole year. With all this
happening, however, the men who worked in the night did not see the
demons.
There was a great stone that the workers could not lift, so Solomon
stamped it with his ring and the demons lifted it so high that the men
tired from carrying it. So Solomon made a copy of the ring and gave it
to the workers so they could command the demons. Every time there
was a stone too big to move, they would place a stick on it, say “In the
name of Solomon’s ring, let this stone move here or there” and point
the stick. The demons would then haul the stone as ordered and work
with the people who, however, never saw them. King Solomon
worked on the Temple for 46 years and for the entire time, no sound of
a saw or an axe was heard (1 Kings 6:7), because:
God gave Solomon a precious stone with His Magnificent name on it, of
which Solomon made a copy and gave it to the artisans. And so whenever
the workers wanted to cut stone or saw wood, they would simply put the
precious stone to the wood or the stone and cut them with it.
The Visit of the King (Story V)

The focus of the narrative suddenly shifts beyond Israel, to king
‫[ نوروا‬nwrw’] of the ‫ البابيين‬/ ‫ الباتين‬who heard that Solomon was building
a Temple to God whereupon he shuttered with fear and decided to
wage war on Solomon. And so he, suddenly named ‫ ناوون‬/ ‫ ياوون‬and
referred to as ‫“ ملك الشعوب‬king of the people”, assembled his army and
travelled to Jerusalem with many gifts with the intent to first gauge
Solomon’s strength. Having arrived at Solomon’s court, [n’wwn] is
greeted by Solomon and invited to a feast. Once the feast is over and
both kings retire, [n’wwn] is once again occupied by belligerent
thoughts when suddenly there appear demons carrying stones and
dropping them at the building site of the Temple, causing the ground
to shake. Afraid, [n’wwn] wakes Solomon and asks him “Solomon,

my brother, what is this great noise?” But Solomon only laughs and
explains that these are demons working on the Temple. Having heard
this, [n’wwn] is overwhelmed by fear and says to himself “If he can
make demons work (for him) and bring stones for the building of his
Temple, who am I to wage war on him? He would make them bend
me and everyone with me like potter’s clay.” In the morning, [n’wwn]
returns to his country and never again entertains the thought of waging
war on Solomon, being so afraid of the demons under Solomon’s con-
trol.
This rather curious story appears to be a faithful translation of a
virtually unknown17 10th century Coptic text Legend of Solomon and
Thabor from a ms located at the John Rylands Library in Manchester
and previously described by Walter E. Crum18. It can be found in
Crum’s ms no. 85, much of it illegible due to the binding with manu-
script in such a bad condition that even a digital copy of this section
cannot be made. Fortunately, Crum provided a transliteration of the
text and though substantial portions of the beginning are missing, it
can be conclusively established that Story V is indeed a translation of
this legend.
Two important aspects of this story could have significant implica-
tions for our understanding of both the Legend of Solomon and Thabor
and the textual history of JSol: first, at the very beginning of the story,
the king of the Gentiles is referred to as ‫ نوروا ملك البابيين‬/ ‫نوروا ملك الباتين‬
[nwrw’ king of the ?], it is only later that we learn that he is ‫ناوون ملك‬
‫ الشعوب‬/ ‫ياوون ملك الشعوب‬. This hints at the possibility of a different ma-
terial being reworked to better fit into the established narrative struc-
ture. Secondly, the reference to demons working in the night,
tangential to story IV, becomes a major dramatic device in story V.
This connection might indicate that the Coptic story of Solomon and
Thabor was a part of a longer narrative.
365 Demons Rebel (Story VI)

The construction of the Temple has now been in progress for three
years and some demons have escaped from Solomon’s control and
gathered in a valley where they debate what to do. Complaining that it
has been three years now that they’ve been slaving away and the Tem-
ple isn’t even halfway finished, they decide to tear out a great stone
castle19 (‫ )قلعة‬and drop it over the construction site of the Temple to
make it sink to the ground. And so 365 demons gather and tear out a
piece of rock big enough to cover the whole of Jerusalem and all who
live there. When Solomon hears of it, he summons his servant, gives
him the ring and tells him to go and look for a great piece of rock
moving carried by invisible demons 1700 cubits above ground and
once he finds it, he’s to say the following: “Listen, oh assembly of
demons: I adjure you in the name of the ring that God gave to my mas-
ter, king Solomon, to stop right here carrying this rock until the final
destruction of Jerusalem.” Solomon’s servant takes the ring and sets
out until he is 12 barīd away from Jerusalem and sees the rock moving
in the air like a cloud and casting a dark shadow, yet with no one car-
rying it. He approaches it and says exactly as Solomon has command-
ed him. The rock stops moving and remains suspended between
heaven and earth, 1700 cubits above ground, held there by 365 de-
mons. Solomon’s servant returns to his master and king Solomon con-
tinues building the Temple with the help of the rest of the demons.
The Theft of Food (Story VII)

A man working on the Temple is plagued by a demon who ap-
proaches him as a breath of fire every time he sits down to eat and
takes his food from him. As a result, the man grows thin and weak.
When Solomon sees him, he asks: “What is wrong with you? Of all
the men who work here, you are the only one who grows weak. Don’t
they give you enough food to sustain you?” When the workman ex-
plains his predicament, Solomon gives him a copy of his ring and in-
structs him to show it to the demon and say the following: “Behold,
this is Lord Sabaoth, god of my master Solomon, and this is his ring in
my hand. You will not take anything from me.” When the next day the
workman sits down to eat and sees the demon approaching, he screams
at him: “Behold, this is the Lord, god of my master Solomon, and this
is the ring of the God of Israel in my hand. For its sake, you will not
take my food from me.” Upon hearing this and seeing the ring, the
demon departs from the man, never to return.
The Kings Correspond (Story VIII)

(VIIIa) Having left Solomon’s kingdom, the demon from Story VII
moves to the province of ‫[ يضر‬yḍr]20 and lays waste on it, appearing
with a strong southern wind and plaguing both people and beasts of
burden, throwing them off the road. When [n’wwn] king of the peo-
ples, the ruler of this land, hears of it, he remembers that God gave
Solomon power over demons. And so he assembles treasures of gold
and silver and many gifts, gives them to his servant and sends him to
Solomon with this letter:
[n’wwn] king of the Gentiles writes to king Solomon in Jerusalem. First of
all, greetings to you. I wrote you to (ask you to) accept my gifts and not to
return them like the first gift at the time I came to you while you were
building the Temple when you were prevented from taking them. I have
heard that your name is great and the scent of your goodness is spread
through all the lands of the earth and that God gave you power over all the
demons whom you bound not to plague people. I have also heard that you
have a ring with which you control them and bind them and order them to
go and do as you command. Therefore I ask you, in regard to a demon who
is destroying and laying waste to the whole of the land of Egypt, to rid us of
him because he is destroying our land. Greetings.
When [n’wwn]’s servant arrives in Jerusalem, Solomon interro-

gates him asking where he comes from and whether he comes in peace
or seeking war. The servant replies that he is from Egypt, sent by king
[n’wwn] to deliver gifts and a letter. Solomon reads the letter and re-
plies:
I have accepted your gifts brought by your servant and I will not return
them. As for your request, I will do what you ask and rid you of the demon
who is destroying the land of Egypt, so that he will never return.
[n’wwn]’s servant returns home with the letter. When the people
of Egypt learn that he’s come back, they gather and ask whether Sol-
omon agreed to rid them of the demon. [n’wwn]’s servant reads them
the letter, then returns to his master and reads him the letter again.
Having heard this, the people of Egypt rejoice and wonder how is it
possible that Solomon can control demons.
(VIIIb) Meanwhile back in Jerusalem, Solomon summons his
servant and tells him to take the ring, get a camel and load it with food
and then go to Egypt, find the demon, bind him and bring him back.
The servant is afraid and asks how he should capture him. Solomon
tells him: “Go and look for a mighty southern wind, then go straight
into the fire, southern wind and smoke. Stop and don’t be afraid, for
you have the ring from God with you. Then wait for the demon, stand
firm and say ‘This is what my master, king Solomon, says: in the
name of the ring given to him by the Lord, god of Israel.’ You will
thus bind him and find and capture him. Then bring him to me.” The
boy takes the ring and leaves for Egypt where events unfold exactly as
Solomon predicted. When the demon sees the ring, he is bound and
Solomon’s servant sets out to take him back to Jerusalem. As they ap-
proach the mountain of Egypt (‫)ﺟبل مصر‬, the demon begs not to be
taken to Solomon and to be released. Solomon’s servant is looking for
some quid pro quo, so the demon promises to show him where he can
find gold, silver and precious stones. The boy agrees and the demon
takes him to the gold which the boy seals with the ring. The demon
then shows him where he can find silver and precious stones and the
boy seals both with the ring. When the demon asks to be released,
Solomon’s servant once again wants to know what’s in it for him and
this time, the demon promises to reveal the location of more treasure,
8 troves, each full of precious stones of a different kind. The boy seals
each of them with Solomon’s ring. When the demon asks to be re-
leased, the boy once again recites Solomon’s words and refuses. And
so as they approach Jerusalem, the demon causes a great storm with
dust covering Jerusalem and cries with a great voice. Everyone in the
city trembles, even Solomon is afraid. But he knows that it was the
demon and so he pronounces a curse over the demon barring him from
every place on earth and sending him to the fires of Hell until the
Judgment Day. The boy then leads Solomon to all the treasures the
demon has shown him, thus fulfilling God promise made to Solomon
at Gibeon “And I have also given thee that which thou hast not asked,
both riches, and honour” (1 Kings 3:13, KJV).
Queen of Demons (Story IX)

(IXa) When the queen of demons learns of Solomon’s power over
demons and his ability to command them and bend them to his will,
she resolves to escape from him. Solomon pronounces a curse over her
barring her from every place on earth, except for the sea, so she takes
up residence in the sea and starts turning over ships. She appears over
them as a cloud with strong wind and dust and sinks each and every
one ship passing through, so that after some time, no one would travel
across that sea. ‫[ كرام‬kr’m] king of ‫[ دارس‬d’rs] turns to Solomon for
help. Solomon sends his servant with the ring and tells him to stand at
the shore and by the power of the ring of God drive her out of the sea.
The boy does as told and brings the queen of demons to Solomon.
Solomon interrogates her and learns that she is known as ‫[ تادورا‬t’dwr’]
among the demons and ‫’[ االردميس‬l’rdmys] among the humans. He also
asks her to recount her sins, whereupon she tells him (IXb) that she
blinded a man named ‫’[ اورول‬wrwl] and ten (or, in later repetition,
twelve) servants in the Temple. Having heard this, Solomon sends the
queen of demons to the fires of hell and she obeys, being afraid of him
and his power.
The Final Judgment (Story X)

A rich man named ‫[ قستاردس‬qst’rds] has three sons and worries that
when he dies, the two older ones will cheat the youngest out of his in-
heritance. Knowing that Solomon has been granted great wisdom by
God, he decides to write a testament to prevent that from happening,
so after his death, his sons will have to stand before Solomon who will
judge between them. When he dies, his sons open the testament and
learn that their father placed all his gold, silver and precious stones in
a leather sack sealed with a clay seal. The youngest son will inherit the
contents of the sack, the second one will inherit the sack and the oldest
son will inherit the clay seal. After some fighting, they decide to go to
Jerusalem and submit to Solomon’s judgment. When Solomon reads
the testament, his wisdom reveals the true purpose of the testament
and so he rules thusly: the youngest will get all the money, because he
was given the contents of the sack, the second son will take all the an-
imals his father owned because of the skin the sack is made of and the
oldest will inherit all his father’s lands, because of the clay seal. The
three sons realize that their father divided his property fairly and praise
Solomon’s wisdom.
As noted above, this story is essentially a retelling of the first story
in an Old Russian collection of Solomonic lore known under the name
Sudy Solomona, i.e. “Judgments of Solomon”. The Russian version21
is much shorter, barrels take place of sacks and the order in which the
sons receive their inheritance is reversed (the oldest receives all the
gold), but it is obvious that this is indeed the same story.
JSol and TSol

A student of the Testament of Solomon will immediately recognize a
number of narrative elements and motifs from TSol incorporated into
JSol. The following table provides a brief overviews of these, arrange

first by narrative elements and then by motif and their place in TSol:
TSol JSol
1:1–4 Ornias steels food from a worker Story VII
1:5–7 God gives Solomon a ring to control demons Story IV
22:1–19 Letter of Adarkes concerning the wind demon Story VIIIa
24–25 Solomon adjures demons to hold a castle in the air Story VI
Solomon makes demons work on the Temple Story V

Solomon interrogates demons, learns their names and Story IXb
asks what evils they do
Solomon tells his servant to capture the Arabian wind Story VIIIb
demon
The order suggests that whatever the Vorlage, it probably did not
resemble any of the recensions of the Testament of Solomon known to
us22. And even these narrative elements and motifs show a number of
differences to TSol, the most significant of which are:
A) Solomon is given the ring not in response to the theft of the
food (note that the sucking of a thumb is completely absent), but only
when prompted to ask for power over demons by a priest in reaction to
demons plaguing people who wish to worship at the Temple. Moreo-
ver, it is not archangel Michael who brings him the ring, but rather
God himself. Much (if not all) of the duality for which TSol is nota-
ble23 is thus absent. Furthermore, if God speaks to Solomon directly at
the beginning (albeit in a dream), it does not make sense to send an
angel later in the story. It is also notable that Solomon is not once, but
twice (Stories III and V) pitted against a priest. The direct communica-
tion between God and Solomon only strengthens his status as God’s
favorite and his opposition to the Jewish establishment represented by
the priesthood (in Story IV) suggests an attempt to portray Solomon in
a different light—not exactly a magician, but rather a forerunner of
sorts to Jesus.
B) While TSol proper is known for its elaborate demonology, there
is no evidence of any such interest on the part of the compiler of JSol.
The demon who steals the food in Story VII (who is also identified
with the Arabian wind demon Eppiphas from TSol 22–23) is not
named and neither are any of the demons who work on the Temple or
the demons who are ordered to lift up the castle. The only demon who
is named is the queen of demons and she is given two names, both
somewhat Greek-sounding (Arthemis and Theodora perhaps?)—one

used among demons, the other one known to the people. The confron-
tation with her is the only one that partially follows the pattern estab-
lished in TSol: first Solomon learns her name, then he orders her to tell
him of the evil she does (blinding men). Once again in contrast to
TSol, no thwarting angel is mentioned. Instead, Solomon uses his
power and has her, just like the demon plaguing Egypt in Story VIIIb,
sent straight to hell. The absence of angels who thwart the workings of
demons underlies our point regarding duality of power in TSol and its
absence in JSol—in JSol, Solomon’s power given to him by God is
enough to counter any evil the demons are capable of.
C) Solomon’s direct interaction of demons is limited to stories IV
(the granting of the ring) and IX (the queen of demons). In all other
cases (stories VI, VIIIb and IXa), it is his servant who does the work,
as in TSol 29:9–15 (the capture of the Arabian wind demon). In addi-
tion, Solomon makes a copy of the ring and gives it to the craftsmen
who work on the Temple and to the man whose food is stolen by the
demon. While Solomon’s servant and the starving man are instructed
to use the ring along with Solomon’s and God’s name (“God Sabaoth”
or “God of Israel”) to control demons, the craftsmen only need a copy
of the ring and a stick to make demons work. This is very much remi-
niscent of the later tradition (e.g. Clavicula Solomonis) where it’s the
form and structure of the ring or seal and not its divine provenance
that make it work and where Solomon’s name on its own is powerful
enough to achieve the desired effect.
Conclusion
The inclusion of JSol in what would otherwise be a collection of ca-
nonical books in both the Paris and the Vatican manuscripts indicates
the status which the author or compiler ascribed or sought to ascribe to
JSol, namely that of a book of the Bible once lost and now found
again. This assumption could be strengthened by the translator’s
remarks regarding the lost works of Solomon in the introduction to the
translation of Wisdom and the Proverbs in BnF Ar 214 (fols. 112v–
185), as well as the inclusion of the well-known canonical stories at
the very beginning of the work. The latter might also suggest that the
compiler wished to contrast JSol to other legends around Solomon,
such as those included in Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’ by al-Kisā’ī24, which must
have been known in one form or another to his Arabic speaking audi-
ence. The inclusion of works translated from Coptic and the Egyptian
milieu JSol originated in offer a fascinating possibility that at least
some of the material recognizable to us as a part of TSol was lifted
from an unknown Coptic recension of the Testament of Solomon. If
so, the compiler of JSol was in a much stronger position to argue the
authenticity of his work as originating within the ancient Christian tra-
dition of Egypt. It is our hope that further research will shed more light
on this and on various other open questions regarding the ultimate
origin of the various constituent parts of JSol and their relationship
with the rest of the rich and varied Solomonic lore.
•A N U S H A V A N T A N I E L I A N •
The Book of Wisdom of Solomon

in the Armenian Church
Literature and Liturgy
T he invention of the Armenian alphabet in c. 405/406, in Edessa

by the Armenian monk St. Maštocʽ marked the beginning of
Armenian written literature, in general, and of the translation of
the Holy Bible Asdvadzashuntch—“breathed by God” (II Tim 3.16)—
in particular. The translation was done from Syriac and Greek,1 and
revised by Catholicos Sahag on the basis of Greek manuscripts
brought from Constantinople in post 431, by Eznik and Koriwn, two
disciples of St. Maštocʽ.
The first reference to the canonical and deuterocanonical Scrip-
tures, is the annals of the Council of Bardav,2 held jointly by the Ar-
menian and West Syrian churches, in 728, in Bardaw (modern Iraq).
There, the Wisdom of Solomon is not included in the order of the
Scriptures.3 This oversight, however, does not diminish the validity of
its translation in the fifth century. Its large circulation in early “Teach-
ings,” historiographies, apologetics, liturgy and commentary-literature
confirms its early translation.
Wisdom of Solomon in the Armenian Classics

During the fifth century, the works of Early Church Fathers were
translated as well along with the Holy Scriptures. Furthermore, and
parallel to these translations, original works were also authored. The
writings of the following four fifth-century authors are of our immedi-
ate interest because they quote the Wisdom of Solomon in their re-
spective oeuvres. Agatangelos in his History of the Armenians (Wis
40 •A N U S H AV A N T A N I E L I A N •
2.24, 7.26, 13.11, 14.29), and The Teaching of St. Gregory (Wis 2.23,
2.24, 4.18), Ełišē in his History of the Armenians (Wis 3.11, 6.15,
9.14, 14.12, 14.23, 15.4), Eznik Kołbatsi in his Refutation of the Sects
(Wis 1.13, 2.23–24, 2.24), and Lazar Pʽarpetsi in his History of the Ar-
menians (Wis 2.24, 18.17).4 In his Stichometry, the seventh-century
Armenian mathematician, Anania Sirakatsi (c.615–c.690A.D.), refers
to the Wisdom of Solomon, along with the other Scriptures, having
(10)20 verses.5
These references may be regarded as valuable reminiscence of the
fact that the Book of the Wisdom of Solomon, was translated together
with the other Scriptures. The fact that Eznik Kołbacʽi was himself in-
volved in the task of the translation of the Bible, further supports our
suggestion.
Wisdom of Solomon in the Liturgy

The Armenian Lectionary, which follows the early tradition of Jerusa-
lem and has evolved throughout the centuries, is an important source
for scholars. There, 110 saint-days are celebrated during the year.
Readings from the Wisdom of Solomon are assigned on forty nine oc-
casions,6 besides two Dominical feasts, the Burial and Transfiguration
of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is interesting however to note that these
readings are cited as “Reading from Proverbs, Wisdom.” The late
Archbishop Zareh Aznavorian, a biblical scholar and chairman of the
“Central Religious Council of the Catholicosate of Cilicia” in Leba-
non, explains that this was done to bring readings from the Wisdom of
Solomon under a canonical umbrella.
Through a brief overview of the passages read from the Wisdom of
Solomon during the annual liturgical journey, one may observe that
most of the readings are quoted only from Chapters 1–10, which deal
with justice, wisdom and immortality. This best justifies the witness
and martyrdom of the saints and their hope anchored in the Crucified
and Risen Lord.
Readings from the Wisdom of Solomon are recited more frequent-
ly compared to those from the canonical Wisdom literature as well as
Deuterocanonical readings. A brief survey shows that the Wisdom of
Solomon is second in line (49 times) after the readings from Proverbs
(61 times), while readings from the Book of Job occur 10 times, Song
of Songs 13 times, Baruch 5 times and 2nd Macabees once.
•T H E B O O K O F W I S D O M O F S O LO M O N • 41
A comparison with the lectionaries of the Syrian Orthodox Church

of Antioch, Indian Orthodox Church, and Greek Orthodox Church re-
veals that readings from the Wisdom Books, in general, and Wisdom
of Solomon, in particular, are more frequent in the Armenian Church.
In the Syrian Orthodox Church Wisdom is read on five occasions:
Good Friday 2:12–22; Easter Thursday 1:1–16; 21st Sunday after East-
er 1:2–9; Assumption of Holy Virgin Mary 1.2–9; Feasts of the Holy
Martyrs 3:1–10. Its worth to note that on Good Friday the reading in
the Armenian and Syrian Churches are the same with a slight variance
in that while in the former the reading is from Wis 2:1–22, in the latter
is Wis 2:12–22. The Readings from canonical and Deuterocanonical
Wisdom Books in the Syrian Church differ from the Armenian
Church. Paragraphs from the Book of Job are read 9 times; Proverbs,
15 times; Sirach 26 times and Baruch once. It’s very obvious that the
Book of Sirach enjoys more popularity in Syrian Church than in any
other church.
In the lectionary of the Indian Orthodox Church, Wisdom of Sol-
omon—referred to as the Great Wisdom—is read on four occasions:
First Monday of Great Lent, Wis 7:7–24; Havorae Tuesday (following
Easter): Wis 1:1–8; First Sunday following New Sunday: Great Wis-
dom 1:1–8; 2nd Sunday after the Elevation of Holy Cross: Wis 6:1–9.
Readings from the other Wisdom Books are also rare. Six times from
Job, nine times from Proverbs, three times from Ecclesiastes, and once
from the Book of Macabbees.
We find readings from the Wisdom of Solomon in the Greek lec-
tionary on two occasions only: First Sunday after Pentecost, Sunday of
All Saints Vesper Service, Wis 3:1–9; 5:15–6:3; and Third Finding of
the Honorable Head (of John the Baptist), on May 29, Wis 4:7, 16, 17,
19, 20; 5:1–7. Comparatively, readings from the Book of Job and
Proverbs are also few. The former is read on five occasions during the
Vespers of Holy Monday through Holy Friday, and the latter thirty
times during Great Lent on Monday through Friday. Readings from
the Book of Baruch occur twice, on the Eve of the Nativity (Dec 24),
at the Third Hour, Bar 3:36–4.4, and at Vespers, Bar 3:36–4.4.
The above briefly reviewed facts provide us with reasonable
ground to conclude that in the Armenian Church readings from Wis-
dom Books, in general, and from Wisdom of Solomon, in particular,
are more recurrent and have been instrumental in strengthening the be-
lievers’ faith.
42 •A N U S H AV A N T A N I E L I A N •
In conclusion, The Book of Wisdom of Solomon, regardless of its

classification as deuterocanonical book has been beneficiary in the
Armenian Church life in different aspects. We should be always grate-
ful to the Early Church Fathers who have preserved and saved this
precious pearl “Wisdom of Solomon” which along with the other Deu-
terocanonical Books has been accepted and transmitted in the very
words of St. Athanasius: “For greater exactness I add this also, writing
of necessity; that there are other books besides these not included in
the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly
join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of Godliness.”7
•N I C O L A E R O D D Y •
Visul Maicii Domnului (“The

