Language, Literacy and Historical Apologetics

LANGUAGE, LITERACY AND HISTORICAL APOLOGETICS

Hippolytus of Rome’s Lists of Literate Peoples in the Syriac Tradition

Andy Hilkens*

In a contribution to a volume on Syriac identity formation, Muriel Debié remarked that ‘the question of origins [of Syriac Christians and Syriac churches] has more to do with the use of a language than ethnicity or geographical location’.1 At the centre of the identity of Syriac Christians was not a country or nation, but Classical Syriac, an Eastern dialect of Aramaic, that was their liturgical and literary language (of Syriac Orthodox, East-Syriac and to a certain degree also Melkite Christians). Because of the importance of Classical Syriac for the Syriac churches, it is not surprising that language has been at the centre of several debates.2

* The idea for this article arose when I was working on my doctoral project “Defeating Doom with History. Syriac Historiography of the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries” (2010-2014), funded by the Ghent University Research Fund (BOF). It was finished during a postdoctoral fellowship of the Flemish Research Foundation (FWO). I wish to thank Peter Van Nuffelen, Sergey Minov and Marianna Mazzola who offered valuable suggestions about various aspects of this paper. All remaining errors are my own. The author was a postdoctoral research fellow of the Center for the Study of Christianity, Department of Comparative Religions, Hebrew University, Jerusalem (2018-19), and currently a postdoctoral researcher of the Research Foundation of Flanders (FWO), Department of History, Ghent University, Belgium. 1 M. Debié, ‘Syriac Historiography and Identity Formation’, Church History and Religious Culture, 89.1-3 (2009), pp. 93-114, on p. 104. 2 See the edition of Elias’ of Nisibis “Book of Sessions” in N.N. Seleznyov, Kitāb al-maǧālis li-mār ’Iliyyā, muṭrān Niṣībīn, wa-risālatuh ilā ’l-wazīr al-kāmil Abī ’l-Qāsim al-Ḥusayn ibn ‘Alī ’l-Maġribī (Moscow, 2017). On this text, see D. Bertaina, ‘Science, Syntax, and Supe- riority in Eleventh-Century Christian-Muslim Discussion: Elias of Nisibis on the Arabic and Syriac Languages’, Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations, 22.2 (2011), pp. 197-207. This discussion marks the starting point of the Syriac Renaissance, a period of revival of Syriac literature; see H. Teule, ‘The Syriac Renaissance’, in The Syriac Renaissance, eds. H. Teule, C. Fotescu-Tauwinkl, B. ter Haar Romeny and J. van Ginkel, Eastern Christian Studies, 9 (Leuven, 2010), pp. 1-30. 2 Andy Hilkens

Most well-known is probably the debate that took place in 1026-1027 C.E. between Elias bar Shenaya, the East Syrian metropolitan of Nisibis, and the Muslim vizier al-Maghribi about the ability of Classical Syriac as a language for scientific literature. In the focus of this article, however, is a debate about the identity of the language of Creation, the language spoken before the division of languages after the fall of the Tower of Babel. Similarly to Jewish authors, early Syrian church fathers, probably also including Ephrem of Nisibis (307-383 C.E.), supported the idea that Hebrew was the mother of all languages, but as early as the middle of the fifth century some Syrian voices like Theodoret of Cyrrhus argued for the primacy of Ara- maic (and thus Syriac).3 From the seventh century onwards, most West-Syriac and East-Syriac authors would argue for the primacy of Aramaic over Hebrew, presumably to promote the status of Syriac in the face of ‘the widespread use of Arabic’.4 The earlier opinion that preferred Hebrew was only followed by two Syriac Orthodox authors: Jacob of Edessa (c. 633-710) and John the Stylite of Litarba (d. 737/8). Jacob expresses his opinion in a letter to John.5

3 In his Commentary on Genesis, Ephrem indicates that he believed that ‘the original language (…) remained with only one’ nation. He does not identify the nation, but in the fourth century, ‘Hebrew was the only attested candidate in discussions on the primeval language’; see S. Minov, ‘The Cave of Treasures and the Formation of Syriac Christian Identity in Late Antique Mesopotamia: Between Tradition and Innovation’, in Between Personal and Institutional Religion: Self, Doctrine, and Practice in Late Antique Eastern Christianity, eds. B. Bitton-Ashkelony and L. Perrone, Cultural Encounters in Late Antiq- uity and the Middle Ages, 15 (Turnhout, 2013), pp. 155-194, on pp. 164-184. For a similar debate in Islamic circles, see M.J. Kister, ‘Ādam: A Study of Some Legends in Tafsīr and Ḥadīth Literature’, Israel Oriental Studies, 13 (1993), pp. 118-140. 4 Arabic began to be promoted as the administrative language of the caliphate from the end of the reign of ‘Abd al-Malik (r. 685-705 AD) onwards; see A. Papaconstantinou, ‘Administering the Early Islamic Empire: Insights from the Papyri’, in Money, Power and Politics in Early Islamic Syria: A Review of Current Debates, ed. J.F. Haldon (Farnham, 2010), pp. 57-74, on p. 69. 5 For the text and translation of these letters, see W. Wright, ‘Two Epistles of Mar Jacob, Bishop of Edessa’, Journal of Sacred Literature and Biblical Record, NS 10 (1867), pp. 430-460; F. Nau, ‘Traduction des lettres XII et XIII de Jacques d’Édesse (exégèse biblique)’, Revue de l’Orient Chrétien, 10 (1905), pp. 197-208 and pp. 258-282, on pp. 273-274. On Jacob’s opinion, see A. Salvesen, ‘“Hebrew, Beloved of God”: The Adamic Language in the Thought of Jacob, Bishop of Edessa (c. 633 – 708 CE)’, pp. 1-12, on pp. 2-4 (unpublished 2014, available on her Academia.edu page) and Minov, ‘Cave of Treasures’ (see n. 3), pp. 168-169. Michael the Elder mentions Jacob’s opinion on the matter and credits John with the same opinion, which suggests that John may have discussed this issue in his now lost Chronicle, see Chronique de Michel le Language, Literacy and Historical Apologetics 3

The most popular argument for the primacy of Aramaic/Syriac was an ety- mological one: the term ‘Hebrew’ (‘ebroyo), supposedly derived from the fact that Abraham had crossed (Syriac, ‘Əbar) the river Euphrates, was interpreted as proof that Syriac predated Hebrew. East-Syriac authors of the eighth, ninth and/or tenth centuries attribute this theory to Theodoret of Cyrus’ teacher Theodore of Mopsuestia6 (350 – 428 C.E.), but in the Syriac Renaissance it came to be attributed to Ephrem by West-Syriac (the Syriac Orthodox patriarch of Antioch Michael the Elder7 [1126-1199 C.E.] and maphrian Barhe- braeus8 [1226-1286 C.E.]) as well as East-Syriac authors (Solomon of Basrah9 [c. 1222 C.E.] and ‘Abdisho bar Brikha of Nisibis10 [d. 1318 C.E.]).11 The earliest extant West-Syriac source that identifies Aramaic as the primeval language is the Book of the Cave of Treasures, a piece of Rewritten Bible, known to West-Syriac as well as East-Syriac Christians, whose sixth- or early seventh- century West-Syriac author attributed his own work to Ephrem.12 Denouncing ‘ancient authors’ who argued that Hebrew was the only language that was spoken before the division of languages (presumably a reference to the Book of Jubilees),

Syrien, trans. J.-B. Chabot, 3 vols. (Paris, 1899-1905), vol. 1, p. 20; ed. J.-B. Chabot (Paris, 1910), p. 10; ed. G.Y. Ibrahim, The Edessa-Aleppo Syriac Codex of the Chronicle of Michael the Great, Text and Translations of the Chronicle of Michael the Great, 1 (Piscataway, NJ, 2009), p. 11. 6 M. Rubin, ‘The Language of Creation or the Primordial Language: A Case of Cultural Polemics in Antiquity’, Journal of Jewish Studies, 49 (1998), pp. 306-333, on pp. 323-324. For doubt about the accuracy of this attribution, see Minov, ‘Cave of Treasures’ (see n. 4), p. 172. In the ninth century, the West-Syriac author Moses bar Kepha (d. 903 C.E.) also identified Syriac as the language of Paradise, see Y. Moss, ‘The Language of Paradise: Hebrew or Syriac? Linguistic Speculations and Linguistic Realities in Late Antiquity’, in Paradise in Antiquity: Jewish and Christian Views, eds. M. Bockmuehl and G.G. Stroumsa (Cambridge, 2010), pp. 120-137, on pp. 128-129. 7 Chronique de Michel le Syrien, trans. Chabot, vol. 1, p. 20; ed. Chabot, p. 10; ed. Ibra- him, Edessa-Aleppo Syriac Codex (see n. 5), p. 11. 8 Barhebraeus, Scholia on the Old Testament. Part I: Genesis – II Samuel, eds. M. Sprengling and W. C. Graham (Chicago, 1931), p. 45. 9 Solomon Metropolitan of Basrah, The Book of the Bee, ed. E.A.W. Budge (Oxford, 1886), p. 42. 10 Abd-Iesu Sobensis Carmina Selecta ex libro Paradisus Eden, ed. and Lat. trans. H. Gis- mondi (Beirut, 1888), p. 4 and p. 110. 11 The attribution of this argument to Ephrem is perhaps related to the fact that the Book of the Cave of Treasures, whose author attributed it to Ephrem, also argues for the primacy of Aramaic/Syriac over Hebrew. 12 On the attribution of this text to Ephrem, see Minov, ‘Cave of Treasures’ (see n. 3), pp. 157-165. 4 Andy Hilkens the author of the Cave of Treasures claimed that Aramaic was the queen of languages from which all other languages derived. Although this idea seems to reflect the author’s hostility towards the Jews and towards three other sacred languages (Hebrew, Greek and Latin), his geographical location and the political context may also matter. Probably writing in a part of Mesopotamia that was controlled by the Persians, the author may have argued for the superiority of Aramaic over these other languages in order to ‘dissociate his community from these paradig- matic representatives [i.e. Jews, Greeks and Romans] of the western rival of Sasanian Iran and to affirm their loyalty to the rulers’.13 In order to obtain this goal, this author deployed several strategies, but of immediate interest for this paper is the author’s focus on script. Highlighting the fact that Aramaic was written from right to left, the author placed languages that were written from left to right like Greek and Latin squarely in the realm of demonic languages.14 The author of the Cave of Treasures does not appear to be the only Syriac author who used script as an argument in this debate. There is a genre of Syriac texts that deploys a similar strategy. Based on information drawn from the Christian Greek chronicle tradition, several Syriac texts offer lists of literate African, Asian and European peoples whose origins are traced back to Noah and his sons. This article is devoted to these lists, of which I shall demonstrate that they must be interpreted in the context of the debate about primacy of language. Syriac, Hebrew and Greek (or rather the Syrians, the Hebrews and the Greeks) are off-set against each other in order to suggest the old age of Syriac, and in some cases even its primacy over Hebrew. Ancient as well as medieval Jewish and Christian historians often contextualized geo-political changes in biblical terms by identifying known peoples with persons and peoples found in the Table of Nations.15 One of the earliest extant Christian applications of this approach can be found in the Diamerismos (Διαμερισμὸς τῆς γῆς), a section of the Chronicle of Hippolytus of Rome devoted to the division of the earth among the three sons of Noah. Essentially, the Diamerismos is a catalogue of the known peoples of the earth, categorized as descendants of Shem, Ham and Japheth. This catalogue further contains detailed descriptions of the sections of the known world: regions, lands, islands, mountains and rivers, as they

