TEXTS AND MANUSCRIPTS:

DESCRIPTION AND RESEARCH

B. Ashurov

SOGDIAN CHRISTIAN TEXTS:

THE MANIFESTATION OF “SOGDIAN CHRISTIANITY” [1]

Abstract. This paper aims to discuss the philological “mechanisms” used in translating Christian texts into Sogdian. It focuses
specifically on how different Christian theological and ecclesiological vocabularies were translated from Syriac. Particular empha-
sis will be given to showing how the Sogdian Church linguistically contextualized its theological and ecclesiological concepts.
Section 1 offers introductory review of the composition of the texts focusing on the physical organization and philological structure
of the texts, including short survey of research history on individual vocabularies. Section 2 discusses the translation mechanisms
observed in structure of the texts. Section 3 provides examples of the “Christian” vocabularies related to a selected major theologi-
cal ecclesiological concepts and expressions.
Keywords: Christian texts, Sogdian Christianity, Central Asia, The Church of the East, linguistic contextualization

Introduction
The period between the fall of the great Kušan Kingdom
(4th century AD) and the Arab invasion (8th century
AD) was a time of great flourishing for Sogdiana both
economically and culturally.
This time period witnessed the steady spread of Sog-
dian culture outside its immediate geopolitical bounda-
ries; from the ZarafšƗn valley to ýaþ, Semirechye and
China. Sogdian towns and cities were planted along the
main trade routes and in economically strategic areas.
Although these so called “colonies” were primary agri-
culturalist societies, they played a major role in the de-
velopment of local sedentary urban culture since much
of the region was mainly inhabited by (semi) nomadic
pastoralist communities.
Sogdian communities outside of Sogdiana were also
instrumental “service providers” for caravans (mainly
led by Sogdians) that travelled through their cities.
The prosperity of Sogdian commerce in early medieval
period (5th—8th centuries AD) had significant implica-
tions for their culture. The trade brought them into close
contact with different “ethno-linguistic” communities and
contributed to the enrichment of their worldview and of
their culture in general. In particular, one of major conse-
quences was the intensive growth of different religious
components in Sogdian culture, such as Christianity.
Aside from references in literary sources, evidence
of “Sogdian Christianity” has reached us through various
material culture objects and texts. Sogdian Christian
texts are one of the largest extant Christian bodies of
writing in an Iranian language, and were discovered in
the early decades of the twentieth century by members of
the German Turfan Expeditions during the four cam-
paigns, led by Albert Grünwedel and Alber von le Coq
between 1902 and 1914 [2].
All Sogdian Christian texts known today were dis-
covered at the ruin of Shüi-pang, near the modern-day
town of Bulayïq, located 10 km north of Turfan, China,
and a small number were found in the Dunhuang area [3].

History of Research
The diversity of the vocabulary in Sogdian Christian Syriac Christian technical terms and their Sogdian coun-
texts was first noted by Émile Benveniste [4], where he terparts. In particular, he stressed the Persian background
focused on various categories of Christian terminology: and characteristics of Sogdian Christian texts, as mani-
either Middle Persian or technical words designated as fested in their use of Middle Persian words. Nicholas
Syriac loanwords. A further study on the topic was un- Sims-Williams [6] has studied the “Syriac elements in
dertaken by Olaf Hansen [5] who also presented a list of Sogdian” and discussed many important individual words.

