When Scribes Switched Languages: Curious Patterns in Syriac Rūm Orthodox Manuscripts
by Elie Dannaoui
#manuscripts #Syriac #languages
Introduction
Imagine opening a centuries-old manuscript and finding three different languages woven together on the same page—Syriac prayers in elegant script, Arabic translations squeezed between the lines, and Greek annotations scattered in the margins. This isn't the work of confused scribes, but rather the ingenious solution of a religious community navigating one of history's most significant linguistic transformations.
The Rūm Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch experienced a major linguistic transformation over its first millennium. What began as a Greek-speaking church that also embraced Syriac gradually transformed as Arabic spread throughout the region following Islamic expansion in the 7th century. By the 19th century, Syriac had virtually vanished from the church's daily life—a language that had once echoed through monastery halls and parish churches was effectively silenced.
But here's where the story gets fascinating. The manuscripts from the 14th to 18th centuries—a period that has received surprisingly little scholarly attention—reveal that this wasn't simply a case of one language bulldozing another. Instead, these documents showcase remarkable creativity: scribes developed sophisticated strategies to preserve ancient traditions while making them accessible to communities whose daily language was shifting to Arabic.
The surviving manuscripts tell a story of adaptation rather than abandonment. Monastic communities emerged as guardians of the Syriac tradition, creating innovative multilingual arrangements and parallel translations. Most intriguingly, they developed a nuanced system where Syriac remained the language of priestly prayers and sacred elements, while Arabic served the growing needs of lay participation.
These manuscripts reveal distinct patterns that challenge our assumptions about linguistic change in religious communities—patterns that show how tradition and innovation can coexist in unexpected ways.
Creative Language Mixing Strategies
Code-Switching: When Languages Dance Together
Our first glimpse into this linguistic creativity comes from manuscript HMTR 00026 (a 17th-century gospel lectionary and commentary from Hamatoura monastery in Lebanon, copied by the scribe ʻIssa in 1605). On folios 20v-21r, we witness remarkable "code-switching" in action. The scribe seamlessly alternates between Syriac and Arabic within the same text—the name "John" appears in elegant Syriac script, then reappears in Arabic just lines later.
This isn't confusion; it's sophisticated bilingual artistry. The scribe demonstrates how both languages could coexist not just on the same page, but within individual passages. These fluid transitions suggest both languages held equal validity in the community's religious life, creating a seamless bilingual experience where ancient Syriac traditions and emerging Arabic practices complemented rather than competed with each other.
Collaborative Translation Efforts
The collaborative nature of this linguistic adaptation becomes even clearer in other sections of HMTR 00026. On folio 22r, we observe instances where the scribe left deliberate spaces in Syriac titles, which another hand later filled with corresponding Arabic titles, suggesting a planned approach to making the text more accessible to Arabic readers.
Meanwhile, the margins of folio 47v contain Arabic annotations, reflecting an increasing need for Arabic glosses in Syriac manuscripts and witnessing the linguistic change taking place within the monastic community itself.
Interlinear Translation: Building Bridges Between Languages
Moving beyond spontaneous code-switching, some communities developed systematic translation strategies. Manuscript HMTR 00021 (a 17th-century Euchologion from Hamatoura monastery in Lebanon, featuring later Greek notes alongside Arabic and Syriac text) reveals a different yet equally ingenious solution: systematic interlinear translation. On folios 22v–23r, Arabic translations appear neatly tucked between the Syriac lines, creating a bilingual safety net for readers.
This approach goes far beyond mere convenience—it reveals a community caught in the midst of linguistic transition. These interlinear glosses served multiple purposes: helping Arabic-dominant monks who were losing fluency in Syriac, and enabling fully Arabic services when needed. But the manuscript reveals even more complexity: Greek words rendered phonetically in Syriac script and Garshuni (Arabic written in Syriac letters).
Together, these techniques capture a trilingual liturgy in flux. Syriac maintained its prestige but needed Arabic scaffolding for comprehension. Greek retained its ritual authority but required phonetic transcription. Arabic pragmatically bridged the gaps. This layered approach shows how the Rūm Orthodox community negotiated between preserving ancient traditions and adapting to the linguistic reality of 18th-century Lebanon—honoring the past while serving the present.
Perhaps the most intriguing adaptation appears in manuscript BALA00015 (an 18th-century Leitourgikon from Balamand monastery, featuring decorated initials and headpieces alongside trilingual text). Here we encounter "Karshuni Greek"—just as Arabic could be written in Syriac letters (traditional Garshuni), these scribes rendered Greek phrases in Syriac script.
The Greek liturgical phrase "Εὐλόγησον Δέσποτα" (Bless, O Master) appears as ܐܦܠܘܓܝܨܘܢ ܕܐܣܒܘܛܐ—Greek words, Syriac letters.
