Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 72(1-2), 33-70. doi: 10.2143/JECS.72.1.3287534 © 2020 by Journal of Eastern Christian Studies. All rights reserved.

SINAITICA (2): IOASAPH OF RHODES’ INVENTORY OF THE ARCHBISHOPS OF SINAI

Alexander Treiger

In September 1640, Ioasaph of Rhodes, the archbishop (in 1617-1660) of the Sacred Monastery of the God-Trodden drew up an inventory of the hierarchs of Sinai mentioned in Sinai Arabic (and, on a few occasions, Greek) manuscripts.1 This inventory is preserved in Sinai gr. 2215, fol. 27r / p. 51.2 In his Abridgment of Sacred and World History (Ἐπιτομὴ τῆς ἱεροκοσμικῆς ἱστορίας), first printed in Venice in 1677, Ioasaph’s disciple Nectarius (1602-1676, patriarch of Jerusalem in 1661- 1669) incorporated the information from Ioasaph’s inventory into his own catalogue of the Sinai hierarchs.3 Nectarius’ catalogue, in turn, was worked into the various Greek ‘Descriptions’ of Mount Sinai, the first of which was printed in Tîrgoviște, Romania in 1710.4 An updated Arabic translation of it is preserved in , Bibliothèque­ Orientale 17, from

1 This article is the second installment in the series ‘Sinaitica’. For the first installment, see A. Treiger, ‘Sinaitica (1): The Antiochian Menologion, Compiled by Hieromonk Yūḥannā ῾Abd al-Masīḥ (First Half of the 13th Century)’, Христианскй восток / Chris- tian Orient, 8 (14) (2017), pp. 215-252. I am grateful to the anonymous reviewer for critical comments and suggestions. 2 Though several publications have referred to Ioasaph’s inventory, only one seems to provide the correct manuscript number: Κ. Ἄμαντος [K. Amantos], Σιναϊτικὰ μνημεῖα ἀνέκδοτα [Unpublished Sinai Monuments] (Athens, 1928), p. 8. Ioasaph’s inventory is now conveniently accessible on the Library of Congress website: https://www.loc.gov/ resource/amedmonastery.00279386139-ms/?sp=30. 3 Νεκτάριος, πατριάρχης Ἱεροσολύμων [Nectarius, Patriarch of Jerusalem], Ἐπιτομὴ τῆς ἱεροκοσμικῆς ἱστορίας [Abridgment of Sacred and World History] (Venice, 1677), pp. 221-223. 4 I have had access only to the 1727 edition: Βιβλίον περιέχον τὴν ἀκολουθίαν τῆς ἁγίας Αἰκατερίνης τό τε προσκυνητάριον τοῦ ἁγίου Ὄρους Σινᾶ [A Book Containing the Service to St. Catherine and the Pilgrimage Guide to the Holy Mount Sinai] (Venice, 1727), pp. 67-68. 34 Alexander Treiger which it was published by Louis ­Cheikho.5 During his second visit to Mount Sinai in 1850, the nineteenth-century Russian bishop and scholar Porphyry Uspenskiy (1804-1885) was able to consult Ioasaph’s original inventory (as well as Ioasaph’s other notes) and used it in compiling his own list of Sinai hierarchs.6 Ioasaph of Rhodes’ inventory is, therefore, at the very root of what we know – or think we know – about the chronology of the archbishops of Sinai. Because it was never published or studied, I shall offer an edition and translation of it, with a critical commentary. The edition preserves, as closely as possible, the peculiar orthography of the original as well as its grammar, characteristic of low-register Early Modern Greek.7 The paragraphs have been numbered for easy reference, and Byzantine world era dates have been converted into ones in brackets. The names of the hierarchs of Sinai are standardized, i.e., given in their common English forms through- out, so as not to create a confusion between the diverse forms of the same name across the various languages.8

5 L. Cheikho, ‘Les archevêques du Sinaï’, Mélanges de la Faculté Orientale, Université Saint-Joseph, 2 (1907), pp. 408-421. The Beirut manuscript he used cannot, however, be dated to 1710. 6 П. Успенскiй [P. Uspenskiy], Второе путешествiя архимандрита Порфирiя Успенскаго въ Синайскiй монастырь [Archimandrite Porphyry Uspenskiy’s Second Voyage to the Sinai Monastery] (Saint Petersburg, 1856), pp. 350-367. The sections of Ioasaph’s notebook immediately following the inventory of hierarchs were transcribed in Успенскiй, Второе путешествiя, pp. 298-299, 294, 295-296; the section about the earthquake is found in a Russian translation in П. Успенскiй [P. Uspenskiy], ‘Синайскiй полуостров’ [The Sinai Peninsula], Журналъ министерства народнаго просвѣщенiя, 60 (1848), pp. 137-210, on p. 159. 7 D. Holton and I. Manolessou, ‘Medieval and Early Modern Greek’, in A Companion to the Ancient Greek Language, ed. E.J. Bakker (Malden, MA, 2010), pp. 539-563. 8 In doing so, I am following what seems to have been the normal practice of other stud- ies about the hierarchs of Sinai: the proper names of the hierarchs are usually given in the language of the book or article in question, i.e., the hierarchs called, e.g., Iōannēs, Markos, and Makarios in the Greek sources and Yūḥannā (or Yuḥannā), Marquṣ, and Maqāriyūs (or Maqārī) in the Arabic sources would be referenced in scholarly literature as John, Mark, and Macarius in English; Jean, Marc, and Macaire in French; Ioan, Marcu, and Macarie in Romanian; etc. Ioasaph of Rhodes’ Inventory 35

1. edition and Translation

͵ζρμθʹ, ἐν μηνὶ σεπτευρ(ίῳ) In the Month of September 7149 [=1640] Ἐξαιτάζοντας9 νὰ εὑρῶμεν τοὺς ἐπισκόπους In the course of an investigation aimed at ὁποῦ10 ἀρχιεράτευσαν εἰς τὸ σινᾶ ὄρος, identifying the bishops who served as ηὕραμεν μέρος ἀπ’ αὐτοὺς σποράδην εἰς hierarchs on Mount Sinai, we have found μερικὰ βιβλοία ἀῤῥάβικα,11 καὶ γράφομεν scattered [references] to some of them in πᾶσα ἑνὸς12 τὸ ὄνομάν13 του, καὶ τὸ ἔτος several Arabic books. We shall write down καθῶς εὑρέθη, καὶ εἰς ποῖον βιβλοῖον. the name of each one, the year under which he was found, and in which book. 1. ἐν πρώτοις, εἰς ἕνα μεταφραστὴ, 1. First, in a Metaphrastic collection for νοέμβριον, εὕρειτε14 γερμανὸς· εἰς ͵ϛωμαʹ. November, Germanus was found, in 6841 [=1332/3]. 2. εὕρειτε, εἰς βιβλοῖον τοῦ ἁγίου νίκονος, 2. In a book by St. Nikon, called Ḥāwī in ἀῤῥάβικα λέγετε15 χάβε, ἀρσένιος· εἰς Arabic, Arsenius is found, in 6798 ͵ϛψϟηʹ. εὕρειτε καὶ εἰς ἄλλα βιβλοῖα. [=1289/90]. He is found also in other books. 3. ἀκόμι εἰς ἄλλον βιβλοῖον τοῦ νίκονος, 3. Ιn yet another book by Nikon, also οὓ16 καὶ παντέκτης ὁ μεγάλους·17 [called] Great Pandectes: Euthymius, in εὐθύμιος· ͵ϛψλαʹ. 6731 [=1222/3]. 4. εὕρειτε, εἰς κατήχησες, γαβριὴλ, τοῦ 4. Gabriel is found in Catecheses, his own αὐτοῦ ποίημα. work.

9 Standard Greek: ἐξετάζοντες. On this syntactical construction, see I. Manolessou, ‘From Participles to Gerunds’, in Advances in Greek Generative Syntax: In Honor of Dimitra­ Theophanopoulou-Kontou, eds. M. Stavrou and A. Terzi (Amsterdam and Philadelphia, 2005), pp. 241-283. 10 In Early Modern Greek, this form is used as a relative pronoun; the accent follows Ioasaph’s spelling. 11 Standard Greek: βιβλία ἀραβικά. 12 Cf. Δ. Δημητράκος [D. Dimitrakos], Μέγα Λεξικὸν ὅλης τῆς ἑλληνικῆς γλώσσης [The Great Lexicon of the Entire Greek Language], 15 vols. (Athens, 1964), XI, p. 5577 (s.v. πασαένας). I am deeply grateful to Fr. Sergey Kim for this reference and for his gen- erous help with deciphering and translating several difficult passages in Ioasaph’s inven- tory. 13 Standard Greek: τὸ ὄνομα. 14 Standard Greek: ηὕρηται / εὕρηται. 15 Standard Greek: λέγεται. 16 Standard Greek: ὅ. For another occurrence of this form of the relative pronoun, see Sinai gr. 2215, fol. 27v / p. 52, line 8. 17 Standard Greek: μέγας. 36 Alexander Treiger

5. εἰς αʹ κλήμακα, ἰωάννης, καὶ εἰς 5. In a copy of the Ladder: John, and also εὐαγγέλιον· εἰς ͵ϛψογʹ. in a Gospel book: in 6773 [=1264/5]. 6. εἰς προφητολόγη, μάρκος, καὶ εἰς αʹ 6. In a Prophetologion: Mark, and also in τυπικὸν· ͵ϛωξϛʹ. a copy of the Typikon: in 6866 [=1357/8]. 7. εἰς διαφόρους λόγους, καὶ εἰς 7. In various discourses and in a volume of χρισοστομικὸν, συμαιών. Chrysostom: Simeon. 8. εἰς γρηγόριον τὸν θεολόγον, ἰωάννης, 8. In [a book by] Gregory the Theologian: καὶ εἰς ἄλλα. John, and also in other [books]. 9. εἰς πατερικὸν, μιχαὴλ, καὶ εἰς 9. In a Paterikon: Michael, and also in a στηχεράρη, καὶ εἰς ἄλλα. Sticherarion and in other [books]. 10. εἰς ἄλλον νίκονα, θεοδόσιος· ͵ϛψμζʹ. 10. In another [book by] Nikon: Theodosius, in 6747 [=1238/9]. 11. εἰς κατήχησες τοῦ ἁγίου κυρίλλου τῶν 11. In St. ’s Catecheses: ἱεροσολύμων, σιλουανός. Silouan. 12. εἰς τὸν ἀντίοχον, τὸν πα(ν)τέκτη τὸν 12. In Antiochus’ Small Pandectes: μικρὸν, μακάριος· εἰς ͵ϛψνϛʹ, καὶ εἰς ἄλλα Macarius, in 6756 [=1247/8], and also in πόλλα δίχως ἔτος, μὰ δὲ κατέχο ἂν εἶναι many other books, without a year, but I do καὶ ἄλλος.18 not know if this is another [different] one. 13. εἰς εὐαγγέλιον, μάρκος· ͵ϛτοζʹ. 13. In a Gospel book: Mark, in 6377. [On this date, see commentary below.] 14. εἰς τὸν ἰωάννην τὸν δαμασκηνὸν, 14. In [a book by] : συμαιὼν· εἰς ͵ϛψξϛʹ. Simeon, in 6766 [=1257/8]. 15. εἰς χρισοστομικὸν, γερμανὸς· εἰς 15. In a volume by [John] Chrysostom: ͵ϛψλϛʹ, ὁποῦ19 ἐγράφη τὸ βιβλοῖον. Germanus, in 6736 [=1227/8], by whom the book was copied. 16. εὕρειτε καὶ ἄλλος μακάριος· εἰς τὸν 16. Another Macarius, during whose time καιρόν του τεθαμ(μ)ένος πατριάρχης the patriarch of Jerusalem Euthymius was ἱεροσολύμων εὐθύμιος, εἰς λάρνακα, ἡ ὁποία buried, is found on a reliquary, which is λάρναξ κεῖτε20 εἰς τ’ἀριστερὰ μέρη τοῦ located in the left section of the bema22 of βήματος τῆς μεγάλης ἐκκλησίας ἀπ’ ἔξω μὲ the great , outside [the ], ἐγκολαπτὰ γράμματα, εἰς μάρμαρον, in letters engraved in marble, indicating the δικνεῖον21 τὴν ἴνδικτον καὶ τὸ ἔτος· ͵ϛψλβʹ. indiction and the year: 6732 [=1223/4].