© B. Ashurov, 2015
4 Manuscripta Orientalia.
Physical Organization and Philological Structure of the Texts
The extant Sogdian Christian texts vary in sizes and
compositional arrangements. There are manuscripts
containing a single work or a collection of thematically
related texts, as well as manuscripts containing various
unrelated texts [7]. One of the well-known examples of
the latter manuscript group is the codex C2 [8] that is
believed in its original composition to have contained at
least 13 texts of various genres, such as martyrology or
Apostolic Cannons [9].
In their layout and format, most of the Sogdian
Christian manuscripts are written in Western-style codi-
ces, with only a single fragment being assumed to repre-
sent an Indian poνhƯ book [10]. However, according to
Sims-Williams “there is nothing to suggest that it ever
had a string-hole like a real po৬hƯ” [11].
The texts are written in paper with black, brown and
red ink, with the red used for the opening lines, rubrics
and headings. The Sogdian Christian texts are composed
in one column and usually follow Syriac punctuations
and the most used ornament or iconographic element is
the sign of the cross. The greatest “shortcoming” of the
existing Sogdian Christian texts is the lack of colophons,
which would have been of immense help in dating and
localization of these texts.
As translated literature, Sogdian Christian texts dis-
play both a “dependence” on original sources as well as
an “independence” from them.
The “dependence” of the Sogdian Christian texts on
Syriac is primarily displayed in the following features:
(i) The use of loan words, especially technical terms
or specific Christian expressions designating different
ecclesiastical offices or practices, such as deacon,
Eucharist etc. (These are detailed below).
(ii) Retention of Syriac word-order and over-literal
translation causing the creation of artificial syntax [12].
This feature is particularly evident when the verb is
placed in the beginning of the sentence, which is not
a feature of Sogdian. However, verbal forms are kept in
Translations Mechanisms
Christian expressions in Sogdian Christian texts were
Loanwords
Most loanwords found in Sogdian Christian texts
were from Syriac and were given in transliteration.
These are usually technical terms or personal names (see
the examples below). There are also loanwords of Greek
and Hebrew origin that were transmitted into Sogdian
via Syriac. In addition, there are a few Syriac words that
were phonetically assimilated into Sogdian. It is signifi-
cant to mention that the technical words used in Sogdian
Christian texts, including the adapted Syriac script, had
been never used by non-Christian Sogdians or other lan-
guage groups [16]. In relation to the Syriac loanwords in
Sogdian Christian texts for which the native equivalent is
not attested Hansen remarked that these are “relics” of
VOL. 21 NO. 1 JUNE 2015
accord with Sogdian morpho-syntactical structure. This
feature is well evident in the example below:
mn [d‫܈‬bҵҴ ]d[n](Ҵ)tҴ btry nkp‫ܦ‬r bnpš(h) (Syriac).
Whoever wants to come after me should give up his
soul.
(xwn)ͻ Ҵdͻ [qt q](Ҵ)mլ ̙ t(qtҴ)ͻ܎t mnҴ p(š)ysҴ pstwҴt [pr
xypș Ȗ](r)yw (Sogdian).
Whoever wants to come after me should give up his
soul [13].
The “independence” of the Sogdian Christian texts is
displayed in the following:
(i) The use of native Sogdian vocabulary or, on oc-
casion, Middle Persian words to translate both general
Christian expressions and termini technici e. g bȖ to
translate alƗhƗ, “God”. Further examples are detailed
below.
(ii) The use of words or phrases, which may have
been part of a Sogdian literary style. As exemplified by
the following sentence from lectionary C5:
Ҵۨr yšwҵ [ltl](m)ydwhy (Syriac).
Jesus spoke to his disciples.
wҴnw frmҴy[]xwtҴw yšwȖ qw xypș [ž]wxšqtҴ sҴ (Sogdian).
So spoke the Lord Jesus to his disciples [14].
In the example above the adverb, wҴnw, “so”, “thus”
is used at the beginning of the sentence containing Jesus'
speech, which is absent in the Syriac original. In addi-
tion, the use of the word xwtҴw, “Lord” in connection
with Jesus' name is also another stylistic feature of Sog-
dian Christian texts that is absent in Syriac. In the origi-
nal texts “Lord” is not inserted before Jesus' name on all
occasions. Another additional word that is regularly used
in Sogdian Christian texts, but is absent in Syriac is the
adjective nwšy, “eternal” that regularly qualifies Syriac
hyҴ, “life”; e. g. nwšc žwҴn, “eternal life” [15].
translated using the following vocabulary categories:
the earliest period when Christianity was introduced into
Sogdian culture [17]. That is to say that these loanwords
were at first used when the corresponding Christian vo-
cabulary in native Sogdian was still evolving or Christi-
anity was not well absorbed into linguistic setting of
Sogdian culture. However, their subsequent retention
and use together with Sogdian native words indicates
that these words had become well known and were
widely used. Therefore, the translator did not consider it
urgent to translate them or attempt to find a correspond-
ing word in Sogdian.
The second stratum of loanwords used in Sogdian
Christian texts is represented by Middle Persian words
B. ASHUROV. Sogdian Christian Texts…
such as trsҴq, “Christian”, pywҴq, “response” and xҴnyš,
“reading”. As Sims-Williams puts it:
The use of Middle Persian for the vernacular parts of the
liturgy was probably introduced into Central Asia during the
initial stages of the Nestorian mission from Iran, but Middle
Persian, which would not have been understood by the local
population, was soon superseded by Sogdian [18].
This category of vocabulary, as Benveniste has em-
phasized [19], bears qualitative significance as the words
denote both important theological and general concepts.
The Middle Persian vocabularies in Sogdian Christian
texts indicate the familiarity of Sogdian Christians with
the Christian literature in Middle Persian, or even possibly
Native Vocabulary
This category includes the Sogdian words used to
translate various Syriac technical and general religious ter-
minologies, such as mwžtybrqyҴ, “Gospel” to translate
Syriac “evangelion” or zprt wҴt, “Holy Spirit” to translate
ruhƗ qdƯšƗ. The indigenous vocabularies in Sogdian Chris-
tian texts are sometimes used together with the Syriac
loanwords i. e. same word both in its Syriac as well as in
Sogdian. This was probably done for stylistic purpose to
avoid repetition of the words. However, the fact that these
Examples of the “Christian” Vocabularies of the Sogdian Christian Texts
Theological Expressions
God
The term used to designate God in Sogdian is bȖ.
This term as demonstrated by Walter Henning in Sog-
dian is also used as an honorific term meaning “Lord”,
“Sir”, “Excellency” [23]. Sims-Williams has subse-
quently demonstrated that this term was sometimes used
as a specific designation of Mithra, one of the main Sog-
dian-Zoroastrian deities known from both written
sources and works of art [24].
Yet at the same time Sogd. ȕȖ- continued as designa-
tion of the ancient divinities, and the representatives of
monotheistic religions, as Christian missionaries, used it of
“God” with a capital letter [25].
Etymologically, bȖ belongs to the verbal root bag “to
distribute”, “to allot” and may be equated with bhága, an
Old Indian divine epithet probably meaning “dispenser”,
“generous one”. In Sogdian Christian texts, this term is
used exclusively to render SyriacalƗhƗ, “God”. Possibly
the only example where the Syriac alƗhƗ in Sogdian
Christian is used in transliteration is found in the story of
Daniel:
fryw qwntҴ xypșҴwnt ҴlhҴ sҴr cn ҴȖty mҴn ZY cn ҴȖty
zҴwr. cn sҴt šyҴ ZY cn sҴt mҴn.
Love the Lord God with (your) whole mind and with
5
that the evangelization of Sogdiana was carried by the
Middle Persian speakers. Today the only surviving exam-
ple of Middle Persian Christian literature is the Pahlavi
Psalter, which was also discovered at Turfan [20]. How-
ever other Christian inscriptions in Pahlavi are known,
such as inscription in the processional cross discovered
from Herat or cross plaques ornamented with Pahlavi in-
scriptions in South Asia i. e. India, Sri Lanka [21].
It is likely that there was other Christian literature in
Pahlavi similar that in Sogdian, but which has not sur-
vived. Above all, the so-called Persian elements in Sog-
dian Christian texts are indicative of the robust in-
ter-relationship of the churches in Sogdiana and Persia
where the patriarch of the Church of the East resided.
words may have had symbolic meanings as well cannot be
completely ruled out.
Aside from linguistic reasons, the development or
use of indigenous Sogdian terms can be interpreted as
a “soli-linguistic” phenomenon signalling the accultura-
tion of the Church into the local context through the use
of language [22]. One feature of the native words de-
vised to convey theological concepts in Sogdian is that
they are nearly always compound nouns.
(your) whole strength, with all (your) intelligence and with
all (your) mind [26].
Sims-Williams observed that in this example the
Sogdian word mҴn, “mind” is used to translate Syriac
words lbҴ, “heart” and rҵynҴ, “mind” [27]. Otherwise, the
word for heart in Christian Sogdian, particularly on the
usage evidence of C2, is žyҴwr.
One of the most frequent attestations of the word bȖ
is in phrase “Lord God”.
xwtw bȖҴ.
Lord God [28].
xwtҴw xwtҴw zҴwrqyn xwšywny bȖҴ.
Lord, Lord, mighty king (and) God [29].
Other theological terms related with bȖ root are
bȖҴnyq, “divine”, “of God” and bȖyҴqyҴ, “divinity”.
bȖҴnyq šyrҴqtyҴ
Divine Grace [30].
twҴ bȖyҴqyҴ
Thy Divinity [31].
The expression of bȖy ptry, “Father God” is also
common, which usually translates Syriac ҴbҴ [32].
