The Edessan Milieu and the Birth of Syriac†
John F.
Healey
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute
George A. Kiraz
James E. Walters
TEI XML encoding by
html2TEI.xsl
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute
2007
Vol. 10, No. 2
For this publication, a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
license has been granted by the author(s), who retain full
copyright.
https://hugoye.bethmardutho.org/article/hv10n2healey
John F. Healey
The Edessan Milieu and the Birth of Syriac†
https://hugoye.bethmardutho.org/pdf/vol10/HV10N2Healey.pdf
Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute,
vol 10
issue 2
Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies is an electronic journal dedicated to the study
of the Syriac tradition, published semi-annually (in January and July) by Beth
Mardutho: The Syriac Institute. Published since 1998, Hugoye seeks to offer the
best scholarship available in the field of Syriac studies.
Syriac Studies
File created by XSLT transformation of original HTML encoded article.
This paper reviews the cultural and
linguistic environment in which the Syriac dialect of Aramaic
emerged as a language of inscriptions, legal documents and, in
due course, literature. It is argued that the evidence for the
hellenization of the Edessa region in the Greek and early Roman
periods is slight. Edessa owed more to its Semitic cultural
roots and early Syriac writings do not reflect strong Greek
impact. The emergence of the language is to be seen in the
context of the varied contemporary Aramaic dialects of
Mesopotamia, with the variations also reflected within early
Syriac itself.
[1]
Syriac’s emergence as a literary language was stimulated
on the one hand by a multicultural Semitic, Greek and Iranian
environment, and on the other by the demands made of the
language in the context of the spread of Christianity. In some
sense Syriac responded to these demands. Of course, we
often talk about languages in a metaphorical way, as if a
language were able to decide whether to respond or not! In some
sense languages have a life of their own and this partly
explains why, in our attempts to describe their processes, we
tend to use terms derived from the life sciences, such as the
terms “family” and “birth”.
[2] In
attempting to describe the cultural and linguistic environment
of the birth of Syriac, we look primarily to the earliest
evidence, the archaeological evidence and the earliest written
materials in the language, which are labelled
“Syriac” or, more specifically, “Old
Syriac”. These inscriptions and legal texts come from a
particular and narrowly defined locality, the kingdom of
Edessa, centred on Urhay, the modern-day Urfa in southern
Turkey. The number of the Old Syriac inscriptions has now
reached about 110 and we have in addition the immensely
important treasure of three long Syriac legal texts on
parchment. Many of these inscriptions and parchments are dated
either directly or indirectly and the dates span the period
from A.D. 6 to A.D. 243 (Drijvers and Healey 1999, used for
reference to inscriptions below). All of these materials are
non-Christian, and there is no expression of Christian
sentiments or allegiance in them. The cultural environment of
this early Syriac is, therefore, pagan. The Syriac of the texts
is usually classified as “Middle Aramaic”, a term
which also covers other contemporary Aramaic dialects such as
Palmyrene and Nabataean.
[3] So where
did Syriac come from? And what was the environment of its
transformation into a major literary and theological language?
I address these questions under three headings: I. The cultural
hellenization of pre-Christian Edessa; II. The impact of the
Greek language on Edessa and on pre-Christian Syriac; and,
rather briefly, since the details are covered elsewhere, III.
Early Syriac in the context of contemporary Aramaic. I will
then comment on some specific factors which contributed to the
rise of what is usually called classical Syriac.
I. The Cultural Hellenization of Pre-Christian
Edessa
[4] Although
this area of Upper Mesopotamia was from time immemorial one of
Semitic language use, it is also in the Greek and Roman periods
an environment of considerable international contact and
specifically of contact on the one hand with Parthia (and
subsequently Sasanian Persia) and on the other with the
Greek-speaking Seleucid Kingdom and Roman East.
