The Armenian 1 Samuel (original) (raw)

Problematising the Greek Influence on Armenian Texts (full text, 1 file)

Rhesis, 2016

It is generally acknowledged that the Greek language and culture exerted a notable and durable influence, especially on learned Armenian milieux. However, the full effect of these ties has often been recognised mainly in cultural and literary niches, such as those responsible for the most slavish translations of Greek specialised texts, which are generally perceived as clearly distinct both from 'Classicalʼ versions and from the more genuine Armenian production. The present paper adheres instead to more recent trends of thought: it addresses the topic of the Greek influence on Armenian by underlining its continuity through time and textual typologies, thus avoiding clear-cut and strictly chronological periodisations, without denying the reality of language change. Indeed, since several factors, including but not limited to foreign influences, can affect internal variation, the separation between translated and original literature on the one hand, and between different ˗ and internally homogeneous ˗ schools of translators on the other, should not be overemphasised. Within this context, the paper also addresses the problematic nature of some widely used labels, such as Classical Armenian and Hellenising School.

Greek Texts and Armenian Traditions

Greek Texts and Armenian Traditions, 2016

As is well known, the de Autexusio by Methodius is one of the most relevant sources used by Eznik of Kołb in composing his treatise, conventionally known as Ełc Ałandoc' (Refutation of the Sects). The latter included an almost integral translation or reworking of the former, divided into two parts. This was highlighted for the first time by Father Grigoris Galēmk'earean, who devoted to the subject the greater part of his study on Eznik's sources, published as a monograph in 1919. In 1924-1925, Louis Mariès addressed the same topic in his work on Eznik's text. However, in later years, the subject seems to have ceased to draw the attention of Armenologists. In this contribution, after a short summary of the contents of the works both of Methodius and Eznik, we address Eznik's manner of selecting the sects that are the object of his criticism. We then highlight how Eznik more or less freely translates Methodius' Greek text, providing some relevant examples. Eznik of Kołb, bishop of Bagrewand, is one of the most prominent Armenian writers of the fifth century. His treatise-which reached us without a title, but is conventionally known as Ełc Ałandoc' (Refutation of the Sects)-is among the first original works ever written in Armenian, contending for absolute primacy with Koriwn's Vark' Maštoc'i (Life of Maštoc'). Although it is impossible to establish which is older, they were both composed in the fifth decade of the fifth century, that is, just a few decades after the invention of the Armenian script, when Armenia-no longer an independent country since 428-ran the risk of being culturally assimilated by Sassanid Persia. Such an assimilation would have chiefly involved a forced conversion of the Armenian people to Mazdeism (in the Zurvanite variety prevailing in Persia at that time). Since the newly-invented script acted as a bulwark for the preservation of Armenian identity, it is easy to understand the import of Koriwn's enterprise which focused on commemorating the men who invented it and the means through which they achieved their goal. The reasons behind Eznik's literary activity are also easy to comprehend, since he aimed at refuting certain religious or philosophical beliefs spread in the territories inhabited by Armenian-speaking people. In order to realise his project, Eznik does not hesitate to use Greek and Syriac texts: chief among them is the De 1 On Methodius' biography as documented in ancient literature and evaluated by modern scholarship, see Moreschini/Norelli 1995, 445. 2 A section of his De recta fide ad Deum, or Περὶ τῆς εἰς θεὸν ὀρθῆς πίστεως, is based on excerpts from Methodius' De Autexusio. On the so-called Adamantius and his work, see More schini/ Norelli 1995, 449.

A Fragment of a Classical Armenian Version of John of Damascus' Dialectica

Rassegna degli Armenisti Italiani, 2015

A Fragment of a Classical Armenian Version of John of Damascus' Dialectica p. 5 SILVIA BALSAMO, Osservazioni linguistiche e filologiche sulla versione armena dell'epistola VIII dello Pseudo-Dionigi Areopagita p. 19 SILVIA FERRIANI, I libri detti «santi della casa» (tan surber): primi risultati di una ricerca antropologica nella Repubblica d'Armenia p. 25 ORTENSIA GIOVANNINI, «Ov Sirun Sirun»: tra musica popolare, ricordi e cinematografia p. 33

Greco-Armenian: the persistence of a myth

Indogermanische Forschungen, 2018

It has been generally held since the beginning of the 20th century that Armenian is more closely related to Greek than to any other Indo-European branch. A more recent minority opinion posits an especially close relationship between Greek and Armenian, even going so far as to assume a period of Greco-Armenian unity. Following upon recent publications, above all Clackson 1994, this paper argues that the available evidence does not at all support this stronger hypothesis. In contrast to the lexical innovations common to Greek and Armenian, the phono-logical isoglosses shared by the two languages are extremely few and of an easily repeatable nature. The morphological features claimed as shared innovations may likewise represent independent developments and/or have parallels in other Indo-European branches, whereas other features of verbal morphology rather appear to connect Armenian with Indo-Iranian or Balto-Slavic. These considerations suggest that pre-Armenian belonged to a dialect continuum encompassing the ancestors of Greek, Phrygian, and Indo-Iranian for some time after the breakup of Proto-Indo-European, but made up a distinct speech community already by the late 3 rd millennium BC.

A Commentary to the Septuagint of 2 Samuel 1:1–10

XVII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Aberdeen 2019 (ed. Gideon R. Kotzé; Michaël N. van der Meer; Martin Rösel) (SCS 76; Atlanta: SBL), 2022

This paper presents samples of commentary on the Septuagint of 2 Sam 1:1–10 following the guidelines for the SBLCS. It focuses on the challenges posed by the Greek text of 2 Sam 1 in the light of the principles adopted for that series. Great attention is given to the translation technique used by the Greek translator of 2 Sam 1:1–10, to the relationship between the LXX and the Hebrew of the MT and of 4QSama, and to the particularities of the Greek text of Samuel, such as the relevance of the Lucianic text. Each verse herein analyzed is treated as a test case for the application of the SBLCS guidelines to the Septuagint of the nonkaige sections of 1–4 Kingdoms in order to determine how the principles developed in those guidelines can be applied fruitfully and whether adaptations are necessary. The paper also highlights the choices the commentator is asked or forced to make in the framework of such a complex work