18 The reading of the last clause and the accompanying translation, proposed to me by Fr. Sergey Kim, are to some degree conjectural. 19 Perhaps to be corrected to ἀφ’ οὗ. 20 Standard Greek: κεῖται. 21 Standard Greek: δεικνύον. 22 I.e., on the soleas, the raised platform before the iconostasis. Ioasaph of Rhodes’ Inventory 37

17. εἰς μίαν λειτουργίαν παλαιὰν τοῦ ἁγίου 17. In an ancient liturgy of St. James: ἰακώβου, ἀβράμιος. Abramius. 18. εἰς τὸν ἰσαὰκ τὸν σύρον, βιβλοῖον, 18. In a book by Isaac the Syrian: Simeon, συμαιὼν· ͵ϛψιαʹ. in 6711 [=1202/3]. 19. (εἰς) εὐαγγέλιον ἐξηγητὸν τοῦ 19. In a Gospel commentary by [John] χρισοστόμου, σάββας. Chrysostom: Sabbas. 20. εἰς συναξαριστὴν, ἰωάννης· ͵αϟαʹ. 20. In a Synaxarion: John, in 1091. [On this date, see commentary below.] 21. εἰς εὐαγγέλιον παλαιὸν πάνυ, 21. In a very ancient Gospel book: ἀθανάσιος. Athanasius. 22. εὕρειτε, καὶ εἰς νόμιμον, συμαιὼν· 22. Simeon is also found in a legal ͵ατϛʹ. collection, in 1306. [On this date, see commentary below.]

2. Commentary

Paragraph 1: ‘First, in a Metaphrastic collection for November, Germanus was found, in 6841 [=1332/3]’ The ‘Metaphrastic collection for November’ to which Ioasaph refers can be identified. This is Sinai ar. 396+397 – the November volume of the so-called Antiochian Menologion compiled by hieromonk (priest and monk) Yūḥannā ῾Abd al-Masīḥ, active in the region of Antioch, in the first half of the ­eleventh century.23 According to the colophon of Sinai ar. 397, the manu- script dates to 23 March 6841 [=1333].24 Based on this colophon, Ger- manus can be securely dated to 1333. Ioasaph’s information is, therefore, correct.

23 In an earlier publication I have mistakenly dated Yūḥannā ῾Abd al-Masīḥ to the thir- teenth century; see Treiger, ‘Sinaitica (1)’ (see n. 1); H. Ibrahim, ‘Liste des vies de saints et des homélies conservées dans les ms. Sinaï arabe 395-403, 405-407, 409 et 423’, Chronos, 38 (2018), pp. 47-114. Sinai ar. 396 and 397 are two parts of the same volume, covering 7-13 November (truncated at the end) and 14-30 November respectively. Sinai ar. 397 and many other Sinaitic manuscripts are now freely accessible on the website of the Library of Congress: https://www.loc.gov/collections/manuscripts-in-st-catherines- monastery-mount-sinai. 24 The colophon is edited and translated in Treiger, ‘Sinaitica (1)’ (see n. 1), pp. 223-224. 38 Alexander Treiger

The earliest securely dated attestation of Germanus – as opposed to his numerous undated waqfiyyas (‘endowment notices’), largely analogous to modern bookplates or library stamps, which could have been added to a manuscript at any time after it was copied – is the colophon of Sinai ar. 334:

نجزت الواحد وثلثين ميمر تعليم القديس الكبير والمعلم العظيم ابا يوحنا اقليمقس ]...[ نهار الجمعة الثالث والعشرين من شهر كانون الثاني | سنة ستالاف وثمن ماية وتسعة وعشرين لابينا ادم بجبل الله المقدس طور سينا في ايام ابينا اقدس اهل عصره راعينا ومتقلد خلاصنا السيد الاسقف انبا جرمانوس ّمتع الله رعيته بمدة حياته، وهو برسم الكنيسة العظمى الكاثوليكي بالدير المقدس، فكل من قرا فيه ووقف على هذه الاحرف يصلي الى الله من اجل كثرة خطايا كاتبها ارساني المسكين بالاسم شماس وان وجد فيه غلط او نقص حرف ما فليصلحه ولا يعتب ّعلي، فليس انا جاهل بضعف يدي وقلة استقامة قلبي وانما تجريت على كتابته ًمنقادا في ناموس الطاعة الذي به يتقوم السلوك في منهج سيرتنا هذه، اذ كان ذلك بايعاز الاب المقدم ذكره، ونرغب الى سيدنا ايسوع المسيح بشفاعة والدته والقديس ماري موسى العظيم معاينه لا بحسب كنه جوهر لاهوته لكن بحسب الاستطاعة البشرية بصفاء عقله الى معاينته والست اكاتارينا ان يجعل لنا حظ 25 في ملكوته السمايية مع جميع القديسين، آمين، والسبح الله دايما وعلينا رحمته، آمين.

The thirty-one chapters of the teaching of the great saint and illustrious teacher Abba have been completed […] on Friday afternoon, 23 January 6829 after our father Adam [=1321], on the holy Mountain of God, Mount Sinai, in the time of our most-holy26 father and shepherd in charge of our salva- tion, Master Bishop Abba Germanus, may God bring benefit to his flock through the length of his life. It was commissioned by the great cathedral church in the holy monastery. Whoever reads this [book] and comes across these letters, let him pray to God for [forgiveness of] the multiple sins of its copyist, the wretched Arsānī, who is [only] in name. If [the reader] finds any mistake or miss- ing letter in it, let him make the correction and not blame it on me, for I am well aware of the weakness of my hand and unsteadiness of my heart. I dared to copy it only because I was led by the law of obedience which is essential to walk- ing in this [monastic] path of ours. This is because [the copying] was done at the aforementioned father’s request. We pray to our Lord Christ, through the intercession of His Mother, of the great saint Moses, who saw Him – not in accordance with the utmost essence of His divinity but in accordance with

25 Sinai ar. 334, fols. 178v-179r. 26 Aqdas ahl ῾aṣrihi (or: zamānihi) – lit. ‘the holiest of the people of his age / time’ – is a common Arabic circumlocution that translates the Greek superlative ἁγιώτατος. Ioasaph of Rhodes’ Inventory 39

human ability, by means of the purity of his mind capable of seeing Him – and of the lady [St.] Catherine, that He may give us a share in His heavenly kingdom with all His saints, Amen. Glory to God always, and may His mercy be upon us, Amen.

The colophon of Sinai ar. 81 (Gospel) is just one and a half years later:

كملت هذه النسخة ّالمقدسة بجبل الله المقدس طور سينا بتاريخ السابع من شهر ايلول سنة ّست الف وثمان ماية احد وثلثين للعالم، وذلك في رياسة الاب ّالقديس كير 27 جرمانوس اسقف جبل الله، ادام الله رياسته ورحمنا بصلواته، آمين.

This sacred copy was completed on the holy Mountain of God, Mount Sinai on 7 September 6831 AM [=1322]. This was during the episcopacy of the holy father Kyr Germanus, the bishop of the Mountain of God, may God prolong his episcopacy and have mercy on us by his prayers, Amen.

I was fortunate to discover the exact date of Germanus’ death: 18 August 1336. It appears in a brief note (written in the same hand as Sinai ar. 396+397) in Vat. syr. 647:

28 تنيح الاب الروحاني السيد الاسقف كير جرمانوس في طريق مصر يوم الجمعة ثامن عشر ّ ّ 29 شهر اب سنة ّستة آلاف وثمانماية واربعة واربعين لابونا )!( آدم.

The spiritual father Master Bishop Kyr Germanus died on the way to Egypt/ Cairo on Friday, 18 August 6844 from our forefather Adam [=1336].

We can, therefore, conclude that Germanus was bishop of Sinai from before 1321 to precisely 1336 (I shall abbreviate this as follows: —1321—1336#). For more on Germanus, see commentary on Paragraph 15 below.

27 Sinai ar. 81, fol. 182r; cf. A.S. Atiya, Catalogue raisonné of the Mount Sinai Arabic Manuscripts / al-Fahāris al-taḥlīliyya li-makhṭūṭāt Ṭūr Sīnā al-῾arabiyya: Fahāris kāmila ma῾a dirāsa taḥlīliyya li-l-makhṭūṭāt al-῾arabiyya bi-dayr al-qiddīsa Kātirīna bi-Ṭūr Sīnā, Arabic trans. J.N. Youssef, I [MSS 1-300; the only volume published] (Alexandria, 1970), p. 163 (Atiya misdated the manuscript to 1323). 28 .يامن :My emendation. MS 29 Vat. syr. 647, fol. 50v. The manuscript (in reality a collection of disparate manuscript fragments of Sinaitic origin) can be viewed in full online: http://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_ Vat.sir.647. 40 Alexander Treiger

Paragraph 2: ‘In a book by St. Nikon, called Ḥāwī in Arabic, Arsenius is found, in 6798 [=1289/90]. He is found also in other books’ None of the extant Arabic manuscripts of Nikon of the Black Mountain’s Pandectes (Kitāb al-Ḥāwī) – or of any other work by Nikon – seems to date to 6798 [=1289/90].30 However, given that some Sinaitic manuscripts of this work have lost their first and/or last folios, it is possible that one of them once had a colophon with that date and with a reference to archbishop Arsenius, which was still seen by Ioasaph in 1640. It is certain, however, that Arsenius was indeed bishop in 1289/90. Samir Khalil Samir’s landmark article ‘Archevêques du Sinaï au 13e siècle’ provides the span of —1285—1292— for Arsenius’ episcopacy.31 This can now be expanded to —1284—1295—: Arsenius is already mentioned as bishop in the colophon of Sinai syr. 156 (14 September 1284) and is still mentioned as bishop in the colophons of the Greek psalter Sinai gr. 94 (4 September 1293)32 and the Syriac manuscripts Sinai syr. 236 (10 March 1294), Sinai syr. 210 (8 March 1295), and Sinai syr. 75 (24 September 1295).33 In any case, the year 1289/90 falls within this time span. Other colophons that mention Arsenius include: – Sinai ar. 82 (year 1287); – Sinai ar. 89 (year 1285); – Sinai ar. 110 (year 1286); – Sinai ar. 170 (year 1285);

30 J. Nasrallah, Histoire du mouvement littéraire dans l’Église melchite du Ve au XXe siècle, 3 vols. in 6 [vol. II.1 ed. R. Haddad], III.1 (Louvain, 1979-1989 and Damascus, 1996), pp. 110-122. 31 S.Kh. Samir, ‘Archevêques du Sinaï au 13e siècle’, Orientalia Christiana Periodica, 52 (1986), pp. 361-377. 32 V.N. Benešević, Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum graecorum qui in monasterio Sanctae Catharinae in Monte Sina asservantur / Описанiе греческихъ рукописей монастыря Св. Екатерины на Синаѣ, 2 vols., I (Saint Petersburg, 1911-1917), pp. 21 and 624-625; H. Husmann, ‘Die datierten griechischen Sinai-Handschriften des 9. bis 16. Jahrhunderts: Herkunft und Schreiber’, Ostkirchliche Studien, 27 (1978), pp. 143-168, on p. 151. It is noteworthy that Saint Petersburg, NLR gr. 391 is a membrum disiectum of this manuscript. 33 S. Brock, ‘Syriac on Sinai: The Main Connections’, in ΕΥΚΟΣΜΙΑ: Studi miscellanei per il 75° di Vincenzo Poggi S.J., eds. V. Ruggieri and L. Pieralli (Soveria Mannelli [Cat- anzaro], 2003), pp. 103-117, on pp. 115-116; cf. H. Husmann, ‘Die syrischen Hand- schriften des Sinai-Klosters: Herkunft und Schreiber’, Ostkirchliche Studien, 24 (1975), pp. 281-308, on pp. 283-284 and 295. Ioasaph of Rhodes’ Inventory 41

– Sinai ar. 420 (year 1287); – Sinai gr. 131 (year 1292); – Sinai gr. 662 (year 1292); – Sinai gr. 670 (year 1292); – Sinai syr. 91 (year 1286); – Sinai syr. 203 (year 1290); – Sinai syr. 272 (year 1289); – Sinai syr. M71N (Friday, 28 December 1291 [indeed a Friday], ܥܒܫܘ ܐܐܡ� being an obvious mistake by the copyist, which he immediately 34 corrected to ܐܐܡ� ܐܝܢܡܬܘ; it is therefore to be ignored). In an article dedicated to bishop Arsenius, Giorgos Galavaris made the intriguing suggestion that this bishop could be identical to the deacon Arsenius who, some thirty years before, had left a colophon in Greek and Arabic in Sinai gr. 817 (Octoechus, year 1258),35 fol. 209v and who had also commissioned Sinai ar. NF Paper 1 (year 1262), a copy of the Arabic ascetic treatise (translated from Greek) The Noetic Paradise (al-Firdaws al-῾aqlī).36 This is certainly a very attrac- tive conjecture, but it does not seem to be borne out by the evidence: I have compared deacon Arsenius’ Arabic handwriting in Sinai gr. 817 and bishop Arse- nius’ autograph waqfiyyas,37 and the handwriting does not seem to be the same. One further detail about bishop Arsenius is worth mentioning. We know that he was a native of al-Šawbak (present-day Jordan): in an unpublished note in Sinai ar. 320 (fol. 214r), entitled ‘A Miracle that Happened on the