[5] How far
we can regard the Edessa region as hellenized in the
pre-Christian period, has, however, been disputed and indeed
subject to some fluctuations of scholarly fashion. Robert
Murray in a publication of 1982 (1982: 9-10) noted the view,
widely accepted in the early twentieth century, that
Edessa’s culture was non-hellenic and
“purely” Semitic. Murray committed himself to a
retraction from this position in favour of the view that Edessa
was extensively if not thoroughly hellenized in pre-Christian
times. This view was even more strongly espoused by my late and
much loved friend Han Drijvers (e.g. 1970, 1998). I believe,
however, that some retraction from the retraction is necessary,
since there is a danger of exaggeration of the hellenistic
factor in early Edessa.
[6] There is
no doubt, it must be stated from the start, that
multiculturalism is woven into the fabric of the early history
of Edessa. It was, after all, essentially a Seleucid foundation
and became a provincial centre within the Seleucid Kingdom,
with a Macedonian name, Seleucid-Hellenistic institutions and,
no doubt, physical appearance. Seleucid coins, for example,
were struck. At the same time, however, it must be remembered
that the new foundation was located at the site of an older
city, Adme (Harrak 1992). We know very little about this
earlier Adme, but the whole region of Upper Mesopotamia
is well known in earlier times. Edessa’s
neighbour, Harran, had been a prominent cultural centre for
millennia and housed a famous temple of the moon-god, Sin,
whose cult continued into the early centuries A.D., as the
Syriac inscriptions from Sumatar Harabesi show.
[7] With the
decline of Seleucid power and a little before the Romans
arrived, Edessa grasped its chance to establish itself as an
independent state with its own kings of a local dynasty, said
to be that of Aryu, around 140-30 B.C. It is often called the
Abgarid dynasty because of the prominence of the royal name
Abgar. Segal (1970: 16) claimed that this was a Nabataean
dynasty. This seems implausible: the only real evidence is the
names of kings, such as Abgar, Ma‘nu, etc. These conform
to a name-type, common in Nabataea, but common also throughout
the Middle East in this period and they may suggest that in
Edessa, as in Petra, there was already an Arab presence. It is
possible that an Arab dynasty came to power by filling the
post-Seleucid power-vacuum. There is nothing, however, to
suggest a specifically Nabataean presence.
[8] It is
interesting to note that, in contrast to the policy of the
Nabataean kings, so far as we know local coins were not
issued in Edessa until much later, the middle of the
2nd century A.D. There was no early
“native” imitation of Seleucid coinage. And when
coins did appear, they did so during a period of
Parthian domination and the earliest types bore Syriac legends
(Babelon 1893: 209-96; Hill 1922: xciv-cvii, 91-118, pls
XII-XVII).
[9] Of the
Seleucid, Abgarid and Roman cities very little survives by way
of material remains. In a survey, Mango reviewed what is known
of classical art in Mesopotamia and most of what survives comes
from the period after A.D. 165, when the Roman involvement in
Edessa became intense (Mango 1982: 117). Non-survival of
earlier material is often ascribed to the continuous occupation
of Edessa, but it is surprising how little has survived
and this suggests that Edessa was far from thoroughly
hellenized, a suspicion voiced also by Ross (2001: 11-13).
[10]
Perhaps the most characteristic survival of pre-Christian
Edessa is that of the mosaics, mostly funerary mosaics set on
the floors of tomb-chambers. The mosaics all appear to date
from the early 3rd century A.D., though a recently
published mosaic is dated a little earlier, to A.D. 194 (Healey
2006). They are of great interest in themselves and point to
Edessa’s cultural contact at this period with Roman
Antioch: the concept of mosaic-making must have come from that
direction. Interestingly, though, by far the majority of the
mosaics follow artistic norms which are non-Antiochene: they
bear Syriac rather than Greek inscriptions, presumably because
the patrons knew no Greek or did not regard it as important.
And they show a distinctive local art which is non-Western (and
has often, with insufficient justification, been called
Parthian). In a few cases a rather wooden rendering of a
western model is involved (as in the case of the Orpheus and
Phoenix mosaics).
[11]
There are also a few non-funerary mosaics which appear to have
been used as decor in villas and these are thoroughly
Antiochene in inspiration, containing mythological and
legendary scenes (e.g. the mosaics now in the Bible Lands
Museum in Jerusalem depicting Achilles, Patroclus and Briseis:
Drijvers and Healey 1999: Cm3, Cm4), and one of these, from
outside Edessa, depicting the river Euphrates and dated A.D.
