Šalmūtā Šapīrtā: Festschrift for Rifaat Y. Ebied in honour of his contributions to Semitic Studies 1463245416, 9781463245412

Citation preview

Šalmūtā Šapīrtā

Gorgias Eastern Christian Studies

65

Gorgias Eastern Christian Studies brings to the scholarly world the underrepresented field of Eastern Christianity. This series consists of monographs, edited collections, texts and translations of the documents of Eastern Christianity, as well as studies of topics relevant to the world of historic Orthodoxy and early Christianity.

Šalmūtā Šapīrtā

Festschrift for Rifaat Y. Ebied in honour of his contributions to Semitic Studies

Presented for his 85th birthday, 29th June 2023

Edited by

Erica C.D. Hunter

gp 2023

Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2023 by Gorgias Press LLC

All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC.

‫ܗ‬

1

2023

ISBN 978-1-4632-4541-2

ISSN 1539-1507

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A Cataloging-in-Publication Record is available from the Library of Congress. Printed in the United States of America

TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ................................................................................................. v Foreword ............................................................................................................ vii Preface ................................................................................................................. ix Publications of Rifaat Y. Ebied ........................................................................... xi Do Pictures From the Past Repeat Themselves? .................................................. 1 Martin Tamcke The Ten Horned Ram of Old Greek Daniel 8 ..................................................... 13 Ian Young

A ʻGiftʼ in Syriac: a Mosaic from Osrhoene ........................................................ 29 John Healey and Claudia Gioia Al-Qāsim ibn Ibrāhīm al-Rassī and Christian-Muslim Relations in the Ninth Century ............................................................................................. 61 David Thomas

Discovering ‘Paradise’ at Turfan ........................................................................ 73 Erica C.D. Hunter Post-Chalcedonian Conflicts in Egypt: On the Historical Context and Orthodoxy of Timothy Aelurus (457–477 C.E.) ......................................... 87 Dietmar W. Winkler

The Ceremonial Creation of the Body of Adam in Alma Rišaia Rba ................ 101 Sandra van Rompaey Daniel of Ṣalaḥ’s Introduction to the Psalms, Chapter 1-16: Timeless Essentials for Students of the Psalter ....................................................... 137 Jacob Thekemparabil and Daniel L. Mcconaughy The Collective Authorship of the Peshitta New Testament ............................. 151 Terry C. Falla Ephrem (allegedly) on Himself: Two Syriac Poems ......................................... 215 Sebastian P. Brock Eukhitism and Anonymity in the ʻBook of Stepsʼ ............................................. 229 Brian E. Colless

v

vi

ŠALMŪTĀ ŠAPĪRTĀ: FESTSCHRIFT FOR RIFAAT Y. EBIED

Mana and Dualism in the Mandaean Tripartite System: with special reference to the esoteric text, Diwan-Qadaha-Rba-D-Dmuth-Kušṭa ........... 249 Brikha H.S. Nasoraia

Auffassung und Darstellung der Trinität in der Ikonographie ......................... 277 Jean-Paul Deschler Patriarchal Bone Relics in the Syrian Orthodox Dayr-al-Za’faran in Mardin (Turkey) .................................................................................................... 293 Amir Harrak

Peter of Kallinikos and the Syriac Language in the Late Sixth Century First Notes ................................................................................................ 311 Lucas Van Rompay

Marco Spurio?: Marco Polo on the Church of the East in China ...................... 329 Samuel N.C. Lieu Daniel of Mardin: The Man and His Work ....................................................... 361 Simon L. R. Burke Synodality in the Church of the East ............................................................... 385 Herman G.B. Teule

Glossary of Mandaean Terms ........................................................................... 397 Names of Mandaean Celestial and Darkworld Beings ..................................... 401 Contributors ..................................................................................................... 405

FOREWORD This Festschrift in honor of Rifaat Y. Ebied is indeed ‫ ܠܕܘܟܪܢܐ ܘܥܘܗܕܢܐ‬of one of the prominent scholars in the fields of Syriac studies and Christian Arabic literature. Ebied is one of few scholars able to navigate between the twin subjects with ease. In addition, Rifaat is one of the fixtures of the international Symposium Syriacum and the accompanying symposium on Christian Arabic studies. Until recently, he was the only scholar who had attended every single Symposium Syriacum. In fact, it was at the Vtum Symposium Syriacum in 1988 that I met Rifaat for the very first time. He also hosted the eighth symposium in Australia in 2000, one of the most successful Symposia to date. Ebied’s contributions to Syriac and Christian Arabic studies is clear from the list of his publications, 20 volumes of solid scholarship, many in collaboration with other prominent scholars, and 110 research papers. Rifaat was born in Assiout (Egypt), the heartland of Coptic Orthodoxy. After completing schooling he was accepted at the American College in Assiout and studied there from 1948 to 1956. He then joined Ain Shams University (Cairo) in 1956. He graduated with First Class Honours (with distinction) in 1960 with a degree in Semitic Languages and Literatures. He wrote a B.A. dissertation on the Book of Ruth, a critical, literary and historical study, together with a translation into Arabic. His academic career has spanned continents. He was first a lecturer in Hebrew, Arabic and other Semitic Languages at the Department of Oriental Languages of Ain Shams University (Cairo) between 1960 and 1964. After a research fellowship at the University of Southampton (England) between 1967 and 1969, he joined the University of Leeds where he was appointed a lecturer in Arabic, Hebrew and other Semitic Languages. He was promoted to Senior Lecturer in Semitic Studies in 1978 and became Acting Head of Department of Semitic Studies until 1979. His career then moved to Australia when he became Foundation Professor of Semitic Studies at the University of Sydney in 1979 until his retirement in 2008 when he was named Emeritus Professor of Semitic Studies. He is also an Honorary Professor at the Australian Catholic University (since 2004) and at Sydney College of Divinity and St. Cyril’s Coptic Orthodox Theological College. And Rifaat is not the sort of scholar who would stay put. He was a vibrant member of the international Academy. He was a Guest Scholar of the University of Leiden four times (1975, 1976, 1977, and 1978) where he interacted with many scholars, especially those associated with the Peshitta Institute, where he participated in the preparation of the Leiden edition of the Syriac Bible. vii

viii

ŠALMŪTĀ ŠAPĪRTĀ: FESTSCHRIFT FOR RIFAAT Y. EBIED

I personally remember him when he was a Visiting Fellow at Trinity Hall, University of Cambridge, and a Visiting Scholar at the Faculty of Oriental Studies during the academic year 1993–94. I was then doing my Ph.D. in Computational Linguistics at the University of Cambridge (St. John’s College). And it was lovely to meet and interact with Rifaat on many occasions. Once, Rifaat was examining a manuscript at Trinity Hall. Another Fellow of the college passed by and was intrigued by the Syriac script. Rifaat enthusiastically explained to the Fellow, who was a computer scientist, about Syriac and how time consuming it was to transcribe texts from manuscripts. The computer scientist was William Clocksin. The next day, I was in my office at the Computer Lab working on my Ph.D. William, who was part of the faculty of the Computer Lab, knocked on my door and came to tell me that he met Rifaat and that Rifaat told him about Syriac manuscripts. “I want to research Syriac OCR,” he told me. (OCR stands for Optical Character Recognition, the technique that allows the computer to “read” texts from photographs and transcribe them automatically.) You cannot imagine my excitement. I have been waiting for something like this since I began to work on Syriac computing. This collaboration with William Clocksin went on for decades. The texts entered into the Beta I version of the Simtho corpus (simtho.bethmardutho.org) were all OCRed with Clocksin’s system. Thank you, Rifaat, for introducing William to our world. After I completed my Ph.D., I was given a research position at Bell Labs in NJ. And as the qadar would have it, Rifaat was awarded a Visiting Fellow position at the Center of Theological Inquiry of Princeton Theological Seminary in 2005. This gave me and my wife Christine the opportunity to spend more time with Rifaat. We all ask the Lord ‫!ܕܢܣܡܘܟ ܚܛܘܪ ܣܝܒܘܬܗ‬ George A. Kiraz

PREFACE It gives me great pleasure to have had the privilege of preparing this Festschrift for Rifaat to celebrate his 85th birthday. My association with ‘Rif’ goes back to when he was one of the examiners of my doctoral dissertation (University of Melbourne, 1982)! Over the years, I got to know Rif at various conferences. I recall well when our first meeting at the Symposium Syriacum at Leuven in 1988, then at subsequent events, not the least when he hosted the ‘Millennium’ Symposium Syriacum and Christian Arabic conference in Sydney in 2000. I often saw Rif on his many visits to England or when I came to Sydney. The breadth of papers that make up this volume attest Rif’s championing of Semitic Studies at the University of Sydney, where he taught Old Testament and Hebrew as well as Syriac. His colleague, Ian Young writes on the importance of the Old Greek versions of Daniel. Terra Falla, from the University of Divinity (Melbourne) argues for the multiple authorship of the New Testament Peshitta. The trajectory of Rif’s research in both Syriac and Christian Arabic has borne fruit in several papers. Lucas Van Rompay’s analysis of sixth century Syriac is grounded in the writing of Peter of Kallinikos. Similarly, Dietmar W. Winkler draws on his translations of Timothy Aerelius in his discussion of the theological vicissitudes that emerged after Chalcedon. David Thomas, with whom Rif produced many seminal works, has contributed a paper on 9th century Christian-Muslim relations. The two papers by Sandi van Rompaey and Brikha Nasoraia reflect Rif’s especial interest in Mandaic studies (which brought a new dimension to Semitic Studies at the University of Sydney) alongside his on-going support of the sizeable communities in Sydney and hosting of conference specifically devoted to Mandaic studies. Brikha Nasoraia was one of Rif’s doctoral students and is now affiliated with the Dept. of Religious Studies. Simon Burke, one of Rif’s most recent doctoral students, has highlighted the 14th century literary heritage of the Syrian Orthodox Church through the writings of Daniel of Mardin. The importance of the West Syriac traditions is upheld by Jacob Thekemparambil and Daniel McConaughy in the Introduction to the Commentary on the Psalms by Daniel of Salah. The authorship of the Book of Steps, a seminal work in the East Syriac mystical repertoire is proposed by Brian E. Colless. Turning to the eastern outreach of the Church of the East, Erica C.D. Hunter probes the transfer of northern Mesopotamian monastic traditions to Turfan via prayer-amulets, notably ‘The Anathema of the Paradise of the Fathers’. Samuel N.C. Lieu scrutinizes Marco Polo’s observations of the ix

x

ŠALMŪTĀ ŠAPĪRTĀ: FESTSCHRIFT FOR RIFAAT Y. EBIED

‘Nestorians’ in Il Milione to address whether this famous traveller really did go to China. The esteem which both East and West Syriac traditions have accorded to Ephrem is exemplified by Sebastian Brock’s translation of two soghitha (poems) attributed to Ephrem; his reputation produced many so-called ‘works’. Claudia Gioia and John Healey’s discussion of a unique mosaic and its inscription from Edessa highlights the rich cultural heritage of Edessa in the first centuries which the Christians inherited. Jean-Paul Deschler embarks on a rich excursus of the iconographic parallels in the Oriental and Western churches to illustrate how their theological developments were visually represented. Amir Harrak draws attention to the importance of bone relics when translating and commenting on a 19th century inscription that commemorates five Syrian orthodox Patriarchs buried at Deir al Zafaran. Responses since 2003 to the continuing situation of the communities in Iraq are addressed by Martin Tamcke, who draws on Ottoman experiences to ask poignantly, ‘has anything changed in the last 100 years?’. Herman Teule focusses on the ways in which synodality functioned in the Church of the East as a response to the initiation in 2021 by Pope Francis I of synodal consultation in the Latin Church. The range and diversity of the contributions to this Festschrift show that ‘Down Under’ has indeed been a fertile terrain for Syriac and Semitic studies. This is, of course, in no small part due to Rif’s indefatigable efforts for which he has been awarded the Order of Australia in the 2023 King’s Birthday Honours. Given his important research on Peter of Kallinikos, it seemed therefore fitting ܽ ‫ ܰܫ‬Šalmūtā Šapīrtā “the/a Perfect ܺ ‫ܬܐ ܰܫ‬ ܳ ‫ܦܝ‬ ܳ ‫ܠܡܘ‬ to use a phrase from one of his works: ‫ܬܐ‬ 1 Harmony” for the Festschrift Title. 0F

(23.i.2023)

The Editor thanks Lucas Van Rompay for his concerted search of the works of Peter of Kallinikos. The phrase is from Petri Callinicensis Patriarchae Antiocheni: Tractatus Contra Damianum. Book III, [Capita XXXV-L], Rifaat Ebied, Albert Van Roey and Lionel R. Wickham, eds [Corpus Christianorum, Series Graeca, 54] (Brepols, University of Louvain Press, Louvain, 2003), 378–9. 1

PUBLICATIONS OF RIFAAT Y. EBIED I. BOOKS

1.

Bibliography of Mediaeval Arabic and Jewish Medicine and Allied Sciences (London: The Wellcome Institute of the History of Medicine, 1971).

2.

A Collection of Unpublished Syriac Letters of Cyril of Alexandria. 2 vols [Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 359, 360] (Louvain: Secretariat du CorpusSCO, 1975) Vol. I, xx, 59 pp.; vol.II, xi, 49 pp. (in collaboration with Lionel R. Wickham).

3.

The Story of Joseph in Arabic Verse. [Supplement III to The Annual of Leeds University Oriental Society] (Leiden: Brill, 1975) 57 pp., 3 plates; (in collaboration with Michael J.L. Young: items 3–8).

4.

The Lamp of the Intellect of Severus ibn al-Muqaffa‘ Bishop of al-Ashmūnain. 2 vols [Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, 365, 366] (Louvain: Secretariat du CorpusSCO, 1975) Vol. I, xvi, 24 pp.; vol. II, viii, 24 pp.

5.

Some Arabic Legal Documents of the Ottoman Period from the Leeds Manuscript Collection. [Supplement IV to The Annual of Leeds University Oriental Society] (Leiden: Brill, 1976) 86 pp.; 4 plates.

6.

Arab Stories, East and West. [Leeds University Oriental Society, Monograph and Occasional Series No. 11] (Leeds: Leeds University Oriental Society, 1977) vii + 107 pp.

7.

Severus ibn Al-Muqaffaʼ: Afflictionʼs Physic and the Cure of Sorrow. 2 vols (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 396, 397) (Louvain: Secretariat du CorpusSCO, 1978) Vol. I, xviii, 40 pp.; vol. II, ix, 30 pp.

8.

A Volume of Oriental Studies presented to Benedikt S. J. Isserlin. (Leiden: Brill, 1980) x, 209 pp.; 4 plates. (Joint Editor)

9.

The Old Testament in Syriac according to the Peshitta Version: The Book of Psalms (Part II, fasc. 3) (Leiden: Brill, 1980) xxix + 173 pp. (in collaboration with D. M. Walter and A. Vogel).

xi

xii

ŠALMŪTĀ ŠAPĪRTĀ: FESTSCHRIFT FOR RIFAAT Y. EBIED

10.

Peter of Callinicum: Anti-Tritheist Dossier [Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, vol.10]. (Louvain: Department Oriëntalistiek, 1981) x + 130 pp. (in collaboration with Albert van Roey and Lionel R. Wickham).

11.

Petri Callinicensis Patriarchae Antiocheni: Tractatus Contra Damianum. Book II, Vol. 1 [Corpus Christianorum, Series Graeca 29] (Turnhout: Brepols; Louvain: University Press, 1994) lvii + 383 pp. (in collaboration with Albert van Roey and Lionel R. Wickham).

12.

Petri Callinicensis Patriarchae Antiocheni: Tractatus Contra Damianum. Book III [Capita I-XIX], Vol. 2 [Corpus Christianorum, Series Graeca, 32] (Turnhout: Brepols; Louvain: University Press, 1996) lvi + 568 pp. (in collaboration with Albert van Roey and Lionel R. Wickham).

13.

Petri Callinicensis Patriarchae Antiocheni: Tractatus Contra Damianum. Book III [Capita XX-XXXIV], Vol. 3 [Corpus Christianorum, Series Graeca, 35] (Turnhout: Brepols; Louvain: University Press, 1998) xlv + 551 pp. (in collaboration with Albert van Roey and Lionel R. Wickham).

14.

Petri Callinicensis Patriarchae Antiocheni: Tractatus Contra Damianum. Book III, [Capita XXXV-L], Vol. 4 [Corpus Christianorum, Series Graeca, 54] (Turnhout: Brepols; Louvain: University Press, 2003). xxviii + 515, pp. (in collaboration with Albert van Roey and Lionel R. Wickham).

15.

Studies on the Christian Arabic Heritage in honour of Father Professor Dr. Samir Khalil Samir S.I. at the occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday {Eastern Christian Studies, 5] (Louvain: Peeters, 2004), xii + 364 pp. (in collaboration with Herman Teule).

16.

Symposium Syriacum VIII [The Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 56: 1–4] (Louvain: Peeters, 2004) xvi+356 pp. (in collaboration with Herman Teule).

17.

Muslim-Christian Polemic during the Crusades: Ibn Abi Talib al-Dimashqi’s Response to the Letter from the People of Cyprus [The History of Christian-Muslim Relations, 2], Rifaat Ebied and David Thomas, eds. (Leiden:Brill, 2005) vii+ 515 pp.

18.

An Anthology of Arab Wit and Wisdom (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2008) ix+78 pp.

19.

The Polemical Works of ‘Ali al-Tabari [History of Christian-Muslim Relations, 27], Rifaat Ebied and David Thomas, eds (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2016) vii+491 pp.

20.

Dionysius Bar Salibi’s Treatise against the Jews, Edited and Translated with Notes and Commentary by Rifaat Y. Ebied, Malatius M. Malki and Lionel R. Wickham [Texts and Studies in Eastern Christianity, vol. XV] (Leiden: Brill, 2019) xvii +169 pp.

PUBLICATIONS OF RIFAAT Y. EBIED 21.

xiii

Dionysius bar Salibi’s Treatise Against the Armenians, Edited and Translated with Notes and Commentary by Rifaat Y. Ebied, Mor Malatius M. Malki and Erica C.D. Hunter (Leiden: Brill, forthcoming)

II. ARTICLES

1.

“A Triglot volume of the Epistle to the Laodiceans, Psalm 151 and other Biblical Material”, Biblica 47 (1966), 243–54.

2.

“Thabit ibn Qurra: fresh light on an obscure medical composition”, Le Museon 79 (1966), 453–73.

3.

“Al-Yaʼkubiʼs account of the Israelite Prophets and Kings”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 29:2 (1970), 80–98 (in collaboration with Lionel R. Wickham: items 8-13).

4.

“A Collection of unpublished Syriac Letters of Timothy Aelurus”, The Journal of Theological Studies 21:2 (1970), 321–69.

5.

“The Letter of Cyril of Alexandria to Tiberius the Deacon”, Le Museon 83 (1970), 433–82.

6.

“An Unknown Letter of Cyril of Alexandria in Syriac”, The Journal of Theological Studies 22:2 (1971), 420–34.

7.

“A note on the Syriac version of Athanasius' Ad Epictetum in MS B. M. Add. 14557”, The Journal of Theological Studies 23:1 (1972), 144–54.

8.

“An account of the history and rituals of the Yazidis of Mosul”, Le Museon 85:3-4 (1972), 481–522.

9.

“An Arabic Treatise on the History of the Nestorians”, Parole de lʼOrient 3:2 (1972), 375-400.

10.

“A Letter in Arabic to Pope Clement XI from Emperor Iyasu I of Ethiopia”, Orientalia Christiana Periodica XXXIX, Fasc. 2 (1973), 408–18.

11.

“A Letter in Syriac from Eliya Mellus, Metropolitan of Mardin, to E. A. Wallis Budge”, Journal of Semitic Studies XVIII:1 (1973), 59–63.

12.

“Some Syriac Manuscripts from the Collection of Sir E. A. Wallis Budge”, Orientalia Christiana Analecta 197 (1974) “Symposium Syriacum 1972”, 509– 39.

13.

“Extracts in Arabic from a Chronicle erroneously attributed to Jacob of Edessa”, Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 4 (1973), 177–96.

(in collaboration with Michael J. L. Young: Items 14-52): 14.

“A List of Ottoman Governors of Aleppo A. H. 1002–1168”, Annali dellʼIstituto Orientale di Napoli 34 (N. S. XXIV), (1974), 103–8.

xiv

ŠALMŪTĀ ŠAPĪRTĀ: FESTSCHRIFT FOR RIFAAT Y. EBIED

15.

“An Unknown Arabic Poem on Joseph and his Brethren”, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society No. 1 (1974), 2–7.

16.

“A Treatise in Arabic on the Nestorian Patriarchs”, Le Museon 87:1–2 (1974), 87–113.

17.

“Some Verses in Praise of al-Hariri”, Journal of Semitic Studies 19:1 (1974), 76–81.

18.

“Station of the City of Darkness” (Translation), Contemporary Literature in Translation 19: Summer/Fall (1974), 19–21.

19.

“An Early Eighteenth-century Ijazah issued in Damietta”, Le Museon 87:3-4 (1974), 445–65.

20.

“A Manuscript of Hunaynsʼs Masaʼil fi ʼIlm al-Tibb in the Leeds University Collection”, Arabica XXIX, Fasc. 3 (1974), 264–9.

21.

“An Exposition of the Islamic doctrine of Christʼs Second coming, as presented by a Bosnian Muslim scholar”, Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 5 (1974), 127–37.

22.

“The ʻUrjuzat al-Wildanʼ of Yahya al-Qurtubi (486-567/1093-1172)”, The Islamic Quarterly, XVIII:3/4 (1974), 15–32.

23. 24.

‫تار�خ النساطرة‬, Bayn al-Nahrayn II: 5 (1974), 67–74.

“Did the Arabs invent the University?”, The Times Higher Education Supplement, No. 185 (May 2, 1975), 11.

25.

“New Light on the Origin of the Term 'Baccalaureate'”, The Islamic Quarterly XVIII:1-2 (1975), 3–7 + 4 plates.

26.

“Shams al-Din al Jazari and his Al-Maqamat al-Zayniyyah”, The Annual of Leeds University Oriental Society VII (1975), 54–60.

27.

“The Discourse of Mar Peter Callinicus on the Crucifixion”, The Journal of Theological Studies, N.S., XXVI: 1 (1975), 23–37.

28.

“An Anonymous Arabic Treatise on Alchemy”, Der Islam 53:1 (1976), 100– 9.

29.

“Abu l-Baqa' al-Rundi and his Elegy on Muslim Spain”, The Muslim World LXVI:1 (January, 1976), 29–34.

30.

“Les Arabes ont-ils invente lʼUniversite?”, Le Monde de l'Education 20 (September 1976), 41–2.

31.

“A Nineteenth-century Arabic Survey of the Ottoman Dynasty”, Turcica, Revue d'Etudes Turques VIII: 1 (1976), 246–71.

32.

“Two Short Stories from Tunisia”, Journal of Arabic Literature VII (1976), 45– 52.

PUBLICATIONS OF RIFAAT Y. EBIED

xv

33.

“A Collection of Arabic Proverbs from Mosul”, Annali dellʼIstituto Orientale di Napoli 36 (N.S. XXVI), Fasc. 3 (1976), 317–50.

34.

“Some Maghribi Manuscripts in the Leeds University Collection”, Journal of Semitic Studies XXI: 1/2 (1976), 109–119.

35.

“A Treatise on Hemerology Ascribed to Gaʼfar al-Sadiq”, Arabica XXIII, Fasc. 3 (1976), 296–307.

36.

“A Newly-discovered Version of the Arabic Sibylline Prophecy”, Oriens Christianus 60 (1976), 83–94.

37.

“A List of the Appellations of the Prophet Muhammad”, The Muslim World LXVI:4 (October, 1976), 259–62.

38.

“An Unpublished Refutation of the Doctrines of the Wahhabis”, Rivista degli Studi Orientali 50, Fasc. 3-4 (1976), 377–97+ 6 plates.

39.

“The ʻKhaliyyahʼ Ode of Butrus Karamah: A Nineteenth-century literary dispute”, Journal of Semitic Studies XXII:1 (1977), 69–80.

40.

“An Unpublished Legal Work on a Difference between the Shafi'ites and Malikites”, Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica VIII (1977), 251–62.

41.

“An Unpublished Letter from 'Ali Pasha, Ottoman Governor of Iraq, to the Sharif of Mecca”, Die Welt des Islams XVII:1-4 (1977), 58-71.

42.

“An Unrecorded Arabic Version of a Sibylline Prophecy”, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 43, Fasc. 2 (1977), 279–307.

43.

“A Note on Muslim Name-giving according to the Day of the Week”, Arabica XXIV, Fasc. 3 (1977), 326–8.

44.

“Two Elegies on the Patriarch Ignatius Sarruf”, Oriens Christianus 61 (1977), 71–7.

45.

“A Theological Work by Severus ibn al-Muqaffaʼ from Istanbul: MS Aya Sofia 2360”, Oriens Christianus 61 (1977), 78–85.

46.

“Peter of Antioch and Damian of Alexandria: The End of a friendship” in A Tribute to Arthur Voobus, Robert H. Fischer, ed. (Chicago: Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago, 1977), 277–82.

47.

Review of Alistair Duncan, The Noble Heritage. Jerusalem and Christianity: a Portrait of the Church of the Resurrection in Journal of Semitic Studies XXII (1977), 261.

48.

“Report on the Progress of the Peshitta Edition, Leiden”, Orientalia Christiana Analecta 205 (1978), 109–111.

49.

“The Origin of the Baccalaureate”, Egypt Today, April (1978), 28–9.

50.

“Arabic Literature in India—two Maqamat of Abu Bakr al-Hadrami”, Studies in Islam 15 (1978), 14–20.

xvi

ŠALMŪTĀ ŠAPĪRTĀ: FESTSCHRIFT FOR RIFAAT Y. EBIED

51.

“An Eighteenth-century Ottoman Commercial Phrase Book: Leeds Turkish MS No. 3”, A Volume of Oriental Studies presented to Benedikt S. J. Isserlin, Rifaat Y. Ebied and Michael J. L. Young, eds. (Leiden: Brill, 1980), 136–45.

52.

“Some Arabic Legal Manuscripts in the Leeds Collection”, A Volume of Oriental Studies presented to Benedikt S. J. Isserlin, Rifaat Y. Ebied and Michael J. L. Young, eds (Leiden: Brill, 1980), 146-55.

53.

The Encyclopaedia of Islam (New Edition) Supplement, Fasc. 1-2 (1980). Articles: “Abu Sinbil”, 35–6; “Abu Za'bal”, 38; “Al-Abyari”, 40; “'Akar”, 55 (with Michael J. L. Young).

54.

“Kitab al-Kafi fiʼl Tibb of Al-Razi”, Journal for the History of Arabic Science 4:1 (1980), 18–30. (with A. Z. Iskander).

55.

The Encyclopaedia of Islam (New edition). Article: "al-Kulzum", vol. V, Fasc. 83–4, 367–9.

56.

The Encyclopaedia of Islam (New edition) Supplement, Fasc. 3-4 (1981). Articles: “Binn”, 135–6; “Butrus Karama”, 162. (with Michael J. L. Young).

57.

“Peter of Callinicum and Damian of Alexandria: the Tritheist Controversy of the Sixth Century”, Colloquium 15:1 (1982), 17–22.

58.

The Encyclopaedia of Islam (New Edition). Article “al-Kurtubi”, vol. V, Fasc. 87–8 (1982), 513–4 (with Michael J. L. Young).

59.

The Encyclopaedia of Islam (New Edition) Supplement, Fasc. 5-6 (1982). Articles: “Al-Djazari”, 267; “Handzic (al-Khandji)”, 354; “Hinn”, 371; “Ibn Dakik al-'id”, 383; “Ikrah”, 410. (with Michael J. L. Young).

60.

“Two Buyurultus in Arabic from the seventeenth century”, Archivum Ottomanicum VI (1980) (published 1983), 101–6 (with Michael J. L Young).

61.

“The Syriac Impact on Arabic Literature”, Arabic Literature to the End of the Umayyad Period, Alfred F. L. Beeston et. al., eds [The Cambridge History of Arabic Literature, vol. I] (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 497–501.

62.

“The Syriac influence on the Arabic language and literature”, (III Symposium Syriacum 1980) Orientalia Christiana Analecta 221 (1983), 247–51.

63.

“Three Decades of Translation into Arabic”, Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on Asian Studies, Hong Kong (1984), 1119–27.

64.

“Timothy Aelurus: Against the Definition of the Council of Chalcedon”, “Timothy Aelurus, Against the Definition of the Council of Chalcedon” in After Chalcedon. Studies in Theology and Church History offered to Professor Albert Van Roey on his seventieth birthday, Carl Laga, Joseph A. Munitiz and Lucas

PUBLICATIONS OF RIFAAT Y. EBIED

xvii

Van Rompay, eds [Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 18] (Leuven: Dept. Oriëntalistiek: Uitgeverij Peeters, 1985), 115–66 (with Lionel R. Wickham). 65.

“Some Observations on the Eastern Versions of the Sibylline Prophecy”, Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on Asian Studies, Hong Kong (1986), 1035–41.

66.

“Devil-Worshippers: The Yazidis”, Proceedings of the Tenth International Symposium on Asian Studies (1988), vol. IV (South and Southwest Asia), Hong Kong (1989), 941–8.

67.

“The Syriac Impact on the Arabic Language and Literature” (in Syriac), Journal of the Assyrian Academic Society V: 2 (1991), 19–24.

68.

“The Syriac Influence on the Arabic Language and Literature”, Journal of the Assyrian Academic Society VI: 2 (1992), 37–41.

69.

“Reflections on the Eighties & Looking Forward to the Nineties. The Teaching of Arabic in NSW Schools: some recent developments”, Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Symposium on Asian Studies (1992), vol. IV (South and Southwest Asia), Hong Kong (1994), 497–502.

70.

“Contra Damianum: Some Remarks on an Important Syriac Manuscript”, Parole de l'Orient 20 (1995), 209–19.

71.

“The Role of Translation: Three Decades of Translation into Arabic”, Revue des Lettres et de Traduction 2 (1996), 55-70.

72.

“A Letter in Syriac from Eliya Mellus, Metropolitan of Mardin, to E. A. Wallis Budge”, The Assyrian Australian Academic Journal 2 (1997), 13–8.

73.

“Devil Worshippers: the Yazidis”, Mehregan in Sydney: Proceedings of the Seminar in Persian Studies during the Mehregan Persian Cultural Festival, Sydney, Australia, 28 October – 6 November 1994, Garry W. Trompf and Morteza Honari with Homer Abramian, eds [Sydney Studies in Religion, 1] (Sydney: School of Studies in Religion, University of Sydney, with the Persian Cultural Foundation of Australia, 1998), 93–7.

74.

“Arabic Proverbs from Mosul (Iraq)”, The Assyrian Australian Academic Journal, 3 (1998), 10–9.

75.

“Inter-Religious Attitudes: Al-Dimashqi’s (d. 727/1327) Letter to the People of Cyprus”, ARAM [The Mamluks and the Early Ottoman Period in Bilad alSham: History and Archaeology], 9–10 (1997–1998), 19-24.

76.

“An Unknown Poem on the Siege of Aleppo and the Violent Events of A.H. 1065-66/A.D. 1654-55”, ARAM [The Mamluks and the Early Ottoman Period in Bilad al-Sham: History and Archaeology], 9–10 (1997–1998), 365–75.

77.

“Treatise in Arabic on the Nestorian Patriarchs”, The Assyrian Australian Academic Journal 4 (1999), 28–55.

xviii

ŠALMŪTĀ ŠAPĪRTĀ: FESTSCHRIFT FOR RIFAAT Y. EBIED

78.

“Some Observations on ‘A Late 19th-Century Coptic Marriage Contract and the Coptic Documentary Tradition’”, Parole de l’Orient 25 (2000), 727–32.

79.

“Perspectives on the Role of Translation: Four Decades of Translation into Arabic” (ca. 15 pages), to be published by The Higher Institute for Languages, 6 of October University, Cairo, in 2002.

80.

“Arab and Islamic contributions to European Civilization” in Technology, Tradition and Survival. Aspects of Material Culture in the Middle East and Central Asia”, Richard Tapper and Keith McLachlan, eds (London: Frank Cass, 2003), 25–35.

81.

“A Collection of Syriac Short Stories about Early Church Fathers” in Philomathestatos: Studies in Greek Patristic and Byzantine Texts presented to Jacques Noret for his sixty-fifth Birthday, Bart Janssens, Bram Roosen and Peter Van Deun, eds [Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 137] (Louvain: Peeters, 2004), 225–37.

83.

The Encyclopaedia of Islam (New Edition) Supplement: Fasc. 7–8 (2005). Article: “Iskat”, 466.

84.

“An Unpublished Short Arabic Poem of a Medieval Muslim-Christian Polemic”, Parole de l’Orient 30 (2005), 323–30.

85.

“The Syriac Polemical Treatises of Dionysius Bar Salibi, Metropolitan of Amid (D. 1171 AD)”, Parole de l’Orient 31 (2006), 57–61.

86.

“Dionysius Bar Salibi’s Syriac Polemical Treatises: Prejudice and Polarization towards Christians, Jews and Muslims”, The Harp xx (2006), 73–86.

87.

“Prejudice and Polarization towards Christians, Jews and Muslims: ‘The Polemical Treatises’ of Dionysius Bar Salibi” in Christians and Muslims in Dialogue in the Islamic Orient of the Middle Ages, Martin Tamcke, ed. [Beiruter Texte und Studien 117] (Beirut: Orient-Institut; Würzburg: Ergon Verlag in Kommission, 2007), 171–83.

88.

“The Syriac Liturgy of Peter of Callinicus”, The Harp xxiii (2008), 323–58.

89.

“A Collection of Letters in Syriac and Arabic addressed to Eduard Sachau (1845-1930)”, ARAM Periodical 21 (2009), 79–105.

90.

“Some Further Letters in Syriac, Neo-Aramaic and Arabic Addressed to Eduard Sachau by Jeremiah Shamir”, Journal of Assyrian Academic Society 24: 1 (2010), 19–57.

91.

The Cambridge Dictionary of Christianity, Daniel Patte, ed. (Cambridge, University Press, 2010), Entries: “Bar Hebraeus (Ibn al-‘Ibri)”, 98–9; “Damian of Alexandria”, 299; “Dionysius (Jacob) bar Salibi”, 325; “Peter of Callinicus”, 949; “Timothy II Aelurus”, 1238–9; “Tritheism”, 1252.

PUBLICATIONS OF RIFAAT Y. EBIED

xix

92.

“Peter of Callinicus and Damian of Alexandria: The Tritheist Controversy of the Sixth Century”, Parole de l’Orient 35 (2010), 181–91.

93.

“Dionysius Bar Salibi’s Works in the Mingana Collection of Syriac and Arabic Manuscripts, with special emphasis on his Polemical Treatise ‘Against the Muslims’”, Collectanea Christiana Orientalia, 8 (2011), 49–64.

94.

“Bar Salibi, Dionysius” in Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception, vol. 3 (Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, 2011), 493–5.

95.

“A short Treatise on the Trinity in Syriac attributed to St. Ephrem the Syrian”, The Harp, xxvii (2011), 343–52.

96.

“Four Decades of Translation into Arabic”, Sayyab Translation Journal, 3 (2011), 24–42.

97.

“The Syriac Encyclical Letter of Athanasius II, Patriarch of Antioch, which forbids the Partaking of the Sacrifices of the Muslims” in Orientalia Christiana, Festschrift fur Hubert Kaufhold zum 70.Geburtstag, Peter Bruns and Heinz Otto Luthe, eds (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2013), 145–150.

98.

“An Arabic Treatise on the Rules of the Maronite Monks”, Collectanea Christiana Orientalia 10 (2013), 37–49.

99.

“An Acrostic Elegy by a Maronite Priest-Monk on the sorrow of the Virgin Mary at her separation from her Son”, Collectanea Christiana Orientalia 10 (2013), 173–80.

100. “The Syriac Version of the Treatise on the Origin and History of the Thirty Pieces of Silver which Judas received from the Jews” in Graeco-Latina et Orientalia: Studia in honorem Angeli Urbani heptagenarii, Samir Khalil Samir, SJ and Juan Pedro Monferrer-Sala, eds [Series Syro-Arabica, 2] (Cordoba: Cordoba Near Eastern Research Unit/CEDRAC, 2013), 123–31. 101. “Quotations from the Works of St. Athanasius the Great in Peter of Callinicus’ magnum opus ‘Contra Damianum’” in Mapping Knowledge: Cross-Pollination in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, Charles Burnett and Pedro Mantas-Espana, eds [Series Arabica Veritas I] (Oriens Academic, 2014), 3–23. 102. “A Collection of Acrostic Admonitions in Syriac attributed to St. Ephrem the Syrian”, The Harp, xxix (2014), 41–53. 103. “An Arabic Version of the Treatise on the Origin and History of the Thirty Pieces of Silver which Judas Received from the Jews” in The Character of Christian-Muslim Encounter: Essays in Honour of David Thomas, Douglas Pratt, Jon Hoover, John Davies and John Chesworth, eds (Leiden: Brill, 2015) 167– 85. 104. “Quotations from the Works of Severus of Antioch in Peter of Callinicus’ magnum opus ‘Contra Damian’” in Severus of Antioch: His Life and Times, John D’Alton and Yuhanna Youssef, eds (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2016), 65–123.

xx

ŠALMŪTĀ ŠAPĪRTĀ: FESTSCHRIFT FOR RIFAAT Y. EBIED

105. “Quotations from the Works of St. Cyril of Alexandria in Peter of Callinicus’ magnum opus ‘Contra Damian’”, Collectanea Christiana Orientalia 13 (2016), 33–94. 106. “A short Version in Syriac and Arabic of the Gloria in Excelsis Deo, with Additions by St. Athanasius the Great”, Collectanea Christiana Orientalia 14 (2017), 65–71. 107. “Patriarch Ignatius Bar Wahib’s (d. 1333) Treatise on the Six Syriac Letters that have Two Sounds” (with Mor Malatius Malki Malki), The Harp xxxii (2017), 9–33. 108. “An Arabic Version of a Miracle by St. George in the City of Baghdad”, Parole de l’Orient 44 (2018), 133–43. 109. “The Syriac Version of the Treatise on the Origin and History of the Thirty Pieces of Silver which Judas received from the Jews”, The Harp xxxiii (2018), 389–412. 110. ‫ﻗﻮاﻧﯿﻦ اﻟﺒﻄﺮﯾﺮك إﻏﻨﺎطﯿﻮس اﺑﻦ وھﯿﺐ ﻟﻠﺤﺮوف اﻟﺴﺮﯾﺎﻧﯿﺔ اﻟﺴﺘﺔ اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻘﻊ ﺗﺤﺖ ﻗﺎﻋﺪة اﻟﺘﺮﻛﯿﺦ واﻟﺘﻘﺸﯿﺔ‬ Syriac Orthodox Patriarchal Journal, 58 (2020), 83–117 [in Arabic] (with Mor Malatius Malki Malki)

PUBLICATIONS OF RIFAAT Y. EBIED

Professor Rifaat Y Ebied with HH Mar Awa III, 122nd Catholicos-Patriarch of the Church of the East and HB Mar Meelis Zaia, Metropolitan of the Church of the East (Australia, New Zealand and Lebanon diocese).

xxi

xxii

ŠALMŪTĀ ŠAPĪRTĀ: FESTSCHRIFT FOR RIFAAT Y. EBIED

Professor Rifaat Y. Ebied

DO PICTURES FROM THE PAST REPEAT THEMSELVES? MARTIN TAMCKE ∗

(UNIVERSITY OF GÖTTINGEN) The circumstances in which the Christians of Iraq found themselves in 2003 present a déjà vu. Despite the robust relationship between Germany and the Ottoman Empire, under whose jurisdiction Iraq fell, German diplomats were unable to thwart many of the atrocities which the Christian communities experienced in the opening decades of the twentieth century. Pleas and desperate attempts, as well as surviving letters from the archive of the Evangelical Lutheran Hermannsburg Mission show that most efforts to assist the communities achieved very little. Has anything changed?

GERMANY AND IRAQ: MUTUAL ACQUAINTANCE IN THE EARLY TWENTIETH CENTURY

How the imagery changes! In the introduction to his 1963 book about his time in Iraq Hans Peter Hohn was still able to approach his subject matter in small steps. Iraq was such a long way away and yet so very close. The events he described were certainly far removed. It was an era when travelling to foreign lands still left time to get to know the country and involved a touch of exoticism: Travelers who have got the time to visit Baghdad—and you should definitely make time, if you travel to the Orient—can get a train ticket to Baghdad for 333 DM at the next travel agents. It takes five nights and four and a half days from Munich with a stop-over in Istanbul where the traveler has to take a Bosporus ferry to catch the train on a different continent. With each station the train travels further away from Central Europe, the railway engine become more lethargic, but this lost travel time is compensated by greater comfort on the Asian leg of the journey. The once I first met Rifaat Ebied, around 1980, at the Symposium Syriacum in Goslar, Germany. An open-minded person, interested in interaction, we invited him to Göttingen to our conference, ‘Christians and Muslims in Dialogue in the Islamic Orient of the Middle Ages’ where he encouraged the production of further editions. ∗

1

2

MARTIN TAMCKE politically disputed Baghdad railway offers the opportunity to experience an airconditioned journey through the Anatolian plateau, the valleys of the Taurus Mountains, east of the border between Syria and Turkey alongside the Mesopotamian lowland towards what the Greeks call the ‘land between two rivers’. 1

Today hardly anyone from Germany would be tempted by a long train journey to see the beauty of Iraq. Throughout history, numerous Germans had approached Iraq this way: researchers who conducted spectacular archaeological digs, 2 soldiers who fought with the Turks against the British (Field Marshal Colmar von der Goltz initiated the defeat of the British in the siege of Kut Al Amara, although he did not live to see them surrender), 3 diplomats, salesmen, teachers, physicians, and whoever else belonged to the German colonies that had been established in the region which still was part of the Ottoman Empire in 1918. 4 It was the starting point of the German Persian military mission. 5 German settlers saw Iraq as their potential future homeland. 6 The Baghdad railway created a connection between Berlin and Baghdad (or rather between Berlin, Baghdad and Basra). Baghdad was a logical choice for Germans. 7 What was to become Iraq promised to be the breadbasket of the German Empire. After 1918, the Germans had to leave the fields to the British. Did these tumultuous events Hans Peter Hohn, Irak: Land zwischen den Strömen (Munich: 1963), 7. (“Reisende nach Bagdad, die Zeit haben – und Zeit sollte man haben, wenn man in den Orient fährt –, können im nächsten Reisebüro für DM 333, eine Eisenbahnfahrkarte nach Bagdad verlangen. Von München aus dauert es fünf Nächte und viereinhalb Tage. Umsteigen nur in Istanbul, wo man auf einer Bosporusfähre zum andern Zug und Erdteil hinüberwechselt. Zwar werden die Lokomotiven mit wachsender Entfernung von Mitteleuropa von Station zu Station phlegmatischer, aber auf dem asiatischen Teil der Reise wird der Verlust an Zeit durch größeren Komfort und Service kompensiert. In der einst politisch so umstrittenen Bagdadbahn rollt man airconditioned über die Hochflächen Anatoliens, durch die Schluchten des Taurusgebirges, schließlich ostwärts der syrisch-türkischen Grenze entlang in die Tiefebene Mesopotamiens, in das “Land zwischen den Strömen”, wie es die Griechen bezeichneten.”). 2 Barthel Hrouda, “Koldewey, Robert”, Neue Deutsche Biographie, 12 (1980), 459–60. 3 Waldemar Frey, Kut-el-Amara (Berlin: 1932); Frit Frechz, Der Kriegsschauplatz in Armenien und Mesopotamien (Leipzig/Berlin: 1916). 4 Working there as a Catholic priest: Joseph Kiera, Ins Land des Euphrat und Tigris: Kriegserinnerungen (Breslau: 1935); as a Swiss representative of the German Orient Mission: Jakob Künzler, Im Land des Blutes und der Tränen: Erlebnisse in Mesopotamien während des Weltkrieges (Potsdam: 1921). 5 Ulrich Gehrke, Persien in der deutschen Orientpolitik während des Ersten Weltkrieges, 2 vols (Stuttgart: 1960). 6 Hugo Grothe, Die Bagdadbahn und das schwäbische Bauernelement in Transkaukasien und Palästina (Munich: 1902). 7 Paul Rohrbach stands out among the German theologians who worked there. Paul Rohrbach, “Das untere Stromland und die Bagdadbahn” in Johannes Lepsius ed., Ex oriente lux: Jahrbuch der Deutschen Orientmission (Berlin: 1903), 141–53; Paul Rohrbach, Die Bagdadbahn (Berlin: 1911). For general information about the railway: Jürgen Lodemann and Manfred Pohl, Die Bagdadbahn: Geschichte und Gegenwart einer berühmten Eisenbahnlinie (Mainz: 1989). 1

DO PICTURES FROM THE PAST REPEAT THEMSELVES?

