Bernard Outtier

Which langauge has the Georgian Acts of the Apostles been translated from?

Prof. G. Garitte edited in Louvain the old Georgian redaction of the Acts of the Apostles based on two manuscripts from Mount Sinai, in 1955. At that time, he had not seen the edition by I. Abuladze (Tbilisi, 1949). In the introduction to his edition, Prof. G. Garitte writes: “The interest of the Georgian version appears immediately in a great number of noteworthy readings, such as the following”:

I 26 თანაშეერაცხა ათერთმეტთა მოციქულთა მეათორმეტედ connumeratus-est undecim apostolis ut-duodecimus; compare St. Augustin, Contra Felicem manichaeum I 4 (J. H. Ropes, The Text of Acts, p. 11) simul deputatus est cum undecim apostolis duodecimus.

VIII 27 ინდოჲ indus and ინდოეთი India for Αιθιοψ and Αιθιοπων; peš. ܟܘܫ Aethiops and ܕܟܘܫܝܐ Aethiopum; Arm. Vulgate եթէովպացի Aethiops and եթէովպացւոց Aethiopum. But in the Commentary by Ephrem, preserved in Armenian, ed. N. Akinian, Vienna 1921, p. 19, l. 5: հոգւոյն որ ի Հնդիկս գործէր the Spirit who worked in India.

VIII 35 წიგნთა ამათ გან from the books, for: απο της γραφης ταυτης; compare Arm. Vulgate ի գրոցս յայսցանէ from these books.

IX 11 ტაძართა მათ იოჳდაჲსთა in the temples of Judaea for εν οικια Ιουδα; compare Arm. Vulgate յապարանսն Յուդայ in the mansions of Judas (plurale tantum).

X 43 ჴელითა მით სახელისა მისისაჲთა by the hand of his name for δια του ονοματος αυτου; Arm. Vulgate անուամբ by the name; peš. ܒܫܡܗ by his name.

XV 26 თავნი თჳსნი მისცნეს they gave themselves, for παραδεδωκοσι τας ψυχας αυτων; Arm. Vulgate մատնեցին զանձինս իւրեանց they gave their souls; peš. ܐܫܠܡܘ ܢܦܫܬܗܘܢ they gave their souls.

XVI 21 ფრომნი Romans: Observe this very old form of the Georgian word ჰრომი Roman; it is found in the Adysh manuscript of the Gospels (Jo XIX 20; Lk XXIII 38).

We intend to submit elsewhere a detailed study of the origin of the Georgian text of the Acts. Nevertheless, the following conclusions may already be drawn:

1) The old Georgian version of the Acts was translated from Armenian.
2) The Armenian text, which was the basis for the Georgian version, is not the Armenian Vulgate which we have now (its manuscripts are not older than the 13th century).
3) The old Armenian text (lost) from which the older Georgian version originates seems to have been modeled on an old Syriac version (different from the Peshitta).
4) The Georgian version translated from the Armenian may have undergone revisions, so as to be consistent with the Greek text.

The history of the Georgian version of the Acts of the Apostles thus appears in all respects similar to the history of the Georgian version of the Gospels (see Lyonnet, Les origines de la version arménienne et le Diatessaron, IInd part, chapter 4, The Georgian version, p. 144-165, Rome 1950)”.

What we deal with here is the generally prevalent opinion in Western Europe that the Georgian Bible was translated from a lost Armenian model, and that this very Armenian was translated in turn from a lost Syriac model. Methodologically speaking, it means adding an assumption to an assumption: can the result be sound?

Well, let us consider Prof. G. Garitte's arguments one by one.

I 26: here Prof. G. Garitte just pointed out that the Georgian text belongs to an old recention, since the same variant is present in St. Augustine's text. But a very interesting fact is not taken into consideration: in Georgian, we read თანა–შე–ერაცხა, that is the verb has a double preverb. In Greek too, the verb has a double preverb: συν-κατ-εψηφισθη. Double preverbs did not exist in Syriac, nor in Armenian when the Bible was translated. This means that the model for the Georgian was Greek. Moreover, there are other such instances in this book: Acts 3, 18 წინაჲსწარ–აღ–უთქუა: προ-κατ-ηγγειλεν; 12, 25 თანა–წარ–იყვანეს: συμ-παρα-λαβοντες; 15, 37 თანა–წარ–იყვანა: συμ-παρα-λαβειν. This is noticeable because it is not an «evidence» taken from biblical redactions, it is a pure linguistic fact. I elaborated more on this in a contribution to a book dedicated to Zurab Sardjveladze, and, for the book of Acts, a more comprehensive study has been done by Agnès Ouzounian.

VIII 27 Indian, India: in the ancient world as a whole, it was commonly held that the entire waterside of the Indian Ocean was “India”, up to Ethiopia. This is the case in the Greek, Syriac, Armenian and Georgian literatures.

VIII 35 For “Book”, we have only here the singular in Greek and plural in Georgian. We have twice the singular both in Greek and Georgian: 1, 16 and 8, 32. Since the Armenian has the plural in 8, 32, it cannot be the model.

IX 11 Once more, we have seven times the singular in both Greek and Georgian, but a plurale tantum in Armenian: 11, 11; 17, 5; 18, 7 (twice); 21, 8 and 23, 35. I think here, as for VIII 35, the following statistics will not be out of place: the Hirmoi (ძლისპირნი) have been translated into Georgian directly from Greek (there is no Armenian translation, anyway). Using the critical edition by Elene Metreveli (Tbilisi 1971), I found 93 times a plural translating a Greek singular (and ეტლი is one of these) and 30 times a Georgian singular rendering a Greek plural. We have to conclude that this kind of argument does not lead to tangible evidence.

X 43 “By the hand”, instead of “by”, is very common in the literary tradition of the Bible, beginning with Greek: see, for instance, Acts 11, 30: δια χειρος, for: by.

V 26 “his head”, is the regular reflexive in Georgian, whereas Greek, Syriac and Armenian have: “his soul”.

XVI 21 This is no argument for an Armenian model, since this form does not occur in Armenian and comes from Iranian.

So, the idea of Prof. G. Garitte, widely agreed upon in Western Europe, that “the Georgian Acts of the Apostles have been translated from Armenian”, does not seem to be true.

References:
1. Garitte, G., L’ancienne version géorgienne des Actes des Apôtres d’après deux manuscrits du Sinaϊ, Louvain 1955.
2. აბულაძე, ი., მოციქულთა საქმე, თბილისი 1949.
3. Ropes J.H., The Text of Acts, Londres 1926.
4. Akinian N., Surb Ep‘rem meknut‘iwn gorcoc‘ aṝak‘eloc‘, Vienne 1921.
5. Lyonnet, S., Les origines de la version arménienne et le Diatessaron, Rome 1950.