227, has a bilingual Syriac and Greek legend (Bm1). These more
westernized mosaics give the impression, however, of being
prestige items created by non-native craftsmen for the new
Roman citizens of the third century and in any case they do not
prove earlier hellenization (for the dating of the mosaics:
Colledge 1994; Healey 2006).
[12]
Although there is a lack of archaeological (artefactual)
evidence for hellenism in pre-Roman and pre-Christian Edessa,
we do have some literary evidence from the earliest
surviving Syriac literature which might suggest a mixed culture
at Edessa even in the pre-Christian period, though one must
again be wary of exaggeration.
[13]
There are texts like the letter of Mara bar Serapion, the date
of which is much disputed. Fergus Millar (1993: 460-62)
evidently leans towards the 70s A.D., but it has been ascribed
to a much later date by Kathleen McVey (1990). An early date
might suggest that at least for the elite of society, such
things as Greek mythology were familiar. This is confirmed for
the third century, as we have seen, by the mythological and
literary themes in the non-funerary mosaics. Apart from
Achilles and Patroclus, we also find Zeus and Hera represented.
There are also literary figures from the surrounding area,
though not Edessa itself, who might be taken into account:
Lucian of Samosata and Tatian.
[14] But
perhaps the most iconic figure in the cultural environment of
Edessa itself is Bardaisan (A.D. 154-222). If the direct
quotations from Bardaisan which have survived and the dialogue,
The Book of the Laws of Countries, are an accurate
reflection of his teaching, they give us an insight into what
appears to be a philosophical school at Edessa. Bardaisan was a
Christian, but walked a tightrope between paganism and
Christianity. He can be seen as trying to juggle Christianity,
Greek philosophy and Semitic culture. One cannot help but
admire his effort, even if it was inevitable that he was going
to fall foul of Christian orthodoxy once it came into
existence. Han Drijvers, in his book on Bardaisan (1966) and in
numerous articles, was able to build up for us a very full
picture, and there can be no doubt that Bardaisan was well
versed in contemporary Greek philosophy. But so far as we know
he wrote in Syriac, not in Greek, and it is easy to
overlook the extent to which he is dependent on a local
cultural tradition despite his awareness of things Greek.
[15] Thus
the evidence for regarding Edessa before the mid-2nd
century A.D. as extensively hellenized is really rather thin
and it suggests the need for caution. What survives of
Bardaisan’s thought is the only substantial
indication of hellenistic culture and there is a possibility
that his hellenism was restricted to a very narrow circle
associated with the court. Beyond this circle there is little
evidence. It may be that whatever earlier hellenization had
taken place in the Seleucid context practically disappeared
under the Abgarids.
[16] It
seems to me, therefore, that the cultural background of the
emergence of Syriac and its development as a literary language
is best regarded as predominantly Semitic and traditional.
Pre-Christian Edessa worshipped traditional local deities like
Sin, Baalshamin, Shamash, Nebo and Bel, not Greek gods, and
employed an art which may have some hellenistic/Roman features,
but which is nonetheless marked heavily as local. And as
Sebastian Brock has noted, there is in the earliest evidence of
Christian Edessa a noticeable absence of classical
baggage. In the Peshitta of Acts 14: 12 the Greek divine name
Zeus is not transcribed as zews, as it could have been,
but given an interpretatio syriaca as Mārē
alāhē, “lord of the gods”, a title
used in Edessan inscriptions of Sin and Baalshamin (Brock 1982:
19; Drijvers and Healey 1999: 80).
II. The impact of the Greek language on Edessa and
on pre-Christian Syriac
[17] The
presence of Greek loans in the early Syriac inscriptions and
parchments would in general be an indicator of Greek cultural
influence on pre-Christian Edessa and its language. This has
been discussed in several earlier works and there is no attempt
here to enter into all the details (cf. Schall 1960; Healey
1995; Brock 1996). In an article published in 1995 I chose to
contrast the incidence of Greek loans in Old Syriac with the
incidence of Greek loans in early Nabataean. Old Syriac seems
at first sight to have many more loans. However, the
distribution of the Greek loans in the Syriac inscriptions and
parchments deserves closer scrutiny.
