Gir≤ Harwmanw)1 Contains a Series of Polemics Against Non-Christian Religions Including Manichaeism2, Islam3, and Judaism

A 14TH ARMENIAN POLEMIC AGAINST JUDAISM

A FOURTEENTH-CENTURY ARMENIAN POLEMIC AGAINST JUDAISM AND ITS LATIN SOURCE

Introduction

The first volume of Grigor Tat‘ewac‘i’s Book of Questions (Gir≤ Harwmanw)1 contains a series of polemics against non-Christian religions including Manichaeism2, Islam3, and Judaism. The treatise against Judaism is very brief – it occupies less than three full double-columned pages in the edition printed in 1729 in Constantinople – but is intriguing for its citations of Jewish sources4. In this portion of BQ, in addition to referring to unascribed ‘Jewish arguments’, Tat‘ewac‘i explicitly mentions the Talmud, the specific Talmudic tractates Sanhedrin and Yoma, and a text which he cites as Beresiat‘as. In a previous article, I posed the question of the availability of Tal- mudic and other Jewish sources to fourteenth-century Armenian monks based on Tat‘ewac‘i’s short excursus on Job in BQ vol. VI, ch. 225. In

1 GRIGOR TAT‘EWAC‘I, Gir≤ harwmanw [The Book of Questions], Jerusalem, 1993 (original printing, Constantinople, 1729) (= BQ). Tat‘ewac‘i (1344-1409) completed BQ in 1397. All references to the Book of Questions are to this edition unless otherwise noted. On Tat‘ewac‘i’s life see S. LA PORTA, ‘The Theology of the Holy Dionysius,’ Volume III of Grigor Tat‘ewac‘i’s Book of Questions: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary, Ph.D. thesis, Harvard University, Cambridge MA, 2001, ch. 1 (= LA PORTA, Theology); S. LA PORTA, Grigor Tat‘ewac‘i’s Pilgrimage to Jerusalem, in R. ERVINE – M. STONE – N. STONE (ed.), The Armenians in Jerusalem and the Holy Land, Leuven, 2002, p. 97-110 (= LA PORTA, Pilgrimage). On BQ, see S. LA PORTA, Concerning Job: Chapter 22 of the Sixth Volume of Grigor Tat‘ewac‘i’s Girk‘ Harc‘manc‘, in St. Nersess Theological Re- view, 2/2 (1997), p. 131-165 (= LA PORTA, Job); LA PORTA, Theology, ch. 2; S. LA PORTA, Sorcerers, Witches, and Weasels: Armenian Definitions of the Magical Arts, in Revue des Études Arméniennes, 28 (2001-2), p. 171-214. 2 T. POLADIAN, Gregory of Tatew-Against the Manichees, in Review of Religion, 9 (1945), p. 242-53, presents a brief study of the section against Manichaeism. 3 This section was intentionally omitted from the edition printed in Constantinople in 1729 to avoid persecution from the Ottoman Muslim authorities. It was subsequently ed- ited and published by B. KIWLESEREAN (ed.), Islam∂ Hay Matenagrou¯ean mèΔ [Islam in Armenian Literature], Vienna, 1930 (repr. in BQ). On this section, see F. KRAELITZ- GREIFENHORST, Die arabischen, persischen und türkischen Wörter im Buch gegen die Mohammedaner des Gregor von Tat‘ew, in Handes Amsorya, 41 (1927), p. 771-8; F. MACLER, L’Islam dans la littérature arménienne, in Revue des Études Islamiques, 6 (1932), p. 493-522; A. JEFFERY, Gregory of Tathew’s ‘Contra Mohammedanos’, in The Muslim World, 32 (1942), p. 219-35; and S. DADOYAN, Grigor of Tat‘ev: Treatise against the Tajiks, in Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations, 7/2 (1996), p. 193-204. 4 The text occurs on pages 27-29 of BQ. 5 LA PORTA, Job.

2148-09_Mus09/1-2_06_LaPorta 93 6/7/09, 11:08 am 94 S. LA PORTA

that chapter, Grigor notes that Job’s life extended “until the Exodus from Egypt,” a tradition found in Talmudic tractate Baba Bathra 15a6. Tat‘ewac‘i further attributes the authorship of the Book of Job to Moses. While some Christian exegetes preserved this tradition, it also occurs in Baba Bathra 14b. As M. Stone has shown, this baraitha was translated into Armenian and is preserved in J69 which is dated to the fourteenth century7. The possibility that Grigor possessed a limited familiarity with Jewish sources is not remote. He traveled to Jerusalem while a young man to be ordained a priest, and Jewish communities existed in the cities of north- ern Syria through which he may have passed8. Although historical sources of this period reveal little concerning Jewish communities in Armenia9, the recent discovery of the Jewish cemetery near the village of E¥egis, in the region of Vayoc‘ Jor in the province of Siwnik‘, provides evidence for a Jewish presence in Armenia during the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries10. None of Tat‘ewac‘i’s explicit references to Jewish texts in the chapter, however, arise from a direct Armenian translation of Jewish sources that were available to Grigor; rather they ultimately derive from the major anti-Jewish polemic, the Pugio Fidei, of the Dominican Raymond Martini11.

6 R. I. EPSTEIN (gen. ed.), Hebrew-English edition of the Babylonian Talmud, London, 1965-89 (= BT). 7 M. STONE, An Armenian Translation of a Baraitha in the Babylonian Talmud, in Harvard Theological Review, 6 (1970), p. 151-4. All abbreviations of manuscript collec- tions follow the suggestions outlined by the AIEA and used by B. COULIE, Répertoire des bibliothèques et des catalogues de manuscrits arméniens (Corpus Christianorum), Turnhout, 1992. 8 On Tat‘ewac‘i’s pilgrimage to Jerusalem, see LA PORTA, Pilgrimage. 9 The thirteenth-century Armenian bishop and historian, Step‘anos Orbelean, mentions that the city of Kapan in the southern region of Siwnik’ contained a Jewish quarter which was destroyed in 1103, STEP‘ANOS ORBELEAN, Patmou¯iun Tann Sisakan [His- tory of the House of Sisakan], M. EMIN (ed.), Moscow, 1861, ch. 60, p. 245. An Armenian colophon dated to 1365 composed in the city of Kaffa on the Crimean peninsula notes a Genoese military commander who entered the city and “slaughtered all the Ismaelites and Hebrews,” A. SANJIAN, Colophons of Armenian Manuscripts, 1301-1480: A Source for Middle Eastern History, Cambridge MA, 1969, p. 94. While admittedly Kaffa is not in Armenia, it did possess a large and important Armenian community, see N. STONE, The Kaffa Lives of the Desert Fathers: A Study in Armenian Manuscript Illumination, Leuven, 1997. 10 See D. AMIT – M. STONE, Report of the Survey of a Medieval Jewish Cemetery in Eghegis, Vayots Dzor Region, Armenia, in Journal of Jewish Studies, 53 (2002), p. 66- 106 and IDEM, The Second and Third Seasons of Research at the Medieval Jewish Cemetery in Eghegis, Vayots Dzor Region, Armenia, in Journal of Jewish Studies, 57 (2006), p. 99-135. 11 R. MARTINI, Pugio Fidei. Farnborough, 1967 (original printing, Leipzig, 1687) (= PF).

2148-09_Mus09/1-2_06_LaPorta 94 6/7/09, 11:08 am A 14TH ARMENIAN POLEMIC AGAINST JUDAISM 95

Over a century and a half before the completion of BQ, Raymond Martini (c. 1210-1285) was born in the town of Subirats, near Barce- lona12. Between 1237 and 1240 he entered the Dominican Order in Bar- celona. In 1250 Raymond de Peñaforte, director general of the Domini- can Order and driving force behind the missionary activities of the mid- thirteenth century, sent a group of monks, including Martini, to Tunis to work in the recently-founded school for Arabic instruction13. Martini re- turned to Spain in 1262 and may have been present at the famous debate that took place between R. Moses ben Nachman (Nachmanides) and Friar Paul Christian. An important consequence of this debate was that James I, King of Aragon, established a commission to examine Jewish texts for insults against Christianity. Martini was appointed to the commission in 1264 as a censor. In 1267, he completed his first anti-Jewish treatise, the Capistrum Iudaeorum14, aided by the material he had studied and col- lected whilst a censor. This work, written entirely in Latin, is divided into two parts of seven chapters each. The chapters are labeled “rationes” in the first half and “nequitiae” in the second. The first part forwards seven arguments based upon Genesis and the prophets to prove that the Messiah has already come. The second refutes seven Rabbinic objections to his coming. Eleven years later, in 1278, Martini completed his second anti-Jewish polemic, PF15. It is generally accepted that PF was not the work of one man alone, but the cooperative effort of a team of scholars working

12 On Martini’s life see especially A. BERTHIER, Un maître orientaliste du XIIIe siècle: Raymond Martini O.P., in Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum, VI (1936), p. 267-311 (= BERTHIER, Maître orientaliste); cfr also A. WILLIAMS, Adversus Judaeos, Cambridge, 1935, p. 248-255; H. SCHRECKENBERG, Die christlichen Adversus-Judaeos-Texte und ihr literarisches und historisches Umfeld (13.-20.Jh.), (Europäische Hochschulschriften Reihe XIII; Theologie Bd. 497), Frankfurt/M., 1994, p. 290-307 (= SCHRECKENBERG, Adversus-Judaeos-Texte). 13 It was there, between 1256-1257, that Martini wrote his Explanatio symboli apostolorum in which he discusses the twelve articles of the Christian faith. The work also contains polemics against Judaism and Islam. In the third article he argues against the Jews that the Messiah has already come, but he does not cite any Rabbinic texts. J. March published an edition of the entire text in 1908 based upon a manuscript from the end of the thirteenth or beginning of the fourteenth century. On this text see U. RAGACS, The Forged Midrashim of Raymond Martini – Reconsidered, in Henoch, 19 (1997), p. 60, n. 5 (= RAGACS, Forged Midrashim); and BERTHIER, Maître orientaliste, p. 279-80. 14 A critical edition of the text and a translation into Spanish is provided in A. ROBLES, Raimundi Martini: Capistrum Judaeorum, 2v., Würzburg, 1990, 1993 (= ROBLES, Capis- trum Judaeorum). For a description of the manuscripts, see BERTHIER, Maître orientaliste, p. 287-289, and ROBLES, Capistrum Judaeorum, I:22-25. 15 On the manuscripts and history of the printed editions of this work, see BERTHIER, Maître orientaliste, p. 281-286.

2148-09_Mus09/1-2_06_LaPorta 95 6/7/09, 11:08 am 96 S. LA PORTA

under the direction of Martini16. It is divided into three parts. The first part is a discussion of theological problems. The second and most crucial part attempts to prove the coming of the Messiah. The third part is comprised of yet another three parts: a treatise on the Trinity, an exposition on the creation of man and his redemption, and a proof that the Messiah is God. PF is the best representative of the type of anti-Jewish polemic devel- oped in Europe in the middle of the thirteenth century17. The new ap- proach, first attempted by Friar Paul Christian, a Jew who converted to Christianity, stressed that Jewish exegesis itself indicated that the Mes- siah had come and that Jesus had been he. Martini draws his material for PF from a wealth of Jewish sources, much greater than that used for his Capistrum Iudaeorum, including texts that are no longer extant. The method of citation within PF reflects the author’s or authors’ desire to combat Jewish argumentation as accurately as possible; proof-texts are first cited in the original Hebrew or Aramaic followed by a Latin translation. PF was not intended for a Jewish audience; rather, its purpose was to provide a powerful tool for missionaries. In order to fully comprehend its arguments, the text required rigorous training in Rabbinic thought and interpretation on the part of missionaries. This was a costly and in- tensive project and one that, ultimately, could not be maintained. There is no known manuscript of PF in Armenian and it is highly im- probable that it was translated in its entirety. The majority of the passages quoted in Tat‘ewac‘i’s “Against the Jews” are extracted from Part II, chs. 12 and 14 of the Latin work. In addition, Martini’s arguments appear in a highly abridged form in BQ. In most cases only one or two of his ‘proofs’ are cited for each point of dispute. In practice, because of its great size and detailed argumentation, PF was an unwieldy tool for average missionaries and preachers. We may cite, by comparison, Nicholas of Lyra’s Quodlibetum de adventu Christi, also known as De Iudeorum perfidia, which borrowed much of its information from PF18. Lyra’s work, which fills only five folio pages19, was much more man- ageable and popular than Martini’s magnum opus, as is evidenced by the

16 R. CHAZAN, Daggers of Faith, Berkeley, 1989, p. 116-117 (= CHAZAN, Daggers). 17 R. CHAZAN, From Friar Paul to Friar Raymond: the development of innovative missionizing argumentation, in Harvard Theological Review, 76:3 (1983), p. 289-306. 18 The Quodlibetum grew out of a scholastic discourse in 1309. Nicholas subsequently revised it in the 1330s, J. COHEN, The Friars and the Jews, Ithaca, 1982, p. 180-191 (= COHEN, The Friars and the Jews). 19 The text appears in Biblia sacra cum glossis, interlineari, et ordinaria, Nicolai Lyrani postilla, ac moralitatibus, Burgensis additionibus, et Thoringi replicis, etc., v. 6, Venice, 1588, f. 275v-279v.

