Early Armenian exegesis of Noah in the tenth-century manuscript Matenadaran M2679

Introduction

The transmission and interpretation of biblical and parabiblical traditions in early Armenian Christianity present a complex landscape of preservation, adaptation and conceptual innovation. One early witness to this process is manuscript M2679, a Miscellany, clearly dated to 981 CE. It is the oldest surviving paper manuscript in Armenian and preserves a variety of parabiblical materials, among other exegetical and homiletic texts. ¹ It is an early direct witness to Armenian parabiblical traditions, only preceded in precise dating by apocryphal texts and traditions preserved in known and dated writers, such as the tenth-century historian Uxtanēs. ² Within this codex, M2679, lies a brief but conceptually sophisticated text titled, ‘Concerning Noah’ (Վասն Նոյի), which presents a distinctive Armenian interpretation of the biblical name-midrash ³ on Noah found in Genesis 5:29.

The Armenian connection with Noah was rooted in the very identification of Mt. Masis (to give it its ancient name) as Mount Ararat (Gen 8:4) ⁴ and in the view that the Armenians’ eponymous ancestors were direct descendants of Japheth. ⁵ Thus, the biblical Noah story became deeply rooted among them. Sites around Mt. Ararat were identified with various incidents in the Noah stories, relics of the Ark were claimed to have been found on the mountain itself and some are revered to this day in a chapel in the Mother Church in Etchmiadzin. ⁶

Here we examine this early Armenian text called ‘Concerning Noah’ and its continuities and innovations vis-à-vis its biblical source material. This document provides a parade example of medieval Armenian biblical interpretation. From this investigation, it is found that while the Armenian tradition preserves certain core biblical narrative elements, it fundamentally reinterprets the significance of Noah’s name and mission, transforming the biblical promise of relief from agricultural labour, decreed upon human men by the curse of Adam, into a prophetic declaration of divine judgement and spiritual purification.

The biblical source and its Armenian context

The biblical foundation for our text lies in Genesis 5:29, where Lamech explains his son Noah’s name with the following words: ‘Out of the ground which the LORD has cursed this one shall bring us relief from our work and from the toil of our hands’. The Armenian Bible of 1805 ⁷ renders this as: եւ անուանեաց զանուն նորա Նո՛յ. ասէ՝Սա հանգուսցէ զմեզ ի գործոց մերոց եւ ի տրտմութեանց ձեռաց մերոց, ⁸ եւ յերկրէ զոր անէծ Տէր Աստուած ‘And he called his name Noah: he said, “This one will give us repose from our works and from the sorrows of our hands, and from the earth which the Lord God cursed”’.

The Armenian parabiblical text transmitted by M2679 cites this biblical source more or less word-for-word. However, upon this conservative textual foundation, Concerning Noah constructs a radical reinterpretation of the passage’s meaning.

Text and translation

/ fol. 30r / Վասն Նոյի Concerning Noah

Hermeneutical innovation in ‘concerning Noah’

The Cain-Abel typology

The Armenian text introduces an interpretive element entirely absent from the usual reading of the biblical source: the identification of the pre-flood generation as ‘agriculturalists of the second era.’ ¹⁹ This reflects a point of view that connects the conduct of the wicked agriculturalists that brought about the flood with the primordial opposition between Cain (the agriculturalist and the first wicked person) and Abel (the herder, who was viewed positively). ²⁰ This evaluation of the agriculturalists and the herders may also be inferred from the cursing of the earth in the context of God’s curse of Adam and was discussed above in connection with Noah’s name-midrash. On this basis, then, our text views the flood as a divine judgement against the Cain-like, inferior agriculturalists.

What is not in this Noah text?

The paragraphs at the beginning of this essay presented the two chief reasons for the importance the Armenians assigned to the Noah narrative. First, this story asserted the Armenians’ direct descent from Noah, by way of Japheth. This line of descent dated their national roots back to primordial times and permitted the Armenian Church to claim particular distinction. In addition, according to the Bible, Mt. Ararat, traditionally located in the heart of historical Armenia, was where Noah descended from the ark. Thus, Armenia was viewed as the centre from which, after the flood, the repopulation of the world commenced. Many later Noah texts highlight these specific elements and their parabiblical embroideries, including the Japhethite descent of the Armenians and prominent geographical features of central Armenia that were connected to the particular events of Noah’s descent from the ark. Thus, they stressed the Armenians’ early biblical roots. ²¹ Notably, these key Armenian traditions are barely mentioned in ‘Concerning Noah’, the work preserved in manuscript M2679. Instead of dwelling on these narrative and topographical elements, ‘Concerning Noah’ employs a prophetic and moral interpretative strategy which places total emphasis on Noah’s representation of the renewal of mankind, aspiring to live without the ‘toil’ of sin and evil-doing.

Textual and manuscript context

The preservation of this text in manuscript M2679 provides insights into the circulation, and perhaps into the authority, of parabiblical traditions in early medieval Armenia. The manuscript contains religious texts, including a number that relate to, supplement and expand upon biblical history. In turn, that suggests that, together with other writings, parabiblical narratives and interpretations were considered significant supplements to biblical revelation, not just marginal curiosities. ²²

The text in M2679 that we are discussing is embedded within commentary material attributed to Andrew of Crete, but it is clearly distinguished from that commentary by a title at its start and a coronis at its conclusion. These markers indicate the boundary between patristic commentary and what appears to be indigenous Armenian interpretation. This manuscript context suggests that early Armenian biblical interpretation operated within a framework that valued both traditional exegetical authorities and innovative traditions.

Comparative analysis: Biblical source vs Armenian interpretation

OPEN IN VIEWER

Aspect	Common understanding of Gen 5:29	Manuscript M2679’s interpretation
Prophetic character	Paternal hope/expectation	Prophetic declaration with eschatological significance
Nature of relief	Relief from agricultural toil on cursed ground	Moral purification through divine judgement
Scope of benefit	Universal (‘us’)	Selective (souls perfect in virtue)
Conceptual framework	Curse and relief	Judgement and purification
Historical context	Individual agricultural concern	Cosmic moral conflict

Theological significance and innovation

The Armenian text’s interpretation of Noah’s name-midrash represents a development that transforms the biblical narrative’s more apparent focus from agricultural relief to future judgement. These conceptual innovations demonstrate how early Armenian biblical interpretation engaged creatively with biblical source material to address the nation’s Christian ethos.

Conclusion

The Armenian text, ‘Concerning Noah’, preserved in manuscript M2679, represents a significant witness to early medieval Armenian biblical interpretation. While maintaining textual fidelity to its biblical source in Gen 5:29, the Armenian interpretation demonstrates sophisticated hermeneutical innovation in its reinterpretation of Noah’s prophetic significance. The relief from the agricultural burden becomes the cleansing of the earth from the wicked.

The analysis of this text demonstrates that early Armenian parabiblical traditions represent neither simple preservation nor wholesale innovation, but rather a complex process of interpretive engagement that, honouring biblical authority, expanded its scope, while addressing contemporary moral and religious issues.

Analysis of the exegetical tradition preserved in M2679 advances our understanding of early Armenian biblical interpretation within the larger history of broadly accepted biblical exegesis. Strikingly, as we observed, the document does not address the ark, Mt. Ararat or other Armenian national traditions, thus contrasting with its contemporary telling of the same events by Uxtanēs. ²³