6 Manuscripta Orientalia.
Lord
The term translating “Lord”, as seen in above exam-
ples of “Lord God” is xwtw. In Christian texts xwtw is
used both in connection with God e. g. xwtw bȖ, “Lord
God” and Jesus xwtҴw yšwȖ, “Lord Jesus”.
The term xwtw in currently known texts occur with
different spellings e. g. xwtҴw and xwdҴw. Similarly to
bȖ, this term in Sogdian is widely used both addressing
humans and divinities. As was noted earlier in Sogdian
Christian texts, xwtw “Lord” is one of the phrases regu-
larly used in connection with Jesus' name, which is ab-
sent in the Syriac originals. For example, in C5 the fol-
lowing is attested:
Ҵm֌ r yšwҵ [ltl](m)ydwhy.
Jesus spoke to his disciples (Syriac).
wҴnw frmҴy[]xwtҴw yšwȖ qw xypș [ž]wxšqtҴ sҴ.
So spoke the Lord Jesus to his disciples (Sogdian) [33].
Ҵm֌ r yš[wҵ] ltlmydwh(y).
Jesus spoke to his disciples (Syriac).
wҴnw frҴmҴy[]xwtҴw y(š)wȖ qw xypș žwxšqt[Ҵ] sҴ (Sogdian).
So spoke the Lord Jesus to his disciples [34].
Regarding the use of xwtw in Sogdian Christian
texts, Martin Schwartz points out that it always translates
the Syriac word mryҴ as “Lord” [35]. This usage of the
word is also confirmed in the lectionary C5, where xwtw
consistently translates Syriac mryҴ. However, in this
texts it “is used [either] alone or with ҴlhҴ ‘God’ but not
with yšwҵ” [36]. The spelling xwdҴw is attested in E8,
a liturgical text for the commemoration of the departed.
Since xwtҴw is not used in the Syriac texts where
Sogdian uses it, one can argue that such phraseology i. e.
using xwtҴw consistently with Jesus is a feature of the
cultural influence of Sogdian into the textual tradition.
Christ, Jesus Christ and Messiah
As with other personal names (Syriac, Greek, and
Hebrew) including Jesus and his title in Sogdian Chris-
tian texts are represented by transliteration from the
Syriac yšwȖ “Jesus” and yšwȖmšyh֏ Ҵ “Jesus Christ” [38].
As Sims-Williams pointed out personal and geo-
graphical names in Sogdian Christian texts are “usually
adapted with their Syriac spellings unchanged” [39].
However, if there was another form of spelling already
established these (geographical or personal names) are
given in their Sogdian form, for example the Middle Per-
sian name ŠƗhdǀst. According to Sims Williams the
Sogdian translation of this name (Middle Persian
ŠƗhdǀst, “Friend of the king” [40]; Syriac r‫ۊ‬m mlkҴ and
Sogdian xwšywny fry) may have been influenced by the
word order of the Middle Persian; that is xwšywny fry.
Because in Sogdian fri is otherwise usually the first ele-
ment in compounds. Another established geographical
name is frwm, “Rome” [41]. But in the name of the Sa-
sanian capital city Tesifon, which in the Syriac version is
given as q‫ܒ‬yspwn the Sogdian version does not reproduce
this historical form, but replaces it by a form tyspwn,
VOL. 21 NO. 1 JUNE 2015
However, its exact implications on the social and reli-
gious perception levels cannot be determined for certain.
Another term translating “Lord” in Sogdian is
xypșҴwnt, which as evident in the example given below,
is also used in common with xwtw.
nȖny Ҵt mdw qy pryw mҴx xypșҴwnt yšwȖ mšyhҴ tmp(Ҵ)[r]
[Ҵ]t ywxny rҴz xcy. šwšpҴ[]qy sqypҴr cn pylsҴ Ҵt ksҴ
xšnyrq
xcy nd(yw)yd snqy qy Ҵw(s)tty (b)Ҵ pr xwtw yšwȖ
frwrtqt(y) dbrw.
The bread and wine upon it is a mystery Our Lord Je-
sus Christ' body and blood. The veil over the paten and
chalice is a sign of that stone which was placed upon the
door of the Lord Jesus's tomb [37].
There are two different words used in relation to Je-
sus in this example: xypșҴwnt which is used with the
phrase “Jesus Christ” and xwtw which is used when Je-
sus' name is not followed by his title i. e. Christ.
In the above and other similar contexts, this desig-
nation of the word “Lord” by two distinct terms xwtw
and xypșҴwnt may be understood as a “stylistic device”;
that is the use of these words as synonyms to avoid
repetition. Furthermore, this signifies the translator's
awareness and knowledge of different Sogdian words
conveying similar theological concepts accurately.
In addition to Sogdian Christian texts xypșҴwnt is
also used in Manichean texts, and similarly to xwtw it
has different spelling variations, such as xypįҴwnd. This
term is not common in Sogdian Buddhist texts. De-
pending on the contexts in which this term is used, it can
mean “ruler”, “king”, and “the Lord”. The application
and usage of the term is comparable to the earlier men-
tioned xwtw.
which indicates the great familiarity of the Sogdian
translator with the actual Middle Persian form of the
place name [42].
In connection with this it is noteworthy to mention
that the Syriac term that is directly related to the word
Christ kristianaia (ultimately from Greek ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȠȢ
borrowed into Syriac) is not attested in Sogdian. Instead,
Sogdian Christian texts employ the word trsҴq, an ex-
pression deriving from Pahlavi tarsƗg (¥ trs, “to fear”) to
translate the word “Christian”. This word is also attested
in expression nҴtrsҴqy, “non-Christians”, an adjective
trsҴqҴny, “of the Christians” e. g. trsҴqҴny bȖy, “God of
the Christians” [43] and trsҴqyҴ, “Christianity”.
Possibly the only other instance where the expres-
sion is used is Psalm 22:24:
[xwtҴw ȕȖy t](r)sҴktҴ (Sogdian).
O fearers of the Lord God.
d‫ۊ‬lǢhy d-mryҴ (Syriac).
Fearers of God [44].
B. ASHUROV. Sogdian Christian Texts…
Like many other Middle Persian words used in the
Sogdian Christian texts this particular vocabulary is in-
dicative of the interrelationship of Sogdian and Middle
Persian Christian literature. In addition, this term has
anthropological implication, namely it is used to differ-
entiate a religious identity of an individual.
Christians of the Sassanid Empire, as Sebastian
Brock has shown, were referred to by the “outsiders”,
such as Zoroastrian High priest Kartir, as nasraya and
kristiyan [45]. In Kartir's inscription “the differentiation
in terminology refers to two groups of different geo-
graphical origin, and of different cultural allegi-
ance” [46], i. e. nasraya designates the local / native and
kristiyan the “expat” Christians likely those Christians
who were brought to Persia as a result of the war and
were Greek speaking. In contrary to the nasraya,
a designation usually applied to the local Christians by
the non-Christian outsiders, the local Christians in Persia
before the fifth century, may have self-identified by the
term mšhaye “Christ-like”.
Aphrahat writing in the mid-fourth century uses the
term to gloss the word kristyane used in the book of Acts
11:26. Considering that he employs the word mšhaye to
define the kristyane makes it clear that at that time
kristyane was not widely used or known in Persia [47].
The mšhaye was than subsequently displaced under the
influence of the Antiochene tradition in the Church of
the East of the Sassanid Empire from early fifth century
and as Brock puts it:
the term kristyane [in this period] came to be used of
all Christians, irrespective of their origin [and the term]
Holy Spirit
The Holy Spirit in Sogdian Christian texts is desig-
nated by a compound phrase zprt “pure”, “holy” and
noun wҴt “wind”, “spirit”. In Sogdian Christian texts the
word holy zprt is also attested in its Syriac loan qdyš. For
example, in C2 fol. 57R 29 we find the following
šy p(r)tw qdyš.
The three times Qaddiš [52].
zprt wҴt pr() qpwtyc(y)[](mҴn)[wqyҴ].
The Holy Spirit in the likeness of a dove [53].
[xwmҴr]-wҴbw zprt wҴt.
Advocate the Holy Spirit [54].
In the last example zprt wҴt “Holy Spirit” follows
a partially-attested compound. Judging from the lacuna,
it has been suggested that the missing word was xwmҴr,
“consolation”, which in this particular context would
translate Advocate or Paraclete, an attribute of the Holy
Baptism
The word used to translate “baptism” in Sogdian
Christian texts is snҴm.
[[]xyd] qy wҴbtq dyndҴr qt snҴm pcȖҴztq tҴnmҴn:
[Ҵt ny[]wҴb]tq qt snҴm șbrҴmsq
7
nasraya evidently gained, in Christian eyes, distinctly pejo-
rative overtones [48].
The above discussion makes it explicit that the
adoption of certain self-identifying term by the Chris-
tians in Sassanid Era had sociological, perhaps theologi-
cal and political, reasons, too. This raises the question
whether the use of Middle Persian trsҴq by Sogdian
Christians was also conditioned by a similar situation. It
is clear that Greek expression kristyane (in Syriac ad-
justment) epitomized the intrinsic relationship of Per-
sian, Syriac and Greek-speaking Christians. Perhaps, this
symbolic virtue of the term was also found in the word
trsҴq, which signified the true Persian identity of the
Sogdian Christians and their links with the “mother
church” in Iran.
Recently Samuel Lieu has opined that the term by
which Christianity was known in medieval China i. e. Jing-
jiao “㣾㟨” and is traditionally translated as the “Luminous
Religion” may be a homophonic calque for trsҴq [49].
At the time when official decree for propagation of
Christianity was granted to the Church of the East, Sog-
dians were one of the sizable Iranian-speaking minorities
in the Chinese soil [50]. Further, considering the ethnic
background of the important figures of the Xian Stele, i. e.
the Bactrian (Balkh) origin of Mar Yazedbouzid, it is pos-
sible that Sogdians were some of his primary co-workers
in converting China to Christianity [51]. These considera-
tions, at least indirectly, point to the fact that trsҴq was in-
troduced to the Chinese Christian circle as was kristyane
into Persia, where the main missionary force may have
been educated in Greek, but were of Syriac ethnicity.
Spirit. In Syriac the Paraclete is used in its Greek trans-
literation [55].
The best example containing the theological formu-
lary of the “Sogdian Christianity” is the Nicene