13 Ibid., p. 184. 14 Ibid., p. 173. 15 For the earliest Jewish example, see Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, I, 6, 2-4. Language, Literacy and Historical Apologetics 5 had been divided among the three sons of Noah and their offspring. As part of this ethno-geographical exposé, Hippolytus also focused on languages and script. Not only did he list all of the peoples descended from each son of Noah, Hippolytus also specified which of them were literate: sixteen in total. In his investigation of Syriac narratives on the division of the world among the sons of Noah, Witold Witakowski located material from the Diamerismos in a wide variety of historical, ethno-geographical and exegetical texts, written from the seventh until the thirteenth centuries.16 In contrast to other parts of this material, these literacy lists were not included in every dependant of the Diamerismos. Furthermore, they also circulated independently, often furnished with a brief introduction about the division of languages after the fall of the Tower of Babel. Their independent transmission in manuscripts as early as the ninth and as late as the eighteenth century suggests a significant interest of Syriac Christians in the subject of script and literacy. In this article I will suggest that this interest was not necessarily (or at least not solely) academic.17 The adaptation of these lists in the course of the transmission from Greek to Syriac as well as the internal evolution of the Syriac tradition indicates that these lists, especially when transmitted independently, contributed to the debate about the antiquity of Syriac/Aramaic.

1. Literate Peoples of the Earth in the Greek Chronicle Tradition

In order to better understand the internal evolution of the Syriac tradition, it is necessary first to discuss the Greek tradition on which it was originally based.18 Such a discussion must inevitably begin with the Chronicle of Hippolytus who divided the peoples of the earth as descendants of Japheth, Ham and Shem (in that order). The peoples of Japheth (§81-82) who know writing are the Iberians (i.e. the Georgians), the Latins ‘with the letters the Romans use’, the Spaniards,

16 W. Witakowski, ‘The Division of the Earth between the Descendants of Noah in Syr- iac Tradition’, Aram, 5 (1993), pp. 635-656. 17 On the function of this material in historiography, see Witakowski, ‘The Division of the Earth’ (see n. 16), pp. 652-653. 18 In this article I will not discuss an Armenian text, which could be dependent on the Syriac tradition, see M.E. Stone, Armenian Apocrypha Relating to Adam and Eve, Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha, 14 (Leiden, 1996), p. 159 and p. 163. I am thankful to Adam McCollum for pointing me to this reference. 6 Andy Hilkens the Greeks (Hellenes), the Medes and the Armenians. Only four Hamite peoples are said to be literate: the Phoenicians, the Egyptians, the Pamphylians and the Phrygians (§§134-135). Lastly, Hippolytus lists six literate peoples that are descended from Shem (§192): the Hebrews or Judeans, the Persians, the Medes,19 the Chaldeans, the Indians (it is unclear if the Ethiopians or the inhab- itants of the Indian subcontinent are meant) and the Assyrians.

Son of Noah People Japheth – Iberians – Latins or Romans – Spaniards – Hellenes – Medes – Armenians Ham – Phoenicians – Egyptians – Pamphylians – Phrygians Shem – Hebrews or Judeans – Persians – Medes – Chaldeans – Indians – Assyrians

Not surprisingly, traces of these literacy lists also turn up in later representatives of the Greek chronicle tradition: the Chronicon Paschale (c. 630 C.E.),20 a now lost Alexandrian Greek Chronicle of the late fifth or early sixth century that was the source text of an eighth-century Latin translation (the Excerpta Latina Bar- bari or Chronographia Scaligeriana21), and the Eklogè chronographias of George Syncellus (d. soon after 813).22 In contrast to the Syriac tradition, there is very

19 The Medes were listed among the Japhethites as well as the Shemites. 20 Edition and Latin translation in L. Dindorf, Chronicon Paschale, CSHB, 2 vols. (Bonn, 1832), vol. 1, pp. 44-64. 21 Edition and English translation in B. Garstad, Pseudo-Methodius, Apocalypse: An Alex- andrian World Chronicle, Dumbarton Oaks Medieval Library, 14 (Cambridge, Mass. – London, 2012), pp. 142-311, on pp. 148-173. 22 Edition in A.A. Mosshammer, Georgii Syncellii Ecloga chronographica (Leipzig, 1984), pp. 48-55; translation in W. Adler and P. Tuffin, The Chronography of George Synkellos: A Byzantine Chronicle of Universal History from the Creation (Oxford, 2002), pp. 63-70. Language, Literacy and Historical Apologetics 7 little variation between the Greek and Latin witnesses. The testimony of (the Latin translation of) the Alexandrian World Chronicle is identical to that of Hippolytus,23 and the only difference between Syncellus and Hippolytus is that the former reversed the order of the sons of Noah from Japhethites-Hamites- Shemites to Shemites-Hamites-Japhethites.24 The author of the Chronicon Paschale copied Hippolytus’ version of the lists of literate Hamite and Shemite peoples, omitting the Egyptians among the Hamites. In contrast, the list of literate Japhethite peoples in the Chroni- con Paschale is an updated version of Hippolytus’: the Iberians are equated with the Tyrannians, and the Cappadocians, Tabarinians, Sarmatians, Scyth- ians, and Bastarnians were added to the list.25 On two separate occasions the Constantinopolitan author of the Chronicon Paschale identifies Epiphanius’ Ancoratus as his source, even though the Palestinian-Cypriot church father never focused on the level of literacy of the nations of the earth in this text.26 That having been said, Epiphanius did incorporate plenty of material from the Diamerismos in his writings, so the author of the Chronicon Paschale may have confused the Ancoratus with another text, possibly even a now lost chronicle.27 As will become clear shortly, the Epiphanian references are noteworthy, because Epiphanius is also referred to in the Syriac tradition.

2. The Syriac Witnesses

2.1. Pseudo-Eusebius of Caesarea, On the Families of Languages The earliest preserved witnesses to the Syriac reception of the literacy list are two texts in manuscripts of the ninth century. The first is a treatise On the Families of Languages,28 attributed to Eusebius of Caesarea and preserved in

23 Alexandrian World Chronicle, ed. and trans. Garstad, pp. 153, 157 and 163. 24 George Syncellus, Eklogè chronographias, ed. Mosshammer, p. 50, 52 and 55; trans. Adler and Tuffin, pp. 64, 67 and 69. 25 Chronicon Paschale, ed. and trans. Dindorf, vol. 1, pp. 52, 56, and 48. 26 Ibid., p. 44 and 53. 27 In his Ancoratus (§112-113) Epiphanius only included a Table of Nations. For the theory that Epiphanius wrote a chronicle, see P. Van Nuffelen and L. Van Hoof, The Fragmentary Greek Chronicles of Late Antiquity (in preparation). 28 Ed. and Latin trans. in E.-W. Brooks, ‘De familiis linguarum’, in Chronica minora, 3 vols., CSCO, 3 (Paris, 1905), vol. 3, p. 357 (ed.), vol. 3, pp. 282-283 (trans.). 8 Andy Hilkens

British Library (BL) Add. 14,541, f. 52rv, a West-Syriac vellum leaf of the ninth century.29 On the Families of Languages consists of two parts: a Table of Nations as in Genesis 10, which is a list of peoples descended from Japheth, Ham and Shem (in that order) and their sons and grandsons (list A), followed by a list of those peoples that were literate (list B). List A (or ‘the book of generations’ as it is referred to in the text) has some additional material, including foundations of cities by Nimrod, known from the Syriac chronicle tradition, as well as brief descriptions of the part of the world that each son of Noah inherited: Japheth inherited ‘the West and the North’, Ham ‘the South and a little bit of the West’, and Shem ‘the entire East and a little bit of the South that borders (ܐܡ�ܚܬܬܡ) with the South Eastern side’. This geographical information is only vaguely reminiscent of information provided by Hippolytus.30 List A is followed by list B, a list of the literate peoples descended from Japheth (six), Shem (five) and Ham (four), preceded by the total number (fifteen). This is one people less than those that were identified as literate by Hippolytus who lists six Japhethites, four Ham- ites and six Shemites. List B is preceded by a short introduction. Because this introduction has similarities with the introductions to literacy lists in other witnesses, I provide the text and a translation of this introduction here.