2148-09_Mus09/1-2_06_LaPorta 96 6/7/09, 11:08 am A 14TH ARMENIAN POLEMIC AGAINST JUDAISM 97

over eighty surviving manuscripts of the Quodlibetum as compared to the mere seven of PF20. Lyra’s Quodlibetum, however, was not the intermediary between PF and BQ as a comparison between the two texts revealed. An affinity, however, may be detected with a lesser known work by the Genoese Carthusian, Porchetus de Salvaticis, entitled Victoria Porcheti adversus impios hebraeos, completed in 130321. The text was subsequently printed in 1520 in Paris at the behest of Augustinus Iustiniani, OP, whose copy served as the exemplar22. For his anti-Jewish polemic, Porchetus excerpted a large amount of Martini’s text. Two fac- tors indicate that the author of the Latin version of Tat‘ewac‘i’s source gathered the information found in PF via VP rather than from PF di- rectly23. First, all the arguments found in BQ also occur in VP and they appear in the same order. Second, it will be observed that certain readings in BQ are closer to the wording found in VP as opposed to PF24. As with the case of PF, however, no known copy of VP exists in Armenian. Again – although VP is much shorter than PF – it, too, is significantly larger than the chapter in BQ. All the selections present in BQ are located in Part I, chapters 4-6, of the printed edition25. Thus, the composer of the Latin version of Tat‘ewac‘i’s source either extracted and condensed this material himself or had access to yet another text whose author had done so. The text in the form that served as Tat‘ewac‘i’s source for this chapter was most certainly prepared and brought by the Dominican missionaries

20 COHEN, The Friars and the Jews, p. 191. 21 PORCHETUS DE SALVATICI, Victoria Porcheti, adversus impios hebraeos, Paris, 1520 (= VP). On Porchetus, see SCHRECKENBERG, Adversus-Judaeos-Texte, p. 356-7. It may be of interest to remark that this work influenced Martin Luther’s views of Judaism, see W. BIENERT, Martin Luther und die Juden. Ein Quellenbuch mit zeitgenössischen Illustrationen, mit Einführungen und Erläuterungen, Frankfurt/M., 1982, p. 135. 22 The full title of this edition reads: Victoria porcheti adversus impios Hebreos in qua tum ex factis literis, tum ex dictis Talmud ac Caballistaru et alioru omniu authoru, quos Hebræi recipiuæt, monstratur veritas catholicæ fidei. Ex recognitione. R.P. Aug. Iustiniani ordinis Prædicatorij, episcopi Nebiensis. It was printed by G. Desplains for Eg. Gourmont and Fr. Regnault. 23 In LA PORTA, Job, I argued that Tat‘ewac‘i was familiar with a text solely dependent on PF. At the time, I was not aware of Porchetus’s work; nor did I discuss the relationship between Tat‘ewac‘i’s material and its Latin source in detail. 24 These are discussed in the commentary below. Even though, as will be demonstrated, Grigor’s source text’s reliance on VP as opposed to PF is evident, I employ the designation PF/VP in the commentary to indicate material that is common to both works in order to acknowlege VP’s dependence on PF. 25 This corresponds to f. 12v-17r of the same edition. The printed text occupies 94 folios: f. 1r contains the title page; 1v, the approval of the censor; Porchetus’s “Pro- logue” is found on f. 2r-v. Part I of Porchetus’s work occupies f. 3r-56v.; Part II, f. 56v- 94r. A short colophon is also present on f. 94r.

2148-09_Mus09/1-2_06_LaPorta 97 6/7/09, 11:08 am 98 S. LA PORTA

who began arriving in Armenian lands in the first quarter of the fourteenth century26. This text – which comprised abridged passages from PF via VP as well as a small amount of otherwise unattested material – was originally written in Latin and subsequently translated into Arme- nian. The translation was almost certainly done by those Armenians known as Unitors who had accepted union with the Church of Rome. Between 1330 and 1347 the missionaries and the brethren of the monas- tery of K‘rna undertook a large translation project under the direction of Bartholomew of Poggio and Yakob K‘rnec‘i, later known as ¯argmann, ‘the translator’. Bartholomew’s Sermonary (≥arozgir≤) was the first work to be translated by Yakob in 133127. Despite his anti-Latin sentiments, Tat‘ewac‘i was well read in the Latin works translated during this time. In 1371, he copied the Armenian translation of Bartholomew’s commentary on Genesis I-III, Gir≤ Vewaureaw Gor∑ow Ararcou¯ean (Hexaemeron)28. Manukyan has demonstrated that Grigor adapted material from Bartholomew’s Sermo- nary for his own sermons29. I have previously shown that in volume III of BQ Tat‘ewac‘i relied heavily upon Hugh Ripelin’s Compilatio brevis theologicae veritatis, translated into Armenian in 1344, and upon selections from Honorius of Autun’s Elucidarium30. It is undoubtedly within

26 On the Dominican presence in Armenia, see LA PORTA, Theology, ch. 1; N. MANU- KYAN, Interrelations Between Scholarship and Folklore in Medieval Armenian Culture, in Le Muséon, 110 (1997), p. 81-89 (= MANUKYAN, Interrelations); C. DELACROIX-BESNIER, Les missions dominicaines et les Arméniens du milieu du XIVe siècle aux premières années du XVe siècle, in Revue des Études Arméniennes, 26 (1996-97), p. 173-191; J. RICHARD La Papauté et les Missions d’Orient au Moyen Age (XIIIe-XVe siècles), Rome, 1977; M. VAN DEN OUDENRIJN, Uniteurs et Dominicains d’Arménie. 1. L’Union de Qrnay 1330, in Oriens Christianus, 40 (1956), p. 94-112; IDEM, 2. Le nouvel athénée, in Oriens Christianus, 42 (1958), p. 110-33 (= OUDENRIJN, 2. Nouvel athénée); IDEM, 3. La congré- gation des Uniteurs, in Oriens Christianus, 43 (1959), p. 110-119; IDEM, Linguae Haicanae Scriptores Ordinis Praedicatorum, Congregationis Fratrum Unitorum et FF. Armenorum ordinis S. Basilii citra mare consistentium quodquod hucusque innotuerunt, Bern – Munich, 1960; R. LOERNETZ, La Société des Frères Pérégrinants, Rome, 1937. 27 OUDENRIJN, 2. Nouvel athénée, p. 112; L. XAC‘IKYAN, JD Dari hayeren øe®a- greri hi˙atakaranner [Colophons of Armenian manuscripts of the 14th century], Erevan, 1950, p. 217 (= XAC‘IKYAN, Colophons); ™. ALISAN, Sisakan: Te¬agrou¯iun Siuneaw a˙xarhi [Sisakan: A Topography of the Realm of Siwnik‘], Venice, 1893, p. 374-375, dates the translation to 1329. According to the colophon of that work, Persian was used as the intermediary between Bartholomew and Yakob as the former did not know Armenian and the latter did not know Latin, XAC‘IKYAN, Colophons, p. 216. For a translation into French of the colophon, see OUDENRIJN, 2. Nouvel athénée. Eventually the Latins learned Armenian, and the Unitor Armenians, Latin. 28 M1659; XAC‘IKYAN, Colophons, p. 498. 29 On Tat‘ewac‘i’s use of folk material present in Bartholomew’s sermons, see MANUKYAN, Interrelations. 30 LA PORTA, Theology, esp. ch. 2.

2148-09_Mus09/1-2_06_LaPorta 98 6/7/09, 11:08 am A 14TH ARMENIAN POLEMIC AGAINST JUDAISM 99

the context of these contacts between Latins and Armenians that Jewish material – originally compiled in PF and condensed in VP – became known to Armenian monks in the fourteenth century. I provide below in three columns the Armenian text of Grigor Tat‘ewac‘i’s “Against the Jews”, an English translation of the Arme- nian, and the Latin text of VP. In the footnotes I have placed the corre- sponding Latin passages found in PF31. The texts and the translation are followed by a commentary on the individual points indicated in the text.

The Text

The chapter is divided into seven sections. Each section begins with a hypothetical Jewish argument based upon scripture against the messianic nature of the coming of Jesus. The first two arguments focus on Isaiah 2:2; the third on Isaiah 2:4; the fourth on Isaiah 11:6; the fifth on Deu- teronomy 30:3; the sixth on Jeremiah 23:6; and the seventh on Ezekiel, chapters 38-39.

Tat‘ewac‘i (Arm.)32 Tat‘ewac‘i (translation) VP33

Title Gloux ere≤ i me∑ wankèn Section 3 from the great eu eà¯nerord prak index and seventh chapter hatoris. ∂nddèm hrèiw: of this volume, against Jews.

1. Kouraweal hrèay≤n The blinded Jews argue a®arken ∂nddèm mer ¯è? with us [saying] that “as de® eus oc è ekeal of yet the Messiah has not mèsiayn: Nax? i banèn come. First, from the word Esayeay or asè, e¬iwi of Isaiah, who says, ‘it yauours yetins yaytni will be in the latter days lea®n tea®n. xàsi vasn [that] the mountain of the galstean mèsiayin: Lord [will be] revealed,’ Ard? bazoum auour≤ [Isa 2:2a]; he speaks anwin yet mèsiayin concerning the arrival of øeroy, aysin≤n aueli ≤an the Messiah. Now many zhazar eu cors hariur days have passed since

31 I have omitted Martini’s Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin citations, merely marking them as [Heb.], [Aram.], and [Lat.] respectively. 32 The Armenian text is based on BQ unless otherwise noted. 33 I have resolved all abbreviations of the Latin text with the exception of citations of Biblical books; otherwise, I have maintained the spelling as found in the printed edition.

2148-09_Mus09/1-2_06_LaPorta 99 6/7/09, 11:08 am 100 S. LA PORTA

Tat‘ewac‘i (Arm.) Tat‘ewac‘i (translation) VP am: Apa eu oc èr na your Messiah, that is more mèsiayn: Orow than 1400 years. There- patasxanen fore, he was not the vardapet≤ eke¬ewuoy. eu Messiah.” To whom the es znowayn a®eal doctors of the church asawiw? ¯è yauours answer – and I will speak yetins? oc zkatara∑ having received their a˙xarhi kocè, ayl kocè [interpretation] – that ‘in auours yetins? the latter days’ does not zpakasou¯iun àrinawn mean the end of the world eu ardarou¯ean nora. but means the deficiency ≤anzi àrèn≤ nowa of the Law and its pakasewau i galsteann righteousness, because ≥ristosi: Eu zi oc their Law was vitiated by ∂nkalan zaregakn Christ’s arrival. ardarou¯ean z≥ristos, And since they did not ankan i lousoy i accept Christ, the Sun of xauarn: Righteousness [Mal 4:2], they fell from light into the darkness.

2a. Erkrord asè noyn Esayi Second, “that same Isaiah Secundo ad ea que e¯è? ekeswen i na says that ‘all the nations obijciunt scilicet quod non amenayn azg≤. eu zays oc will come to it,’ [Isa 2:2b] omnes gentes fluunt vel tesanem≤ e¬eal: A® ors but we do not see that this currunt ad Christum asem≤ e¯è? bans ays has happened.” To which nostrum. Quapropter amenayn oc aynpès we say this word, ‘all', is sequitur ipsum non esse ne¬agoyn a®eal lini i not to be understood Messiam. Respondum est sourb girs? orpès a® narrowly in such a manner quod Qol hebraice quod filisofaysn: Orpès asè in the Holy Scriptures as latine dicit omnis vel yerkrord with respect to the cunctus vel uniuersus vel ¯agauorou¯eanwn, emout philosophers. Just as it totus. Non sumitur ita Abiso¬om a® har˝s hàr says in Second Kingdoms, stricte apud prophetas et iuroy? yandiman amenayn “Absalom entered to the theologos, sicut apud Israyèli: Eu i noyn concubines of his father in dialecticos. Et quia ad hoc te¬uoΔn asè, amenayn the presence of all of in sacra scriptura multa ayr Israyèl asawin ¯è? Israel” [2Kgdms 16:22b]. exempla sunt, quedam bari è xorhourd And in that same place it pauca induxisse sufficiet. ≥ouseay: says that “every man of In secundo igitur Reg. Israel said that the counsel 17.b. hoc modo scriptum of Hushai is good” est. Et ingressus est [2Kgdms 17:14a]. Absalon ad concubinas patris sui ad oculos Qol Isreel id est. omnis vel totius Israel. Item ulterius

2148-09_Mus09/1-2_06_LaPorta 100 6/7/09, 11:08 am A 14TH ARMENIAN POLEMIC AGAINST JUDAISM 101

Tat‘ewac‘i (Arm.) Tat‘ewac‘i (translation) VP in eodem capitulo dictum est in hec verba. Et ait Absalon et omnis uir Israel. Bonum est consilium Hussai. id est. cusi haarqi, quam consilium Achitofel, 12v34.

2b. Mi ¯è amenayn Israyèl Perhaps all Israel said Distribuit itaque asa$w zbans zays, oc: these words? No. Thus, frequenter hic et alibi hec Apa ouremn amenaynn ‘all’ signifies ‘many’. And dictio:omnis: atque wouwanè zbazoums: Eu so not every nation, but supponit non quidem pro ayspès a® ≥ristos oc many from all nations, omnibus, et pro singulis, amenayn azg, ayl have come to Christ. sed pro multis, 12v. bazoum≤ yamenayn azgaw And: Frequentissime ekin: quippe in sacra scriptura ponitur hec dictio Qol. id est. omnis. Non quidem pro omnibus rerum ac singulis; sed pro multis, ut in predicto capitulo [i.e., 2Kgdms (16)17] continetur. Quod autem hoc in loco taliter sit sumendum: ostendit idem ipse Isaias, qui postquam dixit. Et fluent ad eum omnes gentes, statim seipsum exponendo subiunxit. Et ibunt populi multi. … Optime igitur in Salvatore nostro completum est. Et fluent ad eum omnes gentes. Cum nullus quantumcumque peruersus inficiari possit populos, et gentes kol] omnis, cunctus, universus, vel totus, non sumitur ita stricte apud] כל quod 34 prophetas, & Theologos, sicut sumitur apud Dialecticos; & quia ad hoc in Scriptura sacra multa exempla sunt, pauca induxisse sufficiat. In Secundo ergo Regum cap. 17,v.22 hoc modo scriptum est [Heb.] Et ingressus est Absolom ad concubinas patris sui ad oculos omnis vel totius Israel. Item ulterius in eodem capitulo v.14, dictum est in haec verba: [Heb.] Et dixit Absalom, & omnis vir Israel; Bonum vel melius est consilium Chufi Arachitae, quam consilium Achitophel, PF, p. 431.