34 Cf. Philothée du Sinaï, Nouveaux manuscrits syriaque du Sinaï (Athens, 2008), pp. LXVII and 576-578, misdated by Mère Philothée to 10 December 1272. 35 Saint Petersburg, NLR gr. 450 is a membrum disiectum of this manuscript. 36 Γ. Γαλαβάρης [G. Galavaris], ‘Βιβλιογραφικὲς ἐνασχολήσεις τοῦ ἐπισκόπου τοῦ Σινᾶ Ἀρσενίου τὸν 13ον αἰώνα’ [Bibliographical Preoccupations of the Bishop of Sinai Arsenius in the 13th Century], Σύμμεικτα, 9.1 (1994) [=Ed. Ν. Μοσχονάς, Μνήμη Δ.Α. Ζακυνθηνού], pp. 133-139. On al-Firdaws al-῾aqlī, see A. Treiger, ‘The Noetic Paradise’, in The Orthodox Church in the Arab World (700-1700): An Anthology of Sources, eds. S. Noble and A. Treiger (DeKalb, IL, 2014), pp. 188-200; A. Treiger, ‘The Noetic Paradise (al-Firdaws al-῾aqlī): Chapter XXIV’, in Patristic Literature in Arabic Translations, eds. B. Roggema and A. Treiger (Leiden, 2020), pp. 328-376. 37 Sinai ar. 94, fol. 5r; Sinai ar. 114, fol. 3v-4r; Sinai ar. 119, fol. 1r; Sinai ar. 176, fol. 0v; Sinai ar. 290; Sinai ar. 326, fol. 1r; Sinai ar. 560, fol. 2r; Vat. syr. 647, fol. 110r; and some others. 42 Alexander Treiger

Holy Mount Sinai’ and dated to 8 April 1291, bishop Arsenius is called ‘Arsānī al-Šawbakī’.38

Paragraph 3: ‘Ιn yet another book by Nikon, also [called] Great Pandectes: Euthymius, in 6731 [=1222/3]’ Ioasaph’s information regarding Euthymius is, unfortunately, unverifiable. None of the extant Arabic (or Greek) manuscripts of Nikon’s Pandectes dates to 6731 [=1222/3],39 though, as explained above, this may be due to the fact that several of the Sinai manuscripts of Nikon’s Pandectes have lost their first and/or last folios and, consequently, any colophons they may once have had. There is, however, a thornier issue at stake. Assuming that Ioasaph did indeed see Euthymius mentioned in a manuscript dating to 1222/3, where was it that Euthymius’ name appeared? Did it appear in the dated colophon or did it appear in an undated waqfiyya, which could have been added to the manuscript at any time after it was copied? Only in the former case would Ioasaph have been justified in assigning Euthymius to 1222/3; in the latter case, Euthymius could have lived any time after 1222/3. The only other (hitherto unnoticed) piece of evidence about the Sinai archbishop Euthymius comes from the Epistle lectionary Sinai ar. 175. This manuscript has two waqfiyyas by ‘Euthymius, bishop of the holy Mount Sinai’ (fols. 3r and 34v); interestingly, both waqfiyyas also have appendages written after Euthymius’ death, in which an unknown copyist adds ‘raḥimahu Llāh’ (‘may God have mercy on his [soul]’) to Euthymius’ name. Significantly,­ after the second waqfiyya (fol. 34v), the copyist also specifies that this Euthy- mius was called ‘Ibn Abū (!) al-Layṯ al-Miṣrī’. Thus, we learn that this Euthymius (or his father) was an Egyptian from Cairo (Miṣr).

38 Nasrallah, Histoire, vol. III.1 (see n. 30), pp. 362-363. On the ‘Jordanian’ constituent on Mount Sinai, see ibid., p. 366. On al-Šawbak see also: H.E. Mayer, Die Kreuzfahrer­ herrschaft Montréal (Šōbak): Jordanien im 12. Jahrhundert (Wiesbaden, 1990). 39 Cairo, Coptic Catholic I-4 is a close match. According to the colophon (fols. 504v-505r), it was copied in Damascus on 1 December 6732 / in the first third (῾ušr) of Ḏū l-Qa῾da 620 AH [=1223 AD]. The copyist is monk and deacon Yuḥannā, disciple and synkellos of Yūḥannā, metropolitan of Damascus. This manuscript seems to have no connection to Sinai. Another close match is Sinai ar. 385, copied on the last day (salḫ) of Ḏū l-Qa῾da 621 AH [=12 December 1224], which is, however, a manuscript of Nikon’s Taktikon, not the Pandectes. Ioasaph of Rhodes’ Inventory 43

Sinai ar. 175 dates to 1323.40 The Euthymius who wrote his waqfiyyas in Sinai ar. 175 (Ibn Abū al-Layṯ al-Miṣrī) can therefore be dated to 1323 or later. We can, in fact, be even more precise: because the year 1323 falls within the episcopacy of Germanus, the episcopacy of this Euthymius can be dated to 1336 or later (1336 being the year of Germanus’ death). Barring further evidence in support of a bishop Euthymius in 1222/3, we should cautiously assume that the Euthymius mentioned by Ioasaph is iden- tical to the Euthymius of Sinai ar. 175 and is, therefore, posterior to 1336.41 If this is the case, the Euthymius mentioned by Ioasaph must have been mentioned in an undated waqfiyya in a manuscript dating to 1222/3; Ioasaph must have mistakenly assumed that this undated waqfiyya was contemporary with the manuscript, whereas in fact it was more than a century later. This is by no means an exceptional occurrence in Ioasaph’s inventory of the Sinai hierarchs. As we shall see below, Ioasaph, in fact, has misdated quite a few hierarchs based on their undated waqfiyyas.

Paragraph 4: ‘Gabriel is found in Catecheses, his own work’ Ioasaph indicates that he saw bishop Gabriel mentioned in a manuscript con- taining his treatise, the Catecheses. The reference is certainly to Sinai ar. 570, which, among other texts, contains unpublished homilies by Gabriel of Sinai.42 Here, for the first time, Ioasaph’s reference lacks a date; the manuscript, too, is undated (though the catalogues provisionally assign it to the 13th century).43

40 Coincidentally, this is exactly one century after the putative manuscript of Nikon’s Pandectes mentioned by Ioasaph. Atiya, Catalogue raisonné (see n. 27), p. 352 fails to calculate the date properly. Though Atiya provides the correct Byzantine world era date (6831), he then erroneously converts it to 1225. 41 An additional reason to suspect that there was no Euthymius in the year 1222/3 is that – as we shall see below – Macarius is attested as bishop of Sinai shortly thereafter: in December 1223. 42 Sinai ar. 570, fols. 2r-8v. Four of Gabriel’s homilies are preserved, all of them dealing with the pre-Lenten period: Sunday of the Publican and the Pharisee, Sunday of the Prodigal Son, Meatfare Saturday, and Meatfare Sunday (incomplete). On Gabriel’s hom- ilies, cf. G. Graf, Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur, 5 vols. (Vatican, 1944- 1953), II, p. 71; Nasrallah, Histoire, III.1 (see n. 30), pp. 73 and 318. 43 M. Kamil, Catalogue of All Manuscripts in the Monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai (Wiesbaden, 1970), p. 48; Rǝšīmaṯ seqer šel kiṯḇē hay-yaḏ bǝ-sifriyyaṯ minzar Sṭ. Qaṯerīnāh, Sīnay [A Checklist of the Manuscripts at the Library of St. Catherine’s Monastery, Sinai] (Jerusalem, 1968), p. 66. 44 Alexander Treiger

When did this Gabriel live? At first glance, it might seem as though Ioasaph’s disciple Nectarius of Jerusalem provides a clear answer to this ques- tion. He writes:

Ἔτος Τουρκικὸν 551, ἀπὸ δὲ Χριστοῦ 1146. Εἰς ἕναν ἄλλον ὁρισμόν τοῦ Σουλτὰν Κάημ Ἴμπνες Ῥεηλὰ ἦτον ἀρχιεπίσκοπος Γαβριὴλ· οὗτος ἦτον σοφὸς εἰς τὰ ἀραβικὰ γράμματα· ἔγραψε καὶ σύνταγμα ἰδικόν του, Κατήχησες, καὶ σώζονται εἰς τὸ Μοναστήριον.44

Turkish year 551, from Christ 1146. In another decree of the Sultan [al-]Qā᾿im bi-naṣr Allāh there was archbishop Gabriel. He was skilled in the Arabic letters. He wrote a compilation of his own [called] Catecheses, which is kept at the Monastery.

However, things are not so simple. First, two corrections need to be made. The year 551 AH converts to 25 February 1156-12 February 1157, not to 1146. Because only the hiǧrī year would have appeared in the decree consulted by Nectarius, we must assume that it is the hiǧrī year that is correct, whereas the year from Christ is a miscalculation. The ‘sultan’ in question must there- fore be the Fāṭimid caliph al-Fā᾿iz bi-naṣr Allāh (r. 1154-1160). As correctly observed by Samuel Miklós Stern in his study of the Fāṭimid decrees (kept mostly at Sinai), Fā᾿iz and Qā᾿im are virtually indistinguishable in unpointed Arabic script, so we can assume that Qā᾿im is a misreading of Fā᾿iz.45 Second, there is one and only one Fāṭimid decree kept at Sinai that was issued by al-Fā᾿iz’s chancellery in 551 AH / 1156: Sinai Arabic scroll 10. This decree, indeed, mentions a bishop of Mount Sinai by name; however the name indicated there is not Gabriel, but Anthony (Anṭūna).46 Stern noticed this discrepancy, and suggested that perhaps ‘in that year there was a change of bishop, and the document which Nectarius had before him and which mentioned bishop Gabriel is not identical with the extant document [i.e., Sinai Arabic scroll 10], which mentions bishop Anthony’.47

44 Νεκτάριος, Ἐπιτομὴ τῆς ἱεροκοσμικῆς ἱστορίας (see n. 3), pp. 221-222. 45 S.M. Stern, ‘A Fāṭimid Decree of the Year 524/1130’, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 23 (1960), pp. 439-455, on p. 440, n. 3. 46 Edition and translation: S.M. Stern, Fāṭimid Decrees: Original Documents from the Fāṭimid Chancery (London, 1964), pp. 70-75. This scroll is now conveniently accessible online: https://www.loc.gov/resource/amedmonastery.00279389013-ms/?sp=56. 47 Ibid., p. 442. Ioasaph of Rhodes’ Inventory 45

While Stern’s interpretation ingeniously harmonizes Nectarius’ report with extant documentary evidence, it requires us to assume that there were two distinct documents issued by al-Fā᾿iz’s chancellery virtually simultaneously (in 551 AH / 1156), both of which were addressed to Mount Sinai, and which referred to two different bishops of Sinai who just happened to have followed one upon the other in quick succession that same year. One may wonder whether this scenario is plausible, and whether perhaps some other explanation (a mistake by Nectarius, e.g., misreading of notes taken by another monk who was examining the Arabic decree) may better account for this discrepancy. Third, supposing that Nectarius did indeed see a bishop Gabriel men- tioned in al-Fā᾿iz’s decree of 551 AH / 1156 (distinct from the extant Sinai Arabic scroll 10), this decree would certainly not have indicated that Gabriel was ‘skilled in the Arabic letters’ and ‘wrote a compilation of his own [called] Catecheses, which is kept at the Monastery’. This information does not come from the decree; it originates from Ioasaph’s inventory that we are currently investigating. As mentioned above, Ioasaph’s inventory provides no date for Gabriel’s floruit. It is precisely because Nectarius was unaware of any other Gabriel except the one mentioned by Ioasaph that, when he saw (or thought he saw) a bishop Gabriel mentioned in al-Fā᾿iz’s decree, he immediately assumed that the two would have to be identical. This, however, is just an assumption. While it may be correct, it need not be so. We must certainly not accept this assumption as a proven fact. Fourth, unlike Nectarius, we are aware of a different bishop of Sinai called Gabriel. He is mentioned in two colophons: a Greek psalter on parchment, copied in September 1296,48 and Sinai syr. 80, dated to 13 April 1297.49 He can, therefore, be securely dated to —1296—1297—. What I wish to argue at this point is, simply, that Gabriel of Sinai’s homilies preserved in Sinai ar. 570 need not be automatically assigned to the putative Gabriel mentioned by Nectarius (even assuming he existed, which is by no means certain). They may as easily – and if the Gabriel of 1156 is a fiction, then virtually certainly – belong to the known and the only securely

48 Benešević, Catalogus, I (see n. 32), p. 21 (No. 9). This manuscript cannot be identified at present. 49 Brock, ‘Syriac on Sinai’ (see n. 33), p. 116; Husmann, ‘Die syrischen Handschriften’ (see n. 33), p. 288. 46 Alexander Treiger documented Gabriel of —1296—1297—.50 A closer examination of the homilies might perhaps shed further light on this question.

Paragraph 5: ‘In a copy of the Ladder: John, and also in a Gospel book: in 6773 [=1264/5]’ Paragraph 8: ‘In [a book by] Gregory the Theologian: John, and also in other [books]’ Ioasaph reports that a certain archbishop John is mentioned in several man- uscripts: a copy of John Climacus’ Book of the Ladder, a copy of (dated to 6773 [=1264/5]), an undated volume of Gregory the Theologian, and some others. There are two manuscripts of John Climacus’ Ladder with waqfiyyas of the Sinai archbishop John: Sinai ar. 331 (year 1227) and Sinai ar. 338 (13th century). In both cases, the waqfiyyas are placed on the very first page of the manuscript. The waqfiyya of Sinai ar. 331 reads:

اقول انا الحقير يوحنا اسقف طور سينا ان هذا الكتاب وقف على كنيسة طور سينا، ّاي 51 من اخرجه عنها يكون محروم.