[18]
Seventeen out of the twenty-one clear Greek loans (data
summarized in Drijvers and Healey 1999: 30-32) appear
only in the legal parchments, almost all in the context
of introductory dating formulae, and it is hardly surprising to
find them used, since these texts come from the 240s A.D. and
already the legal context was a Roman one. This is clear from
the more numerous Greek legal texts in the Feissel and
Gascou cache (1989) to which two of the three Syriac legal
texts belong. The texts are Romanized presumably because their
legal content might have to be defended in a Roman court.
(There is an interesting parallel here with the switch from
Nabataean to Greek after A.D. 106 in the legal texts from the
Babatha archive.)
[19] Of
the remaining four Greek loans in the Syriac inscriptions, two
('plwtr' from
a
p
e
l
e
u
q
e
r
o
s
and
qesar
)
appear in the same late 2nd century A.D. inscription
(As49) in the distinctly Roman phrase “freedman of
Antoninus Caesar”. The broken word 'yg[mwn']
from
h
g
e
m
w
n
,
“governor”, appears in another third-century
inscription (As10). Thus all the Greek loans up to this point
can easily be accounted for because of having been used within
a Roman legal and administrative context. This leaves us with
the word 'dryt' related to
a
n
d
r
i
a
s
,
“statue”, in the famous inscription on the pillar
on the Urfa citadel, and this pillar is a Roman-style artefact
if ever there was one (As1)
Note that a fuller survey of the evidence would
have to take account also of Greek loans in the earliest
literary works such as The Book of the Laws of
Countries.
[20] The
point here is that this is a meagre inventory of Greek
linguistic influence and it all suggests the appearance of
Greek words in Edessa is mostly connected with Romanization in
the third century A.D. Before that period the Syriac
inscriptions are free of Greek influences and indeed Syriac is
virtually the only language attested east of the Euphrates
(Brock 1994: 152). An epigraphic exception to this last point
may be the bilingual Amashamash tomb inscription from just
south of Edessa: it could date as early as the 1st
century (Millar 1993: 462), though a later date is more likely
(Drijvers and Healey 1999: As62).
[21] It
is useful to compare this situation with Palmyrene and
Nabataean. At Palmyra, Greek was very widely used because of
more direct Roman influence (most recently Taylor 2002). As for
Nabataea, Romanization did not much affect Petra until after
the Roman annexation in A.D. 106, apart from some architectural
imitations of styles from adjacent territories. There is only
one securely dated pre-annexation Greek inscription at Petra, a
bilingual which seems to have been erected by a family
especially conscious of its Greco-Roman connections (Sartre
1993: no. 54).
III. Early Syriac in the context of contemporary
Aramaic
[22] The
pre-Christian Edessan inscriptions, as we have seen, are
treated by epigraphists as a corpus and called “Old
Syriac”, though the gathering of the material in this way
under this title is largely based on non-linguistic features:
the provenance of the inscriptions and the distinctive form of
script used, with the corpus containing at least two varieties
of early Syriac distinguished mainly by the y-prefix
3rd masculine imperfect instead of the
n-prefix also found in classical Syriac:
yiqt
ūl
instead of classical neqt
ūl
.
A fuller account of the linguistic aspect of this
topic is to be published in the Proceedings of the
“Congress on Aramaic in its Historical and Linguistic
Setting”, held in Leiden, August 24-27, 2006.
The chronological
distribution in the inscriptions suggests a division between
the earlier texts (before about A.D. 200), which have
y-, and the later texts, all of which have n-.
This may, however, disguise a more complex situation in which
both forms existed side by side, representing different
registers or sub-dialects.
[23]
Broadly, after the demise of the Achaemenid Empire, the
Achaemenid Aramaic lingua franca had, in the absence of
the empire, no function and largely disappeared. What remained
were the local Aramaic dialects in each region where Aramaic
was spoken as a vernacular. Gradually these local dialects were
turned into literary or official languages. How this worked in
practice depended, however, on local circumstances. In the
Seleucid cities Greek became the official language. In
Nabataea Aramaic was replaced at least in some circles by a
form of Arabic, though a distinctly conservative,
Achaemenid-type Aramaic continued to be used for official
purposes.