Creed [56]. The Nicene Creed was a document of great
importance, from a theological perspective. The author-
ity of the Synod of Nicea was affirmed by first Synod of
the Church of the East held in AD 410 [57]. The signifi-
cant theological implication of the document is also
demonstrated by the fact that it was codified in both
Sogdian language and Sogdian cursive script, which was
possibly known in the larger social context than the
adapted Syriac. Presence of the text expressing the core
belief of the Christian church in the format (language
and script) accessible and familiar to majority indicates
strong intentions toward the localization (indigenization)
of Christianity into Sogdian society, which remained
largely multi-religious until its conquest by Islam.
That (fact) that the priest says: “So and so receives
baptism” and does not say: “I baptize” [58].
Similar to the Syriac term maҵmudƯthƗ stemming
from the verbal root meaning, “to bathe”, “to wash”; the
8 Manuscripta Orientalia.
Sogdian word also means “washing”, as exemplified by
the phrase dyndҴrty dsty snҴm, “the washing of the hands
of the priest” [59]. Accordingly, the particular sacra-
mental meaning of the term, i. e. Baptism is discerned
solely by the context where it is used. The verb to “bap-
tize” in Sogdian is formed from snҴm, “washing” and
șbr, “give”. The particular phenomenon to note here is
Mystery / Eucharist
The Eucharist in Sogdian Christian texts is translated
by two words: rҴzҴ and qwrbn. Etymologically rҴzҴ is an
Iranian word, however as indicated by the final ҵƗҴ it
may have entered Sogdian from Syriac. The Sogdian
equivalent of the expression is rҴz, which means a “se-
Heaven / Paradise
The concept of heaven / paradise in Sogdian Chris-
tian texts is translated by the following terms: wštmҴx,
bwstn and smҴn. Of these three wštmҴx conveys the
meaning of “heavenly realm” and smҴn conveys the
meaning of “sky”. Both are also attested in Manichean
and Buddhist Sogdian texts. On the other hand bwstn
means paradise in the sense of “garden”.
For example,
Ҵxz()trҴ tys qw bwstn
Arise go enter into Paradise [62].
The Sogdian word wštmҴx (in Manichean Sogdian
once spelled wyštmҴx, in Middle Persian whyštҴw and in
New Persian bihišt) etymologically relates to the
Avestan expression vahištϷm ahnjm, “(best) existence”,
which according to Zoroastrian cosmogony was associ-
ated with Ahura Mazda's place. Thus the Bundahišn says
vahišt garǀ-įamƗn Ư auhramazd “vahišt (is) the ‘House
of Welcome’ of Ahura MazdƗ” [63].
In the Avesta this term occurs in Y. 16.7: vahištϷm
ahnjm aš ̙aonąm yazamaide, “the Best Existence of the
aš ̙avans we worship” [64]. The Avestan vahišta in the
form of (Ϸ)xušt “best” (with “x” for “h”, as opposed to
*wϷšt(-mƗx), i. e. “Ø” for “h”), is also attested in the
only Sogdian Zoroastrian text, the Aš ̙Ϸm Vohnj prayer
(Yasna 27.14). Benveniste notes that in Chorasmian
Turkish this word as a loanword from Sogdian is attested
in the form of uštmaq / uþmaq [65]. This can suggest that
this word was probably first adopted into Old Turkish
(Uighur), however, it cannot be determined whether it
was inherited from Manichean or Christian usage.
On the basis of the presence of different linguistic
influences in the Avesta discussed by Hoffmann &
Narten [66] the phonetic deviation of vahišta as (Ϸ)xušt
as pointed out by Hintze [67] resulted from Avestan text
being subjected to the influence of Sogdian. That is pro-
nunciation adapted into local spoken Sogdian.
Furthermore, the relationship of Sogdian wštmҴx
with the vahištϷm ahnjm is assumed on the basis that
many Old Iranian phrases and compounds merge to-
gether. Consequently, the Sogdian wštmҴx may have re-
sulted from the merging of the bipartite phrase vahištϷm
VOL. 21 NO. 1 JUNE 2015
the semantic shift of the word from meaning a regular
washing into a ritual washing.
There are other examples demonstrating the seman-
tic shifts in Sogdian texts, such as psҴyįw, “fail”, “stint”
and “restriction”. As indicated in the recently published
Sogdian Christian hymn psҴyįw translates Syriac bÿštҴ,
“evil deeds”, which shows a semantic shift from regular
failing to moral failing i. e. sin [60].
cret”, “mystery” or “symbol” [61]. The borrowing of this
word from its Syriac usage suggests that rҴz in its Iranian
context had not the same special meaning; namely
Eucharist, but rather was a generic word designating
a mystery or secret.
ahnjm into a single word. In addition, wštmҴx exhibits the
usual dropping of “h” between “a” and “i” — a feature
observed in Sogdian.
In C2 wštmҴx is used, on several occasions, together
with adverb smҴncyq “heavenly”, for example:
smҴn[cyq[]wš]tmҴx qy nwystyt xnt wsҴ.
The heavenly kingdom whither they have been in-
vited [68].
npwlwsy smҴncyq wštmҴxy dn (mҴ)[x xypșҴwnt prw].
Paul in the kingdom of Heaven with Our Lord [69].
The compound use of smҴncyq wštmҴx in the light of
the etymological connection of the wštmҴx with the Zo-
roastrian eschatological concept vahištϷm ahnjm as well
as the prevalence of knowledge of Zoroastrian theologi-
cal concepts in Sogdiana, may be understood to convey
the same meaning in Christian texts.
The above observation in semantic similarity of
these two words conveying similar meaning confirms
that smҴncyq wštmҴx, “Heavenly Kingdom” of the Chris-
tian theology is same as the “House of Welcome” of
Zoroastrianism. Recently Barbati has observed the fol-
lowing:
il regno dei cieli”. Cf. sogd. <[smҴncy]q wštmҴx> e sir.
<mlkwtҴ dšmyҴ>. Ho notato che in questo lezionario il
siriaco <mlkwtҴ> “regno” è tradotto con <wštmҴx> per
indicare il “regno celeste” e con <xšywnqyҴ> per indicare
il “regno terreno”. Tale distinzione è presente anche in altri
testi sogdiani cristiani ed è sempre mantenuta in C5 [70].
In the light of the above discussion on the meaning of
wštmҴx and smҴncyq wštmҴx, other expressions used can be
considered to be generic word for “heaven” but not neces-
sarily heaven as theological concept i. e. afterlife or eternal
place. In C2 the word smҴn is used only once in the context
of dying and going to Heaven i. e. heaven as afterlife [71].
The phrase [ҴrwxšnҴ]|Ȗr(d)mn literary meaning
“Light Paradise” in recently identified epistle fragment is
of interest to note here.
[]qw bgy ptry [sҴr qy mnd Ҵyžnd]
B. ASHUROV. Sogdian Christian Texts…
qșҴrt Ҵt pt(r)[qҴn[]dn]
šyrqtyt prҴw [[]pr ҴrwxšnҴ]-
Ȗr(d)mn.
[May you give thanks] to God the Father, [who] has
made [us worthy] and [has given us a share in the]
in[heritance] with the saints [in] Paradise [72].
Hell
The eschatological concept of hell in Sogdian Chris-
tian texts, similarly to the aforementioned concept of
heaven, is translated by the word tm. This word is ety-
mologically related to Avestan tΩmah literally meaning
darkness and thus can be designated as inherited concept
from Zoroastrianism in Sogdian Christian.
trҴ ҴmsҴ w(n)Ҵ pr tmw.
Tomb / Graveyard
Related to the concepts of heaven and hell is that of
tomb and / or graveyard. One of the frequently used Sog-
dian word for tomb is frwrtqty a (determinative) com-
pound frwrty, “corpse” with qty, “house”, thus qty to be
a “tomb”, a house for the dead.
An example for frwrty “corpse” is found in:
Ҵt xyd wyd xšpҴ pt(yx)ryn xҴnҴ wrnqyn Ҵync cn wҴcn
dwҴ dwҴ mrty nwyspny frwrty.
And on that very night that believing woman hired
from the market two men each to every corpse [76].
In the examples attested in C2 this word translates both
Syriac byt mytҴ, “house of the dead” and qbrҴ “grave (earth
grave)”. However, the Syriac phrase byt mytҴ, “house of
the dead” by frwrtqtҴ in C2 is rendered only once.
In other examples frwrtqtҴ translates qbrҴ, “grave”.
Compare below the Syriac original and its Sogdian
translation.
mdbh xcy m(šy)hҴ frwrtqty (Sogdian).
The altar is in place of Christ's tomb…
mdb‫ۊ‬Ҵ dyn Ҵytwhy dwkt qbrh d-mšy‫ۊ‬Ҵ (Syriac).
Tomb of the Messiah [77].
pr xwtw yšwȖ frwrtqt(y) dbrw (Sogdian).
Upon the door of the Lord Jesus' tomb.
mn qbrh d-prwqn (Syriac).
From the tomb of Our Saviour [78].
[[]snҴ](m)nty qy cn wznҴ. xšnyrq xcy xwtw yšwȖy
snҴmnty [qy ](c)n [frwrtq](t)Ҵ (Sogdian).
Satan
Satan in C2 is translated by the word šmnw, which as
Sims-Williams pointed out stems from an unattested
Avestan term *aš̗ ̙å mainiiuš “the worse spirit” and in
meaning is identical to the Buddhist, Zoroastrian and
Manichean word for “devil” or Ahariman [85].
9
The Syriac text of the verse has “who has made us
worthy of a share of the inheritance of the saints in the
light”.
As Sims-Williams points out this is a well-attested Zo-
roastrian term in Manichean Sogdian texts [73]. As appears
from the context “it is used as an explanatory translation of
Syraic nwhrҴ, ‘light’ [designating the Paradise]”.
Go pay heed to hell [74].
This term is also attested in Manichean and Buddhist
texts [75]. Although it is possible that in each of these
religions based on their individual eschatological per-
spectives these concepts were understood differently, it
is however, hard to comment specifically on this.
(Text restored) The rising from the font is a sign of the
Lord Jesus' rising from the tomb.
qymth d-mrn yšwҵ d-mn qbrҴ (Syriac).
The rising of Our Lord Jesus from the tomb [79].
wҴncҴnw ms xwtw yšwȖ[]prymnt (šy) nҴm ž(Ȗ)yrҴmnty
zҴwr Ҵxšt cn frwrtqtҴ Ҵt sty qw (s)m(Ҵ)ny sҴ (Sogdian).
The Lord Jesus … arose from the tomb and ascended to
heaven.
mn byt mytҴ (Syriac).
From the house of the dead [80].
The word frwrtqtҴ, “the house of the dead” is also
identical to another Sogdian word mwrtҴspҴnc, “corpse
hotel” about which Ilya Gershevitch opined to be “an
accurate enough definition of a cemetery” [81]. How-
ever, there are several different words in Sogdian,
which have been understood to mean grave, such as
zy-qnty that literally means “earth-dug” [82]; sqsyt the