I, wretched John, bishop of Mount Sinai, say that this book is endowed to the church of Mount Sinai. Whoever takes it out away from it is excommunicated.

It is noteworthy that Sinai ar. 331 also has a Greek signature of the same archbishop John at the bottom of the page. Similarly phrased waqfiyyas in the same hand (several of them accompanied by Greek signatures) are pre- served also in a number of other manuscripts: – Sinai ar. 275 (Gregory the Theologian; 13th century), fols. 3v-4r (with a Greek signature on fol. 4r) – this is, obviously, the manuscript of that Ioasaph mentions in Paragraph 8; – Sinai ar. 293 (first part of ’s Commentary on John; copied in 1245 by Nīlus al-Dimašqī), fol. 6r (with a Greek signature at the bottom);

50 In this case, Sinai ar. 570 would have to be re-dated to the 14th century. 51 Sinai ar. 331, fol. 1r. The waqfiyya of Sinai ar. 338 is partially erased, but it begins the .اقول انا الحقير يوحنا اسقف طور سينا :same way Ioasaph of Rhodes’ Inventory 47

– Sinai ar. 298 (John Chrysostom’s Commentary on Romans), fols. 2v-3r; – Sinai ar. 301 (John Chrysostom’s Commentary on Hebrews; 13th century and, to judge from the handwriting, copied by Nīlus al-Dimašqī), fols. 8v-9r (with a Greek signature on the right margin of fol. 8v); – Sinai ar. 302 (John Chrysostom’s Commentary on Hebrews and Ephrem’s homilies; year 1255, copied by Nīlus al-Dimašqī), fol. 2r (with a Greek signature at the bottom of the page); – Sinai ar. 317 (John of Damascus; year 1223, copied by Bīmīn al-sīqī in Damascus), fol. 10r (with a Greek signature at the bottom); – Sinai ar. 321 (Barlaam and Ioasaph; year 1246), fol. 1v; – Sinai ar. 380 (Antiochus’ Pandectes; 13th century), fols. 6v-7r; – Sinai ar. 385 (Nikon’s Taktikon; year 1224, copied by Naṣrallāh al-Dimašqī), fol. 452v (a differently phrased Arabic note with a Greek signature); – Sinai ar. NF Paper 25 (year 1247/8) (with a Greek signature on the right margin of the verso page); – Vat. syr. 11 (year 1261).52 The only Arabic Gospel manuscript of Melkite provenance known to me that dates to 6773 [=1264/5] is Berlin, Staatsbibliothek, Diez A oct. 162 (Ahlwardt 10175). It used to belong to the monastery of Balamand in Lebanon; then it was acquired by the Swedish archbishop of Henric Benzelius (1689-1758) during his travels in the Middle East. It was then bought by Heinrich Friedrich von Diez (1751-1817) in 1804 and finally entered the Berlin library after Diez’s death in 1817.53 It is theoretically possible­ that this is, originally, a Sinaitic man- uscript, which was still at Sinai in 1640 and then found its way to Balamand (and, eventually, to Uppsala and Berlin), but we cannot know for sure. The beginning of the manuscript is missing, and if it ever had a waqfiyya of a Sinai archbishop, this is no longer extant. The colophon does not mention any Sinai hierarchs. While we are unable to verify Ioasaph’s information, there can hardly be any doubt that there was an archbishop John ca. 1264/5. The sheer amount

52 The note is transcribed in Samir, ‘Archevêques’ (see n. 31), p. 364. 53 On this manuscript, see H. Kashouh, The Arabic Versions of the Gospels: The Manu- scripts and Their Families (Berlin and Boston, 2012), pp. 276-280. One interesting feature of the manuscript is sporadic Latin marginalia. On Heinrich Friedrich von Diez, see now The Diez Albums: Contexts and Contents, eds. J. Gonnella, F. Weis, and Ch. Rauch (Leiden and Boston, 2016). 48 Alexander Treiger of John’s waqfiyyas on Sinai manuscripts all of which date to 1220s- (the latest being Vat. syr. 11 of 1261) shows that Ioasaph is undoubtedly correct. Samir Khalil Samir has devoted a few pages to this John in his article ‘Archevêques du Sinaï au 13e siècle’.54 One detail, however, requires correction. Pace Samir, we do not know the date of archbishop John’s death. Samir believed that the Arabic obituary notice about the death of a certain ‘Anbā Yūḥannā’ on 4 January 6789 [=1281] in the Greek manuscript Sinai gr. 175 referred to our archbishop John of Sinai.55 This, however, is incorrect, for two reasons. First, because there is no evidence that this ‘Anbā Yūḥannā’ held episcopal rank. In fact, Sinai gr. 175 has yet another Arabic obituary notice (written in the same hand), about the death of a certain ‘Anbā Ǧarāsīmus’ on 15 December 6789 [=1280]; this ‘Anbā Ǧarāsīmus’ is specifically said to have been a priest rather than a bishop.56 Second, in 1281 the manuscript known today as Sinai gr. 175 had not yet been brought to Sinai, and hence it is unlikely that it would have documented the death of a Sinai archbishop. In order to prove this, we need to examine the history of Sinai gr. 175. In addition to the two Arabic obituary notices, it also has the owner’s note, written in the same hand as the obituary notices:

اقول وانا الحقير في الكهنة انطوني مطران سنموطية انني اوهبت هذا الانجيل وهو اربع مقالات للقس بولص المصري، فلا لاحد سلطان من الله ياخذه منه ولا يخرجه عنه، 57 الرب ينفعه به ويعينه على العمل بما فيه، آمين. I, the wretched among the priests, Anthony, metropolitan of Sanmūṭiyya, have given this Gospel, which contains four treatises, as a present to the priest Būluṣ al-Miṣrī. No one has the right from God to take it from him or remove it from his [possession]. May the Lord bring him benefit through it and help him to act in accordance with what is [written] in it. Amen.

We learn that sometime after writing the two obituary notices in 1280-1281, the manuscript owner Anṭūnī, Melkite metropolitan of Sanmūṭiyya (Sunbāṭ) in Egypt gave it as a present to priest Būluṣ al-Miṣrī. When did this happen?

54 Samir, ‘Archevêques’ (see n. 31), pp. 362-367, 376-377. 55 Sinai gr. 175, fol. 319v [old numbering] / 322v [new numbering]. The manuscript is accessible online: https://www.loc.gov/resource/amedmonastery.00271078444-ms. 56 Sinai gr. 175, fol. 322r [old numbering] / 325r [new numbering]. 57 Sinai gr. 175, fol. 7v. Ioasaph of Rhodes’ Inventory 49

Būluṣ al-Miṣrī happens to be the copyist of Sinai ar. 127 (Arabic Gospel lectionary), dating to 1293. Crucially, in the colophon of Sinai ar. 127 he calls himself a monk, not a priest; therefore, his ordination to the priesthood must have taken place after 1293. Consequently, Anṭūnī’s note cited above, in which he calls Būluṣ al-Miṣrī a priest, must be posterior to 1293. Thus, there can hardly be any doubt that in 1281 Sinai gr. 175 still belonged to Anṭūnī, Melkite metropolitan of Sanmūṭiyya and was therefore located in Egypt. It was presumably brought to Sinai in the early fourteenth century in the time of archbishop Germanus of Sinai (attested for —1321— 1336#), as evidenced by Germanus’ waqfiyya in this manuscript.58 To conclude, while we can be virtually certain that there was an arch- bishop John of Sinai ca. 1265, we do not know the precise date of his death. He must have died sometime before 1284, when, as we know, Arsenius is already attested as archbishop of Sinai.

Paragraph 6: ‘In a Prophetologion: Mark, and also in a copy of the Typikon: in 6866 [=1357/8]’ Ioasaph reports that a certain archbishop Mark is mentioned in two manu- scripts: a Prophetologion and a copy of the Typikon. He also provides a date: 6866 [=1357/8], which refers to the Typikon. Both manuscripts can be identified. The Prophetologion is Sinai ar. 18 (copied in 1350), where Mark of Sinai’s waqfiyya appears on fol. 1r. This waqfiyya must, therefore, be posterior to 1350. The Typikon manuscript is, without a doubt, Sinai ar. 264. According to the colophon, it was copied on 5 December 6844 / 17 Rabī῾ II 736 [=1335] in Cairo by Abū l-Fatḥ Qusṭanṭīn ibn Abī l-Ma῾ālī ibn Abī l-Fatḥ, who later became a monk at Mount Sinai, with the name Antonios.59 After Qusṭanṭīn’s / Antonios’ death, his son Marquṣ, bishop of Damietta in Egypt left a note at the beginning of the manuscript bequeathing it to Mount Sinai. It is this note that is dated

58 Sinai gr. 175, fol. 7r; Germanus does not mention his name, but the handwriting is characteristically his. Interestingly, another manuscript related to Anṭūnī, metropolitan of Sanmūṭiyya, also found its way to Mount Sinai. This is Sinai ar. 357 (year 1286), copied by Anṭūnī himself! 59 Cf. S.Kh. Samir, ‘Qusṭanṭīn ibn Abī al-Ma῾ālī ibn Abī l-Fatḥ Abū l-Fatḥ’, in The Cop- tic Encyclopedia, 7 (New York, 1991), pp. 2046-2047. 50 Alexander Treiger to 6866, more precisely to Wednesday, 28 February 6866 [=1358].60 Below this bequest note, there is an (undated) waqfiyya of an archbishop Mark of Sinai. This waqfiyya must, therefore, be posterior to 1358. Waqfiyyas by Mark of Sinai abound. In addition to Sinai ar. 18 and Sinai ar. 264, one can provide the following incomplete list: – Sinai ar. 13 (Prophetologion, year 1221), fol. 1r; – Sinai ar. 131 (Gospel lectionary, ca. 13th century), fol. 3r; – Sinai ar. 135 (Gospel, year 1324/5), fol. 1r;61 – Sinai ar. 150 (year 1231), fol. 2r; – Sinai ar. 173 (Epistle lectionary, year 1302), fol. 2r; – Sinai ar. 174 (Epistle lectionary, 13th century), fol. 3v; – Sinai ar. 236 (partly copied in 1298), fol. 2v; – Sinai ar. 238 (ca. 13th century), fol. 3v; – Sinai ar. 280 (John Chrysostom’s Commentary on Genesis, ca. 12th cen- tury), fol. 2r; – Sinai ar. 320 (year 1235), fol. 3r; – Sinai ar. 323 (Barlaam and Ioasaph, 13th century), fol. 5r; – Sinai ar. 344 (John Climacus, Barlaam and Ioasaph, and other texts, 13th century), fol. 220v; – Sinai ar. 374 (to judge from the handwriting, copied by priest Bū Šākir ibn al-šammās Bū l-Mukarram, active in the 1210s-1230s),62 fol. 4v; – Sinai ar. 454 (year 1241), fol. 3r; – Sinai gr. 670 (year 1292), fol. 2r; – Sinai gr. 821 (13th century), fol. 0r;63 – Sinai gr. 1097 (Typikon, year 1214), fol. 5r; – Sinai gr. 1227 (Sticherarion, 12th century), fol. 0v;64 – Vat. syr. 11.65

60 The year 6866 is written in Coptic epact numerals. Marquṣ of Damietta also appends his own signature in Greek to the Arabic bequest note. 61 This waqfiyya specifies that the manuscript is on a temporary loan to priest Niphon at Sinai, who is supposed to copy the manuscript and return it to the monastery. 62 On this copyist, see Nasrallah, Histoire, III.1 (see n. 30), p. 398. See also n. 77 below. 63 This waqfiyya specifies that the manuscript is on a temporary loan to Anbā Anṭūnī. 64 This waqfiyya (viewable online: https://www.loc.gov/resource/amedmonastery.00271075923- ms/?sp=4) specifies that this Sticherarion was donated to the monastery by Anbā Anṭūnī al-Miṣrī. 65 On this Vatican manuscript, see Samir, ‘Archevêques’ (see n. 31), pp. 363-366. Ioasaph of Rhodes’ Inventory 51