3

change the picture, the motives of Europeans, and the situation of Christians in the Orient? Some remnants of German activity remain. The Baghdad railway and the streets through Baghdad that were built by von der Goltz. Hohn also discovered relics of a former German presence. Looking through the pages of the guest book in the Monastery of Saint Behnam, he saw that German officers and soldiers had left notes of thanks to the monastery and their hospitality. 8 Even after 1918, Germany’s role in Iraq was not over. Hitler supported the 1941 Iraqi coup dʼétat against the British, which forced the ruling family into temporary exile. 9 They returned after the British troops arrived and resumed their position. 10 Even though Germany abstained from participating in the Iraq War led by the United States and the United Kingdom in 2003, it still seems that old differences were at play. The general context and the motives were undoubtedly different. Likening them to earlier historical events would be an oversimplification. Regardless of how much the image of travelling to Iraq might have changed, similarities in behavior with earlier centuries still continued. Pictures change as a result of advancing technology, but are they not also reproduced on a different level?

GERMANS AND THE ANTI-CHRISTIAN POGROMS IN IRAQ

In the region that would later become Iraq, Germans witnessed the difficult situation of the Christians. In 1900/1901 Paul Rohrbach already observed the unstable situation that was created within the local power structure. The resulting hardship called for a German presence to fix this political instability: The entire world is waiting for us, like they are waiting for salvation; nobody rules here anymore: hundreds of villages from Mosul to Djazirah lie burnt, plundered, and deserted; we rode through many of them ourselves and we have seen their former inhabitants take refuge in small garrisons, hiding under brown tents. The Kurds from the mountains have robbed them and driven them out without differentiating between Christians and Muslims; since the Armenian massacres they have become accustomed to this activity and the government in Constantinople can no longer control the spirits they have summoned. 11

Hohn, Irak, 134. Gerhard Höpp, Peter Wien, and René Wildangel, Blind für die Geschichte? –Arabische Begegnungen mit dem Nationalsozialismus (Berlin: 2004). 10 Hohn, Irak, 31. 11 Rohrbach, Im Vorderen Asien, 75 (“Alle Welt wartet hier auf uns, wie auf eine Erlöfung; regiert wird hier ūberhaupt nicht mehr: von Mossul bis Dschesireh liegen hundert Dörfer verbrannt, ausgeplūndert, verödet da; durch viele von ihnen sind wir selbst geritten und haben die geflūchteten Bewohner hier und da unter dem Schutz einer kleinen Stadt garnison unter braunen Wanderzelten kampieren sehen. Die Kurden aus den Bergen haben sie beraupt und vertrieben, ohne zwischen Christen und Muhammedanern viel Unterschied zu machen; seit den armenischen Massacres ist ihnen diese Beschäftigung lieb und vertraut geworden und das Gouvernement in Konstantinopel wird jetzt die Geister nicht mehr los, die es gerufen hat.”). 8 9

4

MARTIN TAMCKE

As a motive for retaking the region Rohrbach proclaimed the need to save the ‘culture’ of the ‘Occident’. 12 This proposed motive for a German military presence in Mesopotamia is not that different from later motives of other nations who also intervened. Is this a repetition of images and patterns? During the First World War, the persecution of Christian ethnicities in the Ottoman Empire reached as far as present-day Iraq. On 18 May, Consul Holstein of the Imperial Consulate in Mosul telegraphed the embassy in Constantinople to inform about the dire situation in which persecuted Syrian Christians found themselves. He claims to have gained this information from the patriarchs of the Church of the East and of the Chaldeans respectively. The events seemed to be worsened by the Wali (governor) or, at least he would not make any attempts to intervene. 13 Although the German embassy had asked people to be understanding of the Turkish position, 14 Holstein protested strongly when 614 refugees were killed on the river Tigris opposite the local government offices. He expressed “strong revulsion at this atrocity.” 15 On 15 July 1915 the consul of Mosul reported a massacre in a village that was exclusively inhabited by Chaldeans. 16 On 16 July only a third of the deported Armenians arrived in Mosul; the men had been murdered and the young women had been handed over to Muslims. 17 The state the refugees when they arrived in Mosul and the lack of provision shocked the consul who wrote, “These peopleʼs misery is beyond description, their clothes rot on their bodies; women and children die of hunger every By then, he considered the Baghdad railway a part of the European occupation of the ancient cultural land. “the moment the first locomotive engine passes the old military transition point near Djazirah crossing the river Tigris, the Occident and its culture regains its power over the world and Kurdish bandits have to return to their mountains.”, Rohrbach, Im Vorderen Asien, 75; (“Mit dem Augenblick, wo die erste Lokomotive bei Dschesireh an der alten Übergangsstelle der Heere und Völker über den Tigris rollt, haben das Abendland und die Kultur wiederum von dieser Welt Besitz ergriffen, und die kurdischen Räuber müssen in ihre Berge zurück. ”). 13 No. 57, Holstein, Kaiserliches Konsulat Mossul, Telegramm, Abgang aus Mossul, den 18. Mai 1915, Ankunft in Pera, den 20. Mai 1915, in Johannes Lepsius, Deutschland und Armenien 1914–1918: Sammlung diplomatischer Aktenstücke (Bremen: 1986; repr. Potsdam: 1919), 72–3. 14 On 31 May, Ambassador von Wangenheim requested sympathy for the measures taken by the Turks, cf. No. 72, Wangenheim, Kaiserlich Deutsche Botschaft, Telegramm, Pera, den 31. Mai 1915, in Lepsius, Deutschland und Armenien, 79. 15 No. 78, Holstein, Kaiserliches Konsulat Mossul, Telegramm, Abgang aus Mossul, den 10. Juni 1915, Ankunft in Pera, den 11. Juni 1915, in Lepsius, Deutschland und Armenien, 82. The embassy forwarded this to the Imperial Chancellor on 17 June, in Lepsius, Deutschland und Armenien, 84. 16 No. 113, Holstein, Kaiserliches Konsulat Mossul, Telegramm, Abgang aus Mossul, den 15. Juli 1915, Ankunft in Pera, den 16. Juli 1915, in Lepsius, Deutschland und Armenien, 103. On 31 July 1915 the ambassador of a special mission, Prince Hohenlohe–Langenburg, reported to the Imperial Chancellor from Istanbul about the persecution of Chaldean and Syrian Christians, in Lepsius, Deutschland und Armenien, 115. 17 No. 115, Holstein, Kaiserliches Konsulat Mossul, Telegramm, Abgang aus Mossul, den 16. Juli 1915, Ankunft in Pera, den 17. Juli 1915, in Lepsius, Deutschland und Armenien, 104. 12

DO PICTURES FROM THE PAST REPEAT THEMSELVES?

5

day.” 18 On 3 November 1915 a colonel of Halil Bey who had just arrived in Mosul called on Holstein and declared that he planned to massacre the Armenians in Mosul as well. In his opinion, the Germans denied their friendship to the Turks, when they tried to prevent such Turkish measures. Holstein immediately asked the embassy to intervene in Halil Beyʼs plans since the troops of the Turkish commander who had slaughtered the Christians in the north were about to arrive in Mosul in a few days. 19 Reports by members of the German Missionary Fellowships confirmed fears of an impending massacre. 20 Ultimately, von der Goltz and the Wali of Mosul clashed because the latter wanted to begin deportations as soon as possible. As commander-inchief, von der Goltz robustly prohibited deportation. When it became clear that it had gone ahead regardless, he handed in his resignation. At this point, the authorities intervened with Enver Pascha informing him personally that his position as commander-in-chief did not authorise him to interfere in internal affairs of the state. 21 On 4 May 1916 Holstein gave an extensive report of the situation of the deportees in Mosul. Considering their circumstances, they were well and were placed with Christian and Muslim families or in camps in Mosul, Kirkuk, and Sulaymaniyah. The consulate offered to take care of the support measures themselves. 22 In the meantime, the German consulates monitored the deportation trains, noting the declining numbers of people who arrived alive at their destinations. The consulate of Aleppo reported the departure of four transports carrying 19,000 people from Deir ez-Zor to Mosul where only 2,500 arrivals were counted. 23 In autumn 1916, attempts at ordering German officers to participate in the massacre of the Armenians failed, at least with Max Erwin von Scheubner-Richter who was the subordinate of the Wali of Mosul. 24 When the German consulate in Mosul answered a questionnaire by Dr. Karl Axenfeld from the embassy in Constantinople on 19 June 1917, it listed 7,000 to 8,000 deportees in Mosul, Kirkuk, and the surrounding villages. Some of the deportees who had found refuge in the villages were driven out into the cities by fanatical

No. 118, Holstein, Kaiserliches Konsulat Mossul, Telegramm, Abgang aus Mossul, den 21. Juli 1915, Ankunft in Pera, den 23. Juli 1915, in Lepsius, Deutschland und Armenien, 107. 19 No. 190, Holstein, Kaiserliches Konsulat Mossul, Telegramm, Abgang aus Mossul, den 4. November 1915, Ankunft in Pera, den 5. November 1915, in Lepsius, Deutschland und Armenien, 174. 20 According to the report of Sister Alma Johansson of the Hilfsbund für christliches Liebeswerk im Orient in Lepsius, Deutschland und Armenien, 180-1. 21 No. 224, Legationsrat Dieckhoff, Aufzeichnung über die geplante Deportation der Armenier von Mossul, Dezember 1915, in Lepsius, Deutschland und Armenien, 218–9. 22 No. 263 attachment 4, Deutsches Konsulat, Mossul, den 4. Mai 1916, in Lepsius, Deutschland und Armenien, 262–3. 23 No. 298, Hoffmann, Kaiserliches Konsulat Aleppo, Aleppo, den 5. September 1916 (an die Kaiserliche Botschaft in Konstantinopel) in Lepsius, Deutschland und Armenien, 292–3. 24 No. 309, von Scheubner-Richter, München, den 4. Dezember 1916 (an den Reichskanzler Bethmann Hollweg, Berlin), in Lepsius, Deutschland und Armenien, 305–9. 18

6

MARTIN TAMCKE

cohabitants. Previous measures would not have brought sufficient relief to the suffering.” 25 Any support in the form of small contributions would only prolong the suffering of the deportees, any larger contribution would have difficulty reaching their intended recipients.” 26 Taking into account the position that government institutions had in the region, relief programmes of this kind were a “bottomless pit. ” 27 By this stage, the consulate was “no longer able to actively give support.” 28 Special aid workers had to be hired for this task. The conclusion that can be drawn from these events—applicable to the political and military presence in present day Iraq for persecuted Christians—which took place over a hundred years ago is that persecution could only be prevented to a certain extent. Actual help was rarely offered; the excuse used regarding humanitarian aid, which should have been given to the Christian communities in danger, was that these were internal affairs of an allied state. Only a few decades later, Hitler stood with the Iraqi minority against the government and the British. However, even before that, atrocious pogroms occurred which left an indelible mark on the consciousness of Assyrian Christians in Iraq. Between 1919–1921, two Assyrian communities that had found refuge in Iraq from persecution in their Turkish Iranian homeland went back to Turkey, but soon had to return to Iraq when faced with the superior strength of the Turkish military. 29 The Assyrians in Iraq, who constituted large parts of the pro-British police force, came under pressure following the resolution of the League of Nations in June 1933. Ultimately the only solution that remained was to flee Iraq. The first Assyrian delegation reached the Iraqi-Syrian border by mid-July. The pleas of Mar Eshai Shimun XXIII, the Patriarch of the Church of the East, for help at twelve foreign embassies were in vain. The Iraqi army attacked the Assyrian emigrants despite their white flags. On 4 and 5 August they came under fire. Sixty-five out of ninety-five Assyrian villages in Iraq were destroyed. The British troops took aerial photographs of these horrible No. 333, Deutsches Konsulat Mossul, Mossul, den 19. Juli 1917, in Lepsius, Deutschland und Armenien, 337–9. 26 No. 333, Deutsches Konsulat Mossul, Mossul, den 19. Juli 1917, in Lepsius, Deutschland und Armenien, 337–9. 27 No. 333, Deutsches Konsulat Mossul, Mossul, den 19. Juli 1917, in Lepsius, Deutschland und Armenien, 337–9. 28 No. 333, Deutsches Konsulat Mossul, Mossul, den 19. Juli 1917, in Lepsius, Deutschland und Armenien, 337–9. 29 See Mar Aprem, “The Assyrians Today” in Syriaca II: Beiträge zum 3. Deutschen SyrologenSymposium in Vierzehnheiligen 2002, Martin Tamcke, ed. (Münster: 2004), 281–96; Martin Tamcke, “Der Genozid an den Assyrern/Nestorianern (Ostsyrische Christen)” in Verfolgung, Vertreibung und Vernichtung der Christen im Osmanischen Reich 1912–1922, Tessa Hofmann, ed. (Münster: 2004), 95–110; Gabriele Yonan, Ein vergessener Holocaust: Die Vernichtung der christlichen Assyrer in der Türkei (Göttingen: 1989), 148–9; Martin Tamcke, “Hermannsburg, die Assyrerfrage und der Völkerbund” in Die Hermannsburger Mission und das ‘Dritte Reich’: Zwischen faschistischer Verführung und lutherischer Beharrlichkeit, Georg Gremels, ed. (Münster: 2005), 151–66. 25

DO PICTURES FROM THE PAST REPEAT THEMSELVES?

7

events; the Patriarch lost his Iraqi citizenship. The German orientalist, Rudolf Strothmann made a cutting remark on the subject: “It is the first accomplishment of the Iraqi military, the execution of the Assyrians. It began with deporting Assyrian refugees; since 8 August Assyrians were systematically rounded up and the men were executed.” 30 Strothmann accurately called it “mass murder and devastation.” 31 Those that survived settled in northern Syria in the Khabur region. A few days after these terrible events, on 18 August 1933, Luther Pera, who was a representative of the Hermannsburg Mission in Urmia, approached the Mission and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 32 He wanted Germany to prevent a repeat of the persecution of Assyrians in Iraq. The director of the Mission, Christoph Schomerus, approached Rudolf Nadolny in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, who had himself, prior to the First World War, been part of a diplomatic mission in Urmia which had involved extensive contact with the Assyrians. 33 The response of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 19 September showed that they were keeping an eye on the events. The Ministry promised to “do their utmost to bring about a peaceful solution” when the case of the Assyrians was brought before the League of Nations. 34 It remains an open question how seriously such a promise could be taken in light of the growing connection between Nazi Germany and Iraq, which became more and more visible over time. It should, however, not be taken as mere rhetoric considering Nadolny’s position and the growing estrangement between Germany and the League of Nations. 35 Exactly one month after Nadolnyʼs answer Germany left the League of Nations. Astonishingly, efforts to get the church to commit remained entirely futile. Schomerus, reported in a letter to Luther Pera on 18 December 1933: I had hoped that the executive committee of the Lutheran World Convention could be persuaded to act. The gentlemen were here and I have presented the matter to them through our Bishop D. Marahrens, as well as the patriarchʼs appeal. I never Rudolf Strothmann, “Heutiges Orientchristentum und das Schicksal der Assyrer”, in Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, 55 (1936), 17–82, 71. 31 Strothmann, “Heutiges Orientchristentum”, 41. 32 ArELM letter written by Luther Pera from Chicago, dated 18 August 1933. Luther Pera was the son of the first Syrian student of theology who spent the entire duration of his studies in Germany. His father’s admiration of Luther had led him to name his son after him. On Luther Pera see: Martin Tamcke, “Urmia und Hermannsburg: Luther Pera im Dienst der Hermannsburger Mission in Urmia 1910–1915”, Oriens Christianus, 80 (Wiesbaden: 1996), 43–65. 33 Rudolf Nadolny, Mein Beitrag: Erinnerungen eines Botschafters des Deutschen Reiches (Köln: 1985); cf. Siawusch Sohrab, Die deutsch-persischen Wirtschaftsbeziehungen vor dem Ersten Weltkrieg (Frankfurt/Bern: 1976), 205-210. On Schomerus see: Martin Tamcke, “Schomerus, Christoph Bernhard”, Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon, 9 (Herzberg: 1995), 751–4. 34 ArELM letter written by the Foreign Office in Berlin, dated 19 September 1933 (III 0 3265) to the director of the mission, Schomerus. 35 Gerhard Höpp, Peter Wien, and Rene Wildangel, Blind für die Geschichte? Arabische Begegnungen mit dem Nationalsozialismus (Berlin: 2004), 58. Germany was in the process of withdrawing from the League of Nations at the time. Japan had left the League of Nations the year before and Germany followed on 19 October 1933. 30

8

MARTIN TAMCKE received more than the assurance that they would look into the situation, I never even received the result of their evaluation. I also never received an answer to the appeal. Now there is really nothing more I can do. Publishing it in the press is inappropriate and would likely not be permitted. 36

Schomerus took his former colleague's request and used the appeal of the church leader, but shied away from any greater public attention quoting censorship as an excuse. However, the bishop had not yet cast the issue aside. Towards the end of 1933 he contacted Schomerus and announced “that he would bring the issue before the directors’ meeting of the Lutheran Einigungswerk.” 37 In the response to the director of the Mission he also returned the appeal of the patriarch. Schomerus remained overly cautious. Luther Pera still hoped for a publication in order to attract peopleʼs attention in Germany. At least Schomerus now actually approached Pastor Laible in Leipzig about a possible publication. He wrote in his covering letter that he would appreciate a publication: “after all, it seems necessary that Christians around the world know of these outrageous events.” 38 At the same time, his efforts were limited. He advised Laible to check with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “just to be sure … whether a publication would interfere with matters of foreign policy.” 39 In his response letter to Luther Pera he was much clearer. A publication of the patriarchʼs appeal would “only interfere” with the efforts of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 40 Such public attention would “probably do more harm than good.” 41 On the other hand, Schomerus expressly doubted the success of German diplomatic efforts in this matter. He was sure that the hands of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs were tied. How could their hands be tied if not through the forced convergence between Nazi Germany and the Arabs, particularly with Iraq? Schomerus kept this question to a rhetorical outburst directed at the League of Nations, whose efforts on behalf of the Assyrians had already failed at the time of his letter: “this is a case where the League of Nations have to intervene and show that they are here to protect minorities.” 42 This superfluous remark seems less superfluous when it can be understood as an act of evasion or substitution from the director of the Mission. His final theological remarks, which were also a reprimand for civilisation and culture, refer to a divine judgement on which Christians could call: “we experience great arbitrariness nowadays and the much praised civilisation is merciless and cruel to the bone. This will

ArELM letter written by Schomerus, to Luther Pera, dated 18 December 1933. Marahrens and his association to the Nazis is a matter of contentious debates among historians. See Bewahren ohne Bekennen? Die hannoversche Landeskirche im Nationalsozialismus, Heinrich W. Grosse, Hans Otte, and Joachim Perels, eds (Hannover: 1996). 37 See Tamcke, Urmia, 64–5. 38 ArELM letter written by Schomerus to Pastor Laible, dated 2 January 1934. 39 ArELM letter written by Schomerus to Pastor Laible, dated 2 January 1934. 40 ArELM letter written by Schomerus, to Luther Pera, dated 18 December 1933. 41 ArELM letter written by Schomerus, to Luther Pera, dated 18 December 1933. 42 ArELM letter written by Schomerus, to Luther Pera, dated 18 December 1933. 36

DO PICTURES FROM THE PAST REPEAT THEMSELVES?

9

be a terrible judgement when God descends from the heavens in anger.” 43 Such a line of thought might have fitted his situation and the position he took, but it was not suitable for delivering actual help and support to the people in need. How little basis there was for Schomerus’ fear of publishing the issue and how much of it was based in obedience can be seen in the full publication of Strothmann’s study, “Heutiges Orientchristentum und das Schicksal der Assyrer” in the 1936 issue of the journal, Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte. He did not hold back, but also referenced the Greek and Armenian genocide and along with it the Berlin-Ankara axis. 44 The Hermannsburg documents therefore record, in their very own way, what Strothmann had lamented about since 1936: neither church nor ecumenism—the Mission has to be added here—had shown “much interest and invested much time in seriously following” the events. They uttered “occasional loud, often unclear, and mostly temporary alarm” at best, which did nothing for the loss of the affected people in the consciousness of World Christianity. 45 The British were also incapable of preventing the persecution. They also used the excuse of not wanting to interfere in internal affairs of the Iraqi state. They did little to help the situation of the Assyrians. This episode shows that those responsible within the German church and missions did not have the courage to approach the respective forces within the British church in order to join efforts and provide political and humanitarian aid for the victims of persecution.

LOOKING AT THE SITUATION OF CHRISTIANS IN IRAQ TODAY

Hohn perceived the defeat of the Communists in Northern Iraq in 1959 as a moment of depression for Christians. However, in the north, Christians had great hope for Communism as opposed to an “Arab nationalism that was aligned with Cairo.” 46 He implied that they had opportunistic motives, hoping to gain more power and influence under a Communist leadership in Iraq. This so-called opportunism became a common accusation against Christians in Iraq. In recent decades, the same allegation was made about their behaviour (and it never was all of them) in connection with Saddam Hussein. Do pictures from the past repeat themselves? It is certainly rare that journalists and Iraq specialists today explain the historical origins of Christians’

ArELM letter written by Schomerus, to Luther Pera, dated 18 December 1933. The response to the assassination of Talaat Pasha, who was primarily responsible for the genocides during the First World War as Minister of Interior Affairs, is characteristic of the new Berlin-Ankara axis. He was murdered by an Armenian in Berlin and his body was transported to Istanbul with pomp and circumstance. At his second interment, speeches in twelve languages were given. His body was transported to Ankara in 1943. The guests at the state funeral included the ambassador of the German Reich, Franz von Papen, who had been ViceChancellor in the Hitler cabinet. See Wilpert von Blücher, Deutschlands Weg nach Rapallo (Wiesbaden: 1951), 135–6; Uwe Feigel, Das evangelische Deutschland und Armenien: Die Armenierhilfe deutscher evangelischer Christen seit dem Ende des 19. Jahrhunderts im Kontext der deutsch-türkischen Beziehungen (Göttingen: 1989), 286. 45 Strothmann, “Heutiges Orientchristentum”, 81. 46 Hohn, Irak, 33. 43 44

10

MARTIN TAMCKE

conditioning in Iraq (and elsewhere in the Orient). Christians in Mosul were driven out by ISIS, depleting the city that had been home to a significant community for over sixteen hundred years. The Khabur region, where survivors of the Simele massacre had found refuge, was attacked by ISIS and entire villages were unable to escape in time. Many inhabitants were abducted. Some of the Christians who managed to flee emigrated to Germany. 47 In these circumstances, churches and Christians must step in once more. Todayʼs imagery is reminiscent of pictures of the past. It is a constant repetition. But is it also a repetition of the picture of the past when we look at the churches’ reaction and the reaction of Christians all over Europe? Does Strothmannʼs dictum of 1936 still hold true? Do they still show “little interest and invested little time in seriously following” the lives of Christians in Iraq, except for uttering “occasional loud, often unclear, and mostly temporary alarm”, which does nothing for the loss of the affected people in the consciousness of World Christianity? 48 What I would not give to be able to say that things have changed for good!

BIBLIOGRAPHY Primary sources

ArELM = Archiv der Evangelisch Lutherischen Mission in Niedersachen (Hermannsburg) 18 August 1933 written by Luther Pera 19 September 1933 (III 0 3265) written by the Foreign Office in Berlin 18 December 1933 written to Luther Pera by Schomerus 2 January 1934 written to Pastor Laible by Schomerus Secondary sources

Mar Aprem. “The Assyrians Today” in Syriaca II: Beiträge zum 3. Deutschen SyrologenSymposium, Vierzehnheiligen 2002, Martin Tamcke, ed. [Studien zur Orientalischen Kirchengeschichte, 33] (Münster: Lit, 2004), 281–96. Feigel, Uwe. Das evangelische Deutschland und Armenien: Die Armenierhilfe deutscher evangelischer Christen seit dem Ende des 19. Jahrhunderts im Kontext der deutschtürkischen Beziehungen [Kirche und Konfession, 28] (Göttingen:Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989).

For an eyewitness account by a former prisoner to ISIS who eventually found refuge in Germany, see Abdo Mirza, ‘Barfuss sind wir an den Chabour gekommen, barfuss sind wir gezwungen wieder zu gehen’: Flucht, Vertreibung und Geiselhaft der assyrischen Christen aus Tal Goran (Al-Hassake, Nordsyrien). Persönlicher Bericht des Abdo Mirza und seiner Familie (Berlin: 2019). 48 Strothmann, “Heutiges Orientchristentum”, 81. 47

DO PICTURES FROM THE PAST REPEAT THEMSELVES?

11

Frech, Fritz. Der Kriegsschauplatz in Armenien und Mesopotamien [Die Kriegsschauplätze, 5] (Leipzig/Berlin: B. G. Teubner, 1916). Frey, Waldemar. Kut-el-Amara. Kriegsfahrten und Erinnerungsbilder aus dem Orient (Berlin: Brunnen Verlag, 1932). Gehrke, Ulrich. Persien in der deutschen Orientpolitik während des Ersten Weltkrieges, 2 vols (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1960). Grosse, Heinrich W., Hans Otte and Joachim Perels, eds. Bewahren ohne Bekennen? Die hannoversche Landeskirche im Nationalsozialismus (Hannover: Lutherisches Verlagshaus, 1996). Grothe, Hugo. Die Bagdadbahn und das schwäbische Bauernelement in Transkaukasien und Palästina (Munich: Lehrmann, 1902). Hohn, Hans Peter. Irak: Land zwischen den Strömen (Munich: Prestel, 1963). Höpp, Gerhard, Peter Wien and René Wildangel. Blind für die Geschichte? – Arabische Begegnungen mit dem Nationalsozialismus (Berlin: Klaus Schwarz, 2004). Hrouda, Barthel. “Koldewey, Robert”, Neue Deutsche Biographie, 12 (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1953– ), 459–60. Kiera, Joseph. Ins Land des Euphrat und Tigris: Kriegserinnerungen (Breslau: Franke, 1935). Künzler, Jakob. Im Land des Blutes und der Tränen: Erlebnisse in Mesopotamien während des Weltkrieges (Potsdam: Tempel Verlag, 1921). Lepsius, Johannes. Deutschland und Armenien 1914–1918: Sammlung diplomatischer Aktenstücke (Bremen 1986; repr. Potsdam: Tempel Verlag, 1919). Mirza, Abdo. ‘Barfuss sind wir an den Chabour gekommen, barfuss sind wir gezwungen wieder zu gehen’: Flucht, Vertreibung und Geiselhaft der assyrischen Christen aus Tal Goran (Al-Hassake, Nordsyrien). Persönlicher Bericht des Abdo Mirza und seiner Familie [Studien zur Orientalischen Kirchengeschichte, 60] (Berlin: LIT Verlag, 2019). Nadolny, Rudolf. Mein Beitrag: Erinnerungen eines Botschafters des Deutschen Reiches (Köln: dme-Verlag, 1985). Rohrbach, Paul. Im Vorderen Asien, Politische und andere Fahrten (Berlin-Schöneberg: Verlag der Hilfe, 1901). —— “Das untere Stromland und die Bagdadbahn” in Ex oriente lux: Jahrbuch der Deutschen Orientmission, Johannes Lepsius, ed. (Berlin: Deutsche Orient-Mission, 1903), 141–53. —— Die Bagdadbahn (Berlin: Wiegandt & Grieben (G.K. Sarasin), 1911). Sohrab, Siawusch. Die deutsch-persischen Wirtschaftsbeziehungen vor dem Ersten Weltkrieg (Frankfurt/Bern: Peter Lang/Herbert Lang, 1976).

12

MARTIN TAMCKE

Strothmann, Rudolf. “Heutiges Orientchristentumund das Schicksal der Assyrer”, Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, 55 (1936), 17–82. Tamcke, Martin. “Schomerus, Christoph Bernhard”, Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon, 9 (1995), 751–4. —— “Urmia und Hermannsburg: Luther Pera im Dienst der Hermannsburger Mission in Urmia 1910–1915”, Oriens Christianus, 80 (Wiesbaden: 1996). —— “Der Genozid an den Assyrern/Nestorianern (Ostsyrische Christen)” in Verfolgung, Vertreibung und Vernichtung der Christen im Osmanischen Reich 1912–1922, Tessa Hofmann, ed. [Studien zur Orientalischen Kirchengeschichte, 32] (Münster: Lit, 2004), 95–110. —— “Hermannsburg, die Assyrerfrage und der Völkerbund” in Die Hermannsburger Mission und das ‘Dritte Reich’: Zwischen faschistischer Verführung und lutherischer Beharrlichkeit, Georg Gremels, ed. [Quellen und Beiträge zur Geschichte der Hermannsburger Mission, 13] (Münster: Lit, 2005), 151–66. von Blücher, Wilpert. Deutschlands Weg nach Rapallo (Wiesbaden: Limes, 1951). Yonan, Gabriele. Ein vergessener Holocaust: Die Vernichtung der christlichen Assyrer in der Türkei [Pogrom Reihe bedrohte Völker] (Göttingen: Gesellschaft für Bedrohte Völker, 1989), 148–9.

THE TEN HORNED RAM OF OLD GREEK DANIEL 8 IAN YOUNG ∗

(UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY) Some interesting textual variations relating to the horns on the ram in Daniel’s vision in Daniel 8:3 are investigated to illustrate new directions in Hebrew Bible textual criticism. Alongside the more traditional scholarly focus on discovering the earliest attested reading, scholars have begun to place greater value on understanding and interpreting all readings in the textual tradition, even those judged to be secondary. Comparing readings also allows us to become more aware of the special features of each text, in comparison to other Daniel texts which express its ideas in a different way. These approaches illustrate some of the benefits of becoming aware of the broader textual tradition of a book like Daniel. A discussion of the text of Daniel that might have been known to Josephus further indicates that knowing the full textual tradition means extending the range of interest beyond the direct manuscript evidence.

NEW APPROACHES TO VARIANTS IN HEBREW BIBLE TEXTUAL CRITICISM

Study of the manuscript evidence for the Hebrew Bible has demonstrated that a high percentage of variant readings are not due to ‘error’. 1 Instead, it seems clear that variants were often created intentionally. There is evidence to suggest that people in those ancient cultures had a different conception of books than the one familiar to

It is my pleasure to offer this paper in honour of my teacher and long-term colleague at the University of Sydney, Emeritus Professor Rifaat Ebied. Given his early work on the Leiden edition of the Peshitta of Daniel, I hope that Rif might find the topic of this paper interesting. 1 See standard references such as Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 3rd ed. (Minneapolis: 2012), Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Developmental Composition of the Bible (Leiden: 2015) and the summary of scholarship in Robert Rezetko and Ian Young, Historical Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew: Steps Toward an Integrated Approach (Atlanta: 2014), 71–83. ∗

13

14

IAN YOUNG

modern people. 2 Thus, for ancient people, what was understood to be an ‘exact’ copy of a text was not usually characterised by what we would describe as word for word accuracy, so long as what was understood to be the essential message was conveyed. This makes the concept of an original text problematic, since this approach to written texts would not lead to even two contemporary ‘original’ copies of the same text being exactly alike. 3 Furthermore, as community literature, the Hebrew Bible books had a complex relationship with a larger oral tradition which dealt with the subjects in the written text. The interaction with this oral tradition could lead to variant forms of the same story, psalm etc. coming into written form, 4 or leads to the common observation that ancient texts tend to grow over time, with the addition of extra material from the tradition finding itself included in written form. 5 The growth of our understanding of the nature of ancient literature has led to a greater appreciation of the breadth of the textual tradition of each of the biblical books. If ancient compositions were by nature fluid, then the definition of a biblical book as simply ‘the original text’ is not only impractical but also probably misleading. Instead, a biblical composition, such as the Book of Daniel on which I will shortly focus, can be understood as the sum of the various different manuscripts that we happen to have, bearing in mind that there were likely a significant number of other different manuscripts in antiquity, now lost to us. I illustrate below from Josephus how that writer may evidence knowledge of a yet further variant text of Daniel that On what follows, see especially Raymond F. Person Jr., The Deuteronomic History and the Book of Chronicles: Scribal Works in an Oral World (Atlanta: 2010), 41–68; Raymond F. Person Jr., “Text Criticism as a Lens for Understanding the Transmission of Ancient Texts in Their Oral Environments” in Contextualizing Israel’s Sacred Writings: Ancient Literacy, Orality, and Literary Production, Brian B. Schmidt, ed. (Atlanta: 2015), 197–215; with references to his other publications. See also Ian Young, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bible: The View from Qumran Samuel”, Australian Biblical Review 62 (2014), 14–30. 3 See for example the multiple contemporary copies of the Luwian-Phoenician Karatepe inscription: John David Hawkins, Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions, vol. 1: Inscriptions of the Iron Age (Berlin: 2000). On the impossibility of accessing the ‘original’ text of the Hebrew Bible, see Tov, Textual Criticism, 167–9; Hans Debel, “Rewritten Bible, Variant Literary Editions and Original Text(s): Exploring the Implications of a Pluriform Outlook on the Scriptural Tradition” in Changes in Scripture: Rewriting and Interpreting Authoritative Traditions in the Second Temple Period, Hanne von Weissenberg, Juha Pakkala and Marko Marttila, eds (Berlin: 2011), 65–91. 4 For example, the highly variant forms of Daniel chapter 5, see Ian Young, “The Original Problem: The Old Greek and the Masoretic Text of Daniel Chapter 5” in Empirical Models Challenging Biblical Criticism, Raymond F. Person, Jr. and Robert Rezetko, eds (Atlanta: 2016), 271– 301. 5 E.g. David M. Carr, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction (Oxford: 2011), 99: “as a general rule, ancient scribes who were producing a new version of an ancient tradition …either preserved it unchanged (aside from memory or graphic variants) or expanded it”; Juha Pakkala, God’s Word Omitted: Omissions in the Transmission of the Hebrew Bible (Göttingen: 2013), 90: “It may be indisputable that under many, perhaps under most circumstances the texts mainly developed by way of expansions.” 2

THE TEN HORNED RAM OF OLD GREEK DANIEL 8

15

is unattested in any manuscript of Daniel. This way of viewing a biblical book invites us to value all of the variant forms of the book and to use them as a way of discussing the broader tradition of the Book of Daniel. Scholars have not abandoned the quest to evaluate variant readings and to attempt to build a case whether readings are earlier or later, although there is an awareness that such an argument may not be possible to construct in many cases since, for example, the readings may be parallel, not developments from one to the other. However, even when a reasonable case can be made as to what are earlier and what are later readings, there are new approaches to what one does after one has made the judgement of textual priority. Recent scholarship has begun to see textual variants as important for other reasons than just as potential evidence of an earlier or the original text of a book. 6 Textual critics are not just in search of the one and only reading judged to be the earliest recoverable text. Instead, they are interested in the whole history of the textual development of the biblical books. One important question is how readers of these variant manuscripts might have understood the text of the Bible that they knew. It must be remembered that many or most ancient people, such as the New Testament writers, actually were reading these texts, not some scholarly reconstruction of an original text. In this way, textual criticism becomes part of the discussion of the reception history of the biblical books. I label the comparison and contrast of the different ways that a text could be constructed as ‘comparative commentary’. This comparison of variants allows readers of all existing texts of a biblical book to see more clearly the ways in which each text constructs its message. Through study of the different ways that Daniel texts, for example, are evidenced, the reader gains a clearer insight into the specific characteristics of each of them. It is interesting to investigate the question of what difference it makes to have a Daniel text that says this rather than that? This approach has the advantage that textual witnesses are read for themselves, as well as being evidence for possible earlier stages of the text. A comparative commentary is, therefore, interested in the witnesses themselves, not just the often extremely complicated questions involved in evaluating potential earlier and later readings, and not only on the one reading judged the earliest one attested. 7 Therefore in this paper I will attempt to explore how one particularly interesting, but likely secondary, variant in the textual transmission of Daniel chapter 8 contributes a different sense, and an extra layer of meaning, to the interpretation of the chapter in this textual witness.

See e.g. Ronald Hendel, Steps to a New Edition of the Hebrew Bible (Atlanta: 2016), 327–8. He states on p. 327: “Deliberately composed variants, even if historically secondary, deserve to be objects of study, rather than textual debris consigned to the ‘prison house’ of the apparatus.” 7 For more of my work in this vein see Ian Young, “What is Old Greek Daniel Chapter 8 About?”, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 44 (2020), 693–710; Ian Young, “Five Kingdoms, and Talking Beasts: Some Old Greek Variants in Relation to Daniel’s Four Kingdoms” in Four Kingdom Motifs Before and Beyond the Book of Daniel, Andrew B. Perrin and Loren T. Stuckenbruck, eds (Leiden: 2020), 39–55. 6

16

IAN YOUNG

THE TEXTS OF DANIEL

This paper discusses some interesting textual variations in Daniel chapter 8. The textual evidence for Daniel can be simplified into two groups. One group is the traditional Hebrew-Aramaic Masoretic Text (MT) and those texts which have a close relationship with it, even if these related texts have occasional significant variants, or a relatively large number of minor variants. This MT-related group includes the eight fragmentary Daniel manuscripts from the Qumran or Dead Sea Scrolls, dating to the second and first centuries BCE, 8 as well as the Greek translation of Theodotion, perhaps from the first century BCE, the Syriac Peshitta, commonly dated to the second century CE, and the Latin Vulgate from c.400CE. 9 On the other side to this MT group is the highly variant text of Daniel reflected in another Greek translation, the Old Greek (OG) Daniel, usually considered to have been made as early as the second century BCE. 10 There is limited evidence for the OG translation of Daniel, since it was almost wiped out from the textual record by the later Greek translation of Theodotion. There are, in fact, only two major Greek manuscript witnesses to it, with a number of minor witnesses to parts of it. These consist of one pre-Hexaplaric witness, Papyrus 967, dated to the second or no later than the early third century CE, 11 and two closely related Hexaplaric witnesses, the Greek manuscript 88 (Codex Chisianus, dated to the 9th–11th centuries CE) and the Syro-Hexapla (Codex Ambrosianus, dated to the 8th–9th centuries; originally made 616–617 CE; henceforth Syh). 12 Study of the numerous fascinating variants of OG Daniel offers many rewards, as I will hope to illustrate here. Like Theodotion’s Greek text, the OG has a version of the extra Daniel stories not found in the MT: Susanna and Bel and the Dragon, as well as the long version of Daniel 3 created by the songs of the young men in the Accepting the arguments for a first century BCE deposit date for the Qumran scrolls, see Gregory L. Doudna, “Dating the Scroll Deposits of the Qumran Caves: A Question of Evidence” in The Caves of Qumran: Proceedings of the International Conference, Lugano 2014, Marcello Fidanzio, ed. (Leiden: 2017), 238–46 with the bibliography cited there. 9 For information on these texts, see Armin Lange, “Ancient Manuscript Evidence” in The Hebrew Bible: Volume 1C Writings, Armin Lange and Emanuel Tov, eds (Leiden: 2017), 528–32; Dalia Amara, “Septuagint” in The Hebrew Bible: Volume 1C Writings Armin Lange and Emanuel Tov, eds (Leiden: 2017), 542–54; Richard A. Taylor, “Peshitta” in The Hebrew Bible: Volume 1C Writings, Armin Lange and Emanuel Tov, eds (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 558–61; Michael Graves, “Vulgate” in The Hebrew Bible: Volume 1C Writing, Armin Lange and Emanuel Tov, eds (Leiden: 2017), 568–71. 10 Amara, “Septuagint”, 543. 11 For a detailed introduction to papyrus 967 see Joseph Ziegler and Olivier Munnich, Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum XVI.2: Susanna Daniel Bel et Draco (Göttingen: 1999), 63–76. For recent introductions to the Greek versions of Daniel see: R. Timothy McLay, “Daniel (Old Greek and Theodotion)” in The T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint; James K. Aitken, ed. (London: 2015), 544–54; Amara, “Septuagint”, 542–54. 12 On 88-Syh, see Ziegler and Munnich, Susanna Daniel Bel et Draco, 22–50. 8

THE TEN HORNED RAM OF OLD GREEK DANIEL 8

17

fiery furnace. Unlike Theodotion, however, it varies from the MT in significant other ways. For example, our earliest witness, 967, has a quite different order of chapters which, using the MT chapter numbers, goes 1–4, 7–8, 5–6, 9–12. The OG witnesses also often evidence a strikingly different text of Daniel. This is especially the case in chapters 4, 5 and 6, with, for example, Daniel 5 differing from the MT in length (it is much shorter), characterization, and key plot elements. 13 But there are significant variants in virtually every single verse of OG Daniel. 14 Indeed, one fascinating aspect of the textual evidence for OG Daniel is that the major witnesses, Papyrus 967 and 88-Syh, frequently disagree not only with the MT, but also with each other. We shall see this in the example below. We also occasionally get further insight into the diversity of the OG translation from sources other than our biblical manuscripts. Below we shall illustrate the potential for discovery of further diversity by investigating the text of Daniel which seems to be presupposed by the presentation of the vision in Daniel chapter 8 in book 10 of the first century CE Jewish writer Josephus’ Antiquities.