2148-09_Mus09/1-2_06_LaPorta 101 6/7/09, 11:08 am 102 S. LA PORTA

Tat‘ewac‘i (Arm.) Tat‘ewac‘i (translation) VP innumeras ad eum fidei gressibus concurrisse, 12v35.

3a. Errord a®arken, Third, they argue, “Isaiah Tertio: obijciunt enim darøeal asè Esayi, again says, ‘they shall nobis scilicet: Non leuabit øouleswen zsousers forge their swords into gens contra gentem iureanw i xofs. eu oc plowshares… and nation gladium: nec exercebuntur a®nouwou azg yazgi will not take up sword Ood: id est ultra ad veray sour. eu ays oc è against nation,’ [Isa 2:4b] prelium, 12v. … Ad huc e¬eal: Asem≤ ¯è? zbans but this has not hap- enim est dicendum eis zays asè margarèn vasn pened.” We say that the quod dominus noster Jesus xa¬a¬ou¯eann or e¬eu prophet is saying this Christus natus est tempore sakau mi ya®aΔ ≤an word about a peace which pacis, imperante Cesare zgaloustn ≥ristosi? eu occurred shortly before the augusto. Et tunc impletum i bolor jamanaks arrival of Christ, and est dictum Isaiae permissu ≥ristosi, eu yet nora during the entire time of que pax fuit semper ipso ≤a®asoun am minceu Christ, and for forty years regnante vel viuente. Et eo apstambewin hrèay≤n after Him until the Jews etiam mortuo durauit, h®àmayewuow tèrou¯eann: revolted [against] Roman usquequo falso Messia Ard? yorjam ∑nau dominion. Now, when nomine Benqozeba contra ≥ristos? aynpès Christ was begotten there Romanum imperium xa¬a¬ou¯iun èr? or min was peace in that way insurgendo: … Denique mard tirèr amenayn which was that one man vero tantam uniuersus a˙xarhi: ruled over the entire mundus pacem habuit, world. quod solus unos homo. hoc est Cesar Augustus predictus imperator Romanus preerat pacifice toti mundo, 13r. And: Ex dictis itaque liquet tempore domini nostri Jesu Christi fuisse completum. Non leuabit gens contra gentem gladium, nec exercebuntur

35 Distribuit itaque frequenter & hic, & alibi haec dictio OMNIS, atque supponit non quidem pro omnibus, & singulis, sed pro multis, PF, p. 432. And: Frequentissimè quippe -kol], omnis, universus, non quidem pro omni] כל in sacra Scriptura ponitur haec dictio bus rerum, & singulis; sed pro multis, ut paulò superius [i.e., 2Kgs. (16)17] ostensum est evidenter. Quod autem hoc in loco taliter sit sumendum, ostendit idem Esaias, qui postquam dixit, Et confluent ad eum omnes gentes, statim seipsum exponendo subjunxit; Et ibunt populi multi. … Optime igitur in Salvatore nostro completum est, Et fluent ad eum omnes gentes, cum nullus quantumcunque perversus inficiari possit populos, & gentes innumeras ad eum fidei gressibus concurisse, PF, p. 434.

2148-09_Mus09/1-2_06_LaPorta 102 6/7/09, 11:08 am A 14TH ARMENIAN POLEMIC AGAINST JUDAISM 103

Tat‘ewac‘i (Arm.) Tat‘ewac‘i (translation) VP ultra ad prelium: Nempe in toto tempore ipsius vite et per multum temporis ante, et post mortem eius per xl. annos non fuit alicuius momenti guerra, vel prelium, ut paulo superius dictum est: donec gentes bella volentes, Judeos loquor, veritate in domino nostro Jesu Christo despecta ac falsitate in Barqozba falso Christo suo suscepta contra Romanum imperium surrexerunt, 13r36.

3b. Eu ard zinc zarman≤ èr And now, it was some Nempe superius. ¯è yaynpisi wonder that in that manner capitulum tertio: quod est xa¬a¬ou¯ean øoulèin of peace they forged their per textum et per zsousers iureanw i swords into plowshares. assertionem Rabinorun xofs: Eu or asè ¯è oc And when it says that suorum probatum quod eus yauelouwoun tal “they will never wage war Ood. id est. ultra raro paterazm, imawir zoc again” understand ‘not significat unquam. eusn: Orpès asè yet’. Just as it says in First Frequentius vero significat ya®aΔin Kingdoms “and the adhuc vel modicum ¯agauorou¯eanwn, eu oc Philistines never again [go tempus. … Aliud vero eus yauelin aylazgi≤n i up] over the borders of spiculum sit illo quod veray sahmanawn Israel,” [1Kgdms 7:13a], legitur 1 Regum 7.e. Ubi Israyèli. aysin≤n that is within the days of de philisteis dicitur: Et yauours Samouèli: ≥anzi Samuel, because after his non addiderunt ultra yet mahouan nora elin i death they went up into adueniendum in terminum veray Israyèli: Noynpès Israel. Israel. Fuitque manus

36 quod Dominus noster Jesus Christus & in tempore pacis natus, & pax semper eo vivente, & etiam mortuo duravit, usquequo Judaei turbaverunt eam cum falso suo Messia Ben Cosba contra Romanum imperium insurgendo; … denique vero tandem universus mundus pacem habuit, quod solus unos homo, hoc est, Caesar Augustus Imperator Romanus praeerat pacifice toti mundo satis autem videtur stultus, PF, p. 432. And: tempore Domini nostri Jesu Christi fuisse completum illud, Non levabit gens contra gentem gladium, nec exercebuntur ultra ad praelium: nempe in toto vitae ipsius, & per multum temporis ante, & post mortem ejus per annos quadraginta non fuit alicujus momenti bellum, vel praelium, ut paulo superius est ostentum: donec gentes bella volentes, Judaeos loquor, veritate in Domino Jesu despecta, ac falsitate in Ben Cosba falso suo Messia suscepta, contra Romanum dominium bellum susceperunt, PF, p. 436.

2148-09_Mus09/1-2_06_LaPorta 103 6/7/09, 11:08 am 104 S. LA PORTA

Tat‘ewac‘i (Arm.) Tat‘ewac‘i (translation) VP i jamanaks Similarly, during the time domini in Philistim ≤arozou¯eann ≥ristosi of Christ’s preaching and omnibus diebus Samuel. eu a®a≤elown èr his evangelizing there was Qualiter autem istu ultra xa¬a¬ou¯iun: Ayl oman≤ peace. sit intelligendum, asen ¯è? nax asaweal ostenditur 1Regum 13.c. ban≤s? oc linin za®aΔin But others say that the Ubi dicit, quod mortuo galstenèn ≥ristosi above-mentioned words Samuele, et regnante Saul asaweal, ayl are not about the first ascenderunt Philistei ad zerkrordèn: coming of Christ, but terram Israel, 13r37. about the second.

4. Corrord a®arken, asè Fourth they argue, “Isaiah Habitabit lupus cum Esayi vasn jamanaki says concerning the time ariete, etc. et in diebus galstean mèsiayin, gayl of arrival of the Messiah, eius Messie videlicet ∂nd ga®in ˝arakeswi. eu ‘the wolf will pasture with Israel multiplicabitur pax in∑ a® oulou maka¬eswi: the lamb, and the leopard in terra. … Nota quod duo Ayl oc inc yayswanè will lie down with the bona contra Judaicam tesanem≤: Asem≤ e¯è? kid,’ [Isa 11:6a] but we prauitatem facit nobis ista sourb gir xàsi bazoum see nothing of these.” We interpretatio. Primum: angam a®akau. orpès say that the Holy Scripture quod predicta Isaie verba asè datauor≤n, ∑a®≤n often speaks through dicta sunt de Messia. Bis kamewan a®nel iureanw parable; for example, the quippe facit ibide nomine ¯agauor: Ayspès eu Book of Judges says, “the ipsius expressa Yakob yàrhneln zYouda? trees desired to make a mentionem. Secundum nmanewoyw zna a®iu∑ou: king for themselves” [Jgs quod docet quod non ad Noynpès eu ast 9:8a]. And similarly, literam sed spiritualiter zanbari˙tsn Jacob in blessing Judah sunt hec intelligenda. … nmanewouwanè gazanaw: likened him to a lion [Gen Predicto etiam loquendi ≥anzi? hrèay≤n i 49:9]. And in that way modo vocantur homines jamanaks ≥ristosi oc here, he likens the impious nominibus ferarum linèin ne¬eal≤ youme≤è: to beasts, because the iumentorum, pecudum, Darøeal i galsteann Jews were not being avium, atque reptilium in ≥ristosi? bazoum oppressed by anyone at sacra scriptura gazanabaroy anbari˙t≤ the time of Christ. Again, frequenter: Quod quidem ekin i hnazandou¯iun at the time of Christ, many satis bene habetur Genes. ≥ristosi: savage impious ones 49. Ubi Jacob benedicens submitted to Christ. filios suos: hec quae

[od‘] עוד Nempe superius per textum, & per assertionem Rabini sui probatum quod 37 id est ultra, raro significat unquam, frequentius autem significat breve tempus vel adhuc. … Aliud vero spiculum sit illud quod legitur 1 Reg. 7. v. 13. ubi de Philistaeis dicitur: [Heb.] Et non addiderunt ultra ad veniendum in terminum Israel, fuitque manus Domini -od] ultra sit intelligen‘] עוד in Philistim omnibus diebus Samuelis. Qualiter autem istu dum, ostenditur 1 Reg. 13:5, ubi dicitur, quod mortuo Samuele, & regnante Saule ascenderunt Philistaei ad terram Israel, PF, p. 436.

2148-09_Mus09/1-2_06_LaPorta 104 6/7/09, 11:08 am A 14TH ARMENIAN POLEMIC AGAINST JUDAISM 105

Tat‘ewac‘i (Arm.) Tat‘ewac‘i (translation) VP sequuntur ait, Catulus leonis Juhudah, 14v38.

5. Hingerord? asè erkrord Fifth, Deuteronomy says, Aliud quoque adhuc àrèn≤n, Tèr Astoua∑ “may the Lord God have argumentum in sue o¬ormeswi ≤ez. eu mercy upon you, and cumulum falsitatis ac darøeal? jo¬oveswè z≤ez again He will gather you cecitatis assumunt ex eo yamenayn azgaw: Znoyn from all the nations” [Dt scriptum est in Deuto. asè Ezekièl eresoun eu 30:3a]. Ezekiel 39 says 30.a. Et ex con similibus inn: Asem≤ e¯è? the same. We say that the in alijs scripture locis xostoumn Astou∑oy promise of God was quam plurimis,… Sic katarewau i jamanaks fulfilled at the time of manifestum est ratione Zàrababèli eu Ezray. Zerubabel and Ezra just as multiplici cirographum vel orpès asè Nèemi ya¬à¯s Nehemiah says in his debitum eos a nobis iur, yi˙ea Tèr zbann? zor prayer: “Remember, Lord, fraudulenter expetere patouirewer ∑a®ayin the word which You quondam a Deo sub ≤oy Movsèsi, or asèr, ¯è commanded Your servant, zorobabel et Esdra et iwen wroueal≤ minceu i Moses, which said ‘if they Qores. id est. Ciro rege ∑ags erkri, anti be scattered till the ends Persarum, atque jo¬ovewiw eu a∑iw i of the earth, I will gather Medorum: iam sibi te¬i zor ∂ntrewi: Or eu [them] there and I will persolutum. Quod quidem katarewau isk: lead [them] to the place quilibet etiam parum Eu ¯è asiwen hrèay≤n, oc which I chose’” [Neh 1:8- prudens inde intelligere de amenayn hrèay≤n 9]. Then, indeed, it is facili poterit: ubi Neemie, jo¬oveal en ∂st fulfilled. i.e. taliter scriptum est. xostmann: Isk Ezr ast And if the Jews say, “not [Neh 1:8-9]. … De hoc wouwanè znosa souts eu all the Jews were gathered etiam reditu Judeorum et apa˙norhs. orpès asè according to the promise.” congregatione ad terram ya®aΔin Ezr, nstan But Ezra here shows them suam. Locutus est dominus ≤ahanay≤n eu ergewik≤, to be liars and ungracious, per Ezech. euidentius. 39.f. eu d®napan≤n as it says in first Ezra: … Nihilominus tamen na¯anawi≤ i ≤a¬a≤n “The priests and singers, adhuc tenacissimo morsu iureanw: Eu amenayn doorkeepers, and the adherent verbo Ezech. Israyèl yiura≤anciur temple servants sat in their quod paulo ante dictum ≤a¬a≤s: city and all of Israel in est. Et congregauero eos their cities” [2Ezr super terram suam et non 2:70(=1Ezra 2:70-3:1)]. reliquero ex eis ibi: Non omnis Israel inquiunt

38 Habitabit lupus cum ariete, &c. oportet spiritualiter intellegi…, videlicet Habitabit lupus cum ariete, & caetera quae sequuntur, de feris, & de bestiis illis intelligi de quibus supra dictum est, PF, p. 437. The passage indicated is noted in the margin: Praedicto adhuc modo loquendi vocantur homines nominibus ferarum jumentorum, pecudum, avium, atque reptilium in sacra Scriptura frequenter: quod quidem satis bene habetur ubi Jacob benedicens filios suos haec quae sequuntur ait Geneseos capitulo quadragesimo nono, vers. 9, &c. [Heb.] Catulus leonis Juda, PF, p. 429.