ܢܝܥܕܝܕ̈ ܢܝܘܗ̈ ܐܢܫܠ̈ ܐܡ�ܟܕ ܒܘܬ Again (on) how many languages exist that ܟܝܐ ܬܠܐܫܕ ܐܕܗ ܠܛܡ ܐܪܦܣ know writing. Because of that which you ܀ܟܠ ܐܢܥܕܘܫܡ ܬܟܪܕܐܕ ܡܕܡ asked, I will indicate to you according to ܢܝܕܝܗܕ ܐܫܢܝܢܒ̈ ܘܠܒܠܒܬܐ ܢܝܕ ܠܒܒܒ that which I understand. ܒܘܬ ܐܕܗܘ .ܢܝܪܬܘ̈ ܢܝܥܒܫ̈ ܐܢܫܠܠ̈ [In] Babylon, men were confused so that ܢܝܥܕܝܕ̈ ܢܝܘܗ ܐܡ�ܟܕ ܥܕܬܕ ܬܝܒܨܕ there (came to be) seventy-two languages. ܟܠ ܐܢܥܕܘܡ ܐܕܗ ܦܐܘ ܐܪܦܤ. And so again I want you to know how many (languages) exist that know writing. And so (I will) also make them known to you.

29 Description of the manuscript in W. Wright, Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in the Brit- ish Museum Acquired since the Year 1838, 3 vols. (London, 1870-1872), vol. 3, p. 1040 (DCCCCXII). 30 Comp. Hippolytus, Chronicle, eds. A. Bauer and R. Helm, Die griechischen christli- chen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte, 36 (Bonn, 1955) (§79, §83, §90 [Tigris], §136, §188, §191). Language, Literacy and Historical Apologetics 9

The total number of languages (seventy-two) agrees with Hippolytus.31 The attribution of On the Families of Languages to Eusebius of Caesarea is incor- rect, because Eusebius never discussed this material. However, it is worth noting that, on the basis of the identification of Eusebius as his source by the historian John Malalas (c. 490-570 C.E.), who integrated minor geographical details from the Diamerismos in his Chronicle Epitome, the existence of an interpolated version of Eusebius’ Chronicle has been suggested.32 Such a text could well be the basis for the misattribution of this Syriac fragment on the history of languages.

2.2. David bar Paulos, On the Generations of the Sons of Noah An equally ancient witness is a text, written by the eighth- or ninth-century polymath David bar Paulos (David of Bet Rabban, as he is called in the manuscript), preserved in another manuscript of the ninth century, the miscellany BL Add. 14620, ff. 29v-30v.33 In the manuscript, the text is given the title ‘On the Generations of the Sons of Noah’, but it is probably an excerpt from a larger treatise that is now lost. This excerpt consists of four parts: an introduction, followed by lists of the descendants of Japheth, Ham and Shem (in that order). In his

31 Hippolytus, Chronicle (§53) has seventy-two tongues, but seventy nations. Others have seventy, Witakowski, ‘The Division of the Earth’ (see n. 16), p. 639, n. 11. 32 E. Jeffreys, ‘Malalas’ Sources’, in Studies in John Malalas, eds. E. Jeffreys and B. Croke, Byzantina Australiensia, 6 (Sydney, 1990), pp. 167-216, on p. 180. 33 Description of the manuscript in Wright, Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts (see n. 29), vol. 2, pp. 800-803, on p. 803. The miscellany contains a variety of philosophical, gram- matical, historical and geographical treatises. Edition of David’s treatise in P.A. de Lagarde, Praetermissorum libri duo (Göttingen, 1879), pp. 244-249. A re-edition and translation is being prepared by Sergey Minov, who has kindly allowed me access to his work-in-pro- gress, which will be published as S. Minov, ‘A Syriac Tabula gentium from the Abbasid Period: David bar Paulos on Genesis 10’, Христианский Восток, 9 [15] (forthcoming 2020). David’s authorship of this excerpt certainly seems plausible, given his interest in geography as well as languages. For his work on the seven climates, see Ǧ. al-Qardāḥī, Liber thesauri de arte poetica syrorum (Roma, 1875), pp. 41-46 and R. Gottheil, ‘Contribu- tions to the history of Geography, III’, Hebraica, 8 (1891), pp. 65-78; 9 (1892-1893), pp. 117-118. For his works on languages (grammar and a poem on the alphabet), see Richard Gottheil, ‘Dawidh bar Paulos, a Syriac Grammarian’, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 15 (1893), pp. cxi-cxviii, and id., ‘A Midrashic Poem on the Alphabet, Attrib- uted to David bar Paul’, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und verwandte Gebiete, 8 (1893), pp. 86-99. 10 Andy Hilkens

introduction, after mentioning Eusebius as one of the previous people who focused on this material, David provides the numbers of peoples, descended from Noah’s sons, or rather, the number of different languages that were known to these peoples, as well as the number of literate peoples: fifteen Japhethite languages and six literate Japhethite peoples, thirty Hamite languages and four literate Hamite peoples, and twenty-seven Shemite languages and five literate Shemite peoples. In total, David claims, there are ‘seventy- two nations and fifteen scripts’. His choice of words is quite confusing, because seventy-two is not his total number of nations, but the number of languages. In the next sections David actually distinguishes between the numbers of nations, languages, and alphabets. Thus, the Japhethites, for instance, had fifteen languages, six alphabets, and twenty-nine nations. Given that David counts fifty Hamite nations, the total number of nations must exceed seventy-nine.34 Two elements in David’s narrative are worth noting. First is his correction of the ܐܝܦܠܐ̈ , Alfāyē to ܐܢܠܐ̈ , Alans in the list of literate Japhethite peoples. This suggests that David was comparing two texts: one with the correct reference to the Alans and another with a scribal error. This correction explains why the title of this excerpt states that David ‘corrected and elucidated’ the information ‘about the generations of the sons of Noah’.35 Second is David’s discussion of the Hebrew and Syriac languages in the Shemite section. He retraces Hebrew and/or Syriac, through two sources, to Eber, the son of Arphaxad and father of Peleg. Peleg helped construct the Tower of Babel, but his father Eber, because of whom the Israelites were called Hebrews, kept himself aside. Thus, it was Eber who preserved the primeval language: Hebrew according to one source and Syriac according to another. His reference to the testimony of Eusebius suggests that David is dependent on a pseudo-Eusebian source. Whether this text was On the Families of Languages, an interpolated version of Eusebius’ Chronicle or a common source with the former here cannot be determined. In any case, his knowledge of the material that is also extant in On the Families of Languages is confirmed by the similarities between the geographical information in

34 The number of Shemite nations is unclear. 35 Minov’s translation. Language, Literacy and Historical Apologetics 11

David’s treatise and the Pseudo-Eusebian On the Families of Languages. According to David, the Japhethites were in the West and in the North. The Hamite territory is identified as ‘a little bit from the South and a little bit from the North’ and the Shemites lived in ‘the entire East, and the portion of the corner from the South that borders (ܐܡ�ܚܬܡ) with the eastern side of the South East’.36

2.3. Peoples after the Confusion of Languages in Babylon The third witness is an anonymous and untitled treatise. Because of its open- ing sentence, it has been called Peoples after the Confusion of Languages in Babylon in modern scholarship (I will refer to this text as PCLB).37 The sole witness of PCLB is BL Add. 25,875 f. 77v-78r, an East-Syriac manuscript that was copied in 1709 AD.38 In this manuscript PCLB immediately precedes a treatise On the Four Cardinal Points, attributed to Andronicus, ‘the philosopher, rich in wisdom’.39 As such, these two texts were edited and translated as a single unit by E.-W. Brooks40 as well as François Nau.41 Yet, the presence of Andronicus’ treatise (without PCLB) in two other manuscripts – the eighteenth-century East-Syriac ms. Berlin syr. 59 (olim ms. orient. Quart. 82), f. 72v-75r42 and two leaves (f. 180r-181r) in a nineteenth-century hand in