When was this Mark of Sinai active? Fortunately, in addition to the terminus post quem of 1358 provided by Sinai ar. 264, we have several pieces of evi- dence that allow dating Mark of Sinai more securely to the late 14th-early 15th century. First, there are two Mamlūk documents dated to 17 Ša῾bān 800 AH [=5 May 1398] and 1 Raǧab 805 AH [=25 January 1403], which mention Mark as the bishop of Sinai.66 Second, we have an anonymous pilgrim’s note in Sinai ar. 90, fol. 318v. The pilgrim provides the date of the note as 6907 [=1398/9] and mentions the contemporary abbot of Mount Sinai archbishop Mark, nicknamed ‘Ibn al-Mašhūr’ (al-sayyid al-usquf kīr Marqus yu῾raf bi-Ibn al-Mašhūr Allāh yudīmu ri᾿āsatahu). He also mentions ‘the elder, priest Sim῾ān’, nicknamed ‘Ibn Nāǧī’ from Damascus, said to be the sheikh and manager (mudabbir, i.e., presum- ably, economos) of the monastery (al-ab al-šayḫ al-qiss Sim῾ān šayḫ al-dayr wa-mudabbiruhu yu῾raf bi-Ibn Nāǧī min madīnat Dimašq), as well as Sim῾ān’s brother, priest Yuḥannā, said to be the abbot of ‘Dayr al-Sīq’, i.e., Mār Sābā. Based on this note, Mark of Sinai can be securely dated to 1398/9. Third, we have a dated manuscript copied by archbishop Mark of Sinai. This is Sinai ar. 586, dated to Thursday, 13 June 6917 [=1409]. It should be noted that the manuscript’s handwriting is identical to that of the afore- mentioned waqfiyyas. This means that Mark of Sinai was still alive in 1409. His episcopacy can therefore be dated to ca. 1398-1409.67

66 H. Ernst, Die mamlukischen Sultansurkunden des Sinai-Klosters (Wiesbaden, 1960), pp. 92-93, 106-107. 67 It should be noted that there were two other archbishops with the name Mark. The first one lived in the 9th century (see commentary on Paragraph 13 below). The second was a later archbishop Mark of Sinai, who left a waqfiyya at the end of the Gospel manu- script Sinai ar. 87 (copied in 1478). He is, therefore, posterior to that date. On this second Mark, see now К.А. Панченко [K.A. Panchenko], ‘«Тёмный век» палестинского монашества: Упадок и возрождение ближневосточных монастырей на рубеже мамлюкской и османской эпох’ [The ‘Dark Century’ of Palestinian Monasticism: Decline and Revival of Middle Eastern Monasteries in the Transition from the Mamluk to the Ottoman Period], Вестник Православного Свято-Тихоновского Гуманитарного Университета, III (57) (2018), pp. 59-88. He subsequently became Mark III patriarch of Jerusalem; cf. К.А. Панченко [K.A. Panchenko], ‘Марк III, патриарх Иерусалимский’ [Mark III, Patriarch of Jerusalem], in Православная Энциклопедия [Orthodox Encyclopedia], XLIII (Moscow, 2016), pp. 674-675. 52 Alexander Treiger

Paragraph 7: ‘In various discourses and in a volume of Chrysostom: Simeon’ Paragraph 14: ‘In [a book by] John of Damascus: Simeon, in 6766 [=1257/8]’ Paragraph 18: ‘In a book by Isaac the Syrian: Simeon, in 6711 [=1202/3]’ Paragraph 22: ‘Simeon is also found in a legal collection, in 1306’ Four entries in Ioasaph’s inventory mention an archbishop Simeon. Despite the fact that they clearly refer to two different Simeons (I shall call them ‘Simeon I’ and ‘Simeon II’), it seems useful to group these entries together. Simeon I’s epis- copacy lasted from 1197 (or earlier) to 1221 (or later), i.e., —1197—1221—. Concerning this Simeon, we have considerable documentary evidence, as follows. 1. There is a Sinaitic document containing a ‘declaration’ (iqrār) made ‘at the maǧlis of the holy father, Anbā Simeon, bishop of the holy Mount Sinai’, dated to 1 Ḏū l-Ḥiǧǧa 593 AH = 15 October 1197.68 2. A petition by Simeon I to the Ayyūbid viceroy (later sultan) al-Kāmil, dated to 609 AH [=1212/3], is preserved.69 3. In 1214, under the auspices of Simeon I a Greek Typikon was drawn up with the aim of regulating the liturgical services at Sinai.70 4. It is to Simeon I that Pope Honorius III’s epistle – dated to 6 August 1217 – is addressed.71

68 D.S. Richards, ‘Some Muslim and Christian Documents from Sinai concerning Chris- tian Property’, in Law, and Modernism in Islamic Society, eds. U. Vermeulen and J.M.F. van Reeth (Leuven, 1998), pp. 161-170, on pp. 162-165. 69 S.M. Stern, ‘Petitions from the Ayyūbid Period’, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 27.1 (1964), pp. 1-32, on pp. 19-32. 70 Sinai gr. 1097 (year 1214). See Benešević, Catalogus, I (see n. 32), pp. 173-174; Hus- mann, ‘Die datierten griechischen Sinai-Handschriften’ (see n. 32), p. 153; N.P. Ševčenko, ‘The Monastery of Mount Sinai and the Cult of St Catherine’, in N.P. Ševčenko, The Celebration of the Saints in Byzantine Art and Liturgy (Farnham, Surrey and Burlington, VT, 2013), Essay XVII, pp. 1-27; N.P. Ševčenko, ‘The Liturgical typikon of Symeon of Sinai’, in Metaphrastes, or Gained in Translation: Essays and Translations in Honour of Robert H. Jordan, ed. M. Mullett (Belfast, 2004), pp. 274-286. 71 G. Hofmann, ‘Sinai und Rom’, Orientalia Christiana, 9 (1927), pp. 216-299, on p. 242: ‘Symeoni Montis Synay episcopo eiusque successoribus canonice substituendis in perpetuum’. Ioasaph of Rhodes’ Inventory 53

5. There are three dated manuscript colophons (two of them preserved, one no longer extant) indicating that the copying was carried out during Simeon I’s episcopacy: – Mingana Chr. Arab. Add. 214 [catalogue 211] – one leaf from a Sinaitic manuscript, containing ‘the end of a mystical work and the colophon’, copied by monk Ilyās on Wednesday, 10 August 6724 / Rabī῾ II 613 AH [=1216] ‘during the days and the episcopacy of the holy, spiritual, pure, and precious father Anbā Simeon’. – Mingana Chr. Arab. Add. 234 [catalogue 243] – eight leaves from a Sinaitic manuscript (the last item: Life of St. Marina), copied by monk Agathon at Sinai on Friday, 25 June 6729 [=1221] ‘in the days of bishop Abbā Simeon’. – The ‘book by Isaac the Syrian’ mentioned in Paragraph 18 is, most likely, the second half (fols. 149-208) of Milan, Ambrosiana X 199 sup., a ­convolute manuscript of Sinaitic origin.72 Though it does not currently include a colophon, its copyist is, without a doubt, priest Buṭrus ibn Sālim al-Sunbāṭī, a Sinaitic scribe who also copied Sinai ar. 41, Part I (Psalter, undated),73 Sinai ar. 96 (Gospel lectionary, undated),74 Sinai ar. 159 (Epistle lectionary, year 1199),75 and Sinai ar. 358 with its membrum disiectum Mingana Chr. Arab. Add. 194 [catalogue 210] (The Macarian Homilies, undated). Because Buṭrus ibn Sālim was active in 1199 (the date of Sinai ar. 159), and because the second half of Milan, Ambrosiana X 199 sup., which he also copied, is a manuscript of Isaac the Syrian, this manuscript fits perfectly the description of Paragraph 18, ‘In a book by Isaac the Syrian: Simeon, in 6711 [=1202/3]’. The remainder of the manuscript, which would have contained a colophon of the year 6711 [=1202/3] and a reference to bishop Simeon of Sinai, is, presumably, lost. I have been unable to identify the ‘[book by] John of Damascus: Simeon, in 6766 [=1257/8]’ (Paragraph 14) and the ‘legal collection, in 1306’ (Para- graph 22). However, it is clear that they must refer to a later Simeon, i.e., to Simeon II. Because these two manuscripts have not been located, we should treat

72 O. Löfgren and B. Traini, Catalogue of the Arabic Manuscripts in the Biblioteca Ambro- siana, Vol. I: Antico Fondo and Medio Fondo (Vicenza, 1975), p. 32. 73 The copyist signs his name on fol. 80r. See Atiya, Catalogue Raisonné (see n. 27), p. 95. 74 The copyist signs his name on fols. 165r and 270v. See ibid., pp. 192-193. 75 Colophon on fol. 61v. See ibid., pp. 311-312. 54 Alexander Treiger the dates provided in them as termini post quem (allowing for the possibility that Simeon’s name appeared not in dated colophons but in undated waqfiyyas, which might well have been posterior to the manuscripts in question). Assuming there was no ‘Simeon III’, for whom we have no evidence, Simeon II must be dated to after the later of the two dates: i.e., 1306. Yet 1306 according to which era? Because the year 1306 would have appeared in the ‘legal collection’ (νόμιμον) consulted by Ioasaph, 1306 is not the AD year (AD was not used in the Middle East in the fourteenth century), but the year according to the so-called Melkite Era of the Incarnation (AInc).76 1306 AInc corresponds to 1297/8 AD. There- fore, Simeon II is to be dated to after 1297/8. Several undated waqfiyyas by the two Simeons of Sinai are preserved. Here is an incomplete list. – Beirut, Bibliothèque Orientale 505 (copied in 1216) – Greek signature at the bottom of fol. 6r; – Sinai ar. 273 (copied in 1216) – a volume of Gregory the Theologian, which contains Simeon’s waqfiyya and Greek signature (fol. 2r). – Sinai ar. 286 (to judge from the handwriting, copied by priest Bū Šākir ibn al-šammās Bū l-Mukarram, active in the 1210s-1230s)77 – the first part of John Chrysostom’s Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. This is a possible candidate for being the ‘volume of Chrysostom’ mentioned in Paragraph 7. The manuscript contains Simeon’s waqfiyya and Greek signature (fol. 1r). – Sinai ar. 287 (copied by Afrām al-Dimašqī, who indicates that this took place during the episcopacy of Simeon, unfortunately without providing the date) – the second part of John Chrysostom’s Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. This is another possible candidate for being the ‘vol- ume of Chrysostom’ mentioned in Paragraph 7. The manuscript also bears Simeon’s waqfiyya and Greek signature (fol. 1r). – Sinai ar. 291 (with a membrum disiectum: Mingana Chr. Arab. Add. 217 [catalogue 137]) + Sinai ar. 292 – a two-volume manuscript of John

76 On this era, see S.Kh. Samir, ‘L’ère de l’Incarnation dans les manuscrits arabes melkites du 11e au 14e siècle’, Orientalia Christiana Periodica, 53 (1987), pp. 193-201 (the manu- script in question is not mentioned in Samir’s study). 77 At the end of the manuscript the copyist also provides his name in Greek: John, son of deacon Christodoulos. This proves that John, son of deacon Christodoulos and Bū Šākir ibn al-šammās Bū l-Mukarram are one and the same person. It is noteworthy that he is also the copyist of the Greek manuscript Sinai gr. 904 (year 1210) – on which see Husmann, ‘Die datierten griechischen Sinai-Handschriften’ (see n. 32), p. 153. See also n. 62 above. Ioasaph of Rhodes’ Inventory 55

Chrysostom’s Commentary on the Gospel of John. This is another possible candidate for being the ‘volume of Chrysostom’ mentioned in Paragraph 7. Both Mingana Chr. Arab. Add. 217 and Sinai ar. 292 (fols. 2v-3r) contain waqfiyyas by Simeon of Sinai. The latter also includes Simeon’s Greek signature at the bottom of the page. Additionally, the copyist of Sinai ar. 292 indicates (fol. 375v) that ‘the copying was commissioned by the holy father Abbā Simeon, bishop of Mount Sinai’ (mustansiḫuhu al-ab al-qiddīs Abā Sim῾ān usquf Ṭūr Sīnā). – Sinai ar. 358 (with a membrum disiectum: Mingana Chr. Arab. Add. 194 [catalogue 210]) (to judge from the handwriting, copied by priest Buṭrus ibn Sālim al-Sunbāṭī, active in 1199) – a volume of the Macarian Homilies. The manuscript contains Simeon’s waqfiyya and Greek signature (fol. 1r). – Sinai ar. 386 (with a membrum disiectum: Mingana Chr. Arab. Add. 227 [catalogue 179]) – a volume of Nikon of the Black Mountain’s Pandectes, written in two columns (the handwriting seems to be the same as that of Sinai ar. 291+Sinai ar. 292). The Mingana part has a waqfiyya by Simeon.78 – Vat. ar. 72 (copied during the episcopacy of Simeon) – a manuscript of Antiochus’ Pandectes. Contains Simeon’s waqfiyya.79 All the above waqfiyyas have nearly identical wording and are, as far as I was able to check, in the same hand. I believe all of them were penned by Simeon I.80 Moreover, several of the waqfiyyas (Sinai ar. 273; Sinai ar. 287; Sinai ar. 292; Mingana Chr. Arab. Add. 227 [catalogue 179], a membrum disiectum of Sinai ar. 386) indicate that the copying of the manuscript in question was ‘commissioned for the benefit of the monks of Mount Sinai’ (ustuktiba li-manfa῾at ruhbān Ṭūr Sīnā). This formulation gives the impression that Simeon himself was the commissioner of these manuscripts, and that they were copied purposefully under his auspices.81 This impression is strength- ened by the explicit remark of the copyist of Sinai ar. 292 that ‘the copying