2148-09_Mus09/1-2_06_LaPorta 105 6/7/09, 11:08 am 106 S. LA PORTA

Tat‘ewac‘i (Arm.) Tat‘ewac‘i (translation) VP congregatus est ad terram suam tempore Esdre: ita quod nullus remaneret in gentibus. Quare istud nondum completum est. Quibus dicendum est quod ipse Esdras ostendit eos falsiloquos, et deo ingratos. Ubi in fine secundi libri sui: et in principio tertij his verbis ait. Et habitauerunt sacerdotes et leuite et de populo et cantores et ianitores et nathinei in ciuitatibus suis. Et omnis Israel inciuitatibus suis. Et peruenit mensis. vii. et filij israel in ciuitatibus. Congregatusque est populus: quasi vir unus ad Hierusalem, 14v-15r39.

6. Vewerord a®arken, asè Sixth, they argue, “Jer- Non obstantibus denuo Eremia, yauoursn emiah says: ‘in his days perdictis obijcit nobis yaynosik frkeswi Youda: Judah will be saved’ [Jer Judaica malicia. Illud Isk i galstean mèsiayin 23:6a] but upon the arrival Hier.23.a. … Ex verbis øer a®auel wrouewan eu of your Messiah, they istis sic obijcit Judeus. korean: Asem≤ ¯è? have been scattered more Cum judei salvari ¯almoutn patasxanè and destroyed.” We say debuerint in diebus aysm: ≥anzi asè ¯è? that the Talmud answers Messie. ut hoc in loco

39 Aliud quoque argumentum in suae cumulum falsitatis, ac coecitatis assumunt ex eo quod scriptum est Deuteronomii tricesimo, & ex consimilibus in aliis Scripturae locis quam plurimis, [Heb. and Lat. trans. of Dt. 30:3-6]. … sic manifestum est ratione multiplici chirographum eos à nobis fraudulenter expetere quondam à Deo sub Zorobabele, & Esdra, & Cyro rege Persarum, atque Medorum jam sibi persolutum. Quod quidem quilibet etiam parum prudens inde intelligere de facili poterit, ubi taliter scriptum est Nehemiae primo [Heb. and Lat. trans. of Neh. 1:8-9]. … De reditu hoc etiam Judaeorum, & congregatione ad terram suam locutus est Dominus evidentius per Ezechielem cap. tricesimo nono, v. 25, PF, p. 446. And: Nihilominus tamen adhuc tenacissimo morsu adhaerent verbo Ezechielis quod paulo ante dictum est, Et congregavero avero eos super terram suam, & non reliquero ex iis ibi: Non omnis Israel, inquiunt, congregatus est ad terram suam tempore Esdrae, ita quod nullos remaneret in gentibus, quare istud nondum completum est. Quibus dicendum est quod ipse Esdras ostendit eos falsiloquos, & Deo ingratos, ubi his verbis ait, capitulis secundo, & tertio, [Heb. and Lat. trans. of 1Ezra 2:70-3:1], PF, p. 447.

2148-09_Mus09/1-2_06_LaPorta 106 6/7/09, 11:08 am A 14TH ARMENIAN POLEMIC AGAINST JUDAISM 107

Tat‘ewac‘i (Arm.) Tat‘ewac‘i (translation) VP Δhoutn ¯ar≤mani (sic) this. Because it says that manifeste habetur ex xostovanà¬. ≤anzi Judah is translated verbis Hieremie. et xostovanà¬≤n mèsiayin ‘confessor’, because they nunquam eis ante, vel post frkeswin: who are confessors of the talis captiuitas tot et tam Messiah will be saved. grandia mala euenerint ut in diebus Christi Jesu vestri, nec ita fuerint unquam destructi vel dissipati atque dispersi; nullatens Jesus Christus poterit esse Messias. Respondeat autem eis sum quod expositum est in Talmud. sic quod Judas in hoc loco dicitur confessio. Et quod omnes confitentes salvatorem siue Messiam saluabuntur. Scriptum est enim in Beressit Rabba. Rabi Mosse Hadarsan. super Gen. 41.e. [Lat. Gen.41.44]. Dixit R. Aha … Sicut scriptum est Hiere. xxiii.b. In diebus eius saluabitur Juhuda. Ac si dicat. Confitentes ei, 15r-15v40.

7a. Eà¯nerord? asè Ezekièl Seventh, “Ezekiel says Ad hoc etiam capitulum ¯è? mesiayn (sic) that ‘the Messiah will do pertinere videtur quoddam paterazmi ∂nd gàgay eu battle with Gog and aliud argumentum quod magàgay zor oc arar Magog,’ [Ezek 38:2] sumunt Judei contra nos et mesiayn øer: Asem≤ e¯è? which your Messiah has contra dominum Jesum gog (sic) eu magàgn? not done.” We say that Christum ex eis quae hogeuorapès imaweal Gog and Magog are to be dicuntur de Gog et Magog

40 Priam itaque Judaeorm fallaciam contra rationes praedictas erumpere noveris ex eo quod per Jeremiam à Domino dictum est de Messia, Jerem. 23. vers. 5. [Heb. and Lat. trans. of Jer. 23:5-6]. … Ex verbis istis sic objicit Judaeus. Cum Judaei salvari debuerint in diebus Messiae, ut hoc in loco manifeste habetur ex verbis Jeremiae, & nunquam eis ante, vel post talis captivitas, tot, & tam gravia mala evenerint ut in diebus Jesu Christi vestri, nec ita fuerint unquam destructi, dissipati, atque dispersi; nullatens Jesus Christus poterit esse Messias, PF, p. 404-5. And: In Bereschit etiam Rabba hoc modo scriptum est super illud Geneseos 41. vers. 44 [Heb. and Lat. trans. of Gen. 41:44]. Dixit R. Acha … sicut dictum est Jerem. 23, v.6. In diebus ejus salvabitur Juda, quasi dicat, per hoc scilicet verbum Juda, confitentes ei, PF, p. 421-2.

2148-09_Mus09/1-2_06_LaPorta 107 6/7/09, 11:08 am 108 S. LA PORTA

Tat‘ewac‘i (Arm.) Tat‘ewac‘i (translation) VP linin amenayn hala∑à¬≤ understood spiritually as in Eze. 38.a et eke¬ewuoy. zors the persecutors of the consequenter… Ex istis et satakeswè Tèr Yisous Church, all of whom the ex eis quae in 39 Ezech. zamenesean orpès asè Lord Jesus will slaughter capitulo de Gog & Magog sa¬mosn? orpès zanà¯ as the Psalm says, “May dicta sunt, sumunt ut brti f˙reswes znosa: you grind them to dust dictum est Judei sue just as the vessel of a nequitie argumentum potter” [Ps 2:9]. dicentes, quod per Messiam expugnaturus est Deus Gog et Magog, qui spiritum labiorum suorum interficiet eum. … Quo peracto possessuri sumus, inquiunt, Hierusalem et reliquam terram nostram, et simul cum Messia in perpetuum regnaturi. Quod quoniam adhuc factum non est, Messiam nondum venisse et Jesum Messiam non fuisse manifestum est, 15v. … Quicquid ergo in Ezech. vel alibi de Gog et Magog srciptum est. Spiritualiter et secundum nominum interpretationem et non ad literam oportere intelligi: manifestum est, 16r. … Ita hic [Ezekiel] preuidit atque predixit sub

41 Ad hoc etiam capitulum pertinere videtur quoddam aliud argumentum quod sumunt Judaei contra nos & contra Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum ex iis quae dicuntur, de Gogo & Magogo, in Ezechiele capitulo tricesimo octavo, & consequenter [Heb. and Lat. trans. of Ezek. 38:2]. … Ex istis, & ex eis quae in tricesimo nono Ezechielis capitulo de Gog, & Magog dicta sunt, sumunt, ut dictum est, Judaei nequitiae argumentum dicentes, quod per Messiam Deus expugnaturus est Gog, & Magog, qui (Messias) spiritu labiorum suorum interficiet eum… Quo peracto possessuri sumus, inquiunt, Jerusalem, & reliquam terram nostram, & simul cum Messia in perpetuum regnaturi; quod quoniam factam adhuc non est, Messiam nondum venisse, & Jesum Messiam non fuisse manifestum est, PF, p. 448-9. And: in tricesimo octavo, & tricesimo nono Ezechielis de Gog, & Magog est scriptum, spiritualiter, & secundum nominum interpretationem, & non ad literam oportere intelligi consequens est, PF, p. 450. And: ita hic [Ezekiel] praevidit atque praedixit sub figura Gog, & Magog persecutionem justorum quae quotidie fit, & facta est tam per haereticos, quam per alios persecutores sanctae fidei, & veritatis, qui sunt tectum, & habitaculum daemonum, PF, p. 453.

2148-09_Mus09/1-2_06_LaPorta 108 6/7/09, 11:08 am A 14TH ARMENIAN POLEMIC AGAINST JUDAISM 109

Tat‘ewac‘i (Arm.) Tat‘ewac‘i (translation) VP figura Gog et Magog persecutionem justorum que quotidie fit et facta est: tam per hereticos, quam per alios persecutores sancte fidei & veritatis, qui sunt tectum et habitaculum demonum, 16v41.

7b. Darøeal? i girs Hetrin Again, in the book Hetrin Sciendum itaque est: quod greal è ¯è E¬ia eu it is written that Elijah and in libro çanhedrin in a˙akert≤ nora asawin his disciples said “this pereq.id est. distinctione. ¯è? a˙xarhs yamè vew world lasts for six thou- qui dicitur Heleq hoc hazar am. yorow erkou sand years, of which for modo scriptum est: hazar amn ouniwi tohou. two thousand years it will Traditum est a domo aysin≤n ounaynou¯iun: have tohu,” which is Helie.id est. a discipulis Eu erkou hazar? zàrèns. voidness. “And the Law Helie. per sex milia annos eu erkou hazar? for two thousand years, erit mundus. Quorum duo zmesiayn: Eu ayspès and the Messiah for two milia Tou. id est. inanitas yayt è or mesiayn thousand.” And in this vel vanitas. Duo milia lex: ekeal è: way it is clear that the et duo milia erunt Messie Messiah has come. dies, 16v42.

7c. Darøeal? i veray Again, according to the Rursum ad nostre materie, sa¬mosin or asè. zar¯ir Psalm, which says, perpositum fulciendum: fa®≤ im. asè meknicn eu “awake, my glory”; the facit id quod legitur in auandou¯iun hrèiwn ¯è? exegete and tradition of Medras Tehillim super xàsi ast i veray coriw the Jews say that it [Ps titulum. ps.21. ubi dicitur: ¯agauorawn or≤ 56:9 (57:9)] speaks here Victori vel eterno super hala∑ewin zIsrayèl: about the four kings who cerua aurore: hoc est ac Vasn a®aΔnoyn asè? persecuted Israel. Con- si dixerit scriptura. ps.56. zar¯ir fa®≤ im. i cerning the prior, he says Surge gloria mea: surge Babilàn talov mez “awake my glory” in psalterium et cithara. zMisayèl, zAnania, eu Babylon by giving us surgam in aurora vel zAzaria: Zar¯ir, i Misayel, Anania, and diluculo. Et iterum est soug talov mez Azaria. Awake in sug, by dicens. ps. 107.a. Surge zMour¯≤è, eu zEs¯er: giving us Mordechai and psalterium et cithara Zar¯ir i Yoyns, talov Esther. Awake among the surgam diluculo. Loquitor

42 Sciendum itaq[ue]; quod in libro Sanhedrin in distinct. Chelek, hoc modo: Tradi- tum est à domo Eliae; id est à discipulis Eliae : Per sex millia annorum erit mundus, quorum duo millia Tohu, id est, inanitas, vel vanitas: duo millia lex: & duo millia Messiae dies erunt, PF, p. 394.

2148-09_Mus09/1-2_06_LaPorta 109 6/7/09, 11:08 am 110 S. LA PORTA

Tat‘ewac‘i (Arm.) Tat‘ewac‘i (translation) VP mez zMakabayewisn: Greeks, by giving us the de quatuor regnis. Surge Zar¯ir i H®àm, talov Maccabees. Awake, in in Babel ubi suscitasti mez zmesiayn: Rome, by giving us the nobis Misaelem Ananiam Messiah. et Azariam. Surge in Media quia ibi astare fecisti nobis Mardocheum et Hester. Surge in Grecis: quia ibi astare fecisti nobis Hasmonai. id est. Mathatiam et filios eius. Surge in Edom.id est. in Romanis quando futurum est ut astare mihi faciat regem Messiam, 17r43.

7d. Darøeal? i girs Iàmay Again in the book Ioma it In libro quicquid qui asè, oc ekeswè mesiayn says “the Messiah will not dicitur Joma taliter minceu tireswè car come until the evil king of scriptum est, Dixit Rab. ¯agauorn h®àmayewuow the Romans rules all of Non erit filius David. id amenayn a˙xarhi inn the world for nine est. Messias veniens donec amis: months.” dominetur regnum nequam. id est. Romanum in uniuerso mundo.ix. mensibus, 17r44.