36 I have slightly adapted Minov’s translation. 37 E.-W. Brooks, ‘Descriptio populorum et plagarum’, in Chronica Minora, vol. 3, p. 351, l. 1-2 (ed.). ‘Again, through our Lord, I write down which peoples existed after the confusion of languages in Babylon’. Witakowski, ‘The Division of the Earth’ (see n. 16), p. 643. 38 Description in Wright, Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts (see n. 29), vol. 3, p. 1066 (DCCCCXXII). 39 In spite of what was argued in S. Brock, ‘Some Texts in the Mingana Collection’, Journal for Semitic Studies, 14 (1969), pp. 205-226, Andronicus the chronographer and Andronicus the philosopher, ethnographer and historian, are probably one and the same, see A. Hilkens, The Anonymous Syriac Chronicle of 1234 and its Sources, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 272, Bibliothèque de Byzantion, 18 (Leuven, 2018), pp. 229-276. 40 See note 38. 41 F. Nau, ‘Révélations et légendes. Méthodius. – Clément. – Andronicus’, Journal Asia- tique, 11.9 (1917), pp. 415-471. 42 This manuscript was copied in Urmia by the priest Yeshu bar Hidirsha. Description in E. Sachau, Verzeichniss der syrischen Handschriften, 2 vols. (Berlin, 1899), vol. 1, pp. 200- 204. This witness was edited and translated into German (without knowledge of Brooks’ and Nau’s editions and translations) in G. Furlani, ‘Andronikos über die Bewohner der Grenzen der Erde in syrischer Sprache’, Zeitschrift für Semitistik, 5 (1927), pp. 238-249. 12 Andy Hilkens the eighteenth-century West-Syriac ms. Mingana syr. 18343 – suggests that PCLB was an independent text that was attached to On the Four Cardinal Points at a later date.44 PCLB classifies the ‘peoples (ܐܡ̈ ܡܐ), the nations (ܐܬܡ̈ ܡܐ) and the languages’ of the earth as sons of Shem, Ham and Japheth (in that order). In each case, the author provides the total number of peoples that sprang forth from every son of Noah (without mentioning their names), followed by the number of literate peoples as well as their names. Each section finishes with a brief description of the region of the earth that each son of Noah had inherited. From Shem are said to have sprung forth twenty-two unidentified ‘peoples, nations and languages’, only five of which are literate; thirteen from Ham, four of which literate; and thirty from Japheth, six of which literate. In total, there are seventy-two unidentified peoples, fifteen of which are literate. Like Pseudo- Eusebius’ On the Families of Languages, the list of literate Shemites, Hamites and Japhethites in PCLB is also followed by a brief description of the parts of the earth that were assigned to each son of Noah. The Shemites inhabited the ‘centre of the Earth’, which extends ‘from the East until the Great Sea of Hadrian (HDRYNWS, presumably referring to the Adriatic Sea) from the West’; the Hamites ‘the entire Southern region and a little bit of the West’; and Japheth ‘the Eastern frontier’, which extends ‘from the mountain of Nod, which is at the edge of the East, until the Tigris and the Northern borders, from BQṬYNWS (= Bactria) to GDRYWN (= Gadeira)’.45 Although the additional geographical information is similar to that in On the Families of Languages, there are also several discrepancies such as the presence of specific details in PCLB (names of regions, mountains, and bodies of waters) and its attribution of part of the East to Japheth. That both texts identify Ham’s inheritance as the South and a small part of the West suggests that they may have been influenced by the same source.

2.4. The Note The fourth witness is a short note (Note), which is also associated with Androni- cus’ On the Four Cardinal Points, only in the same East-Syriac manuscript BL

43 Brock, ‘Some Texts’ (see n. 39). 44 Witakowski, ‘The Division of the Earth’ (see n. 16), pp. 643-644. 45 Brooks, ‘Descriptio populorum et plagarum’ (see n. 37), p. 278; Nau, ‘Révélations et légendes’ (see n. 41), p. 468. Language, Literacy and Historical Apologetics 13

Add. 25,875.46 Immediately after a sentence that seems to conclude Andronicus’ treatise (‘the end of [the Treatise on] the Four Cardinal Points of Andronicus the Wise’) follows a list of sixteen literate peoples without any division into Shemite, Hamite and Japhethite (although that is the order in which they are named):

‘Those who know writing are the Syrians, the Hebrews, the Babylonians, the Persians, the Elamites, the Egyptians, the Kushites, the Indians, the Phoenicians, the Greeks, the Amorites, the Alans, the Romans, the Armenians, the Arabs (ܐ݀ܝܝܛ̈ , Tayyāyē) and the Georgians (ܐܝܓܪܘܓ̈ )’.

The names provided by the Note are almost identical to those in PCLB, which led Witold Witakowsi to conclude that the early eighteenth-century East- Syriac scribe of BL Add. 25,875 copied PCLB’s list of literate peoples, removed the division into descendants of Ham, Shem and Japheth and included the Arabs between the Armenians and the Georgians.47 The reason for the addition of the Arabs (and thus Arabic) seems to be a willingness to update the list to the contemporary geographical and linguistic context, but why the Arabs were included among the descendants of Japheth rather than Shem is unclear. Presumably, the author of the Note may only have realized at the very last minute that his source (and he) had forgotten to mention the Arabs. Upon closer inspection, there may be more to the Note than meets the eye. In BL Add. 25,875, Andronicus’ treatise is concluded by a paragraph that is not extant in the other two witnesses to this text.48

46 Witakowski, ‘The Division of the Earth’ (see n. 16), p. 644: ‘After the treatise of Andronicus unit G is repeated, without the division into the three Noachite groups and with the addition of the Arabs’. 47 Ibid., p. 644. 48 Admittedly, Ming. Syr. 183 is incomplete, but the Berlin manuscript, which is very close to this manuscript (both follow the same order of cardinal points: [West]-East- South-North), ends with the description of the northern quarter of the world, not with a discussion of the number of peoples on earth. In contrast, the ‘abbreviated version’ of the treatise in BL Add. 25,875 follows the order East-West-North-South. 14 Andy Hilkens

This paragraph makes much more sense as an introduction to the Note rather than as an abrupt end to the treatise of Andronicus. Not only because the Note lists those fifteen literate peoples that are mentioned in this paragraph, but also because its reference to the seventy-two peoples remind us of the introductions of On the Families of Languages and PCLB. Even though the two are split up by two sentences – one that distinguishes between human and non-human animals by linking language to intelligence and another that marks the end of the treatise by Andronicus – they make much more sense as a whole:

‘From Shem, Ham and Japheth, there are seventy-two peoples, nations and languages. Among them are fifteen peoples that know writing. And the rest (of the peoples) have not been intelligent since Creation, living on the face of the Earth like unintelligent animals. (...49) Those who know writing are the Syrians, the Hebrews, the Babylonians, the Persians, the Elamites, the Egyptians, the Kush- ites, the Indians, the Phoenicians, the Greeks, the Amorites, the Alans, the Romans, the Armenians, the Arabs and the Georgians’.

In this form – a list of literate peoples preceded by an introduction – it is quite similar to the previously described witnesses. Thus, it may well be that this list is not a scribal note after all, but part of an earlier Vorlage.

2.5. A witness in a manuscript of the Book of the Cave of Treasures The fifth witness is also linked to PCLB. A list of literate peoples that is similar to PCLB was integrated into a copy of the Cave of Treasures in Har- vard Coll. Libr., Syr 39, a West-Syriac manuscript that was copied in Deir al-Zafaran in Tur Abdin in 1846 C.E.50 In the Cave of Treasures this list that I shall call BCT replaces a version of the Table of Nations (XXIV 17-22) that presented the ‘seventy-two languages and seventy tribal leaders’, descended from Japheth, Ham and Shem (in that order).51 Like PCLB, BCT lists five

49 Here follows the closing sentence of Andronicus’ treatise. 50 For an edition of the text, see the footnotes in Ri’s 1989 edition, p. 193 (ms. d)). For the translation see S.-M. Ri, Commentaire sur la Caverne des trésors, CSCO, 581, Subsidia, 103 (Leuven, 2000), pp. 295-296. This witness is mentioned by Witakowski, ‘The Divi- sion of the Earth’ (see n. 16), p. 641, n. 18 who did not connect it to PCLB. 51 Ri, Commentaire, pp. 294-295. This version also appears to have made it into Arabic, see M.D. Gibson, Apocrypha Arabica, Studia Sinaitica, 8 (London, 1901), p. 34, noted by Nau, ‘Révélations et legends (see n. 41)’, p. 468, n. 2. Language, Literacy and Historical Apologetics 15 literate Shemite, four Hamite and six Japhethite peoples (in that order), interlaced with geographical information. The geographical details provided by PCLB and BCT are almost identical, indicating that they are reliant on a common source (which I shall call CS*). In fact, BCT offers variants of geographical terms that are corrupted in PCLB, which allows us to identify them. For instance, the equivalent of PCLB’s BAQṬYNWS in BCT is BQṬRYWH, thus confirming Brooks’ hypothesis that the term refers to Bactria. There are minor differences between PCLB and BCT, such as the different sequence of Shemite peoples (Persians-Babylonians vs. Babylonians- Persians), but the main difference lies in the list of the literate Japhethites. BCT’s reference to the Aramaeans instead of the Armenians can be explained by a simple scribal error, but crucially, BCT has retained Hippolytus’ Greek references to the Iberians and the Medes, whereas they have been replaced by the Georgians and the Amorites in PCLB. Thus, even though the manuscript of BCT is more than a century later than that of PCLB (1709), it more closely represents CS* in this regard.