Dream of the Mother of the Lord”):
New Testament Romanian Amulet
Text
A mong the rich and varied tradition of early Jewish and early
Christian writings preserved by various communities
throughout Eastern Europe and western Asia, there survives
yet today an ancient genre known as the amulet text. This category of
writings, which were known to Jews and Christians throughout
Eastern Europe, includes folkloric retellings of biblical stories,
sometimes with characters redrawn as ethnic contemporaries of the
reading audience, circulating among largely illiterate rural peoples
who carried them on their persons for the purpose of keeping away
illness, ill fortune, envy and covetousness cast by the evil eye, and any
other undesirable or malevolent influences.
The present paper focuses on a particular Romanian amulet text
known as Visul Maicii Domnului, or The Dream of the Mother of the
Lord, featuring a heretofore unpublished specimen that was preserved
along with the Slavic manuscripts of Hilandar, the well-known Serbian
monastery on the Mount Athos, the self-governing monastic state on
the Aegean coast of Greece.1 This brief preliminary study will employ
literary critical and sociological methodologies in an attempt to
reasonably account for how this particular amulet text offered its
ongoing, perceived multidimensional transformative therapeutic and
apotropaic properties within its largely rural Romanian social context.
It will also assert that contrary to expectation, including my own
initially, and some seemingly contradictory early and medieval Jewish
examples, recitation was neither necessary, nor even significant aspect
44 •N I C O L A E R O D D Y •
in the use of amulet texts, contrasting with other widely popular oral
and written forms of nature-manipulation, including charms, spells,
and incantations. These findings suggest that the term “textual amulet”
offers a more accurate description of the phenomenon, for these small
handwritten pamphlets were and—as I recently discovered—still are
employed more as amulet than text in their perceived apotropaic
application.
The Amulet Text in General

The academic study of beliefs and activities associated with manipu-
lating the natural world in some supernatural way, popularly referred
to as magic, has developed a specialized vocabulary for its devices and
functions, although its usage is not always consistent across disci-
plines. Time will not permit us to distinguish among all of these
forms—amulets, talismans, votives, protective animals or animal
parts, charms, spells, incantations, and so on—but each of these has its
own particular use. For example, an amulet—including our textual
amulet—is a device employed to ward off evil, while a talisman (from
the Greek, telesma, which refers to activity carried out in a sacred con-
text) is something that brings the bearer good luck, often in association
with astrological wisdom.2 Both are often found together, maximizing
the bearer’s advantage in the world. Finally, formulaic genres like
charms, spells, and incantations, which occur in both written and oral
forms, are ubiquitous in Romanian popular culture, also offering a va-
riety of specialized natural and supernatural benefits.
In addition to the textual amulet, magical devices that make partic-
ular use of writing include divination texts; various omen writings, es-
pecially astrological texts; as well as the aforementioned charms,
spells and incantations, whose perceived efficacy is experienced
through syncopated lyrical cadences and rhyme, something for which
some languages, like Romanian, is especially well-suited. Recited
aloud or not, the textual amulet is only one of a number of literary
forms that offer its possessor a means for bringing about a good end,
warding off threats by mitigating powerlessness in the midst of an un-
predictable and sometimes harsh or threatening world.
The use of textual amulets throughout Europe and the Near East is
rooted in practices described and depicted in ancient Near Eastern
texts and artifacts and is likely as old as writing itself. The fact that a
• V I S U L M A I C I I D O M N U LU I • 45
particular sort of character or mark could symbolize (from Gr. sym

ballein, “to throw” or “to bring together”) or re-present some known
referent conventionally within a community a priori gives it a special
sort of power. Biblical period references3 historically link these earlier
examples with later practices mentioned in Jewish Literature of the
Hellenistic Period, including the Dead Sea Scrolls, various pseudepi-
graphical and apocryphal texts, and perhaps even the New Testament,
as for example, Jesus stooping down and writing in the dirt (Jn 8.6–8).
In addition, there are the material remains of Aramaic incantation
bowls from the Babylonian region,4 references to textual amulets in
Talmudic and late medieval Jewish literature,5 and a plethora of Jew-
ish and Christian examples that continued well into and beyond the
Middle Ages. Perhaps the most well-known early Christian example is
St. John Chrysostom’s derision of Constantinopolitan women who
wore fragments of the Gospel in tiny lockets around their necks for the
purpose of warding off bad luck.6
Although I have already suggested that amulet texts functioned
more as amulet than text in some societies, it does not devalue the
significance of the words they contain. According to L. Schiffman, the
Cairo Genizah texts contain amulets referred to as ketavin, or
“writings,” which are worn on the body as protection against ketavin
bishin, “evil writings.” The fact that the oral recitation of these
amulets was an important aspect of their perceived efficacy is
evidenced by the fact that these texts were written with vocalization
notation.7 But the question remains: is recitation necessary in order to
experience the efficacious power of the amulet? Is it necessary that the
bearer of the amulet even be able to read its words?
The Romanian Textual Amulet

In the case of our present text, reading and recitation were almost cer-
tainly not factors in the use of amulet texts in Romanian rural society
in the modern period. The use of oral forms of magic surviving in
some Romanian communities to this day–including incantations
(descântece), spells (fermece), and charms–widely documented by
others8 and witnessed firsthand by this writer among members of his
own family living in rural areas on the Transylvanian plateau, demon-
strates that at least in the home such devices were recited, mostly (if
not exclusively) by women, proactively or any time that illness or
some dread was experienced on the part of its possessor or any mem-
bers of her family.9 But the much longer amulet texts, if recited at all,
would have to have been uttered by rote memory, by dint of the fact
that widespread illiteracy completely permeated the general populace
of this relatively late feudal society, a condition lasting well into the
20th C.
In support of the assertion that carrying the amulet was more im-
portant than reciting it, the most surprising thing to occur during the
course of otherwise uneventful research on the topic came when I
mentioned to a Romanian colleague, Alexandra Untu, a graduate stu-
dent from the University of Bucharest, that I was working on a Roma-
nian amulet text called Visul Maicii Domnului, to which she remarked
quite matter-of-factly that her mother happens to carry a type-set copy
of this very text with her always in her purse and that although she is
able to read it—unlike most Romanians in generations past—its effi-
cacy does not depend on the reading of the words. Thanks to the gra-
cious labor of Ms. Untu’s transcription, I have been able to compare
her mother’s copy, which was printed by a now defunct printing house
in the mid-1990s, with my 1849 manuscript and was surprised to find
a very striking degree of similarity between them, indicating careful
transmission over at least a century and a half.10 One may attribute the
degree of textual fidelity to reverence for the textual tradition in con-
nection with the amulet’s special efficacy, but it is also the case that
the text itself ensures its own accurate transmission through the power
of authoritative words uttered from within Visul’s own narrative
world, as will be shown below.
In addition to its domestic use, there is evidence that Romanian
textual amulets were also used outside the home. Romanian literary
critic Nicolae Cartojan relates that at least some Transylvanian sol-
diers fighting at the front during WWI wore a copy of the popular
Epistolia Domnului nostru, “The Letter of our Lord,” as a protective
amulet around their necks.11 Other popular Romanian amulet texts in-
clude Călători Maicii Domnului în Iad; Sfântul Sisinie; Sator-arepo,
Rotas-opera, a magical text associated with the Legend of Abgar; The
72 Names of Christ; and similarly, The 72 Names of the Virgin, but I
have yet to examine these texts to see if there are any clues that might
indicate how they were to be used; however, let us now turn to the par-
ticular amulet text at hand.
According to Nicolae Cartojan, Visul Maicii Domnului (“The

Dream of the Mother of the Lord”) derives from the apocryphal Re-
pose of the Mother of the Lord, which also survives in Syriac, Arabic,
Coptic, Greek, and Latin versions.12 It enjoyed wide circulation
throughout the Romanian lands, along with the apocalyptic Călătoria
Maicii Domnului la Iad, (“Journey of the Mother of the Lord to Hell”),
based on the Apocalypse of the Mother of the Lord, which itself is
based on the 4th C Apocalypse of Paul, as well as the text just men-
tioned, Epistola Domnului nostru Isus Hristos (“The Epistle of our
Lord Jesus Christ”), which gave rise to the popular Romanian Legenda
Duminicei (“The Legend of Sunday”).13
The cover folio of the present manuscript bears the title Visul
Maicei Domnului, priscris în Sfântul Munte Athoiului în Mănăsteria
Hilandariu la anul 1849, Dekembrii 26, written in Romanian in the
Cyrillic alphabet, in regular use throughout the Romanian Principali-
ties of Wallachia and Moldavia until its official abandonment in 1860,
coinciding with the creation of the Romanian unitary nation-state.
Brief enough to present it here in its entirety, I have translated the text
as follows:
The Dream of the Mother of the Lord
Most Holy Virgin Birthgiver of God was sleeping on the Mount of Eleon in
the city of Bethlehem when our Lord Jesus Christ came to her and said,
“My most holy mother, are you sleeping?” And she said, “My Son most
sweet, I was asleep, and behold, I saw a terrible dream concerning you.”
And he said to her, “My Mother, tell me the dream that you saw.” And she
said, “I saw Peter in Rome14 and Paul in Damascus, but I saw you in the
city of Jerusalem, crucified on the cross between two robbers. Scribes and
Pharisees and base Jews ridiculed and mocked you exceedingly and they
fed you with gall and gave you vinegar to drink, and they beat you over the
head with a reed and with a stick, and they struck you upon your holy
cheek, and they placed a crown of thorns upon your head, and one of the
soldiers pierced your side with a spear, from which at once issued blood
and water. The sun darkened, the moon reddened and changed. The
iconostasis of the church was split in two from top to bottom and a great
darkness came over all the earth from the sixth hour until the ninth. Joseph
and Nicodemus15 appeared to me and brought you down from the cross and
wrapped you in a clean shroud and placed you in a new tomb. And you
descended into Hades. And the brass doors were shattered, and the iron bars
were broken, releasing Adam and Eve. And coming to life on the third day
you arose to the heavens and took your place at the right hand of the
Father.”
And the Lord said, “My most holy Mother, truly you saw a dream. And
I will suffer all of these things for the Christian people. And if anyone
writes your dream and holds it, and whoever wears it on the breast and
keeps it in the house, the devil will not come near the house and the unclean
spirit will flee, and the angel of God will always stand at his right-hand side
and those overcome and troubled by bad men will be saved. And those
travelers on the road who have this dream, this man will not be afraid of
hailstones, lightning, thunder, nor of all the peril that summon Death
untimely. Archangel Michael will be near him, guiding him in whichever
way he goes. At the Judgment of the righteous he will find mercy, and at
the going out of life I will show him [the ways of] man together with you,
my Mother. And my angel will take his spirit, bringing it into the kingdom
of heaven, rejoicing there with all the righteous from the age who well
pleased me. Amen.
One characteristic of amulet texts, as observed by Don Skemer, is

that they often present themselves as a “random assortment of diverse
textual elements” appearing as “jumbled folk compositions.”16 Indeed
one could hear in this recitation an agglomeration of biblical, creedal,
traditional, and popular legendary elements. The biblical description of
the Passion contains elements from the Synoptic gospels, as well as
things unique to the Gospel of John, such as the inclusion of Nicode-
mus. Jesus’s resurrection from the dead and his ascension to the right
hand of the Father, while biblically based, is expressed in the language
of the Creed. Elements from the Harrowing of Hell tradition, rooted in
the Acts of Pilate and incorporated into the somewhat later Gospel of
Nicodemus, are present, include Christ’s descent into hell, the smash-
ing of the brass gates, and the freeing of Adam and Eve.
All of these elements are woven together with no apparent concern
for geographical or chronological accuracy. For example, note that it is
the iconostasis of the church that is split in two, not the veil of the
temple. In the modern printed version carried by my Mrs. Untu, the
Mother of the Lord sees Peter in Antioch and Rome concurrently, an
addition likely incorporated at some point in support of the Orthodox
assertion, found in Eusebius, that Peter was bishop of Antioch before
traveling to Rome.
Finally, built-in instructions voiced by Jesus Christ not only lend
spiritual authority to the text but also help to perpetuate the ongoing
accurate reproduction of the amulet text. Indirectly admonishing the
reader, Jesus Christ informs his mother that:
If anyone writes your dream and holds it, and whoever wears it on the
breast and keeps it in the house, the devil will not come near the house and
the unclean spirit will flee, and the angel of God will always stand at his
right-hand side and those overcome and troubled by bad men will be saved
[et cetera].
Careful listeners will have noted that at no point does Jesus ad-
monish readers to recite his mother’s dream, only to write it and wear
it. Slavishly copying an amulet text does not require a full understand-
ing what one is writing; the important thing seems simply to have it
nearby, worn, carried, or present in the house.
In conclusion, it should be evident by now that the tension one of-
ten expects between established religion and popular piety is almost
completely lacking in Romanian society. However, even in the West
one find examples of popular forms of magic sanctioned by represent-
atives of the established Church; for as Skemer has observed, “In the
early Middle Ages, clerics were generally the only people with the
basic Latin literacy, writing materials, and access to written exemplars
needed to produce textual amulets to meet the needs of the laity, in-
cluding parishioners, neighbors, social peers, and kin.”17 The upshot is
that we have here a particular amulet text based on a confluence of a
variety of religious themes, formulae, and sources, still functioning as
a textual amulet well into modern times and even to the present gener-
ation in Romanian society. Elements in the text itself ensure its con-
tinued reproduction, which took place largely in monasteries but also
in secular publishing houses for those whose popular religious piety
allows for a dimension of Christian experience that permits supernatu-
ral benefits, supplementing or otherwise enhancing institutionalized
beliefs and practices.
•E U G E N I A S C A R V E L I S C O N S T A N T I N O U •
Banned from the Lectionary:

Excluding the Apocalypse of John
from the Orthodox
New Testament Canon
T he Book of Revelation occupies a peculiar place in the New

Testament canon of Orthodox Christianity. Although it is
acknowledged as canonical, it is entirely excluded from the
lectionary of the Eastern Orthodox Church due to earlier controversies
surrounding it. Other books were also disputed within the canon. But
the Apocalypse of John traveled a unique road to canonical
acceptance.
Many authors and scholars continue to simplistically proclaim that
the New Testament canon was “fixed” in the fourth century, usually
with the publication of St. Athanasius’ famous Paschal Encyclical of
367. They suggest that since the great Athanasius had spoken, his
opinion trumped all others and finally settled the issue of the canon.
Indeed, it was Athanasius who provided, for the first time, the exact
list of books which would eventually comprise the New Testament
canon. But it can hardly be said that his directive to the faithful in his
jurisdiction conclusively settled the matter for the entire Church, for
the East, or even for the Church of Alexandria since variations within
the canon continued long after Athanasius, especially in the case of
Revelation.1
In fact, Athanasius provided his opinion of the canon precisely be-
cause it remained an unsettled issue. It can only be said that by the end
of the fourth century a consensus existed in both the East and West for
the core of the canon: our present fourfold gospel corpus, Acts of the
Apostles, thirteen Epistles of Paul (excluding Hebrews), 1 John and 1
Peter. Other books remained contested. For Revelation, the fourth cen-
tury proved particularly disastrous. Even though Athanasius had in-
cluded it in his canon, by the time he published his famous list most
Eastern Fathers had decided against Revelation and a cloud of skepti-
cism continued to linger over the book for more than a thousand years.
In the West, Revelation had never faced serious opposition and the
canon was resolved earlier than in the East, assisted by the presence of
two respected authorities: Jerome and Augustine. Their opinions re-
garding the content of the New Testament canon held sway and the
production of the Vulgate Latin translation further contributed to more
speedily fix the canon for the West.2 The East, on the other hand, was
laden with many notable patristic authorities who were not in agree-
ment, and who apparently perceived no need to standardize the canon
since the canon was not a doctrinal issue. It had never been raised as
an issue at any Ecumenical Council. Earlier Greek manuscripts and
lectionaries continued to be copied, preserving the status quo by litur-
gical usage,3 and opinions about the canon continued to vary.
The manner in which the Book of Revelation finally settled into
the canon is entirely unique. With the exception of the Apocalypse of
John, books which had never faced serious opposition, having enjoyed
early and universal acceptance (the four gospels, Acts, thirteen Pauline
epistles, 1 John and 1 Peter), remained undisputed and found a place in
the canon easily. Those which were disputed (such as, James and 2 Pe-
ter) slowly gained approval over time until they were eventually in-
cluded in the canon in spite of some early reluctance. It is the peculiar
phenomenon of Revelation to have experienced early and universal
recognition as an apostolic writing, then lose favor relatively quickly,
only to finally regain acceptance much later. Its rapid decline within
the Eastern Church just prior to the formation of the lectionary result-
ed in its complete exclusion.
Revelation contains exceptional characteristics. No other New Tes-
tament book demands to be treated as “scripture,” claims divine inspi-
ration for itself,4 describes itself as prophecy,5 orders that its content
be conveyed to the churches,6 blesses those who read it, blesses those
who hear it, and curses those who tamper with it.7 Various factors
have been cited to explain Revelation’s early and overwhelming ac-
ceptance: its antiquity, prophetic character,8 encouragement in times of
persecution,9 apostolicity,10 its content which includes words of the
Lord11 and finally its presentation as a letter, a genre already familiar
•B A N N E D F R O M T H E L E C TI O N A R Y • 53
to Christians in acceptable books.12 Yet a careful examination of the

evidence establishes without a doubt that the tradition associating the
Apostle John with this Apocalypse was the sole factor which let to its
rapid and pervasive acceptance within the Church in the second centu-
ry. To dislodge it from the canon and exclude it from lectionary could
only be accomplished by disputing and destroying its reputation as an
apostolic book.
The Seconc Century: Widespread Acceptance of

Revelation
Papias of Hierapolis indirectly provides the earliest evidence of apos-
tolic authorship of Revelation in his famous book Exposition of Do-
minical Oracles composed approximately 125 CE. Although that work
is no longer extant, Andrew of Caesarea, author of the first Greek pa-
tristic commentary on Apocalypse, cited Papias among a string of wit-
nesses acknowledging apostolic authorship.13 Justin the Martyr and
Philosopher confirmed that the early Church regarded the Apocalypse
as apostolic in his remarks during the mid-second century when he
wrote that John who authored the Apocalypse was “one of the apostles
of Christ.”14 Justin’s comment is significant not only because of its
early date but because Justin was catechized in Asia in the early se-
cond century and would have been familiar with the traditions associ-
ated with the Apostle John. Later in the second century, the earliest
direct quotation from the Apocalypse appears, (along with five strong
allusions), in the famous letter from the Churches of Lyons and
Vienne sent to the churches of Asia and Phrygia (c. 178 CE.) describ-
ing recent martyrdoms which had occurred in Gaul.15 The letter actual-
ly cites Revelation as “scripture” and, since it is addressed to
Christians in Asia, it evinces not only the high regard within the
Church in Gaul for the Apocalypse but also its acceptance by the re-
cipients in Asia.16
Perhaps the most important second century Asian witness for opin-
ions about the Apocalypse is Irenaeus of Lyon. He had spent his youth
in Asia and stated that he had heard Polycarp, a disciple of the apostle
John.17 Irenaeus was very familiar with the tradition of the Church, es-
pecially the Church in Asia. Although writing at the end of the second
century, Irenaeus, like Papias and Justin, preserved and passed on ear-
ly information from “the elders” of Asia Minor, including traditions

about the Apocalypse which significantly pre-date the era of Irenaeus’
literary activity. When referring to the Apocalypse in his famous work,
Against Heresies, he unequivocally attributed the Apocalypse to the
Apostle John18 and frequently cited the Apocalypse together with es-
chatological passages in acknowledged Scriptures, such as Isaiah and
Daniel.19 Irenaeus recognized only one Apocalypse and the author of
that apocalypse was the Apostle John. Also like Justin and Papias, Ire-
naeus was a confirmed chiliast, and Revelation certainly must have
appealed to him on that basis as well.
Irenaeus’ correlation of false scripture (apocryphal writings) with
heresy is also noteworthy for our purposes. At this time, the discussion
about forming a New Testament canon which would stand alongside
the Jewish Scriptures had just begun. A few individuals, who would
later be referred to as the Alogoi, questioned the apostolic authorship
of the Fourth Gospel and wished to excluded it from the canon.20
Meanwhile, the heretic Marcion called for the exclusive use of his
highly edited version of the gospel of Luke, and Tatian had created a
single large gospel in Syriac, the Diatessaron, which blended the ac-
counts from all four existing gospels.
But Irenaeus, opposing all of these movements, championed four
individual gospels in the New Testament canon. Irenaeus made his
most noteworthy use of the Apocalypse as part of his effort to promote
four gospels in the canon. Four gospels were intended by God, he ar-
gued, just as there are four creatures around the throne of God de-
scribed in Revelation chapter 4: a lion, an eagle, a man and an ox.
Irenaeus associated each one of these creatures with a different gospel,
a move which captured the imagination of Christians and remains a
popular symbolic depiction of the evangelists to this day. But careful
consideration reveals how surprising and significant his argument truly
was: Irenaeus was arguing for the acceptance of all four gospels on the
basis of the Book of Revelation. This can only indicate that Revelation
enjoyed more approval, or at least was less controversial among Chris-
tians, than all four gospels as a group.
Another peculiar departure from expectation, which also occurred
during this same period in history, supports the conclusion that Reve-
lation enjoyed widespread approval even over what we might consider
“obvious” candidates for the New Testament canon. The Muratorian
canon, a second century Greek canon from Rome which only survives
in a bad Latin translation, uses Revelation to argue for inclusion of St.