[24] So
how did Syriac emerge?
Syriac is the local Aramaic of the Edessa region. Beyer
(1984: 46; 1986: 31) noted, however, that its use as a state
language and the opportunity for its development into a
literary language must have been thrown into doubt by the
Seleucid refoundation of Edessa, with Greek as the official
language, even if Greek has left little trace. The local
dialect of Aramaic might never have been turned into a written
language, as happened to vernaculars in other Greek-dominated
regions.
[25] In
fact, however, the spoken use of the Aramaic of the area
continued throughout the period of Seleucid control. Whether
this Edessan Aramaic was written down at all during this period
is not known with any certainty. Perhaps suggestive of
some continuity is the evidence of Achaemenid (and
Arsacid) orthographic influence in Old Syriac when it first
appears in written form (Beyer 1966). There is also the
evidence of the later legal texts, the parchments from the A.D.
240s, which contain legal formulae which clearly go back to the
Achaemenid period and earlier, bearing comparison with the
Samaria papyri. It thus seems likely that the writing as well
as the speaking of the local Aramaic of the Edessan region
continued during this time.
[26]
Edessan Aramaic — Syriac — begins to re-emerge with
the Abgarid dynasty around 140-130 B.C., being adopted for
public use probably as part of the assertion of a non-Greek
identity. As the local Aramaic dialect emerged, there developed
for it a local variety of the earlier Aramaic script. Both
script and language are well established by the time of the
earliest dated Syriac inscription, the Birecik inscription of 6
A.D., in which a local official, a
šallītā
, writes
his own tomb-inscription in Syriac (As55).
[27] The
transformation of this early epigraphic Syriac used for
official purposes into a prestigious literary language is also
remarkable (though one can ask the same question about many
languages known in their earliest form through non-literary
epigraphs). Three specific factors may be noted:
[28]
First, Syriac had already, in the earliest evidence available
to us, become an administrative language. The
administrative language of the Abgarid dynasty was Aramaic
rather than Greek. The major evidence here is provided by
Syriac legal texts. Even though these are late (from the 240s
A.D.), they are part of a whole legal tradition and prove
incontrovertibly that the Syriac form of Aramaic had continued
to be used in such contexts. The Greek legal texts found with
them, on the other hand, must certainly be an innovation of the
Romanizing period (not an inheritance from the Seleucid
period).
[29]
Secondly, Syriac became a royal language. It became a
royal language in the sense that the dynasty of Edessa chose to
write inscriptions in it rather than in Greek (which must have
been a feasible alternative at the end of Seleucid rule). While
the Edessan kings did not produce historical inscriptions in
the normal sense, they did produce coins with Syriac
legends, before Greek legends and Roman style supervened. And
the elite of the kingdom chose to write its inscriptions in
Syriac, as we can see from the Birecik inscription and the
later inscriptions of a military character at Sumatar
(especially those referring to the governors of different
districts: As31 and 47, etc.). There is also the famous
inscription on the pillar on the Urfa citadel dedicated to a
queen of Edessa (As1).
[30]
Above all Syriac became a religious language. While most
of the well preserved early inscriptions are funerary and
simple commemorative texts, which do, of course, reveal some
religious sentiments, there is also a small number of
inscriptions, especially from Sumatar Harabesi, which have a
more directly religious purpose (As36 and 37; also the altar
inscription Bs3).
[31] A
further factor, beyond the scope of this paper, is that there
was an early interest in translating religious texts into
Syriac and these translations had a part in raising Syriac to a
new level, especially when the Bible began to be translated
into Syriac. By that time Bardaisan was probably writing
philosophical works in Syriac and poets were composing
poetry.