7e. Eu i meknou¯iun ∑nndow And in the commentary to In Beressit etiam Raba ayb asè Beresia¯as ¯è? Genesis 1, Beresiat‘as, it maiori scriptum est super tasn ¯agauor≤ says that “ten kings will illud Gen. 42.b. Et Joseph tireswen i skzbanè reign from the beginning ipse potens factus est minceu i katara∑ until the end of the super terram. Tradiderunt a˙xarhi: Nax? world.” First, God. quod decem reges Astoua∑: Erkrord? Second, Nebroth. Third, dominati sunt a fine mundi Nebrà¯: Errord? Joseph. Fourth, Solomon. usquam ad finem eius. Yovsèf: Corrord? Fifth, Nebuchadnezzar. Horum vero primus est

43 Istud est quod dixit scriptura Psal. 57.v.9. Excitare gloria mea. Loquitor de quatuor regnis. Excitare in Babel ubi astare fecisti nobis Chananiam, Misaelem, & Azariam: excitare in Media ubi astare fecisti nobis Mardochaeum, & Estheram: excitare in Graecia ubi astare fecisti nobis Asmonaeum, id est Mathatiam, & filios ejus: Excitare in Edom ubi futurum est ut astare facias nobis regnem Messiam, PF, p. 876. 44 In libro quoque qui dicitur Joma, distinctione Schibhat jamim taliter scriptum est, [Aram.] Dixit Rab, Non erit filius David, id est Messias veniens, donec Regnum nequam dominetur in universo mundo novem mensibus, PF, p. 397.

2148-09_Mus09/1-2_06_LaPorta 110 6/7/09, 11:08 am A 14TH ARMENIAN POLEMIC AGAINST JUDAISM 111

Tat‘ewac‘i (Arm.) Tat‘ewac‘i (translation) VP So¬omon: Hingerord? Sixth, Darius. Seventh, Deus…. Porro rex Nabougodonosor: Cyrus. Eighth, Alexander. secundus est Necrod Vewerord? Dareh. Ninth, Augustus Caesar, impius. etc. Rex vero Eà¯nerord? Kiuros: who, like iron, will tertius fuit Joseph etc. … Ou¯erord? A¬è≤sandr: pulverize everything. Rex autem quartus hic fuit Innerord? Àgostos Tenth, the Messiah, who is Salomon Rex Israel. Rex kaysr. or ibreu zerka¯ the first and the last. quintus fuit Nabuchodono- manreswè zamenesin: sor rex Babylonis. Rex Tasnerord? Mesiayn or è sextus fuit Darius…. Rex a®aΔin eu verΔin: septimus fuit Qores.id est. Cirus….Rex octauus est Alexander Macedo…. Rex vero nonus est Cesar Augustus rex Romanorum qui preualuit vel prefuit vel dominatus est in toto mundo; sicut dictum est Dan.2.e. Et regnum quartum erit forte sicut ferrum, quemadmodum ferrum erit comminuens et domans omnia; vel concassans: et velut ferrum quod est conterens: universa hec comminuet, ac conteret. Rex autem decimus: iste est rex Messias…: atque ita qui fuit primus rex erit ultimus rex, sicut scriptum est Isa. xliiij.b., 17r45.

7f. Ard? ¯è inn amsov Now, if the evil king had Hijs sic premissis ya®aΔ ¯agauoreal èr already reigned nine reducamus eadem in

45 In Bereschit etiam Rabba majori scriptum est super illud Genes. 42.ver.6. [Heb.] Tradiderunt quod decem reges dominati sunt à fine mundi ad finem ejus; horum vero primus est Deus…. Porro rex iste secundus est Nimrod impius, &c. Rex vero tertius fuit Joseph…. Rex vero quartus hic fuit Salomoh Rex Israel, &c. Rex quintus fuit Nabuchodonosor Rex Babylonis, &c. Rex sextius fuit Darius…. Rex septimus fuit Cyrus…. Octavus Rex est Alexander Macedo…. Rex nonus est Caesar Augustus Rex Romanorum qui dominatus est in toto mundo, sicut dictum est Dan.2.vers.40. Et regnum quartum erit forte sicut ferrum, quemadmodum ferrum erit comminuens, & domans omnia; & velut ferrum quod est conterens universa hoc comminuet, ac conteret. Rex vero decimus est Rex Messias…; atque ita qui fuit primus Rex, erit ultimus Rex, sicut scriptum est Esa. 44.vers.6, PF, p. 397-8.

2148-09_Mus09/1-2_06_LaPorta 111 6/7/09, 11:08 am 112 S. LA PORTA

Tat‘ewac‘i (Arm.) Tat‘ewac‘i (translation) VP ¯agauorn car, apa months, then Christ was rationis ordinem atque ouremn i jamanaks born at the time of dicamus. Cum Christus Àgostos kayser ∑nau Augustus Caesar, which sive Messias usquequo ≥ristos. zor eu vkayè the Holy Gospel testifies. Romani essent dominati auetarann sourb: nouem mensibus super Judaeus et super totum mundum: venire non debuerit: … Et super Judaeos et super totum mundum fuerint dominati temporibus maxime Cesaris Augusti: … Messiam tunc venisse consequens est. Porro Dominus noster Jesus Christus (Cesare Augusto imperatore Romano super totum mundum regnante) natus est: sicut in secundo Luce scriptum est, 17r46.

7g. Darøeal giteli è, zi Again, it is known that core≤ è ∑nound: Nax? oc there are four [types of] i hàrè eu oc i màrè. orpès birth. First, from neither Adam: Erkrord? i hàrè eu father nor mother, like oc i màrè. orpès Eua: Adam. Second, from a Errord? i hàrè eu i màrè. father but not from a orpès amenayn mard: mother, like Eve. Third, Corrordn? i màrè miayn from a father and a mother a®anw hàr. or è as all men. Fourth, from a ≥ristosin: Eu vasn mother only without a nora asaw Astoua∑ father which pertains to Abrahamou? ¯è i corrord the Christ. And concerning ∑noundn azateswin Him, God said to amenayn zauak≤ ≤o: Abraham that in the fourth generation all your descendants will be freed [Gen 15:16].

46 Hujusmodi sic praemissis reducamus ea in ordinem rationis, atque dicamus: Cum Christus sive Messias venire non debuerit usquequo Romani essent dominati novem mensibus super Judaeus, & super totum mundum fuerint dominati temporibus maxime Caesaris Augusti; Messiam tunc venisse consequens est. … Porro Dominus noster Jesus Christus Caesare Augusto Imperatore Romano super totum mundum regnante natus est, sicut in secundo Lucae scriptum est, PF, p. 398.

2148-09_Mus09/1-2_06_LaPorta 112 6/7/09, 11:08 am A 14TH ARMENIAN POLEMIC AGAINST JUDAISM 113

Tat‘ewac‘i (Arm.) Tat‘ewac‘i (translation) VP 7h. Also, the years of the Ayl eu zams ∑nndean generation of Christ and ≥ristosi? eu vasn concerning the hebdomads eà¯nerordawn Danièli? of Daniel, you will find at gtwes i corrord the end [of my chapter on] ¯agauorou¯eanw verΔ≤n Fourth Kingdoms in i eresoun hamarn. zor number thirty, where you ∂nddèm hrèiw gtwes ban: will find the word against Auartoumn a®aΔin the Jews. The completion hatoris àgnou¯eambn of the first volume Astou∑oy: [accomplished] with the help of God.

Commentary

Title. The ‘great index’ refers to the ‘table of contents’ presented at the beginning of BQ. The whole work contains ten ‘volumes’ (hator≤) which are divided into forty ‘main sections’ (glxauor ban≤). These main sections are futher divided into smaller sections (gloux≤) and chapters (prak≤). Although the word gloux, lit. ‘head,’ ‘chapter’, is a calque on Gk. kefálaiov, I have translated it as ‘section’, as each gloux in BQ is rather large and composed of many prak≤ (< Gk. pr¢ziv), which I have rendered as ‘chapter’47.

1. This passage has no exact equivalent in PF or VP, but the argument between Christians and Jews concerning the interpretation of Isa 2:2 dates to the earliest Christian polemicists. Origen, Irenaeus, and Tertullian already found it necessary to counter Jewish claims that the verse referred to the coming of their future Messiah as opposed to the new era introduced by the Church48. Reference to the Jews as ‘blinded’, i.e. blinded to the true meaning of scripture, is very old within Christianity. Augustine set the tone for future discourse in his De Civitate Dei, where he refers to the Jews who did not accept that Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies as excaecati, ‘blinded’49. Martini also labels them blinded throughout PF, as does Porchetus in VP.

47 On the structure of BQ and the translation of these terms, see LA PORTA, Theology, ch. 2 and n. 337. 48 R. WILKEN, In novissimis diebus: Biblical Promises, Jewish Hopes and Early Christian Exegesis, in Journal of Early Christian Studies, 1:1 (1993), p. 1-19. 49 AUGUSTINE, The City of God Against the Pagans, W.C. Greene (tr.), Cambridge,

2148-09_Mus09/1-2_06_LaPorta 113 6/7/09, 11:08 am 114 S. LA PORTA

An intriguing statement within this opening point is Tat‘ewac‘i’s claim that the Jews attempt to disprove the messianic status of Jesus by noting that it has been over 1400 years since his coming. As Grigor completed BQ in 1397, it may be possible that he is referring to a contemporary dispute. No further evidence, however, has surfaced to support the suggestion that Armenian monks at this time engaged in debate, either formally or informally, with Jews. It is therefore more plausible that either Tat‘ewac‘i himself or the copiest of the text ‘updated’ this information. Tat‘ewac‘i’s reference to unnamed ‘doctors of the Church’ lends support to the hypothesis that both the accusation and its response were likely included in Grigor’s source. In vol. III of BQ, for example, Grigor refers to ‘doctors of the Church’ four times. The first time he cites the opinion of ‘the universal doctors of the Church’ it seems to constitute a general appeal to Christian tradition. The second time, the designation ‘doctors’ refers specifically to Dionysius the Areopagite, Irenaeus, and Epiphanius. The third and fourth times, however, the phrase ‘doctors of the Church’ refers to Latin authors whose name Tat‘ewac‘i does not reveal: Hugh Ripelin in the first instance, Augustine in the second. Given that Grigor’s evocation of anonymous ‘doctors of the Church’ usually denotes ecclesiastics other than himself and often ones from outside of the Armenian exegetical tradition – and particularly from the Latin tradition – we may conclude that the argument attributed to the Jews and the response of the doctors derive from Grigor’s source. On the other hand, Tat‘ewac‘i may have composed the final sentence about the Jews’ lack of acceptance of Christ at his coming and their fall into darkness. Its argument does not logically follow from the given interpretation of Isa 2:2, but refers back to and explains the designation of the Jews as ‘blinded’ applied at the outset of the argument. Furthermore, it may be noted that, although it is a common hermeneuic – particularly in Armenian – Tat‘ewac‘i often refers to Christ as the ‘Sun of righteousness’ throughout BQ50.

2a. The explicit argument ascribed to the Jews has no exact equivalent in PF/VP and must be attributed to the author of Tat‘ewac‘i’s source.

MA, 1960, bk. 18, ch. 46, p. 49. See also, CHAZAN, Daggers, p. 20, and B. BLUMEN- KRANTZ, Augustin et les juifs; Augustin et le Judaïsme, in Recherches augustiniennes, 1 (1958), p. 225-241. 50 See, e.g., BQ vol. III, ch. 20 [= LA PORTA, Theology, p.181-187]; on the ‘Sun of Righteousness’ in Armenian tradition, see also J. RUSSELL, Here Comes the Sun: a Poem of Kostandin Erznkats‘i, in Journal of the Society for Armenian Studies, 3 (1987), p. 119- 127, esp. 123.

2148-09_Mus09/1-2_06_LaPorta 114 6/7/09, 11:08 am A 14TH ARMENIAN POLEMIC AGAINST JUDAISM 115

Nevertheless, Grigor’s discussion is clearly an abridgement of Martini’s analysis of the word ‘all’ and employs the same biblical proof-texts, namely, 2Kgdms 16:22b and 17:14a. As Martini, followed by Porchetti, incorrectly ascribes the citation concerning Absalom to chapter 17 of 2Kgdms, they comment that the second proof-text may be found in the same chapter (in eodem capitulo). Tat‘ewac‘i has likewise wrongly as- serted that the second citation occurs ‘in the same place’ (i noyn te¬uoΔn) as the first. Tat‘ewac‘i’s point that the word ‘all’ should not be understood narrowly (ne¬agoyn, Lat. stricte) is a nearly exact translation of the phrase in PF/VP. Either the author of the Latin original of Tat‘ewac‘i’s source or the Armenian translator of the text, however, has rendered Martini’s prophetas et Theologos by the more general ‘Holy Scriptures’ (sourb gir≤) and Dialecticos by ‘philosophers’ (filisofay≤). The influence of PF/VP on Tat‘ewac‘i’s citation of Isa 2:2 may be detected in the discrepancy between Grigor’s reading and the wording in Zohrapean’s edition of the Armenian Bible [= ARM.]. The latter reads he¯anos≤ instead of azg≤: eu ekeswen i na amenayn he¯anos≤. Ar- menian azg≤ (‘people, nations’) more readily translates Lat. gentes than he¯anos≤ (‘heathens’); as the LXX reads ∂qnj, the possibility remains that Tat‘ewac‘i’s reading is based on an unattested variant51. Likewise, Tat‘ewac‘i’s use of bari (‘good’) instead of ≤aΔ (‘brave’, ‘valiant’, but also ‘good’) in his citation of 2Kgdms 17:14a52 most likely reflects bonum as found in PF/VP (both of which note that the Vulgate reads melius)53. As LXX reads âgaq® – which may be rendered in Arme- nian by either bari or ≤aΔ – this may represent another unattested variant reading54. As noted, both of these divergences from ARM. may record variants that are not preserved in any of the manuscripts consulted by Zohrapean. It is more probable, however, that they reveal the influence of the biblical text as presented in PF/VP and were introduced at the moment of the translation of the Latin text into Armenian.