Paul’s epistles. The anonymous author of this list reveals that his crite-
rion for canonicity is apostolicity when he advocates for books in the
New Testament by linking them to apostles. Revelation is held to be
composed by the Apostle John, and the author of the Muratorian canon
argues for the acceptance of Paul’s epistles on the basis that they were
addressed to seven churches, just as the Apocalypse of John was ad-
dressed to seven churches. The Apocalypse of John surprisingly serves
in the Muratorian canon as an archetype which permits the acceptance
of Paul’s letters because they conform in some manner to Revelation.
The author of the Muratorian Canon actually includes two apocalypses
on his list, the other being the Apocalypse of Peter. This detail pro-
vides yet another important piece of evidence for the universal ac-
ceptance of Revelation. The Muratorian Canon comments that “some”
do not accept the Apocalypse of Peter, strongly implying that no disa-
greement existed with regard to the apostolic authorship of the Apoca-
lypse of John.
In the late second century, the Montanist movement had spread. It
heavily utilized the writings of John, and anticipated the descent of a
“heavenly Jerusalem” as part of its eschatological expectations. Mon-
tanist appeal to passages in Revelation shows that the book was ac-
cepted as an authoritative and apostolic text at that time. But the
Montanist claim that the end was near proved untrue and even before
the movement was entirely discredited, Montanism raised questions
within the Church about the nature of prophecy and the prophetic gifts.
Although it appears that Eastern Christians did not quickly reject the
Apocalypse on the basis of Montanist use, it was in this context that
the book began to initially suffer harm to its reputation by an unfortu-
nate association with controversy and schism. Zealous anti-Montanists
concluded that the most expedient way to discredit Montanism was to
discredit the Johannine writings upon which the Montanists greatly
depended.21 Leading this effort in the late second/early third centuries
was a cleric named Gaius22 and his group would later be described as
the “Alogoi.”23 Irenaeus balanced respect for the apostolicity of the
Johannine writings and support for Christian prophecy while still
denying Montanist claims. But in the third century others were willing
to sacrifice Revelation and destroy its reputation to discredit fringe
groups such as Montanists and chiliasts.
The evidence strongly indicates that Revelation faced no real op-

position in the second century, whether in Asia or elsewhere. No or-
thodox group can be found which challenged or questioned its
apostolic authorship with the exception of a few over-reaching anti-
Montanists. Since it appears to have been held in such high esteem, we
might have expected Revelation to easily secure a place in the New
Testament canon. But it did not. In the third century it would face a se-
rious attack, which by the fourth century would be effectively em-
ployed to destroy its reputation.
The Revelation of John in the Third Century:

A Mixed Reception
Revelation continued to enjoy broad support throughout the third cen-
tury. Hippolytus accepted it as apostolic, calling John “apostle and
disciple,”24 and introducing quotes from Revelation equally alongside
Daniel and Isaiah as scripture. He considered the Apocalypse inspired
by the Holy Spirit.25 Origen, the greatest mind of the early Church, di-
vided Christian writings into two groups: those acknowledged by all as
genuine (homologoumena) and those which were disputed. Origen re-
ported that John wrote the gospel, the Apocalypse, an epistle, and
maybe two additional epistles, “although some say those are not genu-
ine.”26 This comment reflects the typical attitude toward the Apoca-
lypse in the third century: except for 2 and 3 John, all of the Johannine
writings were universally accepted, including Revelation. Origen had
extensive contacts, travel and education, all of which had exposed him
to broad and diverse opinions within the Church. He did not class
Revelation among the disputed books but with those books accepted
by all.
Perhaps Origen’s most important contribution to the Apocalypse
was that he wrenched it away from the chiliasts who depended on a
literal interpretation of Rev. 20:4 to promote their expectation of a
thousand year earthly reign of Christ. Origen offered a sound, spiritual
interpretation as an alternative explanation, exactly what the Church
needed to respond to the carnal reading of the book. Origen’s interpre-
tation directly opposed those who expected a materialistic kingdom
and sounded the first death-knell for chiliasm.27 Recognition of the
highly symbolic character of Revelation might seem obvious, yet
many Christians had interpreted the book quite literally, even crudely.
These crass interpretations had themselves begun to raise suspicions
about Revelation among many the Church.
A distinguished pupil of Origen and highly influential bishop, Di-
onysios of Alexandria (bishop from 248–264), made the first serious
attack on the apostolicity of Revelation. Dionysios, like Origen, had
interpreted eschatological prophecies in the Old and New Testaments
allegorically. His position was criticized by an Egyptian bishop, Nepos
of Arsinoe, the author of a treatise entitled Refutation of the Allego-
rists, which supported a literal interpretation of prophecy, especially
the Apocalypse. Nepos and other literalists were enthusiastic chiliasts.
Dionysios visited Nepos and held a three day meeting to discuss the
literal interpretation of prophecy. The event was a complete success,
according to Eusebius, and Dionysios convinced the attendees that es-
chatological prophecy cannot be interpreted literally.28 While Dionysi-
os did not reject the Apocalypse completely because “many of the
brethren take it seriously,” he concluded that due to the great differ-
ences in language and style between the two books, Revelation could
not have been written by the author of the Fourth Gospel.29
Then, as if to plant a seed of doubt which he knew would take root
and grow, Dionysios nonchalantly reported that he had “heard” that
two monuments existed in Asia bearing the name “John,” therefore,
the author of Revelation must have been this “other John.” Despite af-
firming the “mystical” nature of the book and making weak efforts to
appear objective, Dionysios’ criticisms of Revelation are clearly moti-
vated by a hope to discredit chiliasm by discrediting the Apocalypse,
especially considering the chiliastic beliefs of his disputants at the con-
ference. Dionysios’ misgivings bore no fruit during his lifetime. But
through Eusebius’ extensive reporting of the debate with Nepos, Dio-
nysios’ analysis of Revelation and his conclusion that the Apostle John
is not the author took root in the East during the fourth century, despite
the overwhelming early tradition of the Church which had always
maintained apostolic authorship. With the exception of anti-
Montanists and heretics such as Marcion, Dionysios appears to be the
only individual prior to the fourth century to explicitly question
whether the Apostle John was in fact the author of Revelation.
The Fourth Century: Erosion of Support

Eusebius of Caesarea bears the most responsibility for the exclusion of
the Apocalypse from the canon. He rejected Revelation and worked to
discredit it as often as possible, probably because he opposed chiliasm.
It is Eusebius alone who preserved and even promoted Dionysios’ crit-
icism of the Apocalypse, devoting an entire chapter to it in Ecclesias-
tical History.30 Eusebius emphasized Dionysios’ conclusion that the
Apostle John could not have written Revelation, based on vocabulary
and stylistic differences between the gospel and the Apocalypse. Eu-
sebius was also the first to report Dionysios’ rumor that two tombs
with the name “John” could be found in Ephesus. Eusebius coupled
this with a reference by Papias to the existence of an elder named John
in Asia, which was very useful in helping to shift the weight of opin-
ion to the “other John” as the author of the Apocalypse.31 Ecclesiasti-
cal History was widely read during the fourth century and immensely
influential. It is hardly surprising that Eusebius’ efforts inaugurate
Revelation’s most significant decline in status in the East.
The fourth century was an important period for the development of
the canon, and Eusebius is a valuable source of information for our
understanding of that progress. He often reported the use of scripture
by various Christian authors and their opinions about the canon. He
also discussed the state of the canon during his time and while en-
gaged in this effort he betrayed his bias against the Apocalypse. Euse-
bius classified the books in contention for a place in the New
Testament canon into three groups: universally acknowledged, disput-
ed and spurious. The “universally acknowledged” were those unani-
mously recognized as inspired and connected to apostles according to
a continuous Church tradition, namely, the four gospels, Acts, fourteen
Pauline epistles (including Hebrews),32 1 John and 1 Peter. Then he
added, “After these must be put, if it really seems right, the Apoca-
lypse of John.”33 The “disputed” books were those which many ac-
cepted, but others doubted their apostolic claims, such as James and 2
Peter.
The books listed by Eusebius as “spurious” were those over-
whelmingly rejected as counterfeit, such as the Acts of Paul, Shepherd
of Hermas, and others, and he added lastly, the Apocalypse of John, “if
it seem right.”34 Eusebius’ double listing of Revelation as both “uni-
versally acknowledged” and “spurious” has led to endless speculation
and a variety of explanations by scholars. Today, authorship of Reve-

lation would probably be described as “disputed.” But it could not be
placed with the disputed books at that time because opinion within the
Church was not divided: it was, in fact, universally accepted. Then
why does Eusebius classify it as both “universally acknowledged” and
“spurious”? The best explanation is that Eusebius reported the state of
the canon at that time, in which Revelation was universally accepted in
both the West and the East. However, he personally did not accept it
as genuine and preferred that it be considered counterfeit, so he placed
it into that category as well. Eusebius was not only reflecting the status
of the canon then, but he hoped to shape future Church attitude toward
Revelation by his classification and by reporting Dionysios of Alexan-
dria’s opinion. That is exactly what occurred.
Eusebius had highlighted the differences between the Fourth Gos-
pel and the Apocalypse, knowing that his rejection of the Apocalypse
could not prevail without undermining confidence in its apostolic
origin. As time passed and Christianity not only became legal but part
of the very fabric of the Empire, Revelation’s purpose to encourage
commitment to Christ during persecution had faded. Furthermore, the
fourth century was consumed by dogmatic controversies and Revela-
tion had little to offer to those mining the Scriptures for ammunition in
doctrinal debates. The book remained enigmatic and truly veiled. No
one bothered to write a Greek commentary which might provide a sen-
sible interpretation for its strange imagery and render the book more
acceptable and comprehensible. By the end of the fourth century Eu-
sebius had succeeded: opinion in the East toward Revelation had shift-
ed and it was overwhelmingly rejected as unapostolic and undeserving
of a place in the canon of Scripture.
Acceptance
Because the lectionary was formed in the fifth century, and by then
Revelation was almost entirely rejected in the East, it never found a
place in the lectionary. But it gradually found a place in the canon.
Three primary factors advanced the acceptance of the Apocalypse in
the canon of the Eastern Church. First, the composition of a commen-
tary which offered a sound, orthodox, traditional and patristic explana-
tion of Revelation and which affirmed its spiritual value in the lives of
Christians. This commentary, composed by Andrew Archbishop of
Caesarea, Cappadocia, in 611, is the primary reason for the eventual

acceptance of Revelation into the New Testament canon not only
among the Greeks but also for the Slavs, Georgians and Armenians.
The commentary was translated into those languages in the middle ag-
es and Revelation was accepted into their canons because of this ex-
traordinary commentary.
Secondly, Eastern Christians once more became attracted to Reve-
lation with the rise of Islam and their experience of persecution. Once
more, Christians found themselves living under a sometimes hostile
non-Christian regime, the same situation which their ancestors had
faced during the pre-Christian Roman Empire, the original historical
context for Revelation. Interest in the Apocalypse grew especially dur-
ing the centuries immediately preceding and following the fall of Con-
stantinople in 1453. The number of Revelation manuscripts produced
during this time increased dramatically. 35 It is also during this period
that scenes from the Apocalypse first appear on church frescoes and
icons in the East.36
Third, the invention of the printing press influenced the canon.
Most byzantine manuscript copies of the New Testament were missing
the Apocalypse, and since it formed no part of the lectionary, there
was little reason to copy it. But during the seventeenth century,
Protestant missionaries appeared in the East promoting Calvinist doc-
trine, intent upon “evangelizing” the Greeks. They distributed printed
copies of the Greek New Testament which included Revelation.37
People saw a copy of the New Testament in one volume, and that vol-
ume included the Apocalypse. By then, Eastern attitudes toward Reve-
lation had progressed since the time of Eusebius largely due to the
Apocalypse commentary of Andrew of Caesarea and the religious op-
pression which Christians were experiencing daily in the East.
Today, Revelation is accepted as canonical in a de facto situation,
rather than by synodal decision; it is canonical by consensus. No “offi-
cial” canon of Scripture has ever been declared by the Eastern Ortho-
dox Church in the same manner that the Council of Trent definitively
established a canon of scripture for the Catholic Church. The Council
of Trullo (681), also known as the Quinisext Council because it was
convened to complete the work of the Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical
Councils, is often cited as proclaiming a definitive canon for the Or-
thodox. But Trullo simply ratified the canons of earlier synods, and
those canons were not in agreement, not only with respect to Revela-
tion but other books of the Bible as well.
The lectionary of the Eastern Orthodox Church, fixed for centuries
now, continues to exclude Revelation. In many respects, it is entirely
appropriate that Revelation received final acceptance in the Orthodox
Church by the consensus of the faithful over the course of time, since
that manner of resolving conflicts and issues is highly characteristic of
Orthodox Christianity. But the question must be posed: if a book is
never read in Church, can it truly be considered canonical? In fact, a
book is canonical if it may be read in Church; nothing requires that it
must be read in Church. Perhaps one day selections from Revelation
will be added to the lectionary. But for now, while no Orthodox Chris-
tian would dream of rejecting Apocalypse from the canon, it remains
banned from the lectionary.
•V A H A N S. H O V H A N E S S I A N •
New Testament Apocrypha and the

Armenain Version of the Bible
O ne of the interesting characteristics of the Armenian version of

the Bible—from the initial stages of its translation (first
decade of the fifth century) to its published editions (as late as
the 19th century)—is its ambiguous relationship with several books
usually categorized under the title “New Testament Apocrypha.”1
Several books and letters attributed to the Apostles, Evangelists or
biblical characters were copied in the New Testament manuscripts of
the Armenian Church. Some of these writings remained part of the
Armenian version of the New Testament for centuries after churches
in the East and the West had finalized their list of the canonical books
of the Bible. This unsettled situation concerning the New Testament
canon of the Armenian Church continued as late as the 19th century,
long after the publication of the first edition of the Armenian Bible.
Meanwhile, throughout the centuries, many other apocryphal writings
were translated into Armenian and preserved in the Armenian
language, independently of the books and manuscripts of the Bible in
Armenian.
This paper will shed light on the history of the Armenian version
of the apocryphal writings associated with the New Testament in the
Armenian Church. Through a survey of the various Armenian
manuscripts of the Bible, canon lists, and patristic commentaries, we
will examine the history of these writings within the early Armenian
literature and their relationship with the New Testament canon of the
Armenian Church. We will conclude by affirming that the Armenian
Church, similar to other churches in the East, has not officially, and
through a church council or synod, recognized a closed canon of the
New Testament. As a consequence of this situation, a few of the
apocryphal writings remained in manuscripts of the New Testament of
64 •V A H A N S. H O V H A N E S S I AN •
the Armenian Church as late as the nineteenth century. We will

explore also the reasons for the long history of the incorporation of
these books into the New Testament of the Armenian Church.
During the early centuries of Christianity, pseudepigraphic and
pseudonymous books and letters, associated with the New Testament,
circulated in Christian and non-Christian communities. Orthodox
fathers of the church as well as gnostic and heretical teachers
contributed to the creation and evolution of this body of literature.
Some of the apocryphal documents were received by the early church
and treated as authentic and genuine apostolic literature. Of the latter
group, several writings are still part of the New Testament.2 Other
writings made it into the New Testament canon of some of the
churches in certain parts of the world at various times, but were
ultimately removed from the sacred collection.3 Finally, there is a third
group of apocryphal writings that was condemned by the fathers of the
church as being heretical and promoting unorthodox teachings.
Some of the apocryphal writings associated with the New
Testament, were translated into Armenian as early as the fifth century,
as part of the Golden-age translation of the Bible.4 Today, certain
versions of some of these translated writings survive only in Armenian
manuscripts.5 Several of these documents, such as Third Corinthians,
henceforth 3 Cor, and The Repose of the Evangelist John or The Rest
of the Blessed John, henceforth RBJ, continued to be copied as part of
the Armenian New Testament, or an appendix to it, for centuries.
Those writings which did not make it into the New Testament of the
Armenian Church were not all necessarily condemned and destroyed.
Rather, many of them continued to be copied and preserved in the
Armenian Church as religious literature for catechetical purposes and
for the spiritual entertainment of the faithful.
Unfortunately, however, not many scholarly works have been
published concerning this body of Armenian literature, the history of
its use in early Christianity and its contribution to the textual criticism
of the New Testament apocrypha. In 1889, Fr. Garegin Zarbhanalean,
a member of the Mekhitarist Brotherhood, dedicated a section in his
book, Matenadaran haykakan t'argmanut'eanc' nakhneac' - Catalogue
des anciennes traductions arméniennes, siècles IV–XIII “Catalogue of
the ancient Armenian translations: 5th–13th centuries”, to examining
the apocryphal writings found in the Armenian manuscripts of the
Bible. In his comments, in Armenian, Zarbhanalean lists some of the
•N E W T E S T A M E N T A P O C R Y P H A • 65
New Testament apocryphal writings preserved in Armenian and offers

a brief introduction to the theme and contents of these writings.6
A few years later, the Mekhitarist fathers published a three-volume
series pioneering an effort to explore and introduce to the public the
apocryphal literature as preserved in the Armenian manuscripts of the
Mekhitarist collection. The first volume of the series, Ankanon girk'
hin ktakaranac', “The Non-Canonical Books of the Old Testament,”
by Sargis Yovsep'ianc', is dedicated to the Old Testament apocrypha.7
In volume two, titled, Ankanon girk' nor ktakaranac' “The Non-
Canonical Books of the New Testament,” published in 1898, Fr. Esayi
Tayec'i discusses the Armenian apocryphal literature associated
mainly with our Lord and the Theotokos.8 Volume three of the same
series, published six years later by Fr. K'erobē Č'rakean, is dedicated
to the apocryphal writings attributed to the apostles and several other
New Testament characters.9 Other than brief introductions at the
beginning of each one of these three volumes, they are basically
collections of published apocryphal texts as preserved in the Armenian
manuscripts of the Mekhitarist Brotherhood in Venice. The text of
each of the apocryphal writings included in these volumes is simply
that of the manuscripts preserved in Venice with footnote references,
in some instances, highlighting some of the textual variations among
the various manuscripts of the specific writing. The two volumes
dedicated to the New Testament Apocrypha do not offer any
discussion of the history of the writings, their date, authorship and
association with the New Testament canon.
Missing from these volumes are the following three New
Testament apocryphal writings very popular in the Armenian Church:
3 Cor, RBJ, and the Petition of Euthalius. Almost all the manuscripts
of the Armenian Bible include at least one of these writings if not all
of them. Č'rakean very briefly refers to these writings in the
introduction to his volume. He does not, however, publish their texts
in his volume. He simply mentions their titles and refers to very few
earlier publications by the Mekhitarist Brotherhood, each one of which
introduce one of these documents and discusses it briefly.10
Since the publication of the three volumes of the apocryphal
writings in Armenian by the Mekhitarist fathers, several Armenian and
non-Armenian scholarly works appeared contributing to the study of
the Armenian New Testament Apocrypha. In his book Nor ktakarani
grk'eru karge hayoc' k'ov “The Order of the New Testament Books
Among the Armenians,” another member of the Mekhitarist