This practice wasn't confined to a single manuscript. BALA00006 (a 16th-century Leitourgikon from the same monastery, dated precisely to 1599) shows the identical phrase with a variant transliteration: ܐܦܠܘܓܝܨܘܢ ܕܐܣܦܘܛܐ. The slight difference in rendering the final word reveals how individual scribes heard and transcribed the Greek sounds.
Another telling example appears on folio 27v, where the liturgical call "Σοφία, Ὀρθοί" (Wisdom, Arise) becomes ܨܘܦܝܐ ܐܘܪܬܝ. Notice how the Greek θ (theta) is rendered as a simple T—revealing the phonetic reality of how these communities actually pronounced their inherited Greek liturgy.
Our final script adaptation represents the culmination of this linguistic evolution. Returning to manuscript HMTR 00021, we witness yet another evolutionary step. Here, Greek phrases appear transliterated not into Syriac script, but into Arabic letters.
On folio 9v, the Greek liturgical phrase "Εἰς πολλὰ ἔτη, δέσποτα" (For many years, O Master) appears as سبولايتي دسبوتا—Greek sounds rendered in Arabic script and highlighted in red ink to signal their sacred importance.
The red highlighting is particularly significant—these transliterated Greek phrases weren't just functional adaptations but were visually emphasized as special, sacred elements within the Arabic liturgical text. This captures the final stage in the Rūm Orthodox Church's Arabization process, where Greek retained its liturgical authority only through accessible Arabic transliteration.
Some communities developed comprehensive strategies that balanced multiple languages systematically. HMTR 00021 serves as a paradigmatic example of this balanced bilingual approach. This manuscript demonstrates sophisticated linguistic strategies employed by monastic scribes to serve communities with varying degrees of competence in both Arabic and Syriac.
Folios 27v-28r show the harmonious coexistence of Syriac and Arabic in the same manuscript, revealing a bilingual community capable of celebrating liturgies in both languages as circumstances required.
The manuscript demonstrates a clear differential retreat pattern, with linguistic stratification between monastic and lay services. While Syriac appears intensively in monastic liturgical services, Arabic becomes the primary language for ceremonies conducted for laypeople such as marriage, as shown in folios 30v-31r.
By the early 17th century, some communities had largely completed their transition to Arabic while preserving select traditional elements. HMTR 00020 (an Euchologion copied in 1621 by the scribe Yuakim, spanning 164 folios and written primarily in Arabic) represents this advanced stage of Arabization while retaining vestigial connections to the community's Syriac heritage.
The manuscript belongs to the category of predominantly Arabic liturgical texts that preserve Syriac and Greek elements in highly selective contexts. For example, on folio 2v, Greek liturgical phrases appear within the Arabic text, revealing ongoing ties to Byzantine liturgical tradition while scattered Syriac words function as linguistic artifacts of the community's pre-Arabic heritage.
The most poignant evidence of complete linguistic transformation appears in manuscripts from the early 18th century, where ancient Syriac and Greek texts had been reduced to utilitarian repair material for Arabic manuscripts.
HMTR 00015 (a Pentecostarion copied in 1701 by the scribe Yussef, spanning 177 folios and written entirely in Arabic) provides an early example of this phenomenon. Its most revealing feature appears in folio bp_178v, where a folio with Syriac script was used to restore the back page of the Arabic manuscript, showing that by 1701, Syriac texts were already being viewed as expendable material for practical manuscript maintenance.
The phenomenon reaches its fullest expression in HMTR 00019 (an 18th -century Anthologion copied in 1777 by the scribe Mikhail, spanning 270 folios and written entirely in Arabic). Several folios have been restored using pages taken from different Greek and Syriac manuscripts, as noted in folios 263v-264r. What is particularly surprising is the presence of Greek folios used for restoration alongside the Syriac ones, confirming the full Arabization of the monastic community.
This example demonstrates that both Syriac and Greek languages were completely out of liturgical use in the monastery. The monks were repurposing what they now considered "obsolete" manuscripts to maintain their active Arabic liturgical books. These restoration practices represent a poignant testimony to the complete linguistic transformation of the monastery—the sacred Syriac and Greek texts that once formed part of the community's liturgical heritage had been reduced to utilitarian repair material for their Arabic successors.
Conclusion
These manuscript patterns reveal a sophisticated community response to linguistic change that went far beyond simple replacement. Instead of abandoning their multilingual heritage, these Rūm Orthodox communities developed creative solutions that honored tradition while embracing practical necessity. From the elegant code-switching of the early 17th century to the systematic recycling of ancient manuscripts for practical repairs by the 18th century, these documents tell a story of remarkable adaptability.
Their manuscripts stand as testaments to how religious communities can navigate the currents of historical change—preserving what was sacred while innovating for survival. The journey from trilingual liturgies to Arabic-dominant worship, mediated by ingenious script adaptations and translation strategies, offers profound insights into how tradition and transformation can coexist in the face of inexorable change.