78 I have not seen the Mingana part. Nonetheless, I believe it is virtually certain that this is a membrum disiectum of Sinai ar. 386. 79 See A. Mai, Scriptorum veterum nova collectio e Vaticanis codicibus edita, IV (, 1831), p. 146. I have not seen this manuscript. 80 This would require re-dating Vat. ar. 72 (hitherto dated to the 14th century) to the early 13th century. 81 Thus, this is a rare case where the waqfiyyas are almost certainly contemporaneous with the copying. 56 Alexander Treiger was commissioned by the holy father Abbā Simeon, bishop of Mount Sinai’. It would thus seem that Simeon I made a considerable effort to improve Sinai’s Arabic library and contribute to Arabophone monks’ education. Two other waqfiyyas, however, are written in a different hand. Therefore, they must belong to a different Simeon, i.e., Simeon II. – Sinai ar. 159 (copied by priest Buṭrus ibn Sālim al-Sunbāṭī in August 1199) has a partially preserved waqfiyya by bishop Simeon (fol. 273v), who gives authority for this book to remain ‘with my disciple Buṭrus’. The note also specifies the date (1 October); unfortunately, the year is not preserved.82 – Sinai gr. 658 (ca. 13th-14th centuries) – a manuscript of ‘services’ (akol- outhiai). The manuscript has a waqfiyya by bishop Simeon of Sinai (fol. 2v) of which the handwriting and the wording are both quite different from those of Simeon I. The handwriting seems similar to the waqfiyya in Sinai ar. 159. To conclude: there seem to have been two Simeons of Sinai: Simeon I (—1197—1221—) and Simeon II (after 1297/8). There seems to be no evidence for a Simeon of Sinai in 1258, because Ioasaph’s indication that he saw a certain bishop Simeon mentioned in a book by John of Damascus from 6766 [=1257/8] could have been based on an undated waqfiyya poste- rior to the manuscript in question. It is true that Nectarius of Jerusalem indicated that ‘according to some people’, the putative Simeon of 1258 may have been ‘the same as the first [Simeon], though he seems to have resigned and left to [collect] alms’ (φασὶ δὲ εἶναι τὸν αὐτὸν τῷ προτέρῳ, ὅμως φαίνεται νὰ ἔκαμε παραίτησιν, καὶ εὐγῆκεν83 ἔξω διὰ ἐλεημοσύνης).84 This, however, is not historically credible. Moreover, Nectarius provides no evidence for his claim, which is thus no more than guesswork aimed at explicating the already questionable appearance of a

82 It is extremely tempting to identify this Buṭrus as the copyist, priest Buṭrus ibn Sālim al-Sunbāṭī, but in that case the Simeon in question would have to have been Simeon I. This, however, is contradicted by the handwriting, which seems different from that of Simeon I. We have, therefore, no choice than to accept that this waqfiyya was written by a later Simeon (Simeon II), and hence that the Buṭrus mentioned therein is also a consid- erably later Buṭrus. 83 Aorist of the Demotic βγαίνω, ‘come out’ (< Byzantine Greek ἐβγαίνω < Classical Greek ἐκβαίνω). 84 Νεκτάριος, Ἐπιτομὴ τῆς ἱεροκοσμικῆς ἱστορίας (see n. 3), p. 222. Ioasaph of Rhodes’ Inventory 57

Simeon of 1258 in Ioasaph’s list. Given that Simeon I was already bishop of Sinai in 1197, it is extremely unlikely that he was still alive in 1258. Equally unfounded is Samir Khalil Samir’s claim that ‘Simeon II … was still alive on 16 December 1260’.85 Samir provides no evidence for this statement, yet it is clearly based on Cheikho’s indication that ‘Le R. P. Jul- lien (Sinaï et Syrie, p. 106) cite, d’après un Manuscrit de la Bibl. Nat. (CXLI), une Bulle d’Innocent VI, adressée, le 16 Déc. 1260, à l’Evêque et aux religieux du Sinaï, pour confirmer leur règle et leurs possessions’.86 Jullien’s information is, however, incorrect, because Innocent VI was pope a century later, in 1352-1362; hence the correct date is 1360. The bulla in question was indeed issued by Innocent VI on 16 December 1360 (not 1260). Crucially, it does not specify the name of the bishop of Sinai at the time.87 There is thus no reason to suppose that it is addressed to Simeon II; let alone that Simeon II was ‘still alive’ one century before the bulla was issued. It is perhaps worth mentioning, however, that the economos (not the bishop) of Mount Sinai in 1258 was indeed named Simeon: his full name is Simeon ibn al-Buṭayṭa al-Anṭākī. We know about him from the colophon of Sinai ar. 398, a manuscript of the Antiochian Menologion. I have dis- cussed this colophon in an earlier publication.88

85 Samir, ‘Archevêques’ (see n. 31), p. 377: ‘… Siméon II, dont on sait qu’il était encore en vie le 16 décembre 1260’. 86 Cheikho, ‘Les archevêques du Sinaï’ (see n. 5), p. 418. Cf. M. Jullien, Sinaï et Syrie: souvenirs bibliques et chrétiens (Lille, 1893), p. 106: ‘Le dernier acte pontifical constatant l’union des religieux du Sinaï avec Rome venu à notre connaissance, est une lettre d’Innocent VI, du 16 décembre 1260, adressée aux Frères et à l’évêque du Sinaï, dans laquelle le pontife confirme la règle et les possessions du monastère’ (Jullien provides a reference to ‘Henricus Suarez, Manusc. CXLI de la Bibl. Nat’.). 87 P. Riant, ‘Dépouillement des tomes XXI-XXII de l’Orbis christianus de Henri de Suarez (Paris, Bibl. Nat. lat. 8983-8985): Patriarcats de Constantinople et de Jérusalem’, Archives de l’Orient Latin, 1 (1881), pp. 257-285, on p. 283: ‘CXLI – 1360, 16 dec. Innocentius VI, episcopo et fratribus Montis Sinay; confirmat eorum regulam et omnia bona. – Avin- ione, xvii kal. Jan. ann. VIII. – H., 263 b’. The reference is to Paris, BnF lat. 8985, fol. 263v. Cf. G. Hofmann, ‘Lettere pontificie edite ed inedite ai monasteri del Monte Sinai’, Orientalia Christiana Periodica, 17 (1951), pp. 283-303, on p. 286. 88 Treiger, ‘Sinaitica (1)’ (see n. 1), pp. 218-219; cf. p. 222. 58 Alexander Treiger

Paragraph 8: see above Paragraph 9: ‘In a Paterikon: Michael, and also in a Sticherarion and in other [books]’ The ‘Paterikon’ mentioned by Ioasaph is probably the Patristic manuscript Sinai ar. 346 (year 1149), which includes Isaac the Syrian, John Karpathos, Questions of Anastasius of Sinai, etc. and has an undated waqfiyya by bishop Michael of Sinai (fol. 0v, glued to the cover). The Sticherarion is, undoubtedly, the Greek manuscript Sinai gr. 1229 (year 1374, copied by bishop Theoleptus [or Theopemptus?] of Damietta; membrum disiectum: Saint Petersburg, NLR gr. 440), which also has an undated waqfiyya by bishop Michael of Sinai (fol. 3r).89 In addition to these two manuscripts, the following manuscripts feature similar waqfiyyas: – Mingana Chr. Arab. Add. 221 [catalogue 190] (Ephrem on the second coming and on the Last Judgment), fol. 1r; – Mingana Chr. Arab. Add. 244 [catalogue 212] (Maximus’ Centuries on Love), fol. 4r;90 – Sinai ar. 81 (Gospel; year 1322), fol. 3v; – Sinai ar. 90 (Gospel; year 1281), fol. 3r; – Sinai gr. 817 (Octoechus, copied by deacon Arsenius in 1258; membrum disiectum: Saint Petersburg, NLR gr. 450), fol. 209v;91 – Sinai syr. 92 (Praxapostolos, year 1291), fol. 218r (I am grateful to Joe Glynas for this information); – Sinai syr. 240 (Psalter; year 1322), fol. 157v.92 From this evidence, we can deduce the terminus post quem for Michael of Sinai: 1374 (the date of Sinai gr. 1229). I hesitate to identify the bishop Michael of Sinai with the abbot (ra᾿īs, reflecting Gr. ἡγούμενος) Michael of Sinai, attested in an Arabic document dated to 24 Ramaḍān 850 AH [=13 December 1446].93

89 Benešević, Catalogus, vol. I (see n. 32), pp. 138-139 and 627. Michael read Theoleptus’ .(ثوبمبطس الرومي مطران ضمياط) ’name as ‘Theopemptus 90 S.Kh. Samir, ‘Évagre le Pontique dans la tradition arabo-copte’, in Actes du IVe Congrès Copte, II (Louvain-la-Neuve, 1992), pp. 123-153, on p. 139. 91 Benešević, Catalogus, vol. I (see n. 32), p. 628; V. Gardthausen, Catalogus codicum graecorum sinaiticorum (Oxford, 1886), pp. 176-177. 92 Husmann, ‘Die syrischen Handschriften’ (see n. 33), p. 300. 93 Ernst, Die mamlukischen Sultansurkunden (see n. 66), pp. 126-127. Ioasaph of Rhodes’ Inventory 59

It would seem that in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, abbots of Sinai were distinct from bishops of Sinai (the former having the rank of priests, not bishops).94 In 850/1446, the bishop of Sinai seems to have been Thomas (Tūmā ibn Ǧirǧis ibn Tūmā), attested in another document.95

Paragraph 10: ‘In another [book by] Nikon: Theodosius, in 6747 [=1238/9]’ I have been unable to identify the manuscript referenced by Ioasaph, and moreover, as we shall see below, the year 6747 [=1238/9] falls within the episcopacy of Macarius. Therefore, this date has to be treated as a terminus post quem; Theodosius must have been mentioned in an undated waqfiyya posterior to the manuscript in question. There are, however, two other traces of Theodosius of Sinai. First, Sinai ar. 327 (contains and other texts; copied in 1292) con- tains an undated waqfiyya by bishop Theodosius of Sinai (fol. 1r). Second, among the Sinai ‘New Finds’ there is an unpublished ‘document of the bishop of Sinai Theodosios from Damietta dated to S[ep]tember 9, 1440, concerning an amount of money to be paid by the Holy Monastery of Sinai’.96 Assuming all this information refers to one and the same Theodosius (we have no evidence for multiple Theodosii), we have to date him to 1440. His origin must be from Damietta, Egypt.

Paragraph 11: ‘In St. Cyril of Jerusalem’s Catecheses: Silouan’ The manuscript of Cyril of Jerusalem’s Catechetical Homilies (which includes also John of Jerusalem’s Mystagogical Catecheses) can be identified. This is the tenth-century manuscript Sinai ar. 309.97 This manuscript has a note

94 Thus, for example, one and the same Arabic document (dated 23 Ša῾bān 876 AH [=4 Feb- ruary 1472]) mentions bishop Lazarus and abbot Macarius of Sinai – see ibid., pp. 168-169. 95 D.S. Richards, ‘Documents from Sinai concerning Mainly Cairene Property’, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, 8 (1985), pp. 225-293, on p. 227, n. 8 and p. 231. 96 P.G. Nicolopoulos, The New Finds of Sinai (Athens, 1999), p. 132. 97 On this manuscript, see A. Binggeli, ‘Les trois David, copistes arabes de Palestine aux 9e-10e s.’, in Manuscripta Graeca et Orientalia: Mélanges monastiques et patristiques en l’honneur de Paul Géhin, eds. A. Binggeli, A. Boud’hors, and M. Cassin (Louvain, 2016), pp. 79-117, on pp. 108-109. 60 Alexander Treiger

(fol. 236r) by the late tenth-century bishop Solomon of Sinai.98 The letter -is barely recognizable, so it is not sur (صلمون) mīm in the name Solomon prising that the name was misread as ‘Silouan’. Consequently, we have no evidence for a bishop of Sinai named Silouan.

Paragraph 12: ‘In Antiochus’ Small Pandectes: Macarius, in 6756 [=1247/8], and also in many other books, without a year, but I do not know if this is another [different] one’ Paragraph 16: ‘Another Macarius, during whose time the patriarch of Jerusalem Euthymius was buried, is found on a reliquary, which is located in the left section of the bema of the great church, outside [the iconostasis],in letters engraved in marble, indicating the indiction and the year: 6732 [=1223/4]’ Macarius of Sinai is the author of a Responsum on Cheesefare Week, of which a Russian translation has recently been published.99 A recent publication has analyzed all the biographical information about this Macarius – including the colophon of Sinai ar. 378 of the year 1248 (which is the copy of Antio- chus’ Pandectes referenced by Ioasaph in Paragraph 12), the epitaph of Euthymius of Jerusalem, dating to 13 December 1223 (referenced by Ioasaph in Paragraph 16), and a marginal note, preserved in the Arabic synaxarion Sinai ar. 412, which seems to point to Macarius’ death on 16 December 1252. This Macarius was originally from Damascus.100 The reader is referred to this publication for further details. Macarius was, therefore, bishop of Sinai from before 1223 to exactly 1252, i.e., —1223—1252#.