Brotherhood by the name of Ogostinos Sekulay discusses the sequence
of the books of the New Testament in the various canonical lists and
manuscripts of the Bible.11 In his study, Sekulay mentions a few of the
apocryphal writings that made it into the New Testament canon of the
Armenian Church. He examines the position of these writings in the
various lists of the canonical books of the Armenian Bible, indicating
their canonical or deutero-canonical status.
In his published collection of Armenian essays in Manr erker,
professor Hagop S. Anassian includes an article in Armenian titled
“The Unauthentic Writings of the Bible in the Armenian Literature.”12
In this article, Anassian offers a brief introduction to the history of the
apocryphal literature in the Armenian version of the Bible in general.
Several pages are dedicated to the subject of New Testament
Apocrypha in Armenian.13 His work concludes with a bibliography of
the various scholarly works concerning the apocryphal writings known
to the author by the date of the publication of his book.14
Archbishop Chahé Adjémian, of the Armenian brotherhood of
Saints Jameses in Jerusalem, contributes to the discussion of the
Armenian New Testament apocrypha through his monumental work,
Grand Catalogue des manuscrits arméniennes de la bible.15 In the
introduction to the Catalogue, Adjémian designates a section
discussing the issues related to the New Testament canon in the
Armenian Church.16 Within that section he mentions some of the New
Testament apocrypha that made it into the Armenian New Testament
and refers to some of the scholarly works pertaining to them.17 The
second part of Adjémian’s work is cataloguing the Armenian
manuscripts of the Bible known to the author, with a listing of the
contents of each of the manuscripts.
In addition to the introductory works mentioned above, very little
has been published in Armenian concerning the New Testament apoc-
rypha.18 The state of scholarship in the field of the Armenian New
Testament apocrypha is not much different in non-Armenian publica-
tions. Obviously, the unfamiliarity of scholars in the West with the
Armenian language remains a major obstacle in the path of their ex-
ploration of this body of literature. Toward the end of the 19th century
and the beginning of the 20th century, as part of a revitalized interest
in the non-canonical books of the early Church, a small group of Bible
scholars and Armenologists published several articles and a few books
introducing to western scholars some of the Armenian manuscripts

and versions of the New Testament apocryphal texts.19 Among the
scholarly works published in the West during the last half century, we
mention the articles of professor Gérard Garitte examining the apocry-
phal documents associated with the apostle Thomas in the Armenian
tradition.20 Peter Cowe, of UCLA, has published a few articles exam-
ining the Armenian text of 3 Cor and its variations in the Bible manu-
scripts.21 In a recently published collection of articles concerning the
Armenian apocrypha, the editor of the collection Valentina Calzolari
Bouvier offers a valuable summary of the state of scholarly research in
the field of Armenian Apocrypha, both Old and New Testament. Her
article, “En guise d’introduction: quelques réflections sur le rôle de la
littérature apocryphe dans l’Arménie chrétienne ancienne,” explores
also the role that this body of literature played in the early stages of
Christianity in Armenia.22 All these publications call for a more de-
tailed and closer examination of the various documents they introduce.
At this stage one should also mention the extensive research and pub-
lications of Professor Michael Stone, of the Hebrew University, in the
field of Armenian Apocrypha. Professor Stone’s work, unfortunately,
is limited to mainly the field of Old Testament literature.23 Finally,
volumes of scholarship in the field of New Testament apocrypha in
general, dating from the previous century to a few years ago only men-
tion, at best, the Armenian version of these apocryphal writings in
passing.24
A Historical Glance
Based on comments by the historians of the Golden-Age of Armenian
literature, i.e. Koriwn, Ghazar Parpetsi (Łazar P'arpec'i) and Moses
Khorenatsi (Movsēs Xorenac'i), one can safely conclude that church
services and scripture readings in Armenia, prior to the invention of
the Armenian alphabet and the translation of the Bible, were per-
formed mainly in Syriac. Ghazar Parpetsi, for example, comments on
St. Mashtots being “concerned and distressed, seeing the great effort
and even the more expenditures of the children of the land of Armenia,
who at great cost and with long journeys and extensive study passed
their days in schools of Syrian education. For church services and
readings of Scriptures were conducted in Syriac in the monasteries and
churches of the people of Armenia. … and the incomprehension of the
Syrian language caused toil to the ministers and was unprofitable to

the people.”25 Without delving into the details of the issues related to
the language and version of the parent text of the Armenian transla-
tion(s),26 which is beyond the scope of this introductory presentation,
Parpetsi’s quotation confirms that Armenian clergy and church lead-
ers, at least in certain parts of Armenian, were familiar with the Syrian
version of the Bible during the first five centuries of Christianity. They
used it in teaching the Armenian people and celebrating their liturgy.
As such, the quotation confirms also that the Armenian Church ac-
cepted the collection of writings in the old Syriac version of the Bible
as the divinely inspired canon of scriptures. The third and fourth cen-
tury commentaries of the Syrian fathers of the church, such as
Ephraem (Ephrem) and Aphraat, point to the fact that the Old Syriac
New Testament included apocryphal documents.27 Contemporary
scholarship confirms that sufficient evidence has survived to render it
certain that the old Syriac version of the New Testament included
apocryphal writings, such as 3 Cor.28 Consequently, Armenians and
their vardapets, prior to the translation of the Bible into Armenian,
must have known of these apocryphal books, used them to preach and
teach the Good News, and most importantly accepted them as a part of
their New Testament canon and of the foundation for the rule of faith
in the Armenian Church.
The earliest Armenian historians narrating the story of the transla-
tion of the Bible leave us, to say the least, uncertain regarding the can-
on of the New Testament and the apocryphal literature incorporated in
it at the time of the translation. To begin with, none of the three histo-
rians have preserved an exact list of the translated books of the Bible
in their writings. Koriwn, whose biography of Mashtots, Vark Mash-
totsi (vark' maštoc'i), is the basis of the works of the other two histori-
ans, Ghazar Parpetsi and Moses Khorenatsi, comments on the
translation of the Bible, summarizing the contents of the newly trans-
lated Scriptures into Armenian as follows:
At that time our blessed and wonderful land of Armenia became truly
worthy of admiration where by the hands of two colleagues, suddenly, in an
instant, Moses, the law-giver, along with the order of the prophets,
energetic Paul with the entire phalanx of the apostles, along with Christ’s
world-sustaining gospel, became Armenian-speaking.29
Koriwn’s Bible, therefore, must have included the Pentateuch, the

Prophets, a Pauline corpus, writings related to the apostles, and the
Gospels. The Book of Acts is not mentioned in the above reference,

although the phrase “the entire phalanx of the apostles” may be an in-
direct reference to it. However, we know from Koriwn’s comments
elsewhere in the Vark Mashtotsi that his New Testament included the
Book of Acts,30 and the Pauline corpus which consisted of 14 letters
including the one to the Hebrews.31 However, not much is said regard-
ing the rest of the New Testament canon. The letters of Paul and the
Catholic Epistles are not named in a list by Koriwn, although he must
have been aware of such circulating lists in the church. Furthermore,
not all the epistles of the current New Testament canon are used in his
Vark. Finally, the Book of Revelation, on the other hand, is definitely
missing from Koriwn’s comments.
Somewhere else in his Vark Mashtotsi, Koriwn makes it clear that
he is aware of the existence of non-orthodox pseudepigraphic books
circulating in Armenia. In Chapter 23, for example, he mentions a
book by a certain Theodore. The synodical fathers, according to
Koriwn, ordered the burning of this book because of its unorthodox
contents. The Armenian Church at the time of Koriwn, therefore, was
aware of the existence of heretical hidden or apocryphal books, and
took actions to stop their circulation. Such ecclesiastical actions were
most probably reserved only for books with obvious heretical teach-
ings.
Koriwn, however, is aware also of a group of writings which he
treats as deuterocanonical or extracanonical. He mentions this group of
books in chapter two, which he dedicates to justifying his project of
writing the memoirs of his teacher. At the end of this chapter, having
just finished listing evidence supporting his project from the various
canonical books of the Bible, Koriwn adds:
We have also the gracious canonic writings which came after the apostles
indicating how they honored and praised one another for their true faith and
evangelical life and have been similarly treated to this very day.32
The works which Koriwn identifies in this paragraph as “writings

which came after the apostles” are definitely not condemned by the
church. They are religious discourses about the apostles written after
their death. The contents of these writings “honor” the apostles by re-
cording their acts and teachings. In fact, Koriwn emphasizes that they
are “gracious canonic writings.” He uses the adverb “also” at the be-
ginning of this sentence because he has just finished listing and dis-
cussing the universally accepted canonical books of the Bible. The in-
sertion of this statement in the narration of Koriwn’s Vark after having
just finished listing the books of the New Testament, indicates that
Koriwn was aware of the existence of other books, written after the
death of the apostles, which were treated “similarly” as the canonic
ones. Obviously, the adjective “kanonakan,” i.e. canonic, given to the-
se books indicates that, unlike the heretical one by Theodore men-
tioned earlier, these books were accepted by Koriwn and his church as
part of the “canonical” collection of sacred writings in the Armenian
Church. The normative status of these books is further emphasized
when Koriwn uses them, together with the books of the Bible, in sup-
port of his project to publish and promote his master’s biography.33
Manug Apeghyan, the editor of the 1940 edition of the Vark Mash-
totsi, interprets Koriwn’s statement, “canonic writings which came af-
ter the apostles” as a reference to a body of ecclesiastical literature that
circulated independently of the Bible for church administration.34
However, Koriwn’s description of the contents of these books and his
reference to them as “canonic”, support their association with, if not
inclusion in, the canon of the New Testament. Furthermore, if the
phrase “canonic writings” refers to a body of Christian literature out-
side the New Testament collection which contained praises of holy
men and women of God who lived after the apostles, then the exist-
ence of this corpus itself and its circulation would have been sufficient
to justify Koriwn’s project to write the biography of his teacher. He
would not have needed to go through lengthy explanations in chapter
two of his book to validate his project. Justifications for writing this
kind of literature is an indication that, outside what was considered the
sacred collection of inspired books of the Scriptures (canonical and
deuter-canonical), no such separate corpus of Christian literature was
known to Koriwn and to his contemporaries.
The three historians mentioned earlier state that the translation of
the Bible into Armenian, which ultimately led to the Golden-age of
Armenian literature, included also the translation of many patristic
commentaries and writings.35 There is no doubt that the fathers of the
Armenian Church received these commentaries as orthodox and essen-
tial in the teaching and promotion of the Christian faith. Among them
we mention, for example, the commentary of St. Ephraem on the
books of the Bible and the theological discourses of St. Aphraat. How-
ever, the fifth century Classical Armenian translation of St. Ephraem’s
commentary on the letters of the apostle Paul includes a chapter dedi-

cated to 3 Cor.36 Furthermore, St. Aphraat’s discourses, as preserved
in the Classical Armenian translation, discuss several quotations from
3 Cor as genuine sayings of the apostle Paul.37 The fact that these and
other writings, prior to the translation of the Bible into Armenian,
treated 3 Cor as a genuine letter of the apostle Paul, supports the ar-
gument that the Armenian Church of the 5th century treated at least
one apocryphal writing, i.e. 3 Cor, as a part of the New Testament.
In his version of the History of the Armenians, Moses Khorenatsi,
who had at his disposal the earlier Armenian sources, does not add
much to what has already been said regarding the canon of the New
Testament. However, a comment he makes in his History sheds light
on our understanding of the concept of canon in the early centuries of
Christianity in Armenia and the church in the East. In the Third Book
of his History, Khorenatsi comments on Mashtots’ translation adding:
And right away he began to translate, wisely commencing with Proverbs.
Completing the twenty-two known (or revealed) books, he translated the
New Testament into Armenian as well.38
The “twenty-two known books” is an obvious reference to the He-

brew canon of the Old Testament.39 However, nothing is mentioned
regarding the list of the canonical books of the New Testament and
their number. The use of the Classical Armenian word yaytni i.e.
“known” or “revealed” for the twenty two books of the Old Testament,
assumes that Khorenatsi was aware of the development of a body of
literature known as the canonical writings versus the apocrypha, i.e.
“hidden” or “unrevealed.” One could ask, therefore, why would
Khorenatsi mention the number of the Old Testament books but not
that of the New Testament? The answer may lie in the growing tension
in the early church between the gradually developing concept of a uni-
versally recognized canon of the New Testament, and the collection of
publicly revered and liturgically used writings in the local churches.
By the time Khorenatsi was editing his version of the History, the
churches in the East and West had already developed their lists of the
canonical books of the New Testament. It would have been very diffi-
cult for him, for example, to include locally popular apocryphal books
in the Armenian Church such as 3 Cor in the canon when influential
centers of Christianity had, by then, defined the canon excluding these
books. On the other hand, it must have been equally difficult for him
to condemn or not to include in his list of the canonical books of the

New Testament, books and writings which were not found in the list
of the canonical books of the New Testament but were otherwise pop-
ular and used by renowned vardapets of the church in the East, such as
Sts. Gregory the Illuminator, Ephraem and Aphraat. These dynamics
must have created a tension in the Armenian Church, and the early
church in the East, between the popular tradition regarding the collec-
tion of divinely inspired books versus the ecclesiastically recognized
list of the canonical books of the New Testament. This tension, one
can argue, explains the reason for Khorenatsi’s avoidance of mention-
ing the exact number of the books of the New Testament.
The tension discussed above also explains the reason for the reluc-
tance of the church in Armenia and most of the East to confirm a ca-
nonical list of the New Testament. These dynamics, ultimately,
prevented the official and ecclesiastical closing of the canon of the
New Testament in the Armenian Church. Needless to say, the absence
of a decision by an Armenian Church synod or council to define the
list of the canonical books of the Bible further complicated the situa-
tion.40 How could, for example, any Armenian Church council, bishop
or patriarch condemn a writing such as 3 Cor when the same writing
was used by St. Gregory and treated as part of the divine revelation?
We will trace further manifestations and consequences of these dy-
namics in the following sections of our presentation.
There is no doubt that early Armenian commentators of the Bible
treated several of the New Testament apocrypha as canonical and gen-
uine apostolic writings. The early fifth century father of the Armenian
Church Yeznik Koghbatsi (Eznik Kołbac'i), a disciple of St. Mesrob
Mashtots and one of the translators of the Bible into Armenian, for ex-
ample, treats 3 Cor as a genuine letter of the apostle Paul and as part
of the divinely inspired scriptures. In his book, A Treatise On God, ar-
guing for the almightiness of God, Koghbatsi uses St. Paul’s apostolic
authority to reinforce his teaching. Quoting from 3 Cor, Koghbatsi
says, “And why would the apostle say, ‘Satan too will become subject
to our savior together with death, and he will fall from his principality
and from his dominion, he who wanted to become God by himself’.”41
The latter is a quotation from 3 Cor 1:11–17. This fifth-century Arme-
nian theologian and translator of the Bible, therefore, must have treat-
ed the apocryphal 3 Cor as a genuine letter of the Apostle and a
canonical book of the New Testament.
Theodor von Zahn in his Gechichte des Neutestamentlichen Ka-

nons was the first to point out three references to 3 Cor in the late fifth
century History of the Armenians by Agathangelos.42 The first refer-
ence is from the mouth of St. Gregory the Illuminator in the section of
the book entitled “Teachings of St. Gregory.” In chapter 25, section
280, a quotation from 3 Cor 2:11 is inserted as a direct saying of the
apostle Paul. In section 387 of chapter 41 of the Teachings, the second
quotation is attributed to St. Gregory the Illuminator, who refers to 3
Cor 2:13–16 as a divine revelation. Finally, section 179 of chapter 16,
which is the text of a prayer by St. Hripsimé, includes a reference to 3
Cor 2:30. There is no doubt, therefore, that the New Testament of
Agathangelos, and possibly that of St. Gregory and St. Hripsimé, in-
cluded the apocryphal 3 Cor.
By the seventh century, we find enough evidence in the patristic
literature pointing to disagreements between the universally acknowl-
edged list of the canonical books of the Bible and the locally received
and revered books of the New Testament in Armenia. Hovhannes
Mayragometsi (Yovhannēs Mayragomec'i), for example, argues
against the inclusion of verses 22:43–44 of the Gospel of Luke in the
canonical text and rejects them as “non-canonical.” Arguing against
Mayragometsi, and defending the divine inspiration of these verses as
well as of 3 Cor, the 7th century saint of the Armenian Church, Theo-
dore Krtenavor (T'ēodoros K'ṙt'enavor), reaffirms the authenticity of 3
Cor and its apostolic origin. In his Apology Against Mayragometsi,
written around AD 635, Krtenavor argues that the verses mentioned
above, as well as 3 Cor, were part of the Armenian New Testament
since the time of St. Gregory, quoting Agathangelos’ reference to 3
Cor in St. Gregory’s speech. Krtenavor, on the other hand, admits that
recent copies of the New Testament do not include these apocryphal
texts anymore. Rebottling Mayragomeci’s argument, therefore, Krte-
navor states:
When our forefathers, the Christ-bearing orthodox bishops, assembled in
the city of Nicaea, they established a canon that only fourteen epistles of the
divinely-preaching apostle Paul should be read in the holy convocation, and
in the modern version of scriptures this arrangement is adopted. However
what the fathers pass over in silence, and is not included in the new
translation, is cited in the homilies of the acclaimed Gregory. … So then if
the older gospel is to be rejected and discarded by the church as inauthentic
because that passage is not transcribed by the more recently produced
translation, by the same token the great primate Gregory is disdained and
slandered.43
Thus, while Krtenavor admits that by his time these apocryphal

books or added verses were no longer copied as part of the scriptures,
they were in fact revered by the Armenians as part of the divine reve-
lation. Since these books did not make it in the canonical lists devel-
oped by the churches known to Mayragometsi and Krtenavor, they
were removed from the new versions of the Armenian books of the
New Testament. Despite that, Krtenavor’s comments confirm that the
Armenian Church continued treating these writings as part of the di-
vine revelation and continued preaching and teaching based on their
contents. Krtenavor’s comment is another indication of the dynamics
and the tension that existed in the Armenian Church regarding the fi-
nalization of the canon of the New Testament.
Despite this ongoing tension, many Armenian fathers of the church
continued using and referring to certain apocryphal documents as di-
vinely inspired literature and, in some cases, as part of the canon of the
Bible. Nersess Lambronatsi (Nersess Lambronac'i), one of the famous
theologians of the Cilician Era of the Armenian Church, has many
commentaries on the various books of the Old and New Testaments
including the 12 minor prophets and book of Psalms. Of interest to us
are manuscripts #1587, 3196, 3649 and several others in the Jerusalem
collection of manuscripts which include Lambronatsi’s commentary
on RBJ.44 Since these manuscripts contain the saint’s commentary of
the biblical books, one can safely conclude that Lambronatsi’s New
Testament included RBJ. In a few of these manuscripts, such as in
#3649 of the St. James collection, we find the following subtitle, mek-
nut'iwn nnǐman yovhannu greal i xntroy step'anosi yovkatsvoy iwroy
vardapeti, “Commentary on the Rest of John written by the request of
Stepanos Hagovgatsi his teacher.”45 This means that the apocryphal
RBJ was not only part of Lambronatsi’s canon of the New Testament,
but also of his vardapet and teacher, Step'anos Hagovgac'i.46 This
makes the apocryphal RBJ part of the canon of the Armenian New
Testament at least in the Cilician Armenia some time toward the end
of the 11th century. Lambronatsi’s New Testament must have included
3 Cor as well. A manuscript in the St. James Collection in Jerusalem
preserves a homily by the saint, where he uses the same verses of 3
Cor mentioned in Agathangelos and introduces them as genuine teach-
ings of the apostles.47
The New Testament of Anania Sanahnec'i, another 11th century

vardapet of the Armenian Church and a son of the Sanahin Monastery,
included apocryphal writings as well.48 Copies of his commentaries on
the Letters of Paul are preserved in manuscripts #234, 254, 260 and
523 of the St. James collection in Jerusalem.49 Among his comments
on the letters of St. Paul in these manuscripts we find a section dedi-
cated to the apocryphal 3 Cor. This section comes immediately after
his comments on 2 Cor and before those on Galatians. This confirms
not only that 3 Cor was part of the New Testament canon during
Sanahnec'i’s time, but also, by virtue of its location after 2 Cor and be-
fore Galatians, that it was treated as an authentic letter of the apostle
Paul. Furthermore, a few of the manuscripts indicate that Sanahnec'i’s
commentary on Paul’s letters, including 3 Cor, was written by the re-
quest of Catholicos Petros Getadarc' (10th century).50 This confirms
that the New Testament of Getadarc included apocryphal writings as
well.51
Yovhanēs Orotnec'i, a fourteenth century chief vardapet of the
Armenian Church, and a mentor to many theologians at the monaster-
ies of Glaj'or and Tat'ew, including Grigor Tat'ewac'i the vardapet par
excellence of the Armenian Church, treats 3 Cor as a genuine letter of
the apostle Paul. He considers it a part of the canon of the New Testa-
ment as well. His comments on the epistles of St. Paul, including 3
Cor, survive in several manuscripts which contain collections of
commentaries on the various books of the Bible.52 Paul Vetter pub-
lished Orotnec'i’s commentary at the end of his book, Der apokryphe
dritte Korintherbrief.53 For a vardapet of such a renowned fame and
theological authority to write a commentary on 3 Cor, as part of his
comments on the books of the Bible, is a clear indication that this
apocryphal correspondence must have been accepted by the communi-
ties and monastic hierarchies of Glaj'or and Tat'ew in Armenia as part
of the Bible, as late as the fourteenth century.
It should not be a surprise, therefore, to find another commentary
on 3 Cor by a student of Orotneci, Grigor Tat'ewac'i. Manuscripts
#279 and 477 of St. James collection in Jerusalem include Tadevatsi’s
commentary on 3 Cor. Following Tat'ewac'i’s comments, the scribe
adds Orotnec'i’s commentary as well. It is interesting to note that in
both commentaries, 3 Cor is placed after 2 Cor and before Galatians, a
position that further supports its canonical status.
One can easily conclude this brief review of the early Armenian
Christian literature stating that enough Patristics evidence has survived
to confirm the existence of an extra-canonical literature, associated
with the Armenian version of the New Testament canon. Very few of
these writings made it into the New Testament manuscripts of the Bi-
ble, some of which remained there for centuries. The existence and
popularity of this literature became an obstacle in the process of the
finalization of the canon of the New Testament in Armenia, especially
during the early centuries of Christianity.
Armenian Canon Lists of the New Tewstament