2.6. Pseudo-Epiphanius of Salamis, On the Scripts of Languages Next is a treatise, which I shall call On the Scripts of Languages, following the title it is awarded in Paris, BnF Syr. 9. This text actually survives in two other manuscripts. In all three cases it is ascribed to Epiphanius of Salamis, thus perhaps linking it with the Greek tradition, in which material from the Dia- merismos is attributed to the same church father in the Chronicon Paschale. (a) the West-Syriac ms. Ming. Syr. 480 f. 14r, written in Mardin in 1713 C.E. (Epiph. A);52 (b) a marginal note in the thirteenth-century West-Syriac ms. BnF Syr. 9, f. 165 (Epiph. B);53

52 Description in A. Mingana, Catalogue of the Mingana Collection of Manuscripts, vol. 1: Syriac and Garshuni Manuscripts (Birmingham, 1933), p. 865 (D). I am thankful to the staff of the Cadbury Research Library for their hospitality and help in the consultation of the relevant manuscripts. 53 Worth noting is that this list precedes a list of Jewish and Christian historians. For the edition and translation of these texts, see F. Nau, ‘Une liste des chronographes’, Revue de l’Orient Chrétien, 20 (1915-1917), pp. 102-103. This is the only witness to On the Writ- ing of Languages, mentioned by Witakowski, ‘The Division of the Earth’ (see n. 16), p. 651. 16 Andy Hilkens

(c) the East-Syriac ms. Ming. Syr. 108,54 f. 129, copied on a Thursday in 1550 C.E. (Epiph. C). All three witnesses consist of a list of literate peoples, descended from the sons of Noah, preceded by a brief introduction. Although these three witnesses preserve the attribution to the same church father, the introductions and the contents of the list differ considerably. In fact, some of these Epipha- nian witnesses bear closer resemblance to entirely different witnesses, such as the Pseudo-Eusebian text, than to the Epiphanian ones. Since these texts have never been edited nor translated, I provide editions and translations of their introductions here. In order to facilitate comparison of their contents I discuss the introductions and the actual lists of peoples separately. Let us begin with the introductions.

Ming. Syr. 480 (Epiph. A) Ms. Paris BNF syr. 9 Ming. Syr. 108 (Epiph. C) (Epiph. B) ܣܘܪܦܘܩܕ ܣܘܝܢܐܦܝܦܐ ܣܘܝܢܦܝܦܐ ܐܫܝܕܩܕ ܠܥ ܣܝܢܦܝܦܐ ܐܫܝܕܩܕ ܡܕܡ ܟܝܐ ܬܠܐܫܕ̣̇ ܠܛܡ ܐܪܦܣ̈ ܠܛܡ ܣܘܪܦܘܩܕ ܟܝܐ ܐܢܫܠ̈ ܐܡ�ܟܕ ܠܝܒܒܒ .ܟܪܕܐܕ ܬܚܟܫܐܕ ܢܝܪܬܘ ܢܝܥܒܫ ܢܡ̇ . ܐܢܫܠܕ̈ ܢܘܗܠ ܬܝܐܘ ܢܠܠܡܡܕ ܟܝܕܝܗ ܐܢܫܠ̈ ܘܠܒܠ̣ ܒܬܐ̈ ܘܠܒܠܒܬܐܕ̣̇ ܐܢܫܠ̇ ܐܪܦܣ ܢܝܪܬܘ̈ ܢܝܥܒܫ ܢܝܘܗܕܘ ܀ܠܝܒܒ ܬܝܒܨ̣ ܒܘܬ̣ ܐܕܗܕܘ ܢܝܥܕܝܕ ܢܝܘܗ ܐܡ�ܟ ܥܕܬܕ ܐܕܗ ܦܐܘ .ܐܪܦܣ ܟܠ ܐܢܐ ܥܕܘܡ.. Epiphanius of Cyprus on Of saint Epiphanius of Of saint Epiphanius on how what you asked, according to Cyprus on the scripts of many languages are spoken what I could understand, the (those) languages of the and have a script.55 languages were confused in seventy-two languages that Babylon, so that there came were confused [in] Babylon. to be seventy-two and that behold also you want to know how many (languages) exist that know writing. So behold, I will let you know.

54 Mingana, Catalogue (see n. 52), vol. 1, p. 264 (D). 55 The same word ܐܪܦܣ is used as in Epiph. A, but I have translated it differently here in order to end up with a better English translation. Language, Literacy and Historical Apologetics 17

There are some similarities between these introductions apart from the reference to Epiphanius such as the returning reference to the confusion of languages at Babylon and the total number of languages (seventy-two), but ultimately they are quite different. Crucially however, there are also similarities between some of the introductions of On the Writing of Languages and those of entirely different witnesses. This is especially the case with Epiph. A and the Pseudo-Eusebian On the Families of Languages. I have placed them side-by-side here to facilitate comparison.

Ming. Syr. 480 (Epiph. A) On the Families of Languages ̇ ݀ ̈ ̈ ܬܠܐܫܕ̣ ܠܛܡ ܣܘܪܦܘܩܕ ܣܘܝܢܐܦܝܦܐ ܢܝܥܕܝܕ ܢܝܘܗ ܐܢܫܠ ܐܡ�ܟܕ ܒܘܬ ܠܝܒܒܒ .ܟܪܕܐܕ ܬܚܟܫܐܕ ܡܕܡ ܟܝܐ ܟܝܐ ܬܠܐܫܕ ܐܕܗ ܠܛܡ ܐܪܦܣ ̈ ܢܝܘܗܕܘ ܟܝܕܝܗ ܐܢܫܠ ܘܠܒܠ̣ ܒܬܐ̈ ܀ܟܠ ܐܢܥܕܘܫܚ ܬܟܪܕܐܕ ܡܕܡ ܬܝܒܨ̣ ܒܘܬ̣ ܐܕܗܕܘ ܢܝܪ̈ܬܘ ܢܝܥܒܫ ܢܝܕܝܗܕ ܐܫܢܝܢܒ̈ ܘܠܒܠܒܬܐ ܢܝܕ ܠܒܒ .ܐܪܦܣ ܢܝܥܕܝܕ ܢܝܘܗ ܐܡ�ܟ ܥܕܬܕ ܒܘܬ ܐܕܗܘ .ܢܝܪܬܘ̈ ܢܝܥܒܫ̈ ܐܢܫܠܠ̈ ܟܠ ܐܢܐ ܥܕܘܡ ܐܕܗ ܦܐܘ.. ܢܝܘܗ ܐܡ�ܟܕ ܥܕܬܕ ܬܝܢܒܨܕ ܐܕܗ ܦܐܘ ܐܪܦܤ ܢܝܥܕܝܕ̈ ܟܠ ܐܢܥܕܘܡ. Epiphanius of Cyprus on what you asked, Again (on) how many languages exist that according to what I could understand, the know writing. Because of that which you languages were confused in Babylon, so that asked, I will indicate to you according to there came to be seventy-two and that that which I understand. The peoples were behold also you want to know how many confused in Babylon so that there (came (languages) exist that know writing. So to be) seventy-two languages. And so behold, I will let you know. again I want you to know how many of these (languages) there are that know writing and also (I want to) indicate them to you.

It appears that the introductions of On the Writing of Languages (at least in the case of Epiph. A) and On the Families of Languages go back to the same Vorlage. Yet, despite the similarities in their introductions, there are too many discrepancies between the lists of literate peoples that these two witnesses provide, which makes a reconstruction of a common source nearly impossible and therefore unnecessary. In terms of the lists of literate peoples themselves, there are only two differences between Epiph. A and Epiph. C: the order of Noah’s sons itself 18 Andy Hilkens

(Japheth-Shem-Ham vs. Shem-Japheth-Ham56) as well as the additional reference to the Turks at the end of Epiph. A. The latter is a much later addition, which brings the total number of literate peoples to sixteen, not fifteen. Otherwise, the lists of literate Shemites, Japhethites and Hamites in Epiph. A and Epiph. C are identical to the point where the sequence of the peoples within each genealogical unit is exactly the same.57 In contrast, the testimony of Epiph. B is very different from the others in three respects: the order of the sons of Noah (Shem-Ham-Japheth), the replacement of the Elamites by the Arabians among the Shemites, and the sequence of the Japhethites.

2.7. Michael the Elder The last two witnesses are two Syriac Orthodox chronicles from the Syriac Renaissance: the Chronicle of the patriarch Michael the Elder (1126-1199 C.E.) and the Anonymous Chronicle up to the Year 1234. The second book of Michael’s Chronicle covers the period between the Flood and the birth of Abraham. The eighth chapter of this book provides an updated version of the Table of Nations.58 This Table of Nations is followed by a brief passage on Yoniṭon, the fourth son of Noah and first astronomer after the Flood, and (more importantly) a list of literate as well as illiterate (!) peoples descended from the sons of Noah (Shem, Ham, Japheth; six, three and four peoples respectively, i.e. thirteen in total).59 Not only is Michael the only Syriac author who explicitly mentions illiterate peoples, his testimony is crucial for another reason: Michael’s list of literate peoples resembles the Greek tradition much more closely than the other Syriac witnesses do: not only is his chronicle the only witness that does not identify the Kushites as a literate Hamite people (in fact he explicitly identifies them as illiterate), Michael is also the only one who uses the term Assyrians as well as the Syrians, who are equated with each other, and the

56 Epiph. C in fact erroneously refers to Japheth twice. 57 There is a scribal error in Epiph. C: Bberians should read Iberians. 58 Chronique de Michel le Syrien, trans. Chabot, vol. 1, p. 32; ed. Chabot, p. 17; ed. Ibra- him, Edessa-Aleppo Syriac Codex (see n. 5), p. 18. 59 Between these two lists there is a short fragment on Yoniṭon, the fourth son of Noah and first astronomer after the Flood. Language, Literacy and Historical Apologetics 19 only one who mentions the Chaldeans (among the Shemites), and the Pam- phylians and the Phrygians (among the Japhethites). How closely Michael’s testimony reflects the Greek tradition will become evident in the comparison of the Greek and Syriac traditions below.