HORNS IN MT DANIEL 8

In MT Daniel 8 we meet a ram with two horns, which stands for ‘the kings of Media and Persia’ according to the interpretation (MT Daniel 8:20). This ram is overthrown by a goat that comes from the west, which stands for the king(dom) of Greece (Daniel 8:21). This goat has a prominent horn, which stands for the first king, a transparent reference to Alexander the Great. This great horn is broken and four horns, which stand for Alexander’s successors, arise in its place. From one of these successor horns arises a little horn which stands for Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The Horns on the Ram (Daniel 8:3): Review of the Manuscript Evidence

The example we will use to illustrate the new approach to valuing the breadth of the textual tradition of a Hebrew Bible book like Daniel comes from the first part of the vision in chapter 8. The first thing that Daniel sees in his vision is a ram which, as mentioned, stands for the king(s) or kingdom of the Medes and Persians in the interpretation (Daniel 8:3 with Daniel 8:20). This ram is described as having horns, although this is done differently in each of the MT and the OG manuscripts. In the MT the Hebrew uses an unusual form for ‘horns’ which looks like a mixed form, ‫ק ָרנַ יִ ם‬, ְ with the dual ending, but the vocalization of a plural noun. 15 We can contrast the more expected dual form in Habakkuk 65F

The texts are set out in parallel in Young, “The Original Problem”, 273–83. For a literary comparison see Tim J. Meadowcroft, Aramaic Daniel and Greek Daniel: A Literary Comparison (Sheffield: 1995), 57–84. 14 See Young, “Old Greek Daniel Chapter 8” on Daniel 8 as having a quite different storyline in the OG compared to the MT. 15 Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, Emil Kautzsch, ed., Arthur E. Cowley, trans., 2nd edn. (Oxford: 1910), §93n, 266–7 comments on the tendency to assimilate the dual to the plural. 13

18

IAN YOUNG

3:4, which is ‫ק ְרנַ יִ ם‬. ַ Nevertheless, despite this peculiarity, the MT in context obviously refers to the horns as dual, given what follows which compares two horns, “one was higher than the second, and the high one came up last”. Context is important, since the dual form can be used for the plural of any naturally paired object, no matter how many there are, thus in Isaiah 6:2 “six wings” is expressed as ‫שׁשׁ ְכּנָ ַפיִ ם‬, ֵ using the dual form of the noun as the plural. Elsewhere in the MT, there is a quite distinct form used for the plural of the word ‘horn,’ not just in vocalisation, but in morphology, since the word is feminine in Hebrew. See e.g. Zechariah 2:1 16 which talks of “four horns” using the form ‫א ְר ַבּע ְק ָרנוֹת‬. ַ However, this would not necessarily forbid a translator from reading the form ‫ קרנים‬as a plural rather than a dual, either because, as stated, ‫ ְק ָרנַ יִ ם‬can be used for a plural, or by vocalising the word as ‫ק ָרנִ ים‬. ְ Masoretic Text

...and it had (dual) horns, and the horns were high, and one was higher than the second, and the high one came up last. 17 MT: ‫וְ לוֹ ְק ָרנָ יִ ם וְ ַה ְקּ ָרנַ יִ ם גְּ בֹהוֹת‬ ‫ן־ה ֵשּׁנִ ית ַהגְּ ב ָֹהה‬ ַ ‫וְ ָה ַא ַחת גְּ ב ָֹהה ִמ‬ ‫ע ָֹלה ָבּ ַא ֲחר ֹנָ ה‬

Old Greek Manuscript 88 ...and it had horns, and the horns were high, and the one was higher than the other, and the higher one came up. 88: καὶ εἶχε κέρατα, καὶ τὰ κέρατα 18 ὑψηλά, καὶ τὸ ἓν ὑψηλότερον τοῦ ἑτέρου, καὶ τὸ ὑψηλότερον ἀνέβαινε

Old Greek Papyrus 967 ...and it had ten high horns, and the one was higher, and the high one came up. 967: και ειχεν δεκα κερατα υψ[η]λα και το εν υψηλοτερον και το υψηλον αναβενεν

Context is also important in OG manuscript 88, which simply says that “it had horns”, not reflecting an understanding of the word as a dual necessitating a translation such as “two horns”. It is left to the following comment to make it clear that two are in focus here: “And the one was higher than the other, and the higher one came up.” Papyrus 967, in contrast to both the MT and manuscript 88, has a significant plus here, which is that it says that the ram had “ten high horns.” This fits in context with what follows since 967 has a different text to 88 here also and simply says “And the one was higher, and the high one came up” which would have to be understood in context as saying that one of the 10 horns was more prominent than the others. 19 Papyrus 967’s reading is commonly understood as secondary. Angelo Geissen, Sharon Pace Jeansonne, and Olivier Munnich all suggest that ‘ten’ is either an insertion, based on the ten horns of the fourth beast in Daniel 7:7, 20, 24, or possibly a corruption of an earlier text which had the word ‘two’ at this point, but also presumably

English versions: Zechariah 1:18. The Greek texts begin the next verse with “and after this” (μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα), reflecting a different placement of the last element in this verse of the MT. 18 The manuscript has καὶ τὰ κέρατα between the Hexaplaric sign obelus indicating that it is not original to the OG. 19 This would be the use of the comparative in relation to the whole class of similar objects, see Herbert Weir Smyth, A Greek Grammar for Colleges (New York: 1920), §1066b, 279. 16 17

THE TEN HORNED RAM OF OLD GREEK DANIEL 8

19

under the influence of Daniel 7. 20 The secondary nature of the reading ‘ten horns’ (which is not justified in detail by the scholars cited) could be argued from the isolated nature of the reading ‘ten’, which is not attested in the other OG evidence. 21 However, arguments from distribution are problematic, since a singly attested reading could still be earlier than the others. 22 In the case of Daniel in particular, the scarcity of the textual evidence regularly leads to a reading attested in only one witness (e.g. 967) being considered the earlier text. Another argument for the secondary nature of the reading ‘ten horns’ could derive from the correspondence between the vision and its interpretation. In the MT interpretation, the two horns can be related to two entities in the interpretation, Media and Persia. 23 However, the relevance of the interpretation in settling this question is complicated by the formulation of the MT, “The ram which you saw, owner of the (two) horns, is the kings of Media and Persia”. As we have discussed, even the dual grammatical form of the word ‘horns’ does not absolutely compel the translation ‘two horns’. The ram could be taken more naturally as the subject, and stands therefore for all the kings, plural, of the Medes and Persians: “The ram which you saw, owner of the horns, is the kings of Media and Persia”. Indeed, the OG interpretation (which is of course variant!) can more easily be taken as referring to the ram, not to its two horns. 88 reads: “The ram that you saw, which had the horns, is the king of the Medes and Persians” (τὸν κριὸν ὃν εἶδες τὸν ἔχοντα τὰ κέρατα, βασιλεὺς Μήδων καὶ Περσῶν ἐστι). 967 is damaged, and the traces of what remains match with 88, apart from a small word order variation, although due to the words affected by the break, it cannot be excluded that it read something like “The ram that you saw, which had the horns—they are the kings of the Medes and Persians,” a MT-like reading that would easily fit with the idea that there are more than two horns on the ram. Apparently more straightforward evidence that 967’s ‘ten horns’ is secondary is found in verse 7. Here, 88 has “and it struck the ram and crushed its two horns” (καὶ ἐπάταξε τὸν κριόν καὶ συνέτριψε τὰ δύο κέρατα αὐτοῦ), with which 967 agrees, except for the omission of the explicit mention of ‘the ram.’ Here we appear to have clear evidence that 967’s ‘ten’ horns in verse 3 is secondary, since in this verse 967 seems to agree that the ram only has two horns. Of course, given the fluidity of the textual evidence for OG, and the fact that all witnesses have been corrupted by MT-like Angelo Geissen, Der Septuaginta-Text des Buches Daniel, Kap. 5-12, zusammen mit Susanna, Bel et Draco, sowie Esther, Kap. 1, 1a-2, 15 nach dem Kölner Teil des Papyrus 967 (Bonn: 1968), 123, cf. 56; Sharon Pace Jeansonne, The Old Greek Translation of Daniel 7–12 (Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1988), 51; Ziegler and Munnich, Susanna Daniel Bel et Draco, 346. 21 Although see the discussion of Josephus, below. 22 Tov, Textual Criticism, 273–4 discusses difficulties with arguing for textual priority from the breadth of attestation of a reading, noting factors such as the possible interdependence of readings in different witnesses. 23 See John J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Minneapolis: 1993), 330, who uses this correspondence to argue against Josephus’s reading “many horns,” on which, see below. 20

20

IAN YOUNG

readings through the influence of the Theodotion Greek text, 24 it is possible that the OG witnesses have ‘two’ here in verse 7 due to corruption. 25 The reading “and it struck the ram and crushed its horns” would remove the incoherence in 967, and describe the destruction of the ten horns of the ram. Nevertheless, as the evidence now stands, there are grounds for the suggestion by scholars that the ‘ten’ horns of the ram in Daniel 8:3 is a secondary reading. The preceding discussion has highlighted some of the arguments that might be made when deciding that a reading is secondary, as well as some of the difficulties of making such an argument. Even accepting the case that the 967 reading is likely secondary is not the end of the discussion of this variant, however. Interesting questions remain, such as whether the secondary text makes sense, what the variant reading contributes to the text in which it is found, and what contrasting messages there are in this text as opposed to other texts such as the MT.

TWO OR TEN HORNS: DIFFERENCES OF INTERPRETATION

In this vision in the MT, horns stand for kings (as they do also in Daniel 7) who in turn represent their kingdoms, and the animals are like the root of them. Note in verse 8 of Daniel 8 how the four horns stand not only for the four successor kings to Alexander the Great, but also their kingdoms, as is clear since the little horn, Antiochus, comes in verse 9 “out of one of them.” Thus here, the phrase ‘two horns’ stands for two kings as representatives of two kingdoms, the Medes and the Persians. Historically, the Median kingdom was absorbed into the Persian Empire, so the two kingdoms are here represented as two horns of the same animal. The second horn that comes up later and higher is commonly understood as a symbol of the Persian supremacy which superseded the Median kingdom. 26 Papyrus 967 also presents a coherent text in Daniel 8:3, even if there is a tension with what is said about two horns in Daniel 8:7. There are 10 horns on the MedioPersian ram, and one of them becomes more prominent than the others. The connection with the ten horns of Daniel 7 is obvious to the reader of Papyrus 967. On analogy with Daniel 7, where the 10 horns are 10 kings from the fourth kingdom, the 10 horns on the ram would represent 10 kings of the Medes and Persians. If a sequence of kings is meant, it is easy to imagine that readers of 967 would not have found a reference to an overthrow of just two horns in verse 7 as incoherent. It could easily be interpreted that two final kings (a co-regency?) of the ten kings of the Persian kingdom were being overthrown by the Greek goat. It is difficult to see that Tim McLay, The OG and Th Versions of Daniel (Atlanta: 1996), 14, 109, 214–15, 242; Ziegler and Munnich, Susanna Daniel Bel et Draco, 76; Olivier Munnich, “Texte massorétique et Septante dans le livre de Daniel” in The Earliest Text of The Hebrew Bible: The Relationship Between the Masoretic Text and the Hebrew Base of the Septuagint Reconsidered, Adrian Schenker, ed. (Atlanta: 2003), 93–120 (94–5). 25 See further the discussion of Josephus’ text at this point, below. 26 See e.g. Collins, Daniel, 330; Carol A. Newsom with Brennan W. Breed, Daniel: A Commentary (Louisville: 2014), 330. 24

THE TEN HORNED RAM OF OLD GREEK DANIEL 8

21

there is any intention of directly identifying the ten-horned ram with the ten horns of the fourth kingdom of the previous vision, which is the Greeks, or in the later western interpretation, Rome. Daniel 8 is so explicit in the interpretation it provides later in the chapter that, from ancient times, the identification of the references in it has been clear to all commentators. 27 More likely, the connection that would have been drawn would have been with the power of the fourth kingdom. Although horns are kings, horns are also connected with strength, so a kingdom with 10 horns is a powerful one. It is debated, in fact, whether the primary significance of the 10 horns in Daniel 7 is 10 historical kings, or more generally as a symbol of totality. 28 In either case, 10 horns is a symbol denoting great power. The great power of the ram in 967 accentuates a contrast already present in the OG when compared to the MT. When the ram is introduced in the MT it is said that Daniel sees just “one ram” (‫)א ָחד ַאיִ ל‬. ֶ In the OG, however, the ram is already magnified in power by being described as “one great ram” (κριὸν ἕνα μέγαν), a reading paralleled by the Qumran manuscripts 4QDana and 4QDanb. 29 The significance of the 10 horns of the ram as representing the great power of Media and Persia in Daniel 8:3 in 967 adds to the picture being painted in Daniel 8. The ram seems to be unstoppable. In the following verse we hear that “no one could rescue from its power.” But we soon see the ram utterly overthrown by the Greek goat, which has one prominent horn, and at that time the ram itself has no power to stand before its opponent (verse 7). In fact, this pattern is stronger in the OG than in the MT. Daniel 8:10–11 is highly variant in the OG when compared to the MT. 30 In the MT the small horn, representing in the vision the persecuting king, Antiochus, “cast down to the earth some of the host and some of the stars and trampled them, and up to the prince of the host [usually: God] it [the horn] magnified itself.” In strong contrast, the OG reads: “And it [the horn] was thrown down upon the earth from the stars and by them was trodden down until the prince of the host delivers 79 F

The early commentary of Hippolytus of Rome (c. 210 CE) presents the western interpretation of Daniel chapter 7, where the fourth kingdom is the (for him) current Roman kingdom, with the persecuting small horn as Antichrist, rather than the interpretation of the fourth kingdom as the Seleucid Greek kingdom, with the persecuting king Antiochus IV, as was the eastern Christian interpretation, and which is the one favoured by modern critical scholars. Nevertheless, Hippolytus is well aware that, in chapter 8, the one horn on the goat is Alexander the Great, the four horns his successors, and that the persecution described is that of Antiochus IV. 28 See the discussion in Collins, Daniel, 299, 320–21; Newsom, Daniel, 225, and see further Josephus’ interpretation below. 29 4QDanb has preserved: ‫ ̇גדול ̊חד]א‬. 4QDana has just the last two letters of ‘great’ preserved, and given the similarity of waw and yod it is not impossible that the reading is ‫איל‬, hence omitting even ‘one’, although space considerations, along with the close relationship of these two Qumran manuscripts, leads the editor to suggest the longer reading here. See Eugene Ulrich, “112. 4QDana”, Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 16:239–54 (252); Eugene Ulrich, “113. 4QDanb”, Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 16:255–67 (266). 30 For detailed discussion, see Young, “Old Greek Daniel Chapter 8”, 698–703. 27

22

IAN YOUNG

the captives.” The Greek of the phrase “until the prince of the host delivers (ῥύσηται) the captives” uses the same vocabulary as verses 4 and 7. 31 Thus in verse 4, it is said of the ram at the height of its power that “no one could rescue (ῥυόμενος) from its hands.” However, in verse 7 the goat overthrows the ram and “there was no one who could rescue (ῥυόμενος) the ram from the male goat”. The pattern sketched in Daniel 8, most strongly in the OG, indicates that even though it seems like one of the worldly powers is unbeatable, the reality is quite different. The increased power of the ten-horned ram in 967 adds to the scale of this reversal. Even though the great ram has the apparently overwhelming power implied by ten horns, it is overthrown by the goat with its one prominent horn. By this example from the earlier history, 967 aims to demonstrate that all powerful kingdoms, like also the fourth and final kingdom of Daniel 7 with its 10 horns, are as nothing before the throne of God.

JOSEPHUS ON THE RAM

Although the reading ‘ten’ horns is not attested in another manuscript of Daniel, there is nevertheless perhaps some indirect evidence of either the reading itself, or more likely a related tradition which is yet different again to what is known to us from our manuscript evidence. One of the questions facing any attempt to suggest how ancient readers would have interpreted variant texts is the lack, very often, of any evidence of such interpretations beyond the variant texts themselves. It is helpful, and affirming of the method, therefore, when an ancient reader draws similar inferences from a text as those which would be made by a modern scholar paying attention to the literary features of the text in question. Josephus in his Antiquities (10:270), provides an account of the career of Daniel. This is not a direct translation, but often provides enough evidence to infer the details of the text that he was using as his reference. Josephus gives a detailed description of Daniel’s vision in Daniel 8. When recounting the vision, he mentions that the ram had “many horns growing out of him, the last of which was higher than the rest” 32 (πολλὰ μὲν ἐκπεφυκότα κέρατα, τελευταῖον δ᾽ αὐτῶν ὑψηλότερον ἔχοντα), which would be an unusual way of referring to it if just two horns were meant. As we have discussed, it would be possible to understand Hebrew ‫ קרנים‬as ‘horns’ (plural), 33 and we have already mentioned the mixed nature of the form (plural/dual) even in the vocalisation of the MT. Nevertheless, again, given the fact—whereas this is not reflected anywhere by Josephus—that the MT is clear that there were two horns only (“one was higher than the second”: ‫ן־ה ֵשּׁנִ ית‬ ַ ‫)וְ ָה ַא ַחת גְּ ב ָֹהה ִמ‬, means that it seems a stretch to say that Josephus had a MT-like text in front of him.

Michael Segal, “The Old Greek and Theodotion to Daniel 8”, (paper presented at the SBL Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA, November 2014), 1–17 (9–10). 32 Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, Volume IV: Books 9-11, Ralph Marcus trans. (Cambridge, MA: 1937), 307. 33 See the note by the translator in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, 307 n.g. 31

THE TEN HORNED RAM OF OLD GREEK DANIEL 8

23

In fact, the way that Josephus relates the interpretation of the vision also fits more easily with the idea that he was thinking of the horns as indicating a succession of kings, not just two, culminating in one final king: “The ram, he [Daniel] declares, signified the kingdoms of the Medes and Persians, and the horns those who were to reign, the last horn signifying the last king, for this king would surpass all the others in wealth and glory” 34 (τὸν μὲν κριὸν βασιλείας τὰς Μήδων καὶ Περσῶν σημαίνειν ἔφασκε, τὰ δὲ κέρατα τοὺς βασιλεύειν μέλλοντας, τὸ δὲ ἔσχατον κέρας σημαίνειν τὸν ἔσχατον βασιλέα: τοῦτον γὰρ διοίσειν ἁπάντων πλούτῳ τε καὶ δόξῃ) (Antiquities 10:272). It is nevertheless notable that Josephus does not specify that there are ten horns on the ram. Josephus’ account would be easiest explained if he had a text somewhat like a combination of 88 and 967, say: “and it had high horns, and the one was higher, and the high one came up” (καὶ εἶχε κέρατα ὑψηλά, καὶ τὸ ἓν ὑψηλότερον καὶ τὸ ὑψηλόν ἀνέβαινε). If this reflects the earlier OG text (and it happens to be identical to the critical Göttingen text), 35 it would indicate that 88’s text has been brought into line with the MT by the addition of “and the horns” (καὶ τὰ κέρατα), 36 reflecting the duplication of the MT (‫)וְ לוֹ ְק ָרנָ יִ ם וְ ַה ְקּ ָרנַ יִ ם גְּ בֹהוֹת‬, 37 and by the addition of “than the other” (τοῦ ἑτέρου) to reflect the MT’s “than the second” (‫ן־ה ֵשּׁנִ ית‬ ַ ‫)מ‬. ִ For its part, 967 added “ten” (δεκα) to make explicit the sort of understanding reflected in Josephus’ interpretation of the plural horns. We learn from this that it is likely that 967’s reading is not idiosyncratic to this one manuscript alone, but at the very least reflects a more widely known understanding of the passage as referring to a succession of kings of Media and Persia. We should not forget that even the MT in its interpretation talks of plural “kings of Media and Persia” (Daniel 8:20). We saw that there is a tension in Papyrus 967 between verse 3, which mentions “ten horns” and verse 7, which describes the breaking of only two. Josephus is here also suggestive of a different text. Instead of talking about the breaking of the two horns of the ram, he says that the goat rushed upon the ram and “struck him twice with his horns” (καὶ τοῖς κέρασι ῥήξαντα δὶς; Antiquities 10:270), which he interprets later that “there would be a certain king of the Greeks who would defeat the Persian

Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, 309. See the critical text of the OG reconstructed by Olivier Munnich in Ziegler and Munnich, Susanna Daniel Bel et Draco, 346. 36 See the Hexaplaric signs. 37 The duplication is reflected strangely in both 4QDana and 4QDanb as ‫ולו קרנים קרנים‬. The duplication might have suggested to a translator ‘many horns’, although both texts reflect the MT’s ‫“ גבהה מן השנית‬higher than the second”, implying that two horns are in focus. Note that within the group of MT related texts, only the Peshitta is considered to have agreed with the MT in the duplication of ‘horns’ in this phrase. Theodotion has simply “and it had stately horns” (καὶ τὰ κέρατα) in the critical text of Joseph Ziegler in Ziegler and Munnich, Susanna Daniel Bel et Draco, 347. So too the Vulgate has simply “having high horns” (habens cornua excelsa). Given the evidence, one might speculate that the MT reading arose through a dittography of ‘horns’ as in the Qumran evidence, which was then made coherent by the addition of a conjunction and definite article to produce the current reading of ‫וְ לוֹ ְק ָרנָ יִ ם וְ ַה ְקּ ָרנַ יִ ם גְּ בֹהוֹת‬. 34 35

24

IAN YOUNG

king twice.” 38 Here the number ‘two’ does not refer to the ram and its horns, but to a dual attack by the goat which overthrows the ram. This is an intriguing reading which includes all the elements of the other texts, striking, horns and two, but in a quite different combination. As it does not seem easy to see how Josephus could have got this sense from any known text of Daniel, we once again have a clue that there was further diversity in the textual tradition of Daniel.

CONCLUSION

I hope in this paper I have been able to give an insight into some of the benefits of new approaches to textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Many of our ancestors would not have been reading the same texts as us, and so it is worthwhile to ask what these texts might have meant to them. Comparative commentary also allows readers of each text to become more aware of its special features, in comparison to other Daniel texts which express its ideas in a different way. These are some of the advantages of becoming aware of the broader textual tradition of a book like Daniel. We also saw from hints in the writings of Josephus that the manuscripts and readings known to us today are only part of the full range of versions of Daniel in antiquity. This reminds us that becoming aware of the textual tradition of Daniel is more than just knowing the manuscript witnesses.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Amara, Dalia. “Septuagint” in The Hebrew Bible: Volume 1C Writings, Armin Lange and Emanuel Tov, eds [Textual History of the Bible] (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 542– 54. Carr, David M. The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011). Collins, John J. Daniel. A Commentary on the Book of Daniel [Hermeneia] (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993). Debel, Hans. “Rewritten Bible, Variant Literary Editions and Original Text(s): Exploring the Implications of a Pluriform Outlook on the Scriptural Tradition” in Changes in Scripture: Rewriting and Interpreting Authoritative Traditions in the Second Temple Period, Hanne von Weissenberg, Juha Pakkala and Marko Marttila, eds [Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 419] (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011), 65–91. Doudna, Gregory L. “Dating the Scroll Deposits of the Qumran Caves: A Question of Evidence” in The Caves of Qumran: Proceedings of the International Conference,

Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, 309. The translator indicates on p. 308 n.a. that ‘struck’ is an emendation from ‘broke’ or ‘butted’.

38

THE TEN HORNED RAM OF OLD GREEK DANIEL 8

25

Lugano 2014, Marcello Fidanzio, ed. [Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 118] (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 238–46. Geissen, Angelo. Der Septuaginta-Text des Buches Daniel, Kap. 5-12, zusammen mit Susanna, Bel et Draco, sowie Esther, Kap. 1, 1a-2, 15 nach dem Kölner Teil des Papyrus 967 [Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen 5] (Bonn: Habelt, 1968). Graves, Michael. “Vulgate” in The Hebrew Bible: Volume 1C Writings, Armin Lange and Emanuel Tov, eds [Textual History of the Bible] (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 568– 71. Hawkins, John David. Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions, vol. 1: Inscriptions of the Iron Age (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2000). Hendel, Ronald. Steps to a New Edition of the Hebrew Bible [Text-Critical Studies 10] (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016). Josephus. Jewish Antiquities, Volume IV: Books 9-11, Ralph Marcus trans. [Loeb Classical Library 326] (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1937). Lange, Armin. “Ancient Manuscript Evidence” in The Hebrew Bible: Volume 1C Writings, Armin Lange and Emanuel Tov, eds [Textual History of the Bible] (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 528–32. McLay, R. Timothy. “Daniel (Old Greek and Theodotion)” in The T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint, James K. Aitken, ed. [Bloomsbury Companions] (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015), 544–54. —— The OG and Th Versions of Daniel [Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 43] (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996). Meadowcroft, Tim J. Aramaic Daniel and Greek Daniel: A Literary Comparison [Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 198] (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995). Munnich, Olivier. “Texte massorétique et Septante dans le livre de Daniel” in The Earliest Text Of The Hebrew Bible: The Relationship Between the Masoretic Text and the Hebrew Base of the Septuagint Reconsidered, Adrian Schenker, ed. [Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate studies, 52] (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2003). Newsom, Carol A. with Brennan W. Breed. Daniel: A Commentary [Old Testament Library] (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2014). Pace Jeansonne, Sharon. The Old Greek Translation of Daniel 7–12, [Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 19] (Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1988). Pakkala, Juha. God’s Word Omitted: Omissions in the Transmission of the Hebrew Bible [Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 251] (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013).

26

IAN YOUNG

Person, Raymond F. Jr. The Deuteronomic History and the Book of Chronicles Scribal Works in an Oral World [Society of Biblical Literature Ancient Israel and Its Literature 6] (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010). —— “Text Criticism as a Lens for Understanding the Transmission of Ancient Texts in Their Oral Environments” in Contextualizing Israel's Sacred Writings: Ancient Literacy, Orality, and Literary Production, Brian B. Schmidt, ed. [Society of Biblical Literature Ancient Israel and Its Literature 22] (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2015), 197–215. Segal, Michael. “The Old Greek and Theodotion to Daniel 8” (paper presented at the SBL Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA, November 2014), 1–17 (9–10). Smyth, Herbert Weir. A Greek Grammar for Colleges (New York: American Book Company, 1920). Taylor, Richard A. “Peshitta” in The Hebrew Bible: Volume 1C Writings, Armin Lange and Emanuel Tov, eds [Textual History of the Bible] (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 558– 61. Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 3rd edn. revised and expanded (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012). Ulrich, Eugene. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Developmental Composition of the Bible [Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 169] (Leiden: Brill, 2015). —— “112. 4QDana”, Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 16:239–54. —— “113. 4QDanb”, Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 16:255–67. Young, Ian. “Five Kingdoms, and Talking Beasts: Some Old Greek Variants in Relation to Daniel’s Four Kingdoms” in Four Kingdom Motifs Before and Beyond the Book of Daniel, Andrew B. Perrin and Loren T. Stuckenbruck, eds (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2021), 39–55. —— Historical Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew: Steps Toward an Integrated Approach [Society of Biblical Literature Ancient Near Eastern Monographs 9] (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2014). —— “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bible: The View from Qumran Samuel”, Australian Biblical Review 62 (2014), 14–30. —— “Original Problem: The Old Greek and the Masoretic Text of Daniel Chapter 5” in Empirical Models Challenging Biblical Criticism, Raymond F. Person, Jr. and Robert Rezetko, eds [Society of Biblical Literature Ancient Israel and Its Literature 25] (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2016), 271–301. —— “What is Old Greek Daniel Chapter 8 About?”, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 44 (2020), 693–710.

THE TEN HORNED RAM OF OLD GREEK DANIEL 8

27

Ziegler, Joseph and Olivier Munnich. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum XVI.2: Susanna Daniel Bel et Draco (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999), 63–76.

A ʻGIFTʼ IN SYRIAC: A MOSAIC FROM OSRHOENE JOHN HEALEY ∗ AND CLAUDIA GIOIA 1

(UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER–INDEPENDENT SCHOLAR, ROME) Photographs of a well-preserved mosaic containing a Syriac inscription, found between Edessa (modern Şanlıurfa) and Suruç, west of Edessa, were published in a booklet illustrating mosaics from the Urfa region edited by İbrahim H. Karaca and Mehmet S. Rızvanoğlu and a book on inscriptions from Edessa by Selahattin E. Güler, who reported that the mosaic came from the village of Mıcıt (later renamed Çalışkanlar), 15 km west of Şanlıurfa. Unfortunately, the precise original context of the find is not recorded, though the inscription makes it clear that it is from a tomb. In his handbook of local inscriptions Güler included a Turkish translation of the main inscription based on an English translation supplied to him by John Healey, 2 but the mosaic and the inscription have never been fully published and are worthy of a more detailed treatment.

John Healey offers this paper as a modest ‘gift’ to Professor Rifaat Ebied, whom he has known and admired for many years, to celebrate his contribution to scholarship. 1 Claudia Gioia has contributed the analysis of the mosaic from an art-historical point of view, while John Healey has been mainly responsible for sections dealing with the inscriptions. He records his thanks to Professor Emma Loosley (University of Exeter) for her helpful preliminary advice on the mosaic, including comparison with Roman wall painting. Images of the mosaic first appeared in Urfa Mozaikleri Albümü (Mozaikler Şehri Urfa), İbrahim H. Karaca and Mehmet S. Rızvanoğlu, eds (Şanlıurfa: 2008), 94-9. Permission to use the photograph (sent to John Healey by Selahattin E. Güler and included in his Şanlıurfa Yazıtları (Grekce, Ermenice ve Süryanice) [Istanbul: 2014], 71) was provided by the Provincial Directorate of Culture and Tourism Archive (İl Kültür ve Turizm Müdürlüğü Arşivi) through the good offices of Selahattin E. Güler. Unfortunately, the mosaic is not in the Şanlıurfa Museum and not accessible for direct study, so that the treatment here is entirely based on the photographs. The encouragement and advice of the Museum’s Director, Celal Uludağ, and the assistance of Museum archaeologist, Bekir Çetin are hereby warmly acknowledged. 2 Güler, Şanlıurfa Yazıtları, 71 and n. 2. ∗

29

30

JOHN HEALEY AND CLAUDIA GIOIA

DESCRIPTION AND STUDY OF THE MOSAIC

The decoration is organized in an apparently square central panel 3 framed by a tightly-braided, shaded, simple yellow-blue-red guilloche, 4 and flanked, probably on two sides, by a triple black filet and a row of circles and horizontal spindles. 5 The main field, with a yellowish background, 6 is covered by a centralized pattern with a medallion in the centre and diagonals emphasized by vegetal pyramids emerging from craters placed at the corners of the field. The craters, with rounded handles set on the lower part of the body, are outlined by a black line and rendered in blue-grey, probably imitating silver. The mosaicist attempted to render their volume by using darker tesserae (black, blue/grey) for the shaded areas and lighter ones (light blue, grey, beige) for the surface reflecting the light, as well as for the flared rim. The craters’ stylized feet are made up of a circle and a triangle, outlined by a row of black tesserae. Vegetal pyramids spring out of the craters, with a black background of pointed foliage filled with lanceolate leaves rendered in red, fading into white at the tips. From the craters, on the sides of the vegetal pyramids, stylized red volutes with three-lobed leaves and tendrils also emerge filling the space on the sides of the craters. Above the tip of the vegetal pyramids are scallop shells outlined in black, which have segments rendered mainly in light blue, red and yellow. On each side of the panel, two other smaller vegetal pyramids emerge from grey skyphoi (drinking vessels) with feet similar to those of the craters and with vertical-ring handles surmounted by horizontal tabs. For the skyphoi, we again note the attempt at volumetric rendering, with lighter tesserae on the belly and a row of white tesserae for the rim. On three sides of the field, the two skyphoi with vegetal pyramids flank a wreath of six infolded lobed petals coloured alternately red and light blue in various shades on

Regrettably, the mosaic’s dimensions are not known. Cf. Catherine Balmelle, Michèle Blanchard-Lemée, Jeannine Christophe, Jean-Pierre Darmon, Anne-Marie Guimier-Sorbets, Henri Lavagne, Richard Prudhomme and Henri Stern, Le décor géométrique de la mosaïque romaine: répertoire graphique et descriptif des compositions linéaires et isotropes (Paris: 1985), 121, pl. 71b. 5 Cf. Balmelle et al., Le décor géométrique, 58–9, pl. 22.1 (from the photographs it is not possible to distinguish whether the elements touch each other). The pattern is visible on the left side of the central panel, while on the right side there is a lacuna in the mosaic pavement (see Karaca and Rızvanoğlu, Urfa Mozaikleri, 94), but we can assume that this side presented the same decoration. Circles seem to be in grey-blue, while spindles are in red. The row of circles and spindles decorated only two sides of the mosaic (see the photographs of Karaca and Rızvanoğlu, Urfa Mozaikleri, 99). 6 From the photographs, the background appears yellowish, while the background colour of the row with circles and spindles appears to be of a whiter tone. Furthermore, in the photographs, it is possible to perceive the white colour of several details, such as the border of the flower-wreath petals, the edges of the skyphoi and craters, the tips of the vegetal pyramid leaves and the petals of the garlands. 3 4

A 'GIFT' IN SYRIAC: A MOSAIC FROM OSRHOENE

31

a black background; 7 a continuous line of white tesserae renders the rim of the petals. Stylized red twigs with leaves fill the space between the wreaths and the vegetal pyramids, sometimes curving to follow the former’s circular shape. The wreaths occupy the centre of three sides of the panel; on the fourth side, that of the entrance to the tomb-chamber, in place of the wreath is a dedicatory inscription, formed with black tesserae. Both the wreaths and the inscription are framed on their upper and lower sides by scallop shells of the same type as those placed above the tips of the vegetal pyramids on the diagonals. These scallops fit into the space created by garlands that form an octagon with concave sides, joined together by rosettes placed at the vertices. The garlands are made up of bunches of superimposed petals, the outermost black, and the inner ones brown, red, yellow and white; the rosettes have four shaded red petals on a circular black background. The octagon of garlands and rosettes encloses a circular picture bordered by a double black filet, inside which is depicted a figure with an inscription in black tesserae placed to the left.

Fig. 1. General view of the ‘Gift’ mosaic (by permission of the Provincial Directorate of Culture and Tourism Archive [İl Kültür ve Turizm Müdürlüğü Arşivi])

Cf. Catherine Balmelle, Michèle Blanchard-Lemée, Jean-Pierre Darmon, Suzanne Gozlan and Marie-Pat Raynaud, with the collaboration of Véronique Blanc-Bijon and Jeannine Christophe, Le décor géométrique de la mosaïque romaine. II, Répertoire graphique et descriptif des décors centrés (Paris: 2002), 38 (wreaths) and 52–3, pl. 255i (rosette with infolded, lobed petals); Doro Levi, Antioch Mosaic Pavements (Rome: 1971), 405, pl. CVb (rose). None of these, however, represents an exact parallel for the ‘Gift’ mosaic petal-wreath.

7

32

JOHN HEALEY AND CLAUDIA GIOIA

The background colour of the circular picture is divided into two parts by the figure’s head and bust: on the inscription side, the background is in a variegated light colour, while on the other side, the background colour is light blue. The figure, which appears to be that of a young girl, wears a long bright orange tunic with wide sleeves, decorated with geometric and maybe floral patterns (rhombuses, circles or flowers, lines) coloured in light blue with a black inner border. Her hair seems to be tied with a yellow ribbon, and she wears a long, gold-coloured chain around her neck and two thin bracelets (?) of the same colour. 8 She is sitting on some kind of dark brown bench or seat and rests her feet on a brown surface. She places her right hand on a bird identifiable as a chukar partridge, 9 while in her left hand, she holds a bunch of white grapes, rendered in small grey-green tesserae, with a vine leaf rendered in black.

Fig. 2. Central medallion of the ‘Gift’ mosaic (by permission of the Provincial Directorate of Culture and Tourism Archive [İl Kültür ve Turizm Müdürlüğü Arşivi])

A row of tiny yellow tesserae is visible around the figure’s right wrist and the same seems to appear, less clearly, at the left. It cannot be ruled out that the parure was completed by earrings (as a little yellow spot near the figure’s left ear would suggest). 9 Alectoris chukar: a variety of rock partridge native to the Near East and temperate Asia. It can be recognized by the typical black band running from the forehead, across the eye, down to the throat, coloured with a yellow tinge, and by the black and white bars on the flanks. Claudia Gioia thanks her naturalist friend, Dr. Marco De Cicco, for this identification. 8

A 'GIFT' IN SYRIAC: A MOSAIC FROM OSRHOENE

33

When the photographs were taken, the state of conservation of the mosaic was very good, except for the complete loss of the row of circles and spindles on the right side and a large lacuna in the lower left corner of the panel. There can also be noted some dark spots concentrated in particular in the upper right area.

ICONOGRAPHICAL AND STYLISTIC ANALYSIS OF THE ‘GIFT’ MOSAIC

The date provided by the Old Syriac inscription, 243 C.E. (see below), provides an important chronological anchorage for the mosaic and fits well with its characteristics. The simple guilloche as a frame for panels is one of the most common ornamental patterns in mosaics, in all periods and regions, finding many parallels in other mosaics from Edessa. 10 The row of circles and horizontal spindles seems to be attested so far only here in the Edessan area. The centralized pattern with elements stressing the diagonals was widely used in the Roman world, both in painting and mosaic, to decorate ceilings and floors. In this kind of composition, scholars have seen the adaptation of vault decorations on a flat surface. 11 In the ‘Gift’ mosaic, the two lateral ornamental bands regularize the space so as to receive a centralized square-shaped composition, an expedient often observed in floor mosaics, as well as in painted ceilings, to adapt such decorations to irregular spaces. 12 The closest parallels for the pattern of the ‘Gift’ mosaic can be found indeed in painted vaults, as in mosaic pavements, especially from the western part of the Empire. Several mosaics of the late 2nd–3rd centuries found in Rome feature centralized compositions with a circular picture in the centre of a floor decorated by volutes and tendrils or other imaginative motifs. 13 In black-and-white mosaics from the Severan age, the centralized pattern frequently develops from a central curvilinear octagon (often formed by vegetal motifs), from whose vertices depart other elements that

For example: Am4, Am5, Am6, Am8, Am9, Am11, using the sigla of Han J. W. Drijvers and John F. Healey, The Old Syriac Inscriptions of Edessa and Osrhoene: texts, translations and commentary (Leiden: 1999). 11 Katherine M. Dunbabin, Mosaics of the Greek and Roman World (Cambridge/New York: 1999), 104, 164, 314 (mosaics from North Africa and Syria); Stella Falzone and Angelo Pellegrino, Scavi di Ostia XV, Insula delle ierodule (c.d. Casa di Lucceia primitiva: III, IX, 6) (Rome: 2014), 149–58, 168–9 (painted ceilings from Ostia). 12 See, for example., the ceiling decoration of room 6 in the Insula delle Ierodule, Ostia, imitating a cross-vault, first half of the 2nd century C.E. (Falzone and Pellegrino, Scavi di Ostia XV, 153, fig. 135). 13 See Laura Cianfriglia, “Roma. Via Portuense, angolo via G. Belluzzo—Indagine su alcuni resti di monumenti sepolcrali”, Atti della Accademia nazionale dei Lincei. Notizie degli scavi di antichità 40 (1986–7), 41–53, figs 11-12; Paolo Liverani and Klaus Werner, “Roma. Il mosaico con scena bacchica da S. Rocco. Contesto e inquadramento” in Atti del III Colloquio dell’Associazione italiana per lo studio e la conservazione del mosaico (Roma, 6–10 dicembre 1995) (Bordighera: 1996), 523–32. This fashion seems to be particularly spread in funerary mosaics of the 3rd century: Marion E. Blake, “Mosaics of the Late Empire in Rome and Vicinity”, Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 17 (1940), 93, 119–20. 10

34

JOHN HEALEY AND CLAUDIA GIOIA

point mainly towards the corners of the floor. 14 The ‘Gift’ mosaic differs from this latter scheme, since it is not the vertices but the sides of the octagon which correspond to the diagonals and the medians: a solution best suited to placing the inscription at the centre of the tomb’s entrance-side. The curvilinear octagon is inscribed in an outermost circle drawn by the scallops; the small vegetal pyramids on the panel sides form a Greek-cross scheme, while the big ones emphasize the diagonals. Such composition falls within the typology of centralized patterns with both diagonals and medians emphasized, so widespread on painted vaults and ceilings, and shows affinities especially with patterns featuring an irregular octagon with concave sides on the medians inscribed in a square with a circle at the centre, used for pavements, ceilings and vault decorations. 15 This pattern, in many variations, is frequently seen in 3rd-century painted vaults from Roman catacombs, such as the cubiculum x-y in the crypt of Lucina (catacomb of St. Callistus), with which the ‘Gift’ mosaic shares the predominant use of the red and blue colours. 16 The palette of the ‘Gift’ mosaic—consisting of black, white, beige, red, pink, brown, orange, yellow, light blue, grey, grey-green—is similar to that generally used Monica Grandi, and Paola Chini, ‘“Osservazioni sul repertorio del mosaico bianco e nero di II–III secolo a Roma”, in La mosaïque gréco-romaine IX, (Actes du IXe Colloque international pour l’étude de la mosaïque antique et médiévale organisé à Rome, 5-10 novembre 2001), Hélène Molier, ed. (Rome: 2005), 57, fig. 1; 60, fig. 4. But see also: polychrome mosaic in the Vatican Museums presenting a similar motif of shells (?) placed inside the curves of the curvilinear octagon (“The curves of the octagon give rise to a shell pattern, which looked at in another way appears to be a pleated ribbon held in place by a series of pins”: Blake, “Mosaics of the Late Empire”, 99, pl. 19, fig. 3); polychrome floral mosaic from Thamugadi/Timgad, Algeria (Dunbabin, Mosaics of the Greek and Roman World, 125, fig. 128). The pattern is not unusual also in earlier periods: see Marion E. Blake, “Roman Mosaics of the Second Century in Italy”, Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 13 (1936), 87, 170, pl. 39.3–4. 15 Alix Barbet, “Les décors centrés en mosaïque et leur écho en peinture murale”, Revue Archéologique 36:2, (2003), 323–5, figs 10 (mosaic pavement from Thysdrus/El Djem), 11 (painted vault in the crypt of Lucina, Rome), 13 (painted vault in the Tomb of Nasonii, Rome); Alix Barbet, Coupoles, voûtes et plafonds peints d’époque romaine. Ier-IVe siècle apr. J.-C. (Paris: 2021), 264, fig. 374 (painted ceiling from the Insula delle Ierodule, Ostia), 276-7, fig. 396 (painted vault in the Tomb of Statilii, Rome). Many other examples of centralized patterns with diagonals and medians emphasized can be seen in Barbet, Coupoles, 247–300. A painted vault from the Domus on Via Marcella in Rome (end of the 2nd century) offers another interesting comparison with the ‘Gift’ mosaic, showing a very similar design on the diagonals and the sides; unfortunately, the central part of the decoration is lost (Giulia Ciccarello, “La Domus affrescata di Via Marcella all’Aventino. Lettura ed interpretazione”, in Monica Salvadori, Francesca Fagioli et. al., eds, Nuovi dati per la conoscenza della pittura antica. Atti del I colloquio dell’Associazione Italiana Ricerche Pittura Antica, Aquileia 16–17 giugno 2017 [Rome: 2019], 159–70). 16 Barbet, Coupoles, voûtes et plafonds peints, 277–8, figs 397–8 and Josef Wilpert, Le pitture delle catacombe Romane, illustrate da Giuseppe Wilpert, Roma sotterranea (Rome: 1903), pl. 25; pls 17, 42 and 61 for the painted vaults in the catacombs of Pretestato, Priscilla, Marcellinus and Peter. 14

A 'GIFT' IN SYRIAC: A MOSAIC FROM OSRHOENE

35

in Edessa. However, in the ‘Gift’ mosaic, a peculiar feature is the combination of light blue and red on a yellowish background, which, together with the composition scheme, produces an effect that recalls, in fact, examples of painting. 17 The association of red and blue for ornamental and geometric motifs, as well as the use of yellow grounds, also finds close parallels in mosaics from the nearby city of Zeugma. 18 A comparison can also be made with a slightly later mosaic found in Edessa itself (Christian mosaic from Kale Eteği). 19 Many examples of mosaics with a centralized schema with marked diagonals are known in Rome and the provinces, especially in North Africa. 20 Among them, panels with craters at the corners, from which vine scrolls spring and develop in volutes on the mosaic surface, are popular. Such a pattern is well attested in 3rd

See, for example, a 2nd century painted ceiling from Centocelle, Rome: Stella Falzone and Claudia Gioia, “Gli intonaci e gli stucchi della Villa della Piscina di Centocelle: qualità degli arredi pittorici di un complesso suburbano tra I e III sec. d. C.” in Pitture frammentarie di epoca romana da Roma e dal Lazio: nuove ricerche (Roma, 6 giugno 2016), Stella Falzone and Marco Galli, eds [= Scienze dell’Antichità 25.2] (Rome: 2019), 93–4, 246, pl. XXIV.1–2. The predominant use of blue and red frequently characterizes late 2nd-early 3rd century painting: in addition to the crypt of Lucina already cited, see the Orpheus cubiculum in St Callistus, dated to the first decades of the 3rd century, in Le catacombe di San Callisto. Storia, contesti, scavi, restauri, scoperte. A proposito del cubicolo di Orfeo e del Museo della Torretta [Ricerche di archeologia e antichità cristiane 7], Fabrizio Bisconti and Matteo Braconi, eds (Pian di Porto, 2015), pls. IXVI, 73–88, and Giovanna Ferri, “Il cubicolo di Orfeo: la trama geometrica. Suddivisione programmata dello spazio e motivi decorativi”, in Le catacombe di San Callisto, Fabrizio Bisconti and Matteo Braconi, eds, 125–40, and other painted vaults in Roman catacombs (Wilpert, Le pitture, pls 100, 171), but also the recently discovered fragments of a painted ceiling (Severan age) from the excavation for the ‘line C’ underground in Rome (Simona Morretta and Rossella Rea, “Una nuova caserma alle pendici meridionali del Celio” in Roma Universalis. I Severi: l’impero e la dinastia venuta dall’Africa (Catalogo della Mostra, Roma, 15 novembre 2018–25 agosto 2019), Clementina Panella, Rosella Rea et al., eds (Milan: 2018), 190–9, fig. 11; Stella Falzone, “La pittura parietale: caratteri e contenuti” in Roma Universalis. I Severi: l’impero e la dinastia venuta dall’Africa, Clementina Panella, Rossella Rea et al., eds, 118) and the tomb of Fadilla on the Via Flaminia in Rome (end of the 2ndcentury; www.soprintendenzaspecialeroma.it/schede/tombe-di-fadilla-e-dei-nasoni_3008/). 18 See, e.g., Mehmet Önal, Zeugma Mosaics: a corpus (Istanbul: 2009), 33, 55, 65, 83, 101, 114, 118, 119; also Antioch, House of the Sundial: Fatih Cimok, Antioch Mosaics: a corpus (Istanbul: 2000), 194. 19 Mehmet Önal, Urfa-Edessa Mozaikleri (Şanlıurfa: 2017), 120–1 and 137, 4th century. The yellowish background contrasting with the central white medallion and the juxtaposition of red and blue, as well as the centralized composition, closely recall the ‘Gift’ mosaic. 20 Irving Lavin, “The hunting mosaics of Antioch and their sources”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 17 (1963), 219–22, figs 54–58; Dunbabin, Mosaics of the Greek and Roman World, 105, fig. 104; 110, fig. 109; 125, fig. 128. In the East, the House of Menander (Levi, Antioch Mosaic Pavements, 205–7, 405, pl. XLVIa), the later Constantinian Villa in Antioch (Dunbabin, Mosaics of the Greek and Roman World, 163–6, figs 169–70). 17