Conclusions
[32] I do
not want to advocate a romanticized view of the early Edessan
environment of Syriac Christianity as unsullied by the
“bitter poison of the wisdom of the Greeks” as
Ephrem calls it (de Fide II, 24). On present evidence,
however, though Bardaisan may form a prominent peak of
hellenism, it is not clear that he is the tip of an iceberg of
any great significance. That there was Greek culture in Edessa
is clear, but much more clear is the underlying dominance of
native religious and linguistic tradition. If Greek had been at
all prominent in Edessa the Greek text of the gospels would
have sufficed, as it did in Antioch. Instead, for the whole
society, including the elite (apart possibly from the few who
partook in the kind of intellectual activity which preoccupied
Bardaisan), it was this need in the religious sphere which was
answered by Syriac, a local language which had come to written
prominence during the reign of the Abgarid dynasty, used for
administration and religion, by kings and people alike. At the
end of this process, to quote Sebastian Brock, “... it
was Christianity which lent to Syriac the requisite prestige to
enable it to compete with Greek as a literary language
...” (Brock 1994: 155). It is hard to credit, however,
Noeldeke’s remark (1904: xxxii) to the effect that the
Edessan dialect “was employed as a literary language,
certainly long before the introduction of Christianity”:
there seems to be no clear evidence of this.
[33] So
far as the title of this paper is concerned, “The Edessan
Milieu and the Birth of Syriac”, my conclusion is that in
the formative period the Edessan milieu was not hellenized to
any significant extent, while Syriac’s ancestry is to be
sought in the local Aramaic dialects of northern Mesopotamia,
gradually transformed into a prestige language of religious
literature.
[34] This
brings us back to the issue of variety within this early
Syriac. The major variation, y-prefix and
n-prefix imperfect forms, can be interpreted either
diachronically (with the classical form emerging c. A.D. 200)
or synchronically (and accounted for as reflecting different
varieties of Aramaic/Syriac). The latter explanation is,
in my view, more plausible. Indeed, linguistic variation
continued beyond the birth of Syriac and into the
“classical” phase, as Lucas van Rompay has shown
convincingly in a paper of 1994 (see also Joosten 1999; Brock
2003)._______
Notes
† This paper was delivered at a plenary
session of the fourth North American Syriac Symposium, held at
Princeton Theological Seminary, July 9-12, 2003.
_______
Bibliography
Babelon, E. 1893. Mélanges
Numismatiques II. Paris: C. Rollin & Feuardent.
Beyer, K. 1966. “Der reichsaramäische Einschlag in der
ältesten syrischen Literatur.”
ZDMG
116: 242-54.
—. 1984. Die
aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer. Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
—. 1986. The Aramaic
Language. Its Distribution and Subdivisions.
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Brock, S. P. 1982 “From
Antagonism to Assimilation: Syriac Attitudes to Greek
Learning.” Pp. 17-34 in N. G. Garsoïan, T. F.
Mathews and R. W. Thomson (eds), East of Byzantium. Syria
and Armenia in the Formative Period. Washington, DC:
Dumbarton Oaks, Center for Byzantine Studies.
—. 1994. “Greek and
Syriac in Late Antique Syria.” Pp. 149-60, 234-35 in A.
K. Bowman and G. Woolf (eds), Literacy and Power in the
Ancient World. Cambridge: C.U.P. (reprinted as no. I in
From Ephrem to Romanos: interactions between Syriac and
Greek in Late Antiquity.
Aldershot/Brookfield/Singapore/Sydney: Ashgate/Variorum,
1999).
—. 1996. “Greek Words in
Syriac: some general features,” Studia Classica
Israelica 15: 251-62. (reprinted as no. XV in From
Ephrem to Romanos: interactions between Syriac and Greek in
Late Antiquity. Aldershot/Brookfield/Singapore/Sydney:
Ashgate/Variorum, 1999.)
—. 2003. “Some Diachronic
Features of Classical Syriac.” Pp. 95-111 in M. F. J.
Baasten and W. Th. van Peursen (eds), Hamlet on the Hill.
Semitic and Greek studies presented to Professor T. Muraoka on
the occasion of his sixty-fifth birthday. Leuven/Paris/
Dudley, MA: Peeters/Department of Oriental Studies.