2.8. The Anonymous Chronicle up to the Year 1234 The pre-Constantinian section of the slightly later Anonymous Chronicle up to the Year 1234 preserves a list of sixteen literate peoples descended from Shem, Ham and Japheth under the title ‘fifteen languages in the world that know literature and writing’.60 This literacy list appears immediately after a description of the regions of the world that were given to the sons of Noah (in the same order as above), which is based on material from the Book of Jubilees (for the part of Shem) and a chronographic source (for the inheritance of Ham and Japheth).61 The list of literate peoples first offers the number of peoples, followed by their names. However, the chronicler adds the Arabians (ܐܝܒܪܐ̈ , Arabāyē rather than ܐܝܝܝܛ̈ , Tayyāyē as in the Note) to the list of literate Shemite peoples, increasing the total number of Shemites to six, coincidentally the same number as in Hippolytus. The chronicler himself (or perhaps even the later copyist of the now lost four- teenth-century manuscript) must have decided to add the Arabians after having copied the numbers of literate peoples and Shemites from his source.

3. Discussion

For an in-depth study of the internal development of the Syriac tradition and its relation to the Greek tradition, a closer inspection of the contents of these lists is crucial. In order to facilitate comparison of the contents of these lists (ignoring the introductions and geographical details for the time being) I have boiled their contents down to the lists below, keeping the sons of

60 Anonymi auctoris Chronicon ad annum Christi 1234 pertinens I, ed. J.-B. Chabot, CSCO, 81 (Paris, 1920), p. 44; trans. id., CSCO, 109, Scriptores Syri, 56 (Leuven, 1937), p. 32. 61 Witakowski, ‘The Division of the Earth’ (see n. 16), p. 652; Hilkens, Anonymous Syriac Chronicle (see n. 39), pp. 87-93. 20 Andy Hilkens

Noah and the respective peoples descended from them in the order in which they can be found in the text. The list of witnesses begins with Hippolytus’ testimony and ends with the Anonymous Chronicle up to the Year 1234.

Hippolytus: – Japheth: Iberians, Latins/Romans, Spaniards, Greeks (Ἑλληνες), Medes, Armenians – Ham: Phoenicians, Egyptians, Pamphylians, Phrygians – Shem: Hebrews or Judeans, Persians, Medes, Chaldeans, Indians, Assyrians.

Ps.-Eus. (BL Add. 14,541): – Japheth: Greeks, Iberians, Romans, Armenians, Medes, Alans – Shem: Hebrews, Syrians, Babylonians, Persians, Elamites – Ham: Egyptians, Kushites, Phoenicians, Indians

DBP62 (BL Add. 14620): – Japheth: Greeks, Iberians, Romans, Armenians, Medes, Alans, Arabians – Ham: Egyptians, Kushites, Phoenicians, Indians – Shem: Hebrews, Syrians, Babylonians, Persians, Elamites

PCLB (BL Add. 25,875): – Shem: Syrians, Hebrews, Babylonians, Persians, Elamites – Ham: Egyptians, Kushites, Indians, Phoenicians – Japheth: Greeks, Amorites, Alans, Romans, Armenians, Georgians.

Note (BL Add. 25,875): – Shem: Syrians, Hebrews, Babylonians, Persians, Elamites – Ham: Egyptians, Kushites, Indians, Phoenicians – Japheth: Greeks, Amorites, Alans, Romans, Armenians, Arabs, Georgians.

BCT (Harvard Coll. Libr., Syr 39): – Shem: Syrians, Hebrews, Persians, Babylonians, Elamites – Ham: Egyptians, Kushites, Indians, Phoenicians

62 David Bar Paulos. Language, Literacy and Historical Apologetics 21

– Japheth: Greeks, Romans, Iberians, Medes, Alans, Aramaeans (ܐܝܡܪ̈ܐ for ܐܝܢܡܪ̈ܐ, Armenians)].

Epiph. A (Mingana Syr. 480): – Japheth: Greeks, Iberians, Romans, Armenians, Medes, Alans – Shem: Hebrews, Syrians, Babylonians, Persians, Elamites – Ham: Egyptians, Kushites, Phoenicians, Indians – And also the Turks.

Epiph. B (BnF Syr. 9): – Shem: Hebrews, Syrians, Babylonians, Persians, Arabs – Ham: Egyptians, Kushites, Phoenicians, Indians – Japheth: Greeks, Romans, Armenians, Iberians, Medes, Alans

Epiph. C (Mingana Syr. 108) – Shem: Hebrews, Syrians, Babylonians, Persians, Elamites – Japheth: Greeks, Iberians,63 Romans, Armenians, Medes, Alans – Ham:64 Egyptians, Kushites, Phoenicians, Indians

Michael: – Shem: Chaldeans, Assyrians/Syrians, Hebrews, Persians, Medes, Arabians – Ham: Egyptians, Pamphylians, Phrygians – Japheth: Medes, Greeks, Romans, Armenians

Chron. 1234: – Shem: Hebrews, Syrians, Babylonians, Persians, Elamites, Arabians – Japheth: Greeks, Iberians, Franks, Armenians, Medes, Alans, – Ham: Egyptians, Kushites, Phoenicians, Indians

First, some brief observations on the sequence of the sons of Noah in each witness are in order. In the table below I have grouped together those witnesses that preserve the same sequence of the sons of Noah.

63 Ms.: Bberians. 64 Ms.: Japheth. 22 Andy Hilkens

Hippolytus; DBP Ps.-Eus. (9th c.); Chron. 1234; Michael (12th c.); (8th/9th c.) Epiph. A (18th c.) Epiph. C (16th c.) Epiph. B (13th c.); PCLB (18th c.); Note (18th c.); BCT (19th c.) Japheth Japheth Shem Shem Ham Shem Japheth Ham Shem Ham Ham (Ps.-Epiph. C: Japheth Japheth)

The sequence of Noah’s sons differs across the sources. The three witnesses of On the Writing of Languages disagree with each other; even Epiph. A and Epiph. C, which are otherwise virtually identical. Only David bar Paulos retains the order of the sons of Noah as found in Hippolytus’ Chronicle. This suggests that David’s now lost pseudo-Eusebian source retained the original order, unlike the only extant witness to Pseudo-Eusebius’ On the Families of Languages. In the latter text as well as in one version of On the Scripts of Languages (Epiph. A) Japheth remains the first biblical patriarch, but Shem and Ham switch places, perhaps to organize the list from a geographical perspective: the middle of the earth (Shem) is placed between the North (Japheth) and the South (Ham).65 In all other cases, Shem appears first. In only two witnesses, Epiph. C and Chron. 1234, Shem is moved to the front of the list (Shem-Japheth-Ham). In the majority of cases Hippoly- tus’ original order of Japhethites-Hamites-Shemites is simply reversed, as in Syncellus’ Eklogè chronographias. The fact that in most cases the Shemites were moved to the front of the list is not surprising. After all, Shem was the oldest of the three broth- ers and his family tree provides the genealogical framework for Genesis after the division of languages. More importantly, however, the result of the moving of the Shemites to the front of the text was that the Syrians, who had gradually replaced the Assyrians among the literate Shemites, became one of the first peoples to be mentioned, not only among the

65 Coupled with the fact that these two witnesses have similar introductions, they do indeed seem to be based on a common source. Language, Literacy and Historical Apologetics 23

Shemites, but among all of the literate peoples of the earth.66 Hippolytus may have placed the Assyrians last in his list of Shemites, but in the Syriac tradition their equivalent – the Syrians – are moved forward to first or second place, after the Hebrews or in one case (Michael) after the Chaldeans. In order to increase our understanding of the internal development of the literacy list in the Syriac tradition, I shall dissect the individual lists of peoples categorized under each son of Noah and analyse them even further, not only in terms of sequence but also in terms of the names of the peoples that are mentioned. The gradual replacement of the Assyrians by the Syr- ians as well as the moving of the Syrians to the front of the list of literate Shemites have already been mentioned, but there are more changes that allow us to track the evolution of this tradition. In order to facilitate comparison I have set up a table below, in which I provide the contents of each list in each text, not in original order, but rearranged according to the sequence in which they can be found in Hippolytus’ Diamerismos. In order to keep the table as concise as possible, identical testimonies and testimonies that are clearly directly related are grouped together. The Syriac witnesses are not arranged according to chronological order. I have placed Michael’s testimony immediately after Hippolytus’ to highlight the unique status of this Syriac witness and its close relation to the Greek tradition. Michael’s list is followed by two thirteenth-century witnesses: Epiph. B and the Chronicle of 1234. Thereafter follow the witnesses from the later manuscripts, which are grouped together in two columns, the former with the oldest Syriac witness (Pseudo-Eusebius’ On the Families of Languages), two Epiphanian witnesses and BCT, and the latter being the two witnesses from BL Add. 25,875 (18th century).