singular of which is attested in Mount Mugh document
B-8 as ҴsksҴk, which also translates Syriac qbrҴ,
“grave” [83]. The word sksy is also attested in the
phrase (sk)s(y )į[ȕr]y “the door of a tomb” in the frag-
ment containing the Psalm 5, which as pointed out by
Sims-Williams:
paraphrases Syr. qbrࡇ ‫ ގ‬ptÿত‫“ ގ‬open graves / tombs”, [and
thus] demonstrates clearly that, for the translator of this
Psalm, sksy could denote a “tomb” or “sepulchre”, not only
a “grave” [84].
In Sogdian Christian texts a related word to this is
šmnqҴny, “devilish” [86]. It is also attested in phrase
šmnw žȖnt, “devil's messenger” [87].
10 Manuscripta Orientalia.
Grace
The theological concept of “grace” in Sogdian
Christian texts is translated by šyrҴqtyҴ. Other related
words with “grace” attested in C2 are: šyr, “good”, “ex-
cellent”, šyrqty, “virtuous”, “righteous”, šyry, “what is
good, blessing” [88].
pcprty pryw[]bȖҴnyq[]šyrҴqtyҴ Ҵt (wyny )[šw]Ҵmc (z)Ҵ
wrqyn bwt pr zprt wҴt.
Grace rests upon him and his conduct becomes strong
in the Holy Spirit [89].
pr mҴx (xy)[pșҴwnt Ҵt bȖy Ҵt bwcny] yšwȖ
mšyhҴ[]šyr[Ҵq]tyҴ
By the grace of our Lord and God and saviour Jesus
Christ [90].
Salvation
The word translating “salvation” in Sogdian Chris-
tian texts is wxšҴmnty deriving from the Sogdian verb
wxš, “to save”. Accordingly, the word for “Saviour” fre-
quently used in connection with Jesus' name is wxšny
Resurrection and Ascension
In C2 there are two different words used to translate
the Syriac qiamat, “resurrection”. These are ҴxzҴmnty
(formed from the verbal root Ҵxz, “to rise”) and qymșҴ.
(i) mwrtyty ҴxzҴmnty.
The resurrection of the dead [96].
(ii) ҴxzҴmnty žmnw.
The time of the resurrection [97].
(iii) wҴn-cҴn Ҵxšt mҴx [xypșҴwnt yšwȖ] mšy‫ې‬Ҵ cn
mwrխ tҴ-dҴm (p)[r xypș ptr](y) ȖwbdyҴ.
Just as Our [Lord Jesus] Christ arose from the realm of
the dead i[n] the glory of [His Father] [98].
(iv) mšy‫ې‬Ҵ Ҵxšt c[n mwrխ t](Ҵ)-dҴm.
Christ arose from the realm of the dead [99].
(v) qwdš qy qymșҴ xšpyҴ
The consecration on the Eve of the Resurrection [100].
The use of ҴxzҴmnty and qymșҴ in folio 57V10, 11 is
interesting. In the first instance i. e. 57V10 qymșҴ is used
to refer the “eve of Resurrection” but in 57V11 ҴxzҴmnty
is used to designate the “time of the Resurrection”
ҴxzҴmnty (n)ȖҴmy. It is unlikely that these two different
vocabularies were meant to denote two different aspects
of the Resurrection as an eschatological event i. e. the
eve and the day or time, but could be possible that they
were understood as synonyms and were used to avoid
repetition of the same word.
It maybe also possible that qymșҴ was understood to
imply Easter — in the sense of name of festival (Syraic
VOL. 21 NO. 1 JUNE 2015
Another term attested in Sogdian Christian texts that
translates “grace” is yҴn șbrҴqyҴ, a compound phrase com-
posed of yҴn < Old Iranian yƗna, “mercy”, “grace”, “favour”
and the abstract noun from verbal root șbr, “to give”.
pr mšyhҴ yҴn șbrҴqyҴ.
By the Grace of Christ [91].
Ҵr xyd prywyd zprt wҴty yҴn șbrҴqyҴ.
and by that same Grace of the Holy Spirit [92].
Other semantically related term to the above worth
mentioning is Ҵfrywn, “blessing” with the verb form
Ҵfryn / Ҵfryt [93]. The term Ҵfrywn is also known in Mani-
chean Sogdian texts.
(pres. part. noun). For example, xwtw yšw(Ȗ) mҴx wxšnw,
“The Lord Jesus our saviour” [94].
The other term designating Saviour in C2 is bwcny
from verb root bwc, “to save”. Similar meaning of the
word is also attested in Manichean texts [95].
idagura). However, the examples (iii) and (iv) where the
verb Ҵxz, “to rise” is used in the context of the resurrec-
tion of Christ, affirms that the word ҴxzҴmnty is a Sog-
dian technical term designating Resurrection.
In Sogdian another word for “resurrection” is
mwrtҴzwҴnt, a compound noun formed from mwrtҴ
“dead” and zwҴnty “coming to life” [101].
The word Ascension is formed from the verb denot-
ing rising; sn/st, “to rise”, “to ascend”. The actual noun
is snҴmnty.
[[]snҴ](m)nty qy cn wznҴ.
The rising from the font [102].
This word is also used in connection with the Jesus'
ascension as exemplified by the following phrase in the
Apostolic Cannons:
xypș snҴ(m)ntҴ
His Ascension [103].
As attested in the calendar fragment E42, the word
swlqҴ in phrase swlqҴ ҴȖҴm was used to designate the
“feast of the Ascension” [104].
Judging from the context of the use of snҴ(m)ntҴ
therefore it may be regarded as a technical term desig-
nating “Ascension” as a specific theological event. This
semantic shift from an ordinary word into a technical
term was also observed in the previously mentioned
word for baptism that has emerged from the regular
word for “washing”.
B. ASHUROV. Sogdian Christian Texts…
Ecclesiological Concepts
Church
The term used to translate “church” (Syraic ƯdthƗ) in
Sogdian Christian texts is Ҵncmn.
Ҵncmny nwmt Ҵt (p)tsҴqt
Laws and ordinance of the Church [105].
Xypș[]Ҵncmnty
Your Churches [106].
ptȖҴmbrymync trsqҴny Ҵncmn
Apostolic Christian Church [107].
Sogdian Ҵncmn, as Gershevitch pointed out, is ety-
mologically related to the Avestan hanЋamana [108]. In
Buddhist Sogdian the word commonly used to designate
an “assembly” or “gathering” is ҴnwҴz [109].
In Christian Sogdian texts, the word designating
“general crowd” gathering or multitude is ҴwҴzy. In
Christian texts this word is attested in compound form
Priest and Bishop
The term translating “priest” in Sogdian is dyndҴr,
a compound word formed from dyn, “religion” and dҴr,
“to have”.
[[]xyd] qy wҴbtq dyndҴr qt snҴm pcȖҴztq tҴnmҴn:
[Ҵt ny wҴb]tq qt snҴm șbrҴmsq.
That (fact) that the priest says: “So and so receives
baptism” and does not say: “I baptize” [112].
pr Ҵ(f)rywn wnҴ dyndҴrt Ҵt šy pdҴrnyt.
Bless (its) priests and its bishops [113].
The word for “bishop” attested in the last example is
pdҴrny, which is formed from the present participle of
the verb pdҴt/pdҴrt, “to sustain” [114]. This term perhaps
was constructed on practical grounds: that of function of
the bishop as someone sustaining the church. However,
if this word translates the Syriac mdbrnҴ then its basic
meaning would be a “leader”.
Another term for “bishop” attested in Sogdian
Christian text is ҴpsqwpҴ, which is transliteration of
Syriac epasqpa (Greek ਥʌȓıțȠʌȠȢ). In C2, this word is
used in two different indeclinable forms as psqpy and
pswqpy [115]. Thus in C2 fragment 68V12 [116] we
read bլ r̙ bլ Ȗ̙ šmyn psqpy “Barbaҵšmin the bishop”. The same
spelling of the “bishop” is attested in lines 13 and 22 of
the fragment 77R16 in C2.
It has been noted that these forms of the word for
bishop “differ in their ending as well as in the rest of
their vocalism from the Syriac forms found elsewhere
in Sogdian” [117] in the following spellings ҴpsqwpҴ
and ҴpysqwpҴ. Accordingly Sims-Williams concludes
that:
The apocope of the initial vowel and especially the
metathesis and loss of inAternal short vowel indicate that
pswqpy belongs to an earlier stratum of [Syriac loan words
into Sogdian] [118].
11
ҴwҴzqty (assembly + house) and translates Syriac knwštҴ,
“synagogue” [110].
Sogdian Christian texts thus have specific word to
distinguish between the Jewish and Christian gathering
places; in which case it may be assumed that Ҵncmn was
a “technical” word adopted to designate Christian gath-
ering (place or the church).
The only other term attested in Christian Sogdian to
designate the “church” is dyndҴryҴ — a compound word
constructed from dyndҴr, “priest”, “religious” and Sog-
dian abstract suffix -yҴ. A similar construction is ob-
served in the word [Ҵp]sqwpyҴ, “bishopric”. In this con-
struction “the Sogdian abstract suffix -yҴ takes the place
of Syr. –njșƗ” [111]. In this light it may be possible to
suggest that the word dyndҴryҴ in contrast to the Ҵncmn
would mean church house i. e. vicarage. However, no
concrete example is known yet.
Although the phonetic modification of this word,
does not allow determining its immediate origin, whether
Greek, Syriac or other intermediary, but it has been sug-
gested that the assimilated words such as above were
borrowed into Sogdian through Middle Persian and pos-
sibly in their Middle Persian forms [119].
Another term used to translate “priest” or rather
“Presbyter” in Sogdian Christian texts is msydr.
The word dyndҴr in C2 consistently translates Syriac
kahna, “priest”. And the word msydr is used to translate
qaššiša, “elder”, “priest” “in accordance with its etymo-
logical meaning” [120]. Both of these words are also at-
tested in the rubrics of a bilingual baptismal rite (Syriac
text with Sogdian rubrics) HT 88 and HT 66 (dyndҴr in
fragment 66V7; msydr in fragments 66R13, 66V4 and
88R3) [121]. However, in this particular text that employs
these two different words, it is difficult to discern which
Syriac term is meant, qaššiša or kahna [122]. On the other
hand the use of a Sogdian word as well as a Syriac loan-
word for “oil” in the above text clearly demonstrates the
“ritualistic” distinction made by the translator between two
kinds of oils. As Brock & Sims-Williams have observed:
The Syriac term has been kept for the “holy oil” in the
horn (already consecrated), whereas Sogdian is used for the
oil (in the laqna) which is being consecrated for the
pre-baptismal anointing [123].
This particular point indicates that the choice of different
vocabulary conveying the same or similar meanings was not
just to avoid repetition, but had other semantics: namely,
distinguishing between the “ritual” categories in the example
of oil here. Accordingly, two different words for the “priest”
may have been used for the same reason, such as distin-
guishing two different ranks of clergymen. The word dyndҴr
is also attested in Sogdian Buddhist and Manichean texts as
well, which again indicates its Persian usage context.
12 Manuscripta Orientalia. VOL. 21 NO. 1 JUNE 2015