36

JOHN HEALEY AND CLAUDIA GIOIA

century mosaics from Rome and the western provinces, 21 but seems uncommon in the East. Although different, it is therefore worth mentioning here a mosaic recently discovered in Osrhoene with four erotes at the corners and four craters in the centre of the panel sides, from which vine scrolls emerge (first half of the 3rd century C.E.). 22 The motif of vegetal pyramids springing from a vase can be seen also in Roman painting, even in diagonal patterns decorating ceilings 23 and vaults. 24 This pattern of the ‘Gift’ mosaic does not find parallels in the regions close to Edessa. 25 Rather, the centralized composition with vegetal pyramids along the diagonals emerging from craters placed at the corners of the panel, with scrolls filling the intervals, seems to have become popular in mosaic pavements from the 4th century C.E. onwards, especially in the western provinces. 26 There are numerous examples from North

See e.g., Lavin, “Hunting mosaics of Antioch”, 221–2, figs 55 (Oudna), 56 (Kourba), 57 (Banasa); Dunbabin, The Mosaics of Roman North Africa: studies in iconography and patronage (Oxford/New York: 1978), 117, n. 8, pl. XLI, 106 (Thysdrus/El Djem); Giovanni Becatti, Scavi di Ostia IV. Mosaici e pavimenti marmorei, (Rome: 1961), cat. 373, 195–6, fig. 69, pl. LXXXVII (Ostia, Insula dell’Aquila); Blake, Mosaics of the Late Empire, 92–3 (Rome, ‘Privata Hadriana’ and ‘House near via Venti Settembre’). 22 Komait Abdallah, Alain Desreumaux and Mohamad al-Kaid, “Nouvelles mosaïques d’Osrhoène découvertes in situ en Syrie du nord/Suriye’nin Kuzeyinde in situ Yeni Osrhoene Mozaikleri”, Journal of Mosaic Research 13 (2020), 12–5, figs 21–9. 23 See, e.g., the painted ceiling from Lugdunum/Lyon, 1st century C.E.: Marjorie Leperlier, “Les peintures fragmentaires de la place Abbé-Larue à Lyon (5e): plafond et parois – étude préliminaire”, in Peintures et stucs d’époque romaine: études toichographologiques: actes du 28e colloque de l’AFPMA, Paris, 20 et 21 novembre 2015 [Pictor 6] (Bordeaux: 2017), 42–7, fig. 6. 24 Painted vault from Brigetio, Hungary, dated at the end of the 2nd/beginning of the 3rd century C.E.: Lázló Borhy, “Horae, Andromeda und Pegasos: Die Kosmologie des Deckengemäldes aus Brigetio (FO: Komárom/Szőny-Vásartér)” in Plafonds et voûtes à l’époque antique: actes du VIIIe Colloque International de l’Association International pour la Peinture Murale antique (AIPMA), 15–19 mai 2001 Budapest-Vesprém, Lázló Borhy, ed. (Budapest: 2004), 233–44; Eszter Harsányi, and Zsófia Kurovszky, “Traces of geometric construction on the second century A. D. Roman ceiling composition of Komárom/Szőny-Vásártér”, in Plafonds et voûtes à l’époque antique, 245–53. 25 Abdallah et al., “Nouvelles mosaïques d’Osrhoène”, 27, have a similar difficulty in finding parallels nearby for their vine-scroll mosaic with erotes. 26 Aïcha Ben Abed, “Une mosaïque à pyramides végétales de Pupput” in Mosaïque: recueil d’hommages à Henri Stern, René Ginouvès, Catherine Balmelle et al. eds (Paris: 1983), 62–4; Catherine Balmelle, Recueil Général des mosaïques de la Gaule, Province d’Aquitaine, 1. Partie méridionale. Piémont pyrénéen [Gallia Suppléments 10] (Paris: 1980), 72; Nabiha Jeddi, “Les mosaïques de la Maison de Vénus à Dougga” in La mosaïque antique gréco-romaine VII: VIIe colloque international pour l’étude de la mosaïque antique, Mongi Ennaifer and Alain Rebourg, eds (Tunis: 1999), 218. 21

A 'GIFT' IN SYRIAC: A MOSAIC FROM OSRHOENE

37

Africa 27 and—dating to the fourth/sixth centuries—from France, 28 as well as from Spain 29 and Italy. 30 These were found in residential 31 or religious contexts. 32 A mosaic from Rome, said to come from the Via Appia, could come from a funerary context: it features four vegetal pyramids emerging from kantharoi (drinking cups) at the corners of the panel, and squared compartments with busts of the Seasons (5th century). 33 The liking for ornaments with curved and poly-lobed profiles (garlands, shells) and the predilection for dark grounds and three-dimensional effects (wreaths of petals), but also the flat rendering of certain motifs (scallops) of the mosaic, accord with the distinctive features of Severan and post-Severan fashion. 34 There are correspondences in the ornamental repertory of mosaics of the same period from the major

Pupput (Ben Abed, “Une mosaïque à pyramides végétales de Pupput”, 61–2, pls XLII–XLIV, CCXXX; Balmelle et al., Le décor géométrique de la mosaïque romaine. II, 202–3, pl. 385.c. In this 5th-century mosaic, the composition is organized around a central curvilinear octagon, with vertices on the diagonals. Peltas occupy the empty space created by the octagon’s concave sides; the effect i similar to the ‘Gift’ mosaic.); Thugga/Dougga (Jeddi, “Les mosaïques de la Maison de Vénus à Dougga”, 217–8, pls XC.2, XCII.1; Balmelle et al., Le décor géométrique de la mosaïque romaine. II, 198–9, pl. 383e, 4th century, with a central curvilinear octagon); Karthago/Carthage (Ben Abed, “Une mosaïque à pyramides végétales de Pupput”, 63, pl. XLV.1; Balmelle et al., Le décor géométrique II, 198–9, pl. 383a, second half of the 4th century to the 5th–6th century); Thuburbo Majus (Ben Abed, “Une mosaïque à pyramides végétales de Pupput”, 62–4, pl. XLV.2, second half of the 4th century); El Akbia (Karim Hadji, “La mosaïque d’El-Akbia retrouvée à El-Milia”, Aouras 8 (2014), figs 3.a–4). 28 Valentine (Balmelle, Recueil Général des mosaïques de la Gaule, Province d’Aquitaine, 70–2, no. 60, pls XX–XXI, end of the 4th century or first half of the 5th century); Sarbazan (Balmelle, Recueil Général des mosaïques de la Gaule, Province d’Aquitaine, 125–7, no. 249, pl. LXXVI. The position of the baskets—two flanking a shrub at the centre of each side of the panel—recalls those of the cups with small vegetal pyramids in the mosaic). 29 Puigvert de Agramunt (Tomás Mañanes, “El acanto en el mosaico romano de Hispania” in La mosaïque antique gréco-romaine VII: VIIe colloque international pour l’étude de la mosaïque antique, Mongi Ennaifer, and Alain Rebourg, eds (Tunis: 1999), 566, pl. CCII.1, last quarter of the 4th century); Menorca www.museudemenorca.com/en/collection/read/mosaic-of-the-labasilica-of-the-illa--del-rei-/61, second half of the 6th century). 30 Ravenna (Giovanna Paolucci, “San Severo, Sacello B, tessellato con piramidi vegetali”, in TESS—scheda 13518, 2013 http://tess.beniculturali.unipd.it/web/scheda/?recid=13518 , 6th century). 31 Oeci or halls (Thugga/Dougga, Thuburbo Majus, Pupput, Puigvert de Agramunt). 32 Ravenna, Menorca. 33 Museo nazionale romano Palazzo Massimo alle Terme: i mosaici, Rita Paris and Maria Teresa Di Sarcina, eds (Milan: 2012), no. 29, 181–3, 294 (Rotondi); Blake, Mosaics of the Late Empire, 101, pl. 20, figs 5 and 7. 34 Summarized in Grandi and Chini, “Osservazioni sul repertorio del mosaico bianco e nero di II–III secolo a Roma”, 59; Dunbabin, Mosaics of the Greek and Roman World, 163; Blake, Mosaics of the Late Empire, 93, 118–9. 27

38

JOHN HEALEY AND CLAUDIA GIOIA

nearby centres of Antioch and Zeugma. 35 Yet a certain taste can be detected for the realistic and accurate representation of objects of real life, like craters and cups, 36 textiles and jewels, the bird and fruit; a realism that is absent by contrast in rendering of vegetal motifs that are stylized and anti-naturalistic in colour. 37 The figure in the central medallion is quite well proportioned. Her face and hands are well modelled with various shades of beige and pink, while the facial features are delineated by a dark line. 38 The dress covers her body completely, its volume suggested by stripes of darker and lighter colour forming the folds and movement of the garment. A darker row of tesserae outlines the figure’s neck and left arm. The figure should be sitting on the seat but does not seem to rest on it, revealing some insecurity in the perspective rendering (cf. the Orpheus in Am7).

No exact parallels for the petal-wreath have been found, but a comparable treatment of the curled petals can be seen, e.g., in Antioch, House of the Drinking Contest (see Dunbabin, Mosaics of the Greek and Roman World, 164, fig. 167; Levi, Antioch Mosaic Pavements, pl. XXXb), House DH26-M/N, House 5 (Levi, Antioch Mosaic Pavements, 407, pl. CVIa) and House of Menander (Levi, Antioch Mosaic Pavements, 405, pl. CVb), although the petals are not set in a wreath. Something vaguely recalling the petal-wreath is the ribbon inscribed in the blackgrounded edge of a medallion in a mosaic from Timgad (“ruban tuyauté”: Suzanne Germain, Les Mosaïques de Timgad. Étude descriptive et analytique (Paris: 1969), 111–2, n. 162, pl. LIII, LXXXIX). The three-dimensional effect of the petals contrasts with the flat and schematic rendering of the scallops, outlined by a sharp black contour (cf., e.g., the Zeugma mosaic of Nereids on sea monsters: Mehmet Önal, Zeugma Mosaics: a corpus (Istanbul: 2009), 102–3). If the scallop motif is practically unused in Antioch and Zeugma, it is by contrast widespread in the mosaics of the African provinces (cf., e.g., Timgad: Germain, Les Mosaïques de Timgad) and in Roman painted ceilings and vaults. 36 Craters and skyphoi probably imitate typologies in use. Craters of the same type are represented in other 3rd-century mosaics, e.g. Antioch, House of the Drinking Contest (Fatih Cimok, Antioch Mosaics: a corpus (Istanbul: 2000), 134–5); House of the Boat of Psyches, mosaic of Agros and Opora, where both crater and cups are of the same shape of those in the ‘Gift’ mosaic (Cimok, Antioch Mosaics: a corpus, 170–1). The shape of the skyphoi finds parallels in silverware from the Roman world (see Lucia Pirzio Biroli Stefanelli, L’argento dei Romani. Vasellame da tavola e d’apparato (Rome: 1991), 140–1, figs 106–7 [Boscoreale]; 150–1, figs 122–6 [Pompeii, Casa del Menandro]), but also in Palmyrene funerary sculpture. See also other Edessan funerary banquet mosaics, where the banqueter holds a cup of common shape (Am8, and see Barış Salman, “Family, Death and Afterlife according to Mosaics of the Abgar Royal Period in the Region of Osroene”, Journal of Mosaic Research, 1–2 (2008), 109, fig. 7). In this sense, the choice of the container for the different-sized vegetal pyramids, in respect of the real dimensional hierarchy, appears interesting (craters for the bigger pyramids, cups for the smaller). 37 Volutes and tendrils, garlands, laurel leaves in vegetal pyramids. The petals in the wreath have almost totally lost the memory of the vegetal origin of the motif (cf. Levi, Antioch Mosaic Pavements, 405ff.). 38 The tesserae seem to be disturbed in the face’s upper left area: the figure’s left eye is not clearly discernible, so we cannot fully evaluate the rendering of foreshortening. 35

A 'GIFT' IN SYRIAC: A MOSAIC FROM OSRHOENE

39

The necklace and grapes are carefully depicted with tiny tesserae, and also the chukar partridge is so well represented that it is clearly recognizable. The chukar partridge has been identified in other mosaics, including a mosaic from the Villa of the Amazons at Edessa itself. 39 The necklace, the style of long tunic and the ribbon in the hair, all suggest the figure is a girl. 40 A bird and grapes held in the hands frequently connote children in the funerary reliefs of Palmyra, 41 while they are not found, at least until now, in the other known Edessan funerary mosaics (which normally feature groups or family portraits, often including children). 42 At Palmyra the figure holding the grapes is, at least in some cases, the deceased. Here, in the light of the inscription (below), the figure depicted in the centre of the floor is unlikely to be the deceased. The prominent gold necklace—that finds parallels in Fayum portraits 43 and at Hatra as well as at Dura Europos 44—could be a symbol of wealth, alongside the precious tunic, which might have been made of silk or another embroidered textile (see, for example, other peculiar textiles represented in Edessan funerary mosaics, such as Abgar’s mantel in the ‘Abgar mosaic’ or the cover of the couch in the Aya İrini mosaic 45). Depending on the interpretation of the Syriac word beside the female figure— as either singular or plural—two possibilities present themselves:

Hasan Karabulut, Mehmet Önal and Nedim Dervişoğlu, Haleplibahçe Mozaikleri, Şanlıurfa/Edessa (Istanbul: 2011), 63, pl. 74. See also at Sepphoris in Galilee, Arlene Fradkin, “Animal Figures in the Basilical Building Mosaics at Roman Sepphoris, Lower Galilee, Israel”, Near Eastern Archaeology 62 (1999), 235. 40 Young Edessan girls had a particular hairstyle, with three bunches of hair on the head; adult women always wore the typical tall headgear. The girl’s hair in the mosaic follows a more Hellenistic-Roman fashion. The tunic differs from that worn by young Edessan girls, which usually presents a high belt around the waist (see Am4a, Am11, Önal, Urfa-Edessa Mozaikleri, 46, fig. 63; 51, fig. 66). 41 For example, see Anna Sadurska and Adnan al-Bounnī, Les sculptures funéraires de Palmyre, Supplementi alla RdA 13 (Rome: 1994), cat. 81, fig. 9; cat. 94, fig. 17 (a girl with a bird and a bunch of olives); cat. 96, fig. 2; cat. 218, fig. 205; Malcolm A. Colledge, The Art of Palmyra (London: 1976), 66, n. 198; 158, n. 619. 42 Am8, Cm7-8; see Salman, “Family, Death and Afterlife”, 109, fig. 7; 110, fig. 8. 43 Marie-France Aubert and Robert Cortopassi, Portraits de l’Égypte romaine (Paris: 1998), cat. 47, p. 90, mid-2nd century C.E. In this case the necklace is shorter. 44 Bracelets with the same kind of loops (Brigitte Musche, Vorderasiatischer Schmuck zur Zeit der Arsakiden und der Sasaniden [Handbuch der Orientalistik VII/1, 2, B, 5] (Leiden: 1988), 215–6, 9.3, and 9.4, pl. LXXVII). 45 Am10; Cm7 (see Salman, “Family, Death and Afterlife”, 108, fig. 6; 110, fig. 8). 39

40

JOHN HEALEY AND CLAUDIA GIOIA 1. ‘(Lady) Gift’, generosity personified by the female figure, the Syriac word for ‘gift’ beside the figure being feminine, which fits with the convention that personifications of abstract concepts usually follow the gender of the word. 46 2. ‘Gifts’ presented in the context of a funerary banquet (cf. a funerary banquet mosaic from Antioch).

Of course, the boundary of meaning between these two interpretations need not be rigid. We may have a personification of hospitality and generosity, since the chukar partridge and the bunch of grapes are often depicted in mosaics with xenia motifs— food, fruits, vegetables, animals, flowers—that are usually interpreted as representations of ‘hospitable gifts’ offered by the host to guests at the banquet and during their stay. This was a repertory that was very common in Italy and Africa, probably being intended to suggest the house-owner’s wealth. 47 Could this provide an interpretative key for the ‘Gift’ mosaic? Hospitable gifts or gifts in a funerary banquet? Gifts for the inhabitants or guests of the ‘house of eternity’? A symbolic way to display the patron’s wealth? See other mosaics with unusual personifications: e.g., Constantin A. Marinescu, Sarah E. Cox and Rudolf Wachter, “Walking and Talking among Us: Personifications in a Group of a Late Antique Mosaics” in La mosaïque gréco-romaine IX, Hélène Morlier, ed. (Rome: 2005), 1275–6. 47 Cf. Paris and Di Sarcina, Museo nazionale romano Palazzo Massimo alle Terme: i mosaici, 125– 6, n. 20; 265, fig. 20; Sara Redaelli, “Rappresentazioni di xenia nei mosaici romani dei principali centri della Byzacena” in L’Africa romana. Trasformazione dei paesaggi del potere nell’Africa settentrionale fino alla fine del mondo antico: atti del XIX convegno di studio, Sassari, 16–19 dicembre 2010, Maria B. Cocco, Alberto Gavini and Antonio Ibba, eds (Rome: 2012), 2459–66. For the possible meanings, including social meanings, of the xenia motifs, see the contributions in Catherine Balmelle, Aïcha Ben Abed-Ben Khader et al., eds, Recherches franco-tunisiennes sur la mosaïque de l'Afrique antique. I, Xenia [Collection de l’École française de Rome, 125. Recherches d’archéologie africaine] (Rome: 1990) by Roger Hanoune, “Le dossier des xenia et la mosaïque”, and Jean-Pierre Darmon, “En guise de conclusion. Propositions pour une sémantique des xenia”. The authors propose to see in the xenia a representation of gifts of the earth, evocative of the seasons (Darmon), or of the tribute that farmers owed to the landowner (Hanoune). It may be interesting to mention briefly cubiculum O of the funerary hypogeum in via Dino Compagni in Rome (famous for the presence of pagan as well as Christian subjects in its painted decoration, 4th century), where two seated women holding a sceptre are depicted on the vault; one has wheat spikes in her hand and the other a bunch of grapes. The figures are separated by two vegetal pyramids emerging from a vase. At the entrance to the cubiculum, two other female figures are depicted carrying a bunch of wheat spikes. Some scholars have interpreted the figures as Demeter and Persephone and read the entire decoration as an allusion to agricultural abundance (Antonio Ferrua, Catacombe sconosciute: una pinacoteca del IV secolo sotto la Via Latina (Florence: 1990), 119–32, n.10; Stefano Tortorella, “Riflessioni sui temi della pittura funeraria romana” in Circulación de temas y sistemas decorativos en la pintura mural antigua. Actas del IX Congreso Internacional de la Association Internationale pour la Peinture Murale Antique, Zaragoza-Calatayud, 21-25 septiembre 2004, Carmen Guiral Pelegrín, ed. (Zaragoza: 2007), 107–10). 46

A 'GIFT' IN SYRIAC: A MOSAIC FROM OSRHOENE

41

Labels in Greek for personifications of positive concepts (Megalopsuchia, Sōtēria, Eukarpia, etc.) are well known in mosaics from the Hellenized East, especially in Antioch and its cultural hinterland. 48 Janine Balty’s index lists, amongst others, Agapē, Apolausis, Charis, Dikaiosunē, Dunamis, Eirēnē, Epistēmē, Euprepeia, Euteknia, Kallos, Krisis, Ktisis, Megalopsuchia, Nikē, Philosophia, Sōtēria and Truphē. 49 Although many figures with Syriac name-labels appear in other Edessan mosaics, personifications with labels are not found: the non-human figures which do appear in these mosaics are deities, demigods or mytholological creatures. 50 If ‘Gift’ (Syriac mawhaḇtā) is a personification, we would have an example of Edessan mosaic-makers buying into the eastern Roman penchant for such personifications. As in the cited examples from the Hellenized East, which are often accompanied by objects alluding to their meaning, the bird and the bunch of grapes might in this mosaic represent the attributes of the personification of ‘Gift’, embodied by the girl. The gift could even consist of the mosaic itself, donated by the patron to his family and heirs. Evidence of such practice comes from the pagan, Christian and Jewish worlds. 51 Almost all the examples of personification in mosaic in the Greek world derive from a non-funereal context, so that comparing them with a tomb mosaic adds an additional difficulty. However, one interesting case is that of the ‘Mosaic of a Women’s Funerary Banquet’, which comes from a mid to late 4th cent. C.E.

Janine Balty, Mosaïques antiques du Proche-Orient (Paris: 1995); Katherine Dunbabin, Mosaics of the Greek and Roman World (Cambridge/New York: 1999); Ruth Leader-Newby, “Personifications and paideia in Late Antique mosaics from the Greek East” in Personification in the Greek World: from Antiquity to Byzantium, Emma Stafford and Judith Herrin, eds (Aldershot: 2005); Birol Can, ‘Ancient Mosaics: symbolism and personification’, Actual Archaeology Anatolia 14 (2015), 40–5; for a general overview, see Amy C. Smith, “Personification: Not Just a Symbolic Mode” in A Companion to Greek Art, Tyler J. Smith, and Dimitris Plantzos, eds (Malden, MA/Oxford, 2012), 440–55; on Antioch see Glanville Downey, “Personifications of Abstract Ideas in the Antioch Mosaics”, Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 69 (1938), 349–63. 49 Janine Balty, Mosaïques antiques du Proche-Orient, 325–8; The index of Katherine Dunbabin, Mosaics of the Greek and Roman World, 353–7, is also useful. 50 Zeus/Maralahe, Hera, Chronos (Cm11), Orpheus (Am7; John Healey, “A New Syriac Mosaic Inscription”, Journal of Semitic Studies 51 (2006), 313–27), legendary figures Achilles, Patroclus, Priam, Hecuba, Odysseus (Cm3-4; Janine Balty and Françoise Briquel Chatonnet, “Nouvelles mosaïques inscrites d’Osrhoène”, Monuments et mémoires de la Fondation Eugène Piot 79, (2000), 31–72; Abdallah et al., “Nouvelles mosaïques d’Osrhoène”). Note also the representative figure of the Phoenix (Am6; J. Ben Segal, Edessa: ‘The Blessed City’ (Oxford: 1970), pl. 43). 51 See e.g., an inscription on a mosaic from a columbarium on Via Labicana in Rome, in which a certain Publius Sextius is said to have donated the mosaic to his friends: ‘fecit amicis donavit’ (Blake, Mosaics of the Late Empire, 124), or later inscriptions in churches and synagogues recording the names of donors who paid for the mosaics (Dunbabin, Mosaics of the Greek and Roman World, 324–6). 48

42

JOHN HEALEY AND CLAUDIA GIOIA

Antiochene tomb chamber. 52 The mosaic depicts female figures, one of whom is named Mnēmosunē, ‘Remembrance’, and another Aiochia/Euōchia, ‘Feasting’. The figure of Eukarpia (‘Fruitfulness’) appears in the border of the same mosaic. 53 Although these do not fit exactly with mwhbtʾ, they may hint at a general context, that of generous provision in a funerary banquet.

THE INSCRIPTIONS OF THE ‘GIFT’ MOSAIC 54

The inscription in the panel at the bottom of the mosaic (well preserved when photographed) has numerous parallels in the epigraphy of Old Syriac/Edessan Aramaic and makes it clear that the mosaic must belong to a tomb. The more typical style of the many tomb-mosaics of Edessa is that of the Funerary Banquet or Family Scene. There are a number of well-preserved examples. 55 There are also a small number of mosaics containing very similar funerary inscriptions which depict a mythological or symbolic figure rather than a Family Scene, including two Orpheus mosaics 56 and one in which a Phoenix is the central figure. 57 The Syriac word which appears to the left of the central figure is ‫ܡܘܗܒܬܐ‬, ‘gift’ or ‘gifts’—the former would suggest the female figure is a personification. The vocalized form could either be singular mawhaḇtā or plural mawheḇāṯā. The feature of the insertion of personal names in mosaics beside individual figures is extremely common in the Edessan mosaic tradition. 58 Mawhabtā cannot, however, be a personal name and no such name appears in the dedication (lines 1-8). 59

Rebecca Molholt, “Mosaic of a Women’s Funerary Banquet” in The Arts of Antioch: art historical and scientific approaches to Roman mosaics and a catalogue of the Worcester Art Museum Antioch Collection, Lawrence Becker and Christine Kondoleon, eds (Worcester, MA: 2005), 196–207. 53 Molholt, “Mosaic of a Women’s Funerary Banquet”, fig. 7. 54 The sigla referring to inscriptions used generally in this paper are those found in Drijvers and Healey, Old Syriac Inscriptions of Edessa and Osrhoene. Epigraphic remains published later are referenced by author and date (though a few were already mentioned in Drijvers and Healey, Old Syriac Inscriptions of Edessa and Osrhoene and given the siglum ‘Add + number’). ‘Api’ is the siglum used for inscriptions from Apamaea: see Alain Desreumaux and Jean-Sylvain Caillou in Catherine Abadie-Reynal, Rifat Ergeç, Eyüp Bucak et al., “Zeugma-moyenne vallée de l’Euphrate: rapport préliminaire de la campagne de fouilles de 1998”, Anatolia Antiqua 7 (1999), 351–66. 55 Segal, Edessa: pls 1–3. 56 Segal, Edessa: pl. 44 (Am7), Healey, “A New Syriac Mosaic Inscription”, Journal of Semitic Studies 51 (2006), 313–27. 57 Segal, Edessa: pl. 43 (Am6). 58 See the well-known examples in Segal, Edessa: pls 1-3, and the recently discovered example in Celal Uludağ and Mehmet Önal, ‘Edessa, Kale Eteği Mozaikleri’, in Urfa-Edessa Mozaikleri, Mehmet Önal, ed. (Şanlıurfa: 2017), 116–8. 59 mwhbh / mwhbtʾ in Nabataean Aramaic is used for ‘document of gift’ (noun-phrase ellipsis). See John F. Healey, The Nabataean Tomb Inscriptions of Mada’in Salih (Oxford: 1993), H4: 5; H5: 6; H36: 6; H38: 7; in full šṭr mwhbtʾ in H27: 3–4. 52

A 'GIFT' IN SYRIAC: A MOSAIC FROM OSRHOENE

TEXT, TRANSLITERATION AND TRANSLATION

43

At the ‘bottom’ of the mosaic is a Syriac (‘Edessan Aramaic’) inscription of eight lines:

(i) Dedication 1. byrḥ nysn šnt ‫ ܒܝܪܚ ܢܝܣܢ ܫܢܬ‬.1 2. ḥmšmʾʾ wḥmšyn ‫ ܚܡܫܡܐܐ ܘܚܡܫܝܢ‬.2 3. wʾrbʿ ʾnʾ ʾbgr ‫ ܘܐܪܒܥ ܐܢܐ ܐܒܓܪ‬.3 4. br ʿqybʾ ʿbdt ly bẙt ‫ ܒܪ ܥܩܝܒܐ ܥܒܕܬ ܠܝ ܒܝܬ‬.4 5. ʿlmʾ hnʾ ly wlbny ‫ ܥܠܡܐ ܗܢܐ ܠܝ ܘܠܒܢܝ‬.5 6. wlyrty wlzʿwrtʾ ‫ ܘܠܝܪܬܝ ܘܠܙܥܘܪܬܐ‬.6 7. ʾntty lywmt ‫ ܐܢܬܬܝ ܠܝܘܡܬ‬.7 8. ʿlmʾ ‫ ܥܠܡܐ‬.8 1. In the month of Nisan 2. of the year five hundred and fifty 3. four, I Abgar 4. son of ʿAqībā, made this house 5. of eternity for me and my children 6. and for my heirs and for Zeʿūrta 7. my wife, for the days of 8. eternity

44

JOHN HEALEY AND CLAUDIA GIOIA

(ii) Beside the central figure

mwhbtʾ

Gift

‫ܡܘܗܒܬܐ‬

EPIGRAPHY

There is little need for epigraphic comment. The readings are clear and the only uncertainty is whether to read bt or byt in line 4. The word is occasionally found with defective spelling (so in As24, As56, Api3, Api9) and the {y} is not quite clear in the present case. The spelling bt would suggest monophthongization (ay > ē) reflected in orthography. The letter forms are normal and similar to forms found in mosaics and inscriptions on stone of similar date, though we may note especially the {q} in line 4. This letter does not appear often in the corpus of early Syriac inscriptions, but the form here seems to be copying the very cursive form which would be found on papyrus or parchment (and which can be presumed to have provided the template for the mosaicist who was commissioned to produce this work). The form of the letter reflects writing on parchment or papyrus, beginning at the top left, with a loop to the right and a final vertical stroke to the line of writing on the left, beginning at the point where the loop is almost completed (for a clear example see the laboured script of P. Euphr. 19: 22). I.e. . The vertical on the left could sometimes, when inscribed on stone, become detached from the loop, as is clear in the recently published Ḥarrān inscription dedicated to Nikkal. 60

COMMENTARY

The year is undoubtedly given according to the Seleucid era, as was common in early Edessan texts. The month of Nisan of the Seleucid year 554 fell in 243 C.E. We can, therefore, add this inscription and its mosaic to the list of precisely dated early Syriac Mehmet Önal and Alain Desreumaux, “The Fragment of [a] Woman[’s] Statue with Syriac Inscription [which] was found in Harran Excavation” in Harran ve Çevresi: Arkeoloji, Mehmet Önal, Süheyla. Mutlu and Semih Mutlu, eds (Şanlıurfa: 2019), 241–9.

60

A 'GIFT' IN SYRIAC: A MOSAIC FROM OSRHOENE

45

inscriptions and parchments. Sebastian Brock in 2009 and 2012 listed dated inscriptions down to the mid-seventh century, 61 but since the first of these two papers was published there have been additions to the list (as in the case of the mosaic being discussed here) and there have also been some revisions of dates of long-known items. The most important of the studies now demanding consideration in the dating of these materials is an article by Jean-Sylvain Caillou and Simon Brelaud, published in 2016, which argues persuasively that some of the dates on Syriac inscriptions on stone and in mosaic have been misunderstood in the past. 62 Since the time of Duval in the late 19th century, 63 it had been believed that datings in the early Syriac inscriptions such as ‘in the year twenty’ should be understood as having the larger number, ‘five hundred’, elided, so that the reader should understand ‘(five hundred and) twenty’, a Seleucid date equivalent to 208/209 C.E. Mention of a particular month would show whether the item should be ascribed to 208 or 209. Caillou and Brelaud present a persuasive argument that, in fact, a different era is in use in the cases that were earlier interpreted as abbreviated Seleucid dates. 64 The revised view is that such dates follow the ‘era of the liberation of Edessa’, i.e. its ‘liberation’ through incorporation into the Roman Empire under Caracalla in 213 C.E. Dating according to this era appears alongside explicitly Seleucid dating in two of the three lengthy Syriac legal parchments (P. Dura 28 and P. Euphr. 19) 65, dated 243 C.E. and 242 C.E. respectively. In those cases it is explicitly indicated that the alternative year-date provided is the year ‘of the liberation of Antonina Edessa’ (‫)ܐܕܣܐ ܕܐܢܛܘܢܝܢܐ ܕܚܪܘܪܐ‬. The consequence of this reinterpretation would be the redating of several inscriptions, so that, in the example given above, ‘the year twenty (of the liberation)’ would equate to 233 C.E. (rather than 208/209 C.E.). Although this new view of the dates would only be incontrovertible if a date explicitly stated to be ‘of the liberation’ were to appear in one of the inscriptions alongside a Seleucid date (as in the case of the parchments), it is in any case very plausible and it should be accepted. There is a less significant dispute about the date of the Birecik inscription (As55). Luther has argued that the date in this inscription, regularly restored as Se-

Sebastian P. Brock, “Edessene Syriac inscriptions in late antique Syria” in From Hellenism to Islam: cultural and linguistic change in the Roman Near East, Hannah M. Cotton et al., eds (Cambridge: 2009), 289–302; Sebastian P. Brock, “Dating Formulae in Syriac Inscriptions and Manuscripts of the 5th and 6th Centuries” in From Ugarit to Nabataea: studies in honor of John F. Healey, George A. Kiraz and Zeyad al-Salameen, eds (Piscataway, NJ: 2012), 85–106. 62 Jean-Sylvain Caillou and Simon Brelaud, “L’ère de la libération d’Édesse”, Syria 93 (2016), 321–38. 63 Rubens Duval, Traité de grammaire syriaque (Paris: 1881), 14–15. 64 Caillou and Brelaud, “L’ère de la libération d’Édesse”, 321–38. 65 See Drijvers and Healey, Old Syriac Inscriptions of Edessa and Osrhoene, P1 and P3. 61

46

JOHN HEALEY AND CLAUDIA GIOIA

leucid year 317 (= 5/6 C.E.), as originally proposed by Kugener, may be better restored as Seleucid year 417 (= 105/6 C.E.). 66 The doubt arises because there is a lacuna in the inscription, where the signs indicating the number of hundreds (each a simple vertical line) originally stood. Luther argues that the restoration of the number as (1+1+1+1) x 100+10+(1+1+1+1+1+1+1) = 417 would fill the lacuna better than (1+1+1) x 100+10+(1+1+1+1+1+1+1) = 317. He excludes Seleucid year 517 on historical grounds, as being too late. The restoration to Seleucid year 317 had been supported by Maricq on the basis of the evidence of the script and of the suggestion that the ‘Maʿnu son of Maʿnu’ who is mentioned in the inscription was an Edessan king. 67 However, there is no indication that he was a king and it would be surprising to find King Maʿnu mentioned in this inscription without any title. 68 Reading the year date as Seleucid year 417 would mean that the Birecik inscription should be assigned to 105/6 C.E. instead of 5/6 C.E. The month is given as Adar, so the C.E. equivalent would more specifically be 106. Again, the argument is plausible. However, George Kiraz brings ‘graphotactics’ to bear on the issue, i.e. the joining properties of letters and the spacing between letters, arguing against Luther in favour of the traditional date of 6 C.E. 69 Despite this argument, it is probably now better on balance to take the date to be 106 C.E., since the palaeographical evidence for the earlier date is not as strong as had been previously thought by André Maricq or Han Drijvers and John Healey. 70 This, of course, demotes the Birecik inscription from its status as the oldest dated evidence of Syriac. The ‘Gift’ mosaic, dated 243 C.E., would have been the latest dated pagan mosaic in the Osrhoenian corpus, with the so-called ‘Zenodora’ mosaic (known only from a drawing) (Am1) as the second latest. Allowing for adjustments to dating arising from the changes discussed above, Am1 is now to be dated to 253 C.E. or 283 C.E., with the dated pagan mosaics of Osrhoene extending from 194 C.E. to 253/283 C.E. The formulae used in the inscription (‘I, so-and-so, made’, ‘house of eternity’, ‘for myself/children/heirs/wife’) are commonly encountered in the early Syriac

Andreas Luther, “Osrohener am Niederrhein. Drei altsyrische Graffiti aus Krefeld-Gellep (und andere frühe altsyrische Schriftzeugnisse)”, Marburger Beiträge zur antiken Handels-, Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte, 27 (2009, published in 2010), 21–2; Marc A. Kugener, “Une inscription syriaque de Biredjik”, Rivista degli Studi Orientali, 1 (1907), 587–94, for the Seleucid year 317 dating. 67 André Maricq (edited posthumously by Jacqueline Pirenne and Paul Devos), “La plus ancienne inscription syriaque: celle de Birecik”, Syria 39 (1962), 92–5. 68 Segal, Edessa, 23; Drijvers and Healey, Old Syriac Inscriptions of Edessa and Osrhoene, 141. 69 George A. Kiraz, “Old Syriac Graphotactics”, Journal of Semitic Studies 57 (2012), 245. 70 Drijvers and Healey, Old Syriac Inscriptions of Edessa and Osrhoene, 141–2. 66

A 'GIFT' IN SYRIAC: A MOSAIC FROM OSRHOENE

47

inscriptions. 71 byt ʿlmʾ is the most common expression used for ‘tomb’ or ‘tomb-chamber’, appearing in numerous inscriptions 72 and mosaics 73 as well as on a Christian inscription in stone from Mal Mağarası near Edessa. 74 Most recently, the phrase has been found in other Christian inscriptions in Edessa, in Kale Eteği tombs M 65 and M 67 and also in tomb M 54 in the Kızılkoyun necropolis. 75 byt ʿlmʾ occasionally appears in Syriac literature. 76 bt ʿlmʾ, with defective spelling, appears in the Apamaea inscriptions (Api3 and 9) and there are occurrences of bt qbwrʾ and bt ṭmʾ (As56 and As24/25). The defective spelling of bt ʿlmʾ is also very frequent in Palmyrene Aramaic epigraphy (40+ times), again used for ‘house of eternity = tomb’, e.g. in CIS II 4116 dated 56 C.E. (PAT 0465), CIS II 4123 dated 83 C.E. (Yon 2012: no. 404; PAT 0472). 77 Discussing the occurrence of the words bt ʿlmʾ on keys held by Palmyrene figures in funerary reliefs, 78 Han Drijvers saw a connection with mrʾ ʿlmʾ, ‘the Lord of the

As7, As9, As16, As20, As55, As59, Am2, Am3, Am8, Am9, Am10, Bs3, Api3 (Add1); Jutta Rumscheid, “Mosaiken aus Grabanlagen in Edessa”, Kölner und Bonner Archaeologica 3 (2013), 120ff. (Add6); John Healey, “A New Syriac Mosaic Inscription”, Journal of Semitic Studies 51 (2006), 313–27. 72 As7, As9, Am2, Am3, Am5, Am6, Am7. 73 Mehmet Önal, Müslüm Ercan, Alain Desreumaux et al., “Restore Edilen İki Adet Edessa Mosaiği 2011 / Two Edessa Mosaics which were restored in 2011”, Journal of Mosaic Research 6 (2013), 15. 74 Eduard Sachau, “Edessenische Inschriften”, Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft 36 (1882), 159–60, nr. 4, dated 493/4; Selahattin E. Güler, Şanlıurfa Yazıtları (Grekce, Ermenice ve Süryanice) (Istanbul: 2014), 150. 75 Alain Desreumaux and Mehmet Önal, “The Translation of Syriac Inscription(s) of New Mosaics found in Şanlıurfa” in Urfa-Edessa Mozaikleri, Mehmet Önal, ed. (Şanlıurfa: 2017), 136– 7; Bekir Çetin, Müslüm Demir, Alain Desreumaux et al., “New Inscriptions in Aramaic/Early Syriac and Greek from the Cemeteries of Edessa”, Anatolia Antiqua 28 (2020), 119–41. 76 Robert Payne Smith, Thesaurus Syriacus, 2 vols (Oxford: 1879–1901), col. 2899; Acta Apost. Apoc. I 146146, l. 14; 147, l. 9 (trans. II 129); Anecd. Syr. II 229, l. 12. 77 See also PAT 1614 dated 131 C.E., PAT 0548 (CIS II 4192; Jean-Baptiste Yon, Palmyre: inscriptions grecques et latines de la Syrie 17, fascicule 1 (Beirut: 2012) no. 437) dated 181 C.E., PAT 0555 (CIS II 4199) dated 193 C.E., PAT 0557 (CIS II 4201) dated 212 C.E., PAT 0024 dated 229 C.E., PAT 1142 (Inv. iv 13; Yon no. 439) dated 232 C.E. and undated PAT 0572 (CIS II 4216; Yon no. 440) and PAT 1816 (Yon no. 423). For Nabataean byt ʿlmʾ see the funerary inscription published Avraham Negev, “A Nabatean Epitaph from Trans-Jordan”, Israel Exploration Journal 21 (1971), 50–2. 78 See CIS II 4490 = PAT 0851 = Yon no. 560 (plate in Yon 2012: 418) (bt ʿlmʾ); CIS II 4449 = PAT 0809 (bt ʿlmʾ); CIS II 4491 = PAT 0852 = Yon no. 562; Yon no. 561 (the last two Greek only on the key). CIS II 4473 = PAT 0834 (bt ʿlmʾ on writing material in the left hand) (see also CIS II 4323 = PAT 0680 for another hand-held inscription). 71

48

JOHN HEALEY AND CLAUDIA GIOIA

Universe’, with an implication that the keys are related to access to eternal life. 79 On the other hand, Balty interpreted the keys as related to the domestic sphere with little reason to suppose that a strong belief in life after death is implied. 80 Although the phrase byt ʿlmʾ is prevalent especially in pagan inscriptions both in Osrhoene and in Palmyra, it may be noted that it has biblical parallels such as the well-known passage near the end of Qoheleth/Ecclesiates: “… man goes to his everlasting home” (Qoh. 12: 5, hōlēk hāʾādām ʾel-bēt ʿōlāmō; Peshiṭtā ‫ )ܐܙܠ ܒܪܢܫܐ ܠܒܝܬ ܥܠܡܐ‬and the phrase appears also in Jewish Aramaic (e.g. TgJ Is. 14: 18; Midrash Vayikra Rabbah 12; PT Moʿed Qaṭan 1: 80b; BT Bava Bathra 153a; also at Qumran, 4Q549 frag. 2: 6; P. Yadin 7: 15, etc. 81). This may have encouraged the continued use of the term in Christian times (as, e.g., in the Christian inscriptions in Syriac mentioned above). By contrast, the phrase lywmt ʿlmʾ (ll. 7-8), literally ‘for the days of eternity, forever’, is much rarer. lywmt ʿlmʾ appears in this form (plural construct of ywmʾ in its common feminine-looking form) in Am2: 7-8, Am6: 6-7, Am7: 5 but probably not in Am1. 82 A similar phrase appears, spelt defectively, in the Ashur Aramaic texts, lymt ʿlmyn. 83 The phrase occurs also in Syriac literary texts, with the preposition ‫ ܡܢ‬and referring to the past not the future. Thus, in Ezra 4: 15, 19: ‫“ = ܡܢ ܝܘܡܬ ܥܠܡܐ‬from the days of eternity (i.e. days of old).” 84 Of the personal names which appear in the inscription, Abgar is familiar in the Edessan context. It appears in inscriptions (so As51, As55, Am10), in papyri (P. Dura 28; P. Euphr. 18) and on coins (Co4), as well as in early Syriac literature and in Greek as Ἄβγαρος, notably as the name of a number of Edessan kings, including the one who was reputedly in contact with Jesus according to the Doctrina Addai, and also The Martyrdom of Šemūnā and Gūryā. 85 By contrast, the other two names in the inscription, ʿAqībā and Zeʿūrtā, are not attested in other early Syriac inscriptions and require more comment. ʿAqībā (ʿqybʾ) is well known, of course, in Jewish tradition: Rabbi ʿAqībā (c. 50-135 C.E.). 86 Apart from this famous Rabbi, the same name is attested in an (earlier) inscription on an 173F

Han J. W. Drijvers, “Afterlife and Funerary Symbolism in Palmyrene Religion” in La soteriologia dei culti orientali nell’Impero Romano. Atti del Colloquio Internazionale su La soteriologia dei culti orientali nell’Impero Romano, Roma 24–28 settembre 1979, Ugo Bianchi and Maarten Vermaseren, eds (Leiden: 1982), 718, 720. 80 Jean-Charles Balty, “Palmyre entre Orient et Occident: acculturation et résistances”, Annales archéologiques arabes syriennes, 42 (1996), 438–9. 81 Citations from The Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon website, http://cal.huc.edu. 82 Drijvers and Healey, Old Syriac Inscriptions of Edessa and Osrhoene, 161. 83 Basile Aggoula, Inscriptions et graffites araméens d’Assour (Naples: 1985): 42; no. 17 (I), 5-6; 32j 5; see Jacob Hoftijzer and Karel Jongeling, Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions (Leiden: 1995), 450–1. 84 Payne Smith, Thesaurus Syriacus, col. 2898. 85 Francis C. Burkitt, Euphemia and the Goth: with the Acts of martyrdom of the confessors of Edessa (London: 1913; repr. Amsterdam: 1981), 90. 86 For related Jewish names, see Tan Ilan, Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity. Part I. Palestine 330 BCE – 200 CE (Tübingen: 2002), 203-4. 79

A 'GIFT' IN SYRIAC: A MOSAIC FROM OSRHOENE

49

ossuary from Jerusalem (1st cent. B.C.E./C.E.: CIIP § 274). It is also attested in Palmyra 87 and at Dura Europos. 88 It does not appear elsewhere in early Syriac inscriptions and parchments, but BL Add. 14,663 f. 6b refers to the monastery of ‫ܡܪܝ ܥܩܝܒܐ‬. 89 Derivatives of the same root, ʿQB, meaning ‘protect’, which Jean-Baptiste Yon describes as “très productive” in the Upper Mesopotamian naming tradition, appear: in the name of a citizen of Marcopolis/Charax Sidou, šmšʿqb, in P. Euphr. 18: v, 10, 16, in the Greek name Ἀκιβσιμα, which appears both in a newly discovered Greek inscription from Edessa, 90 and as Ἀκεψύμα in an inscription of 359/60 from Nisibis. 91 ʿAqebšimā (ʿqbšmʾ) was also the name of a bishop of Adiabene. 92 The name Zeʿūrtā is also unique, though a similar masculine name-form does occur: Zeʿūrā appearing twice in newly discovered Syriac inscriptions from the Kızılkoyun necropolis in Edessa, one of these being a Greek/Syriac bilingual where the name appears as Ζοώρα in the Greek. 93 Zeʿūrā occurs also in later Syriac literature: Abgar bar Zᵉʿūrā in The Martyrdom of Šᵉmūnā and Gūryā. 94 Another Zᵉʿūrā, a stylite, is the subject one of John of Ephesus’ Lives of the Eastern Saints. 95 It appears also in the name of the church of Mār Zᵉʿūrā in Amīdā in the Chronicle of Zuqnīn 96 and of a monastery near Suruç called Bēt Mār Zᵉʿūrā, the residence of the obscure 8th/9th cent. Yūḥanān the Stylite. 97 Both the male and female forms of the name derive from the 178F