66 Hippolytus mentioned the Assyrians at the end of the list of Shemites. In all the Syriac sources, the Syrians are mentioned first or second (after the Hebrews) in the list of literate Shemites. Michael mentions the Syrians second after the Chaldeans, but explicitly identifies the Syrians with the Assyrians. This suggests that not Michael but his Syriac source was the one that transmitted this material into Syriac and added the equation of the Assyr- ians with the Syrians to the list. 24 Andy Hilkens (18th c.) ; (18th c.) PCLB Note Georgians Romans Greeks Armenians Alans Arabs ( Note ) Amorites Phoenicians Egyptians Kushites Indians Hebrews Persians Elamites Babylonians Syrians DBP (8th/9th c.); Ps-Eus. (9th c.; Epiph. C (16th c.); Epiph. A (18th c.); BCT (19th c.) Iberians Romans Greeks Medes Armenians Alans Arabians (DBP) Phoenicians Egyptians Kushites Indians Hebrews Persians Elamites Babylonians Syrians Turks (Ps.-Epiph. A) Chron. 1234 (13th c.) Iberians Franks Greeks Medes Armenians Alans Phoenicians Egyptians Kushites Indians Hebrews Persians Elamites Babylonians Syrians Arabians ̈ ܝܝܛ ). 67 Epiph. B (13th c.) Iberians Romans Greeks Medes Armenians Alans Phoenicians Egyptians Kushites Indians Hebrews Persians Babylonians Syrians Arabs ) and Arabs ( ܐ ̈ ܝܒܪܐ Mich. (12th c.) Romans Greeks Medes Armenians Egyptians Pamphylians Phrygians Hebrews Persians Medes Chaldeans Assyrians = Syrians Arabians

Hippol. Iberians Latins = Romans Spaniards Greeks Medes Armenians Phoenicians Egyptians Pamphylians Phrygians Hebrews Persians Medes Chaldeans Indians Assyrians

Ham Shem Japheth I distinguish between Arabians ( ܐ 67 Language, Literacy and Historical Apologetics 25

This comparative list reveals the existence of two distinct ‘traditions’ in Syr- iac: a conservative ‘Greek’ tradition and a progressive Syriac tradition. The conservative tradition, nearly identical to the testimony of Hippolytus, is only represented by Michael. Only he retains Hippolytus’ double mention of the Japhethite and the Shemite Medes, his references to the Hamite Pam- phylians and Phrygians, and the Shemite Chaldeans and Assyrians. Most likely therefore, Michael is dependent, perhaps even directly, on the Syriac source that transmitted this material from Greek into Syriac, before it was heavily reworked. This source, most likely a chronicle, was written before the ninth century, the date of the sole witness to Pseudo-Eusebius’ On the Families of Languages and David bar Paulos’ treatise. That Michael’s source stood at the cusp of the Greek and the Syriac tradition is demonstrated by the case of the Assyrians. Presumably, Michael’s source not only copied the reference to the Assyrians from a Greek source, Hippoly- tus or perhaps more likely another Greek chronicle, but also equated them with the Syrians. This is the origin for all later references to the Syrians in these Syriac lists. Presumably, the reference to the Assyrians was dropped by a dependant of Michael’s source, perhaps another chronicle, which then influenced all later Syriac witnesses. Furthermore, it is also worth noting that in Michael’s Chronicle the Assyrians and the Syrians are mentioned second in the list of literate Shemites, not after the Hebrews, but after the Chaldeans, thus completing a sequence (Chaldeans-Assyrians) from the list in Hippolytus’ Chronicle, with the removal of the Indians, and their insertion in the Hamite list taken into account). Presumably then, the author of Michael’s source was the one who moved the Chaldeans and the Assyrians to the front of the She- mite list, even before the Hebrews, and the Indians to the Hamite list (where we find them in all of the Syriac witnesses). The only remaining difference between Hippolytus and Michael is the latter’s mention of the Arabians, which is probably a later addition of Michael’s own hand. In the progressive Syriac tradition the following changes in the Shemite list can be tracked: the omission of the Assyrians, the replacement of the Medes by the Elamites and the Chaldeans by the Babylonians. With the replacement of the Chaldeans by the Babylonians, the latter lost their prime position, ending up in the middle of the list, after the Syrians and the Hebrews, but before the Persians and the Elamites (Hebrews-Syrians-Babylonians-Persians-Elamites). Within the progressive Syriac tradition, however, another tradition can be 26 Andy Hilkens

isolated that has a slightly different sequence: Syrians-Hebrews-Babylonians- Persians-Elamites. This tradition is represented by only three of nine witnesses of the progressive Syriac tradition, PCLB, BCT and Note, which go back to the common source CS*.68 Given the late dates of these three witnesses, CS* probably represents a later stage of the progressive Syriac tradition. Having said that, the sequence Syrians-Hebrews is also attested in Michael, albeit preceded by the Chaldeans, which could indicate that this sequence may actually be older than the sequence Hebrews-Syrians, as it is preserved in the other six witnesses of the progressive Syriac tradition, including Pseudo-Eusebius and David bar Paulos. In contrast, the lists of the literate peoples, descended from Ham, was not significantly altered. Michael completely agrees with the sequence of Hip- polytus. There is only one difference: (the manuscript of) Michael’s Chron- icle omits the Phoenicians at the beginning of the list: Egyptians-Pam- phylians-Phrygians. Curiously, Michael explicitly identifies the Kushites as an illiterate people, whereas in the progressive Syriac tradition the Kushites and the Indians (the latter were originally mentioned by Hippolytus among the Japhethites) have replaced the Pamphylians and the Phrygians among the literate Hamites. In Michael’s list, the Kushites are moved to the front of the list of illiterate Hamites. Most of the other witnesses of the progressive Syriac tradition agree on the Hamite sequence: Egyptians-Kushites-Phoenicians-Indians. Again, however, the three dependants of CS* (PCLB, BCT and Note) represent a separate and probably later tradition within the progressive Syriac tradition: Egyptians-Kushites-Indians-Phoenicians. The conservative ‘Greek’ version of the list of literate Japhethite peoples is slightly more difficult to reconstruct, because Michael has a list of four rather than six peoples. He only mentions the Medes, the Greeks, the Romans and the Armenians, thus omitting the Iberians and the Spaniards of Hippolytus’ list. In the process of transmission from Greek into Syriac, the Medes and the Greeks were moved to the front of the list, even before the Romans. This suggests a preference for a chronological sequence on the part of the Syriac author who transmitted this material into Syriac. This preference for historical accuracy is also reflected in the progressive Syriac tradition, which consistently mentions the Greeks before the Romans.

68 BCT actually has Syrians-Hebrews-Persians-Babylonians-Elamites. Language, Literacy and Historical Apologetics 27

Given that the progressive Syriac tradition preserves the reference to the Iberians (as well as the Greeks, the Romans,69 the Medes and the Armeni- ans), we may assume that Michael (or the scribe) omitted them by accident and that Michael and his source originally mentioned them at the front of the list as Hippolytus had done.70 Assuming that Michael and/or his source originally contained the sequence Iberians-Medes-Greeks-Romans-Armeni- ans, the name of a sixth people is still missing. I suspect that these are the Alans whose addition may have been inspired by the term Ἑλληνες, ‘Hel- lenes’ that Hippolytus used to refer to the Greeks: Ἑλληνες may have been misinterpreted as a reference to the Alans.71 The Alans are featured at the end of the list of Japhethites in most Syriac witnesses of the progressive Syriac tradition, which may explain why they were omitted from Michael’s list. A scribe or maybe even Michael himself may have accidentally omitted them while copying his source. The only witnesses not to mention the Alans at the end of the list are the three dependants of CS*, which either have the sequence Greeks-Amorites- Alans-Romans-Armenians(-Arabs)-Georgians (PCLB and the Note) or Greeks-Romans-Iberians-Medes-Alans-Aramaeans (BCT). Because BCT’s testimony is very close to the main strand of the progressive Syriac tradition here, it seems fairly certain that CS* does indeed represent a later tradition within the progressive Syriac tradition, but only differed from it with regards to the list of Shemites and Hamites. Furthermore, the sequence of the Japhe- thites in PCLB must have been a result of adjustments made by the author of PCLB himself. He changed the sequence and replaced the Medes by the Amorites and the Iberians by the Georgians. Crucially, the addition of the Alans to the list of literate Japhethite peoples allows us to date the transmission of this material into Syriac between the fifth century, when the Alan alphabet was developed on the basis of

69 In the Chronicle of 1234, the list has been updated: the Romans have been replaced by the Franks. 70 It is theoretically possible that the Iberians were mentioned at the end of the list – because the PCLB and the Note end the list with the Georgians – their equivalent, but this seems unlikely. 71 The vowels could have been misread and only the first letter separates the Syriac term for the Alans (ܐܢܠܐ̈ ) and the (theoretical) transcription of Hellenes (ܐܢܠܗ̈ ) although in Syriac literature in general and in the Syriac lists of literate peoples in particular, the Greeks are referred to as ܐܝܢܘܝ̈ , yūnāyē (Ionians). 28 Andy Hilkens the Armenian alphabet by Mesrop Mashtots, and the ninth century, the dates of the manuscripts that preserve the treatises of Pseudo-Eusebius and David bar Paulos, which both mention the Alans. Hippolytus’ list(s) of literate peoples did not only undergo a significant amount of change in the process of transmission from Greek into Syriac, but also from the conservative ‘Greek’ tradition to the progressive Syriac tradition, and even within the latter tradition itself this list continually evolved. Despite the need to regularly update the list, it is noteworthy that the Arabs/ Arabians rarely feature in the lists. In the few witnesses that do mention them, they appear either as an afterthought at the end of an already complete list of literate Shemites, thus actually featuring more than five names (Michael and the Chronicle of 1234), at the end of that list instead of the Elamites (Epiph. B) or even among the Hamites (Note), in which they seem to have been added by the scribe of the early eighteenth-century manuscript in question, or among the Japhethites by David bar Paulos, who states that the Arabians had already ‘ceased to exist, together with their writing’. If the purpose of this list was indeed to provide ‘readers with encyclopae- dic knowledge of the ethno-linguistic realities of the world’ one would have expected the Arabs/Arabians to turn up in more than four witnesses.72 On at least two occasions between the fifth and the ninth centuries, when the literacy list was updated to include the Syrians, the Alans and the Kushites, the opportunity to include the Arabs was not taken. Most of the Syriac witnesses retain the references to the Babylonians and the Elamites, who had been included when this material was transmitted from Greek into Syriac, whereas these peoples had since long ceased to be relevant. The absence of the Arabs/Arabians in most of these witnesses tells us two things. First, the transmission into Syriac of the material from the Diamer- ismos and its adaptation by Michael’s source probably occurred before the reign of caliph ‘Abd al-Malik (r. 685-705), if not before the advent of Islam. Otherwise, one would have assumed the Arabs to have at least been included by Michael’s source or even the intermediary between the conservative ‘Greek’ tradition and the progressive Syriac tradition who did indeed add the Kushites to the list.