Deacon

This ecclesiological office in Sogdian is designated in -yt] or they are new plurals” [124]. On the other
by transliterated Syriac loan word šmҴšҴ. In its plural hand, the “Sogdianised” phonetic features of these
form the word šmҴšҴt, “deacons” displays similar pho- words suggest them to have been known in Sogdian for
netic feature to the word ҴpysqwpҴyt “bishops”. Accord- long period of time, which again is obvious in their
ing to Sims-Williams “is not clear whether these forms phonetic assimilation and the absence of their Sogdian
are merely graphic variants [of the regular plurals equivalent.
Apostle

In C2 the word “Apostle”, in the sense of the twelve tle” [125]. It is of interest to mention that the Manichean
Apostles of Christ, is consistently translated by ptȖҴmbry fryštg (known in Parthian and Sogdian Manichean texts),
which commonly means “a messenger”, “prophet”. The formed from the verb fryš “to send”, designates the
common word used for “Apostle” in Syriac is šli‫ۊ‬a, Manichean Apostles.
which like the Greek ܻʌȩıIJȠȜȠȢ literary means “one who It is interesting that although the word “Apostle” in the
is sent away”. However, in Sogdian the word that is attested fragments has a specific technical meaning, i. e. the
formed from the verb “to send” is fryšty / freštƝ, which is original twelve Apostles of Christ, in Sogdian the translator
used to translate “angel” (Syriac mala‫ۊ‬a) not an “Apos- neither uses a loan word nor “constructs” a new word.
Neophytes

The concept of a neophyte, as observed in the com-
mentary on the baptismal and Eucharist liturgy, is trans-
lated by the word n‫̙ܨ‬yty, a noun formed from adjective
nw-y, “new”.
wrrҴ wҴšҴmy qy pr n‫̙ܨ‬yty srw Ҵštytqn. pr
[Ҵ](z)twny [qy p]c(Ȗ)šdҴrnt cn mš(yh֏ )Ҵ.
(§17) The orarium, the veil on the head of the neo-
phytes, indicates the liberty which they have received from
Christ [126].
In this example, the word n‫̙ܨ‬yty, as shown by the
Syriac text, translates Syriac “baptised ones” not those to
be baptised [127]. Schwartz in this regard asserted that
this particular semantics of n‫̙ܨ‬yty may be influenced by
the concept of “baptism being rebirth” that is becoming a
“new person” [128].

Scripture

The word used for “Scripture” in Sogdian Christian
texts is pwsty, which is a generic Sogdian word meaning
“book” or “written document”. This word is ultimately
related to Old Persian pavastƗ, also attested in Parthian
pwstg and Sanskrit pu‫ܒ܈‬aka.
Another word for book attested in Sogdian Christian
texts is mҴrdny. However, this word has a different func-
tional meaning, namely “book” as a title or part of the
scripture. For example, in C2, fragment 94V18-19 we
find “Book of Kings”, xwšywnyty mҴrdnҴ [129].
Furthermore, as indicated by the phrase wcync nwm
“Old (Law) Testament” and bywnyty pwstyt “Books of
Prophets” [130] certain books of the Bible in Sogdian were
also designated individually. However, pwsty depending on
the context generally conveyed the comprehensive meaning
of Scripture (Biblos). In C2 this term is used in connection
with Gospel and Psalms, for example in fragment 31V17,
27 we find the following phrase mzmwrty… pwsty ptfsy,
“the Psalms and reading of Scriptures” [131].
Gospel
A related word with “scripture” is qrynҴ, usually
meaning “scripture reading” [132]. In liturgical context,
however the act of reading (either scripture, or different
parts of the service) was designated by the Persian word
xҴnyš, “read(ing)” [133]. The latter is attested in E13,
a funerary liturgical text with Sogdian rubrics. In this
text (E13), another technical term attested is pywҴq, “re-
sponse”. These “functional” terms were used in a section
of liturgy requiring a response from the congregation
(exclamation or prayer). The word xҴnyš is used for
a section in liturgy that is sung (read) while sitting. Both
these liturgical technical terms are Persian loanwords;
however it is difficult to determine whether they carried
such meanings prior to their use in Sogdian Christian
literature.
The general word for reading in Sogdian Christian
texts (outside the liturgical context) is ptfsҴmnty deriving
from verb ptfs, “to read”, thus ptfsyny means
“reader” [134].