Colledge, M. A. R. 1994. “Some
remarks on the Edessa Funerary Mosaics.” Pp. 189-97 in
J.-P. Darmon and A. Rebourg (eds), La mosaïque
gréco-romaine IV. Actes du IVe Colloque International
pour l’Étude de la Mosaïque Antique, Vienne,
8-14 Août 1994. Paris: Association Internationale
pour l’Étude de la Mosaïque Antique.
Drijvers, H. J. W. 1966.
Bardaisan of
Edessa. Assen: van Gorcum.
—. 1970.
“Bardais
an of Edessa and the Hermetica: the Aramaic
philosopher and the philosophy of his time.” JEOL
21: 190-210.
—. 1998. “Syriac Culture in Late Antiquity:
hellenism and local traditions.” Mediterraneo
Antico 1: 95-113.
Drijvers, H. J. W. and J. F. Healey. 1999. The Old
Syriac Inscriptions of Edessa and Osrhoene(HdO
I/XLII). Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Feissel, D. and J. Gascou. 1989. “Documents
d’archives romains inédits du Moyen Euphrate (IIIe
siècle après J.-C.).” CRAIBL,
535-561.
Harrak, A. 1992. “The Ancient Name of
Edessa.” JNES 51: 209-14.
Healey, J. F. 1995. “Lexical Loans in Early
Syriac: a Comparison with Nabataean Aramaic.” Studi
Epigrafici e Linguistici 12: 75-84.
—. 2006. “A New Syriac Mosaic
Inscription”, Journal of Semitic Studies 51:
313-27.
—. forthcoming. “Variety in Early Syriac:
the Context in Contemporary Aramaic” (Leiden Congress
Proceedings, eds H. Gzella and M. Folmer).
Hill, G. F. 1922. Catalogue of the Greek Coins of
Arabia, Mesopotamia and Persia. London: British
Museum.
Joosten, J. 1999. “Materials for a Linguistic
Approach to the Old Testament Peshitta.” Journal of
the Aramaic Bible 1: 203-18.
Mango, M. M. 1982. “The Continuity of the
Classical Tradition in the Art and Architecture of Northern
Mesopotamia”. Pp. 115-34 in N. G. Garsoïan, T. F.
Mathews and R. W. Thomson (eds), East of Byzantium. Syria
and Armenia in the Formative Period. Washington, DC:
Dumbarton Oaks, Center for Byzantine Studies.
McVey, K. 1990. “A Fresh Look at the Letter of
Mara bar Serapion”, OCA 236: 257-72.
Millar, F. 1993. The Roman Near East 31 BC - AD
337. Cambridge-London: Harvard University Press.
Murray, R. 1982. “The Characteristics of the
Earliest Syriac Christianity.” Pp. 3-16 in N. G.
Garsoïan, T. F. Mathews and R. W. Thomson (eds), East
of Byzantium. Syria and Armenia in the Formative Period.
Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, Center for Byzantine
Studies.
Nöldeke, Th. 1904. Compendious Syriac
Grammar (trans. J. A. Crichton). London: Williams &
Norgate.
Rompay, L. van. 1994. “Some Preliminary Remarks
on the Origins of Classical Syriac as a Standard Language: the
Syriac Version of Eusebius of Caesarea’s Ecclesiastical
History.” Pp. 70-89 in G. Goldenberg and S. Raz (eds),
Semitic and Cushitic Studies. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz.
Ross, S. K. 2001. Roman Edessa: politics and culture
on the eastern fringes of the Roman Empire, 114-242 C.E.
London/New York: Routledge.
Sartre, M.1993. Inscriptions grecques et latines de
la Syrie XXI. Inscriptions de la Jordanie IV: Pétra et
la Nabatène (Bibliothèque
Archéologique et Historique 115). Paris: P.
Geuthner.
Schall, A. 1960. Studien über griechische
Fremdwörter im Syrischen. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft.
Segal, J. B. 1970. Edessa, the Blessed City.
Oxford: O.U.P.
Taylor, D. G. K. 2002. “Bilingualism and
Diglossia in Late Antique Syria and Mesopotamia.” Pp.
298-331 in J. N. Adams, M. Janse and S. Swain (eds),
Bilingualism in Ancient Society: language contact and the
written word, Oxford: O.U.P.