The Armenian Church literature preserves many lists of the canonical
books of the Bible. While the majority of these lists agree with the
New Testament canon as accepted today,54 many of them include in
them several of the New Testament apocrypha. In the following pages
we will review some of these lists, which incorporate apocryphal writ-
ings in the canon of the New Testament. The disagreement of these
lists among themselves and with the generally accepted canon of the
New Testament, is another expression of the tension between the uni-
versally accepted canon of the New Testament and the locally revered
and popular non-canonical books.
Following the steps of the early church fathers, St. Sargis the
Graceful (12th century) classified the books of the New Testament in-
to three categories:55 “a. Books that are accepted [by all],” “b. the ones
which are doubtful” and “c. those which are completely despised.”56
This approach to the biblical canon, obviously, allows for a category
of books that are neither in the universal canon of the Bible, nor con-
demned as heretical. What is of special interest to us is that the list of
St. Sargis includes 14 letters of St. Paul within the category of the ac-
cepted books of the New Testament, excluding Hebrews. Two para-
graphs later he discusses Hebrews as a doubtful letter, although he
concludes that its authenticity has been approved. If St. Sargis does
not count Hebrews as one of the accepted letters of St. Paul, in catego-
ry “a”, what then was the 14th letter in his collection of the Pauline
corpus? Could 3 Cor have been part of the Pauline letters of St.
Sargis? Furthermore, his silence on the two New Testament apocry-
phal books in question, otherwise popular in the Armenian Church,
should also be of interest. Neither 3 Cor nor RBJ are included in the
first or the second categories of St. Sarkis. However, what is more

puzzling is that these books are not found in the third category as well,
which includes condemned apocryphal writings such as the Book of
the Infancy of Jesus and the Gospel of Thomas. The vague status of
the letter to the Hebrews as well as the absence of 3 Cor and RBJ from
all three categories of the lists of St. Sargis is a testimony of the unset-
tled situation of the canon of the New Testament. It can be explained
as a result of the saint’s hesitance to keep these documents in the New
Testament or to reject them completely as heretical.
In his Jamanakagrakan Patmut'iwn, “Chronological History,” the
13th century renowned vardapet and abbot of the Monastery of
Geghart, Mkhitar Ayrevantsi (Mxit'ar Ayrevanc'i) offers a discussion
of “The Hidden Books of the Jews.” Ayrevantsi lists the names of nine
apocryphal books of the Old Testament and seven of the New Testa-
ment, which he classifies as “hidden” or apocryphal.57 At the end of
these books, however, Ayrevantsi adds a short list of New Testament
writings that he labels as “accepted” or “permissible,” by a certain
Clement. Among these writings we find the Acts and Canons of the
Apostles, the Revelation of John, the Advice of the Theotokos to the
Apostles, the Letter of Timothy and others.58 This section of Ayre-
vantsi’s book is followed by a complete list of the canonical books of
the Bible. The title of this list reads, “The Order of the Books of the
Bible verified by Sarkawag Vardapet and written by me, Mkhitar
Vardapet.” This suggests an even earlier date for the list.59 Fr. Garegin
Galemkaryan published this list in his article “Mkhitar Ayrevantsi and
A Newly Discovered Writing by Him.”60 Galemkaryan offers a dis-
cussion of the textual variations among the various versions of this list.
He classifies the manuscript evidence to three variations. What is of
interest to us is that all three variations include RBJ as part of the New
Testament canon. In all of them, this apocryphal writing comes imme-
diately after the Revelation of John. In two of these manuscripts, RBJ
and Revelation of John are placed at the end of the canon after the
Pauline Corpus. In the third variation, the two writings appear after the
catholic epistles and the Petition of Euthalius and before the Pauline
Corpus. All three variations of the list include also 3 Cor, which in all
of them is placed after 2 Cor and before Galatians. Thus, not only are
these documents included within the canonical books of the New Tes-
tament, they are inserted within the canonical books confirming their
status equal to those of the canonical ones. Finally, The apocryphal
Petition of Euthalius is also found in two of the three variations of this

list.
Another Armenian list of the canonical books of the Bible is found
in a 13th century writing commonly referred to as Girk Patčarac',
“The Book of Causes” or “The Book of Reasons.” The list is attributed
to the late 12th century and early 13th century Grigor, the son of Abas
and the abbot of the Sanahin monastery (AD 1214–19). The list in-
cludes 3 Cor as part of the canonical books of the New Testament. The
position of the book in the list, after 2 Cor and before Galatians, em-
phasizes its canonical status, as opposed to the Book of Revelation, for
example, which is left at the end of the list and is not treated as a ca-
nonical book.61
In addition to his commentaries on the books of the Bible men-
tioned earlier, Grigor Tat'ewac'i composed his own list of the canoni-
cal books of the Bible. Both 3 Cor and RBJ are found in this list. RBJ
is inserted after the Revelation, which comes after the Gospel of John
and before the Acts of the Apostles. 3 Cor, on the other hand, is shift-
ed toward the end of the list of the canonical books after Philemon, a
location suggesting a deutero-canonical status if not merely an appen-
dix. The list ends with the apocryphal Letter of Thaddeus. At the end
of the list, Tat'ewac'i adds, “And as Clement and Anania of Damascus
state, we received six more books in the church which are the Reading
of Jacob, the two Apostolic Canons, the Sayings of Justus, the Book of
Dionysius the Areopagite, and the Preaching of the Apostle Peter.”62
This, Tat'ewac'i concludes, adds up the number of the books of the
New Testament to 36. Once again the list support/s the argument for a
“loose” definition of the canon of the New Testament in the Armenian
Church.
In the introduction to his book, Haytnut'eann Hovhannu hin hay
t'argmanut'iwn (The Old Armenian Translation of the Revelation of
John), Frederich Murad discusses manuscript #345 in the St. James
collection of the Armenian monastery in Jerusalem, which includes a
list of the canonical books of the Bible.63 The list, according to Murad,
is attributed to Aṙakel, the 15th-century bishop of the Siwnik region in
Armenia. The author of the list identifies himself saying, “I, Lord Ara-
kel the overseer of the Siwnik region, deprived and bare of any grace,
composed the list (or order) of the books of the testaments of the Bi-
ble.” He then lists the names of the books of the Old Testament, indi-
cating their total number to be 44. Following the Old Testament, the
author indicates the total number of the canonical books of the New
Testament to be 28, which he then enumerates. The apocryphal RBJ is
mentioned as the last book in the list of the canonical books of the
New Testament, following the Book of Revelation. This position re-
flects a deutero-canonical status of RBJ.
The third page of manuscript #1928 of the St. James collection in
Jerusalem identifies its copier as “Grigor Eṙamec, who thus classified
the books of the Old and New Testaments, how many they are and
which books of the Old and New Testaments are holy.”64 This remark
is followed by a listing of the names of all the books of the Old and
New Testaments in their proper order. Among this list of canonical
books of the New Testament we find 3 Cor, RBJ and the Letter of
Thaddeus. The copier concludes his list indicating that the total num-
ber of the New Testament books is 30. He then adds that six more
New Testament apocryphal books were received by the Church, ac-
cording to a certain Clement and Anania of Damascus. He identifies
them as: the Reading of Jacob, the Apostolic Canons, the Sayings of
Justus, the Book of Dionysius the Areopagite, and the Preaching of
Peter.
In conclusion, the several lists of the books of the Bible examined
earlier confirm what we have observed in our study of the history of
the association of the New Testament apocrypha with the New Testa-
ment canon. Our examination clearly confirms that as late as the 17th
century, neither was the canon of the New Testament exclusively fi-
nalized nor were the apocryphal writings completely removed from
the Bible.
Armenian Bible Manuscripts

Like the rest of the New Testament apocrypha preserved in other lan-
guages, most of the Armenian New Testament apocrypha have never
made it into the canon of the Armenian New Testament. The majority
of these writings were translated, copied and preserved as pious litera-
ture or for the sake of spiritual entertainment. As discussed earlier,
however, a few of these writings were inserted in the Armenian manu-
scripts of the New Testament. Most of the writings in the latter catego-
ry remained part of the Bible for centuries and were copied and
preserved as part of the Armenian New Testament until its publication.
Among the latter group we mention 3 Cor, RBJ, The Petition of
Euthalius, in addition to a fourth apocryphon called the Sailing of the

Apostle Paul to Rome. These four writings are found in almost all the
Armenian manuscripts of the Bible.
The oldest extant Armenian manuscript of a complete Bible, i.e.
manuscript #1925 of the St. James collection in Jerusalem, ca. 1269,
inserts RBJ after the Book of Revelation which comes after the Gospel
of John. RBJ in this manuscript is followed by the Pauline corpus,
which ends with the Sailing of Paul. The Book of Acts followed by the
catholic letters come after the Pauline corpus. The collection ends with
the Petition of Euthalius.
Manuscript #5 of the Mekhitarist collection in Venice contains an-
other old copy of a complete Bible in Armenian. The copying and
compilation of this Bible is attributed to the 13th-century Gevorg
Skewṙac'i. This version of the Armenian Bible was widely copied dur-
ing the Cilician era and was used by Oskan, Zohrabian and Bagratuni
to prepare their published editions of the Bible.65 In this manuscript,
the catholic letters are inserted in the Bible after the Gospels and the
Book of Acts. The Petition of Euthalius is inserted at the end of the
catholic letters, followed by book of Revelation. The Pauline corpus,
which comes after the Book of Revelation, ends with the Sailing of
Paul followed by 3 Cor at the end of the collection. Once again the
position of the last two documents in this manuscript, indicates the
shifting of their status to a deuteron-canonical or part of an appendix.
As late as the seventeenth century, apocryphal books were copied
and preserved as part of the Armenian Church canon of the New Tes-
tament. A scribe and priest of the Armenian Church by the name of
Step'anos ǐułayec'i or C'ik is known for copying the four Gospels and
the various books of the Bible. Among his copied manuscripts surviv-
ing in the St. James collection of the Armenian monastery in Jerusa-
lem are manuscripts # 428 and 1672 of a complete Bible. Both
manuscripts include the apocryphal 3 Cor and RBJ as part of the canon
of the New Testament.66
In addition to the two oldest manuscripts of a complete Armenian
Bible mentioned above, 3 Cor, RBJ, The Petition of Euthalius, and the
Sailing of the Apostle Paul to Rome are found in many complete and
partial Armenian Bibles.67 They appear in different places in the list of
the canonical books. In most of the manuscripts they are usually at the
end of the canon indicating a deutero-canonical or semi-canonical sta-
tus. In some manuscripts, however, 3 Cor appears after 2 Cor and be-
fore Galatians, and RBJ appears after Revelation and before the Paul-
ine corpus or the catholic letters.68 The Sailing of the Apostle Paul to
Rome can also be found sometimes at the end of the Pauline corpus
and before the Book of Acts or before the Book of Revelation.69
It is obvious that the four apocryphal writings mentioned above re-
ceived a special status among the Armenians than the rest of the New
Testament apocrypha. None of the Armenian apocryphal books of the
New Testament, for example, has been incorporated into the liturgical
cycle of the Armenian Church. Nor have any of the fathers of the Ar-
menian Church commented on them or quoted them as part of the di-
vine revelation and inspiration. Furthermore, none of these writings
have been incorporated, as divinely inspired literature, into the various
sacraments of the church. Exceptions to all the above generalization
are 3 Cor, RBJ and The Petition of Euthalius. 3 Cor is found in several
lectionaries of the Armenian Church where it is inserted as one of the
scripture readings of the day.70 RBJ is read in its entirety on the feast
day of the “Evangelist John and the Apostle James, the sons of Zebe-
dee” as one of the scripture readings of the day.71 It is also incorpo-
rated into the burial service of a priest. A verse from RBJ is still part of
a prayer in the Eucharist of the Armenian Church.72
Our brief examination of the Armenian manuscripts of the Bible
confirms the inclusion of certain apocryphal writings in the New Tes-
tament collection of the Armenian Church. These manuscripts clearly
designate a special status to 3 Cor, RBJ, the Petition of Euthalius and
the Sailings of Paul, which seem to be found in the majority of the
Armenian manuscripts of the New Testament. Once again, our glance
at the Armenian manuscripts of the Bible conveys a relaxed under-
standing of the concept of an expanded canon of the New Testament,
while clearly agreeing on the core collection.
Apocrypha in Published Versions of the Armenian Bible

As early as the 16th century, serious efforts were made to publish a
partial or complete version of the Bible in Armenian.73 Of interest to
our study, obviously, are the published editions of the Armenian Bible
that shed light on the history of the incorporation, preservation and
transmission of the New Testament apocrypha. The first successful at-
tempt in publishing an entire Bible was realized in Amsterdam in AD
1666 thanks to the efforts and sacrifices of Bishop Oskan Yerevantsi
(Erewanc'i) of the brotherhood of Etchmiadzin. This version did not

include any of the Armenian apocryphal books of the New Testament
frequently found in the Armenian manuscripts of the Bible.74 This
could be a consequence of the influence that the Roman Catholic
Church exercised on the preparation and publication of Oskan’s ver-
sion of the Bible. This influence is obvious in the many illustrations
that adorn the pages of the Bible, which are of European and not Ar-
menian origins, and also in the modifications of the canon of the Old
and New Testaments. In his comments published in the Bible, Oskan
himself admits to having used Latin manuscripts to edit the Armenian
text of his edition. In this version of the Bible Oskan discusses his ef-
forts in rearranging the chapters and verses of the books of the Arme-
nian Bible in order to agree with those of the Latin Vulgate. He
recounts his efforts of replacing the existing Armenian text of certain
books, such as of the Books of Joshua and the Wisdom of Sirach, with
a new translation that he made from the Latin, because the existing
Armenian translation was not in agreement with the Latin text. Fur-
thermore, he admits of translating Fourth Ezra from Latin to Armenian
and introducing it in the canon of the Armenian Old Testament for the
first time.75 These observations and certain comments made by Oskan
in his correspondence published in the Bazmavep, make us conclude
that Oskan had to modify the text, list and sequence of the books of
the Armenian version of the Bible to make them in agreement with the
Latin Vulgate in order to obtain the permission to publish the Armeni-
an Bible.76
In 1805, a member of the Mekhitarist brotherhood in Venice by the
name of Hovhannes Zohrabian (Hovhannēs Zōhrapean), criticizing the
Latin influence on Oskan’s edition of the Bible, published a more au-
thentic version of the Armenian Bible in Venice, Astuacašunč' matean
hin ew nor ktakaranac' (Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments).77
In the introduction to his version of the Bible, Zohrabian highlights the
Latin influences on the Armenian text of Oskan Yerevantsi’s Bible.78
In turn, he offers a new version of the Armenian Bible that is closer to
the text preserved in the Armenian manuscripts of the Bible than the
one published by Oskan. The version prepared by Zohrabian is the re-
sult of his scholarly and critical research comparing a manuscript of
the Armenian Bible copied in AD 1319 to several other complete and
incomplete manuscripts of the Bible. The Zohrabian Bible includes 3
Cor, RBJ and the Petition of Euthalius.79 These three apocryphal writ-
ings, however, appear at the end of the New Testament canon and the
Bible, in a section identified as the appendix. The same section in-
cludes Old Testament apocryphal documents as well. By doing so,
Zohrabian, remained faithful to the earlier Armenian Church fathers in
not designating canonical status to these writings. He, however, also
did not want to ignore their popularity and abundant appearance in the
Armenian manuscripts of the New Testament.
Zohrabian’s version was used as the base for several subsequent
published editions of the Armenian Bible. In 1860, another member of
the Mekhitarist brotherhood by the name of Arsen Bagratuni published
another edition of the Armenian Bible.80 Bagratuni, however, admits
that he removed the New Testament apocryphal writings from his edi-
tion of the Bible and modified the text of the Zohrabian edition. He
justifies these changes as a consequence of his comparison of Zohrabi-
an’s version with the Latin and Greek manuscripts of the Bible availa-
ble to him.81
The American Bible Society published an edition of the Armenian
Bible in 1929 using a version prepared by Patriarch Nerses Varjabedi-
an based on Zohrabian’s edition. Several of the apocryphal writings in
the Old and New Testaments were removed in this edition. The He-
brew or Palestinian canon was used to define the canon of the Old
Testament. Meanwhile, the commonly accepted New Testament canon
of the protestant churches was used to define the list of the canonical
books of the New Testament in this edition of the Armenian Bible.
These concessions were to meet the requirements of the American Bi-
ble Society in order to publish the edition.82
None of the above mentioned publications of the Armenian Bible
was immediately under the supervision of the Armenian Church and
the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin. Later published editions of the
Armenian Bible were sponsored or published mainly by protestant
publishing houses. This obviously meant the elimination from the New
Testament of any writing that was considered canonical by the
protestant church. Almost a century ago, the Armenian Patriarch of
Constantinople, Malakia Ormanian, mourns the fact that until the date
of the publishing of his volumes of the Azgapatum, not a single ver-
sion of the Armenian Bible had been prepared and published under the
supervision and with the approval of the Mother See of Holy Etchmi-
adzin and the Armenian Church.83
Our review of the highlights in the history of the publishing of the

Armenian version of the Bible confirms the presence of very few non-
canonical books as part of the New Testament collection in the Arme-
nian Church as ;late as the 19th century. However, it clearly indicates
also that the complete and final decision to remove these apocryphal
books from the Armenian New Testament was vicariously done by the
authorities in charge of the publishing houses in the West, under the
influences of the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches.
A List of New Testament Apocrypha in Armenian

As mentioned earlier, the majority of the New Testament apocrypha
were not part of the canon of the Armenian Bible. They were copied
and preserved in manuscripts independent of the Bible. However, very
few of them were inserted in the Bible and copied and preserved in the
manuscripts of the Bible. The following is a list of the New Testament
apocryphal writings found in Armenian Manuscripts:
1. Gospel of Infancy or The Book of the Infancy of Christ at-

tributed to James the brother of the Lord.84
2. The Gospel of Nicodemus or the Memoirs of Pilate.85
3. The Epistle of Pilate.86
4. The Epistle of James the Bishop of Jerusalem to Kodrates.87
5. The Letter of Publius Lentulus.88
6. The Vision of the Most Holy Theotokos89
7. The Saying of the Blessed Nicodemus Concerning the Repose
of Mary the Theotokos and Ever-virgin.90
8. Acts of the Apostles Peter and Paul91
9. The Witnessing (martyrion) of the Praised and Chief Apostles
St. Peter and St. Paul92
10. The Witnessing of the Apostle Peter.93
11. The Witnessing of the Holy Apostle Paul.94
12. The Vision of the Apostle Paul.95
13. Third Corinthians.96
14. The Letter of Dionysius to Timothy the Disciple of Paul Con-
cerning the Death of Paul and Peter.97
15. Concerning the Apostle Andrew and His Miracles Which the
Lord Performed Through Him and through Matthew in the
Land of the Cannibals98
16. The Witnessing of the Apostle Andrew Who Suffered in the

Garden, Before One of the December Noels.99
17. The Story of the Apostles Andrew and Matthew as to How
They Went to the Land of the Cannibals.100
18. The Story of How St. Jacob (James) Went to Spain and Re-
tuned to Jerusalem and Was Beheaded.101
19. The Acts of John the Evangelist.102
20. Concerning the Exile of St. John.103
21. Concerning Mironos and his entire household and what hap-
pened through John.104
22. Concerning how the Gospel Was Narrated by John.105
23. The Rest of the Evangelist John.106
24. The Story of the Apostles of Christ, John and James, the Sons
of Zebedee.107
25. The Witnessing of the Holy Apostle Philip.108
26. Canons of the Apostle Philip.109
27. The Witnessing of the Holy Apostle Bartholomew.110
28. The Discovery of the Relics of the Holy Apostle Bartholo-
mew.111
29. In Memory of the Holy Apostle Thomas.112
30. The Witnessing of the Apostle Thomas which took place in In-
dia.113
31. The Story of the Holy Apostle Thomas.114
32. The Story Concerning the Discovery of the Holy Apostle
Thomas.115
33. The Witnessing of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist Mat-
thew.116
34. The Witnessing of James the Brother of the Lord.117
35. The Holy Apostle Thaddeus Concerning the first discovery of
the Holy Cross.118
36. The Holy Apostle Thaddeus Concerning the Resurrection of
the Dead.119
37. The Witnessing of the Holy Apostle Simon the Zealot.120
38. Concerning the Holy Apostles as to Who They Were and How
They Were Called for the Ministry.121
39. Concerning the Twelve Holy Apostles.122
40. The Teachings of the Apostles as to How They Were Complet-
ed and Exist Until Now (by Epiphan the Cyprian).123
41. Concerning the Apostles As To Who Among Them Were Mar-

ried And Who Were Not.124
42. The Letter of Barnabas.125
43. The Letter of the Armenian King Abgar.126
44. The Petition of Euthalius.127
45. The Canons and Laws Which the Holy Disciples of Christ Es-
tablished.128
46. The Laws and Canons of the Holy Apostles by Clement, the
Apostle of the Heathens.129
47. The Canons of the Apostle Philip.130
48. The Laws of the Canons of St. Thaddeus in the City of Urha131
49. The Holy Apostle Thaddeus Concerning the Resurrection of
the Dead.132
50. The Sailing of the Apostle Paul133
51. Acts of Enlightenment134
52. Concerning the Exile of St. John.135
53. The Witnessing of the Holy Apostle Titus.136
54. The Story of Judas of Iscariot.137
Portions or of the apocryphal documents listed above can also be

found independently of its original document copied in various Arme-
nian manuscripts.
Conclusion
Our survey of the Armenian Church literature leads us to conclude that
the New Testament apocrypha has definitely been an important com-
ponent of the Christian experience in Armenia, as early as the first
decades of Christianity in the country. The Armenian Church clearly
distinguished three categories of books associated with the New Tes-
tament: 1) the core canon; 2) books associated with the New Testa-
ment; 3) books condemned because of its un-orthodox contents. Some
of the New Testament apocryphal writings were incorporated in the
Armenian version of the Bible, as early as its translation into Armeni-
an. A few of these apocryphal writings remained included in the New
Testament corpus as late as the early publications of the Armenian Bi-
ble. Some of them were treated not only as canonical, but also as
genuine and authentic writings of the apostles. The majority of the
apocryphal writings which were not part of the New Testament canon,
on the other hand, continued to enjoy a special status in the Armenian

Church as religious literature. This is confirmed by the multitude of
copies and versions of these apocryphal writings that are preserved in
Armenian manuscripts until today.
The lack of a decisive decision by an Armenian Church council to
finalize the list of the canonical books of the New Testament, or to re-
ceive a universally confirmed list left the fathers of the Armenian
Church in the midst of a tension between two elements in the early
centuries of Christianity. These were the gradually developing univer-
sal list of the canonical books of the Bible, and the reverence for, and
attachment to, some of the New Testament apocrypha that were used
locally by the early evangelists and preachers of Christianity in Arme-
nia. The tension between these two forces can be clearly traced in the
different lists of the canonical books of the New Testament and in the
commentaries of the various fathers of the Armenian Church.
The absence of such a council decision, left the collection of bibli-
cal books open to new entries and removals, throughout the centuries.
Outside influences, such as Roman Catholic supervision of the early
publications of the Armenian Bible and Protestant direction of pub-
lishing houses such as the Bible Society, which published the later edi-
tions of the Classical Armenian version of the Bible, gradually
imposed the commonly recognized canonical list of the New Testa-
ment on the West on the later editions of the Armenian Bible.
Notes
The Prayer of Manasses