51 According to the edition of J. ZOHRAPEAN, Astoua∑a˙ounc matean hin eu nor ktakaranaw [Bible. Old and New Testaments], repr. with intro. C.E. Cox, Delmar NY, 1984 (original printing, Venice, 1805) (= ZOHRAPEAN, Bible), there is only one variant that reads “Eu e¬iwi” instead of “Zi e¬iwi”. 52 Cfr Zohrapean’s text: Eu asè abso¬om eu amenayn ayr israèli ≤aΔ è xorhourdd ≤ouseay a®a≤awuoy ≤an zxorhourd s≤itofe¬ay. 53 The citation in Armenian is nevertheless apocopated as it omits the comparison to the counsel of Achitophel. 54 Nor Ba®gir≤ Hayazean Lezoui [New Dictionary of the Armenian Language], G. AWETIK‘EAN et al. (ed.), Venice, 2 v., 1836-7 [= NBHL], I:459, II:981. According to ZOHRAPEAN, Bible, there are no variants to this verse.

2148-09_Mus09/1-2_06_LaPorta 115 6/7/09, 11:08 am 116 S. LA PORTA

2b. This argument is not an exact citation from PF/VP, but summarizes Martini’s interpretation of ‘all’ in 2Kgdms 16:22 and 17:44 as ‘many’ (wouwanè zbazoums, supponit pro multis) that he applies to Isa 2:2 as well.

3a. The compiler of the Latin version of Tat‘ewac‘i’s source has reworked and combined two passages from PF/VP. The first – the latter in PF/VP – is the interpretation of Isa 2:4 which argues that there was indeed peace before the birth of Christ, during his life, and until the Jews rebelled against the Romans in the Bar Kokhba revolt. The argument generally mirrors that of Martini, though it differs in some respects. The text as found in Tat‘ewac‘i’s source argues that there was peace slightly before the birth of Christ, during his entire lifetime and for forty years after Christ’s death. This form of the argument more closely resembles the second passage cited from PF/VP than the first, although a similar argument is construed there. In the second passage, however, Martini structures the argument differently claiming not that there had been peace, but that there had not been war during the entire lifetime of Christ nor had there been for a long time prior, and that after Christ’s death there was no war for forty years. First, we may note that Tat‘ewac‘i’s text mentions peace and Marti- ni’s, the lack of war. Secondly, Grigor’s source discusses the times of peace surrounding the life of Christ in chronological order starting with the time before Christ followed by Christ’s lifetime and ending with the period after Christ’s death. Martini starts with the period of Christ’s life then discusses the periods before and afterwards. We may further observe that Tat‘ewac‘i’s source reflects the wording of VP against PF. Martini’s text reads: nempe in tota vitae ipsius, which Porchetus renders, nempe in toto tempore ipsius vitae. The reading in BQ: i bolor jamanaks (‘in the entire time’) is a direct translation of in toto tempore. Thirdly, Tat‘ewac‘i remarks that there had been peace for ‘a slight period’ (sakau mi) prior to the birth of Christ, while Martini states that there had been peace for a great time (per multum temporibus). Given the formal alterations already present in the text, this error was likely present in the Latin original of Grigor’s source. The second point in BQ that there was peace because only one man ruled the world clearly is an abridged form of Martini’s argument in PF/ VP.

3b. The argument in PF/VP hinges on the meaning of Heb. ‘od. Martini contends that it rarely means ‘ever’ (unquam) and more often indicates

2148-09_Mus09/1-2_06_LaPorta 116 6/7/09, 11:08 am A 14TH ARMENIAN POLEMIC AGAINST JUDAISM 117

‘a brief period of time’ (breve tempus, PF; modicum tempus, VP) or ‘yet’ (adhuc). The proof offered that ‘od is not to be understood as ‘ever’ is 1Kgdms 7:3 where it is written that the Philistines will never (= not ever: non… ultra) again come into the borders of Israel. Accord- ing to Martini, taking non… ultra to mean ‘never’ would be incorrect as 1Kgdms 13:5 remarks that the Philistines came up into the borders of Israel after Samuel’s death. Just as 1Kgdms 7:13 does not mean that the Philistines will never invade the land of Israel, but would do so a short time later; so too, Isa 2:4 intends not that there will never be war, but that there would be peace for a brief period. This forced interpretation rests upon a linguistic parallelism between Isa 2:4 and 1Kgdms 7:13 that is evident in PF/VP and in the Vulgate where both verses contain similar constructions with nec/non… ultra: nec exercebuntur ultra [Isa 2:4b, PF/VP and Vulgate]; non addiderunt ultra ad veniendum [1Kgdms 7:13, PF/VP], nec adposuerunt ultra ut venirent [1Kgdms 7:13, Vulgate]. The citation of Isa 2:4 in BQ – oc eus yauelouwoun tal paterazm, “they will never wage war again” – differs from ARM. – oc eus ousa- niwin paterazm, “they will no longer learn war”. This variance undoubtedly results from a desire of the Armenian translator to bring Isa 2:4 into greater alignment with 1Kgdms 7:13: oc eus yauelin…elanel i veray, “they will never again go up over”55 (BQ56, ARM.). The only evident reason to alter the text is to more closely reflect the argument as formulated in PF/VP. The final two sentences in 3b (‘Similarly… about the second’) do not issue from PF/VP; it is likely that Grigor added these two comments. In the first, Tat‘ewac‘i reiterates that there had been peace during the period of Christ’s activity. This remark clarifies the exegetical relationship between Isa 2:4 and 1Kgdms 7:13; namely, they both refer to a brief period of time. Isa 2:4 envisages the period of Christ’s preaching and evangelizing just as 1Kgdms 7:13 intends ‘the days of Samuel’. Grigor then provides an alternative interpretation of Isa 2:4 which de- fers its fulfillment to the second coming. Such an intepretation, however, negates the entire purpose of Martini’s argument which is to prove that the Messiah had come and that he was Jesus. Tat‘ewac‘i attributes this second interpretation to ‘others’ (oman≤), whose identity remains elu- sive57.

55 The construction oc eus yaueloul + infin. yields ‘to never again do s.t.’ and is the exact equivalent of non apponere ultra or non addere ultra. 56 The omission of elanel in BQ must be attributed to scribal error. 57 Patristic exegesis tends to favor the former interpretation. In his commentary on

2148-09_Mus09/1-2_06_LaPorta 117 6/7/09, 11:08 am 118 S. LA PORTA

4. While the citation is not exact, the argument resembles one present in PF/VP. In discussing this verse [Isa 11:6], Martini contends that scripture should not be understood literally here for elsewhere in the Bible people are likened to various other creatures. BQ similarly observes that scripture often speaks through parables; both BQ and PF/VP cite Gen 49:9 as an example. Martini’s citation of Gen 49:9, however, occurs earlier in the work and he refers the reader to that passage; in VP, Porchetus explicitly brings forth this proof-text in connection with Isa 11:6 as does BQ. This further supports the assertion that the compiler of the Latin source whose Armenian version Tat‘ewac‘i consulted based his text upon VP. Nonetheless, the passage in BQ differs from PF/VP in several cases. As already noted, Martini posits that the text should be interpreted spiritually in this instance (spiritualiter); Tat‘ewac‘i remarks that scripture often speaks through parables (a®akau). While similar, these are not identical. Furthermore, the verse from Judges is not present in PF/VP. Gen 49:9 is also cited differently in BQ from PF/VP, ARM., and the Vulgate. These divergences were likely already present in Tat‘ewac‘i’s source text and reflect the Latin author’s rephrasing of his material. We may also observe that Tat‘ewac‘i recalls Jacob’s likening Judah to a lion and not to a lion’s cub as the biblical text (koriun a®iu∑ou) and PF/VP. This variance is likely attributable to scribal error at some point in the transmission history of Grigor’s source text. The final two sentences (And in that way… submitted to Christ) do not occur in PF/VP. As in 3b, they are additions of Grigor that clarify the argument outlined previously by rendering the hermeneutical impli- cations explicit. Thus, Tat‘ewac‘i interprets ‘the beasts’ of Isa 11:6 to signify the impious Jews. Based on this identification, he provides two interpretations of the lying of the beasts with the lamb/kid. Grigor first equates the lamb/kid with non-Jews in general. Conveniently ignoring the Roman occupation of Palestine and its hardships, he remarks that the

Isaiah (II,4), John Chrysostom (347-407) similarly refers to the peace that existed during Roman rule under Augustus (JEAN CHRYSOSTOME, Commentaire sur Isaïe. Introduction, texte critique et notes, ed. J. DUMORTIER [Sources Chrétiennes, 304], Paris, 1983, p. 120); as does CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA (c. 378-444; PG 70, col. 72-3). THEODORET OF CYR (Vth c.) takes Isa 2:4 to refer to the period following the Jews’ return from the Babylonian exile (PG 81, col. 237); cfr also ISO‘DAD OF MERV’s (IXth c.) comments on this verse, Commentaire d’Iso’dad de Merv sur l’Ancien Testament, IV. Isaïe et les Douze, ed. C. VAN DEN EYNDE (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, 303; Scriptores Syri, 128), Leuven, 1969. A rare exception is provided by CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE (IIIrd c.) who, in his Testimonia ad Quirinum (CCL 3 [1972], II:18, p. 54), attributes the events of Isa 2:4 to the last times, although his citation of the verse cannot be considered a detailed discussion of its meaning. This work – of which no known Armenian translation exists – was almost certainly unknown to Tat‘ewac‘i.

2148-09_Mus09/1-2_06_LaPorta 118 6/7/09, 11:08 am A 14TH ARMENIAN POLEMIC AGAINST JUDAISM 119

Jews were not oppresed by anyone at the time of Christ. One may therefore deduce that Jews and non-Jews – the wolf and the lamb – co-existed peacefully. Tat‘ewac‘i then supplies a second interpretation in which the lamb/kid is more naturally indentified with Christ. The prophecy of Isaiah is again found to be fulfilled as many of the Jews/beasts did in fact submit to Christ.

5. It is evident that Tat‘ewac‘i’s source has abridged a much lengthier discussion in PF/VP. In the first part of the argument (Fifth,… it is fulfilled) BQ and PF/VP employ the same proof-texts: Dt 30:3, Ezek 39, and Neh 1:8-9. BQ and the first part of the excerpt from PF/VP refer to the time of Zorobabel and Ezra as the time of the fulfillment of the promise in Dt 30, although the phrasing differs and BQ makes no mention of Cyrus. The correspondence between the second part of 5 in BQ and the second portion excerted from PF/VP is more unambiguous. Grigor’s text similarly labels the Jews ‘liars’ (Arm. souts; Lat. falsiloquos) and ‘un- grateful’ (Arm. apa˙norhs; Lat. ingratos) for disputing that all of them were not gathered by God. BQ and PF/VP evoke the same biblical passage [2Ezra 2:70/1Ezra 2:70-3:1] to prove that the Jews had been gathered as promised in Dt 30. We may further observe that in ARM. the citation from Ezra occurs in 2Ezra, not 1Ezra as noted in BQ; in the Vulgate, however, it is found in 1Ezra. PF/VP only indicate that the verse derives from Ezra; it is likely the Latin author of Grigor’s text who added the designation.

6. The argument in BQ is a highly abridged form of the interpretation of Jer 23:5-6 in PF/VP; nevertheless, BQ’s dependence is demonstrable. In addition to the general contention, BQ’s text similarly observes that the Jews argue that the coming of the Messiah would bring a stop to their being scattered (wrouewan, dispersi) and destroyed (korean, destructi). The reliance of Tat‘ewac‘i’s source upon VP as opposed to PF is particularly evident in this section in three ways. First, Porchetus, followed by the Latin compiler of Tat‘ewac‘i’s source, has constructed a single argument from two separate passages in PF. Second, VP attributes the interpretation of Judah to both the Talmud and R. AÌa’s exegesis of Gen. 41:44 as cited in Genesis Rabbah of R. Moshe ha-Darshan (= Gen- esis Rabbati)58. Martini only explicitly names the latter. As BQ only mentions the Talmud in this instance, it must derive from VP.

58 C. ALBECK, Midrash Bereshit Rabbati, Jerusalem, 1940; Encyclopedia Judaica, C. ROTH – G. WIGODER et al. (ed.), New York, 1971-2, VII:401-402; XII:429.