Jürgen K. Stark, Personal Names in Palmyrene Inscriptions (Oxford: 1971), 45. Giulia F. Grassi, Semitic Onomastics from Dura Europos: the names in Greek script and from Latin epigraphs (Padua: 2012), 134: Ἀκειβας. Note especially the recent discussion of JeanBaptiste Yon, Histoire par les noms. Histoire et onomastique, de la Palmyrène à la Haute Mésopotamie romaines (Beirut: 2018), 84–8. 89 William Wright, Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum I-III (London: 1870– 2), DCCLI. 90 Uludag and Önal, “Edessa, Kale Eteği Mozaikleri”, 1225, no.1; Çetin et al., “New Inscriptions in Aramaic/Early Syriac and Greek from the Cemeteries of Edessa”, 133–6. 91 Filippo Canali De Rossi, Iscrizioni dello Estremo Oriente Greco: un repertorio [Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 65] (Bonn: 2004), no. 62; Jacques Jarry, “Inscriptions syriaques et arabes inédites du Ṭūr ʿAbdīn”, Annales Islamologiques 10 (1972), 242–3, no. 74; Elif Keser-Kayaalp and Nihat Erdoğan, “The Cathedral Complex at Nisibis”, Anatolian Studies 63 (2013), 147–8. 92 Acta martyrum et sanctorum II, Paul Bedjan, ed. (Paris/Leipzig: 1891), 351–96; Jean-Maurice Fiey, Saints syriaques [ed. Lawrence I. Conrad] (Princeton, NJ: 2004), 36. 93 Çetin et al., “New Inscriptions in Aramaic/Early Syriac and Greek from the Cemeteries of Edessa”, 122–31. 94 Burkitt, Euphemia and the Goth, 90; Yon, Histoire par les noms, 186. 95 Ernest W. Brooks, “John of Ephesus. Lives of the Eastern Saints (I)” in Patrologia Orientalis 17 (I), René Graffin and François Nau, eds (Paris: 1923), 18–35; Fiey, Saints syriaques, 198. 96 Jean-Baptiste Chabot, Incerti auctoris Chronicon Pseudo-Dionysianum vulgo dictum II, (Paris/Louvain: 1933), 151–2. 97 François Nau, “Opuscules maronites (suite)”, Revue de l’Orient Chrétien 4 (1899), 332–5; Robert G. Hoyland, Seeing Islam as Others Saw It: a survey and evaluation of Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian writings on early Islam (Princeton, NJ: 1997), 516–7. 87 88

50

JOHN HEALEY AND CLAUDIA GIOIA

root ZʿR and are in origin adjectives meaning ‘little’. 98 The same root appears also in other branches of Aramaic (Elephantine, Nabataean, Jewish Palestinian, Christian Palestinian). 99 As noted by Jean-Baptiste Yon, some names could be borne by both Christians and pagans. 100 Despite the date of 243 C.E., there is nothing in this mosaic to suggest that its sponsor was a Christian. One might leave comment on religion at that, but an interesting phenomenon has emerged in the early Syriac inscriptions which have been published more recently in that in several cases there is considerable continuity in the use of funerary formulae during the transition from paganism to Christianity. Christians used these formulas, their faith being indicated by the appearance of Christian crosses, whether in the mosaics or on architectural elements such as lintels (chi-rho symbols), even when there are no Christian details in the inscription or Christian onomastica. 101 Often the personal names are neutral (see Yon on Zeʿūrā above) and not typical within the Biblical and Christian traditions. Some ‘pagan’ names also persisted in use until much later. 102 The possibility that this mosaic might have been commissioned by a Jew or a Christian cannot, therefore, be totally excluded. If such were the case, it would not be difficult to account for the concept of ‘gifts (of God)’ appearing in a tomb mosaic. The idea of God’s gifts appears in a fourth/fifth century Jewish (or ‘god-fearer’) inscription from Aphrodisias (ἐκ τῶν τοῦ θεοῦ δομάτων: SEG 37.851) 103 and has its origin in the New Testament itself (Acts 10: 45 and 11: 17 [ἡ δωρεὰ τοῦ πνεύματος]; Eph. 4: 8 [ἔδωκεν δόματα τοῖς ἀνθρώποῖς], alluding to Ps. 68: 18. See also Matt. 7: 11; Luke 11: 13; Eph. 2: 8). 104 In due course explicitly Christian formulae appear, alongside a mixture of pagan and recognizably Christian personal names. There is also good evidence that family tomb-complexes were used over several generations, later generations adopting Christian symbolism and formulae, as well as Christian names, while the tombs

Payne Smith, Thesaurus Syriacus, cols 1144–5. Hoftijzer and Jongeling, Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions, 337–8. 100 Yon, Histoire par les noms, 215. 101 See Çetin et al, “New Inscriptions in Aramaic/Early Syriac and Greek from the Cemeteries of Edessa”, 138. 102 Holger Preissler, “Altsyrische heidnische Namen in der frühen syrischen Literatur”, Klio 71 (1989), 503-7; Amir Harrak, “Pagan Traces in Syriac Christian Onomastica” in Contacts between Cultures: West Asia and North Africa: Selected Papers from the 33rd International Congress of Asian and North African Studies, Toronto, August 15–25, 1990, Amir Harrak, ed. (Lewiston, NY: 1992), 318-23. 103 Joyce Reynolds and Robert Tannenbaum, Jews and Godfearers at Aphrodisias (Cambridge: 1987), app. 9. 104 For broader discussions of gifts and gift-giving in the ancient world see Michael L. Satlow, (ed.), The Gift in Antiquity (Malden, MA/Oxford: 2013) where he applies the ideas of sociologist Marcel Mauss, The Gift: the form and reason for exchange in archaic societies (London: 1990, original 1925). For Pauline literature, John M. G. Barclay, Paul and the Gift (Grand Rapids, MI: 2015). 98 99

A 'GIFT' IN SYRIAC: A MOSAIC FROM OSRHOENE

51

themselves continue to be of traditional pagan style. This is not the place to pursue these facts in detail, but they suggest an interesting scenario in early Edessa and its region, a scenario in which there was, at least in some aspects of life which are usually viewed by modern scholars as religious, such as burial practices and the sentiments expressed in associated texts, no radical ‘parting of the ways’ between paganism and Christianity. It is by no means easy to be sure whether a tomb like the one under discussion here was owned by a Christian, whether this Abgar was a convert as his famous namesake is supposed to have been. Undoubtedly there were Christians in the area by the mid third century, but they may not be very visible in epigraphy or in funerary practices.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The ‘Gift’ mosaic, found between Suruç (Serūḡ) and Edessa, is a reminder that Edessan culture and the ‘Edessan’ dialect of Aramaic were not limited to the city itself either during the pagan period or after the arrival of Christianity. Quite apart from the ‘stray’ early Syriac inscriptions on objects found as far afield as the Rhineland, there are inscriptions which can be relied upon as a guide to the extent of the use of this form of Aramaic beyond Edessa itself: to the west as far as Apamaea and Birecik/Birthā on the Euphrates, to the south from Ḥarrān to Tall Masʿūdiyyah, Serrīn and Tall al-Maǧārah in Syria, as well as to the east at Sumatar Harabesi. Many of these are found in fixed installations such as tombs and must reflect the language situation and élite culture in the local area. So far as portable documents are concerned, apart from P. Dura 28, a slave-sale that was found at Dura Europos but was written in Edessa, P. Euphr. 10, a Greek legal text with a Syriac subscription, was drawn up at Ḥarrān. P. Euphr. 6-7, written in Greek, but with a Syriac subscription and P. Euphr. 18 and 19, two documents wholly in Syriac, were drawn up in Hayklā deṢaydā/Marcopolis, undoubtedly close to, if not identical with, Suruç/Serūḡ. These documents collectively present a mosaic(!) of evidence of the use of Syriac throughout Osrhoene in the first three centuries C.E. As for the ‘Gift’ mosaic itself, it echoes painted vaults and ceilings in its colours and pattern; in general it reflects the style and taste in composition and ornaments of mosaic decoration of the 3rd century C.E. and finds close comparisons with mosaics from the western part of the Empire. It seems to be one of the oldest examples of the centralized pattern with vegetal pyramids along the diagonals so widespread in the following centuries. Presumably its patrons played some role in the choice of theme and composition, which are unusual for the (so far known) Edessan funerary production. 105 It would not be surprising, as discoveries continue, to find that the circulation of motifs was much more intense between East and West than we have come to expect and that, alongside the specific local traditions which are familiar to us from

‘Standard’ schemes consist of family portraits (full-length figures or busts), banqueting scenes, mythological subjects or geometric patterns covering the entire surface of the pavement. 105

52

JOHN HEALEY AND CLAUDIA GIOIA

the Edessan tomb mosaics (typically the ‘family portrait’ model), there also existed in this region other traditions which shared in the main trends of the Empire. 106

ABBREVIATIONS

Acta Apost. Apoc. = Wright 1871 Anecd. Syr. = Land 1868

CIIP = Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaeae/Palaestinae CIS = Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum Inv. = Inventaire des inscriptions de Palmyre PAT = Hillers and Cussini 1996 SEG = Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abadie-Reynal, Catherine, Rifat Ergeç, Eyüp Bucak et al., “Zeugma-moyenne vallée de l’Euphrate: rapport préliminaire de la campagne de fouilles de 1998”, Anatolia Antiqua 7 (1999), 311–66. Abdallah, Komait, Alain Desreumaux and Mohamad al-Kaid. “Nouvelles mosaïques d’Osrhoène découvertes in situ en Syrie du nord/Suriye’nin Kuzeyinde in situ Yeni Osrhoene Mozaikleri”, Journal of Mosaic Research 13 (2020), 1–34. Aggoula, Basile. Inscriptions et graffites araméens d’Assour [Annali dell’Istituto Universitario Orientale Supplement 43] (Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale, 1985). Aubert, Marie-France and Robert Cortopassi. Portraits de l’Égypte romaine (Paris: Réunion des musées nationaux, 1998). Balmelle, Catherine. Recueil Général des mosaïques de la Gaule, Province d’Aquitaine, 1. Partie méridionale. Piémont pyrénéen [Gallia Suppléments 10] (Paris: Centre national de la recherche scientifique, 1980). Balmelle, Catherine, Michèle Blanchard-Lemée, Jean-Pierre Darmon, Suzanne Gozlan and Marie-Pat Raynaud, with the collaboration of Véronique Blanc-Bijon and Jeannine Christophe. Le décor géométrique de la mosaïque romaine. II, Répertoire graphique et descriptif des décors centrés (Paris: Picard, 2002).

As the mosaics with mythological and epic subjects in part already testify, together with the ‘Gift’ mosaic and other recent discoveries in Osrhoene (Abdallah et al., “Nouvelles mosaïques d’Osrhoène”). 106

A 'GIFT' IN SYRIAC: A MOSAIC FROM OSRHOENE

53

Balmelle, Catherine, Richard Prudhomme, Michèle Blanchard-Lemée, and Jeannine Christophe. Le décor géométrique de la mosaïque romaine: répertoire graphique et descriptif des compositions linéaires et isotropes (Paris: Picard, 1985). Balty, Janine. Mosaïques antiques du Proche-Orient [Centre de Recherches d’Histoire Ancienne 140] (Paris: Diffusion, Les Belles Lettres, 1995). Balty, Janine and Françoise Briquel Chatonnet. “Nouvelles mosaïques inscrites d’Osrhoène”, Monuments et mémoires de la Fondation Eugène Piot 79 (2000), 31– 72. Balty, Jean-Charles. “Palmyre entre Orient et Occident: acculturation et résistances”, Annales archéologiques arabes syriennes 42 (1996), 437–41. Barbet, Alix. “Les décors centrés en mosaïque et leur écho en peinture murale”, Revue Archéologique 36:2 (2003), 319–30. —— Coupoles, voûtes et plafonds peints d’époque romaine. Ier-IVe siècle apr. J.-C. (Paris: Hermann Éditeurs 2021). Barclay, John M. G. Paul and the Gift (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2015). Becatti, Giovanni. Scavi di Ostia IV. Mosaici e pavimenti marmorei, (Rome: Istituto poligrafico dello Stato, 1961). Bedjan, Paul, ed. Acta martyrum et sanctorum II (Paris/Leipzig: Harrassowitz, 1891). Ben Abed, Aïcha. “Une mosaïque à pyramides végétales de Pupput” in Mosaïque: recueil d’hommages à Henri Stern, René Ginouvès, Catherine Balmelle et. al. eds (Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les civilisations,1983), 61–4, pl. XLII–XLV. Bisconti, Fabrizio and Matteo Braconi, eds, Le catacombe di San Callisto. Storia, contesti, scavi, restauri, scoperte. A proposito del cubicolo di Orfeo e del Museo della Torretta [Ricerche di archeologia e antichità cristiane 7] (Pian di Porto: Tau Editrice, 2015). Blake, Marion E., “Roman Mosaics of the Second Century in Italy”, Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 13 (1936), 67–214. —— “Mosaics of the Late Empire in Rome and Vicinity”, Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 17 (1940), 81–130. Borhy, Lázló, “Horae, Andromeda und Pegasos: Die Kosmologie des Deckengemäldes aus Brigetio (FO: Komárom/Szőny-Vásartér)” in Plafonds et voûtes à l’époque antique: actes du VIIIe Colloque International de l’Association International pour la Peinture Murale antique (AIPMA), 15–19 mai 2001 Budapest-Vesprém, Lázló Borhy, ed. (Budapest: Pytheas, 2004), 233–44. Brock, Sebastian P. “Edessene Syriac inscriptions in late antique Syria” in From Hellenism to Islam: cultural and linguistic change in the Roman Near East, Hannah M. Cotton et al., eds (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 289–302.

54

JOHN HEALEY AND CLAUDIA GIOIA

—— “Dating Formulae in Syriac Inscriptions and Manuscripts of the 5th and 6th Centuries” in From Ugarit to Nabataea: studies in honor of John F. Healey, George A. Kiraz and Zeyad al-Salameen, eds [Gorgias Ugaritic Studies 6] (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2012), 85–106. Brooks, Ernest W. “John of Ephesus. Lives of the Eastern Saints (I)” in Patrologia Orientalis 17 (I), René Graffin and François Nau, eds (Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1923). Burkitt, Francis C. Euphemia and the Goth: with the Acts of martyrdom of the confessors of Edessa, Text and Translation Society, London 2 (London: Williams and Norgate, 1913; repr. Amsterdam: Philo Press, 1981). Caillou, Jean-Sylvain and Simon Brelaud. “L’ère de la libération d’Édesse”, Syria 93 (2016), 321–38. Can, Birol. “Ancient Mosaics: symbolism and personification”, Actual Archaeology Anatolia 14 (2015), 40–5. Canali De Rossi, Filippo. Iscrizioni dello Estremo Oriente Greco: un repertorio, Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 65 [Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften; Nordrhein-Westfälische Akademie der Wissenschaften] (Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt GMBH, 2004). Çetin, Bekir, Müslüm Demir, Alain Desreumaux, John Healey and Peter Liddel. “New Inscriptions in Aramaic/Early Syriac and Greek from the Cemeteries of Edessa”, Anatolia Antiqua 28 (2020), 119–41. Chabot, Jean-Baptiste. Incerti auctoris Chronicon Pseudo-Dionysianum vulgo dictum II [CSCO 104, Script. Syri. 53] (Paris/Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1933). Cianfriglia, Laura. “Roma. Via Portuense, angolo via G. Belluzzo—Indagine su alcuni resti di monumenti sepolcrali”, Atti della Accademia nazionale dei Lincei. Notizie degli scavi di antichità 40 (1986–7), 37–154. Ciccarello, Giulia. “La Domus affrescata di Via Marcella all’Aventino. Lettura ed interpretazione” in Nuovi dati per la conoscenza della pittura antica. Atti del I colloquio dell’Associazione Italiana Ricerche Pittura Antica, Aquileia 16–17 giugno 2017, Monica Salvadori, Francesca Fagioli et. al., eds (Rome: Associazione Italiana Ricerche Pittura Antica, 2019), 159–70. Cimok, Fatih. Antioch mosaics: a corpus (Istanbul: A Turizm Yayinlari, 2000). Colledge, Malcolm A. R. The Art of Palmyra (London: Thames and Hudson, 1976). —— “Some remarks on the Edessa Funerary Mosaics” in La mosaïque gréco-romaine IV. Actes du IVe Colloque International pour l’Étude de la Mosaïque Antique, Trêves, 8–14 Août 1984, Jean-Pierre Darmon and Alain Rebourg, eds (Paris: Association internationale pour l’étude de la mosaïque antique, 1994), 189–97.

A 'GIFT' IN SYRIAC: A MOSAIC FROM OSRHOENE

55

Darmon, Jean-Pierre. “En guise de conclusion. Propositions pour une sémantique des xenia” in Recherches franco-tunisiennes sur la mosaïque de l’Afrique antique. I, Xenia, Catherine Balmelle, Aïcha Ben Abed-Ben Khader et al., eds [Collection de l’École française de Rome, 125. Recherches d’archéologie africaine] (Rome: École française de Rome, 1990), 107–112. Desreumaux, Alain and Mehmet Önal. “The Translation of Syriac Inscription(s) of New Mosaics found in Şanlıurfa” in Urfa-Edessa Mozaikleri, Mehmet Önal, ed. (Şanlıurfa: Şanlıurfa Büyükşehir Belediyesi, 2017), 132–41. Downey, Glanville. “Personifications of Abstract Ideas in the Antioch Mosaics”, Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 69 (1938), 349–63. Drijvers, Han J. W. “Afterlife and Funerary Symbolism in Palmyrene Religion” in La soteriologia dei culti orientali nell’Impero Romano. Atti del Colloquio Internazionale su La soteriologia dei culti orientali nell’Impero Romano, Roma 24–28 settembre 1979, Ugo Bianchi and Maarten Vermaseren, eds [Études préliminaires aux religions orientales dans l’Empire romain 92] (Leiden: Brill, 1982), 709–33. Drijvers, Han J. W. and John F. Healey. The Old Syriac Inscriptions of Edessa and Osrhoene: texts, translations and commentary [Handbuch der Orientalistik I/42] (Leiden: Brill, 1999). Dunbabin, Katherine M. The Mosaics of Roman North Africa: studies in iconography and patronage (Oxford/New York: Clarendon Press, 1978). —— Mosaics of the Greek and Roman World (Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999). Duval, Rubens. Traité de grammaire syriaque (Paris: F. Vieweg, 1881). Ennaifer, Mongi and Alain Rebourg, eds. La mosaïque antique gréco-romaine VII: VIIe colloque international pour l’étude de la mosaïque antique (Tunis: Institut Nationale de Patrimoine, 1999). Falzone, Stella. Ornata Aedificia. Pitture parietali dalle case ostiensi (Rome: Istituto Poligrafico dello Stato, 2007). —

“La pittura parietale: caratteri e contenuti” in Roma Universalis. I Severi: l’impero e la dinastia venuta dall’Africa. Catalogo della Mostra (Roma, 15 novembre 2018– 25 agosto 2019), Clementina Panella, Rossella Rea and Alessandro D’Alessio, eds (Milan: Electa, 2018), 116–9.

Falzone, Stella and Claudia Gioia. “Gli intonaci e gli stucchi della Villa della Piscina di Centocelle: qualità degli arredi pittorici di un complesso suburbano tra I e III sec. d. C.” in Pitture frammentarie di epoca romana da Roma e dal Lazio: nuove ricerche (Roma, 6 giugno 2016), Stella Falzone, and Marco Galli, eds [= Scienze dell’Antichità 25.2] (Rome: Edizioni Quasar, 2019), 87–96.

56

JOHN HEALEY AND CLAUDIA GIOIA

Falzone, Stella and Angelo Pellegrino. Scavi di Ostia XV, Insula delle ierodule (c.d. Casa di Lucceia primitiva: III, IX, 6) (Rome: Il Cigno GG Edizioni, 2014). Ferri, Giovanna. “Il cubicolo di Orfeo: la trama geometrica. Suddivisione programmata dello spazio e motivi decorativi” in Le catacombe di San Callisto. Storia, contesti, scavi, restauri, scoperte. A proposito del cubicolo di Orfeo e del Museo della Torretta, Fabrizio Bisconti and Matteo Braconi, eds [Ricerche di archeologia e antichità cristiane 7] (Pian di Porto: Tau editrice, 2015), 125–40. Ferrua, Antonio. Catacombe sconosciute: una pinacoteca del IV secolo sotto la Via Latina (Florence: Nardini, 1990). Fiey, Jean-Maurice. Saints syriaques, Lawrence I Conrad, ed. [Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islam 6] (Princeton, NJ: Darwin, 2004). Fradkin, Arlene. “Animal Figures in the Basilical Building Mosaics at Roman Sepphoris, Lower Galilee, Israel”, Near Eastern Archaeology 62 (1999), 233–9. Germain, Suzanne. Les Mosaïques de Timgad. Étude descriptive et analytique (Paris: Éditions du Centre National de la Recherche, 1969). Grandi, Monica and Paola Chini. “Osservazioni sul repertorio del mosaico bianco e nero di II–III secolo a Roma” in La mosaïque gréco-romaine IX, (Actes du IXe Colloque international pour l’étude de la mosaïque antique et médiévale organisé à Rome, 5-10 novembre 2001), Hélène Molier, ed. (Rome: 2005), 55–65. Grassi, Giulia F. Semitic Onomastics from Dura Europos: the names in Greek script and from Latin epigraphs, History of the Ancient Near East Monographs 12 (Padua: Sargon, 2012). Güler, Selahattin E. Şanlıurfa Yazitları (Grekce, Ermenice ve Süryanice) (Istanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları, 2014). Hadji, Karim. “La mosaïque d’El-Akbia retrouvée à El-Milia”, Aouras 8 (2014), 257– 67. Hanoune, Roger. “Le dossier des xenia et la mosaïque” in Recherches franco-tunisiennes sur la mosaïque de l'Afrique antique. I, Xenia, Catherine Balmelle, Aïcha Ben Abed-Ben Khader et al., eds [Collection de l’École française de Rome, 125. Recherches d’archéologie africaine] (Rome: École française de Rome, 1990), 7–13. Harrak, Amir. “Pagan Traces in Syriac Christian Onomastica” in Contacts between Cultures: West Asia and North Africa: Selected Papers from the 33rd International Congress of Asian and North African Studies, Toronto, August 15–25, 1990, Amir Harrak, ed. (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellon Press, 1992), 318–23. Harsányi, Eszter and Zsófia Kurovszky. “Traces of geometric construction on the second century A.D. Roman ceiling composition of Komárom/Szőny-Vásártér” in Plafonds et voûtes à l’époque antique: actes du VIIIe Colloque International de l’Association International pour la Peinture Murale antique (AIPMA), 15–19 mai 2001 Budapest-Vesprém, Lázló Borhy, ed. (Budapest: Pytheas, 2004), 245–53.

A 'GIFT' IN SYRIAC: A MOSAIC FROM OSRHOENE

57

Healey, John F. The Nabataean Tomb Inscriptions of Mada’in Salih, [Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement 1] (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993). —— “A New Syriac Mosaic Inscription”, Journal of Semitic Studies 51 (2006), 313– 27. Hillers, Delbert R. and Eleanora Cussini. Palmyrene Aramaic Texts (Baltimore, MD/London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996). Hoftijzer, Jacob and Karel Jongeling. Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions [Handbuch der Orientalistik I/21.1-2] (Leiden/New York: Brill, 1995). Hoyland, Robert G. Seeing Islam as Others Saw It: a survey and evaluation of Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian writings on early Islam [Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islam 13] (Princeton, NJ: Darwin Press, 1997). Ilan, Tal. Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity. Part I. Palestine 330 BCE–200 CE [Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 91] (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002). Jarry, Jacques. “Inscriptions syriaques et arabes inédites du Ṭūr ʿAbdīn”, Annales Islamologiques 10 (1972), 207–50. Jeddi, Nabiha. “Les mosaïques de la Maison de Vénus à Dougga” in La mosaïque antique gréco-romaine VII: VIIe colloque international pour l’étude de la mosaïque antique, Mongi Ennaifer and Alain Rebourg, eds (Tunis: Institut Nationale de Patrimoine, 1999), 211–232, pls LXXXVIII–XCIII. Karabulut, Hasan, Mehmet Önal and Nedim Dervişoğlu. Haleplibahçe Mozaikleri, Şanlıurfa/Edessa (Istanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları, 2011). Karaca, İbrahim H. and Mehmet S. Rızvanoğlu, eds. Urfa Mozaikleri Albümü (Mozaikler Şehri Urfa) (Şanlıurfa: T. C. Şanlıurfa Valiliği, İl Kültür ve Turizm Müdürlüğü, 2008). Keser-Kayaalp, Elif and Nihat Erdoğan. “The Cathedral Complex at Nisibis”, Anatolian Studies 63 (2013), 137–54. Kiraz, George A. “Old Syriac Graphotactics”, Journal of Semitic Studies 57 (2012), 231–64. Kugener, Marc A. “Une inscription syriaque de Biredjik”, Rivista degli Studi Orientali 1 (1907), 587–94. Land, Jan P. N. Anecdota Syriaca quot adhuc inedita supererant II (Leiden: Brill, 1868). Lavin, Irving. “The hunting mosaics of Antioch and their sources”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 17 (1963), 179–286. Leader-Newby, Ruth. “Personifications and paideia in Late Antique mosaics from the Greek East” in Personification in the Greek World: from Antiquity to Byzantium, Emma Stafford and Judith Herrin, eds [Centre for Hellenic Studies, King’s College London Publications 7] (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005), 231–46.

58

JOHN HEALEY AND CLAUDIA GIOIA

—— “Inscribed mosaics in the late Roman Empire: perspectives from east and west” in Art and Inscriptions in the Ancient World, Zahra Newby and Ruth LeaderNewby, eds (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 179–99. Leperlier, Marjorie. “Les peintures fragmentaires de la place Abbé-Larue à Lyon (5e): plafond et parois—étude préliminaire” in Peintures et stucs d’époque romaine: études toichographologiques: actes du 28e colloque de l’AFPMA, Paris, 20 et 21 novembre 2015 [Pictor 6] (Bordeaux: Ausonius Éditions, 2017), 39–54. Levi, Doro. Antioch Mosaic Pavements (Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 1971). Liverani, Paolo and Klaus Werner. “Roma. Il mosaico con scena bacchica da S. Rocco. Contesto e inquadramento” in Atti del III Colloquio dell’Associazione italiana per lo studio e la conservazione del mosaico (Roma, 6–10 dicembre 1995) (Bordighera: Istituto Internazionale di Studi Liguri, 1996), 523–32. Luther, Andreas. “Osrohener am Niederrhein. Drei altsyrische Graffiti aus KrefeldGellep (und andere frühe altsyrische Schriftzeugnisse)”, Marburger Beiträge zur antiken Handels-, Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte 27 (2009, published in 2010), 11–30. Mañanes, Tomás. “El acanto en el mosaico romano de Hispania” in La mosaïque antique gréco-romaine VII: VIIe colloque international pour l’étude de la mosaïque antique, Mongi Ennaifer and Alain Rebourg, eds (Tunis: Institut Nationale de Patrimoine, 1999), 557–74. Maricq, André. (edited posthumously by Jacqueline Pirenne and Paul Devos). “La plus ancienne inscription syriaque: celle de Birecik”, Syria 39 (1962), 88–100. Marinescu, Constantin A., Sarah E. Cox and Rudolf Wachter. “Walking and Talking among Us: Personifications in a Group of a Late Antique Mosaics” in La mosaïque gréco-romaine IX (Actes du IXe Colloque international pour l’étude de la mosaïque antique et médiévale organisé à Rome, 5–10 novembre 2001), Hélène Morlier, ed. (Rome: École française de Rome, 2005), 1269–77. Mauss, Marcel. The Gift: the form and reason for exchange in archaic societies (London: Routledge, 1990). Molholt, Rebecca. “Mosaic of a Women’s Funerary Banquet” in The Arts of Antioch: art historical and scientific approaches to Roman mosaics and a catalogue of the Worcester Art Museum Antioch Collection, Lawrence Becker and Christine Kondoleon, eds (Worcester, MA: Worcester Art Museum, 2005), 196–207. Morretta, Simona and Rossella Rea. “Una nuova caserma alle pendici meridionali del Celio” in Roma Universalis. I Severi: l’impero e la dinastia venuta dall’Africa. Catalogo della Mostra (Roma, 15 novembre 2018–25 agosto 2019), Clementina Panella et al., eds (Milan: Electa, 2018), 190–9. Musche, Brigitte. Vorderasiatischer Schmuck zur Zeit der Arsakiden und der Sasaniden [Handbuch der Orientalistik VII/1, 2, B, 5] (Leiden: Brill, 1988).

A 'GIFT' IN SYRIAC: A MOSAIC FROM OSRHOENE

59

Nau, François. “Opuscules maronites (suite)”, Revue de l’Orient Chrétien 4 (1899), 318–53. Negev, Avraham. “A Nabatean Epitaph from Trans-Jordan”, Israel Exploration Journal 21 (1971), 50–2. Önal, Mehmet. Zeugma Mosaics: a corpus (Istanbul: A Turizm Yayınları, 2009). —— Urfa-Edessa Mozaikleri (Şanlıurfa: Şanliurfa Büyükşehir Belediyesi, 2017). Önal, Mehmet and Alain Desreumaux. “The Fragment of [a] Woman[’s] Statue with Syriac Inscription [which] was found in Harran Excavation” in Harran ve Çevresi: Arkeoloji, Mehmet Önal, Süheyla Mutlu and Semih Mutlu, eds (Şanlıurfa: 2019), 241–9. Önal, Mehmet, Müslüm Ercan, Alain Desreumaux and Nedim Dervişoğlu. “Restore Edilen İki Adet Edessa Mosaiği 2011 / Two Edessa Mosaics which were restored in 2011”, Journal of Mosaic Research 6 (2013), 9–21. Paolucci, Giovanna. “San Severo, Sacello B, tessellato con piramidi vegetali” in TESS–scheda 13518 (2013) (http://tess.beniculturali.unipd.it/web/scheda/?recid=13518). Paris, Rita and Maria T. Di Sarcina, eds. Museo nazionale romano Palazzo Massimo alle Terme: i mosaici (Milan: Electa, 2012). Payne Smith, Robert Thesaurus Syriacus, 2 vols (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1879– 1901). Pirzio Biroli Stefanelli, Lucia. L’argento dei Romani. Vasellame da tavola e d’apparato (Rome: L'Erma di Bretschneider, 1991). Preissler, Holger. “Altsyrische heidnische Namen in der frühen syrischen Literatur”, Klio 71 (1989), 503–7. Redaelli, Sara. “Rappresentazioni di xenia nei mosaici romani dei principali centri della Byzacena” in L’Africa romana. Trasformazione dei paesaggi del potere nell’Africa settentrionale fino alla fine del mondo antico: atti del XIX convegno di studio, Sassari, 16–19 dicembre 2010, Maria B. Cocco, Alberto Gavini and Antonio Ibba, eds (Rome: Carocci, 2012), 2549–66. Reynolds, Joyce and Robert Tannenbaum. Jews and Godfearers at Aphrodisias [Cambridge Philological Society Supplementary Vol. 12] (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987). Rumscheid, Jutta. “Mosaiken aus Grabanlagen in Edessa”, Kölner und Bonner Archaeologica 3 (2013), 109–32. Sachau, Eduard. “Edessenische Inschriften”, Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft 36 (1882), 142–67. Sadurska, Anna and Adnan al-Bounni. Les sculptures funéraires de Palmyre [Supplementi alla RdA 13] (Rome: G. Bretschneider, 1994).

60

JOHN HEALEY AND CLAUDIA GIOIA

Salman, Barış. “Family, Death and Afterlife According to Mosaics of the Abgar Royal Period in the Region of Osroene”, Journal of Mosaic Research 1-2 (2008), 103– 115. Satlow, Michael L., ed. The Gift in Antiquity (Malden, MA/Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2013). Segal, Judah B. Edessa: ‘The Blessed City’ (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970). Smith, Amy C. “Personification: Not Just a Symbolic Mode” in A Companion to Greek Art, Tyler J. Smith, and Dimitris Plantzos, eds (Malden, MA/Oxford: WileyBlackwell, 2012), 440–55. Stark, Jürgen K. Personal Names in Palmyrene Inscriptions (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971). Tortorella, Stefano. “Riflessioni sui temi della pittura funeraria romana” in Circulación de temas y sistemas decorativos en la pintura mural antigua. Actas del IX Congreso Internacional de la Association Internationale pour la Peinture Murale Antique, Zaragoza-Calatayud, 21–25 septiembre 2004, Carmen Guiral Pelegrín, ed. (Zaragoza: Gobierno de Aragón, Departamento de Política Territorial, Justicia e Interior; Calatayud: UNED, Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia, 2007), 103–12. Uludağ, Celal and Mehmet Önal. “Edessa, Kale Eteği Mozaikleri” in Urfa-Edessa Mozaikleri, Mehmet Önal, ed. (Şanlıurfa: Şanliurfa Büyükşehir Belediyesi, 2017), 116–25. Wilpert, Josef. Le pitture delle catacombe Romane, illustrate da Giuseppe Wilpert, Roma sotterranea (Rome: Desclée, Lefebvre, 1903). Wright, William. Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum I-III (London: Longmans, 1870–72). —— Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles edited from Syriac manuscripts in the British Museum and other libraries I-II (London/Edinburgh: Williams & Norgate, 1871). Yon, Jean-Baptiste. Palmyre: inscriptions grecques et latines de la Syrie. 17 fascicule 1 [Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 195] (Beirut: Institut français du Proche-Orient, Damas, 2012). —— Histoire par les noms. Histoire et onomastique, de la Palmyrène à la Haute Mésopotamie romaines [Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 212] (Beirut: Institut français du Proche-Orient 2018).

AL-QĀSIM IBN IBRĀHĪM AL-RASSĪ AND CHRISTIAN-MUSLIM RELATIONS IN THE NINTH CENTURY DAVID THOMAS ∗

(UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM) The history of Christian-Muslim relations is characterised by numerous works that lack sincerity in their approach to the other or their understanding of them. They often show scant respect for the other faith, insufficient knowledge of its beliefs to address it properly, or inability to see that it is different in character and not merely a mistaken or incomplete version of themselves. But there are exceptions, particularly from the first centuries of encounter when both Christians and Muslims employed the same rational terminology and methods of argument. Some of the earliest surviving Muslim works against Christians are among the most cogent in their demonstrations of the weaknesses in the doctrines of the other. These are based on remarkably thorough and detailed expositions of fundamental Christian doctrines, building up searchingly detailed cases that Christians could not ignore. Here, three of the ninth-century masters of debate are discussed and the exposition of the major Christian doctrines composed by the earliest of them, al-Qāsim ibn Ibrāhīm al Rassī, is presented for the first time in English translation. Research in the area of medieval Islamic texts can be a lone pursuit. So, the opportunity for collaboration came as warmly welcome when Rifaat Ebied offered this to me twenty years ago, introducing me to the first text we worked on together, Muḥammad ibn Abī Ṭālib alDimashqī’s Jawāb risālat ahl jazīrat Qubruṣ (‘Reply to the letter of the people of Cyprus’). Our editions and translations of this and the other two texts we have worked on, ʿAlī l-Ṭabarī’s Radd ʿalā l-Naṣāra (‘Refutation of the Christians’) and Kitāb al-dīn wa-l-dawla (‘The book of religion and empire’), involved us meeting, over the years, in Australia and the United Kingdom discussing draft editions and translations. We spent our days in pursuits that textual researchers value above everything else; they have been among the happiest and most fulfilling of my academic life. I am glad for this opportunity to thank Rif for them. I offer him in this small contribution this translation of a section from al-Qāsim ibn Ibrāhīm’s Kitāb al-radd ʿalā l-Naṣārā as a token of our friendship and a mark of my esteem for his scholarship.

∗

61

62

DAVID THOMAS

CHRISTIAN-MUSLIM POLEMICAL APPROACHES

Through the long history of Christian-Muslim relations there has been a constant flow of works written about the other faith or against it. This sizeable body of works attests to the fact that Christians and Muslims have consistently regarded one another as offshoots of their own faith, Christians seeing Islam as a heresy from the truth they hold and Muslims seeing Christianity as an irresponsible deviation from an original that they uniquely preserve. With their belief that Christ was the climax of revelation, Christians on principle could not accept Islam as authentic, while Muslims, with their Qurʾān-based belief that Jesus, a human messenger who denied divine sonship, brought a message of divine unity and predicted the coming of Muḥammad, could not square the Christianity they witnessed, heard and read about with the original that was referred to in their scripture. The core teachings of both faiths propelled them towards opposition on the level of doctrine (leading into armed confrontation) and towards endeavours to show not only that the other was wrong but also why this was so. Often, the written results of such attempts are frustratingly inconclusive because an author will start from premises loaded in favour of his own religious tradition. One of the most flagrant examples of this is the argument by the monk Paul of Antioch, Melkite Bishop of Sidon in one of the crusader states in the late twelfth century, that is entitled Letter to a Muslim friend, 1 though it is only friendly in appearances. In it, the bishop claims to show from the Qurʾān not only that the Bible is authentic scripture but also that Christian doctrines such as the Trinity and Incarnation are correct. In order to do this, he takes passages out of their contexts, interprets them in singular ways, and on occasion changes their wording. His whole procedure is based on the presupposition that Christianity alone is authentic, and the result is that the Qurʾān ceases to be a text with its own integrity because its meaning is only apparent when it is read in the light of the Bible. It is tempting to conclude that Paul, writing from the protection of a Christian enclave, did not intend to be taken seriously but only wanted to provoke. If so, he succeeded in full, because his letter gained notoriety among both Muslims and Christians, to the extent that about a century after it was written some unknown East Syriac Christians in Cyprus revised it in order to tone down its more offensive elements. Two leading Muslim scholars of the day in Damascus, Ibn Taymiyya († 1328 C.E.) and Ibn Abī Ṭālib al-Dimashqi († 1327 C.E.), wrote replies to this expurgated version that rank among the longest known Muslim treatises about Christianity. 2 There are many other works like this that take the other side less than seriously, whether Latin diatribes from the period of the Crusades in which Muḥammad is depicted as the dupe of a heretical monk, or Arabic Muslim explanations of the diversity

Paul Khoury, Paul d’Antioche, évêque melkite de Sidon (xiie s.) (Beirut: 1964), 59–83 (Arabic text), 169–87 (French trans.). 2 See Rifaat Ebied and David Thomas, eds and trans, Muslim-Christian Polemic during the Crusades, the Letter from the People of Cyprus and Ibn Abī Ṭālib’s Response (Leiden: 2005), 1–26. 1

AL-QĀSIM IBN IBRĀHĪM AL-RASSĪ AND CHRISTIAN-MUSLIM RELATIONS

63

among Christian denominations as the outcome of the Apostle Paul’s deliberate misrepresentations of teachings about the divinity and humanity of Christ to different followers, sometimes named Nestor, Jacob and Malkun to match the three denominations of Nestorians, Jacobites and Melkites.

MUSLIM THEOLOGICAL APPRAISALS OF CHRISTIANITY

In stark contrast to such portrayals, writers in the kalām tradition that can be traced from the ninth century onwards within the ʿAbbasid Empire appear to have been serious and systematic in their attempts to demonstrate the correctness of the Islamic portrayal of God and His relations with the world, and the incorrectness and simple confusion of the Christian portrayal. For them, it was a matter of appealing to impartial logic and, importantly, of basing arguments on authentic accounts of what Christians actually believed, in contrast to the method sometimes followed based on accounts in the Qurʾān of Christian beliefs. This was an approach to Christianity that seems to have produced arguments that were hard to answer, and that influenced Muslim writers on Christianity for centuries after they were first introduced. The ninth century was one of the most fertile periods in Muslim theological thinking, and certainly among the most influential. Mainly in the two leading cities of the ʿAbbasid heartlands, Baghdad the capital, and Baṣra the major southern seaport, questions raised by the Qurʾān about the nature of God and the implications of this for human moral responsibility were widely discussed. In the course of investigations, many theologians came to agree on the two principles that God was to be understood as one in the strictest sense, and that He was just in His relations with created humans (there were three other subsidiary principles as well). Many theologians involved in these investigations became known as Muʿtazila, a term derived from the verb iʿtazala, ‘to withdraw’, which was explained as originating from one early theologian’s action of withdrawing from the circle of a teacher with whom he disagreed. They called themselves the People of divine Unity and Justice (Ahl altawḥīd wa-l-ʿadl) after the two main principles they upheld. Importantly, they strongly advocated the use of reason in debate, even to the extent that opponents could accuse them of valuing reason above revelation. This was demonstrated in their metaphorical interpretations of Qurʾān verses that refer to the hands and eyes of God (e.g. 5:64, 20:39), and of His being seated on the throne (e.g. 20:5), so that they could maintain God’s uniqueness by distinguishing Him from humans (the matter of the Qurʾānic anthropomorphisms has remained a perennial problem among Muslim scholars). The importance of reason and logic was acknowledged by the great majority of serious scholars at this time, whether Muʿtazilī or not, both Muslim and Christian. It may well have been this that impelled almost every known Muslim theologian from

64

DAVID THOMAS

the ninth century to write works on the principle of tawḥīd and also against Christianity and other non-Muslim religions. 3 These two topics feature repeatedly in lists of works attributed to Muslim scholars in this period, and while it is not possible to know why scholars linked them in their minds because almost all the works by Muslim theologians from the ninth century have perished (it is regrettable, for example, that the ideas of the leading scholar among the Muʿtazila of Baṣra in the early decades of the century, Abū l-Hudhayl al-ʿAllāf (†. c. 840 C.E.), are only known from summaries and quotations in later authors, and that not a single work of his has survived), it can be supposed that the two topics were treated as connected. So, just as theologians argued the implications of tawḥīd, and thus, for example, strove to show that God could not be compared to any other being and was not internally composite, they also strove to show that only the Islamic account of the being and character of God conformed to reason. If this explanation of the connection between these two aspects of the activities of most rational theologians in the ninth century is plausible, it follows that refutation of non-Muslim religions should be, and probably was, pursued with as much energy and thoroughness as demonstrations of the distinctive Muslim principle of tawḥīd. The one activity supported the other, for if it could be shown satisfactorily that any alternative accounts of the nature of Divinity were rationally unviable then it must follow that the Islamic account alone was authentic. Followers of other religions would be compelled by their own rational dictates to abandon their beliefs and accept the Muslim way. It is worth remarking in passing that while the absence of evidence from the ninth century, apart from titles of lost works, means that these inferences can only be regarded as speculative, a degree of corroboration is granted by surviving treatises from the tenth century. In the huge compendium of theological questions by the Muʿtazilī scholar ʿAbd al-Jabbār al-Hamadhānī († 1025 C.E.) entitled Al-mughnī fī abwāb al-tawḥīḍ wa-l-ʿadl (‘The summa on topics of divine unity and justice’) the initial exposition of the internal and external oneness of God is followed immediately by long proofs that the doctrines of the dualists and Christians, both groups that were characterised by Muslims as holding beliefs about plural divinities, are not rationally sustainable. These were serious endeavours, understandably so because they affected the identity of Islam, and they contrasted with the polemical invective that characterised many other writings against Christianity and other religions. For comparison, it is worth reflecting that the stylist Abū ʿUthmān ʿAmr ibn Baḥr al-Jāḥiẓ († 869 C.E.), author of a diatribe against Christians in which he spitefully discredits their involvement in Islamic society, or the anonymous Christian known as ʿAbd al-Masīḥ alKindī, who sometime in the early ninth century wrote a scornful attack on Muḥammad and the Qurʾān, would very likely have known some of these lost works.