Christian Sogdian texts use two distinct expressions mwžtybrqyҴ a native Sogdian term. The latter is com-
to translate the word “Gospel”. These are Ҵwnglywn, pound noun formed from mwžty, “message”, “good
which translates, or rather transcribes the Syriac evan- news” and ȕarakyƗ, “bringing”. The noun mwžty is re-
gelion, an ultimately Greek loanword in Syriac; and lated to Parthian mwjdg of the same meaning.
B. ASHUROV. Sogdian Christian Texts…
wҴstnt ptȖҴmbryt qt cn sҴt pwstyty pšysҴ Ҵwnglywn
ptfsҴty by. wҴncҴnw tҴpy Ҵwstyny. Ҵt cҴnw pҴdy sqwynt rmy
šw ptȖwšynt pҴt wxšҴmnty mwžty brqyҴ xcy nsҴt
mrtxmyt(y).
The apostles laid down that after all the Scriptures the
Gospel should be read, as setting the seal, and the people
should hear it while standing on the feet, because it is the
gospel of salvation for all men [135].
Font and Orarium
Both these liturgical furnishings of the church in
Sogdian Christian texts are translated by Syriac loan
words wznҴ, “font” and wrrҴ, “orarium”.
[myd rҴzt. snҴ](m)nty qy cn wznҴ. xšnyrq xcy xwtw
yšwȖy snҴmnty
[qy ](c)n [frwrtq](t)Ҵ wrrҴ wҴšҴmy qy pr n‫̙ܨ‬yty srw
Ҵštytqn. pr [Ҵ](z)twny [qy p]c(Ȗ)šdҴrnt cn mš(yh)Ҵ.
Altar
The word “altar” in Sogdian Christian texts is trans-
lated by mdbh֏ Ҵ and șrwnws, one being of Syriac and the
other of Greek origin. Both these words are attested in
the bilingual (Syriac text with Sogdian rubrics) liturgical
text HT 66 line 14 [140]. In this fragment the word
mdbhҴ is attested several times, but the word șrwnws
designating “altar” is met only once.
Conclusion. Sogdian Christian Texts and “Sogdian Christianity”
In Sogdian Christian texts in the absence of suitable
equivalents, such as personal and geographical names,
certain concepts were translated using loanwords from
Syriac. These are recognizable by their use of the char-
acters he, heth, kaph, and lamed that are seldom used in
words of Iranian origin.
A few Syriac loan-expressions demonstrate complete
assimilation into the Sogdian phonetic system. These are
words that had undergone either partial or complete pho-
netic modification in Sogdian. As Sims-Williams has
shown, most Syriac loanwords in Sogdian Christian texts
retain their original spelling (usually transliter-
ated) [143]. However, for some of the assimilated vo-
cabularies, although their Syriac origin is recognizable,
their phonetic reconstruction is not possible.
The use of Syriac outside the Mesopotamian
boundaries where it was both the “church language” and
common language spoken by the populace, is principally
connected with the spread of Christianity. That is, it was
introduced by missionaries both in its spoken and written
forms. Accordingly, despite their relatively small num-
bers, the assimilated Syriac words and other loanwords
which were not calqued into Sogdian are significant
lexical evidence for the long historical interaction be-
tween Sogdians and Christianity.
The historicity and cultural impact of Christianity in
Sogdian culture is shown in particular by the use of in-
13
Related to the term Gospel (or generally New Testa-
ment) is that of Old Testament. This term as exemplified
in phrase wcync nwm Ҵt byw۬y̙ ty pwstyt Ҵt Ҵwngl(yw)n,
“Old Testament and the books of Prophets and Gos-
pel” [136]. The Christian or rather religious connotation
of the term “law” in the naming of the parts of the Bible
is also evident by its attestation in the phrase Ҵncmny
nwmt Ҵt (p)tsҴqt, “church laws and ordinances” found in
C2 fragment 55R30 [137].
The rising from the font is a sign of the Lord Jesus'
rising from the tomb. The oraraium, the veil on the head of
the neophytes, indicates the liberty which they have
received from Christ [138].
The unusual spelling of the wrrҴ (in C2, also attested
as w‫۾‬լ‫۾‬լҴ) may indicate its full assimilation into Sogdian,
a case comparable to the earlier mentioned words for
“bishop” and “deacon” [139].
mdbh xcy m(šy)hҴ frwrtqty
The altar is in place of Christ's tomb [141].
mdbhҴ spҴs
The service of the altar [142].
digenous religious expressions in translating Syriac
Christian literature. As observed in Sogdian Christian
texts, these are represented in three vocabulary catego-
ries:
(i) “ordinary” words, namely expressions common
throughout all types of religious texts in Sogdian, such as
bȖ, “God” and xwtw, “Lord”;
(ii) “constructed” vocabularies formed to convey
specific Christian concepts, such as mwžtybrqyҴ, and
used only in the Christian texts;
(iii) “changed” vocabularies that in the context of
their use, i. e. Christian texts, have suffered semantic
change, such as snҴm, “washing” (used to translate
“Baptism”), or snҴmnty, “rising” (used to designate “As-
cension”). Additionally, Sogdian Christian texts demon-
strate knowledge of Middle Persian terminology. Con-
sidering the dominance of Zoroastrianism in Sogdiana
and the relationship of some of the borrowed vocabulary
with it, it is possible that these vocabularies prior to their
use in Sogdian Christian texts (or undergoing semantic
change) were used and known in Sogdiana in either Zo-
roastrian i. e. religious or generic contexts [144].
Although some of the terms used to translate Christian
theological expressions are identical with those employed
in Manichean, Buddhist or other Sogdian literature, this
does not imply “lexical syncretism”. These terms are used
in specific contexts and thus it is possible that each of these
14 Manuscripta Orientalia.
religions developed its own terminology and vocabulary in
Sogdian, meaningful for their audience and contexts. In
addition, as Benveniste and Hansen have shown, the use of
common vocabulary in Christian, Buddhist and Manichean
texts in the Sogdian language is due to the co-existence of
these religions and their use of one common language i. e.
Sogdian, with its Iranian roots [145]. This is particularly
significant in relation to the Sogdian Christian texts, as it
clearly demonstrates that the Christian message was dis-
seminated by the Persian-speaking (Pahlavi) missionaries,
which also finds support in textual and epigraphic evidence
discovered in (Western) Iran.
One point to be highlighted in this relation is that in
contrast to the Manicheans, who fully absorbed and
widely integrated their teachings with Buddhist and
Christian apocryphal writings, the Sogdian church re-
mained aloof from this pluralistic religious atmosphere.
This is especially evident in its selective borrowing of
vocabulary from Syriac. Furthermore, the terms that were
possibly loaned from Manichaeism or Buddhism are
bound to polemical contexts. For example, the expression
qrm, “evil deeds”, “fate” (which is etymologically Indian,
i. e. karma) is found only in the Christian polemic against
the Manicheans. Accordingly, dictated by its context of
use as well the fact that it is not attested anywhere else in
Sogdian Christian texts, this term is probably directly bor-
rowed from Manichean usage [146].
Notes
1. This article is adapted from my doctoral thesis TarsƗ-
kyƗ: an Analysis of Sogdian Christianity Based on Archaeo-
logical, Numismatic, Epigraphic and Textual Sources. For ease
of reference, I have not distinguished light and heavy stems in
Sogdian, as is the norm. For symbols and conventions I have
followed Sims-Williams, 1985; [xyz] = missing letters; (xyz) =
uncertain reading; (xyz) = traces compatible with suggested
reading; (xyz) = lacuna.
2. Zhang & Xinjiang, 1998. The texts were discovered
during the four campaigns by the German Turfan Expedition,
led by Albert Grünwedel and Alber von le Coq between 1902
and 1914. Consequently, the majority of manuscripts are at
present held in Germany in the Berlin-Brandenburgische
Akademie der Wissenschaften, with smaller collections being
housed in the Staatsbibliothek Preussischer Kulturbesitz and in
the Museum für Indische Kunst.
3. Sims-Williams, 1990; Von le Coq, 1928; Hage, 1987;
Sims-Williams, 1992; Sims-Williams & Hamilton, 1990; Klein
& Tubach, 1994. It is also thought that some of the Sogdian
Christian texts of the Turfan collection were found in Qoþo and
Toyoq.
4. Benveniste, 1964.
5. Hansen, 1966.
6. Sims-Williams, 1988.
7. Sims-Williams, 2009: 272.
8. Sims-Williams, 1985.
9. Sims-Williams, 2012: 272.
10. Hansen, 1968: 94.
11. Sims-Williams, 2009: 272; 2012: 62.
12. Barbati, 2010.
VOL. 21 NO. 1 JUNE 2015
The Sogdian Christian texts, judging by their usage
of vocabulary, support the linguistic principle of indexi-
cality, according to which the meaning of words, expres-
sions and concepts is always determined by the specific
social and cultural context in which linguistic transaction
takes place. In other words, these texts are not simply
products of translation as the transposition of meaning
from one linguistic code to another (descriptive render-
ing or codification of Syriac into Sogdian), but are
grounded in a specific cultural and ethno-linguistic con-
text. Each word indicates a specific meaning that was
realised in Sogdian in both generic or specific use, such
as bȖ that outside the Christian texts was used to desig-
nate “god” or “Mithra”, but in the Christian context
designated “AlƗhƗ”.
This example further shows that the meaning of indi-
vidual words and concepts in translation were not always
attached to the specific concept in original language.
Again, to look at the example of alƗhƗ and bȖ, it is clear
that in both languages these two words were attached to
different specific concepts related to the “higher deity”
(monotheistic, polytheistic). However, in the context of
Christian texts, these two words acquired a specific “uni-
fied” meaning and the Christian readers would have un-
derstood that bȖ used in lectionary readings or Psalter or
prayer is not an epithet of Mithra widely known in popular
culture of Sogdiana, but represents AlƗhƗ.
13. Barbari, 2010: 4.
14. Barbati, 2010: 3. A reading from the Gospel of
Mathew 10:15.
15. Pittard & Sims-Williams, 2013: 48—49. A reading
from the Gospel of Mathew 19.17V5. Similarly, Sogdian texts
make consistent use of the word “God” whenever the word
“Father” in is used in relation with God.
16. Sims-Williams, 2001: 36.
17. Hansen, 1966: 95—96.
18. Sims-Williams, 2001: 36.
19. Benveniste, 1964: 87.
20. Durkin-Meistererns, 2006.
21. Gignoux, 1995; 2001.
22. “Soli-linguistic” here is used in line with the meaning
of ius soli (law of the soil) a term describing that nationality
derives from the soil in which person is born. This term is of-
ten used in mapping and documenting linguistic diversity in
multicultural societies, such as European Union, Central Asia,
where the “soli-linguistic” is understood to designate the “lan-
guage of the soil”. When Sogdian translators devised certain
mechanisms to translate the Syriac texts they operated ac-
cording to how their own language functioned. Thus the new
vocabularies “coined” in the process of the translation are not
accidental, but deliberate and manifest the cognitive effect of
Christianity in both the language and its carriers.
23. Henning, 1965.
24. Sims-Williams, 1991.
25. Henning, 1965: 249.
26. Sims-Williams, 2013: 76, fragment E29/R8-9 and
commentary to the fragment on p. 91.
B. ASHUROV. Sogdian Christian Texts…
27. Sims-Williams, 2013: 91.
28. Sims-Williams, 1985: 37, fragment 12R1.
29. Sims-Williams, 1985: 39, fragment 12V14.
30. Sims-Williams, 1985: 113, fragment 57R3.
31. Sims-Williams, 1985: 39, fragment 12V17.
32. Barbati, 2009: 252.
33. Barbati, 2010: 3.
34. Barbati, 2010: 4.
35. Schwartz, 1967.
36. Barabati, 2010: 10.
37. Sims-Williams, 1985: 113, fragment 57R18-20.
38. Sims-Williams, 1985: 236; Gharib, 1995, entries 5497,
2235, 11014, 11015, and 1120.
39. Sims-Williams, 1988: 146.
40. Sims Williams, 1985: 147.
41. Sims-Williams, 1988: 16.
42. Sims-Williams, 1985: 149 citing an observation by
Gershevitch.
43. Sims-Williams, 1985: 44, folio 23R280.
44. Sims-Williams, 2013: 20 with commentary on p. 41.
45. Brock, 1975: 91—95.
46. Brock, 1975: 92.
47. Brock, 1975: 94.
48. Brock, 1975: 94—95.
49. Lieu, 2009: 227—245; 2013: 123—140.
50. Ashurov, 2013.
51. Hunter, 2009.
52. Sims-Williams, 1985: 114; 1988: 151.
53. Sims-Williams, 1985: 94, folio 53R5.
54. Sims-Williams, 1985: 102, folio 54V15; 2012: 111.
55. The term Paraclete (loanword from Greek) in Sogdian
is known in Manichean usage. In Syriac it is used to denote
both the Paraclete-Holy Spirit as well as for intercessor, or
advocate, thus retaining the Greek semantics.
56. Müller, 1913: 84—88.
57. Chabot, 1902: 253—275.
58. Sims-Williams, 1985: 113, fragment 57R1-2.
59. Sims-Williams, 1985: 113, fragment 57R13.
60. Sims-Williams, 2013.
61. Sims-Williams, 1985: 224.
62. Sims-Williams, 1985: 91, fragment 51V11.
63. Bailey, 1988: 62.
64. Gershevitch, 1967: 154. In Avesta Y 44.2 this term is
attested as vahištǀ aƾhuš.
65. Benveniste, 1964: 87.
66. Hoffmann & Narten, 1989.
67. Hintze, 1998: 155—156.
68. Sims-Williams, 1985: 89 fragment 48V14-15.
69. Sims-Williams, 1985: 82 fragment 48R9.
70. Barbati, 2009.
71. Sims-Williams, 1985: 126, folio 60R6-7.
72. Sims-Williams, 2014: 68.
73. Sims-Williams, 2014: 68, 72.
74. Sims-Williams, 1985: 92, fragment 51V26.
75. Gharib, 1995, entry 9588.
76. Sims-Williams, 1985: 144 fragment 68V6-7.
77. Sims-Williams, 1985: 113, fragment 57R17, the corre-
sponding Syriac p. 119, §27.
78. Sims-Williams, 1985: 113—114, fragment 57R20, the
corresponding Syriac p. 119, §29.
15
79. Sims-Williams, 1985: 113, fragment 57R5, the corre-
sponding Syriac, p. 118, §16.
80. Sims-Williams, 1985: 113, fragment 57R10, the corre-
sponding Syriac, p. 118, §21.
81. Gershevitch, 1975: 209—210.
82. Sims-Williams, 1985: 185.
83. Mackenzie, 1970: 118—119. defining it as “raised
tomb”, “tumulus” wants to see in this word a base Ҵsk, “high”,
comparing Choresmian sks, “be raised”, “high”, and thus
nymҴkw ҴsksҴk would specify a “deep tomb” or “grave” in
contrast to ҴsksҴk, “raised tomb” as in Greek IJȪȝȕȠȢ. Whereas
Gershevitch, 1975: 195—196 postulates the phonetic realiza-
tion as Ϸskase.
84. Sims-Williams, 2014: 35.
85. Sims-Williams, 2000: 11—12.
86. Sims-Williams, 1985: 37, fragment 12R4.
87. Sims-Williams, 1985: 82, fragment 48R17.
88. Sims-Williams, 1985: 227.
89. Sims-Williams, 1985: 129, fragment 61R22-23.
90. Sims-Williams, 1985: 162, fragment 91V4-8.
91. Sims-Williams, 1985: 71, fragment 31V25.
92. Sims-Williams, 1985: 102, fragment 54 V21-22.
93. Sims-Williams, 1985: 203.
94. Sims-Williams, 1985: 142, fragment 64V4.
95. Gharib, 1995, entries 2874—2876.
96. Sims-Williams, 1985: 156, fragment 77V16.
97. Sims-Williams, 1985: 80, fragment 40R23.
98. Sims-Williams, 2014: 64.
99. Sims-Williams, 2014: 66.
100. Sims-Williams 1985: 115, fragment 5TV10.
101. Gharib, 1995, entry 5543.
102. Sims-Williams, 1985: 113, fragment 57R4.
103. Sims-Williams, 1985: 103, fragment 55R27.
104. Sims-Williams, 2012: 188; Dickens &
Sims-Williams, 2012: 279.
105. Sims-Williams, 1985: 103, fragment 55R30.
106. Sims-Williams, 1985: 94, fragment 55R22-23.
107. Müller, 1913: 87.
108. Gershevitch, 1954: 8, 42; Hansen, 1966: 97.
109. Gharib, 1995, entry 1165; Hansen 1966: 97.
110. Sunderman, 1975: 54, 67.
111. Sims-Williams, 1988: 155.
112. Sims-Williams, 1985: 113, fragment 57R1-2.
113. Sims-Williams, 1985: 94, fragment 54R24.
114. Sims-Williams, 1985: 219. Thus in codex C2 as
“sustainer” in fragment 14R21 and as “sustained” in frag-
ment 57R13.
115. Sims-Williams, 1985: 32.
116. Sims-Williams, 1985: 144.
117. Sims-Williams, 1988: 156.
118. Sims-Williams, 1988: 156.
119. Sims-Williams, 1988: 156.
120. Brock & Sims-Williams, 2011: 91.
121. Brock & Sims-Williams, 2011.
122. In codex C2 both dyndҴr and msydr are attested in
their plural forms as well.
123. Brock & Sims-Williams, 2011: 90.
124. Sims-Williams, 1988: 154.
125. Sims-Williams, 1985: 211.
126. Sims-Williams, 1985: 113, fragment 57R5-6.
127. Sims-Williams, 1985: 113, footnote 21.
16 Manuscripta Orientalia. VOL. 21 NO. 1 JUNE 2015