2148-09_Mus09/1-2_06_LaPorta 119 6/7/09, 11:08 am 120 S. LA PORTA

Third, we may note that throughout this chapter, Tat‘ewac‘i refers to the biblical figure of Judah as Youda (Yuda) and the Jews as hrèay≤ (hreayk‘), while in this one instance ‘Judah’ is rendered Δhout (jhut), ‘Jew’59. In the citation of R. AÌa’s exegesis of Gen 41:44, while PF comments that Juda means confitentes ei∞60, VP reads, Juhuda, a form much closer to Δhout (jhut). Martini also avails himself of the etymology of Judah as ‘confessor’ in the Capistrum Iudaeorum (N1,3), where he claims to have culled the citation from the Sefer ha-Shorashim [Book of Roots, a Hebrew dictionary] of R. David KimÌi (1160 ca.- 1235) instead of from Genesis Rabbati∞61. This particular interpretation of Judah’s name does not exist in either the Sefer ha-Shorashim or Genesis Rabbati. Scholars have debated whether Martini forged some of his Jewish sources and this may be one such case. Yitzhak Baer has argued strongly that Martini altered the Jewish texts he used to substantiate his interpretations and forged the entire Midrash of R. Moshe ha-Darshan62. How- ever, Saul Lieberman has demonstrated that, while Martini may not have been always accurate in his translations and citations, he was by no means a forger. Lieberman concludes that “there are no serious obsta- cles in the way of accepting the Midrash [of R. Moshe ha-Darshan] as genuine on the whole”63. In many instances, according to Lieberman, Martini may preserve readings from texts that are no longer extant. Regardless of the accuracy of the ascription, the tradition of this interpretation is early. Constitutiones Apostolorum (IVth c.) declares that “Judah is interpreted confession; but they do not confess to God – having illegally submitted Christ to the passion – so that they might repent and be saved” (II, 60,3)64. Ambrose (338-397) and Jerome (347-420)

59 Δhout (jhut) < Prs. œuN; Ar. œuN, œuN ‘Jew’; cfr R. ™AZARYAN – H. AVETISYAN (ed.), MiΔin Hayerèn Ba®aran [Dictionary of Middle Armenian], 2v., Erevan, 1987, 1992, II:295. ,המורימ לו Martini’s translation, ‘those who confess Him’ (confitentes ei) renders 60 ‘those who teach him’, according to the text given in PF. 61 In a previous study, LA PORTA, Job, p. 137, n. 27, I posited that Tat‘ewac‘i’s citation derived from the Capistrum Iudaeorum rather than from PF or VP. In the Capistrum Iudaeorum, however, the interpetation of the name Judah does not occur in conjunction with Jer 23:6 as it does in BQ, PF, and VP. 62 Y. BAER, Ha-Midrashim ha-Mezuyafim shel Raymundus Martini u-Meqomam be- MilÌemet ha-Dat shel Yemei ha-Beinayim, in Studies in Memory of Asher Gulak and Samuel Klein, Jerusalem, 1942, p. 28-49. 63 S. LIEBERMAN, Raymund Martini and His Alleged Forgeries, in Historia Judaica, 5 (1943), p. 88. Cfr also RAGACS, Forged Midrashim, p. 59-68. 64 ˆIoúdav gàr êzomológjsiv ërmjneúetai, oœtoi dè oûk eîsìn êzomologoú- menoi qe¬ç tò páqjma toÕ Xristo⁄ paranómwv pepoijkótev, ÿna kaì metagnóntev swq¬sin, in X. FUNK (ed.), Didascalia et Constitutiones Apostolorum, Paderborn, 1905, I:172-5.

2148-09_Mus09/1-2_06_LaPorta 120 6/7/09, 11:08 am A 14TH ARMENIAN POLEMIC AGAINST JUDAISM 121

also echo this explanation65. We may also compare Esther Rabbah (Vth-VIth c.) on Esther 2:5 where it is queried why the biblical text calls Mordechai a Judaean when he is from the tribe of Benyamin. The answer provided is that “because he proclaimed the unity of the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, he is called Judaean, saying ‘Judaean’ as לפי שיחד שמו של הקדוש ברוך הוא נקרא ,לומר יהודי יחידי) ”’unique‘ Tat‘ewac‘i may have already been aware of this etymology .66(יהודי from the Commentary on Revelation of Andrew of Cappadocia (VIth c.): “Judah is translated ‘confession’, from which we learn that on account of confessing Christ, he who was born from Judah, were [sic] saved”67.

7a. Tat‘ewac‘i’s source has summarized the much longer discussion that appears in PF/VP. Again we may observe that VP offers a more concise version of the argument from which it is more likely Tat‘ewac‘i’s source drew. All the texts assert that based upon Ezek 39 the Jews argue that the Messiah will do battle with Gog and Magog, and since Jesus has not done that, he is not the Messiah. BQ also follows PF/VP in contending that the figures of Gog and Magog must be understood ‘spiritually’ as ‘persecutors of the Church’ (hala∑à¬≤ eke¬ewuoy = ‘persecutors of the holy faithful’, persecutores sanctae fidae, PF/VP). The citation from the Psalms, however, is not to be found in Martini’s or Porchetus’s text and may have been added by the author of Tat‘ewac‘i’s source or by Grigor himself. Although Martini’s interpretation of Gog and Magog is clear, the history surrounding this argument is completely lost in Tat‘ewac‘i’s abridged text. Western Christian polemicists insisted that the political – and hence, moral – superiority of Christianity over Judaism established the veracity of Christianity. In response, Jewish authors cited the rise of Muslim power in the East. For example, in his MilÌemet MiÂvah [The

65 L. GRABBE, Etymology in Early Jewish Interpretation: The Hebrew Names in Philo (Brown Judaic Studies, 115), Atlanta, 1988, p. 170. 66 See also J. NEUSNER, Esther Rabbah I. An analytical translation (Brown Judaic Se- ries, 182), Atlanta, 1989, p.137, XXXVI:ii.4 (F-G); M. SIMON, Midrash Rabbah. Esther, London, 1939, p. 73-4, VI.2. The interpretation plays on the similarity of the words Judaean (Yahudi) and unique (yaÌidi). The Christian etymology of ‘Jew’ may thus recall an earlier Jewish form of this intepretation of Judah. 67 Youday xostovanou¯iun ¯argmani, yormè ousanim≤ ¯è vasn xosovaneloyn z≥ristos or i Youdayè ∑agewau, kawin frkeal≤, ANDREW OF CAESAREA, Meknou¯iun Yaytnou¯ean S. Auetarancin Yovhannou [Commentary on the Revelation of John the Evangelist], Jerusalem, 1855, p. 105. Andrew’s commentary was translated and adapted into Armenian by Nerses Lambronac‘i in 1179; an English translation of this text has appeared, R. THOMSON, Nerses of Lambron: Commentary on the Revelation of Saint John (Hebrew University Armenian Series, 9), Leuven, 2007. Grigor relied on Lambronac‘i’s version of Andrew’s commentary in BQ vol. III; LA PORTA, Theology, p. 114-115.

2148-09_Mus09/1-2_06_LaPorta 121 6/7/09, 11:08 am 122 S. LA PORTA

Obligatory War], written in the second half of the thirteenth century, Rabbi Meir ben Simon of Narbonne comments that “the Muslims rule in portions of the world as do the Christians, and we are in exile under their control. Now the Christians acknowledge that the Muslims do not possess a true faith and that they will not be saved through their faith and that their souls will be damned and cut off”68. In other words, if Christians recognized the lack of correspondence between political power and the veracity of faith in the case of Islam, then they should recognize it in the case of Christianity as well. Martini proved unable to effectively resolve this problem. He concludes, using Job 34 as support, that God permits the Muslims to rule those Christians living in the East who have become infested with wickedness and her- esy. Naturally, this would not have been a very welcome statement among adherents of the Armenian Apostolic Church. In vol. X of BQ, Grigor returns to the ‘spiritual’ interpretation of Gog and Magog69. He reports that the Jews claim the ten tribes of Israel will emerge at the end of time and come to Jerusalem. In this instance, Tat‘ewac‘i relied upon Hugh Ripelin’s Compilatio brevis theologicae veritatis, Bk. VII, ch. 10 for his information about Jewish tradition. I provide below the relevant portion of Tat‘ewac‘i’s text and the corre- sponding one from the Armenian translation of Ripelin’s work preserved in M66, fol. 112v-113r70, followed by an English translation of both passages:

Grigor Tat‘ewac‘i Hugh Ripelin Vasn Gàgay eu Magàgay Harw: Ya¬ags gàga eu magàga: Zi$nc è gàg eu magàg: Patasxani: Asen oman≤ ¯è tasn Vasn gàga eu magàga asen oman≤ we¬≤n Israyèli or fakewan i mèΔ ¯è en tasn we¬≤n israyè¬i or≤ leranwn kasbiw, sosa asen hrèay≤n fakewan i mèΔ leranwn kazbiw. elanel i katara∑i eu gal yErou- orow oc ta ¯oyl elanel d˙xoyn amo- sa¬èm: Ayl≤ asen ¯è gàgau eu zonay ∂nd oroy ¯agauor≤ en eu ∂nd magàgau imaweal linin zàr≤ ne®inn. tèrou¯eann kan: zsosa asen hrèa- or i katara∑i a˙xarhi martncin y≤n i katara∑i a˙xarhi elanel eu ∂nd eke¬ewuoy: Zi gàg no≤a en gal yerousa¬èm. eu iurow mesiaiun orov≤ satanay ga¬tabar hala∑è auerel zeke¬ewi: Ayl asen ¯è gàgau zhauataweals: Eu magàg? orov≤ eu magàgau imaweal linin zàr≤ yaytnapès hala∑è zeke¬ewi: Isk ne®inn or i katara∑i a˙xarhi

68 CHAZAN, Daggers, p. 64, citing W. HERSKOWITZ, Judeo-Christian Dialogue in Pro- vence as Reflected in Milchemet Mitzvah of R. Meir ha-Meili, Ph.D. diss., Yeshiva Uni- versity, 1974, p. 20. 69 BQ, p. 708. 70 Again, I have resolved all abbreviations and ideograms found in the text.

2148-09_Mus09/1-2_06_LaPorta 122 6/7/09, 11:08 am A 14TH ARMENIAN POLEMIC AGAINST JUDAISM 123

ayl≤ asen, gàg asin he¯anos≤. eu ekeswè martncel ∂nd eke¬ewoy. ≤a- magàg satanay: Bayw i katara∑ i nzi gàgiu ∂st mekncin imaweal fo≤rik linin hasak≤ mardkan ≤an linin ayno≤ik orov≤ satanay ga- zmers. orpès mers ≤an za®aΔnown: ¬tabar hala∑eswè zhauataweals: Isk magàg//[f.113r]au ayno≤ik orov≤ yaytnapès. noyn≤n or i jamanaki ne®inn ya®aΔn ga¬tabar. yetoy yaytnapès hala∑eswen zeke¬ewi. isk ∂st àgàstosi. gàg asin he¯anos≤ eu magàg satanay:

A question concerning God and Magog. Concerning Gog and Magog. Q.: What is Gog and Magog? A.: Some say that [they are] the ten Concerning Gog and Magog some say tribes of Israel who were shut up in that they are the ten tribes of Israel the mountains of the Caspian. The who were shut up in the mountains of Jews say these will emerge at the end the Caspian, whom the queen of the of the world and come to Jerusalem. Amazon – under whom are kings – Others say that by Gog and Magog are does not permit to exit and they are to be understood the forces of the anti- under her dominion. The Jews say Christ, who at the end of the world they will emerge at the end of the fight against the Church. For Gog are world and come to Jerusalem and will they through whom Satan secretly ravage the Church with their messiah. persecutes the faithful. And Magog Others say that by Gog and Magog are [are they] through whom he mani- to be understood the forces of the anti- festly persecutes the Church. But oth- Christ, who at the end of the world ers say, Gog means the heathen and will come to fight against the Church. Magog, Satan. But at the end the lives For by Gog are to be understood, ac- of men will be shorter than ours, as cording to the commentator, they ours [is shorter] than our predeces- through whom Satan will secretly per- sors'. secute the faithful. And by Magog [are to be understood] they through whom [he will] manifestly [persecute the Church]. Those same whom before the time of the anti-Christ [persecuted] secretly, afterwards will persecute the Church manifestly. But according to Augustine, Gog means the heathens; and Magog, Satan.

Tat‘ewac‘i’s discussion obviously constitutes a slight abridgement of the Armenian version of Ripelin’s text with a few divergences. Grigor’s account omits the reference to the queen of the Amazons – possibly an enigmatic allusion for medieval Armenians – as well as the notion that the Jewish messiah could damage the Church71. We may also note that

71 On the Amazons’ proximity to Gog and Magog, see now, E. VAN DONZEL –

2148-09_Mus09/1-2_06_LaPorta 123 6/7/09, 11:08 am 124 S. LA PORTA

Tat‘ewac‘i does not explicitly credit Augustine, but refers to him as ‘others’ (ayl≤)72. He further adds a comment on the continual shortening of the human lifespan towards the end of time.

7b. Tat‘ewac‘i explicitly attributes his citation to “the book Hetrin” and the baraitha is indeed found in BT Sanhedrin 97a. This passage clearly derives from PF/VP as it preserves Martini’s gloss on the Hebrew word tohu, ‘nothingness’, ‘vanity’ (inanitas, vel vanitas, both well rendered by ounaynou¯iun). Grigor’s text also reproduces the context of Eliyahu (Elias/E¥ia) and his disciples, although not entirely correctly. Martini comments that the baraitha was issued from the house of Eliyahu which he explains as the disciples of Eliyahu; not, as Tat‘ewac‘i’s text reads, that Eliyahu and his disciples spoke these words. The baraitha is as follows: “The Tanna rebbe Eliyahu teaches: The world is to exist six thousand years. In the first two thousand there was Tohu; two thousand years the Torah; and two thousand the days of the Messiah.” The baraitha also occurs in BT Abodah Zarah, 9a, which PF/VP cites as well. The final sentence in this passage (And in this way…) does not appear in PF or VP, and was probably added by Grigor’s source text.