1
The BHS writes in all cases Moses with the retained WAW (hvm), but records
exist with the name written with WAW. Here we give some examples from the
Qumran writings: 4QFlor 2:3; 1QM 10:6; 1QH 17:12 y 1QS 5:8. They can
reflect the how the name was written in Early Judaism.
2
The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (1962) and J. Bright in his History of
Israel (1981) say that the date was 687–642BC.
3
On the other hand, the historical criticism has found dates that make plausible
the exile from Manasses to an emerging Babylon but still under the dominion
of the Assyrians (Hicks 499).
4
The prayer does not tackle any topic related to the Greek invasion to Palestine
and does not reflect any type of relationship with the Maccabean struggle or
with the ideologies that rose after the revolution. Neither the temple, nor its
contamination or purification, is a subject in the prayer. We find no reference
to the priests. Therefore, there are no indications to deduce that the author
could have been a Hasidean as Oesterley suggests (297). Besides, the absence
of this prayer in the LXX manuscripts discards the possibility that its origin be
Alexandria. The Antiochian and Syrian region seem to be more appropriate for
many reasons: the central theme is repentance after having falling into
idolatry, one of the main problems for the Jews of Antioch (Downey 79–80;
107–108). The prayer’s key objective is to reaffirm the believers in the old
ancestral tradition (the Jews came to Antioch since its foundation at the end of
the 4th century). The fact that the prayer was preserved in Syriac and was
passed on to be part of the Didascalia also speaks in favor of its Antiochian
origin.
5
For a detailed presentation of the variation and intercalation of
Deuteronomistic and Chronicle texts, see Charles 613.
6
The titles are found in the beginning of Sal 3;7;18;34;51;52;54;56;57;59;60;63
and 142. The title structure is always with a temporal clause that describes the
situation for which the psalm was written. They all use the “Be +inf” formula,
except psalm 18 that uses the relative pronoun “asher” in the title.
90 •N O T E S •
7
The additional text, which is included in the NRV, says: “O Lord, according to
your great goodness you have promised repentance and forgiveness to those
who have sinned against you, and in the multitude of your mercies you have
appointed repentance for sinners, so that they may be saved.” This addition
forms part of the prayer in the Greek Great Horologion (172) as well as in the
Arabic one (179).
8
“And now, oh Lord, I am justly punished and deservedly afflicted; for lo! I am
in captivity” (translated by Charles 622). This addition appears neither in the
Apostolic Constitutions, nor in the GreekGreat Horologion (172) or the Arabic
one (179).
The Testament of Solomon

1
Graf, Georg, Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur. Vol. 1 (Città
del Vaticano: Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana, 1944), 210–211.
2
McCown, C.C., The Testament of Solomon (Leipzig: Heinrichs, 1922), English
translation in Duling, D.C. “Testament of Solomon,” in The Old Testament
Pseudepigrapha, Vol. 1: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments (edited by
James H. Charlesworth; New York : Doubleday, 1983), 935–987. In the
following, we’ll cite Duling’s translation and use his division of TSol into
chapters.
3
Graf, Geschichte, 210.
4
Charlesworth, James H., The Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research (with
a Supplement) (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1981), 197–202.
5
Charlesworth, Pseudepigrapha, 197.
6
Charlesworth, Pseudepigrapha, 202. It is interesting to note that among those
twelve, Charlesworth also includes “7) Solomon’s Warning to Rehoboam”
(Graf’s “Mahnrede Salomons”, Geschichte p. 209). This work can be found in
Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Fonds Syriaque 194 (BnF Syriaque 194),
fols. 153r–156v and it is the very same work Charlesworth identifies as “a
recension of portions of the Testament of Solomon extant in Karshuni”
(Pseudepigrapha, p. 201). Having had the opportunity to examine this
manuscript, we note that while the title of the work in question begins with the
words Waṣīyyat Sulaymān (“The testament of Solomon”), it is in fact not a
recension of TSol, but a late Christian Arabic composition belonging to the
genre of waṣīyya – spiritual testaments written by kings and rulers for their
successors. For more information on the genre in Islamic milieu, see Gilliot,
Claude, “In consilium tuum deduces me: le genre du «Conseil» naṣīha,
waṣīyya dans la littérature arabo-musulmane,” Arabica, 54/4 (2007): 466–499.
While this work (which we have come to call “the Pseudotestament of
Solomon”) may indeed have been influenced by other pseudepigrapha,
especially wisdom literature and stories of Ahiqar and Luqmān, it has
absolutely no connection to the Testament of Solomon, save for the title.
7
Thus for example Duling, D.C., “Testament of Solomon,” 935–987, Klutz,
Todd, Rewriting the Testament of Solomon: Tradition, Conflict and Identity in
•N O T E S • 91
a Late Antique Pseudepigraphon (London: T&T Clark International, 2005)

and Schwarz, Sarah L., “Reconsidering the Testament of Solomon,” Journal
for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 16 (2007): 203–237. Referring to Pseude-
pigrapha and Modern Research, these studies also cite BnF Syriaque 194 as a
Syriac (and not Karshuni, i.e. Arabic, as correctly observed by Charlesworth)
recension of TSol (which it is not).
8
9
M. Le Baron de Slane, Catalogue de manuscrit arabes (Paris: Imprimerie na-
tionale, 1883–1895), 54–55. Also see Troupeau, Gérard, Catalogue des ma-
nuscrits arabes. Première partie. Manuscrits chrétiens. Tome I. Nos 1–323
(Paris: Bibliothèque nationale, 1972), 185–187. Both catalogues are available
in digital format at http://www.bnf.fr/pages/catalog/mssor-num.htm.
10
11
Sinaika and and ʻAbd al-Masīḥ, Catalogue of the Coptic and Arabic
manuscripts of the Coptic Museum, the Patriarchate, the principal churches of
Cairo andAlexandria and the monasteries of Egypt. Volume 1 (Cairo:
Government Press, 1939), 171.
12
Khater, Antoine, and Khs-Burmester, O.H.E., Catalogue of the Coptic and
Christian Arabic MSS. preserved in the Cloister of Saint Menas at Cairo (Le
Caire: Société d’archéologie Copte, 1963), 73.
13
sīra šaʿbīya. See for example Gažáková, Zuzana. “Sayf ibn Ḏī Yazan, King of
Ḥimyar between History and Popular Epic,” Graecolatina et Orientalia 21-22
(2008) for a recent analysis of one such popular epic, its textual history and its
relationship to other historical and literary sources.
14
Orlov, Andrei A., From Apocalypticism to Merkabah Mysticism. Studies in the
Slavonic Pseudepigrapha (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 54–56.
15
For one edition of this work, see Tikhonravov, Nikolay Savvich, Pamyatniki
otrechennoy russkoy literatury. Tom I (Sanktpeterburg: Obshchestvennaya
polʹza, 1863), 259–272. It should be noted that in this edition, taken from a
16th century Tolkovaya Paleya, the title of the work is Judgments of king
Solomon.
16
literally “a seal”
17
The only reference to it in connection with Solomonic literature known to us is
made by Scott T. Carroll in “The ‘Apocalypse of Adam’ and Pre-Christian
Gnosticism,” Vigiliae Christianae 44 (1990): 270.
18
Crum, Walter E. Catalogue of the Coptic Manuscripts in the Collection of the
John Rylands Library, Manchester (Manchester: University Press, 1909), 41–
42.
19
also tower, citadel or perhaps pillar
20
Thus in both BnF Ar 214 and Vat. ar. 448. One feels tempted to consider this
a scribal error for ‫مصر‬, i.e. Egypt.
21
Tikhonravov, Pamyatniki, 259–260.
22
McCown’s recension D, however, appears to be the closest thing to a likely
candidate.
23
Angels working against demons with God on the sidelines, see Alexander,
Philip S., “Contextualizing the Demonology of the Testament of Solomon,” in
92 •N O T E S •
Die Dämonen. Die Dämonologie der israelitisch-jüdischen und

frühchristlichen Literatur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt (ed. Armin Lange.
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 627.
24
Salzberger, Georg, Die Salomo-Sage in der semitischen Literatur. Ein Beitrag
zur vergleichenden Sagenkunde (Berlin-Nikolassee: Kommissionsverlag von
Max Harrwitz, 1907).
The Book of Wisdom of Solomon

1
For the source of translation for certain Books of OT see the following critical
editions: C.E. Cox, The Armenian Translation of Deuteronomy, (University of
Pennsylvania, Armenian texts and Studies), Ann Arbor, MI, Edwards
Brothers: 1981, pp.12–13. S. P. Cowe, The Armenian Version of Daniel,
(University of Pennsylvania, Armenian Texts and Studies 9), Atlanta, GA,
Scholars Press: 1992, p. 441.
2
See The Canon Book of the Armenians, V. Hakopyan (ed.), vol. 2, Erevan,
Armenian Academy of Sciences: 1971, pp. 17–18.
3
Michael Stone having studied different canons of the Scriptures, makes the
following statement: “It is of further interest to observe that books so well
established in the Ca non of the Greek Bible as Judith, Tobit, and Wisdom of
Solomon do not appear in the Greek or Armenian texts of the Canons
discussed here. This, it seems to us, is more evidence for the common tradition
of these particular lists than it is a reflection on the position of these books in
actual usage. It follows from the above that the Armenian Canon of Partaw is
fashioned after the example of certain identifiable Greek Conciliar lists,
primarily the Apostolic Canon and the Laodicaean Canon.” (See M. Stone,
“Armenian Canon Lists I: The Council of Partaw (768 C. E.),” The Harvard
Theological Review, Vol. 66, No. 4 (Oct., 1973), pp. 479–486.
4
For the references and further detailed quotations see Archbishop Nerses
Lambronaci, Commentary on Wisdom of Solomon, by Anoushavan Tanielian,
New York, NY, Skewra Press: 2007, pp. 293–294.
5
M. Stone, “Armenian Canon Lists II, The Stichometry of Anania of Shirak,”
The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 68, No. 3/4 (Jul. - Oct., 1975), pp.
253–260.
6
This number can be very slightly varied according to the change of the date of
Easter.
7
Athanasius, Letter 39, “On the Paschal Festival,” in NPNF, vol. 4, p. 552b.
Visul Maicii Domnului

1
Hilandar no. 737. I wish to thank my friend and colleague Dr. Predrag Mateic,
Director of the Hilandar Research Library at Ohio State University for calling
this text to my attention, and his friendly staff for providing me with a copy.
•N O T E S • 93
2
See D. Skemer, Binding Words: Textual Amulets in the Middle Ages
(Pennsylvania State University Press, 2006) 8.
3
The biblical perspective on magical practices is not as consistent as most
readers expect. While the Deuteronomistic writer and other prophetic writings
explicitly condemn such practices, magic at the hands of Elijah and Elisha was
apparently acceptable.
4
Dated to the Assyrian and neo-Babylonian periods, these bowls contained
incantations inscribed in a spiral inside the vessel and were buried beneath the
thresholds of houses for the purpose of maintaining the well-being of the
household. See J. Naveh and S. Shaked, Amulets and Magic Bowls: Aramaic
Incantations of Late Antiquity (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1985).
5
See L. Schiffman and M. Swartz, Hebrew and Aramaic Incantation Texts from
the Cairo Genizah (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992).
6
Hom. Matt. 73.
7
Schiffman, Incantation Texts, 32–33.
8
Most notably the work of Sanda Golopentia. See Sanda Golopentia, Desire
Machines: A Romanian Love Charms Database (Bucharest: Romanian
Cultural Foundation, 1998).
9
Use of the feminine pronoun here is intentional. Apart from the fact that the
amulet text presented here was produced in a monastic setting that excluded
women, I have found no evidence that use of these forms occurred outside the
domain of women.
10
Ironically, the amulet text was apparently not effective in preventing its
publisher from going out of business.
11
N. Cartojan, Cărţile populare în literatura românească. 2vols. (Bucharest,
1929; rep. Bucharest: Editura Enciclopedică Română, 1974] I.102.
12
Cartojan, Cărţile populare, II.126.
13
Cartojan, Cărţile populare, I.101–02.
14
The modern printed text in the possession of Mrs. Untu has “Peter in Antioch
and Rome,” probably added to support the Orthodox assertion rooted in
Eusebius that Peter was bishop of Rome before he became bishop of Antioch.
15
John 19:39–42.
16
Skemer, Binding Words, 75.
17
Skemer, Binding Words, 47.
Banned from the Lectionary

1
Even recent works continue to express this simplistic opinion about the
development of the canon. See Eldon Jay Epp, “Issues in the Interrelation of
New Testament Textual Criticism and Canon,” in The Canon Debate, eds. Lee
Martin McDonald and James Sanders (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers,
Inc., 2002, second edition, 2004), 485–515. Epp writes: “[T]he place of the
Revelation to John in the canon of Eastern Christianity was not certain until
the late fourth century, and even later in some places.” Epp, 505, citing Harry
Gamble “Canon: New Testament,” Anchor Bible Dictionary 1:853–56, Helmut
94 •N O T E S •
Koester, Introduction to the New Testament: History and Literature of Early

Christianity (2 vols.) 2nd ed. (New York: de Guyter, 1995–2000), 2:6–12.
2
But even well into the Reformation era, some aberrations were found in the
West in the Latin canon. Complete uniformity did not occur, evidenced by the
inclusion of the apocryphal epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans in many pre-
Reformation and Reformation era bibles. Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the
New Testament: Its Origin, Development and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1987), 239f.
3
The Latin Church “had a stronger feeling than the Greek for the necessity of
making a sharp delineation with regard to the canon” and “it was less con-
scious than the Greek Church of the gradation of spiritual quality among the
books that it accepted”, according to Metzger. Canon, 229. Arthur Darby
Nock concurred that the Greeks generally displayed more flexibility toward
the canon, whereas the West had “a tendency to define, not only de facto, but
also de iure, what is permissible.” “A Feature of Roman Religion,” Harvard
Theological Review, vol. 32, no. 1 (1939) 83–96, 95.
4
Rv. 22:16, 20. Revelation is the only possible exception to the rule that no part
of the New Testament was recognized as inspired and authoritative. “Only the
book of Revelation claims for itself such a lofty position that would come
close to the notion of inspiration and Scripture…Even the Gospels do not in
themselves claim final authority.” Lee McDonald, The Formation of the
Christian Biblical Canon (Peabody MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1995),
9.
5
Rv. 22:7, 18–19.
6
Rv. 1:11, 22:10.
7
Rv. 1:3. “The writer, John, is evidently a prophet, and if his prophetic vocation
be acknowledged, it is a natural conclusion that his book is inspired prophecy
and therefore Scripture. The striking thing is that it is so intended, and by vir-
tue of this fact claims for itself a place of permanent authority, side by side
with the Jewish Scriptures. In this new type of Christian literature we see the
welding of the new prophetic sense of inward spiritual endowment with the
old Jewish idea of inspired books. It thus foreshadows a Christian Scripture.
Alone among the books of the New Testament the Revelation claims for its
whole contents the authority of divine inspiration.” Edgar Goodspeed, The
Formation of the New Testament (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1926), 14–15.
8
This argument was made by Adolph von Harnack, The Origin of the New
Testament, trans. J.R. Wilkinson (London: Williams and Norgate, 1925).
9
This is William Farmer’s opinion in his book with Denis Farkasfalvy, The
Formation of the New Testament Canon, (New York: Paulist Press, 1983).
Farmer argues that the New Testament canon is a “martyr’s canon which can
be traced through Origen, Hippolytus and Irenaeus to a particular traditional
idealization of Christian martyrdom exemplified by Polycarp and Ignatius and
reflecting the influence of the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul in Rome.” Farmer
and Farkasfalvy, 8. He states that the three major factors which contributed to
the shaping of the New Testament canon were: (1) the persecution of Chris-
•N O T E S • 95
tians, (2) diverse systems of Christian theology, and (3) Constantine’s legaliza-
tion and promotion of Christianity.” Farmer and Farkasfalvy, 8. By “diverse
systems of theology” he means a diversity of opinion regarding the value of
martyrdom, which was questioned by Gnostics. Scriptures supporting martyr-
dom could counter-balance Gnostic attitudes which might weaken Christian
resolve in the face of persecution.
10
N.B. Stonehouse, The Apocalypse in the Ancient Church (Goes, [Holland]:
Oosterbaan and Le Cointre, 1929).
11
John Elliotson Symes, The Evolution of the New Testament, (London: John
Murray, 1921), 331. Symes believed that three factors determined canonicity:
“(1) the authority of the Church, (2) evidence that these books contain the
teachings of the Apostles and their immediate disciples, and (3) the internal
evidence ― the response of Christian hearts to the New Testament teaching.
None of these answers may seem quite satisfactory, if taken separately: but, in
conjunction, they have been found by almost all Christians to provide an ade-
quate ground for their belief in the authorized Canon.” More recently, Lee
McDonald lists four primary factors: apostolicity, orthodoxy, antiquity and
use, and allows for the possible addition of such factors as adaptability and in-
spiration. Lee Martin McDonald, “Identifying Scripture and Canon in the Ear-
ly Church: The Criteria Question,” in The Canon Debate, eds. Lee Martin
McDonald and James Sanders (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.,
2002), 416–439.
12
Denis Farkasfalvy’s opinion. Farmer and Farkasfalvy, The Formation of the
New Testament Canon, 156–7.
13
Andrew of Caesarea, Commentary on the Apocalypse of John, Prologue. Josef
Schmid, Der Apokalypse-Kommentar des Andreas von Kaisareia, vol. 1 of
Studien zur Geschichte des griechischen Apokalypse-Textes, 3 parts
(München: Karl Zink Verlag, 1955–56). English translation forthcoming, by
Eugenia Scarvelis Constantinou, Fathers of the Church series, Catholic
University of America Press.
14
Dialogue with Trypho 81, The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and
Irenaeus, eds. and trans. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, Ante-
Nicene Fathers series, vol. I [Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, reprinted 1989], 240.
15
Quoted nearly in its entirety by Eusebius of Caesarea in Ecclesiastical History
5.1.1–2.7, hereinafter E.H.
16
Charles Hill notes that the fact that the letter contains so many references to
Revelation and that it is addressed to churches in Asia strongly supports the
view that the Asian churches accepted the Johannine books “without
controversy.” Charles E. Hill, The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church
(New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 87.
17
E.H. 5.20.5, Adv.Heres. 3 3.4. See also E.H. 5.20.1 and 5.5.8.
18
Adv. Heres. 5.35.2 and 5.26.1. Irenaeus quoted many passages from the
Apocalypse, which he stated was written by “John, the Lord’s disciple.”
19
Adv. Heres. 5.34.2.
96 •N O T E S •
20
Farmer notes that the churches of Asia Minor were firmly tied to the gospel of
John, whereas churches in other areas preferred the synoptics and even reject-
ed John due to differences in style and other details, such as the order of events
in Jesus’ ministry. Irenaeus was very successful in championing the idea of a
“fourfold gospel,” and was followed by men such as Hippolytus, Origen and
Eusebius. Farmer believes that the Apocalypse was received in the church be-
cause of the acceptance of the gospel of John. Farmer and Farkasfalvy 93, fn
77. But even if this holds true in the West, which is doubtful, it is certainly not
correct for the East, where even after accepting the Fourth Gospel suspicions
remained regarding the Apocalypse. In Rome, the Apocalypse appears to have
found wide acceptance in the second century, probably even before the gospel
of John, evidenced by the Quartodeciman controversy. Contrary to Farmer’s
conclusion, the opposite seems true: the Apocalypse of John was widely ac-
cepted and recognized as apostolic in the East and in the West well before the
Fourth Gospel was universally accepted.
21
Stonehouse, 93ff.
22
Or “Caius.”
23
The Alogoi were so named by Epiphanios in the fourth century because they
opposed the writings attributed to John. Panarion 51.3.1. Because John used
the term “Logos” (“Word”) for the Son in the prologue of his gospel, those
who rejected the Johannine writings were called the “Alogoi,” Anti-Logos.
But “logos” also means “reason,” so Alogoi is also a derogatory pun which
means “irrational.” “The Alogoi − for that is the name I give them − …reject
the books of John. Since therefore they do not accept the Word preached by
John, let them be called Alogoi…They accept neither the Gospel of John nor
his Revelation…The excuse they make… is that they are not from John, but
from Cerinthus, and are not worthy to be read in the church.” (Panarion
51.3.1–3, 6. The Panarion of St. Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis, trans. Philip
R. Amidon (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), 177. It is uncertain
whether they are connected to, comprise the same group, or share the same
views as the nameless anti-Montanists who were attacked by Irenaeus. How-
ever, it appears that Gaius and the Alogoi rejected both the Gospel and Apoca-
lypse. There may have been other anti-Montanists who rejected only the
gospel of John or only the Apocalypse. The anti-Montanists may have been
represented by the Alogoi in the East and by Gaius in the West. The extent to
which anti-Montanists may have differed in their views on the canon, if at all,
is uncertain. Stonehouse, 64.
24
Hippolytus, Christ and Antichrist 36.
25
Christ and Antichrist 48.
26
E.H. 6.25.7, 9–10.
27
Manlio Simonetti, Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church, trans. John A.
Hughes (Edinburgh: T and T Clark, 1994), 45.
28
E.H. 7.24.6ff.
29
E.H. 7.25:7–15. See also Robert Grant, Heresy and Criticism: The Search for
Authenticity in Early Christian Literature, (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press,
1993), 104ff; Stonehouse, 125; Goodspeed, 99.
•N O T E S • 97
30
E.H. 7.24.
31
E.H. 3.39.6. See also 7.25.16.
32
Here he demonstrates that he is not really giving us the state of the canon of
the entire Church, but primarily of the East, since at this time most in the West
rejected Hebrews.
33
E.H. 3.25.2. Translation by Metzger, Canon, 309.
34
E.H. 3.25.4. “Among the spurious books must be reckoned…in addition, as I
said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seems right. (This last, as I said, is rejected
by some, but others count it among the recognized books.)” Translation by
Metzger, Canon, 309.
35
Elizabeth Day McCormick Apocalypse, (2 vols.) vol. II, “History and Text,”
by Ernest Cadman Colwell, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1940),
143.
36
McCormick Apocalypse, II:13–14
37
McCormick Apocalypse II:26–33.
New Testament Apocrypha

1
There is not a single corpus of literature that is historically designated as “New
Testament apocrypha.” This phrase, relatively speaking, is new within the
field of New Testament studies. It is borrowed from a well defined discipline
in the Old Testament scholarship. It usually refers to very diverse pieces of
literature, including gospels, acts and letters that are associated with the New
Testament literature or its characters. Unlike most of the writings within the
Old Testament apocrypha, many of the New Testament apocrypha have very
little to do with the canon of the New Testament. In fact, if anything, they can
simply be designated as writings “which were not accepted into the canon.”
See, Wilhelm Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha, vol. 1,
(Westminster: John Knox Press, 1991), pp. 50–51.
2
Among these we mention the canonical Second Letter of St. Paul to the
Thessalonians, the Apostle’s Letter to the Colossians and others.
3
See, for example, the status of the apocryphal Apocalypse of Peter in the Mu-
ratorian fragment. F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scriptures, (Downers Grove: In-
ter-Varsity Press, 1988), pp. 158–169; and Geoffrey Mark Hahneman, The
Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon (Oxford: Clarendon,
1992).
4
See the discussion concerning the dating of the Armenian version of the Rest
of the Evangelist John, in Yovsep Gatrchean, Hangist Eranelvoyn Yovhannu
(Vienna, 1877), pp. 6ff.
5
Such as the Armenian version of RBJ and the Gospel of Infancy.
6
Fr. Garegin Zarbhanalean, Matenadaran haykakan t'argmanut'eanc' nakhneac'
(Venice: San Lazzaro, 1889). Pages 192–206 include the authors discussion of
the New Testament apocrypha in the Armenian version of the Bible.
7
Fr. Sargis Yovsep'ianc', Ankanon Girk Hin Ktakaranats, (Venice: St. Lazzaro,
1896). This volume was translated into English a few years later by J.
98 •N O T E S •
Issaverdens, The Uncanonical Writings of the Old Testament Found in the