128. Schwartz, 1967. 137. Sims-Williams, 1985: 103.

129. Sims-Williams, 1985: 169.
130. Sims-Williams, 1985: 103, fragment 55R28.
131. Sims-Williams, 1985: 71.
132. Sims-Williams, 1985: 71, fragment 31V17.
133. Dickens 2009: 27.
134. Other examples for this include “reading” — in
fragment 54V30, “read” — in fragment 55R23 and “reader” —
in fragment 48R24.
135. Sims-Williams, 1985: 103, fragment 55R22-25.
136. Sims-Williams, 1985: 103, fragment 55R28.
138. Sims-Williams, 1985: 113, fragment 57R3-6.
139. Sims-Williams, 1988: 154.
140. Brock & Sims-Williams, 2011.
141. Sims-Williams, 1985: 113, fragment 57R17, the cor-
responding Syriac text found on p. 119, §27.
142. Sims-Williams, 1985: 104, fragment 55V29.
143. Sims-Williams, 1988: 153.
144. Sims-Williams, 2000: 8—11.
145. Benveniste, 1964; Hansen, 1966.
146. Sims-Williams, 2003: 404; 1983: 140.

References

Ashurov, B. (2013), TarsƗkyƗ: an Analysis of Sogdian Christianity Based on Archaeological, Numismatic, Epigraphic and
Textual Sources, Doctoral thesis, London: SOAS, University of London.
Barbati, C. (2009), Il lezionario sogdiano cristiano C5. Una nuova edizione, Doctoral thesis, Roma: Università di Roma “La
Sapienza”.
Barbati, C. (2010), “Christian Sogdian manuscript C5 as an example of ‘translation literature’: work in progress”, in: Macuch,
M., Weber, D. & Durkin-Meisterernst, D. (eds.), Ancient and Middle Iranian Studies: Proceedings of the 6th European Conference
of Iranian Studies, Held in Vienna, 18—22 September 2007 (Iranica 19), Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, pp. 1—10.
Bailey, H. (1988), “Garǀ-ǻamƗna”, in: Sundermann, W., Guillemin, J.-D. & Vahman, F. (eds.), A Green Leaf. Papers in Hon-
our of Professor Jes P. Asmussen, Brill: Leiden, pp. 61—66.
Benveniste, É. (1964), “Le vocabulaire chrétien dans les langues d'Asie central”, Atti del Convegno Internazionale sul tema:
l'Oriente cristiano nella storia delle civiltà (Roma 31 marzo — 3 aprile 1963, Firenze 4 aprile 1963), Roma: Accademia Nazionale
dei Lincei, pp. 85—91.
Brock, S. (1975), “Some aspects of Greek words in Syriac”, Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen,
Philologisch-Historische Klasse III, vol. 96, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, pp. 80—108.
Brock, S. & Sims-Williams, N. (2011), “An early fragment from the East Syriac baptismal service from Turfan”, Orientalia
Christiana Periodica, vol. 77, pp. 81—92.
Chabot, J.-B. (1902) (ed.), Synodicon Orientale, Paris: Imprimerie Nationale.
Dickens, M. (2009), “Multilingual Christian manuscripts from Turfan”, Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies,
vol. 9, pp. 22—42.
Dickens, M. & Sims-Williams, N. (2012), “Christian calendrical fragments from Turfan”, in: Ben-Dov, J., Horowitz, W. &
Steele, J. M. (eds.), Living the Lunar Calendar, Oxford & Oakville: Oxbow Books, pp. 269—296.
Durkin-Meisterernst, D. (2006), “The Pahlavi Psalter fragment in relation to its source”, Studies in the Inner Asian Languages,
vol. XXI, pp. 1—19.
Gershevitch, I. (1954), A Grammar of Manichean Sogdian, Oxford: Blackwell.
Gershevitch, I. (1967), The Avestan Hymn to Mithra, Cambridge: The University Press.
Gershevitch, I. (1975), “Sogdians on a frogplain”, Mélanges linguistiques offerts à Émile Benveniste, pp. 195—211.
Gignoux, Ph. (1995), “The Pahlavi inscriptions on Mount Saint Thomas Cross, South India”, in: Gitin, S., Sokoloff, M. &
Zevit, Z. (eds.), Solving Riddles and Untying Knots: Biblical Epigraphic and Semitic Studies in Honour of J. C. Greenfield,
Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, pp. 411—422.
Gignoux, Ph. (2001), “Une croix de procession de Hérat inscrite en Pehlevi”, Le Muséon, vol. 114, fasc. 3—4, pp. 291—304.
Gharib, B. (1995), Sogdian Dictionary: Sogdian — Persian — English, Tehran: Farhangan Publications.
Hage, W. (1987), “Das Christentum in der Turfan-Oase”, in: Heissing, W. & Klimkeit, H-J. (eds.), Synkretismus in den Religi-
onen Zentralasiens, Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, pp. 46—57.
Hansen, O. (1966), “Über die verschiedenen Quellen der christlichen Literatur der Sogdier”, in: Asmussen, J. P. & Læssøe, J.
(eds.), Iranian Studies Presented to Kaj Barr on His Seventieth Birthday June 26, 1966, København: Munksgaard, pp. 95—102.
Hansen, O. (1968), “Die christliche Literatur der Sogdier”, in: Spuler, B. (ed.), Handbuch der Orientalistik, Leiden & Köln:
Brill, pp. 91—99.
Henning, W. B. (1965), “A Sogdian God”, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 242—254.
Hintze, A. (1998), “The Avesta in the Parthian period”, in: Wiesehöfer, J. (ed.), Das Partherreich und seine Zeugnisse: Bei-
träge des internationalen Colloquiums Eutin, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, pp. 147—162.
Hoffmann, K. & Narten, J. (1989), Der Sasanidische Archetypus. Untersuchungen zu Schreibung und Lautgestalt des Avesti-
schen, Wiesbaden: L. Reichert.
Hunter, E. (2009), “The Persian contribution to Christianity in China: reflections in the Xian Fu Syriac inscription”, in
Winkler, D. & Tang, L. (eds.), Hidden Treasures and Intercultural Encounters. Studies on East Syriac Christianity in China and
Central Asia, Münster: LIT Verlag, pp. 71—85.
B. ASHUROV. Sogdian Christian Texts… 17

Klein, W. & Tubach, J. (1994), “Ein Syrisch-Christliches Fragment aus Dunhuang / China”, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Mor-
genländischen Gesellschaft, vol. 144, pp. 1—13.
Lieu, S. (2009), “Epigraphica Nestoriana Serica”, in: Sundermann, W., Hintze, A. & De Blois, F. (eds.), Exegisti monumenta:
Festschrift in Honour of Nicholas Sims-Williams, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, pp. 227—245.
Lieu, S. (2013), “The Romanitas of Nestorian Christianity in China”, in: Tang, L. & Winkler, D. W. (eds.), From the Oxus
River to the Chinese Shores: Studies on East Syriac Christianity in China and Central Asia, Vienna: LIT Verlag, pp. 123—140.
MacKenzie, D. N. (1970), “Christian Sogdian notes”, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, vol. 33, pp. 116—
124.
Müller, F. W. K. (1913), Soghdische Texte I, Berlin: Verlag der Königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Pittard, W. J. & Sims-Williams, N. (2013), “Fragments of Sogdian gospel lectionaries: Some new identifications”, in: Tang, L.
& Winkler, D. W. (eds.), From the Oxus River to the Chinese Shores: Studies on East Syriac Christianity in China and Central
Asia, Vienna: LIT Verlag, pp. 43—50.
Sims-Williams, N. (1983), “Indian elements in Parthian and Sogdian”, in: Röhrborn, K. & Veenker, W. (eds.), Sprachen des
Buddhismus in Zentralasien. Vorträge des Hamburger Symposions vom 2. Juli bis 5. Juli 1981, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz,
pp. 132—141.
Sims-Williams, N. (1985), The Christian Sogdian Manuscript C2, Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
Sims-Williams, N. (1988), “Syro-Sogdica III: Syriac Elements in Sogdian”, in: Sundermann, W., Duchesne-Guillemin, J. &
Vahman, F. (eds.), A Green Leaf. Papers in Honour of Professor Jes P. Asmussen, Brill: Leiden, pp. 145—156.
Sims-Williams, N. (1990), “Bulayïq”, in: Yarshater, E. (ed.), Encyclopaedia Iranica, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul,
p. 545.
Sims-Williams, N. (1991), “Mithra the Baga”, in: Bernard, P. & Grenet, F. (eds.), Histoire et cultes de l'Asie Centrale
préislamique. Sources écrites et documents archéologiques, Paris: Éd. du CNRS, pp. 177—186.
Sims-Williams, N. (1992), “Sogdian and Turkish Christians in the Turfan and Tun-huang manuscripts”, in: Cadonna, A. (ed.),
Turfan and Tun-huang: The Texts. Encounter of Civilisations on the Silk Route, Florance: Olschki, pp. 43—61.
Sims-Williams, N. (2000), “Some reflections on Zoroastrianism in Sogdiana and Bactria”, in: Christian, D. & Benjamin, C.
(eds.), Realms of the Silk Roads: Ancient and Modern, Belgium: Brepols, pp. 1—12.
Sims-Williams, N. (2001), “Sogdian ancient letter II”, in: Juliano, A. L. & Lerner, J. A. (eds.), Monks and Merchants. Silk
Road Treasures from Northwest China: Gansu and Ningxia, 4th—7th Century, New York: Harry N. Abrams with the Asia Society,
pp. 47—49.
Sims-Williams, N. (2003), “A Christian Sogdian polemic against the Manichaeans”, in: Cereti, C. G., Maggi, M. & Provasi, E.
(eds.), Religious Themes and Texts of Pre-Islamic Iran and Central Asia. Studies in Honour of Professor Gherardo Gnoli, Wies-
baden: Reichert, pp. 399—408.
Sims-Williams, N. (2009), “Christian literature in Middle Iranian languages”, in: Macuch, M & Emmerick, R. E. (eds.), The
Literature of Pre-Islamic Iran. Companion Volume I to A History of Persian Literature, London & New York: I. B. Tauris,
pp. 266—287.
Sims-Williams, N. (2012), Mitteliranische Handschriften Teil 4. Iranian Manuscripts in Syriac Script in the Berlin Turfan
Collection, Stuttgart: Steiner.
Sims-Williams, N. (2014), Biblical and Other Christian Sogdian Texts from the Turfan Collection, Turnhout: Brepols.
Sims-Williams, N. & Hamilton, J. (1990), Documents Turco-Sogdiens du Ixe—Xe siècle de Touen-houang (Corpus Inscrip-
tionum Iranicarum, part II, vol. III). London: SOAS.
Sundermann, W. (1975), “Nachlese zu F. W. K. Müllers Soghdischen Texten I”, Altorientalische Forschungen, vol. 3,
pp. 55—90.
Schwartz, M. (1967), Studies in the Texts of the Sogdian Christians, Doctoral thesis, Berkeley: University of California.
Von le Coq, A. (1928), Buried Treasures of Chinese Turkestan: An Account of the Activities and Adventures of the Second
and Third German Turfan Expeditions, Barwell, A. (transl.), London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd.
Zhang, G. & Xinjiang, R. (1998), “A concise history of the Turfan oasis and its exploration”, Asia Major, vol. 11, no. 2,
pp. 13—37.