72 Witakowski, ‘The Division of the Earth’ (see n. 16), p. 652. Language, Literacy and Historical Apologetics 29

Secondly, it seems that the purpose of the list in the Syriac tradition cannot solely have been to provide up-to-date information about the written languages in the world. If that were the case, more than five Syriac authors would have deemed it necessary to recognize the literacy of the Arabs/Ara- bians. We must therefore look at other ways to explain the popularity of this genre of texts. The fact that the Syrians feature so prominently in the list in every Syriac witness suggests an underlying motive. In my opinion, the conscious rear- rangement of the sequence of some of the peoples in these lists reveals another purpose. Mentioning the Greeks as the first literate Japhethites and the Syrians and Hebrews as the first literate Shemites, Syriac authors could demonstrate the old age of their own language, next to two other sacred languages, Hebrew and Greek. More importantly, by not emphasizing which language came first – though this seems to be alluded to by placing the Syr- ians before the Hebrews, they also managed to avoid the issue of the identity of the primeval language. Therefore, it is probably not a coincidence that many of these lists are preceded by an introduction that focuses on the emergence of languages after the fall of the Tower of Babel.

4. Conclusion

Sometime between the fifth and the ninth centuries, perhaps before the end of the reign of ‘Abd el-Malik (685-705) or even the advent of Islam, a Syriac author, most likely a chronicler, transmitted material from a Greek chronicle with Diamerismos material into Syriac. This chronicle is now lost, but was used by Michael, who is the only representative of what can be identified as a conservative ‘Greek’ tradition in Syriac. This conservative Greek tradition follows Hippolytus’ version closely, with some minor updates including a change in the order of names and most notably the addition of the Syrians who came to be equated with the Assyrians and the removal of the Indians from the Shemites to the Hamites. This chronicler may be the one who added the Alans to the list of Japhethites, although (probably due to an oversight of a scribe) they do not feature in Michael’s list in the unique Syriac manuscript. Not only the identity of Michael’s source, but also that of the named Syriac chronicler’s Greek source remains unknown. As was already noted by 30 Andy Hilkens

Witold Witakowski, Hippolytus’ Chronicle was probably never translated into Syriac. Although excerpts may survive, none of them is attributed to Hippolytus.73 Yet, the influence of Hippolytus of Rome’s writings on Syriac literature was substantial.74 His commentaries on books from the Old (e.g. Daniel75 and Susannah76) and New Testament (e.g. the Apocalypse of John77) survive in Syriac translation and citations from his works survive in various Syriac collections. So popular was Hippolytus that certain Syriac works even were wrongly attributed to him.78 In contrast, no Syriac author seems to have known that Hippolytus had even written a chronicle. In a letter addressed to John the Stylite of Litarba, Jacob of Edessa does include Hippolytus among other historians who provided dates of the birth of Christ such as Josephus, Eusebius and Andronicus, but Jacob may have been thinking of Hippolytus’ Commentary on Daniel.79 How then can we square these observations with the traces from the Diamerismos in a multitude of late ancient and medieval Syriac sources? More likely than the existence of a now lost Syriac translation of Hip- polytus’ Chronicle or a now lost Syriac dependant of Hippolytus is the involvement of another Greek chronicle, perhaps but not necessarily a

73 Ibid., p. 650. 74 For a list of Syriac versions of texts written by or attributed to Hippolytus, see A. Schmidt and D. Gonnet, Les Pères grecs dans la tradition syriaque, Études syriaques, 4 (Paris, 2007), p. 196. 75 A. de Halleux, ‘Hippolyte en version syriaque’, Le Muséon, 102 (1989), pp. 19-42. 76 A. de Halleux, ‘Une version syriaque révisée du commentaire d’Hippolyte sur Suzanne’, Le Muséon, 101 (1988), pp. 297-341. 77 P. Prigent, ‘Hippolyte, commentateur de l’Apocalypse’, Theologische Zeitschrift, 28 (1972), pp. 391-412; P. Prigent and R. Stehly, ‘Les fragments du De Apocalypsi d’Hippolyte’, Theologische Zeitschrift, 29 (1973), pp. 313-333. See also P. Prigent and R. Stehly, ‘Citations d’Hippolyte trouvées dans le ms Bodl. syr. 140’, Theologische Zeitschrift, 30 (1974), pp. 82-85, on ms. Bodl. Syr. 410 (in Arabic). 78 R. Riva, Raimondo, ‘La “Introduzione ai Salmi” falsamente attribuita a Ippolito e il Cod. Ambr. C 313 inf.’, in Mélanges Eugène Tisserant. Vol. 1: Écriture Sainte ‒ Ancien Orient, Studi e Testi, 231 (Vatican City, 1964), pp. 351-364; S.P. Brock, ‘Some New Syriac Texts Attributed to Hippolytus’, Le Muséon, 94 (1981), pp. 177-200. 79 F. Nau, ‘Lettre de Jacques d’Édesse à Jean le Stylite sur la chronologie biblique et la date de la naissance du Messie’, Revue de l’Orient Chrétien, 5 (1900), pp. 581-596; Hip- polytus, Commentary on Daniel IV 23, see G.N. Bonwetsch and H. Achelis, Exegetische und homiletische Schriften, Texte und Untersuchungen, 1.1-2, Hippolytus Werke, 1 (Leip- zig, 1897), pp. 242-243. Language, Literacy and Historical Apologetics 31 dependant of Hippolytus.80 This could have been a pseudo-Eusebian chronographic source (given the mention of Eusebius by David bar Paulos and the manuscript of On the Families of Languages), or possibly even a chronicle, written by or attributed to Epiphanius, who is mentioned by three Syriac sources as well as the Greco-Syrian chronicler John Malalas.81 Although only Michael preserves this unknown Syriac chronicler’s opinion, his influence also emerges from the eight other West-Syriac as well as East-Syriac witnesses, which belong to what I have called the progressive Syriac tradition. In the centuries after the transmission of this material into Syriac, it underwent substantial changes. Even within the progressive Syriac tradition, we can detect the existence of two other now lost sources. First, there appears to be a common source for the ninth-century On the Families of Languages and Epiph. A, which have a similar introduction and which follow the order Japheth-Shem-Ham. Second, there is a separate tradition within the progressive Syriac tradition, represented by PCLB, the Note and BCT. These three testimonies go back to a now lost common source, CS*. The most important characteristics of this group are the mention of the Syr- ians before the Hebrews in the list of literate Shemites and the different order in the literate Hamites (Egyptians-Kushites-Indians-Phoenicians rather than Egyptians-Kushites-Phoenicians-Indians). Their presentation of the Japhet- hites suggests that CS* represents a later tradition within the progressive Syriac tradition: in contrast to PCLB and the Note, BCT resembles the witnesses not dependent on CS* much more closely.

80 Michael the Elder mentions a Joannes/Iwannis between Hippolytus and ‘Mar Jacob’ (of Edessa) for the date of the birth of Christ to AM 5500, Chronique de Michel le syrien, trans. Chabot, I, p. ; ed. Chabot, p. 90; ed. Ibrahim, Edessa-Aleppo Syriac Codex, p. 93. Michael seems to be dependent on Jacob here, but on which of his writings or through which intermediary is unclear. Furthermore, the name Joannes/Iwannis (ܣܝܢܢܐܘܝܐ) cannot refer to John the Stylite of Litarba here, who is consistently referred to as Yuḥannon (the Semitic rendering of the name John). Given the placement between Hippolytus (d. 235) and Jacob of Edessa (633-710), I suspect that Michael might be referring to John Chrysostom (d. 407), although I do not know which text he was thinking of. 81 See note 26. 32 Andy Hilkens

Abstract

In Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, the Syriac language was part of several debates, including one about the identity of the language of Creation. Not surprisingly, many Syriac authors argued for the primacy of Aramaic over Hebrew. One genre of texts whose contribution to this debate has been neglected until now is that of lists of the literate peoples of the earth, categorized as descendants of Shem, Ham and Japheth. We encounter these lists, which are based on material that stems from the Greek chronicle tradition and that was eagerly appropriated by Syriac historical and exegetical authors, in manuscripts that date from the ninth to the nineteenth century. Sometimes they are transmitted independently, for instance under the name of Eusebius of Caesarea or Epiphanius of Salamis. Sometimes they are part of a larger context where more material on the division of the earth (the Diamerismos) was transmitted into Syriac. This article draws two important conclusions. First, a division can be made in the material between a conservative ‘Greek’ tradition, represented by the Chronicle of Michael the Elder (d. 1199 C.E.), and a progressive Syriac tradition. Several changes can be tracked, not only in the process of transmission from Greek into Syriac, but also an internal Syriac evolution. These lists were often updated, so much so that different traditions within the progressive Syriac tradition emerge. What connects the Syriac tradition, however, and this is the second conclusion that this study offers, is that the progressive Syriac tradition clearly offsets the Syriac language (or at least the written language that was used by the Syrians) against that of the Hebrews and the Greeks. Without explicitly going into the issue of the identity of the primeval language, these lists imply the old age of the Syriac language, similarly to Hebrew and Greek. Keywords: Syriac, Greek, Hebrew, language, identity, historiography, Genesis 10