Armenian MSS. of the Library of St. Lazarus, (Venice, St. Lazzaro, 1934).
8
Fr. Esayi Tayec'i, Ankanon Girk Nor Ktakaranats, (Venice: St. Lazzaro,
1898).
9
The late French Armenologist Louis Leloir translated this volume into French
in his work, Écrit apocryphe sur les Apôtres: traduction de l’édition
arménienne de Venise (Turnhout: Brepols, 1986).
10
See Fr. Aristakes Vartanian’s Matenagrutyunk Eut'ałi “Euthalian Literature,”
(Venice: St. Lazzaro, 1930), in which the author discusses the introductions to
the books of the Bible attributed to Euthalius, which exist in almost all the
Armenian manuscripts of the Bible. A few pages of this work are dedicated to
the apocryphal “Petition of Euthalius,” pp. 209–212; Yovsep Gatrchean,
Hangist Eranelvoyn Yovhannu (Vienna, 1877); Hakovbos Tashean, Haykakan
ašxatasirutiwnk hayaget P. Fet't'eri (Vienna: 1895) and “T'łt'akcut'iwn Połōsi
ew kornt'ac'woc' ew meknut'iwn Ep'remi,” Handes Amsorea 5 (1891), pp.
217–18, 232–34, 276–79.
11
Ogostinos Sekulay, Nor ktakarani grk'eru karge hayoc' k'ov (Venice, 1949),
pp. 78ff.
12
Manr erker, edited by professor A. K. Sanchean (Los Angeles: La Verne,
1988), pp. 157–173.
13
Ibid., pp. 159–163.
14
Ibid., pp. 168–173. See also the same author’s book, Astuacašunč' mateani
Haykakan Bnagirě (The Armenian Text of the Bible), (Yerevan: The
Academy of Science in Armneia, 1976).
15
Lisbone: Bibliothèque Arménienne de la Fondation Calouste Gulbenkian,
1992.
16
Ibid., pp. XCVII–CIII.
17
Ibid., pp. CI–CII.
18
See the introduction of Frederich Murad’s work Haytnutèann Hovhannu hin
hay t'argmanut'iwn (The Old Armenian Translation of the Revelation of John),
(Jarusalem: St. James Press, 1911), where the author discusses several
Armenian lists of the New Testament canon. These lists serve as valuable
resources in the study of the history of the New Testament canon in the
Armenian Church. See also Kh. S. Kourian, Mesropean Astuatsašunč'e
banasirut'ean loysin tak - Ancient Armenian Translation of Bible Under the
Light of Philology (Cairo: Nubar Press, 1944). In chapter 27, “Anvawer Girk'
Nor Ktakarani” (Unauthentic Books of the New Testament), pp. 652–680,
Kourian’s discussion of the apocryphal writings in Armenian is based on the
works of Zarbhanalean and Č'rakean mentioned earlier. See also, Taniel
Šamlean, “The Canonical and Deuterocanonical Books of the Holy
Scriptures,” Sion (1966), pp. 83–87.
19
In 1894, Paul Vetter published his book Der apokryphe dritte korintherbrief,
examining the Armenian version of Third Corinthians. See also the same
author’s articles, “Armenische apokryphe Apostelgeschichten,” in Akten des
V. Internationalen Congress der Katholischen Gesellschaft (1901), pp. 361ff.;
“Armenische Apostelakten,” Oriens Christianus (1901), pp. 168–170; and
•N O T E S • 99
“Die armenischen apokryphen Apostelgeschichten,” in Theologische

Quartalschrift (1906), pp. 161–186. In 1895, Professor Joseph Armitage
Robinson, Dean of Westminster, published his notes concerning the Armenian
version of the New Testament, examining the apocryphal introductions to the
epistles of St. Paul attributed to Euthalius, in Euthaliana as part of the “Text
and Studies” series of Cambridge University. Frederick Cornwallis Conybeare
published several articles examining the Armenian version of several New
Testament Apocrypha such as “Acta Pilati” in Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica
(1896), pp. 59–132 and “Protoevangelium Iacobi” in The American Journal of
Theology, I, no, 2 (1897), pp. 424–42.
20
“Le martyre géorgien de l’apôtre Thomas,” Le Muséon, XXXIII (1970), pp.
497–532; and “La passion arménienne de S. Thomas l’apôtre et son modèle
grec,” Le Muséon, XXXIV (1971), pp. 151–195.
21
“Christological Trends and Textual Transmission,” in S. Ajamian and M. E.
Stone (ed.), Text and Context: Studies in the Armenian New Testament
(Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993); and “Text Critical of the Armenian Version of
Third Corinthians,” in Valentina Calzolari Bouvier (ed.), Apocryphes
arméniens: transmission – traduction – creation – iconographie (Lausanne:
Éditions du Zèbre, 1999), pp. 91–102.
22
Calzolari Bouvier, Apocryphes arméniens, pp. 9–18.
23
“The Apocryphal Literature in the Armenian Tradition,” Proceedings of the
Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities 4 (1969), pp. 59–77; “Armenian
Version of Bible,” Encyclopedia Judaica. (Jerusalem, 1971), pp. 5, 861–62;
“Armenian Canon Lists, I: The Canon of Partaw,” Harvard Teological Review
(HTR) 67 (1973), pp. 479–486; “Armenian Canon Lists II: The Stichometry of
Anania of Shirak," HTR 69 (1976), pp. 253–260; “Armenian Canon Lists III -
The Lists of Mechitar of Ayrivank',” HTR 69 (1976), pp. 289–300; “Armenian
Canon Lists IV: The List of Gregory of Tathew,” HTR 73 (1980), pp. 237–
244; “Armenian Canon Lists V - Anonymous Texts,” HTR 83 (1990), pp.
141–161, and others.
24
Edgar Hennecke, New Testament Apocrypha (Philadelphia: Westminster
Press, 1965); James H. Charlesworth, The New Testament Apocrypha and
Pseudepigrapha (Metuchen: Scarecrow Press, 1987); and James Keith Elliott,
The Apocryphal New Testament (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999).
25
Łazar P'arpec'i, History of the Armenians (Delmar: Caravan Books, 1985), p.
13.
26
For a discussion of the history of the translation of the Bible to Armenian and
the language of the parent text, see Stanislas Lyonnet, S.J., Les origins de la
version arménienne et le Diatessaron (Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico,
1950), and Andranik S. Zeytounian, Girk' Tsnndots': k'nnakan bnagir (The
Book of Genesis: A Critical Text) (Erevan, 1985), pp. 40–78.
27
See our discussion of the writings of St. Ephraem and St. Aphraat in the
following pages. See also Joseph Kerschensteiner “Beobachtungen zum
altsyrischen Actatext,” Biblica 45 (1964), pp. 63–74.
28
See Joseph Kerschensteiner, Der Altsyrische Paulustext, CSCO, 315 (1970),
pp. 63–74.
100 •N O T E S •
29
Koriwn, translated by Bedros Norehad, (New York: Caravan Books, 1985), p.
34.
30
Ibid., p. 32.
31
Ibid., pp 26 and 32.
32
Ibid., p. 26.
33
Almost one sixth of Koriwn’s book is dedicated to justifying his project of
writing his teacher’s biography. In the introduction to his work, Koriwn
rhetorically asks the question “whether it is permissible to write concerning
the lives of deceased men.” After referring to various passages in the Bible
Koriwn concludes that it is permissible to do so. See, Koriwn, p. xiv.
34
Koriwn, p. 107, note 47.
35
See Krikor Maksoudian, “Ōskedarean t'argmanutiwnk' naxneac'” in:
Hayastaneayc' Ekełec'i (1976), pp. 9–12.
36
Srboyn ep'remi matenagrut'iwnk', vol. 3, Meknut'iwn c'orek'tasan t'łt'oc'n
pawłosi, (Venice: San Lazzaro, 1836), pp. 116–123.
37
See Aphraat’s use of 3 Cor in his Demonstration IV “Of Monks.”
38
Moses Khorenats'i Patmut'iwn Hayots', A facsimile reproduction of the 1913
Tiflis edition with an Introduction by Robert W. Thomson, (New York:
Caravan Books, 1981), p. 327.
39
The “twenty-two known books” is a reference to the Hebrew canon of the Old
Testament, known as the Palestinian Canon, which did not include the
Apocrypha found in the Septuagint. Josephus, Origen and Jerome, among
others, confirm that the Old Testament canon included twenty-two books. See,
F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press,
1988), p. 43; Gleason L Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction
(Chicago: Moody Press, 1974), pp. 72ff., and Michael Stone, “Armenian
Canon Lists IV – The List of Gregory of Tat’ew (14th Century),” HTR (1980),
p. 243.
40
The only Armenian Church council that includes a canon dealing with the list
of the canonical books of the Bible is the Council of Partaw (AD 768).
However, this council’s list includes the books of the Old Testament only.
Scholars agree that this canon is a translation of an earlier non-Armenian text
that was later inserted into the collection of the Partaw canons. See Garegin
Zarbhanalian, Matenadaran haykakan t'argmanut'eanc' naxneac', (Venice: St.
Lazzaro, 1889), p. 225; and also Michael Stone, “Armenian Canon Lists, I:
The Canon of Partaw,” Harvard Theological Review 67 (1973), pp. 479–486.
41
See section 264 in Monica J. Blanchard and Robin Darling Young’s Eznik of
Kołb – On God (Leuven: Peeters, 1998), p. 147.
42
Theodor von Zahn, Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen Kanons (Hildesheum:
Georg Olms Verlag, 1975).
43
S. P. Cowe, “Christological Trends and Textual Transmission,” in Text and
Context: Studies in the Armenian New Testament (Atlanta: Scholars Press,
1992), p. 42.
44
See Norayr Połarean, Mayr c'uc'ak jeragrac' srboc' hakopeanc' (Grand
Catalogue of St. James Manuscripts), vol. 5, p. 375, vol. 8, p. 491 and vol. 11,
•N O T E S • 101
p. 69, (Jerusalem: St. James, 1966). And Armenian Writers, pp. 254–255.
Lambronac'i’s commentary was translated into Russian and published in 1897.
45
Połarean, Granhd Catalogue, vol. 11, p. 69.
46
Połarean, Armenian Writers, pp. 253–255.
47
Wilhelm Fredrich Rink, in his book, Das Sendschriben dritte Korinthiarum,
pp. 16–17, was the first to call our attention to this manuscript.
48
Anania Sanahnec'i is well known for his commentaries on the books of the
Bible including the Gospel of Matthew, the letters of Paul, and the book of
Jonah. See, Połarean, Armenian Writers, pp. 185–186.
49
Połarean, Grand Catalogue, vol. 1, p. 645, and vol. 2, pp. 31, 48 and 527
respectively.
50
Połarean, Grand Catalogue, vol. 1, p. 644. Page 17 of the manuscript includes
a note by the scribe who explains that the commentary is by Anania vardapet
Sanahnec'i based on the comments of St. Ephraem the Syrian and St. John
Chrysostom. The note dates the writing of the commentary “i Š ew D t'vakanin
hayoc'.”
51
Połarean, Armenian Writers, p. 185.
52
See manuscripts #560 and 1284 in Połarean’s Grand Catalogue, vol. 2, p. 589
and vol. 4, p. 477.
53
“Der Comentar des Johannes Kachik Orotnethsi” (Vienna, 1894), pp. 80–88.
54
See for example the list of Anania Širakac'i, “Anania Širakac'woy antip
ēǐerēn,” Handes Amsorea (1908), p. 20; and Murad, Haytnutèann Hovhannu,
pp. MHĔ.
55
Sargis Šnorhali, Meknut'iwn ēot'eanc' t'łt'oc' kat'ułikeanc' (Jerusalem: St.
James, 1998), p. 399.
56
The same dynamics existed in the early church in the East and the West, which
led to the categorization of the books of the New Testament to groups such as:
canonical, deuterocanonical, apocryphal and heretical. The variations that exist
among the lists of Origin, Clement of Alexandria, and others is a consequence
of the tension between the popularity and liturgical usage of some apocryphal
documents and the limits of the list developed by the church toward the end of
the fourth century. Eusebiuse’s commentary on these lists and the variations in
the classifications of the books into two, three or four groups, is further
evidence of the tension that defined the state of the canon of the New
Testament.
57
Gargein Galemkaryan, “Mxit'ar Ayrevanc'i ew noragiwt grut'iwnně” in:
Handes Amsorea (1891), p. 162.
58
Ararat (1895), p. 407.
59
According to Armenian historians, including the thirteenth century Kirakos
Ganjakec'i, a certain Sarkavak Vardapet is known to have lived in in Armenia
during the first half of the 12th century. See Kirakos Ganjakec'i’s Patmut'iwn
Hayoc' (History of the Armenians), Robert Bedrosian, (tr.) (New York:
Sources of the Armenian Tradition, 1986).
60
Gargein Galemkaryan, “Mxit'ar Ayrevanc'i ew noragiwt grut'iwnně” in:
Handes Amsorea (1891), p. 161–167.
102 •N O T E S •
61
N. Akinian, “Grigor ordi abasay hełinak patčarac' groc',” Handes Amsorea
(1907), pp. 132–135; “patčarac' girkĕ,” Handes Amsorea (1907), pp. 228–235
and 271–274, and Murad, Haytnutèann Hovhannu, p. MŁD.
62
Girk Harc'manc' Grigori Tat'ewac'woy (Constantinople, 1729), p. 451.
63
Frederich Murad, Haytnut'eann Hovhannu hin hay t'argmanut'iwn (Jerusalem:
St. James, 1905–1911), pp. MŁZ–MŁĒ.
64
Połarean, Mayr c'uc'ak jeragrac', vol. 6, p. 427ff. The manuscript is copied in
Jerusalem and dated AD 1648.
65
Adjémian, Grand Cataloge des manuscrits Armeniens de la Bible, pp. CVI–
CVII.
66
Based on its various colophons, Pogharean dates this manuscript to AD 1620.
Połarean, Grand Catalogue, vol. 2, pp. 382–387. See also N. Akinian,
“Step'anos C'ik ǐułayec'i (1603–1637),” in Handes Amsorea (1947), pp. 112–
123.
67
Of the 294 manuscripts of the Bible examined by Onnik Ekanean, 156 ones
are of complete Bibles or complete or partial New Testaments, some of which
include only four or less books of the Bible. Among the second groupof
manuscripts, 114 are of The Petition of Euthalius, 87 of RBJ and 86 or 3 Cor.
See Archevêque Chahé Adjémian, Grand Cataloge (Lisbonne:
FundaçāoCalouste Gulbenkian, 1992), pp. 1040–1041.
68
See, for example, manuscripts #234, 254, 255, 523, 540, 560, 736, 1127, 1284,
1932, 1933, 1934 and others of the St. James collection in Jerusalem.
69
See, for example, manuscripts #255, 540, 1127, 1297 and others of the St.
James collection in Jerusalem.
70
Vahan Hovhanessian, Third Corinthians: Reclaiming Paul for Christian
Orthodoxy (New York: Peter Lang, 2000), pp. 12–16. See also manuscripts #
5, 22, 95, 122 of Armenian church lectionaries in the St. James collection in
Jerusalem. Połarean, Grand Catalogue, vol. 1, pp. 53–58, 112–115, 289–301,
352–358.
71
See, for example, Chashots’ Girk’, (Jerusalem: St. James, 1967), pp. 370–372.
72
For a detailed examination of the incorporation of RBJ in the Armenian
Church liturgy see the author’s article, “The Repose of the Blessed John in the
Armenian Bible and the Acts of John” in: P. Piovanelli (ed.), Bringing the
Underground to the Foreground: New Perspectives on Jewish and Christian
Apocryphal Texts and Traditions. Proceedings of the Apocrypha and
Pseudepigrapha Section of the Society for Biblical Literature International
Meeting Held in Groningen, The Netherlands, July 25–28, 2004
(forthcoming).
73
For a review of the earliest efforts to publish the Armenian version of the
Bible see Hagop S. Anassian, Manr Erker, pp. 361ff.
74
The only Old Testament apocryphal books in Oskan’s Bible are the Prayer of
Manasseh the King of Judah and the Fourth Book of Ezra.
75
Bazmavep (1966), pp. 298 and 301; and also Minassyan, pp. 360–367.
76
For Oskan’s correspondence, see, Bazmavep (1966), pp. 293–307.
77
Venice: San Lazzaro, 1805.
78
Zōhrapean, pp. 7–8.
•N O T E S • 103
79
Ibid., pp. 25ff.
80
Girk' astuacašunč' hin ew nor ktakaranac' (Venice: St. Lazzaro, 1860).
81
The introduction to Bagratuni’s edition of the Bible is published in Bazmavep
(1966), pp. 347–353. He keeps the apocryphal Letter of the Prophet Jeremiah
and the Book of Sirach in the canon of his version of the Bible because “the
Greeks and the Romans classify them as canonical,” p. 349.
82
Astuacašunč' matean hin ew nor ktakaranac' (Constantinople: Baghdadlian
Press, 1929). See also Adjémian, Grand Catalogue, p. III
83
Azgapatum, (Beirut: Sevan Press, 1959), vol. 3, p. 2954.
84
See F. C. Conybeare, “Protoevangelium Iacobi, (from an Armenian
Manuscript in the Library of the Mechitarists in Venice),” The American
Journal of Theology, I (1897), pp. 424–442; and N. Mar, “Girk mankut'ean
Yisusi” Bazmavep (1892), pp. 247–253 and 290–295. For a comparison of the
texts of this document in the Armenian, Syriac and Arab traditions see, Paul
Peeters, Évangiles apocryphes. II. L’Évangile de l’Enfance. Rédactions
syriaque, arabe et arméniennes traduites et annotées (Paris: Auguste Picard,
1914). For a study of another Armenian manuscript, #1432 in Jerusalem, see
S. Mkhsyan, “Avetaran Mankutean Krisdosi,” Sion (1972), pp. 122–131. For
the text in Classical Armenian see Esayi Tayec'i, Ankanon girk' Nor
Ktakaranats'.(Uncanonical books of the New Testament), pp. 1–126, and a
second variation on pp. 127–233. Fragments of the same apocryphal writing
are also preserved in Armenian. See, Tayec'i, pp. 257–312. See also Abraham
Terian, The Armenian Gospel of the Infancy with three early versions of the
Protevangelium of James (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008).
85
Some manuscripts add the subtitle: “Memoirs of what happened to Christ in
the presence of Pontius Pilate, the ruler of the Jews.” This is the Armenian
translation of a version of the Acta Pilati. Its text agrees with that of
Tischendorf’s “A” recension. See Tichendorf, Evangelia Apocrypha (Lipsiae,
1876), pp. 210–486. Fredrick C. Conybeare published his comments on the
Armenian version with its Greek and Latin re-translation by him in Studia
Biblical et Ecclesiastica (Oxford, 1896), pp. 59–132. This apocryphal writing
is known in the Church in the West as the “Gospel of Nicodemus.” This title,
which gained popularity in the medieval times, was based on the assumption
that the author of the original Hebrew text of this apocryphal writing was
Nicodemus. See Schneemelcher, pp. 501–536. For the textin Classical
Armenian, see Esayi Tayec'i, Ankanon girk' nor ktakaranats', pp. 313–358.
86
Tayec'i, pp. 359–378. An abbreviated variation of the same apocrypha is pre-
served in Armenian, pp. 379–380. The same apocryphon is known as the Let-
ters of Herod and Pilate. It connects the death of Christ with the context of
Roman history. In addition to the Armenian manuscripts, this apocryphon is
found also in a sixth-centuy Syriac manuscript in the British Museum and a
Greek manuscript in Paris.
87
The full title reads “The Epistle of James the Bishop of Jerusalem to Kodratos
(Quadrates), to demonstrate the order given by Emperor Tiberius to the Jews in
order to crucify Jesus.” See Hakovbos Tashean, Vardapetutʻiwn Aṛakʻelotsʻ
104 •N O T E S •
anvawerakan kanonatsʻ mateaně, Tʻughtʻ Hakobay aṛ Kodratos ew Kanonkʻ