See David Thomas, ed. and trans., Anti-Christian Polemic in Early Islam, Abū ʿĪsā al-Warrāq’s ‘Against the Trinity’ (Cambridge: 1992), 31–50. 3

AL-QĀSIM IBN IBRĀHĪM AL-RASSĪ AND CHRISTIAN-MUSLIM RELATIONS

65

The seriousness of the approach to Christianity taken by many ninth-century Muslim theologians can be inferred from the handful of works that have survived from this time. It is most evident in the impressively thorough details they reveal about Christian doctrines. These go far beyond simple credal formulations or bald Qurʾānic quotations and are so full and detailed they even raise the possibility that their authors were interested in Christian beliefs and doctrines for their own sakes, far beyond the need to gather information for disputes about the coherence of doctrines. Three authors stand out in this respect, all of them intriguing because of what they knew and also frustrating because of their silence about the sources they used. The works of all three have suffered in transmission. Taking them in reverse chronological order (the reason for this will become apparent below), the latest is the Baghdad Muʿtazilī, Abū l-ʿAbbās ʿAbdallāh ibn Muḥammad al-Anbārī, who was known as Ibn Shirshīr and al-Nāshiʾ al-Akbar († 906 C.E.). In a now fragmentary work written before 893 C.E., probably entitled Fī lmaqālāt (‘On the teachings’), that was about the doctrines of the major religious groups of the time, both Muslim and non-Muslim, in the section on Christians he briefly describes the essentials of the doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation, and then goes on to summarise the main teachings of no fewer than twenty-three historical Christian sects, from the Angelics, Nicolaitans and Adamites, to the Apollinarians, Eutychians and Valentinians. 4 He is extremely accurate in what he writes, but he gives no hint about any source he used, at least not in the reduced version in which his work survives. There is no indication of what he intended to do with this list, and there is no stated reason for its inclusion. Furthermore, as far as can be told there is no trace of any work that could have been his source, though from the technical vocabulary he incorporates this must have been in written form. What can be learned from it is that information about numerous details of Christianity in both its contemporary and historical forms was available in the Islamic metropolis in the latter ninth century, and that al-Nāshiʾ and scholars like him were obviously seriously interested in it, even though they may not have found any polemical use for it. The same can be said about the second of the three Muslim scholars, who was also active in Baghdad, though a few decades earlier, the enigmatic figure of Abū ʿĪsā Muḥammad ibn Hārūn al-Warrāq († after 860 C.E.). He was probably active in the mid-ninth century and is said to have been a one-time Muʿtazilī who left the group, though whether he ever affiliated himself with any other thinkers is an open question. His criticisms against Muḥammad, the Qurʾān and ʿAlī, as well as works against Zoroastrians, Jews and Christians, 5 support the possibility that while he was a staunch monotheist and wrote against anyone who differed, he may have been more of a questioner about the faith claims of his day than someone who settled into

For the text and an English translation of this, see David Thomas, ed., Christian Doctrines in Islamic Theology (Leiden: 2008), 42–57. 5 See Thomas, Anti-Christian Polemic, 22–4. 4

66

DAVID THOMAS

accepted beliefs. He was regularly condemned as an atheist by later writers, 6 though for reasons that are not altogether clear. None of Abū ʿĪsā’s works survives intact, though fragments preserved by later writers attest to the breadth of his religious interests and also the depth of his researches into religious beliefs. This is clear from the most substantial of his surviving fragmentary works, which is quoted at length by the tenth-century Church of the East theologian Yaḥyā ibn ʿAdī (who also preserved the fragments from al-Nāshiʾ alAkbar’s Fī l-maqālāt). This is his Kitāb al-radd ʿalā l-thalāth firaq min al-Naṣārā (‘The book of refutation against the three sects of the Christians’), a comprehensive demonstration of the defects in the doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation held by the three main denominations in the Islamic Empire, who Abū ʿĪsā calls the Melkites, the Jacobites and the Nestorians. 7 He systematically takes their formulations one by one, subjects them to the most thorough rational analysis, and shows that they are incoherent and inconsistent. Some of his arguments were quoted or summarised for centuries after his death. While Abū ʿĪsā had no doubt that Christian doctrines could not be reconciled with true monotheism because they did not meet the standards of reason, he shows impeccable fairness—at least as he understands it—in his approach towards his opponents. He takes as the starting point for his arguments detailed accounts of the three denominations’ doctrines, which he sets out as an introduction to his work. An indication of the thoroughness of his approach is provided by his summaries of the three denominations’ accounts of the Trinity and the uniting of the divine and human natures in Christ. Here is part of what he says about their teachings on the Trinity: The Jacobites and Nestorians claim that the Eternal One is one substance (jawhar) and three hypostases (aqānīm), and that the hypostases are the one substance and the one substance is the hypostases. The Melkites, the people of the religion of the king of the Byzantines, claim that the Eternal One is one substance which possesses three hypostases, and that the hypostases are the substance but the substance is other than the hypostases, though they do not affirm that it is numerically a fourth to them. 8

Although this is schematised and abbreviated, it shows how careful Abū ʿĪsā is to distinguish the Melkites from the other two denominations. The same care is also evident in his summary of the teachings about the Incarnation:

See Thomas, Anti-Christian Polemic, 18–22. Thomas, Anti-Christian Polemic, also David Thomas, Early Muslim Polemic against Christianity, Abū ʿĪsā al-Warrāq’s ‘Against the Incarnation’ (Cambridge: 2002). 8 Thomas, Anti-Christian Polemic, 66–7. 6 7

AL-QĀSIM IBN IBRĀHĪM AL-RASSĪ AND CHRISTIAN-MUSLIM RELATIONS

67

Sometimes they interpret ‘It [the divine nature] united’ as ‘It became one’, and ‘uniting’ as ‘oneness’, 9 the meaning of the two words for them being the same, that one resulted from two. Sometimes they say ‘It became human’, some of them ‘It became flesh’, and others ‘It became composite’, thinking it easy enough to substitute ‘composition’ for ‘uniting’ because of the familiar usage of the term. They all agree that the expression ‘uniting’ is correct. They all quite agree that the Uniting was an act that occurred by which Christ became Christ. Then they differ over this act, what it was, the way it happened and how one could result from two. Some of them claim that the Word united with this human in the sense of its mixing and mingling with him, others that it took him as a temple and location, others that it put on the body like a suit of armour, others that it came to dwell in him and controlled its affairs through and by means of him. Some say that it did not come to dwell in him but controlled affairs by means of him and appeared to the creation through him, though not by indwelling or intermingling; others that it appeared in him as the imprint of a seal appears in impressed clay, for the imprint is not transferred to appear in the clay or blend with it, nor does it move from its place; others say that it has nothing to do with any of these at all, but means that the Word appeared in that particular body just as a man’s form appears when his face is seen in a clean, polished mirror. 10

Many of these expressions reflect patristic explanations of the doctrine. They suggest intense seriousness (and probably extensive study) to understand what precisely Christians were saying, as a preliminary to engaging with them in a full demonstration of the rational deficiencies of their doctrines. The third figure active in the ninth century whose works survive, and who shows this sense of seriousness in his approach to his Christian opponents is the Zaydī Imām Abū Muḥammad al-Qāsim ibn Ibrāhīm al-Rassī. In his mature years, he lived in his estate near Medina where he died in 860 C.E., but in his earlier life he lived in Egypt, where he is known to have studied Christian works and to have engaged in debate with Christian representatives. One of the fruits of his period in Egypt is the work known as Kitāb al-radd ʿalā al-Naṣārā (‘The book of refutation of the Christians’). Al-Qāsim wrote it before he left the country in 826 C.E., making it the earliest extant Muslim rebuttal of Christian doctrines. With remarkably detailed knowledge of Christian beliefs, its thought reflects ideas from the early ninth-century Melkite Bishop Theodore Abū Qurra. 11 Regrettably, like the other two works discussed above, it is incomplete, stopping suddenly in an extensive quotation from the Gospel of Matthew.

These four forms appear in the manuscripts as iytaḥada ‘it united’, a.t.w.ḥ.d or a.t.w.h.h.d (?) ‘it became one’, iytiḥād ‘uniting’, and a.t.w.ḥ.ā.d or a.t.w.h.h.ā.d (?) ‘oneness’. The first and third are clearly archaic versions of ittaḥada and ittiḥād, though the second and third are problematic. They may possibly be versions of the fifth form of the verb. 10 Thomas, Anti-Christian polemic, 68–71. 11 Wilfred Madelung, “Al-Qāsim ibn Ibrāhīm and Christian theology”, Aram 3 (1991), 35–44. 9

68

DAVID THOMAS

A significant feature of the text is that it is written in rhymed prose (sajʿ), of which the opening phrases provide a good example: Al-ḥamdu li-Llāh alladhī lam yazal wa-lā yazālu, wa-lahu al-kubriyāʾ badīʾan wa-l-jalāl, al-barīʾ min kull taghyīr wa-zawāl wa-tabaddul wa-ḥaraka wa-intiqāl aw fanāʾ wa-iḥtiyāl. Praise be to God, who has never ceased and does not cease, He has power and grandeur from the start, He is not touched by any change, extinction, alteration, movement or removal, or cessation or transformation. To have achieved the degree of precision in describing Christian doctrine that the translation below shows within the restrictions of this poetry-like form is astonishing. All of these three Muslim theologians show that they had as thorough a knowledge of the major doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation as could be desired for accurate and persuasive responses. There is almost nothing of open bias in what they relay from the sources they used (about which they are all silent), and the single assumption they shared was that correct religion can be shown to agree with reason, with the corollary that claims that can be shown to be unreasonable cannot contain anything reliable about what God was like. There is real seriousness in this, removing it from the category of aggressive polemic to an honest concern for truth.

TRANSLATION OF A SECTION FROM AL-QĀSIM IBN IBRĀHĪM’S KITĀB AL-RADD ʿALĀ L-NAṢĀRĀ 12

All the Christians claim that God, may He be praised, is three separate individuals, and that all these three individuals are one conforming nature. 13 [p. 315] They say that according to our [human] accurate conception these three are Father, Son and Holy Spirit. They say that the Father is ungenerated, the Son is son, offspring and generated, and the Holy Spirit is neither generator nor generated. Each of the three we have referred to is existent. They say that these three individuals have all eternally been together, with none of them preceding another in existence, and the Father, Son and Holy Spirit we have mentioned have all eternally been one in divinity and sovereignty. There is no difference between the three in divinity, nor in eternity,

This translation is based on Ignazio di Matteo, ed. and trans., “Confutazione contro i Cristiani dello zaydita al-Qāsim b. Ibrāhīm”, Rivista degli Studi Orientali 9 (1921–2), 301-64, pp. 314.23–318.13. For a close descriptive analysis, see Ryan Schaffner, The Bible through a Qur’ānic Filter: Scripture Falsification (Taḥrīf) in 8th- and 9th-Century Muslim Disputational Literature [PhD thesis, Ohio State University, 2016], ch. 6. 13 Al-Qāsim uses the term ṭabīʿa for the divine substance, rather than the more usual jawhar. 12

AL-QĀSIM IBN IBRĀHĪM AL-RASSĪ AND CHRISTIAN-MUSLIM RELATIONS

69

power, sovereignty or will. The three together are one in nature, and what is one as nature is three as separate individuals. This is like the sun, in that when it is perceived by the senses it is one sun in its completeness and essence and three distinct entities in its mode of being and attributes, each of them being different from the other as an individual and its attributes, even though it is the other in its essence and nature. Thus, they claim that the sun in itself is like the Father, the light in it is like the Son, and the heat from it is like the Spirit. Although it has this number, the sun is without doubt single and one. For if the sun’s light departs from it, it is not called sun, and similarly if its heat departs from it, it is not called sun either. Only the sun is called sun and is called this if all of this is gathered together in it. The human is similar, because even though he is one in human nature, we and you see that in number he is many things, such as his spirit, body, life and utterance. His body is other than his spirit, and his expression is other than his life, because no one could claim that life is expression, or that they are all one conforming thing, since there are many living things that do not talk or express themselves. They [the Christians] say: By expression we do not mean speech that is heard audibly, but we mean thought which God makes in the human instinctively and naturally as a particular disposition in the human and not in any other living thing such as the living things that God makes as beasts, and others such as the plants and trees of the earth. For if life were expression, everything living would be able to express itself, so that all beasts would be able to express themselves just like the sons of Adam. They say: Since things are not like this, it proves what we say about this, that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit can be perceived by the intellect or the senses as being one single essence and nature, and numerically three in the hypostases, which are numerically the three individuals. The nature unites them and makes them one, and the hypostases divide them and give them number. Thus, the Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Spirit. What we have said about this is clear and explained. They are all one as nature and essence, and in the hypostases they are three, [p. 316] Spirit, Son and generating Father, because the Father is generating and not generated, the Son is generated and not generating, and the Spirit, a third existent, is not generating or generated. They say: These three hypostases have eternally together been three in number, with none of them preceding any other in existence, eternity or pre-existence. One of them, the Son, was sent down to earth as compassion to humanity and the human race, without the Father or Holy Spirit being separated from Him, to the Virgin Mary and took from her a covering and veil, and became a body from her as a body that was perfect in all its humanity. He appeared through it and was manifest in it to the eyes of those who saw and looked at Him. He ate as humans eat and drank. He went about on his two feet, He grew tired and became exhausted. As compassion and mercy for humankind He gave himself up to crucifixion and to all the insult and deception that came to Him because of His generosity and gentleness.

70

DAVID THOMAS

For the rest, the Christians disagree over the Son and the generated one, and what His Incarnation in the body, as they claim, was. The Melkites [al-Rūm] say on this—and what they say is well-known—that the divine hypostasis that exists eternally and was generated by the Father before the ages descended to the Virgin Mary and took nature without hypostasis from her, so that He was a hypostasis through her nature. Through her nature which He took from her He performed all that she was known to be able to through her nature. So, He slept in the way she slept, even though His hypostasis was not her hypostasis, He performed actions of her nature and action, even though his origin in humanity was not her origin. They say: He acted by her nature, so Christ was a complete human with two natures but one hypostasis not two. Christ was Son of God, eternal and generated, acting through the two natures that together existed in Him. They say: If he was happy or sad, or laughed or grieved—and all of them [the Christians] affirm without doubting that he was sad or laughed—all of this and like it of human nature that happened was the action of the human nature. But His raising the dead, His healing the blind and leper and the like, was the action of the divine nature. The Jacobites say that the Son who is eternal descended from heaven to earth and came down as compassion and mercy for humankind, and His desire to show favour to the human race. So He took a body from the Virgin Mary and became flesh through it and became entirely one. They say: Do you not see that the human is spirit and body, though he is called human by one name. You see that the two are called a human, and they are not said to be two in humanity but they are said to be one human, and he is spirit and body, as you know. They say: Christ is like this, as a [p. 317] combination of the divine nature and the human nature, called Christ. He is the Son of God, who has eternally existed. Do you not see this as a teaching in what we have stated and closely scrutinised that is clear and correct? The Nestorians say that out of His love the eternal Son came down out of mercy and kindness. When He came down He became flesh from Mary as a complete and perfect body, as a human and Adamish nature and hypostasis. So, after becoming flesh as a body Christ was two perfect natures and two hypostases. They say: If we see him eating and drinking, coming and going over the earth, growing tired, grieving, laughing or crying, we attribute all this and similar that we have seen to the human nature. And if we see him bringing the dead back to life, healing the sick, and walking on the water, we attribute this to the divine nature. Despite their differences and the disagreements in their teachings, all the Christian sects say that the reason for the descent of the eternal Son, who descended from heaven as mercy to humankind and protection for the messengers and prophets, they say, was because of the sin of Adam. For when he sinned and ate from the tree which God had forbidden to him, he disobeyed. God, blessed and exalted may He be, forsook him and abandoned him to Satan to follow him. They say: So he was under the dominion of Satan and he remained beneath his authority. Similarly, they claim that there with him were all his descendants, with Satan judging over them as he wanted. They say: Among those whom Satan ruled, such as Adam and his progeny, were many souls of God’s prophets and messengers. Among these souls were the soul of

AL-QĀSIM IBN IBRĀHĪM AL-RASSĪ AND CHRISTIAN-MUSLIM RELATIONS

71

Noah and the soul of Abraham and other souls of messengers and prophets. They say: The Son subtly and artfully freed these souls from Satan’s hand. For this and in order to do it He put on an Adamish body, so that He should be hidden from Satan in what He put on. In this the Son disguised Himself from him, so that Satan would not be wary of Him or see through His cunning. They say: When sin had overcome humankind and tribulation came down upon them, and it became clear to Adam, as they claim, what Satan had done to him, and his deception of him and his treachery towards him, then the Son deceived Satan by tricking him. He achieved what He wanted against him, and He freed Adam and all his descendants from the power and hand of Satan. They say: This was all when the Son gave Himself up for crucifixion and the suffering and hardship He endured before it, as goodness from the Son to us, kindness, favour and mercy from the Son for us. They say: So the Son bought humankind from his Father by the suffering and crucifixion that afflicted Him. This is, that they claim that it was not within His Father’s wisdom or justice that Satan should oppress Adam and his children whom He had given over to him, or that they should become obedient to Satan and his power, because He said to Satan, as they claim in their doctrine: Everyone who [p. 318] follows you is yours. They say: Thus, the Son bought us from His Father justly, and through deceit He defeated Satan for us who were in his power. When He had freed Adam and the souls of the messengers and prophets, after completing the work of freeing what was in Satan’s grasp, after forty days He ascended to heaven and passed through it, after being crucified. They say: So He was seated at the right hand of His Father complete and in His entirety, His body and the divine nature and human nature within it, and the qualities in them and belonging to them. They say: He will descend again one more time to judge the living and the dead at the end of the world. They say: Thus, we believe in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. They say: The Father is He who created things through His Son and maintains them through the Spirit of His holiness. This, so that anyone who wishes to may know, is the complete teaching of the Christians, and the obscurity in which they enfold the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, the hypostases and the nature, the unprecedented doctrines they possess about them that no one before them has ever spoken about, and no one replying or questioning has brought out. Their teaching that in one place the three are united as one and in another they are three although they are one; about the reason they claim for the descent of the Son being the sin of Adam, and what they say about this contrary to all the nations— we will not neglect to speak about these things in what follows, so that only the most ignorant will not know about it.

72

DAVID THOMAS

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ebied, Rifaat and David Thomas, eds and trans. Muslim-Christian Polemic during the Crusades, the Letter from the People of Cyprus and Ibn Abī Ṭālib’s Response (Leiden: Brill, 2005). Khoury, Paul. Paul d’Antioche, évêque melkite de Sidon (xiie s.) (Beirut: Impr. Catholique, 1964), 59–83 (Arabic text), 169–87 (French trans.). Madelung, Wilfred. “Al-Qāsim ibn Ibrāhīm and Christian theology”, Aram 3 (1991), 35–44. di Matteo, Ignazio, ed. and trans. “Confutazione contro i Cristiani dello zaydita alQāsim b. Ibrāhīm”, Rivista degli Studi Orientali 9 (1921–2), 301–64. Schaffner, Ryan. The Bible through a Qur’ānic Filter: Scripture Falsification (Taḥrīf) in 8th- and 9th-Century Muslim Disputational Literature [PhD thesis, Ohio State University, 2016]. Thomas, David, ed. and trans. Anti-Christian Polemic in Early Islam, Abū ʿĪsā alWarrāq’s ‘Against the Trinity’ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992). —— ed., Christian Doctrines in Islamic Theology (Leiden: Brill, 2008).

DISCOVERING ‘PARADISE’ AT TURFAN ERICA C.D. HUNTER ∗

(UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE) Several fragments of the ‘Anathema of Paradise’ have been identified amongst the Syriac materials discovered in the opening decades of the twentieth century at the monastery site of Xipang (Shuïpang) at Turfan. The longevity of the tradition meant that the ‘Anathema of Paradise’ still occurs in handbooks of prayer-amulets that were used by the Christian communities in northern Mesopotamia until the mid-nineteenth century. The Turfan fragments of the ‘Anathema of Paradise’ do not include the hallmarks of the anathema genre, but are distinguished by long listings of names. These may hark back to the seventh century work by ‘Enānišo, The Fathers of Paradise, thus recalling and upholding the Church of the East’s great ascetic heritage.

ANATHEMAS COMMEMORATING SAINTS AT TURFAN

Amongst the discoveries by the Second and Third German Turfan Expeditions (1904– 1907) at the monastery site at Turfan [Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Province, western China] in the opening decades of the twentieth century were a small number of prayer-amulets written in Syriac and Sogdian. They are identified by the term ‫ܚܪܡܐ‬ “anathema” and as such indicate a very specific category of prayer-amulet where the saint, at the point of martyrdom, offers a prayer to God asking for his request to be

It gives me great pleasure to dedicate this contribution to Rif who has been a cordial and congenial colleague for many years, from 1982 when he examined my doctoral thesis on the handbooks of amulets of the Christians in northern Mesopotamia. A major participant at the Symposium Syriacum and its sister conference on Christian Arabic Studies, his research in Syriac and Christian Arabic has made major contributions to both fields. The author extends her thanks to the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin-Preussicher Kulturbesitz for access to and permission to reproduce images of the relevant fragments. All images are copyright from Depositum der Berlin Brandenburgischer Akademie der Wissenschaften in der Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Orientabteilung. ∗

73

74

ERICA C.D. HUNTER

granted. 1 The contents of the saint’s prayer form the bulk of the prayer-amulet. Amongst the exemplars which have been found at Turfan is SyrHT 99, which forms a dislocated join with SyrHT 330, and is dedicated to Mār Tamsis, a now obscure figure, but still commemorated by the Church of the East. 2 Mār Tamsis beseeches [‫“ ]ܡܪܝ[ ܐܠܗܐ ܚܝܠܬܢܐ ܗܒܠܝ ܫܐܠܬ]ܐ‬Lord God Almighty, grant me the request”, signalling the beginning of the actual anathema. Two prayer-amulets, n.364–365 and SyrHT 102, that were dedicated to Mār Cyprian, employ similar terminology at the point of his crowning. 3 Most recently, one of the three fragments brought back by Count Otani Kozui to Kyoto following his expeditions to Turfan between September 1902 and February 1904, has been identified as a prayer-amulet dedicated to Mār Cyprian. 4 The fragment does not use the term ‘anathema’ nor is the saint’s name divulged, but the connection with the anathema of the aforementioned saint may be made on the basis of the matching contents of Ot. Ry 1789 verso and SyrHT 102 verso ll. 3–6. The dating of the anathemas of Mār Tamsis and Mār Cyprian is uncertain, but probably can be placed between the tenth and thirteenth centuries, when most of the Turfan fragments appear to have been written. The longevity of the tradition is such that exemplars of the prayer-amulets were still being copied in the late eighteenth-early nineteenth centuries and used by the Christian communities who formerly lived in northern Mesopotamia. The earliest extant anathema of Mār Tamsis— to date—is Erevan Matenaderan rot. Syr. 72, which was copied in 1755 at the village of Gagoran in the Gawar district of the Hakkari. Other exemplars of the anathema to Mār Tamsis in a number of handbooks are now in various public repositories, some of which have been published. 5 Both the anathemas of Mār Tamsis and Mār Cyprian are found in Mingana Ms 316 that is dated by its colophon to 2088 ‘of the Greeks’ i.e. 1777 and written at the village of Kapip, the copyist coming from the village of Marshanis in the region of Athel. The prayer-amulets presumably came to Turfan from the ‘West’ i.e., northern Mesopotamia as part of the outreach missions by the 213F

214F

See Erica C.D. Hunter, “‘Saints in Syriac Anathemas: A Form-Critical Analysis of Role”, Journal Semitic Studies 37: 1 (1987), 83–104 for full discussion of these two fragments. 2 For translation and discussion of this anathema see, Erica C.D. Hunter, “Traversing Time and Location: A Prayer-Amulet to Mar Tamsis from Turfan” in From the Oxus River to the Chinese Shores. Studies on East Syriac Christianity in Central Asia and China, Dietmar W. Winkler and Li Tang, eds [Orientalia-patristica-oecumenica v. 5] (Salzburg: 2013), 23–41. 3 Erica C.D. Hunter, “Syriac prayer-amulets from Turfan”, The Harp. A Review of Syriac, Oriental and Ecumenical Studies XXXIII (2018), 420–8 for translation and discussion of these two exemplars. 4 Hidemi Takahashi, “Syriac Fragments from Turfan at Ryukoku University, Kyoto” in Silk Road Traces: Studies on Syriac Christianity in China and Central Asia, Li Tang and Dietmar W. Winkler, eds (Vienna: 2022), 223–51. 5 Hunter, “Traversing Time and Territory”, 30–1 for a listing of manuscripts (and repositories) which include the ‘Anathema of Mār Tamsis’. See also Herman Gollancz, The Book of Protection being a Collection of Syriac Charms (London: 1912), xxxii–xxxiii (English translation), 9–10 (Syriac text) from Codex A §12. 1

DISCOVERING 'PARADISE' AT TURFAN

75

Church of the East in the first millennium C.E. but fell out of usage with the demise of the communities in Central Asia and China in the late medieval period. However, in Mesopotamia the tradition of writing prayer-amulets still continued until the early twentieth century when the Christians were driven from their homeland by the Ottoman purges which resulted in considerable loss of life and the communities’ destruction. Three separate fragments from Turfan (SyrHT 206, SyrHT 235 and SyrHT 316) join to form a single folio (henceforth called the ‘Paradise’ folio) provide further insight into the usage of prayer-amulets at the monastery: •

• •

(1) SyrHT 206 (9.0 x 7.4 cm), 8 lines recto and verso, the left hand and upper margins are relatively intact. Ll.6-8 are incomplete due to the oblique tear at the right hand-side of SyrHT 206. A trace of the final letter at the left-hand margin of l.8 indicates the full extent of the text. (2) SyrHT 235 (4.3 x 4.9 cm) is a triangular shaped fragment; forming an intermediate fragment, with SyrHT 206 on the left and SyrHT 316 on the right. (3) SyrHT 316 (4.8 x 2.8 cm) forms the lower right-hand side of the folio.

The upper margin of the fragments is 1.00cm; the lower margin is 1.4 cm; with both the left and right-hand margins being 1.00 cm with justified lines. Dimensions No. lines Line spacing recto Line spacing verso Line length recto Line length verso

SyrHT 206 9.0 x 7.4 cm 8 recto, 7 verso 1.0 cm 1.0–1.1 cm 5.0–5.4 cm 5.0 cm

SyrHT 235 4.3 x 4.9 cm 3 recto, 3 verso 1.0 cm 1.0 cm 4.5 cm 4.4 cm

SyrHT 316 4.8 x 2.8 cm 3 recto, 4 verso 1.0 cm 1.1 cm 1.7 cm 1.8 cm

Table 1: Comparative dimensions of SyrHT 206, SyrHT 235 and SyrHT 316.

All three fragments are written in an East Syriac or ‘medial’ Estrangela hand. 6 Dalath and Resh are comma shaped, He and Waw are closed. Alaph has several forms: (i) ‘medial’ Estrangela; (ii) a derivative where the body has become compressed and the upper oblique moved to a vertical position that ends in a nodule pointing left; (iii) a vertical stroke with a downward pointing tail (only in final position). Tau is a vertical stroke ending in a curved hook or loop. Mem is closed and rounded; the junction with the upper oblique stroke has a distinct ‘v’ shape. The head of Shin is concave. As is typical for fragments from Turfan, vocalisation is only sparsely applied: ‫ܘܦܪ ܸܝܫ‬ For further discussion of ‘medial’ Estrangela in the Turfan manuscripts, notably MI III 45 (C14 date: 771–884) see Erica C.D. Hunter and J.F. Coakley, A Syriac service-book from Turfan. Museum für Asiatische Kunst, Berlin MS MIK III 45 [Berliner Turfantexte XXXIX] (Turnhout: 2017), 4–7. See also Erica C.D. Hunter, “Cursive palaeography at Turfan: exploring ‘medial’ Estrangelo” in Silk Road Traces: Studies on Syriac Christianity in China and Central Asia, Li Tang and Dietmar W. Winkler, eds (Vienna: 2022), 253–69.

6

76

ERICA C.D. HUNTER

(SyrHT 206 verso, l.3), ‫( ܘܔܝܼ ܚܘܢ‬SyrHT 206 verso, l.5) and ‫( ܼܢܝܚܝܢ‬SyrHT 206 verso, l.6). A paragraphus in red-black ink on SyrHT 206 recto l.6 precedes the rubric ‘Amen’. A very faint paragraphus follows ‫“ ܒܥܕܢ‬in Eden” on SyrHT 206 verso l.1.

Plate 1: SyrHT 206 recto + SyrHT 235 recto + SyrHT 316 verso.

Plate 2: SyrHT 206 verso, SyrHT 235 verso and SyrHT 316 recto.

DISCOVERING 'PARADISE' AT TURFAN

77

TEXT AND TRANSLATION OF THE ‘TURFAN PARADISE FOLIO’

SyrHT 206 recto ll. 1-8 + SyrHT 235 recto ll. 1-3 + SyrHT 316 verso ll. 1- 3 1 … and may you remove ‫ ܘ] [ ܩ ܘܬܪܚܩ‬1 ̈ ‫ ܡܢܗ‬2 2 from him illnesses and diseases, ‫ܡܖܥܐ ܘܟܘ̈ܪܗܢܐ‬ ̈ ‫ ܘܥܪ ̈ܘܝܬܐ ܘ‬3 3 fevers and seizures/fits ‫ܐܫܬܐ‬ ܵ 4 melancholy and the Evil Eye ‫ܘܥܝܢܐ‬ ‫ ܘܡܗܠܝܟܘܠܢܐ‬4 ̈ 5 and all those sufferings ‫ ܒܝܫܬܐ ܘܟܠܗܘܢ ܚܫܐ‬5 ̈ 6 [and pains]. Amen. ‫ܟܐܒܐ[ ܀ ܐܡܝܢ ܀‬ ‫ ]ܘ‬6 7 [And as the Lord God who planted] ‫ ]ܘܐܝܟܢܐ ܕܢܨ[ܒ‬7 8 [Paradise] ‫ ]ܡܪܝܐ ܐܠܗܐ ܦܪܕܝܼ ܣ[ܐ‬8 ̈

SyrHT 206 verso ll. 1-8 + SyrHT 235 verso ll. 1-3 + SyrHT 316 recto ll. 1- 4 1 in Eden. And He placed [in it] [‫ ܒܥܕܢ ܀ ܘܤܘ]ܡ ܒܗ‬1 2 the great source ‫ ܡܒܘܥܐ ܪܒܐ‬2 3 And divided from it were four ‫ ܘܦܪ ܸܝܫ ܡܢܗ ܐܪܒܥܐ‬3 4 rivers: Pishon ‫ܢܗܪܘܬ ̈ܐ ܦܝܫܘܢ‬4 5 Gihon and Diqlat and Perath [‫ ܘܔܝܼ ܚܘܢ ܘܕܩܠܬ ]ܘܦܪܬ‬5 6 They were tranquil and entering? ‫ ܘ ܼܢܝܚܝܢ ]ܘܥ[ܠܝܢ ܡ‬6 7 their borders without ‫ … ܬܚܘܡܝܗܘܢ ܕܠܐ‬7 8 being able. And not ‫ … ܡܫܟܚܝܢ ܀ ܘܠܐ‬8

COMMENTARY SyrHT 206 recto ll. 1-8 + SyrHT 235 recto ll. 1-3 + SyrHT 316 verso ll. 1- 3 l.1 ‫“ ܘܬܪܚܩ‬may you remove.” The masculine singular 2nd person may refer to the saint who was responsible for the action towards a male individual, or alternatively to God. The client or agent cannot be identified due to the loss of the fragment's preceding contents. ll. 2-6 asks for the removal of a concatenation of ailments which range from the generic “illnesses and diseases” to the specific “melancholy and the Evil Eye.” l.4 ‫“ ܘܡܗܠܝܟܘܠܢܐ‬melancholy.” Defective orthography of the Greek loan-word μελαγχολική which was spelt variously in Syriac. 7 ̈ ̈ l.6 ‫ܟܐܒܐ ܀ ܐܡܝܢ ܀‬ ‫“ ܘ‬and pains. Amen.” ‫ܟܐܒܐ‬ ‫ ܘ‬is reconstructed by joining SyrHT 316 217F

verso l.1 with SyrHT 235 recto l.1. The following paragraphus, with the rubric Amen indicates the section end.

Michael Sokoloff, A Syriac Lexicon. A Translation from the Latin, Correction, Expansion and Update of Carl Brockelmann’s Lexicon Syriacum (Winona Lakes, IN/Piscataway, NJ: 2009), 720 notes the spelling ‫ ܡܗܠܢܟܘܠܝܐ‬in Henri Pognon, Une version syriaque des aphorisms de Hippocrate, (Leipzig: 1903), 11:14. ‘Glossaire des terms médicaux’, 62 accompanying this work lists variant spellings of the Greek loan-word and gives references to IV. 9, VI. 23, 53, VII. 37.

7

78

ERICA C.D. HUNTER

l.7 ‫“ ܘܐܝܟܢܐ ܕܢܨܒ‬and as He planted”. The quotation from Genesis 2:8 beginning the following section is not introduced by a rubric heading. The reading ‫ ܘܐܝܟܢܐ‬is achieved by the join of SyrHT 316 verso l.2 ‫ ܘܐܝ‬and SyrHT 235 recto l.2 ‫ܟܢܐ‬. Joining the final Beth on SyrHT 206 recto l.7 with the relative pronoun and the Nun-Sadhe combination on SyrHT 235 recto l.2 yields the reading ‫ ܕܢܨܒ‬with ‫ ܡܪܝܐ ܐܠܗܐ‬identifying the subject, i.e. “The Lord God” being reconstructed from the join of SyrHT 316 verso l.3 [Mem-Resh] and SyrHT235 recto l.2 [Yodh-Alaph]. The upper part of the vertical stroke of the final Alaph which occurs on SyrHT 206 recto l. 8 completes the noun ‫“ ܦܪܕܝܼ ܣܐ‬Paradise” that occurs on SyrHT 235 recto l.3, with the tear occurring after the Semkath. SyrHT 206 verso ll. 1-8 + SyrHT 235 verso ll. 1-3 + SyrHT 316 recto ll. 1-4 l.1 commences with ‫“ ܒܥܕܢ‬in Eden.” A red-black paragraphus (the red points are very faint) marking the conclusion of the Peshitta quotation from Genesis 2.8. [‫“ ܘܤܘ]ܡ ܒܗ‬and He placed [in it].” The final Mem and the preposition “in” + 3rd masc. singular pronominal suffix “it”, referring to Paradise are reconstructed. l.3 ‫“ ܘܦܪ ܸܝܫ ܡܢܗ‬and separated/divided from it.” Masc. singular Pe’al passive participle √PRŠ is distinguished by a lower double point under the final Shin which often marked passive participles of 3rd weak verbs. From this original function, the double point spread to mark many verb forms and, in this instance may have functioned as a marker of an e vowel since √PRŠ is a strong root. 8 Cf. Peshitta Genesis 2:10 ‫ܦܪܫ‬. ll.3-4 ‫“ ܢܗܪܘܬ ̈ܐ ܐܪܒܥܐ‬four rivers.” The usage of the feminine plural noun, paraphrases ̈ ‫“ ܪ‬water sources” Peshitta the division of the four rivers in Genesis 2:10. Cf. ‫ܝܫܝܢ܀‬ Genesis 2:10. l.4 ‫“ ܦܝܫܘܢ‬Pishon.” Cf. Peshitta Genesis 2:11. ‫ ܦܝܫ ܿܘܢ‬. l.5 ‫“ܓܝܼ ܚܝܢ‬Gihon.” The copyist has mis-spelt this proper noun. Cf. Peshitta Genesis 2:13 ‫ܓܝܚ ܿܘܢ‬. l.5 ‫“ ܕܩܠܬ‬Diqlat” i.e. Tigris. Cf. Peshitta Genesis 2:14 Peshitta ‫ ܕ ܼܩܠܬ‬. l.5 ‫“ ܦܪܬ‬Perat” i.e. Euphrates. Cf. Peshitta Genesis 2:14. The lower portions of the characters are part of SyrHT316 recto l.1 where the lower hook of the final Tau is visible. Two faint black dots at the end of the line may indicate a paragraphus. l.6 ‫“ ܢܝܼ ܚܝܢ‬and they are quiet/tranquil” √NWḤ 3rd masc. plural Peal participial adjective.

CONTEXT

The ‘Turfan’ folio matches the opening of a prayer-amulet in an 18th century handbook whose copyist, ‫“ ܖܢܝܠܐܝܠ ܒܪ ܩܫܝܫܐ ܟܘܫܒܐ‬Daniel, son of the priest Cushaba” hailed

8

Hunter and Coakley, A Syriac service-book, 8–10 discuss the application of double-points.

DISCOVERING 'PARADISE' AT TURFAN

79

from Alqosh. 9 Herman Gollancz published this handbook in his Book of Protection as ̈ Codex B. 10 Entitled ‫ܟܐܒܐ ܘܟܘܪ ̈ܗܢܐ‬ ‫“ ܚܪܡܐ ܕܦܪܕܝܣܐ ܕܚܫܚ ܠܟܠܗܘܢ‬The Anathema of Paradise which is useful for all pains and illnesses”, the prayer-amulet commences with the Trinity formula and then references Genesis 2:8–10: ‫ܘܐܝܟܢܐ ܕܢܨܒ ܡܪܝܐ ܐܠܗܐ‬ ‫“ ܦܪܕܝܼ ܣܐ ܒܥܕܢ ܀ ܘܤܡ ܒܗ ܒܘܥܐ ܪܒܐ ܘܦܪ ܸܝܫ ܡܢܗ ܐܪܒܥܐ ܢܗܪܘܬ ̈ܐ ܦܝܫܘܢ ܓܝܼ ܚܘܢ ܘܕܩܠܬ ܘܦܪܬ ܀‬as the Lord God planted Paradise in Eden. He placed in it a great source and four rivers divided from it: Pishon, Gihon, Diqlat and Perat.” Following the quotation, the verbal action in Codex B ‫“ ܓܝܚܝܢ‬they sprang forth” differs from SyrHT 206 recto l.6: ‫ܢܝܼ ܚܝܢ‬ “and they are quiet”. The substitution of Nun by Gimel possibly being a mis-reading of the text during the anathema's long transmission history. ̈ ̈ ‫ܒܢܝܢܫܐ‬ Codex B proceeds to list the ills from which protection was sought: ‫ܒܝܫܐ‬ ̈ ̈ ̈ ̈ ̈ ̈ ‫ܘܫܐܕܐ ܠܝܛܐ ܘܡܛܥܝܢܐ ܘܣܛܢܐ ܘܖܝܘܐ ܘܕܚܠܬܐ ܘܙܘܥܬܐ ܘܣܘܪܕܐ ܘܟܠܗܘܢ ܟܐܒܐ ܘܟܘܪܗܢܐ‬ ̈ “evil men, cursed and deceitful demons, hinderers and devils, fear and trembling and dread and all sicknesses and diseases.” In doing so, Codex B thus presents a reversed sequence to the ‘Paradise’ folio where the listing of ills precedes the citation of Genesis 2:8. The absence of any heading in the ‘Paradise’ folio means that the relationship between the two sections is unclear, but the choice of ‫“ ܡ̈ܪܥܐ ܘܟܘܪ ̈ܗܢܐ‬illnesses and diseases” is consistent with the overall apotropaic tenor of Codex B’s title. Codex B then continues with an extensive Paradigmengebet the aim of which is to bind, anathematise, expel, prevent and distance many demons, including the evil and envious eye, from the bearer of the prayer-amulet. As with the ‘Paradise’ folio, Codex B diverges from the terminological hallmarks of an anathema since it makes no reference to the saint’s prayer at the point of martyrdom. Codex B is an unusual anathema, not only by the fact it does not feature the saint’s prayer, but also since it is essentially a composition of a number of registers ̈ or listings of names, each one being introduced by the phrase: ‫ܘܒܨܠܘܬܐ‬ “and by the 11 prayers.” 21F

•

The first register encompasses “blessed Mary, mother of Christ”, various apostles as well as the named “Doctors of the Church” i.e., ‫ܡܪܝ ܕܝܘܕܘܪܘܤ‬ ‫“ ܘܡܪܝ ܬܐܘܕܘܪܘܤ ܘܡܪܝ ܢܣܛܘܪܝܣ‬Mār Diodore (of Tarsus), Mār Theodore (of

In in the mid-sixteenth century, Alqosh became the seat of the Chaldaean patriarch (Mar Elias line) following Roman Catholic proselytism in the area. Despite their ‘conversion’, the Chaldaean communities still may have continued to use prayer-amulets. See James P. Fletcher, Notes from Nineveh and Travels in Mesopotamia, Assyria and Syria, 2 vols (London: 1850) vol. I, 272–3 for further comments. 10 Hermann Gollancz, The Book of Protection, Being a Collection of Charms (London: 1912), 36– 76 (Syriac text); lxi–lxxiii (English translation). Michael Zellman-Rohrer, “More on the ‘Book of Protection’ and the Syriac ‘charms’: New Texts and Perspectives for the Study of Magic and Religion” in Studies in the Syriac Magical Traditions, Marco Moriggi and Siam Bhayro, eds (Leiden: 2022) 85 lists the Gollancz codex in his listing of known handbooks of amulets. 11 Zellman-Rohrer, “More on the ‘Book of Protection”, 115 refers to the saints so-called ‘Ban of Paradise’ (‫)ܚܪܡܐ ܖܦܪܖܝܣܐ‬, notably the listings of John and the Persian martyrs, as well as the inclusion of Nestorius “the Eastern Christian saint par excellence.” 9

80

ERICA C.D. HUNTER Mopsuestia) and Mār Nestorius”, also renowned teachers ‫ܘܡܪܝ ܐܦܪܝܡ ܘܡܪܝ‬ ‫“ ܢܪܣܝ ܘܡܪܝ ܐܒܪܗܡ‬Mar Ephrem, Mar Narsai and Mar Abraham’ (of Kaskar)”. ̈ ̈ • The second register lists the prayers of ‫ܪܘܚܢܝܐ‬ ‫ܐܒܗܝܢ‬ “our spiritual fathers” with each name preceded by the appellation ‫“ ܐܒܐ‬Abba” and referencing the major figures of monasticism including ‫ܐܒܐ ܐܢܛܘܢܝܤ ܘܐܒܐ ܡܟܪܝܤ‬ ‫“ ܘܐܒܐ ܐܪܣܢܝܣ ܘܐܒܐ ܐܘܓܪܝܤ‬Abba Antony, Abba Macarius, Abba Arsenius and Abba Evagrius”. ̈ ̈ ‫ܢܚܝܐ ܘܡܥ‬ ̈ ‫ܒܨܠܘܬܗܘܢ ܕܡܕ‬ • The third register entitled, ‫ܪܒܝܐ‬ “by the prayers of those Eastern and Western (fathers)”, consists of a very long list of names, each preceded by the appellation ‫“ ܡܪܝ‬Mār” that recalls martyrs, ranging from the internationally famed military martyrs Sergius and Bacchus to local saints including Tamsis. • The fourth and final register in Codex B lists the prayers specifically attributed to 23 men, each of whom is named ‫“ ܡܪܝ ܝܘܚܢܢ‬Mār John”. These range from ‫ ܐܘܢܓܠܝܣܜܐ‬and ‫“ ܡܥܡܕܢܐ‬the Baptist” and “the Evangelist”, to men who are denoted by specific Mesopotamian locations, such as ‫ܡܪܝ‬ ‫ ܝܘܚܢܢ ܚܝܪܬܐ‬and ‫“ ܡܪܝ ܝܘܚܢܢ ܚܛܪܐ‬John of Hira” and “John of Hatra”.

These extensive registers of prayers and the Paradigmengebet are absent in the ‘Paradise’ folio. However, a small Sogdian prayer-amulet (n.396), that was found by the second German Turfan Expedition in 1904 does provide striking parallels. Measuring 10 x 7 cm and consisting of 10 lines on both the recto and verso, 12 n.396 cites for— “him who possesses the amulet”—the prayers of various renowned martyrs including Sergius, Bacchus, George, Cyriacus, Pethion as well as the great exponents of Syriac Christianity, including Narsai and Ephrem who are respectively called the “teacher” and “the important teacher.” The prayers cumulatively effect the sealing of the anathema: “may this anathema, book (and) writing be sealed” with the following sentence concluding “by the will of God, and by the killing of the martyrs, and by the praise and prayer of God’s holy angels, and by the day of that Communion Mystery, when our King, Lord and Life-giver …”, at which point the text breaks off. Incomplete and untitled, n.396 makes no reference to Genesis 2:8–10 that defines both the ‘Paradise’ fragment and Codex B. However, irrespective of these shortcomings, Nicholas Sims-Williams has convincingly identified it as being an exemplar of ‘The Anathema of Paradise’. 13 n.396 appears to have been part of a much longer prayer-amulet that may have included the ‘Paradise’ episode featured by both the ‘Paradise’ fragment and Codex B. With Sogdian materials at Turfan being derived from Syriac Vorlagen, a Syriac original may once have existed from which n.396 was copied. No match to n.396 Nicholas Sims-Williams, Iranian manuscripts in Syriac script in the Berlin Turfan collection, (Stuttgart: 2012), 50 for a description of the fragment and a resumé of previous attempts at identification. 13 Nicholas Sims-Williams, “The Sogdian ‘Book of Life’ reconsidered” in Artifact, Text, Context. Studies on Syriac Christianity in China and Central Asia, Li Tang and Dietmar W. Winkler, eds (Vienna: 2020), 113–9. 12

DISCOVERING 'PARADISE' AT TURFAN

81

has yet been identified amongst the Syriac material from Turfan, but several disparate fragments found at the monastery do appear to be from the ‘Anathema of Paradise’. •

SyrHT 354 (5.6 x 8.2 cm) five lines recto and verso. The text on the recto and the verso is justified at the left and right-hand margins respectively, but as the lower margins are missing the full extent of the folio has been lost.