7c. Tat‘ewac‘i’s text reproduces nearly identically PF/VP’s observation that the midrash refers to the four kings. The tradition ascribed to the Jews is that of Midrash Tehillim 22:9: “‘Awake, my glory, awake, psaltery and harp, I will awake the dawn’ alludes to the four kingdoms. ‘Awake, my glory’, means that Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah were to rise for us in Babylon; ‘awake, psaltery’, means that Mordecai and Esther were to rise for us in Media; ‘awake… harp’, means that the house of the Hasmoneans was to rise for us in Greece; ‘I will awake the dawn’ means that the Messiah is to rise for us in Edom”73. Tat‘ewac‘i’s citation of the Psalm employs the singular imperative zar¯ir, ‘awake’, rather than usual plural, zar¯i≤74. This may repre-

A. SCHMIDT, Gog and Magog in Early Syriac and Islamic Sources. Sallam’s Itinerary to Alexander’s Wall (Brill’s Inner Asian Library), Leiden (forthcoming). On Gog and Magog in Armenian, see J. RUSSELL, The Tale of the Bronze City in Armenian, in T. SAMUELIAN – M. STONE (ed.), Medieval Armenian Culture, Chico CA, 1983, p. 250-261. 72 See the commentary to 1 for another example of Grigor’s relunctance to explicitly identify Latin authors. 73 W.G. BRAUDE (tr.), The Midrash on the Psalms, 2 v., New Haven, 1959, I:305-6. 74 However, at least one copy of the BQ (M5861), copied in 1409, reads zar¯i≤. Unfortunately, the autograph of BQ (M3616) is damaged and only begins subsequent to this chapter. Other early copies of BQ read zar¯ir, and it is likely that the scribe of M5861 brought the verse into alignment with the more common reading.

2148-09_Mus09/1-2_06_LaPorta 124 6/7/09, 11:08 am A 14TH ARMENIAN POLEMIC AGAINST JUDAISM 125

sent an unattested variant of ARM. or again result from the influence of the Latin of VP, which also possesses a singular imperative (surge) in accordance with the Vulgate. The translator, however, has rendered PF/ VP’s “you made rise” (astare fecisiti), rather loosely with the instru- mental of the infinitive of the verb ‘to give’ (tal), here functioning as a participle, “by giving” (talov). It is once more evident that Tat‘ewac‘i’s source has consulted VP rather than PF as zar¯noum (zart‘num) regularly translates Lat. surgo, rather than excito as PF, which is normally rendered by the factative, zar¯ouwanem (zart‘uc‘anem)75. BQ also reflects the order found in VP of Daniel’s three companions: Misayel, Anania, and Azaria (BQ/VP) against Anania, Misayel, and Azaria (PF). Likewise, Tat‘ewac‘i’s source has altered ‘Edom’, as found in the midrash and in PF, to ‘Rome’ under the influence of Porchetus’s gloss of ‘in Edom’ as ‘in Romanis’. BQ attributes the midrash to the ‘exegete and tradition of the Jews’ (meknicn eu auandou¯iun hrèiwn). It is unattributed by Martini and correctly ascribed to Midrash Tehillim by Porchetus. The phrase may represent the anonymous Latin compiler’s descriptive explanation of the exegetical work, or possibly, the Armenian translator’s understanding of what the work was. A major divergence from PF/VP appears in BQ. ‘Media’ – which would be rendered marastan (marastan) in Armenian – has been enig- matically replaced by soug (sug), ‘mourning’. It is likely that the discrepency should be attributed to scribal error76. Other differences may be noted. Tat‘ewac‘i’s text refers to the Maccabees rather than to ‘the Hasmoneans, that is, Mathatias and his son’, possibly a paraphrase on the part of the anonymous Latin compiler. More significantly, PF/VP is more faithful to the midrash in that it refers to the Messiah’s coming in the future as opposed to all the other salvific figures who appeared in Jewish history. By contrast, Grigor’s text does not make any temporal distinction between them.

7d. Despite minor differences, it is clear that the citation derives from PF/VP. The Talmudic quote is from BT Yoma 10a: “Rab also said: The

75 NBHL, I:719. Porchetus has altered Martini’s translation of the Psalm to bring it in alignment with the Vulgate; he has similarly cited it as Ps. 56 – again, in accordance with the Vulgate – rather than as Ps. 57 – as Martini, in accordance with the Hebrew. It is clear that Tat‘ewac‘i’s text derives from PF but with some alterations. 76 If this is the proper explanation for this error, the corruption must have occurred in the Armenian source text as several early copies of BQ contain the reading soug. In M5861 of BQ, however, the word soug is left unfinished, all that appears is sou…, sug- gesting that the copiest had trouble understanding his exemplar.

2148-09_Mus09/1-2_06_LaPorta 125 6/7/09, 11:08 am 126 S. LA PORTA

son of David will not come until the wicked kingdom of Rome will have spread [its sway] over the whole world for nine months.” The Latin compiler’s dependence on VP may be seen in the explicit reference to the Romans. Despite the specific mention of Rome in the baraitha, Martini excludes any reference to the Romans in his citation of it in this instance. However, when he previously cited another version of this baraitha – from BT Sanhedrin – he added after ‘regnum nequam’, “Glossa R. Salomoh, id est Romanum”77. Porchetus included this gloss on ‘regnum nequam’ in his discussion of the version of the baraitha from BT Yoma. The Latin compiler of Tat‘ewac‘i’s source or the Armenian translator rendered ‘the evil kingdom, that is of the Romans,’ as the ‘evil king of the Romans’. Grigor’s source also omitted the phrase ‘son of David’, preserving only Martini’s gloss, the ‘Messiah’.

7e. Tat‘ewac‘i attributes the fifth explicit citation of a Jewish work to Beresiat‘as which originates from PF/VP’s citation of the Genesis Rabbah of Moshe ha-Darshan (= Genesis Rabbati). The form Beresiat‘as (beresia¯as) more closely resembles the rendering of the Hebrew work in VP (Beressit) as opposed to in PF, Bereschit, which would have been transliterated into Armenian as Beresit‘ (bere˙i¯). It is unclear why the form in BQ possesses an ending in -as, as though derived from Greek; so too is its description of the text as a commentary on Gen 1. Grigor’s excerpt is a greatly abridged version of the lengthy discussion in PF/VP but contains the same enumeration of the ten kings who will rule until the end of the world. More pertinently, Tat‘ewac‘i’s text includes the Dominican’s gloss that Augustus Caesar will pulverize (manreswè < manrel, ‘to break into pieces’, ‘to pulverize’, rendering well Lat. comminuens) everything as iron does, although it omits the reference to the description of the fourth king in Daniel. Grigor’s source also preserves Martini’s observation that the Messiah was the first king and will be the last, although it omits the explicit reference to Isa 44:6. As in the other citation ascribed by Martini to Genesis Rabbati in 6, this passage does not appear in Albeck’s edition of that text78. Similar, though not identical, lists may be found in Pirke Rabbi Eleazar 11; Esther Rabbah 1:1; and Targum Yerushalmi 1:1, which may be compared to BT Yoma 10a, and Sanhedrin 98a.

77 PF, p. 396. 78 Cfr CHAZAN, Daggers, p. 204, n. 51, and commentary to 6, above.

2148-09_Mus09/1-2_06_LaPorta 126 6/7/09, 11:08 am A 14TH ARMENIAN POLEMIC AGAINST JUDAISM 127

7f. Grigor’s source has paraphrased the passage from PF/VP concerning the reign of Augustus, although neither Martini nor Porchetus refer to the emperor as ‘evil’. The author of Grigor’s text has altered the allusion to the Gospel of Luke in PF/VP to the less exact Holy Gospel.

7g. Tat‘ewac‘i’s interpretation of Gen 15:16 as referring to different types of birth is not found within VP/PF and is almost certainly an addition by Grigor himself. The argument displays Tat‘ewac‘i’s characteris- tic predilection for ennumeration and numerical interpretation.

7h. The passage refered to occurs in chapter (prak) thirty of the seventh volume of BQ and is contained in section (gloux) twenty-nine of the great index79. In that chapter, Grigor explores different interpretations of the hebdomads of Daniel in the context of discussing the Babylonian captivity and the return of the Jews. Tat‘ewac‘i demonstrates that the hebdomads of Daniel and their reinterpretation of them by Jeremiah accurately prophesy the coming of Christ. There is nothing in that chapter that shows itself to be influenced by PF/VP.

Conclusion

Grigor Tat‘ewac‘i’s ‘Against the Jews’ does not provide evidence for direct knowledge of Jewish sources on the part of Armenian monks in the fourteenth century. Nearly all of the arguments made in Grigor’s chapter find correspondences in PF/VP. Most importantly, the five explicit references to Jewish literary sources outside of the Bible – to the Talmud (= Genesis Rabbati, 6), to the book Hetrin (= BT Sanhedrin 97a, 7b), to the exegete and tradition of the Jews (= Midrash Tehillim, 7c), to the book Ioma (= BT Yoma 10a, 7d); and to Beresiat‘as (= Genesis Rabbati, 7e) – are certainly extracted from PF/VP. We may further note that in four instances (2a [twice], 3b, and 5), Tat‘ewac‘i’s citation of the biblical text exhibits the influence of the biblical text as cited in PF/ VP or of the Vulgate. Grigor’s version of Martini’s arguments suggests that Tat‘ewac‘i did not extract his material directly from PF, but that he had access to a Latin text in Armenian translation that had excerpted and reworked material from VP. As noted earlier, such abridgements or abridged redactions of PF proved to be more practical and popular than Martini’s magnum opus. There is no evidence to suggest that Grigor read his

79 BQ, p. 449.

2148-09_Mus09/1-2_06_LaPorta 127 6/7/09, 11:08 am 128 S. LA PORTA

source in the original Latin, nor that he knew any Latin beyond possibly a few words80. It is far more likely that he obtained an Armenian version that had been translated by Unitor friars81. Evidence of readings in BQ that are shared with VP against PF may be found in 3a, 4, 6, 7a, 7c, 7d, and 7e. The anonymous author or compiler of the Latin version of Tat‘ewac‘i’s source has also added material that is not found in PF/VP. Nearly the entirety of Grigor’s introductory point, 1, is to be attributed to the anonymous Latin redactor. We may also detect additions to arguments in 2a, 5 and 7b. Tat‘ewac‘i himself appears to have inserted his own comments and observations in at least five instances: in 1, 3b, 4, 7g, and 7h. There is one instance, 7a, in which it is not possible to de- cide for certain whether the additional material was present in Grigor’s source or not. Given Tat‘ewac‘i’s reliance on this Latin polemic, his “Against the Jews” does not permit us to presume any actual ‘dialogue’ between the Armenian monk and a Jewish community – whether of a positive or negative nature. This does not exclude the possibility of any contact, but the derivative nature of the text testifies to a lack of native Armenian contemporary polemic against Judaism as well as to a lack of a profound Armenian awareness, at least in these monastic circles, of Jewish literary sources. We may further observe that the treatise does not present a serious re- buttal to Jewish theses; Grigor’s arguments are very weak and would have done little to bolster a Christian offense against Jewish interpretation. Out of all the heresies – both non-Christian and Christian – that Tat‘ewac‘i combats in the first two volumes of BQ, this polemic is by far the shortest. Nonetheless, the Latin attempt to employ Jewish texts against Jewish arguments obviously intrigued Tat‘ewac‘i to the point that it led him to select this polemic above more traditional Patristic lines of argument for this chapter. Although Grigor’s citations from PF/VP reveal little con-

80 We may cite Grigor’s reliance on the Armenian version of Hugh Ripelin’s Compi- latio brevis theologicae veritatis as another example of his accessing Latin works in their Armenian translations. 81 The treatise, the Sour Petrosi [Sword of Peter], may serve as an analogous example. A dogmatic tractate of 24 chapters that also contains a polemic against the ‘errors’ of the Greeks and Armenians, this treatise was originally composed in Latin and translated by Friar Peter of Aragon and Yakob ‘the translator’ between 1331 and 1347. Despite the similarity between the title of this text and of PF, Martini’s work did not serve as a source for the ‘Sword of Peter’ whose author is more indebted to Thomas Aquinas. On this text, see M. VAN DEN OUDENRIJN, Le «Sour Petrosi», vade-mecum pour les missions asiatiques du 14ème siècle, in Neue Zeitschrift für Missionswissenschaft, 1 (1945), p. 161-8.

2148-09_Mus09/1-2_06_LaPorta 128 6/7/09, 11:08 am A 14TH ARMENIAN POLEMIC AGAINST JUDAISM 129

cerning Jewish-Armenian relations in fourteenth-century Siwnik‘, they do bring to light another piece of Latin literature that entered into the monastic libraries of medieval Armenia and highlight the tremendous impact that the Dominican missionaries had among both pro- and anti- Latin ecclesiastics.

Institute for Asian and African Studies Sergio LA PORTA The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Mt. Scopus, Jerusalem 91905, Israel [email protected]

Abstract — In volume I of his Book of Questions, Grigor Tat‘ewac‘i (1344- 1409) included a polemic against Judaism. The short chapter is particularly in- teresting for its explicit citation of Jewish sources such as the Talmudic tractates Sanhedrin and Yoma. This article demonstrates that the source of Tat‘ewac‘i’s knowledge of Jewish texts is Porchetus de Salvaticis’s Victoria Porcheti adversus impios hebraeos (1303), which in turn is dependent upon Raymond Martini’s Pugio Fidei (1278). This article further argues that Tat‘ewac‘i did not have direct access to this text, but relied upon an Armenian translation of a Latin text that had extracted material from Porchetus’s treatise.

2148-09_Mus09/1-2_06_LaPorta 129 6/7/09, 11:08 am