Tʻaddēi : kʻnnutʻiwn ew bnagirkʻ (Vienna : Mkhitʻarean Tparan, 1896).
88
This letter of two pages in Tayec'i’s book appears to be the Armenian transla-
tion of a Latin version which was discovered among the writings of the 11th-
century Anselm of Canterbury. It is a letter by an alleged contemporary of Pi-
late to the Roman Senate. The Latin text of the letter was first published, with
minor variations, by Fabricius in his Codex apocryphus Novi Testamenti
(Hamburg, 1703). This apocryphal letter contains the first description of the
personal appearance of Christ. See Tayec'i, pp. 381–382 for the Armenian text.
89
Some manuscripts have the subtitle, “Which the most blessed saw concerning
the suffering of the sinner.” See Esayi Tayec'i, pp. 383–401. Several variations
of the same writing are preserved in Armenian. See pp. 402–450.
90
Paul Vetter, “Die armenische Dormitio Mariae,” Theologische Quartalschrift,
LXXXIV (1902), pp. 321–349; and Hakovbos Tashean, “Anvawerakan t'ułt
Dionesiosi arispagac'woy aṙ Titos vasn nnǐman Maremay” Handes Amsorea
(1893), pp. 69–71. For the Armenian text see, Tayec'i, pp. 451–478; and
Połarean, Grand Catalogue, manuscript #929, vol. 3, p. 465.
91
K'erobē Č'rakean, Ankanon girk' Arak'elakank, (Venice: San Lazzaro, 1904),
pp. 1–29. This apocryphal writing is preserved in Armenian in several
versions. For an abbreviated version of the same, see pp. 30–45.
92
Ibid., pp. 46–50.
93
Ibid., pp. 51–56.
94
Ibid., pp. 57–61.
95
With the subtitle: “When the Angels Carried His Soul Away.” Ibid., pp. 62–
84. Different versions of this apocryphal writing with different subtitles are
preserved in Armenian. Ibid., pp. 85–100 and 101–109.
96
Hovhanessian, Third Corinthians. Supra n. 63.
97
Č'rakean, pp. 110–122.
98
Ibid., pp. 124–145.
99
Ibid., pp. 146–167.
100
Ibid., pp. 168–173.
101
The subtitle reads: “Being in the body, he went to Spain, who is now called St.
Jacob.” Ibid., pp. 174–189.
102
Ibid., pp. 190–221.
103
Ibid., pp. 222–229.
104
Ibid., pp. 230–240. There are several apocryphal documents similar to this one
narrating the miraculous ministry of the Evangelist John. See, Č'rakean, pp.
241–277.
105
Ibid., pp. 286–292.
106
See Hovsep Gatrchian, Dormitio Beati Joannis (The Rest of the Blessed John),
(Vienna: Mechitaristen-Buchdruckerei, 1877), and Vahan Hovhanessian, “The
Repose of the Evangelist John and the Armenian Bible,” forthcoming in
conference volume for the 2004 International Conference of the Society of
Biblical Literature in Groningen, Netherlands, ed. Pierluigi Piovanelli.
107
•N O T E S • 105
108
Ibid., pp. 300–320. The same apocryphal writing exists in different versions.
Ibid., pp. 321–328.
109
Ibid., pp. 329–332.
110
Ibid., pp. 333–357. Some manuscripts add “and Jude.” An abbreviated
variation of the same writing survives also in Armenian. See pp. 358–364.
111
Ibid., pp. 365–368.
112
G. Garitte, “La passion arménienne de S. Thomas l’apôtre et son modèle
grec,” Le Muséon, LXXXIV (1971), pp. 151–195; H. S. Anassian, “Mi
ancanōt hełinak ew nra erki noragiwt hratarakut'iwně.” For the Armenian text
see Č'rakean, pp. 369–387.
113
Č'rakean, Ankanon girk', pp. 388–400. An abbreviated version of the same
story is also available in Armenian manuscripts. See pp. 428–436.
114
Ibid., pp. 401–416.
115
Ibid., pp. 417–427.
116
Ibid., pp. 437–448.
117
Ibid., pp. 449–452.
118
Ibid., pp. 453–461.
119
Ibid., pp. 462–463.
120
Ibid., pp. 464–465.
121
Ibid., pp. 466–470.
122
Ibid., pp. 471–473.
123
Ibid., pp. 474–475.
124
Ibid., pp. 476–477.
125
See manuscripts # 7 (old #4) and #10 in Hakovbos Tashean’s, Catalog der
armenischen handschriften in der Mechitharisten-bibliothek zu Wien (Vienna,
1895), pp. 43. See also Anassian, Manr Erker, p. 159.
126
For the Classical Armenian text of Abgar’s letter to Christ and Christ’s reply
to him see manuscripts # 7 (old #4) of a 1439 AD Yaysmawurk (Synaxary) and
#219 (old 7) of another Yaysmawurk and others in Hakovbos Tashean’s,
Catalog, pp. 34 and 566. See also Anassian, Manr Erker, p. 160.
127
A. Vartanian, Matenagrutyunk Eutałi, (Vienna: 1930).
128
Hakovbos Tashean, Vardapetut'iwn Arak'eloc' anvawerakan kanonac`
mateane, T'ułt' Hakobay ar Kodratos ew Kanonk' T'addēi (Vienna, 1896). For
the Armenian text see, Anassian, Manr Erker, p. 161.
129
Vazgen Hakobyan, Kanonagirk hayoc', vol. 1, (Erevan, 1964), pp. 67–100 and
550–557; and Anassian, Manr Erker, p. 161.
130
Anassian, Manr Erker, p. 161.
131
Ibid., p. 161.
132
Č'rakean, Ankanon girk', pp. 462ff, and Anassian, Manr Erker, p. 161.
133
Some manuscripts add, “to Rome.” Ibid., p. 123.
134
This is an anthology of miracles attributed to the apostle John. See Č'rakean,
pp. 190–221.
135
136
Anassian, Manr Erker, p. 160.
137
Ibid., p. 160.
Bibliography
Adjémian, Archevêque Chahé. Grand Cataloge des manuscrits Armeniens de la

Bible. Lisbone: Bibliothèque Arménienne de la Fondation Calouste Gulbenkian,
1992
———. S., and M. E. Stone. Text and Context: Studies in the Armenian New
Testament. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994.
Alexander, Philip S. “Contextualizing the Demonology of the Testament of
Solomon,” in Die Dämonen. Die Dämonologie der israelitisch-jüdischen und
frühchristlichen Literatur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt, ediyed by Armin Lange.
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003.
Altaner, Berthold and Stuiber, Alfred. Patrologie. Leben, Schriften und Lehre der
Kirchenvaeter. Herder: Freiburg, 1993.
Anassian, Hagop. Manr Erker, A. K. Sanchean (ed.). Los Angeles: La Verne, 1988.
Burchard, Christoph. Armenia and the Bible. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993.
Calzolari Bouvier, Valentina . Apocryphes arméniens: transmission – traduction –
creation – iconographie. Lausanne: Éditions du Zèbre, 1999.
Cartojan, N. Cărţile populare în literatura românească. 2vols. Bucharest:
Editura Enciclopedică Română, 1974.
Charles, R.H. (Ed.) The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in
English. With Introductions and Critical and Explanatory Notes to the several
books. Volume I: Apocrypha. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983.
Charlesworth, James H. The Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research (with
a Supplement). Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1981.
Connolly, R.H. Didascalia Apostolorum. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1929.
Č'rakean, K'erobē. Ankanon girk' Arak'elakank. Venice: San Lazzaro, 1904.
Denis, A.M. Introduction à la littérature religieuse judéo-hellénistique. Turnhout:
Brepols, 2000.
Downey, G. A History of Antioch in Syria from Seleucus to the Arab Conquest.
Princeton University Press, 1961.
Duling, D.C. “Testament of Solomon,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Vol.
1: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments, edited by James H. Charlesworth.
New York: Doubleday, 1983.
Epp, Eldon Jay. “Issues in the Interrelation of New Testament Textual Criticism and
Canon,” in The Canon Debate, edited by Lee Martin McDonald and James
Sanders. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2002.
108 •B I B LI O GR AP H Y •
Farkasfalvy, Denis. The Formation of the New Testament Canon. New York: Paulist
Press, 1983.
Georg, Graf. Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur. Volume 1. Città del
Vaticano: Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana, 1944.
González Lamadrid, A. (et all.), Historia, Narrativa, Apocalíptica. Estella: Verbo
Divino, 2000.
Hakopyan, V. (Ed.) The Canon Book of the Armenians. 2vol. Erevan: Armenian
Academy of Sciences, 1971.
Hicks, J.M. 1 & 2 Chronicles (NIV Commentary), College Press, 2001.
Kaestli, J.D. “La littérature apocryphe peut-elle être comprise comme une ‘littérature
au second degré’ (G. Genette)?” In: D. Marguerat and A. Curtis (ed.).
Intertextualités. La Bible en échos. Genève: Labor et Fides, 2000.
Leloir, Louis. Écrits apocryphes sur les Apôtres: traduction de l'édition arménienne
de Venise. Turnhout: Brepols, 1986.
Löning, K. “Die Tora als Weg zum ewigen Leben nach Lk 10,25-37,” in:
Angenendt, A. / H. Vorgrimler, Sie wandern von Kraft zu Kraft. Festgabe für
Bischof R. Lettmann, Münster: Butzon & Bercker, 1993, 49-71.
Lohse, E. (Ed.) Die Texte aus Qumran. Hebraeisch und Deutsch. Mit
Masoretischer Punktation. Uebersetzung, Einfuehrung und Anmerkungen.
Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. 1986 4th Edition.
Marguerat, D. & Y. Bourquin. Cómo leer los relatos bíblicos. Iniciación al análisis
narrativo. Santander: Sal Terrae, 2000.
McCown, C.C. The Testament of Solomon. Leipzig: Heinrichs, 1922.
Metzger, Bruce. The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development and
Significance. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987.
Naveh, Joseph and Shaked, Shaul. Amulets and Magic Bowls: Aramaic Incantations
of Late Antiquity. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1985.
North, R. “El Cronista: 1 y 2 Crónicas, Esdras y Nehemías.” En: Brown, R. (Ed.)
Nuevo Comentario Bíblico San Jerónimo. Antiguo Testamento. Estella: Verbo
Divino, 2005, 556-614.
Oesterley, W.O. An Introduction to the Books of the Apocrypha. London: SPCK,
1958.
Pritchard, J. (Ed.) Ancient Near Eastern Texts. Relating to the Old Testament
(ANET). Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1955.
Rahlfs, A. Septuaginta. Id est Vetus Testamentum graecae iuxta LXX interpretes.
Libri poetici et prophetici. Editio Septima, Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft
1962.
Schiffman, Lawrence. and Swartz, Michael. Hebrew and Aramaic Incantation Texts
from the Cairo Genizah (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992).
Schmid, Josef. Der Apokalypse-Kommentar des Andreas von Kaisareia, vol. 1 of
Studien zur Geschichte des griechischen Apokalypse-Textes. München: Karl
Zink Verlag, 1955-56.
Schökel, L.A. Manual de poética hebrea. Ediciones Cristiandad: Madrid, 1988.
Schökel, L.A. and Carniti, C. Salmos I. Salmos 1-72. Traducción, introducción y
comentario. Estella: Verbo Divino, 1994.
Schökel, L.A. and Carniti, C. Salmos I. Salmos 73-150. Traducción, introducción y
•B I B LI O GR AP H Y • 109
comentario. Estella: Verbo Divino, 1993.

Schuller, E.M. “The use of Biblical Terms as designations for non-Biblical
Hymnic and Prayer Compositions.” In: Stone, M.E. and Chazon, E.G. (Ed.),
Biblical Perspectives: Early Use and Interpretation of the Bible in light of the
Dead Sea Scrolls. Leiden: Brill, 1998, 207-222.
Sekulay, Ogostinos. Nor ktakarani grk'eru karge hayoc' k'ov. Venice: San Lazzaro,
1949.
Skemer, Don C. Binding Words: Textual Amulets in the Middle Ages. University
Park, Pennsylvania: State University Press, 2006.
Stonehouse, N.B. The Apocalypse in the Ancient Church. Goes, [Holland]:
Oosterbaan and Le Cointre, 1929.
Tanielian, Bishop Anoushavan. Archbishop Nerses Lambronaci, Commentary on
Wisdom of Solomon. New York, NY: Skewra Press: 2007.
Tarazi, P.N. The Old Testament: An Introduction. Volume 1: Historical Traditions.
New Revised Edition. St Vladimir’s Seminary Press: Crestwood (N.Y.), 2003.
Tayec'i, Esayi. Ankanon Girk Nor Ktakaranats. Venice: St. Lazzaro, 1898.
Vriezen, T.C. & A.S. van der Woude. Ancient Israelite and Early Jewish Literature.
Translated by B. Doyle. Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, 2005.
Wuerthwein, E. The Text of the Old Testament. An introduction to Biblia Hebraica.
Translated by E.F. Rhodes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979.
Index
•A• breath, 31, 39

brotherhood, 63, 64, 75, 81, 82
Abgar, 42, 85, 105n.126
Adam, 15, 47, 48, 90n.17
Acts •C•
of the Apostles, 6, 13, 51, 52, 58, 68,
77, 79, 80 Caesarea, 53, 58, 60, 94n.13, 95n.15
of John, 84, 102n.72 Cairo, 24, 45, 90n.11, 12, 92n.5
of Paul, 58 canticles, 24
of Pilate, 48 Cappadocia, 60
Agathangelos, 72, 74 Castle(s), 26, 30, 35
Apostle Cilicia(n), 40, 73, 79
Bartholomew, 84 circumsicion, 17
James, 4, 52, 58 Constantinople, 39, 60, 82
John, 58, 63, 73, 76, 77, 79, 80, 84, Coptic, 22, 23, 24, 26, 30, 37, 47, 90nn.11,
93n.1, 94n.31, 95n.18 12, 18
Paul, 6, 17, 47, 51, 55, 58, 68, 70, 71, covenant, 18
72, 74, 75, 76, 79, 80, 83, 85, 93n.1, Council of
96n.2, 98n.19 Bardaw (Bartaw), 39
Peter, 6, 48, 52, 55, 58, 77, 78, 83, Trent, 4, 60
92n.14 Trullo, 60
Thaddeus, 84, 85
Thomas, 66, 76, 84, 98n.20
Aramaic, 45, 92nn.4 and 5
Athanasius (Saint), 23, 42, 51, 52, 91n.7 •D•
Damascus, 13, 23, 47, 77, 78
Daniel, the prophet, 3, 4, 56, 91n.1
•B• dark(ness), 31, 47
David, the king, 9, 13, 17, 19, 21
Babylon, 8, 12, 45, 88n.3, 92n.4 Dead Sea Scrolls, 2, 45
Bagratuni, 79, 82, 102n.81 Deuteronomist, 8–15, 19, 88n.5, 92n.3
Barnabas, 85 diaspora, 2, 3, 11, 19
Baruch, 15, 40, 41 Diatessaron, 5, 54, 99n.26
beasts, 31 Didascalia, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, 20, 88n.4
Bethlehem, 47 Dionysios of Alexandria, 57–59
bishop, 12, 13, 48, 55, 71, 72, 77, 81, 83, doxology, 14, 18
92n.14, 103n.87
112 •I N D E X •
•E• Iraq, 39
Ibrāhīm, the monk, 20, 21
Earth, 31, 32, 33, 47, 56
East, 51, 52, 57, 58, 59, 60, 62, 63, 70, 71,
95n.20, 96n.32, 100n.56 •J•
Easter, 41, 91n.6
Ecclesiastical History, 58, 95n.15 Jeroboam, 9
Eusebius, 48, 57, 58, 59, 60, 92n.14, Josiah, 8, 9
95nn.15, 20, 101n.56 Judgment, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 33, 34, 48,
Euthalius, Petition of, 64, 76, 77, 79, 90n.15,
Esarhaddon, annals of, 9 Justice, 15, 40
Eznik, 39, 40, 71, 100n.41
•K•
•F•
kingdom, 9, 12, 28, 31, 48, 56
feast, 29, 40, 41, 80, 91n.6, Koriwn, 39, 66, 67, 68, 69, 99nn.29, 33, 34
fire, 31, 32, 33, 34 Krtenavor, Theodore, 73, 74
fihrist, 22
forgiveness, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20
•L•
•G• Latin, 12, 15, 16, 47, 49, 52, 55, 82, 83,
94nn.2, 3, 103n.85, 104n.88
Gaius, 55, 95n.23 Law, 1, 9, 10, 15, 28, 68, 86
Gentiles, 3, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, 32 Lectionary, 1, 40, 41, 51, 52, 53, 59, 60, 61
Gibeon, 27, 33 Levites, 10
Girk Patčarac', 77 light, 26, 35, 37, 63, 71, 81, 98n.18
Gnostic, 4, 63, 90n.17, 94n.9 liturgy, 20, 39, 40, 64, 102n.72
Greece, 43
Gregory (the Illuminator), 40, 71, 72, 73,
98n.23
Grigor Tat'ewac'i, 74, 77 •M•
Marcion, 5, 54, 57
Martha, 26, 28
•H• mashal, 8, 10, 11, 12, 19
Montanism, 55
Heaven, 31, 47, 48 Muratorian, 54, 55, 97n.3
Hell, 33, 34, 36, 47, 48
Hippolytus, 56, 94n.9, 95n.20
•N•
•I• nasḫī, 22, 23, 24
Nathan, the prophet, 13
Icons, 18, 60 Nepos, 57
Iconostasis, 47, 48 Nicodemus, 47, 48, 84, 103n.85
Idolatry, 7, 8, 11, 12, 19, 89n.4
Irenaeus of Lyon, 5, 53, 54, 55, 94n.9
•I N D E X • 113
•O• Tatian, 5, 54
Torah, 2
Odes, 7 Tradition, 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 15, 16, 36, 40, 43,
Origen, 56, 57, 94n.9, 96n.20 46, 48, 53, 54, 57, 58, 59, 67, 72, 89n.4,
Oskan, 80, 81, 82, 102nn. 74, 76 90n.7, 92n.3, 99n.23, 102n.72, 103n.84
•P• •V•
Parpetsi, Ghazar, 67, 68 Vatican(o), 21, 22, 36, 90n.1
Pilate, 48, 84, 103n.85 virgin, 41, 46, 47, 84
Polycarp, 53, 94n.9 vision, 13, 84
prophet(s), 8, 9, 15, 52, 68, 74, 103n.81 Vulgata, 12, 52, 82
Psalm(s), 3, 7, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19, 89n.6
•Z•
•Q• Zebedee, sons of, 81, 85
Qohelet, 23 Zohrabian, 80, 82, 83
Queen, 26, 33, 34, 35, 36
Qumran, 2, 7, 14, 89n.1
Quinisext, 60
•R•
refutation(s), 24, 40, 57
Repose, of the Evangelist John, 64, 84,
102n.72, 104n.106
ring, 26, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36
Rome, 33, 47, 48, 54, 80, 81, 93n.14, 94n.9
repentance, 12, 13, 16, 18, 19, 89n.4, 90n.7
Russian, 24, 34, 101n.44
•S•
sacrifice(s), 11, 55, 81
Septuagint, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 18, 27, 100n.39
Susanna, 4
Syriac, 5, 12, 15, 17, 39, 47, 54, 67, 68,
89n.4, 91n.7, 103nn.84, 86
•T•
Tatˈewacˈi, 75, 78, 99n.23
BIBLE IN THE CHRISTIAN
@ ORTHODOX TRADITION
Vahan S. Hovhanessian, General Editor
This series aims at exploring and evaluating the various aspects of biblical traditions
as studied, understood, taught, and lived in the Christian communities that spoke
and wrote—and some continue speaking and writing—in the Aramaic, Arabic,
Armenian, Coptic, Georgian, Romanian, Syriac, and other languages of the
Orthodox family of churches. A particular focus of this series is the incorporation of
the various methodologies and hermeneutics used for centuries in these Christian
communities, into the contemporary critical approaches, in order to shed light on
understanding the message of the Bible. Each monograph in the series will engage
in critical examination of issues raised by contemporary biblical research. Scholars
in the fields of biblical text, manuscripts, canon, hermeneutics, theology, lectionary,
Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha will have an enormous opportunity to share their
academic findings with a worldwide audience. Manuscripts and dissertations,
incorporating a variety of approaches and methodologies to studying the Bible in
the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox traditions—including, but not limited to,
theological, historiographic, philological and literary—are welcome. Further
information about this series and inquiries about the submission of manuscripts
should be directed to:
Acquisitions Department
Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.
P.O. Box 1246
Bel Air, MD 21014–1246
To order books in this series, please contact the Customer Service Department:
(800) 770–Lang (within the U.S.)
(212) 647–7706 (outside the U.S.)
(212) 647–7707 FAX
or browse online by series:
www.peterlang.com

The Canon of The Bible and The Apocrypha in The Churches of The East

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Canon of The Bible and The Apocrypha in The Churches of The East

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hovhanessian_DD_CB_978-1-4331-1035-1:NORMAN~1.

qxp 11/10/2011 11:32 AM Page 1

BIBLE IN THE CHRISTIAN ORTHODOX TRADITION

in the Churches of the East

BIBLE IN THE CHRISTIAN ORTHODOX TRADITION

in the Churches of the East

Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek.

© 2012 Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., New York

All rights reserved.

Preface ............................................................................................... vii

The Canon of Scripture in the Orthodox Church ................................... 1

The Prayer of Manasses: Orthodox Tradition and Modern Studies

Testament of Solomon and Other Pseudepigraphical Material in

The Book of Wisdom of Solomon in the Armenian Church Literature

Visul Maicii Domnului (“The Dream of the Mother of the Lord”):

Banned from the Lectionary: Excluding the Apocalypse of John

New Testament Apocrypha and the Armenian Version

T his is the third volume to be published by the “Bible in the

Bishop Vahan Hovhanessian, Ph.D.

The Canon of Scripture in the

T he precise status, content and role of the canon in the Orthodox

the Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures produced during the

The early Church began in Judea among non-Hellenized Jews but

the Jewish canon of twenty-two books. The variation in number arises

The New Testament Books

development of the canon. But a new question arose: which books

The Prayer of Manasses:

T his fifteen verse document is an important testimony of how

Manasses 2Kings and 2Chronicles. Within this research we shall also

One King, Two Narratives: The Deuteronomistic Version

considered as a foreign nation and be handed over to the oppression of

One King, Two Narratives: The Chronicler Version

Another important example to be mention is the prayer of Solomon

1–4 An invocation of the Lord

In the following paragraphs we will comment on those aspects of

the Chronicler’s narratives. We will focus on the reading of the Old

The Invocation (vv. 1–4)

The Lord and the Sinner (vv. 5–7)

tions author. The contents of this addition do not contradict in any-

The Confession of Sin (vv. 8–10)

The Supplication for Forgiveness (vv. 11–14)

The underlined text is identical with v. 7 in the prayer. This shows

The Final Doxology (v. 15)

Greek prevented its assimilation within the Chronicles, as the Did-

Testament of Solomon and Other

T he Arabic text which is the subject of this paper was first

is a compilation of canonical, pseudepigraphical and legendary mate-

Work Fihrist Cat. fols.

The final work, however, appears to be missing from the volume, as

2. BNF AR 214 - Bibliothèque Nationale de France Fonds Arabe 214

Section 5, however, contains five distinct works in Arabic: translations

No mention, however, is made of JSol. Although Graf was well

3. Coptic Museum 31 - A 17th century manuscript identified by Graf

4. Coptic Museum 67 - In addition to the previous manuscript, the

Relationship Between Available Known Manuscripts

Origin and History

curious lexical choices are evidence of translation or at least adapta-

Origin and History

These stories are arranged in chronological order with the construction

The Canonical Introduction (Stories I and II)

This addition cannot be found in either the canonical Old Testament or

Secondly, story II is the first time we encounter Solomon’s boy-

Joachim’s Daughters and Trial by Water (Story III)