The verso consists of names, each being prefaced by the epithet ‫“ ܐܒܐ‬Abba”. L.1 commences with [‫“ ]ܐ[ܢܛܘܢܝܣ]ܐ‬Antony” followed by [‫“ ܝܫܥ…]ܝܐ‬Isaiah” continuing ̈ on l. 2 [‫“ ܘܟܠܗܘܢ ܐܒܗܬܐ ܩܕܝ] ̈ܫܐ‬and all those holy fathers”. The first word of l.3 ‫ ܘܢܨܘܒܐ‬is read as “the planter” with the fissure at this point in the fragment leading to the tentative reading ‫“ ܘܪܝܫ ܥܡܪܐ‬and head of the monastery”. L.4. … ... [‫ܘܒܨܘ]ܬ‬ ‫“ ܡܠܦܢܐ‬and by the prayer … teacher” tempts the reading ‘Ephrem’ but the initial character of the following word which appears to be Nun may suggest instead ‘Narsai’. Tearing of the fragment has meant that only the upper parts of the first two characters of l.5—the first being Shin—are visible. However, on the recto, the text ̈ ‫“ ]ܘ[ܟܠܗܘܢ ܡܠܦܢܐ‬all those departed teachers” clearly indicontinues with l.1 ‫ܡܫܬܢܝܐ‬ cating a multiple listing. It is noteworthy that ‫ ܡܠܦܢܐ‬does not appear to carry ̈ ̈ Syame. L.2 ‫ܘܒܥܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܒܨܠܘܬܐ‬ “by the prayers and requests” and l.3 ‫ ܘܬܟܫܦܬܐ‬14‫؟ܘܦ̈ܪܣܐ‬ “supplication 15 and extensions?” expresses concatenations that are commonly found in the 18th and 19th century exemplars of the ‘Anathema of the Fathers of Paradise’. ̈ L.4 continues ‫]ܠ[ܩܖܝܫܐ‬ ‫“ ܘܓܘ̈ܪܓܚܐ‬and prostrations to the holy ones”, with only sporadic letters, including an initial Waw being visible on l.5.

Plate 3: SyrHT 354 recto, SyrHT 354 verso

The reading, ‫ܘܦ̈ܪܣܐ‬, derived from √PRS is tentative. The initial character has been read as a mis-shapen Waw or possibly a Mem, rather than a Semkath where the opening stroke would be more angular. If it is a noun (‫)ܘܦ̈ܪܣܐ‬, the word may mean ‘extensions’, if an adjective (‫ )ܡܦ̈ܪܣܐ‬qualifying ‫ ܘܬܟܫܦܬܐ‬as ‘extending’. However, ‫ ܘܬܟܫܦܬܐ‬does not carry a Seyyame. 15 Gollancz, Book of Protection, xlvi n.2 defines ‫ ܘܬܟܫܦܬܐ‬as worship by prostration with hands ̈ ̈ and face on the ground. He defines ‫ܘܒܥܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܒܨܠܘܬܐ‬ as respectively general prayer and prayer by word of mouth accompanied by signs with the hand. 14

82

ERICA C.D. HUNTER •

n.227 (5.9 x 7.4 cm) internal fragment, 5 lines recto and verso.

The recto lists names, each prefaced with the epithet ‫“ ܪܒܢ‬Rabban”, that appears to include ‫“ ܡܟܝܟܐ‬Macarius” also [‫“ ܫܘܥܝܗܒ]ܝ‬Išoyabh” and possibly “Cyriacus”, although only the initial Qoph is clear. The verso also appears to be a listing of names, each prefaced with the epithet ‫“ ܐܒܐ‬Abba” and includes ‫[“ ]ܥܒ[ܕܝܫܘܥ‬Ab]disho” and ‫“ ܝܘܢܢ‬Jonah”.

Plate 4: n.227 recto, n.227 verso

•

n.266 (4.2 x 4.1 cm) upper corner fragment, 4 lines recto and verso.

Recto l.1 and l.2 clearly shows the epithet ‫“ ܡܪܝ‬Mār” but the accompanying names cannot be identified since the fragment is too small. ‫ ܡܪܝ‬can be read on verso l.2 and l.3, with the proper name [‫“ ܐܢܕܪܘܢܝܩܘ]ܤ‬Andronicus” on l.1. •

n.320 (2.6 x 3.4 cm) internal fragment, 2 lines recto and verso with traces of a third line.

The epithet ‫“ ܪܒܢ‬Rabban” occurs twice on recto l.1 and l.2. The verso may also continue the listing but the small size of the fragment precludes any definite reading.

Plate 5: n.266 recto, n.266 verso, n.320 recto

Codicological features, including line-spacing (1.00 cm) and palaeographic similarities, raise the suggestion that SyrHT 354, n.227, n.266 and n.320 may have originated from the same prayer-amulet. Regrettably, their fragmentary condition does not endorse definite conclusions re the relationships between SyrHT 354, n.227, n.266 and n.320 with each other and with the ‘Paradise folio’. However, irrespective

DISCOVERING 'PARADISE' AT TURFAN

83

of whether the fragments belong to one exemplar or not, they collectively intimate, as do the Sogdian account, that ‘The Anathema of Paradise’ was extant in Syriac at ̈ Turfan. The categories of names, ‫ ܡܪܝ‬,‫ ܐܒܐ‬and ‫ ܪܒܢ‬in combination with ‫ܒܨܠܘܬܐ‬ ‫“ ܘ‬and by the prayers” suggest that SyrHT 354, n.227, n.266 and n.320 may hark back to a prototype prayer-amulet that reproduced the registers found in Palladius’ Lausiac History. This classic account, detailing the exploits of men and women in the Christian oikumene during the third and fourth centuries, which gained widespread readership, was translated into Syriac by ‘Enānišo‘, together with other ascetic works, including the Historia Monachorum in Aegypto. He composed his comprehensive anthology of the monastic histories entitled, “The Fathers of Paradise”, c.645 C.E. at the monastery of Beth ‘Abe, ‘the Great Monastery’, in northern Mesopotamia. ‘Enānišo‘’s work became popular in the Church of the East and was the subject of a commentary by Dādišo’ of Qatar, some of whose other works have been found at Turfan. 16 In such an environment, one might propose that a Vorlage of the ‘Anathema of the Fathers of Paradise’ originated in northern Mesopotamia, derivative of the great ascetic tradition that had taken root there and was thence brought from the ‘homeland’ of the Church of the East as part of its eastern outreach programme. 26F

CONCLUDING COMMENTS

The Syriac and Sogdian fragments of the ‘Anathema of the Fathers of Paradise’ from the monastery at Turfan; presumably were copied from originals brought originally from the Mesopotamian ‘homeland’ of the Church of the East which had witnessed an extraordinary burgeoning of monasticism in fourth and fifth centuries. Whether or not internal adjustments were made at Turfan to the listings in the exemplar prayer-amulet is difficult to ascertain given the fragments’ fragmentary condition. An intriguing thought is that the Anathema of the Fathers of Paradise’ at Turfan may have included local saints in its listings, in the same way as the register of ‫ܡܪܝ ܝܘܚܢܢ‬ in the 18th century Codex B cited men who were integrally associated with Mesopotamia: some—such as Mār Tamsis—continued to be remembered and celebrated, 17 others—such as Mār John of Hira and Mār John of Hatra—are now forgotten. Regrettably, neither the Sogdian nor the Syriac fragments shed any insight on whether internal emendations, were made to include renowned regional figures such as Mār 27F

Nicholas Sims-Williams, “Dādišo‘ Qaṭrāyā’s Commentary on the Paradise of the Fathers”, Analecta Bollandica 112:1–2 (1994), 33–64. Also “Excerpts from the Commentaries of Dādišo‘ Qaṭrāyā” in Nicholas Sims-Williams, An Ascetic Miscellany. The Christian Sogdian manuscript, E28 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2017), 45–71. Other selections in E28 are from the writings of Sem’on d-Taibuteh and Isaac of Nineveh, as well as from the life of Mar Awgen, who purportedly translated the monastic concept from Egypt to Mesopotamia in the fourth century. See also David Phillips, “The Syriac Commentary of Dadisho‘ Qatraya on The Paradise of the Fathers. Towards a critical edition”, BABELEO 1 (2012), 1–23. 17 Surgādā Mbašlā (Urmia: Archbishop of Canterbury’s Mission Press, 1894), 8 lists the commemoration of Mār Tamsis on the 8th Wednesday after Epiphany, an event that happens only once every 25 years. 16

84

ERICA C.D. HUNTER

Barshabba, the purported founder of Christianity at Marv, 18 or Mār Sargis who gave his name to numerous monasteries in China. 19 Irrespective, the citation of names which included ascetic ‘giants’ such as Anthony (SyrHT 354), Macarius (n.227) and Andronicus (n.266) functioned as mnemonic devices flagging up the exploits and the victorious engagement of saints—both men and women—over demonic forces. 20 The commemoration of the martyrs and saints in the vernacular idiom of the prayer-amulet ‘The Anathema of Paradise’ may be considered to be a derivative from the anthologies of ‘Enānišo‘’s The Paradise of the Fathers. The pragmatic application, to protect the bearer of the prayer-amulet, is articulated clearly by both the Syriac and Sogdian fragments: SyrHT 206 “may you remove from him illnesses and diseases, fevers and seizures/fits, melancholy and the Evil Eye and all those sufferings and pains” and more pointedly in the Sogdian n.396: “may this anathema, book (and) writing be sealed, the anathema of the holy Mar Cyprian.” As such, comprehensive registers, best demonstrated by the 18th century exemplar Codex B with its listing of nearly one hundred names of martyrs and saints, served overtly to protect the bearer of the prayer-amulet, affording potency against the afflictions of a wide range of ills. Operating in the realm of private piety, the prayer-amulet was prophylactic, but functioned as a trajectory that connected the bearer with the great Christian oikumene of martyrs which surpassed the theological and doctrinal confines which defined the Church of East, both in Mesopotamia and in its outreach dioceses. The contents of the Sogdian and Syriac fragments of ‘The Paradise of the Fathers’ are but tantalisingly brief, yet they indicate that this great ascetical heritage passed into the daily lives of the Christian populace at Turfan.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Fletcher, James P. Notes from Nineveh and Travels in Mesopotamia, Assyria and Syria, 2 vols (London: Colburn, 1850). Gollancz, Herman, The Book of Protection being a Collection of Syriac Charms (London: Gollancz, 1912). Hunter, Erica C.D. “‘Saints in Syriac Anathemas: A Form-Critical Analysis of Role”, Journal Semitic Studies 37: 1 (1987), 83–104. —— “Traversing Time and Location: A Prayer-Amulet to Mar Tamsis from Turfan” in From the Oxus River to the Chinese Shores. Studies on East Syriac Christianity in

See Erica C.D. Hunter, “Commemorating the Saints at Turfan” in Winds of Jingjiao. Studies in Syriac Christianity in China and Central Asia, Li Tang and D. Winkler eds (Vienna: 2016), 89– 104. 19 Louis Ligeti, “Les septes monastères Nestorians de Mar Sargis”, Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 26:1 (1972), 169–78. 20 Erica C.D. Hunter, “Turfan – connecting with Seleucia Ctesiphon”, Entangled Religions 11:6 (2020). https://er.ceres.rub.de/index.php/ER/article/view/8779/8432 for the role of liturgy as memory. 18

DISCOVERING 'PARADISE' AT TURFAN

85

Central Asia and China, Dietmar W. Winkler and Li Tang, eds [Orientalia-patristica-oecumenica v. 5] (Vienna: LIT Verlag, 2013), 23–41. —— “Commemorating the Saints at Turfan” in Winds of Jingjiao. Studies in Syriac Christianity in China and Central Asia, Li Tang and Dietmar W. Winkler, eds (Vienna: LIT. Verlag, 2016), 89–104. —— “Syriac prayer-amulets from Turfan”, The Harp. A Review of Syriac, Oriental and Ecumenical Studies XXXIII (2018), 413–38. —— “Cursive palaeography at Turfan: exploring ‘medial’ Estrangelo’ in Li Tang and Dietmar W. Winkler, eds, Silk Road Traces: Studies on Syriac Christianity in China and Central Asia. Eds. (Vienna: LIT Verlag, 2022), 253–69. —— “Turfan—connecting with Seleucia Ctesiphon”, Entangled Religions 11:6 (2020). https://er.ceres.rub.de/index.php/ER/article/view/8779/8432. Hunter, Erica C.D. and James F. Coakley. A Syriac service-book from Turfan. Museum für Asiatische Kunst, Berlin MS MIK III 45 [Berliner Turfantexte XXXIX] (Turnhout: Brepols, 2017). Ligeti, Louis. “Les septes monastères Nestorians de Mar Sargis”, Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 26:1 (1972), 169–78. Phillips, David. “The Syriac Commentary of Dadisho‘ Qatraya on The Paradise of the Fathers. Towards a critical edition”, BABELEO 1 (2012), 1–23. Pognon, Henri. Une version syriaque des aphorisms de Hippocrate, 2 vols (Leipzig: Hinrich, 1903). Sims-Williams, Nicholas. “The Sogdian ‘Book of Life’ reconsidered” in Artifact, Text, Context. Studies on Syriac Christianity in China and Central Asia, Li Tang and Dietmar W. Winkler, eds (Vienna: LIT Verlag, 2020), 113–9. —— “Dādišo‘ Qaṭrāyā’s Commentary on the Paradise of the Fathers”, Analecta Bollandica 112:1–2 (1994), 33–64. —— Iranian manuscripts in Syriac script in the Berlin Turfan collection (Stuttgart: Steiner Verlag, 2012). —— “Excerpts from the Commentaries of Dādišo‘ Qaṭrāyā” in Nicholas Sims-Williams, An Ascetic Miscellany. The Christian Sogdian manuscript, E28 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2017), 45–71. Sokoloff, Michael. A Syriac Lexicon. A Translation from the Latin, Correction, Expansion and Update of Carl Brockelmann’s Lexicon Syriacum (Winona Lakes, IN/Piscataway, NJ: Eisenbrauns/Gorgias, 2009). Takahashi, Hidemi. “Syriac Fragments from Turfan at Ryukoku University, Kyoto” in Silk Road Traces: Studies on Syriac Christianity in China and Central Asia, Li Tang and Dietmar W. Winkler, eds (Vienna: LIT VERLAG, 2022), 223–52.

86

ERICA C.D. HUNTER

Zellman-Rohrer, Michael. “More on the ‘Book of Protection’ and the Syriac ‘charms’: New Texts and Perspectives for the Study of Magic and Religion” in Studies in the Syriac Magical Traditions, Marco Moriggi and Siam Bhayro, eds (Leiden: Brill, 2022), 77–140.

POST-CHALCEDONIAN CONFLICTS IN EGYPT:

ON THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT AND ORTHODOXY OF TIMOTHY AELURUS (457–477 C.E.) DIETMAR W. WINKLER ∗ (UNIVERSITY OF SALZBURG)

Resistance to the Council of Chalcedon at first came mainly from Egypt, but was by no means only for theological reasons. In many cases political and ecclesiastical reasons played major roles as is demonstrated vividly by the central figure of the first years, Timothy Aelurus. This contribution traces the post-Chalcedonian historical context of the Alexandrian patriarch and shows that the Christology of Timothy Aelurus and Pope Leo the Great, who fiercely fought each other, had the same intentions and that both sides displayed an orthodox faith in Christ. The resistance of the Egyptian bishops at the Council of Chalcedon (451 C.E.) already showed that there would be a fierce anti-Chalcedonian movement and that it would come from Egypt. 1 Despite the expulsion of Patriarch Dioscorus (444–451/454 C.E.) and his deportation to the innermost part of Paphlagonia, in what is now northern Anatolia, the Alexandrian Church showed its strong unity and fidelity to its own tradition and its patriarch. The installation of the new (Chalcedonian) patriarch Proterios (451–457 C.E.) by Marcian (450–457 C.E.) met with little approval and provoked a revolt among the people, which could only be dealt with by a massive military deployment by the emperor. “The popularity of Dioscorus among the monks I had the privilege of meeting Rifaat Y. Ebied for the first time in Lebanon in September 1995, when Samir Khalil Samir SJ organised the I Symposium Syro-Arabicum at the Holy Spirit University of Kaslik. At that time, I was still working on my dissertation, which was also to include a chapter on Timothy Aelurus. When I approached Rifaat Ebied about his Syriac editions, he was remarkably friendly and helpful to me as a student. His openness, even towards young researchers, characterises Rifaat Ebied best for me, to whom this contribution is dedicated, in that it also draws on his edition of Timothy Aelurus’ letters. 1 Dietmar W. Winkler, Koptische Kirche und Reichskirche. Altes Schisma und neuer Dialog, (Innsbruck: 1997), 90–167. ∗

87

88

DIETMAR W. WINKLER

might be given as a reason for Proterius’ impotence in office.” 2 After Chalcedon, Timothy Aelurus was the central figure for the first years of Egyptian opposition.

TURMOIL AFTER CHALCEDON: ELECTION AND EXPULSION OF TIMOTHY C.E.

When Marcian died in 457 C.E., new tumults broke out in Alexandria. The priest Timothy Aelurus (αἴλουρος, weasel, tomcat) was ordained by the Anti-Chalcedonians to succeed Dioscorus, who had died in exile in 454 C.E. Timothy’s arrest by the imperial governor Dionysios had to be reversed because of a revolt among the people. 3 However, it was too late to calm the uprising. Just a few days later, the imperial patriarch Proterios was murdered during a church service. Timothy Aelurus was now sole patriarch of Alexandria and occupied the bishop’s chairs of Egypt with his followers. Further, a synod in Alexandria pronounced anathema on the Roman pope as well as the patriarchs of Constantinople and Antioch. This was probably meant to avenge the deposition of Dioscorus at the Council of Chalcedon and to oppose the position that Constantinople was now willing to assume in the Church; a position that had hitherto been held in the East by Alexandria. The rivalries of Rome, Constantinople and Alexandria as well as the deposition of Dioscorus formed the nontheological substrate for the Christological disputes around Chalcedon. Canon 3 of the Council of Constantinople (381 C.E.) meant that the bishop of the new capital was ranked second in the imperial church, behind Rome and ahead of Alexandria. Following this council, all the patriarchs of Alexandria sought to regain the prestige and authority of the throne of St. Mark. Three consecutive patriarchs succeeded in deposing the respective bishop of Constantinople: Theophilos (384–412 C.E.) condemned John Chrysostom at the Synod of the Oak (403 C.E.), Cyril (412–444 C.E.) deposed Nestorius at Ephesus I (431 C.E.), and finally Dioscurus (444–454 C.E.) defeated Flavian at Ephesus II (449 C.E.). 4 Timothy Aelurus sent legates to the imperial court in Constantinople to obtain from Marcian’s successor, Emperor Leo I (457–474 C.E.), his approval and a countercouncil to the Council of Chalcedon. As a soldier, Leo I was not familiar with theological questions, devoting only part of his attention to Chalcedon that his predecessor had dedicated to it. 5 To clarify the questions of legitimacy of Timothy Aelurus and a revision of Chalcedon, the emperor initiated an opinion poll among the bishops in 457 C.E., the answers to which are summarised as synodal and individual letters

Wilfred C. Griggs, Early Egyptian Christianity. From its Origins to 451 C.E., 3rd edn. (Leiden: 1993), 210. 3 Winkler, Koptische Kirche und Reichskirche, 110f. 4 Winkler, Koptische Kirche und Reichskirche, 184–7. 5 See Hans-Georg Beck, “Die frühbyzantinische Kirche” in: Die Reichskirche nach Konstantin dem Großen. Zweiter Halbband: Die Kirche in Ost und West von Chalkedon bis zum Frühmittelalter (451–700) Karl Baus et al. eds (Freiburg: 1975), 5. 2

POST-CHALCEDONIAN CONFLICTS IN EGYPT

89

in the so-called Codex Encyclius. 6 The letters in reply were unanimous against the recognition of Timothy Aelurus probably mainly because of the violent seizure of the patriarchal throne and the murder of Proterius, in which Timothy was at least indirectly blameworthy. “On the question of Chalcedon’s decrees, only Amphilocius of Side rejected Chalcedon outright [but he also challenged the ordination of Timothy as Patriarch of Alexandria]. However, three bishops expressed reservations about it, Armenius I, Alypius of Caesarea, and Epiphanius of Perge.” 7 Their reservations about the Chalcedonian formula of one hypostasis in two natures are interesting. Bishop Euippos correctly describes the two ways of approaching the formula: “haec ergo breuiter piscatorie et non Aristotelice suggessimus.” 8 The Definitio Chalcedonensis could thus be approached either in a kerygmatic manner, in the manner of fishermen, or in an Aristotelian-trained philosophical reflection. Only a few bishops were aware that Chalcedon meant a terminological advance for Christology. The bishops probably saw in the formula a useful apologetic means against newly emerged heresies, specifically the one of Eutyches. Authoritative for them, however, was still the authority of Nicaea (325 C.E.). Concepts, such as hypostasis or physis, did not play a role, but the symbol of baptism and baptismal instruction did. This attitude was so pronounced that individual bishops said that Chalcedon could not be a basis for baptismal catechesis, although they recognised the content of the Council. 9 As the Codex Encyclius shows, even followers of the Chalcedonense were sceptical about its kerygmatic qualities. The Chalcedonian Christological formula should be read above all in the wider context of the Council, which wanted to state unequivocally the truth of perfect divinity and humanity in the one Christ. For this reason, the narrower formula was not so important to many and was considered useful at best as a defence against heterodoxies. Pope Leo the Great responded on the request of Emperor Leo in several letters. 10 He opposed the emperor’s proposal to hold a religious discussion in Constantinople between a delegation from Rome and the anti-Chalcedonians. For Pope Leo, the council’s decision was sacrosanct. Nevertheless, he sent his legates to Constantinople to expound his position. It is interesting to note Leo’s statement in ep. 164, in which The letters of the Codex Encyclius are incompletely preserved in ACO II 5, 9-98. See Theodor Schnitzler, Im Kampfe um Chalcedon. Geschichte und Inhalt des Codex Encyclicus von 458 (AnGr 16) (Rome: 1938). For an analysis, see Alois Grillmeier, Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche II/1: Das Konzil von Chalcedon (451). Rezeption und Widerspruch (451–518), (Freiberg: 1986), 221–66. 7 Patrick T.R. Gray, The Defense of Chalcedon in the East (451–553), (Leiden: 1979), 22. 8 Epistula Euippi, ACO II 5, 84 line 2-3. For the whole, see Alois Grillmeier, ‘ “Piscatorie” – “Aristotelice”. Zur Bedeutung der ‚Formel in den seit Chalkedon getrennten Kirchen’, in Alois Grillmeier, Mit ihm und in ihm. Christologische Forschungen und Perspektiven. 2nd edn. (Freiburg: 1979), 283–300. 9 See Grillmeier, “Piscatorie—Aristotelice”, 285. 10 Cf. Leo, ep. 156 ad Leonem Augustum (ACO II 4, 101–4); ep. 157 ad Anatolium Episcopum (ACO II 4, 109f); ep. 158 ad Episcopos Aegyptiorum (ACO II 4, 104f). 6

90

DIETMAR W. WINKLER

he explains that the followers of Dioscorus and Eutyches should be granted readmission to the Church after having done penance. This already makes it evident that Dioscorus was not deposed at the Council of Chalcedon for reasons of faith, but rather as revanche for the rejection of the Tomos Leonis at the second Council of Ephesus (449 C.E.). Interestingly enough, the deposition took place at the third session of Chalcedon, without the presence of the imperial commissioners and was presided over by the papal legate Paschasinus. 11 Pope Leo viewed Eutyches simply as an ignorant, old and stubborn archimandrite, describing him as “multum imprudens et nimis imperitus.” 12 Eutyches was not a great theologian, for his ‘teaching’, if one may say so, was essentially limited to a simplification of Cyril’s statements. Whatever the case for Eutyches, for Pope Leo granting readmission to Timothy Aelurus to the Church did not apply; he was accused of the murder of Proterios: Therefore, what the shameful father-murderer has sinned by invading the holy church of Alexandria and by the very cruel murder of the ruler himself, cannot be atoned for by human forgiveness, unless it is pleaded to him who alone can both justly punish such things and by unspeakable mercy alone can remit them 13.

None of the bishops whom Emperor Leo I consulted, nor Pope Leo, spoke out in favour of Timothy Aelurus. From 460 C.E. until the death of Emperor Leo fifteen years later, Timothy was exiled on the Black Sea. During this time, the Chalcedonian Timothy Salophakiolos (σαλοκϕακίολος, wobble cap) became Patriarch of Alexandria. He was the first patriarch, who called himself melkite (i.e., imperial), a designation that later became common for the imperial ecclesiastical minority in Egypt generally. However, the peaceful and generally well-liked patriarch was unable to succeed in restoring Egypt’s ecclesiastical unity.

POLITICAL CHANGE AND REINSTALLATION OF TIMOTHY AELURUS

When Emperor Leo I died in 474 C.E., his grandson Leo II was still a minor. The Isaurian Zeno had himself elevated to Augustus by Empress Verina. “Since Zeno and Acacius [the bishop of Constantinople] both appeared publicly to be loyal to Chalcedon, … it appeared in 474 that there would be no change in the orientation of imperial church-policy.” 14 However, Zeno became victim of a conspiracy in January 475 C.E., with Basiliscus, the brother of Verina, gaining the throne. In order to be able to re-assert himself, Zeno tried to find supporters among the opponents of Chalcedon. Soon a group of Egyptian monks managed to obtain the amnesty of Timothy See Winkler, Koptische Kirche und Reichskirche, 75–7 and 186. Leo, ep. 28 ad Flavianum Episcopum Constantinopolitanum contra Eutychis perfidem et haeresim (PL 54, 755A–7A). 13 Leo, ep. 164 ad Leonem Augustum (ACO II 4 p. 110-112), 112. (“quod ergo in sanctæ Alexandrinæ ecclesiæ peruasione et in præsulis ipsius crudelissima cæde impius parricida commisit, non posset humanis remissionibus expiari, nisi ille exoretur qui talia et solus potest digne plectere et solus ineffabili misericordia relaxare.”) Emphasis the author. 14 Gray, The Defense of Chalcedon, 25. 11 12

POST-CHALCEDONIAN CONFLICTS IN EGYPT

91

Aelurus. At the suggestion of the patriarch, one of these Egyptian monks, Paul the Sophist, wrote an imperial circular, which within a short time had gathered no less than 500 approving signatures. 15 Without any synodal consultation this Encyclion, in which the Tomus Leonis and the Horos of Chalcedon were anathematised, was issued by the usurper Basiliscus. Thus, the imperial ecclesiastical norm of faith based on the Second Council of Ephesus (449 C.E.), which Pope Leo had called Latrocinium (Robber Synod) 16, was again achieved. On his return voyage to Alexandria, Timothy Aelurus took part in a synod of the province of Asia in 475 C.E., during which the patriarchal rights of Constantinople over this province were challenged. 17 Since the anti-Chalcedonian Patriarch of Antioch, Peter the Fuller (471 C.E., 475–477 C.E., 485–488 C.E.), who had been imprisoned under Emperor Leo I, also returned and Patriarch Anastasius of Jerusalem (458–478 C.E.) put his signature to the Encyclion, the defenders of Chalcedon found themselves in a troubled position almost overnight. The triumphant return of Timothy Aelurus from exile to Alexandria was unopposed by Timothy Salophakiolos, who went back to his monastery. The text of the Encyclion has come down to us in a shorter version addressed to Timothy Aelurus and in a longer version that was addressed to the metropolitans and peoples of the whole Oikumene. 18 According to Eduard Schwartz, the shorter version as handed down by Evagrius, is the original text; however, the bishops of the Synod of Ephesus (475 C.E.), in which Timothy Aelurus participated, had the longer version before them. 19 This is significant in that it attacks the primacy of Constantinople, which is expressed by canon 3 of Constantinople (381 C.E.) and canon 28 of Chalcedon (451 C.E.). The second Council of Ephesus (449 C.E.), by contrast, receives positive attention. The extensions thus concern regulations of the ecclesiastical order and show the political struggle over patriarchal primacy. Timothy Aelurus made use of the Encyclicon of Basiliscus and the imperial ecclesiastical system in order to regain ground lost to Constantinople as well as to preserve the own Christological tradition, excluding all developments that occurred after 431 C.E. This is worth emphasising, because it makes clear that under Timothy there were still no Egyptian national endeavours to be noted that would mean a renunciation of the imperial church. Rather, under Basiliscus, an anti-Chalcedonian imperial unity was within reach: the bishoprics and patriarchal sees of the provinces See Karlmann Beyschlag, Grundriss der Dogmengeschichte. Bd. II: Gott und Mensch. Tl. 1: Das christologische Dogma (Darmstadt: 1991), 141. 16 Leo, ep. 95 ad Pulcheriam Augustam (PL 54, 942B-944C): “…in illo Ephesino, non iudicio, sed latrocinio…”. 17 See Beck, Die frühbyzantinische Kirche, 7. 18 For the sources, see Winkler, Koptische Kirche und Reichskirche, 120 (footnotes 142 and 143). 19 See Eduard Schwartz, Publizistische sammlungen zum acacianischen schisma (Munich: 1934), 186 footnote 4: “Dem Text des Evagrius…, in dem nur die Anatheme gegen die chalkedonensische expositio fidei stehen, liegt das Exemplar zugrunde, das Timotheos in Konstantinopel überreicht war, der alexandrinischen Sammlung [Cod. Vat. 1431] das veränderte, das zunächst den in Ephesus versammelten Bischöfen und dann auch anderen vorgelegt wurde.” 15

92

DIETMAR W. WINKLER

of Asia, Syria, Antioch, Jerusalem and above all Egypt were occupied by opponents of the Council of 451 C.E. Alexandria thus also wanted to deny Constantinople its patriarchal claims; making it barely a matter of Christological and dogmatic dispute.

ALEXANDRIA VERSUS CONSTANTINOPLE

The Encyclion failed due to the activities of Acacius of Constantinople. 20 He simply could not stand by and watch these initiatives. He had lost again without a contest, and so he addressed himself to the West. For more than 15 years, the popes had not been able to intervene in Eastern affairs, nor had they been sufficiently informed. Accordingly, Pope Simplicius (468–483 C.E.) only recalled in his letters what had been said by his predecessor, Pope Leo the Great and the unanimous expression of opinion by the bishops of the entire Orient (totius Orientis episcopi 21) in the Codex Encyclius of Emperor Leo I. Acacius seems to have needed the West only to secure his claims to power. If the Alexandrian patriarch Timothy Aelurus was behind Basiliscus’ Encyclion, Acacius was responsible for the coming events and the Henoticon. The patriarch of Constantinople was able to count on the so-called sleepless monks of the monastery of the Akoimetoi in Constantinople and mobilised the population against the usurper Basiliscus. Acacius was certainly prepared to make dogmatic concessions, but to enforce his patriarchal rights he needed the Council of Chalcedon (and particularly its canon 28) in any case. When in 476 C.E., Zeno and his army marched against Constantinople, the situation of the usurper Basiliscus became hopeless. Monks and people demonstrated against him. In his distress, he formally revoked the Encyclion with an Antencyclion condemning Nestorius and Eutyches, something that anyway was what friend and foe of Chalcedon desired. 22 Furthermore, the imperial synod planned by Timothy Aelurus was prevented, and the primacy of the See of Constantinople was confirmed. No mention is made of the teachings of Chalcedon. Nevertheless, it was too late for Basiliscus; with his fall in 476 C.E., the antiChalcedonian movement initially collapsed as well. The accession of Emperor Zeno in the same year initiated a policy of pro-Chalcedonian restoration that encountered fierce resistance, especially in Egypt. Timothy Aelurus was to be deported again. Zeno, however, thought it advisable to let the old patriarch die in peace. Nevertheless, the pressure of the new political regime was strong enough that after Timotheos’ death, his long-time companion Petros Mongos could only be ordained in secret. 23 Timothy Salophakiolos was brought back from the monastery of the Tabennesiots at Kanopos and installed as official patriarch from 477 C.E. to 482 C.E. Petros Mongos remained undiscovered in Alexandria and acted Dietmar W. Winkler, “Acacius of Constantinople” in: David G. Hunter et al., eds, Brill Encyclopedia of Early Christianity Online, http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/2589-7993_EECO_SIM_00000027 (First published online: 2018). 21 Simplicius Ep., Basilico Augusto in Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum 35, Otto Guenther, ed. (Vienna: 1895), 124–9 nr. 56), 127 (line 10). 22 See Grillmeier, Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche II/1, 276. 23 For further details, see Winkler, Koptische Kirche und Reichskirche, 122–35. 20

POST-CHALCEDONIAN CONFLICTS IN EGYPT

93

in secret for the next five years. With the formulation of the Henoticon in 482 C.E., the post-Chalcedonian disputes were subsequently given a new turn. 24

ON THE PRESERVED WRITINGS OF TIMOTHY AELURUS

Timothy Aelurus was opposed by the Chalcedonians and venerated by his followers. He was undoubtedly a tough and sharp opponent of the Council, but it must also be seen that in his theological expositions “he seems to have been essentially moderate, opposed to Chalcedon because it was ‘Nestorian’, but equally opposed to Eutychianism which he saw as but a mirror image of Nestorianism.” 25 We are informed about Timothy’s theology through his treatises and letters. Although the Greek originals have been lost, the Armenian and Syriac manuscripts illustrate not only Timothy’s intellectual processes, but also that significant lines of communication were established among the anti-Chalcedonians from Egypt via Syria to Armenia. A more extensive text against Chalcedon has been preserved in its entirety only in Armenian and was published in 1908 by Karapet Ter-Mekerttschian and Erwand Ter-Minassiantz. 26 Thus, on the one hand, a new source was made accessible to the history of dogma and, on the other hand, texts of patristic writings, some of which had been lost or were still unknown, were brought back to life by the extensive Florilegium incorporated by Timothy. 27 However, the scientific judgement of Rifaat Y. Ebied and Lionel R. Wickham on the 1908 publication is not favourable: “This edition leaves much to be desired. Based on the single surviving manuscript in poor condition at many points, the published Armenian text contains numerous obvious misprints, misreadings of the manuscript, false punctuation and so on.” 28 Syriac Codex B. L. Add. 12,156 (fol. 1-29) has a shortened version, which François Nau partially edited in 1919, with an accompanying French translation. 29 This version is followed in the See Winkler, “Acacius of Constantinople”. Rifaat Y. Ebied and Lionel R. Wickham, “A Collection of Unpublished Syriac Letters of Timothy Aelurus”, Journal of Theological Studies 21 (1970), 327. Fundamental to the Christology of Timothy Aelurus is Alois Grillmeier, Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche II/4: Die Kirche von Alexandrien mit Nubien und Äthiopien nach 451. Assisted by Theresia Hainthaler (Freiburg: 1990), 7–35. 26 Karapet Ter-Mekerttschian and Erwand Ter-Minassiantz, eds, Timotheos Älurus’ des Patriarchen von Alexandrien, Widerlegung der auf der Synode zu Chalzedon festgesetzten Lehre. Armenischer Text mit deutschem und armenischem Vorwort (Leipzig: 1908). 27 See Andrea B. Schmidt, “Die Refutatio des Timotheus Aelurus gegen das Konzil von Chalcedon”, Oriens Christianus 73 (1989), 150. 28 Rifaat Y. Ebied and Lionel R. Wickham, “Timothy Aelurus, Against the Definition of the Council of Chalcedon”, in After Chalcedon. Studies in Theology and Church History offered to Professor Albert Van Roey on his seventieth birthday, Carl Laga, Joseph A. Munitiz and Lucas Van Rompay, eds (Leuven: 1985), 118. 29 François Nau, Documents pour servir à l’histoire de l’Église nestorienne [Patrologia Orientalis 13] (Paris: 1907), 202–18. On the relationship between the longer and shorter versions cf. Joseph Lebon, “Version arménienne et version syriaque de Thimothée Élure”, Handes Amsorya 41 (1927), 713–22. 24 25

94

DIETMAR W. WINKLER

same Syriac manuscript by a number of letters (fol. 29b–36b) and creeds (fol. 36b– 39b). The letters were made accessible in 1970 by Ebied and Wickham. 30 In Codex B-L. Add. 12,156, following the letters, there is a second treatise by Timothy Aelurus against the definition of the Council of Chalcedon, published for the most part by Nau, Ebied and Wickham (fol. 39b-61a). 31 The Syriac facsimiles of the tracts, letters and creeds edited by Ebied and Wickham are regrettably reproduced only as simple Mss copies in very small type, which makes working with the original texts considerably more difficult. A diplomatic edition would be highly desirable. On the other hand, one most gratefully welcomes the profound introduction and translation. The two longer texts against Chalcedon that have been mentioned above are writings of dispute and invective, characterised by respective exaggerations. Timothy Aelurus “is a pamphleteer and propagandist for a cause, first and last. But that admitted, it must be added that the quality of the pamphleteering is unusually high because its method is unusually self-effacing.” 32 In order to highlight the main lines of Timothy Aelurus’ Christology, the letters made accessible by Ebied and Wickham will be used here.

BASIC FEATURES OF THE CHRISTOLOGY OF TIMOTHY AELURUS

In the post-Chalcedonian controversies, the opponents of the Council, especially the adherents of the μία ύσις formula, are accused of being Eutychians. 33 Moreover, it is apparent that Eutychians and Apollinarists are often equated. Pope Leo the Great further enriched this list, by adding Manichaeans and Docetics. 34 Remarkably in the struggle against these heresies, Pope Leo and Timothy Aelurus were on the same side, but held exactly opposite positions in the church-political dispute over Chalcedon. The letters of the Alexandrian patriarch show his concern that Gnostic and Eutychian tendencies, as well as so-called Nestorianism, which he mistakenly saw confirmed by Chalcedon, were endangering orthodox belief. “What matters for Timothy

Cf. Ebied and Wickham, “A Collection of Unpublished Syriac Letters of Timothy Aelurus”. Fol. 39b-42a, see Nau, Documents, 218–36. Fol. 42b-51b and 59b–61a, see Ebied and Wickham, “Timothy Aelurus”, 115–66. Ebied and Wickham, on p.119, note that the unpublished fol. 51b–59b contains “damaging quotations from the Acta of the Council of Ephesus (499 C.E.—the Latrocinium) designed to show the sudden turn-around performed by the bishops at Chalcedon.” An easily accessible English translation with an introduction by Introduction by Mark DelCogliano and Philip Michael Forness is provided in: Mark DelCogliano, ed., The Cambridge Edition of Early Christian Writings. Vol. 4: Chalcedon and Beyond (Cambridge: 2022), 134– 81. 32 Ebied and Wickham, “Timothy Aelurus”, 116. 33 See Dietmar W. Winkler, “Miaphysitismus. Anmerkungen zur ökumenischen Sinnhaftigkeit eines Neologismus”, Christianesimo nella Storia 37 (2016) 19–29; also Dietmar W. Winkler, “Miaphysitism. A new Term for Use in the History of Dogma and in Ecumenical Theology”, The Harp 10 (1997), 33–40. 34 Cf. Winkler, Koptische Kirche und Reichskirche, 113f. 30 31

POST-CHALCEDONIAN CONFLICTS IN EGYPT

95

and his followers is the simple assertion of a real unity and true incarnation by the truly divine Word of God.” 35 The extent to which this judgement by Ebied and Wickham is correct is shown by Timothy’s letters. In a letter to Constantinople, Timothy defended himself against the accusation of Eutychianism, underlining that Jesus Christ was consubstantial with us: ̈ ‫ܕܐܒܗܬܐ ܕܒܪ ܟܝܢܐ ܕܝܠܢ ܗܘܐ ܒܒܣܪ ܡܪܢ ܝܫܘܥ‬ ‫ܡܗܝܡܢܝܢ ܚܝܢ ܓܝܪ ܡܝܟ ܡܫܠܡܢܘܬܐ‬ .‫ ܘܚܕ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܥܡ ܒܣܪܐ ܡܪܢ ܝܫܘܥ ܡܫܝܚܐ ܘܚܕ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܥܡ ܒܣܪܐ ܕܝܠܗ‬.‫ܡܫܝܚܐ‬ For we believe, in accordance with the tradition of the fathers, that our Lord Jesus Christ was consubstantial in flesh with us. Our Lord Jesus Christ is one with the flesh and one with his own. 36

And further down he admonished: ‫ ܕܒܣܪܗ ܕܡܪܢ ܝܫܘܥ ܡܫܝܚܐ ܡܢ ܩܕܝܫܬܐ‬...‫ ܡܠܟܐ ܠܟܘܠܢ‬.‫ܕܡܝܘܬܗ ܓܝܪ ܕܒܟܠ ܡܕܡ ܕܠܘܬܢ‬ ‫ ܕܕܝܠܗ ܘܕܝܠܢ ܒܪ ܟܝܢܐ ܗܘܐ ܒܒܣܪ ܗܘ ܕܐܦ ܕܐܒܐ‬.‫ܘܝܠܕܬ ܐܠܗܐ ܒܬܘܠܬܐ ܡܪܝܡ ܐܝܬܘܗܢ‬ ‫ܐܝܬܘܗܢ ܒܪ ܟܝܢܐ ܒܐܠܗܘܬܗ‬. This expression, ‘like us in everything’ counsels all of us, who wish to live and enjoy eternal benefits, to confess that our Lord Jesus Christ’s flesh is derived from Mary the holy Virgin and Mother of God, because he was consubstantial in the flesh with her and with us, he who is consubstantial in his Godhead with the Father. 37

Timothy repeatedly opposed Docetism and the associated idea that Jesus Christ was not truly human with only an illusory body. Thus, he also drew on Athanasius as a witness, quoting his letter to Epictetus 38: ‫ ܘܦܓܪܐ ܫܪܝܪܐ‬.‫ܐܢܫܝܐ ܐܪܐ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܒܟܝܢܐ ܦܓܪܐ ܕܡܢ ܐܪܝܡ ܐܝܟ ܟܬܒܐ ܐܠܗܝܐ‬ ‫ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܗܘܐ ܕܦܪܘܩܢ‬. The body, then, derived from Mary was, according to the divine Scriptures, human in nature and our Saviour’s body was a true one. 39

The Syriac term, ‫( ܟܝܢܐ‬kyana) can be rendered as οὐσία (substantia) as well as ϕύσις (natura). The corresponding expression for ὁμοούσιος, i.e. ‫ ܒܪ ܟܝܢܐ‬can consequently be translated as ‘of the same substance’ or ‘of the same nature’. Ebied and Wickham note: “Moreover, in the citations from the Fathers the original Greek (assuming Timothy’s texts to agree with the known manuscript tradition) was sometimes οὐσία, sometimes ϕύσις.” 40 This should be noted with regard to Alois Grillmeier’s observation that the antagonism which existed between the Alexandrian-Cyrillian and the 271F

Ebied and Wickham, “A Collection of Unpublished Syriac Letters”, 328. Ebied and Wickham, “A Collection of Unpublished Syriac Letters”, 333 (fol. 30a, centre column line 40–left column line 1). English translation, 352. 37 Ebied and Wickham, “A Collection of Unpublished Syriac Letters”, 333 (fol. 30a, left column, lines 30–2 and 35–43). English translation, 352. 38 See Athanasius, ep. ad Epictetum (Patrologia Graeca 26 1061B). 39 Ebied and Wickham, “A Collection of Unpublished Syriac Letters”, 334ff. (fol. 30b, left column, line 41 – fol. 31a, right column, line 1). English translation, 354. 40 Ebied and Wickham, “A Collection of Unpublished Syriac Letters”, 325. 35 36

96

DIETMAR W. WINKLER

Roman-Leonine traditions found its very expression in the contradictory concept of nature. 41 That the interpretation of this terminology, however, is substantially in agreement with the Chalcedonian faith is shown by the pronounced emphasis on the rational soul of Jesus Christ, which also excludes any Apollinarian interpretation: ‫ ܒܠܚܘܕ ܣܛܪ ܡܢ‬.‫ ܕܡܢܦܫ ܒܢܦܫܐ ܡܠܝܠܬܐ‬.‫ܐܬܩܝܡ ܒܣܪܐ ܗܘ ܕܡܢ ܡܪܝܡ ܐܬܝܠܕ ܕܦܪܘܩܢ‬ ‫ܙܪܥܐ ܕܓܒܪܐ ܘܫܢܬܐ ܘܪܓܬܐ‬. That flesh of our Saviour, which was born of Mary and which was ensouled with a rational soul, was constituted of every element of which we are composed, but not through male seed, sleep, and sensual gratification. 42

This passage comes from a letter that Timothy sent from his exile in Gangra to Alexandria. In this letter he also quoted Dioscorus in order to emphasise his orthodoxy. The phrase is preceded by a real concept of the man Christ, complete with nerves, skin, hair, heart and lungs, which Timothy often presents. This excludes the Monophysite interpretation as can be seen in Eutyches’ writings. In the letter to Constantinople mentioned above, for instance, Timothy refers to John of Constantinople, writing:

. ‫ ܘܒܡܪܒܥܐ ܒܬܘܠܝܐ ܙܒܢܐ ܕܬܫܥܐ ܝܪܚܝܢ ܢܬܛܥܢ‬...‫ܩܒܠ ܕܢܗܘܐ ܒܪ ܐܢܫܐ ܘܒܣܪܐ‬ ‫ܘܚܠܒܐ ܢܣܬܝܒܪ ܘܐܢܫܝܬܐ ܟܠܗܝܢ ܢܣܝܒܪ‬ He undertook to become man and earthly flesh … and was borne nine months in the Virgin’s womb. He was nursed on milk and endured all the conditions of humanity. 43

Timothy Aelurus never tired of emphasising the consubstantiality of Christ with both God and man: “The Egyptian Christian is sustained and comforted by the truth that he who became man and suffered in our behalf is God the Word in his fullness, through whose person we have access to the fullness of salvation.” 44 In standing vehemently against any kind of Docetism, he agreed with Pope Leo, but while the latter perceived a mixture in the profession of one nature, Timotheos understood a separation in the two natures. The respective orthodox presentation is not seen by the opponents. Thus, in his work against Chalcedon, Timothy polemicised above all against the ‘Nestorianism’ of the Council of Chalcedon, Pope Leo and his Tomus ad Flavianum. 45 Timothy also addressed this subject several times in his letters. From his exile in Chersoneus he wrote to an otherwise unknown archimandrite, Claudianus:

Grillmeier, Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche II/1, 24. Ebied and Wickham, “A Collection of Unpublished Syriac Letters”, 339 (fol.33a, left column, lines 24–30). English translation, 360. 43 Ebied and Wickham, “A Collection of Unpublished Syriac Letters”, 337 (fol. 32a, right column, lines 38-40 and 42-45). English Translation, 357. 44 Ebied and Wickham, “A Collection of Unpublished Syriac Letters”, 328. 45 Cf. Ebied and Wickham, “Timothy Aelurus, Against the Definition of the Council of Chalcedon”. 41 42

POST-CHALCEDONIAN CONFLICTS IN EGYPT

97

‫ ܕܫܩܠܬ ܦܪܗܣܝܐ ܡܢ‬.‫ܗܪܣܝܣ ܕܝܢ ܕܝܠܗܘܢ ܐܝܬܝܗ ܣܓܐܬ ܪܫܐ ܘܥܬܝܩܬܐ ܘܡܟܪܙܬܐ‬ ‫ ܘܒܛܠܚܬܐ‬.‫ ܡܢܗܘܢ ܡܢ ܓܝܪ ܒܦܢܛܗܝܐ ܐܡܪܝܢ‬.‫ܣܥܗܕܘܣ ܪܫܝܥܬܐ ܕܢܣܛܘܪܝܢܘ ܕܒܟܠܩܕܘܝܐ‬ ‫ ܘܠܐ ܗܘܐ ܒܫܪܪܐ‬.‫ܕܗܘܬ ܡܬܓܫܡܢܘܬܗ ܕܡܪܢ‬. Their heresy is an ancient and many-headed monster, which gained confidence from the wicked Synod of the Nestorians at Chalcedon. Some of them say that our Lord’s incarnation was illusion, imagination and unreal. 46

The struggle in both directions is clear: on the one hand against a ‘Nestorian’ Christology, on the other hand against the Docetics.