98 M.N. Swanson, ‘Solomon, Bishop of Mount Sinai (Late Tenth Century AD)’, in Stud- ies on the Christian Arabic Heritage: In Honour of Father Prof. Dr. Samir Khalil Samir S.I. at the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, eds. R. Ebied and H. Teule (Leuven, Paris, and Dudley, MA, 2004), pp. 91-111, esp. pp. 98-99 and photograph on p. 109. 99 А. Трейгер [A. Treiger], ‘Макарий Синаит, “О посте на сырной седмице”’ [Macarius of Sinai’s Treatise ‘On Fasting during Cheesefare Week’], Вестник Православного Свято-Тихоновского Гуманитарного Университета, 3 (53) (2017), pp. 103-134. A critical edition and English translation of this important treatise are cur- rently in preparation. 100 A. Treiger, ‘Who Was Macarius of Sinai, the Author of the Responsum on Cheesefare Week?’ in Between the Cross and the Crescent: Studies in Honor of Samir Khalil Samir, S.J. on the Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday, ed. Ž. Paša (Rome, 2018), pp. 137-145. Ioasaph of Rhodes’ Inventory 61

Paragraph 13: ‘In a Gospel book: Mark, in 6377’ According to Ioasaph, Mark’s name is found in a Gospel manuscript dating to 6377. This information is amplified by Nectarius of Jerusalem, who says that Mark is ‘attested in an old Arabic book’ (εὐρίσκεται ἐν βιβλίῳ παλαιῷ ἀραβικῷ) under the year ‘͵ϛψοζʹ from Adam, 869 from Christ’.101 ͵ϛψοζʹ (6777) is an obvious misprint for ͵ϛτοζʹ (6377).102 6377 AM does indeed convert to 869 AD, if we assume that the era in question is the Byzantine world era. All the scholars who have dealt with the question have, accord- ingly, dated Mark to 869 AD.103 There are, however, two obvious problems here. First, if indeed the date 6377 AM was found in an old Arabic manuscript (which, unfortunately, cannot be identified at present), there is no doubt that the era employed would have been the Alexandrian world era of Annianus, not the Byzantine world era, because the Byzantine world era was never used in Christian Arabic manuscripts to the second half of the tenth century.104 The conversion to 869 AD – done by ­Nectarius on the basis of the Byzantine world era – is therefore incorrect. In reality, 6377 AMalex converts to 25 December 884 AD-24 December 885 AD or to 25 March 885 AD-24 March 886 AD (depending on which variety of the Alexandrian world era of Annianus was used). Therefore, we have to re-date the putative manuscript in which Mark’s name appeared to ca. 885 AD.

101 Νεκτάριος, Ἐπιτομὴ τῆς ἱεροκοσμικῆς ἱστορίας (see n. 3), p. 221. 102 This misprint is corrected both in Βιβλίον περιέχον (see n. 4), p. 67 and in the Arabic translation of the latter, Cheikho, ‘Les archevêques du Sinaï’ (see n. 5), p. 412. 103 Cheikho, ‘Les archevêques du Sinaï’ (see n. 5), p. 416; H.-L. Rabino, Le monastère de Sainte-Catherine du Mont Sinaï (Cairo, 1938), p. 82; Nasrallah, Histoire, vol. II.2 (see n. 30), p. 13; A. Marinescu, ‘The Hierarchs’ Catalogue of Monastery St. Catherine in Mount Sinai’, Études byzantines et postbyzantines, 4 (2001), pp. 267-289, on p. 279; A. Marinescu, Mânăstirea Sf. Ecaterina de la Muntele Sinai și legăturile ei cu Țările Române: Perspectivă istorico-patristică [St. Catherine’s Monastery of Mount Sinai and its Relations with the Romanian States: Historical-Patristic Perspective] (Bucharest, 2009), p. 417. 104 On the Alexandrian world era in Christian Arabic manuscripts, see M.N. Swanson, ‘Some Considerations for the Dating of Fī taṯlīṯ Allāh al-wāḥid (Sinai Ar. 154) and Al-Ǧāmi῾ wuǧūh al-īmān (London, British Library or. 4950)’, Parole de l’Orient, 18 (1993), pp. 117-141, esp. pp. 129-136; Д.А. Морозов [D.A. Morozov], ‘Александрийская эра в лавре св. Саввы Освященного’ [The Alexandrian Era at Saba], Каптеревские чтения, 11 (2013), pp. 69-71; A. Treiger, ‘New Works by Theodore Abū Qurra Pre- served under the Name of Thaddeus of ’, Journal of Eastern Christian Studies, 68 (2016), pp. 1-51, esp. pp. 4-12. 62 Alexander Treiger

Second, because the manuscript referenced by Ioasaph has not been iden- tified, we need to consider 885 AD as a terminus post quem. In fact, it is entirely possible that the Mark of Sinai referenced in Ioasaph’s Paragraph 13 is the same as the Mark referenced in Paragraph 6 above, whose episcopacy we have securely dated to —1398—1409—. It could have been this later Mark who left an undated waqfiyya in a manuscript dating to 885. As a consequence, while it may still be true that there was a bishop Mark of Sinai in 885, this cannot be proven.

Paragraph 14: see above Paragraph 15: ‘In a volume by [John] Chrysostom: Germanus, in 6736 [=1227/8], by whom the book was copied’ The year 1227/8 falls within the episcopacy of Macarius (—1223—1252#). Consequently, there could have been no bishop Germanus at this time. The reference is therefore clearly to the early fourteenth-century bishop Ger- manus (—1321—1336#), discussed in the commentary on Paragraph 1 above. Ioasaph’s reference in Paragraph 15 is, therefore, to be interpreted as evidence that Germanus’ name appeared in an undated waqfiyya in a manu- script of John Chrysostom dating to 1227/8. This manuscript is easily identifiable: this is Sinai ar. 303, a manuscript of John Chrysostom’s Commentary on Hebrews, copied by ῾Āfiya ibn Isḥāq105 on 24 July 6736 [=1228].106 This manuscript indeed bears an undated waqfiyya by bishop Germanus (fol. 1r). What do we make, then, of Ioasaph’s claim that it was by Germanus himself that ‘the book was copied’? This is, clearly, a mistake. Germanus could not have copied a manuscript dating to one century prior to his floruit. Most likely, Ioasaph’s statement is based on the fact that Germanus’ hand- writing is somewhat similar to that of ῾Āfiya ibn Isḥāq. It is this similarity

105 ῾Āfiya ibn Isḥāq is also the copyist of Sinai ar. 318 (year 1226). 106 To complicate things slightly, the copyist also provides a hiǧrī date (17 Ša῾bān 617 AH), which does not match the Christian date. This, however, does not affect the ­argument. Whether it is the Christian or the hiǧrī date that is correct (the former is more likely, because 24 July 1228 indeed falls in Ša῾bān, while 17 Ša῾bān 617 AH does not fall in July), Ioasaph refers to the Christian date alone, and it is on the basis of this stated Christian date and other details that we can identify the manuscript with precision. Ioasaph of Rhodes’ Inventory 63 that may have led to his erroneous belief that Germanus was himself the copyist. It may be useful to provide a list of Germanus’ waqfiyyas. In addi- tion to Sinai ar. 303, we have the following: – Mingana Chr. Arab. Add. 197 [catalogue 126] – one leaf from a Sinai manuscript of the Gospels; – Mingana Chr. Arab. Add. 238 [catalogue 176], fol. 1r – one leaf from a Sinai manuscript of Antiochus’ Pandectes; – Sinai ar. 76 (Gospel), fol. 4r; – Sinai ar. 89 (year 1285), fol. 1v; – Sinai ar. 105, fol. 2r; – Sinai ar. 317 (John of Damascus; year 1223, copied by Bīmīn al-sīqī in Damascus), fol. 1r (right after the waqfiyya there is a note in Syriac: ܐܚܒܘܫ ܐܝܚ ܐܗܠܐ ܟܠ, ‘Glory to You, living God’, but it is unclear whether this addition was made by Germanus himself); – Sinai ar. 318 (copied by ῾Āfiya ibn Isḥāq in 1226), fol. 1r; – Sinai ar. 327 (year 1292), fol. 2v; – Sinai ar. 355, fol. 1r; – Sinai ar. 420 (year 1287), fol. 2v; – Sinai ar. 438, fol. 0v; – Sinai ar. 558, fol. 0v; – Sinai ar. 559, fol. 3r; – Sinai geo. 74, fol. 174r (this remarkable note by Germanus prohibits anyone except Georgian monks from dwelling in the Georgian quarters adjacent to the church of St. George); – Sinai gr. 257 (year 1101/2), fol. 211v;107 – Sinai gr. 754 (year 1176/7), fols. 4r and 317v (on 317v Germanus also added a note in Greek);108 – Sinai syr. 78 (year 1259), fols. 1v-2r; – Strasbourg Or. 4226, fols. 7v-8r; – Vat. syr. 647, fol. 116v.

107 On this manuscript, see D. Harlfinger, D.R. Reinsch, and J.A.M. Sonderkamp, Spec- imina Sinaitica: Die datierten griechischen Handschriften des Katharinen-Klosters auf dem Berge Sinai, 9. bis 12. Jahrhundert (Berlin, 1983), pp. 40-41 and plates 91-94. 108 On this manuscript, see Benešević, Catalogus, vol. I (see n. 32), pp. 130-131; Harlfin- ger et al., Specimina Sinaitica (see n. 107), pp. 54-56 and plates 136-143. 64 Alexander Treiger

The following are waqfiyyas in a handwriting similar to Germanus’, though his name is not indicated: – Sinai ar. 316, fol. 2v; – Sinai ar. 336 (John Climacus), fol. 1r; – Sinai gr. 175, fol. 7r; – Sinai gr. 251, fol. 0v.

Paragraphs 16: see above Paragraph 17: ‘In an ancient liturgy of St. James: Abramius’ The manuscript of the Liturgy of St. James referenced by Ioasaph can be identified: this is Sinai gr. NF X156. This manuscript contains a late 11th- century commemoration list of deceased bishops of Sinai compiled shortly after the death of the patriarch of Jerusalem Sophronius II. It mentions: ἔτι δὲ (καὶ) τ(ῶν) ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἐπισκοπησάντ(ων) ἐν τῇ ἡμετέρ(ᾳ) π(α)ροικεί(ᾳ) τ(ῶν) ἀπὸ τοῦ ἁγίου Θεοδώρου μέχρι Ἰώβ, Σολομῶντος, Ἀνδρείου, Κωνσταντίνου, Ἰω(άννου), Ἰω(άννου), Σολομῶντος, Ἡλία, Γρηγορίου, Ἀβραμίου καὶ Ἰω(άννου) τῶν ἐπισκόπων, ‘Again [remember] those who have from the beginning held episcopal rank in our [monastic] community: from St. Theodore to Job, Solomon, Andrew, Constantine, John, John, Solomon, Elias, Gregory, Abramius, and John the bishops’.109 From this list we can deduce that Abramius was bishop of Sinai, most likely, ca. mid-11th century. We can, in fact, be more precise. The last mentioned bishop is, obviously, John ‘the Athenian’, whose episcopacy – as I will show below – is to be dated to ca. 1063—1083#. Hence Abramius, who immediately pre- cedes him in the list, is to be dated to —ca. 1063#. The same Abramius is mentioned in another list of deceased archbishops of Sinai preserved in Sinai gr. 1635, fol. 14r.110 This list mentions: Ἰω(άννου), Γρηγορίου, Ἰω(άννου), Ἀυραμίου, Ἰω(άννου), Ἀντωνίου, Ὀνουφρίου, Ἰω(άννου), Ἀντωνίου, Συμεῶν, Γαυρι(ήλ), Συμεῶν, Μακαρίου, Ἀθανασίου,

109 Nicolopoulos, New Finds (see n. 96), pp. 107-108, 112-113, 213, and plate 189; cf. Marinescu, Mânăstirea Sf. Ecaterina (see n. 103), p. 367. 110 Viewable online: https://www.loc.gov/resource/amedmonastery.00279381932- ms/?sp=16; cf. Benešević, Catalogus, vol. III (see n. 32), p. 114 (who, however, has omitted­ a few of the names); Успенскiй, Второе путешествiе (see n. 6), pp. 352-353. Ioasaph of Rhodes’ Inventory 65

Ἰω(άννου), ..., Παίτρου, Ἀρσεν(ίου), ‘John, Gregory, John, Abramius, John, Antony, Onuphrius, John, Antony, Simeon, Gabriel, Simeon, Macarius, Athanasius, John, … [illegible], Peter, Arsenius’. This sequence of names presents some interesting challenges, which cannot be discussed here. There is also an undated waqfiyya by bishop Abramius in an uncial Greek manuscript Sinai gr. NF ΜΓ 44.111 The waqfiyya is only partially preserved: the poor and‘ ,المسكين الحقير ... المسمى اسقف طور سينا only the words wretched … called bishop of Mount Sinai’ are legible. Fortunately, this waqfiyya is also translated into Greek in a later (13th-14th century) hand. The translation says: +τὰ ἄνωθ(ε)ν ἀραβιστὶ λέγ(ει) Ἀβράμιος ἐπίσκοπ(ος) τοῦ Σινᾶ, ‘The above [statement] says in Arabic: Abramius, bishop of Sinai’.112 Finally, a bishop Abramius is depicted as a donor in an that has been variously dated to between the 11th and the 13th century. Assuming this is the same Abramius as discussed above, the icon would have to be dated to the mid-11th century.113 It should be mentioned that there was also a fif- teenth-century bishop Abramius attested in two sources: – An Arabic document mentions a bishop of Sinai Abramius (in Arabic: Ibrāhīm ibn Ǧirǧis ibn As῾ad) under the year 835 AH [=1432].114

111 The manuscript is described as: ‘Parch., Scroll, 380 x 170, 1 piece (remains of the stitching), IXth c. Service of the Holy Sanctification, in Greek, in Arabic’ – see Nicolo- poulos, New Finds (see n. 96), p. 149. 112 Ibid., p. 112. 113 Ντ. Μουρίκη [D. Mouriki], ‘Εικόνες από τον 12ο ως τον 15ο αιώνα’ [ from the 12th to the 15th Century], in Σινά: Οι θησαυροί της Ι. Μονής Αγίας Αικατερίνης, ed. Κ. Μανάφης [K. Manafis] (Athens, 1990), pp. 101-125; D. Mouriki, ‘Portraits de donateurs et invocations sur les icônes du XIIIe siècle au Sinaï’, Études balkaniques: Cahiers Pierre Belon, 2 (1995), pp. 103-135, esp. pp. 106-107 (dated the icon to the 13th century); K. Weitzmann, ‘A Group of Early Twelfth-Century Sinai Icons Attributed to Cyprus’, in Studies in Memory of David Talbot Rice, eds. G. Robertson and G. Henderson (Edinburgh, 1975), pp. 47-63 and plates 18-25 [reprint: K. Weizmann, Studies in the Arts at Sinai (Princeton, 1982), pp. 245-270] (dated the icon to the early 12th century); G.R. Parpulov, ‘Mural and Icon Painting at Sinai in the Thirteenth Century’, in Approaching the Holy Mountain: Art and Liturgy at St Catherine’s Monastery in the Sinai, eds. S.E.J. Gerstel and R.S. Nelson (Turnhout, 2010), pp. 345-414, on p. 379, No. ΧΙ.145 (suggested that the icon can be dated to the 11th century). I owe this information to Charalampos Machairas (personal correspondence, 15 February 2015), who has confirmed to me that, in his view, the icon can be dated to the second half of the 11th century. 114 Richards, ‘Documents from Sinai’ (see n. 95), p. 227, n. 8 and p. 239. 66 Alexander Treiger

– Sinai ar. NF Paper 23 contains a personal letter from Wazīra bint Maryam bint Lu᾿lu᾿a to her brother bishop Abramius (in Arabic: Ibrāhīm), who is said to be originally from Latakia; in the letter, dispatched to this bishop Abramius with some monks, Wazīra seems to congratulate him on being elevated to episcopal rank.115 The manuscript is no earlier than the 13th cen- tury (14th century is more likely). Wazīra’s letter could be posterior to the manuscript. Since the manuscript ended up at Sinai, it is extremely likely that this Abramius was bishop of Sinai. Presumably, this Abramius is iden- tical to the Ibrāhīm ibn Ǧirǧis ibn As῾ad mentioned above.

Paragraph 18: see above Paragraph 19: ‘In a Gospel commentary by [John] Chrysostom: Sabbas’ I was unable to identify the manuscript referenced by Ioasaph. There is, however, another source in which bishop Sabbas is mentioned. This is the colophon of Sinai gr. 968, an copied at Sinai’s metochion in Crete and dated to 8 March 6937 AM / 1429 AD.116 Sabbas can therefore be securely dated to 1429.

Paragraph 20: ‘In a Synaxarion: John, in 1091’ The reference is to the 11th-century archbishop John, sometimes called ‘the Athenian’ (ὁ Ἀθηναῖος). According to Nectarius of Jerusalem, he is attested in ‘another Arabic book’, under the year ‘1091 from Christ’. Nectarius adds that he was killed by the Egyptians, and the fathers of the monastery included him in their catalogue of saints.117

115 Ι.Ε. Μεϊμάρης [I.E. Meimaris], Κατάλογος τῶν νέων ἀραβικῶν χειρογράφων τῆς Ἱερᾶς Μονῆς ἁγίας Αἰκατερίνης τοῦ ὄρους Σινᾶ / Katālūǧ al-maḫṭūṭāt al-῾arabiyya al-muktašafa ḥadīṯan bi-Dayr Sānt Kātirīn al-muqaddas bi-Ṭūr Sīnā᾿ [Catalogue of the New Arabic Manuscripts of the Holy Monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai] (Athens, 1985), Greek section, pp. 43-44 and n. 51, p. 120 (photographs 95-96); Arabic section, pp. 46-47 and n. 48. 116 Benešević, Catalogus, vol. I (see n. 32), pp. 123-126 (the colophon uses both the AM era and the modern AD era); cf. Успенскiй, Второе путешествiе (see n. 6), pp. 362-363. 117 Νεκτάριος, Ἐπιτομὴ τῆς ἱεροκοσμικῆς ἱστορίας (see n. 3), p. 221; Βιβλίον περιέχον (see n. 4), p. 67; Cheikho, ‘Les archevêques du Sinaï’ (see n. 5), p. 412. Ioasaph of Rhodes’ Inventory 67

In his fundamental study of the Melkite Synaxaria, Joseph-Marie Sauget has been able to confirm this information. Several Sinaitic Synaxaria indeed include an account of the martyrdom of Archbishop John (whom, however, they do not call ‘the Athenian’).118 The account is given under 12 February. It specifies that the martyrdom took place ‘in the year 1091 to the Incarna- tion (taǧassud) of our God and Lord Jesus Christ’, at the hand of Hagarene marauders who came from Egypt and attacked the monastery in search of treasures. It specifies further that Archbishop John had spent 53 years in the monastery, of which he had been archbishop for 20 years. Scholars have, accordingly, dated John’s martyrdom to 1091 AD and his episcopacy to ca. 1071-1091 AD.119 This, however, is incorrect. The era employed in the martyrdom account is not our ‘Anno Domini’ era; it is the so-called Melkite era of the Incarnation, in use in the 11th-14th centuries.120 1091 AInc con- verts to 1 September 1082-31 August 1083 AD. Archbishop John’s martyr- dom is, therefore, to be re-dated to 12 February 1083 AD, and his episco- pacy to ca. 1063—1083# AD.121

Paragraph 21: ‘In a very ancient Gospel book: Athanasius’ I was unable to identify the manuscript referenced by Ioasaph. There are, however, two sources that mention bishop Athanasius of Sinai: – An undated waqfiyya (in Arabic) by bishop Athanasius of Sinai is pre- served in the Greek manuscript Sinai gr. 1227 (12th century), fol. 1v; – Athanasius is mentioned among the deceased archbishops in Sinai gr. 1635, fol. 14r, immediately after Macarius of Sinai (see commentary on Paragraph 17 above).

118 J.-M. Sauget, Premières recherches sur l’origine et les caractéristiques des synaxaires melkites (XIe-XVIIe siècles) (Brussels, 1969), pp. 352-356; Nasrallah, Histoire, vol. III.1 (see n. 30), pp. 72-73. It is unknown why Nectarius and some other later sources call him ‘Athenian’. 119 Sauget, Premières recherches (see n. 118), p. 355; Nasrallah, Histoire, vol. III.1 (see n. 30), p. 73. 120 Samir, ‘L’ère de l’Incarnation’ (see n. 76). 121 Inexplicably, L. Eckenstein, A History of Sinai (London, 1921), pp. VII and 144 dated John’s martyrdom to 1069. This is, clearly, a mistake. Unfortunately, Marinescu, Mânăstirea Sf. Ecaterina (see n. 103), p. 422 postulates (with reference to Eckenstein) a non-existent ‘Ioan XIII’ under the year 1069, distinct from ‘Sf. Ioan XIV’ (=John the ‘Athenian’). 68 Alexander Treiger

Based on this information, he can be tentatively dated to the mid-13th cen- tury (Macarius died in 1252). Nasrallah has referred to an ‘Athanasius of Sinai mentioned on fol. 1v of Sinai ar. 547, with the date of 6874 (1366 AD)’.122 This information is, however, erroneous. The marginal note to which Nasrallah refers was written by Athanasius, bishop of al-Rabba in Transjordan, not by Athanasius of Sinai. A much later Athanasius was arch- bishop of Sinai in #1707—1721#.123

Paragraph 22: see above

3. Conclusion

Ioasaph’s inventory is, certainly, a remarkable attempt to establish a chronol- ogy of the Sinai hierarchs based on documentary evidence (colophons and waqfiyyas of Sinai Arabic and Greek manuscripts). Nonetheless, on close inspection, this attempt turns out to be methodologically flawed. Ioasaph failed to distinguish between, on the one hand, dated colophons that specify the current bishop, such references being contemporary with the bishops in question, and, on the other hand, bishops’ waqfiyyas in manuscripts (analo- gous to modern bookplates or library stamps), which are often considerably later than the manuscripts themselves. Despite the fact that Ioasaph’s references to the particular manuscripts he used are quite imprecise, it is often possible to identify them and thus con- firm or disprove his statements. The above analysis has resulted in some improvements in our knowledge of the chronology of the archbishops of Sinai. This information can be summarized as follows.

Paragraph Ioasaph’s Information Assessment 1 Germanus: 6841 [=1332/3] —1321—1336# 2 Arsenius: 6798 [=1289/90] —1284—1295-; origin: from Šawbak 3 Euthymius: 6731 [=1222/3] Probably, after 1336; name: Ibn Abū al-Layṯ al-Miṣrī

122 Nasrallah, Histoire, vol. III.2 (see n. 30), p. 84, n. 198. 123 Rabino, Le monastère de Sainte-Catherine (see n. 103), p. 89. Ioasaph of Rhodes’ Inventory 69

Paragraph Ioasaph’s Information Assessment 4 Gabriel: no date —1296—1297— (contrary to Nectarius of Jerusalem, and scholars who have followed him, there seems to be no evidence for Gabriel in 1156) 5 John: 6773 [=1264/5] ca. 1265 (Ioasaph is probably correct; contrary to Samir, we have no evidence that this John died in 1281) 6 Mark: 6866 [=1357/8] —1398—1409—; name: Ibn al-Mašhūr 7 Simeon: no date Simeon I: —1197—1221— Simeon II: after 1297/8 There seems to be no evidence for Simeon in 1258 (though there was an economos named Simeon in that year) 8 John: no date See Paragraph 5 above 9 Michael: no date After 1374 (but probably not identical to abbot Michael of Sinai attested in 1446) 10 Theodosius: 6747 [=1238/9] 1440 (there could have been no Theodosius in 1238/9); origin: from Damietta 11 Silouan Non-existent (misreading of ‘Solomon’) 12 Macarius: 6756 [=1247/8] —1223—1252#; origin: from Damascus 13 Mark: 6377 6377 AMalex is to be converted to 885 AD (not 869 AD). The information is, however, questionable (it may refer to the same Mark as in Paragraph 6 above). We do not know whether there was a bishop Mark in 885. 14 Simeon: 6766 [=1257/8] Probably, non-existent (see Paragraph 7 above) 15 Germanus: 6736 [=1227/8] Non-existent. The information refers to the same Germanus as in Paragraph 1 above. 16 Macarius: 6732 [=1223/4] See Paragraph 12 above 17 Abramius: no date —ca. 1063# There is also a later bishop Abramius (in Arabic: Ibrāhīm ibn Ǧirǧis ibn As῾ad), presumably from Latakia, in 1432 18 Simeon: 6711 [=1202/3] See Paragraph 7 above 19 Sabbas: no date 1429 70 Alexander Treiger

Paragraph Ioasaph’s Information Assessment 20 John: 1091 1091 AInc has to be converted to 1082/3. John’s episcopacy is, therefore, to be re-dated to ca. 1063—1083#. 21 Athanasius: no date Probably, mid-13th century (presumably, immediately after Macarius, who died in 1252) Contrary to Nasrallah, there was no bishop Athanasius in 1366 A much later Athanasius: #1707—1721# 22 Simeon: 1306 1306 AInc has to be converted to 1297/8, and this is to be taken as a terminus post quem; hence, after 1297/8 (cf. Paragraph 7 above)

Abstract

This article presents an editio princeps and an English translation of Ioasaph of Rhodes’ inventory of the hierarchs of Sinai (compiled in 1640), which is the main and hitherto unexplored source for Nectarius of Jerusalem’s chronology of the hierarchs of Sinai and all subsequent inventories. Unlike Nectarius and subsequent inventories, however, Ioasaph refers to the Sinai Arabic and Greek manuscripts in which he found the information in question. The article shows that many of these manuscripts can be identified. A fresh examination of the manuscript evidence has provided significant corrections to Ioasaph’s (and Nectarius’) data and has helped revise what we know about the chronology of the hierarchs of Sinai. Keywords: Sinai, Sinai archbishops, manuscript colophons, Ioasaph of Rhodes, Nectarius of Jerusalem