CONCLUDING COMMENTS

Timothy must be attested for his sincere efforts to articulate true faith. His resolute opposition to both Nestorianism and Eutychianism is summarised at the end of his letter to Claudianus, describing them as ‫ ܦܢܬܣܝܣܬܐ‬...‫ ܬܪܝܢ ܟܝܢܐ‬...‫“ ܗܪܛܝܩܘ‬heretical diphysites and phantasiasts” and juxtaposing them as extremes. 47 The Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian sides should have realised that they had the same concerns. The insufficient clarification of the terms, especially the concept of nature (ϕύσις), coupled with imprudence, violence and the desire for power on all sides prevented the opponents from settling the conflicts peacefully, especially since the opposites were intensified in each case in polemical writings. In short: Timothy included Nestorians, Chalcedonians and Pope Leo in one pot, Eutychians, Manichaeans and Docetics in the other. Pope Leo in turn placed Timothy Aelurus in this second pot, since for him Alexandrian and Eutychian doctrine coincided. It took more than sixteen hundred years, until the ecumenical theological dialogues of the 20th century to recognise that both sides actually represent an orthodox theology. 48 278F

BIBLIOGRAPHY Primary Sources

ACO = Acta conciliorum oecumenicorium, Eduard Schwartz ed. (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1914–1948) Codex Encyclius, in: ACO II 5, 9-98.

Ebied and Wickham, “A Collection of Unpublished Syriac Letters”, 345 (fol. 36a, right column, lines 14–25). English translation, 367. 47 Ebied and Wickham, “A Collection of Unpublished Syriac Letters”, 346 (fol. 36b, left column, lines 32–4). English translation, 367. Ebied and Wickham, fn. 7 equate Phantasists and Eutychians with reference to fol. 61a. 48 For a comprehensive analysis of the ecumenical dialogues with the Coptic Church see Winkler, Koptische Kirche und Reichskirche, 201–334. For an overview, see Dietmar W. Winkler, “Growing Consensus. The dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches”, Ortodoksia [Finland] 53 (2013), 84–112. 46

98

DIETMAR W. WINKLER Epistula Euippi, in: ACO II 5, 84. Leo, ep. 156 ad Leonem Augustum, in: ACO II 4, 101–4. Leo, ep. 157 ad Anatolium Episcopum, in: ACO II 4, 109f. Leo, ep. 158 ad Episcopos Aegyptiorum, in: ACO II 4, 104f. Leo, ep. 164 ad Leonem Augustum, in: ACO II 4, 110–2.

Leo, ep. 28 ad Flavianum Episcopum Constantinopolitanum contra Eutychis perfidem et haeresim [Patrologia Latina, 54, 755A-757A]. Leo, ep. 95 ad Pulcheriam Augustam [Patrologia Latina, 54, 942B-944C]. Nau, François. Documents pour servir à l’histoire de l’Église nestorienne [Patrologia Orientalis 13] (Paris: Firmin Didot, 1907). Schwartz, Eduard. Publizistische sammlungen zum acacianischen schisma [Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch.-historische Abteilung 10] (Munich: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, in Kommission bei der C. H. Beck’schen Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1934). Simplicius Ep. Basilico Augusto in Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum Latinorum 35, Otto Guenther, ed. (Vienna: Kaiserl. Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1895). Ter-Mekerttschian, Karapet and Erwand Ter-Minassiantz, eds, Timotheos Älurus’ des Patriarchen von Alexandrien, Widerlegung der auf der Synode zu Chalzedon festgesetzten Lehre. Armenischer Text mit deutschem und armenischem Vorwort (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1908). Secondary Sources

Beck, Hans-Georg. Die frühbyzantinische Kirche in Die Reichskirche nach Konstantin dem Großen. Zweiter Halbband: Die Kirche in Ost und West von Chalkedon bis zum Frühmittelalter (451-700), Karl Baus et al., eds [Handbuch der Kirchengeschichte II/2] (Freiburg: Herder, 1975). Beyschlag, Karlmann. Grundriss der Dogmengeschichte. Bd. II: Gott und Mensch. Tl. 1: Das christologische Dogma (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1991). DelCogliano, Mark, ed. The Cambridge Edition of Early Christian Writings. Vol. 4: Chalcedon and Beyond (Cambridge: 2022), 134–181. Ebied, Rifaat Y. and Lionel R. Wickham. “A Collection of Unpublished Syriac Letters of Timothy Aelurus”, Journal of Theological Studies 21 (1970), 321–69. Ebied, Rifaat Y. and Lionel R. Wickham. “Timothy Aelurus, Against the Definition of the Council of Chalcedon” in After Chalcedon. Studies in Theology and Church History offered to Professor Albert Van Roey on his seventieth birthday, Carl Laga,

POST-CHALCEDONIAN CONFLICTS IN EGYPT

99

Joseph A. Munitiz and Lucas Van Rompay, eds [Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 18] (Leuven: Dept. Oriëntalistiek: Uitgeverij Peeters, 1985), 115–66. Gray, Patrick T.R. The Defense of Chalcedon in the East (451-553) (Leiden: Brill, 1979). Griggs, Wilfred C. Early Egyptian Christianity. From its Origins to 451 C.E., 3rd edn. (Leiden: Brill, 1993). Grillmeier, Alois. “‘Piscatorie’–‘Aristotelice’. Zur Bedeutung der Formel in den seit Chalkedon getrennten Kirchen” in Alois Grillmeier, Mit ihm und in ihm. Christologische Forschungen und Perspektiven, 2nd edn. (Freiburg: Herder, 1979), 283– 300. —— Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche II/1: Das Konzil von Chalcedon (451). Rezeption und Widerspruch (451–518) (Freiburg: Herder, 1986). —— Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche II/4: Die Kirche von Alexandrien mit Nubien und Äthiopien nach 451. Assisted by Theresia Hainthaler (Freiburg: Herder, 1990). Lebon, Joseph. “Version arménienne et version syriaque de Thimothée Élure”, Handes Amsorya 41 (1927), 713–22. Schmidt, Andrea B. “Die Refutatio des Timotheus Aelurus gegen das Konzil von Chalcedon. Ihre Bedeutung für die Bekenntnisentwicklung der armenischen Kirche Persiens im 6. Jh.”, Oriens Christianus 73 (1989), 149–65. Schnitzler, Theodor. Im Kampfe um Chalcedon. Geschichte und Inhalt des Codex Encyclicus von 458 [Analecta Gregoriana 16], (Rome: Apud aedes Universitatis Gregorianae, 1938). Winkler, Dietmar W. “Acacius of Constantinople” in: Brill Encyclopedia of Early Christianity Online, David G. Hunter et al., ed. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/25897993_EECO_SIM_00000027 (First published online: 2018). —— “Growing Consensus. The dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches”, Ortodoksia [Finland] 53 (2013), 84–112. —— Koptische Kirche und Reichskirche. Altes Schisma und neuer Dialog, (Innsbrucker theologische Studien 48) (Innsbruck: Tyrolia-Verlag, 1997), 90–167. —— “Miaphysitism. A new Term for Use in the History of Dogma and in Ecumenical Theology”, The Harp 10 (1997), 33–40. —— “Miaphysitismus. Anmerkungen zur ökumenischen Sinnhaftigkeit eines Neologismus”, Christianesimo nella Storia 37 (2016), 19–29.

THE CEREMONIAL CREATION OF THE BODY OF ADAM IN ALMA RIŠAIA RBA

SANDRA VAN ROMPAEY ∗

(LA TROBE UNIVERSITY, AUSTRALIA) The creation of the spiritual body of the first-born son of the Life (Adam) and the raising-up of his soul through a double masiqta is the central theme of the Mandaean illustrated scroll, Alma Rišaia Rba. This contribution aims to demonstrate how the scroll’s rich symbolic content acts for the officiating priest as a guide to the correct performance of various rituals in the Dabahata, and to make observations about some of the underlying reasoning. A commentary in the second half of the scroll provides explanations of some of the ‘mysteries’ and injunctions within the masiqta whilst also making links to other Mandaean instructional texts. The ways in which the text serves to invoke the cosmic dimension of the ‘Lightworld’ will be demonstrated, while simultaneously reflecting the earthly realm inhabited by the priestly participants in the ceremony. To illustrate this, reference will be made to the present-day induction of a priest, as enacted within the Mandean community of Sydney, Australia.

ALMA RIŠAIA RBA: MYTHOLOGY AND PRAXIS

Mythical creation and the burgeoning elements of life are a perpetual theme in Mandaean gnostic literature and in ritual practice today. The creation of the body and

It is a privilege to offer a contribution in honour of Professor Rifaat Ebied. I first met Rifaat through the Mandaean priest Brikha Nasoraia at the University of Sydney where he was Professor of Semitic Studies. His encouragement of my pursuit of Mandaean studies and his acknowledgement of its value were important factors contributing to the initial momentum of my research. Along with his advice, his warmth, wisdom, humanity, and generosity have been greatly appreciated.

∗

101

102

SANDRA VAN ROMPAEY

soul of Adam, the first-born son of the Great Life, 1 is central to the Mandaean illustrated scroll, Alma Rišaia Rba or ‘The Great First World’ that is now housed in the Bodleian Library, Oxford as MS. Drower 41 (r). 2 Ethel Stefana Drower comments that this scroll containing “fragments of esoteric doctrine of the kind known as naṣiruta”, 3 is traditionally shown only to those entering the priesthood. 4 A series of highly symbolic rituals containing elements of secret gnosis constitutes the core of this instructional document designed for the use of priests officiating at the ceremony to induct an ašualia (postulant) into the priesthood. This secret knowledge is imparted by Ayar-Dakia (Pure Ether) 5 in response to questions from Mara-d-Rabuta (Lord of Instruction). 6 Both these high-status beings of the Lightworld play the roles of celestial celebrants and instructors for the performance of the double masiqta (Dabahata) (raising up) 7 described in the document. Ethel Stefana Drower and Rudolf Macuch, A Mandaic Dictionary (Oxford: 1963) [hereafter cited as MD], 143, defines hiia as “Life, the primordial deity of the Mandaean religion”. Ethel Stefana Drower notes in The Secret Adam: A Study of Naṣoraean Gnosis (Oxford: 1960) [hereafter cited as SA], 1, that it is “without sex or human attribute”. She adds that in Mandaic hiia is an “abstract plural” and accordingly, “in speaking of it the pronoun ‘They’ is used”. Many of the prayers cited in Alma Rišaia Rba begin with “In the name of the Great Life”. See Ethel Stefana Drower, The Canonical Prayerbook of the Mandaeans (Leiden: 1959) [hereafter cited as CP]. 2 This scroll, which forms the basis of this paper, was translated and published by Ethel Stefana Drower, A Pair of Naṣoraean Commentaries (Two Priestly Documents), the Great “First World” (Alma Rišaia Rba) and the Lesser “First World” (Alma Rišaia Zuṭa) (Leiden: 1963). Alma Rišaia Rba is hereafter cited as ARR, and Alma Rišaia Zuṭa as ARZ. The translator’s preface is cited as ARR/ARZ. 3 Naṣiruta is an esoteric religious knowledge acquired over time by Mandaean priests. In SA, ix, Drower describes naṣiruta as “true enlightenment”, which includes a working knowledge of Mandaean ritual practice as well as the reasoning contained within these “mysteries”. See also MD, 286. 4 ARR, vii. 5 Ayar is named as both Ayar-Dakia and (Pure Ether) in this document, the latter epithet (rba) implying his role as a teacher and instructor. The epithets given to Lightworld beings vary, depending on the document’s purpose and on their roles. 6 ARR, 30–1. In this section Mara-d-Rabuta (Lord of Greatness) questions Ayar-Rba, described here as the “great and lofty El” who explains various ritual meanings to him. See also ARR, 49–51, where Ayar-Dakia defers to the Celestial King for explanations about the sacred seals applied to the soul. 7 The two parts of the double masiqta (Dabahata) as described in ARR are performed consecutively, the first for the side of the Cosmic Mother (earth) and the second for the side of the Cosmic Father (Lightworld). More generally, the masiqta is a mass performed for the rising soul, including those still in the body as well as after death. The goal is to unite the ruha (spirit) with the nišimta (soul) for her journey to the House of Abatur, and then on to the ‘Place 1

THE CEREMONIAL CREATION OF THE BODY OF ADAM

103

Most of the dialogue is conducted in the ‘ether-world’ or the great ‘Place of Light’ by ’uthria (celestial beings operating in the World of Light). The ’uthria serve, partially, as archetypes for the officiating participants in the corresponding ceremony on earth and as messengers to the governing World of Light. The narrative within ARR is brought to life by the creativeness of language and by the accompanying iconography. The particular gnosis in ARR aligns itself readily to a description of gnosis by Hans Jonas, for whom there is an “indissoluble mythological core to gnostic thought as such”, that, “far remote from the rarefied atmosphere of philosophical reasoning, […] moves in the denser medium of imagery and personification.” 8 The personified beings within the literature are like characters in a play that is being enacted in the cosmic world. The accompanying symbolic iconography is designed also as a portrayal of the essential components involved in the creation of this ‘First’ World, and which assists in the imparting of knowledge.

ALMA RIŠAIA RBA: ORIGIN AND PURPOSE

Embodying gnostic language, thought and practices that were developed by certain Mandaean priests, or Naṣoraeans 9 (as they referred to themselves in the early writings dated between the third and seventh centuries), ARR is a ritual commentary, set in a framework of symbolic illustrations accompanied by Mandaic text. The scroll concludes with a colophon detailing the scribal history and purported cosmic origin of ARR. This (and other colophons) provide instructive information relating to the early history of the Mandaean priesthood up to the early nineteenth century, as well as the naming of copyists both divine and earthly. Adam Yuhana, son of Sam in Šuštar (lower Mesopotamia) copied ARR in 1224 A.H. (1809). 10 A much earlier

of Light’. It is the only Mandaean sacrament that cannot be seen by a lay person, taking place in the bimanda (clay cult-hut, made to a specific design). During the masiqta the priest identifies himself temporarily with the departed being whose passage out of the physical world represents rebirth into a spiritual body. A masiqta is read for those who have left the body as well as for those still inhabiting it. See MII, ch. VIII, also Jorunn Jacobsen Buckley, The Mandaeans: Ancient Texts and Modern People (Oxford: 2002), ch. 8, and Ethel Stefana Drower, Water into Wine (London: 1956) [hereafter cited as WW], 242–55. 8 Hans Jonas, The Gnostic Religion: The Message of the Alien God and the Beginnings of Christianity, 2nd edn. (New York: 1963), 46. See also p. 48, for a more specific discussion of the creativeness found within Mandaean literature. 9 SA, ix describes a Naṣoraean (Naṣuraia) as “one who observes strictly all rules of ritual purity [and] who understands the secret doctrine” and claims that Naṣoraean gnosis “based upon the Mystic Adam dates back to the first or second century AD” (xv). See also MD, 285. 10 ARR, 53. In the introductory comments, Drower, xi, claims that there are no known copies of the document in European or American collections. However, the author has seen two copies of ARR that are over two hundred years old in the library of the Australian priest, Ganzibra Salah Chohili. See Sandra van Rompaey, Mandaean Symbolic Art (Turnhout: Brepols, forthcoming 2023), [hereafter cited as MSA], ch. 6, for images and discussion of these two scrolls.

104

SANDRA VAN ROMPAEY

copyist, Ramuia, son of Qaimat, writing in the seventh century, 11 in the Mandaean scribal town of Ṭib in lower Mesopotamia, 12 mentions the scroll’s divine origin from the ultimate voice of power, Hiia (the Life). He comments, “When this Diwan fell into my hands from the Life I feared that it might be lost. I detached it from a book and then placed it in a Diwan.” 13 Paradoxically, two more earthly scribes and two divine copyists are mentioned, with Hibil-Ziwa (prominent being of light) copying it from the Scroll of the First Life. 14 The recipients of this scroll are asked to “conceal” and “guard it” against the powers of the Seven (the evil forces of the planets). 15 It appears here that these writings existed before the seventh century in book form, raising the question: Was the iconography depicted in the earlier form or was Ramuia or a contemporary of his responsible for the development of the artwork of ARR? This could possibly have occurred during the book’s transition into a scroll, but pictorially and otherwise there seems to be no supporting evidence. Whatever the case, the iconography is complex in its geometric structure and design, and operates as an essential part of the scroll in respect to the imparting of knowledge to the priests undergoing initiation. The Mandaic text and illustrations work in partnership, with each dependent on the other for the whole to function as a doctrinal document. The value of the iconography is mentioned at the start of the scroll: “Any man who portrays this ‘World’ and depicts these running streams, and (these) trees, will be counted amongst kings; […] moreover, to any man who writes it down, keeps it and illustrates it, my Likeness will come and he will behold it.” 16 The implication here is that the copyist who illustrated the document or ‘world’ is See Jorunn Jacobsen Buckley, The Great Stem of Souls: Reconstructing Mandaean History, corrected 2nd printing (Piscataway, NJ: 2006) [hereafter cited as GSS], 188, 192. See also Ethel Stefana Drower, The Thousand and Twelve Questions, Alf Trisar Šuialia (Berlin: 1960) [hereafter cited as ATŠ], 3–4, where Ramuia is described as being very active in collecting and editing scattered Mandaean manuscripts. GSS, 340, names two early Mandaean manuscript copyists as Šlama and Zazai-d-Gawazta, both of whom are dated to the third century. See also Șinasi Gündüz, The Knowledge of Life: The Origins and Early History of the Mandaeans (Oxford: 1994), 60–1, 123. 12 Ṭib is mentioned in some of the colophons in conjunction with Ramuia son of ’Qaimat and Zazai-d-Gawazta son of Hawa. See, Jorunn Jacobsen Buckley, tr., The Scroll of Exalted Kingship (Diwan Malkuta ‘Laita) (Newhaven, CT: 1993) [hereafter cited as DM‘L], 72. See also similar references in ARZ, 90; Ethel Stefana Drower, tr., The Canonical Prayerbook of the Mandaeans (Leiden: 1959) [hereafter cited as CP], 67; ATŠ, 4, GSS, 307. 13 ARR, 52. See also GSS, 283–5. In ATŠ, 289, Ramuia states that he brought together different writings to assemble them into a single scroll. Consequently, the document has various sections that differ in style especially in the first four sections. According to Drower (ARR, xi), this document “suffered the usual penalty of small corruptions and mistakes made by copyists”, adding to the difficulty in understanding parts of the text. A further complication is the attempt by the writer(s) to hide sensitive and secret meanings. 14 ARR, 52. An earlier copyist, Brik-Yawar, also claims that the Diwan fell into his possession from the Life. 15 ARR, 52. 16 ARR, 2. 11

THE CEREMONIAL CREATION OF THE BODY OF ADAM

105

seen as worthy of high merit within the Mandaean religion and will receive a heavenly reward in Mŝunia Kuŝṭa (an idealized world, counterpart to Earth) amongst its souls, trees and rivers. 17 The iconography consists predominantly of more than sixty named plants linked to water sources, indicating their relevance as a teaching guide to the religious ideas and practices described in ARR that are strongly reliant on ‘living’ water and plants.

Fig. 1: The illustrated section of Alma Rišaia Rba. Bodleian Library, University of Oxford [MS. Drower 41 (r)].

Following the illustrated sections of the scroll, the text makes various revelations outlining a series of secret ritual procedures. These are to be performed by the priests as part of the final process of the consecration of an ašualia and consist, in

17

ARR, 2 also warns the copyist against becoming “vain about it” or he shall “be destroyed”.

106

SANDRA VAN ROMPAEY

particular, of a masiqta (raising up) and zidqa brika (blessed oblation). 18 The double masiqta (Dabahata) encompasses separate rites for the Mother (earth) and for the Father (eternal abode), who together are referred to as Cosmic Parents. All these sacraments require various items, including plant matter and living water, for their performance. They are brought, when needed, into the bimanda (cult-hut) 19 which is situated within the enclosure of the manda (cult enclosure). 20 The ašualia spends most of his time being instructed by the officiating clergy: tarmidia (priests) and ganzibria (bishops) within these confines. 21 The Dabahata ceremony outlined in ARR comprises many prayers, signings, and ritual procedures, written as if the performance were taking place in the Light World. In reality, it acts as an instructional guideline for the first masiqta performed by the ašualia; a final step towards attaining his ‘kingly’ status as a tarmida. ARR essentially deals with his “conception”, his nurturing through experience and instruction, to his consequential rebirth into the state of Mandaean priesthood where he is said to “attain kingship”. 22 Simultaneously, the ceremony is performed in the World of Light for Adam Kasia, the secret, hidden, mystic Adam, 23 and his soul (Adam-Shaq-Ziwa, or ‘Adam-was Bright-Radiance’, a name bestowed on his soul especially for the masiqta). Drower claims that Adam Kasia is the “Primal Adam, who is the archetype of the yet unborn humanity.” 24 Much of the symbolism in ARR is associated with the processes leading up to and the building of the body of the soul, utilising living water, oil, incense, plants, the flesh of a dove, and salt. In Mandaean theology, the formation of nišimta precedes that of ruha. ATŠ explains, in reference to the creation of the Cosmic Body that a “Soul (nišimta) was formed and when the Soul took shape in the Body, the Body formed the Vital Spirit (ruha).” 25 When departing the body, the soul and spirit make the initial celestial

The zidqa brika is an offering of hymns and recitations, ritual acts, and food. It is performed in honour of dead Mandaeans and Lightworld beings. These three ceremonies are outlined at length in CP. 19 Bimanda or bit manda (house of knowledge) is represented by the cult-hut where the masiqta is performed. It is constructed of mud and reeds to a prescribed plan, and stands in the north part of the sacred enclosure known as the manda, and colloquially referred to as a mandi (ATŠ, 11). After purification and consecration, the bimanda may not be entered by a lay person. In stable times it is usually rebuilt once a year and a masiqta is performed for this. Drower (MII, 135) states that it is “identical to that of the consecration of a new priest”, as in ARR. See also MII, ch. VIII. In ARR when the bimanda is in the Lightworld it is called a sanctuary or škinta. 20 The manda is a sacred enclosure usually built on a riverbank. It includes the bimanda and a yardna (jordan, baptismal pool), and usually, in Iran and Iraq, contains a date palm and myrtle bush. 21 A ganzibra is needed for the masiqta, marriage, and the consecration of an ašualia. He also is a treasurer and teacher who passes on secret knowledge to priests. 22 ARR, 51. 23 See MD, 199; also SA, 21–24. 24 SA, 16. 25 ATŠ, 164. 18

THE CEREMONIAL CREATION OF THE BODY OF ADAM

107

journey together to unite finally as one entity. The nišimta is the “eternal and indestructible” part that remains as such after the body has died. 26 When first planted in the body the soul is invariably depicted in ARR as female, and therefore is usually referred to as “she” or just “the soul.” 27 The aim of the procedures described in ARR is to “bring out spirit and soul from the body and to clothe” it, eventually joining these two components of the soul to form the nišimta, and to purify and provide sustenance for it during the masiqta. 28 The passage of the soul is from the earthly realm (considered as part of the Darkworld) to the idealized world of Mŝunia Kuŝṭa which consists of trees, souls and the counterparts of the Euphrates and Jordan rivers and whose occupants are described as the descendants of Adam and Hawa. It is placed about the earthly world and below the world of Abatur (where the souls are weighed and judged). 29 From Mŝunia Kuŝṭa the soul goes to the Place of Light. 30

INVESTITURE AND INSTRUCTION

The ordination of a candidate for priesthood is celebrated in three stages. The first is a seven-day period of instruction followed by sixty days of isolation and is concluded with the important double masiqta (Dabahata) held in a separate building. The first stage is conducted by the officiating ganzibria, priests and ašgandas in the andiruna, a lightly constructed enclosure of reeds, palm-fronds, and other greenery. This structure is erected temporarily for the use of an ašualia and celebrants during the first seven-day stage of his ordination. Scrolls of an instructive nature, studied by the initiate, are located in this enclosure. 31 All contain secret gnosis with meticulous explanations of rites, and their ‘mysteries’ are revealed in part by the officiating priests. Some scrolls, such as ARR, ARZ, and DM‘L, make constant reference to liturgical prayers and hymns from CP. One of the scrolls that is placed in the hut, ATŠ, begins by warning that the questions it answers must be “hidden and guarded” and “not revealed”, and only passed on to “one in a generation, each to his son.” 32

CGŠ, xii. See MD, 300, for nišimta (soul) and 428 for ruha, defined as “spirit, psyche”. The concept of ruha is personified as Ruha, a powerful, female figure with a complex persona, often associated with evil and frequently mentioned in Mandaean literature. See Jorunn Jacobsen Buckley, The Mandaeans: Ancient Texts and Modern People (Oxford: 2002), ch. 4, also DM‘L, 76–9, 86, 94–6. Interestingly, ARR makes no mention of Ruha. 28 ARR, 22 and CP, 43, prayer 49. See also ARR, 33–6, 41, 43–5, for further references to the soul and spirit. 29 ATŠ, 163. See also ATŠ, 189–91; SA, 39–46. 30 CP, 101, prayer 100. 31 In addition to ARR, DM‘L, ATŠ, CGŠ, the Canonical Prayerbook and the Ginza Rba are studied. On occasion Zihrun Raza Kasia (DC 27) and ARZ are consulted. 32 ATŠ, 110. 26 27

108

SANDRA VAN ROMPAEY

Plate 1. The priest discussing the documents’ contents with the ašualia (Sydney, Australia 2012)

Similar warnings, such as “great shame shall accrue to any man who reveals this”, are also found in ARR, particularly following revelations of secret rites. 33 This factor presents many difficulties in understanding the text which is meant for priests who have much knowledge that has been acquired by practising the rituals from an early age. Regrettably much of the secret knowledge which was passed on verbally was lost due to a cholera epidemic in 1831–1832 in which the numbers of the Mandaean clergy were drastically depleted. 34 Reflected within these documents are ideas central to the Mandaic religion that is governed from the ‘Place of Light’ or Lightworld which represents ‘goodness’ and salvation as opposed to the ‘Darkworld’ of evil and purgatory which remains a constant threat to the soul. Each zone has a range of ‘worlds’, inhabited by both male and female representatives whose roles and degree of power vary depending on the situation. The divinities of the Lightworld are associated with a range of functions, including instructor, holder of ritual knowledge, agent of creation, witness, judge, messenger, and protector; all are beings who exalt and amplify the powers of radiance, light, and eternal life. At the head of the cosmic system in the Place of Light is the highest form of existence, Hiia-Rba, called generally ‘Life’ or ‘Great Life’, who

See, for example, ARR, 32, 42, 47, 51. See the following account in Diwan Maṣbuta d-Hibil-Ziwa [hereafter cited as DMHZ], in The Haran Gawaita and the Baptism of Hibil-Ziwa, trans. by Ethel Stephana Drower (Città del Vaticano: 1953), 87: “In the year of Friday, the year 1247 AH (1831–2), the great plague came and not one of the ganzibria (head priests) or tarmidia (priests) survived and many people departed the body”. 33 34

THE CEREMONIAL CREATION OF THE BODY OF ADAM

109

also bears an array of epithets including ‘Great Primal Life’, ‘Great First Life’, ‘Great First Unknown Life’ or, at the beginning of ARR, ‘the Great Alien Life’ who hails from the “sublime worlds of light which are above all worlds.” 35 This supreme principle of life, formless and possessing absolute authority, is characterized by the projection of ziwa (radiance) and nhura (light), 36 the dualistic principles ATŠ describes as “the Father and Mother or supreme creator.” 37 Personified as “Great Radiance” and “Precious Light”, these two attributes speak as a unified voice. ATŠ describes darkness as “the adversary of Light”. 38 In opposition to the Great Life is the ‘King of Darkness’ who in most cases is called ’Ur and is seen as a dragon, a monster of huge proportions and a major threat to the soul. Ziwa is mentioned in ARR as rescuing the ascending soul “from the mighty powers of darkness”, that is ’Ur, the King of Darkness, (serpent), Krum, a Lord of Darkness (lion), and Qin, the Queen of Darkness (fire). 39 A hierarchy of beings performs various functions in both these worlds, with some operating as go-betweens or messengers. Featured in the first section of ARR are the key operatives: Ayar-Dakia who plays the role of chief celebrant, 40 Mahzian the Word ARR, 1. Radiance and Light are mentioned as a predominant power at the beginning of the masiqta prayers and named as the “Ancient Radiance” and the “Great Primal Light” (CP, 32– 3). 36 In ATŠ, 211, these two active elements are linked together: “Radiance (ziwa) is the Father and Light, the Mother.” Ziwa is the male power of light in the mystical teaching or inner gnosis of Mandaeans and nhura represents its female complement. 37 ATŠ, 112. 38 ATŠ, 144. Many attributes—such as Light, Radiance, kušṭa (ritual handshake), Date Palm and Wellspring—are personified and give advice. 39 ARR, 38. ARR, 32 mentions them as a trio. Throughout Mark Lidzbarski, Ginza: Der Schatz oder das Grosse Buch der Mandäer (Göttingen: 1925) ’Ur is generally mentioned as the King of Darkness. Specifically, in GR, 236, he works evil deeds with Ruha against Mandaeans and Naṣoreans. Diwan Abatur (DC 8) has an image of ’Ur where he is depicted as a chained captive in purgatory. 40 Ayar is a primordial spirit of Life operating in the upper atmosphere who infuses the essence of life, pure air, into the soul, into radiance and light, and into the sacred waters. In ritual practice he also takes on the role of chief celebrant in certain situations, such as in the masiqta outlined in ARR, where he instils the vital breath of life into Adam Kasia and bears his soul on his wings. MD, 14 defines ayar or aiar as, “upper atmosphere, air, ether”, which is seen as an essential component of Life. In ARR, 5, when first introduced, ayar is named Ayar-Dakia. At the beginning of the Blessed Oblation prayer (CP, 240, prayer 348), Ayar is associated with the provision of radiance in the Jordan, and he is explicitly mentioned in the same series of prayers as an element of the higher order involved in the creation of Radiance, Light, and waters (CP, 261, prayer 372). As Ayar-Rba he plays the role of chief celebrant in DMHZ; also in Ethel Stefana Drower, tr., The Haran Gawaita and the Baptism of Hibil-Ziwa (Città del Vaticano: 1953) [hereafter cited as HG]. In ATŠ, 143, as “Outer Ether”, he is called chief celebrant. In ATŠ, 240, he is described as “master of ganzibria.” ARZ, 64, refers to him as “Sublime Ether” 35

110

SANDRA VAN ROMPAEY

(instructor of the alphabet), 41 Mara-d-Rabuta (Lord of Greatness and instructor of novice priests), 42 Bihdad, the ašganda (priestly assistant, messenger), 43 and a particular version of Adam whose very creation is dependent on the ritualized use of various plants, radiance and light, and the all-important, living water.

LIVING WATER, THE JORDAN, AND THE WELLSPRING

Critical to the implementation of Mandaean ritual practice is water which gives life. The central Mandean rite, maṣbuta (ritual baptism), 44 takes place in the yardna, i.e.

and “Lord of Kings.” Drower (SA, 14) suggests that Ayar is sometimes equated with the Father. Ayar is also referred to as “our father and our mother as is the Jordan” in DM‘L, 12. Here, gnostic duality confirms the importance of ether in giving life to the Jordan. DM‘L, 30, describes Outer Ether as “winged”, and the “sublime being, by whose hand all things are guarded.” In cosmology, ether refers to the upper, rarified part of the sky above the clouds. As the realm of the gods, it is also held to constitute the divine part of the human soul. See αἰθήρ in Henry George Liddle and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: 1940), 37. 41 Mahzian the Word is a personification of the ‘word’ which represents part of the creative process in Mandaean theology, where all the letters of the alphabet have mystic qualities and can take on significant meanings. In ATŠ, 233, the personified Word and Vision are said to ‘dwell’ in Mara-d-Rabuta. MD, 240, defines mahzaia as “sight, vision, gaze”, which could indicate that Mahzian here represents an aspect of Mara-d-Rabuta. See also ATŠ, 232, where he acts to guard the soul. 42 Mara-d-Rabuta has various guises and roles within the literature. MD, 418–9, defines rabuta as “greatness, magnificence, majesty, rank” and “instructor of novice priests.” His role in ARR, 30, is as a celebrant and instructor. In ATŠ, 110, he is said to be the “great and lofty one who is the Soul who sits in the celestial firmament”, and his spouse ’zlat is described in ATŠ, 111, as being the “Wellspring of Light.” Mara-d-Rabuta acts the role of the imparter of religious knowledge in the first part of ATŠ, 111–52. Brikha Nasoraia, “A Critical Edition with Translation and Analytical Study of Diuan Qadaha Rba d-Dmuth Kušṭa (The Scroll of the Great Creation of the Image/Likeness of Truth)” [unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Sydney, 2005, hereafter cited as DQRDK], 77, states that Mara-d-Rabuta “plays a central role in the religion. He appears as One and Many. All the Worlds of Light and their beings are represented in him and he represents them. He is the highest Lightworld Being.” DQRDK, 77, notes that an aspect of his name is “used to refer to the Great Creator parallel with Hiia or Hiia-Rba and ManaRba.” DQRDK is housed in the Bodleian Library, Oxford University, as Asiat. Misc. C. 12. 43 Bihdad represents the ašganda, a messenger who acts as the server assisting the priests with various rituals. He does not carry the priestly staff but wears five of the nine specified priestly garments. 44 Maṣbuta (baptismal ceremony) is described by Drower in ATŠ (13) as the “ritual submersion at the hands of a priest followed immediately by unction and partaking of the sacraments of bread and water.” The Baptism Liturgy is found in CP, 1–32.

THE CEREMONIAL CREATION OF THE BODY OF ADAM

111

running water, usually a river, stream, pool or spring that is suitable for ritual purposes. 45 The manifestation of the celestial waters as the jordan is replicated on earth during baptism when the ašualia baptises his rba in the river. For this function in maṣbuta or ‘full baptism’, the jordan must be ‘opened’ with actions and prayers that facilitate its journey from the Lightworld into the lower terrestrial reaches of the earthly waterway. So imperative are water and river systems to the religion, that in one of the illustrated scrolls, Diwan d-Nahrawatha, MS. Drower 7 (r), the main component is a longitudinal map depicting a global river system and well-springs with various mountains. 46 A prominent part of the celestial iconography in ARR is also an aquatic system, consisting of two circular wellsprings (source of creation) feeding into channels of water as seen in Fig.1. These water sources form the core of the process of the creation, birth, and rebirth expressed in the development of Adam and in the birth of the soul of Adam-Shaq-Ziwa, the baptismal name ARR bestows on Adam. Water is so crucial to the function of Mandaean rites that baptism is performed not only for the Mandaean participants and their souls but also for items utilized in the sacraments such as the sacramental drinks, the ba (dove), ritual plants, the klila d-asa (myrtle wreath) and bread. The sacred surroundings, especially the qauqa, the andiruna, the bimanda and the ṭariana (ritual table) are also baptized with the running water of the jordan that is considered as ‘living water’. 47 In discussing the structure of religious aquatic systems, Mircea Eliade states that waters “symbolize the universal sum of virtualities; they are fons et origo, ‘springs and origin’, the reservoir of all the possibilities of existence; they precede every form and support every creation.” 48 ATŠ describes the origin of this life-giving force as the “great first Jordan, for the Jordan

MD, 187, defines yardna as “jordan, running water, river, flowing stream.” Mandaean literature refers to it constantly and it is the essential component of the ritual aspect of the religion. It is also a name given to the small pool connected to a river, placed next to the cult-hut and used for baptism and other ritual purposes. When mingled with light and air it becomes a vital source of life-giving power. DMHZ, 57, notes that an important component of the jordan is ether (air), for “if no ether was incorporated in a jordan it would not flow.” Light is also an integral element of the jordan which, according to the banner hymns (CP, 237), is the place where the brightness from the drabša and the water become blended together and are intermingled. The jordan also has the guardian spirits Šilmai and Nidbai who act as witnesses at baptism (CP, 12, 13), as well as messengers of Manda-d-Hiia (Knowledge-of-Life), the highly esteemed saviour spirit (DM‘L, 29). The banner hymns (CP, 233–40) have many references to the jordan and to the power of the radiance of the drabša to merge into the jordan and fight the powers of evil. As in all the literature, the jordan also refers to the earthly, pure, fresh running water that is blessed and used for baptism, drinking, and other ceremonial purposes. 46 See Kurt Rudolph, Der mandaische “Diwan der Flusse” (Berlin: 1982), 51–4 for several references to the Light Euphrates, the Tigris, and the Ulai (Karun) rivers, which are described as rivers of the Lightworld that come down to the earth from the Lightworld. 47 ARR, 13. MD, 399 defines qauqa as a terracotta cube for holding incense. 48 Mircea Eliade, The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion, tr. Willard R. Trask (New York: 1959), 130. 45

112

SANDRA VAN ROMPAEY

was my father, because all worlds, upper, central and lower, came forth from that. For they come and come and cease not.” 49 Much of the force of the jordan is due to its two important components, Ether and Radiance: “And water was produced in the Ether, the jordans emerged in its glory and the waters were intermingled with the Ether…and the strength of Light increased greatly.” 50

Plate 2: Ašualia baptizing his rba on the last day of his seven-day isolation (Nepean River, Penrith, NSW, Australia, 2012)

The generic term yardna is repeated, and at times personified as in a further segment from ATŠ: “And then the jordan spoke: it cried aloud with its voice and came and clothed all her mysteries.” 51 When referring to the first creation of the Mandaean celestial river and when personified ‘Jordan’ is capitalized, but in most of the literature ‘jordan’ in lower case, signifies its generic use as ‘holy-river’ or ‘sacred water’. Thus, in ARR the “first great Jordan’ is praised as are the ‘three hundred and sixty jordans which proceed from the great first Jordan.” 52 These ‘waters’ act not only act as agents of cosmic creation but on a micro-level to purify, cleanse, heal and ATŠ, 111. CP, 316. 51 ATŠ, 173. 52 ARR, 29. Similarly, in CP, 171, “three hundred and sixty škinta” are said to proceed from the “great Occult First Škinta” or sacred dwelling. ARR uses the number three hundred and sixty to give magnitude to an aspect of a being or an object. Various numbers symbolize particular meanings such as the nine months of gestation or nine vestments worn by priests. The numbers vary from the immensity of a thousand, thousand years (ARR, 45), to the three hundred and sixty-five priests driven out from Jerusalem (ARR, 28), and to the twelve signs of the zodiac (ARR, 44). In particular, the number sixty is used frequently, for example, sixty wellsprings, faṭiria (small discs of unleavened, unsalted bread), priests, or kisses applied to a letter from the Lightworld. Certain secret words are spelt using seven letters to add a mystical meaning, or ritual acts are repeated three, sixty, or three hundred and sixty times. 49 50

THE CEREMONIAL CREATION OF THE BODY OF ADAM

113

regenerate. The water system’s existence precedes both the Cosmic creation and the major ceremonies. At the commencement of baptism, generally set by the river, 53 the officiating priest will “open the river” 54 to bring in Šilmai and Nidbai who are guardians of the Jordan. 55 Through a series of prayers and actions he will then use the margna, a priestly staff made of olive wood, or a ‘staff of living water’, to destroy the devils and demons who may attack the soul in its vulnerable state of rebirth, and to create in the baptismal water the ‘great Jordan of Life’. 56 The partaking of mambuha (sacramental water), 57 which is pure water obtained fresh from a flowing river and blessed, occurs in all major Mandaean ceremonies, being either drunk from the right hand or a brass bowl, or else poured from a special phial. Additions are made to this water only for the masiqta and zidqa brika during ordination and the wedding ceremony. The action of the water being given in three separate handfuls during the baptismal rites is described in a passage in ATŠ where it is related that the pihta (sacramental bread) and mambuha deliver the soul from Darkness and “bring her over the desolate waters and […] set her steadfastly upon all her paths.” 58 A crucial part of the aquatic system symbolized in the text and iconography of ARR is the Wellspring, which represents the most significant feature of regeneration, birth and a measure of female reproductive function. ARR indicates the dual link between the personified Jordan and Wellspring by their coupling as “the Parents” who are “the Jordan—he is the Father and the Wellspring—she is the Mother.” 59 The alignment of these two cosmic forces through acts of conception and birth provides the crucial rites of passage for the birth and soul of Adam Kasia. ATŠ describes the ašualia as a “formation of the Wellspring.” 60

Traditionally, baptism was performed in a river, stream or a perpetually flowing spring. More recently, in some situations it takes place in a purpose-built pool (Iraq, Australia, and Sweden). Climate, purity of water, personal safety, privacy, physical access, and proximity to the river are factors influencing this development. 54 CP, 8–9, prayer 10, is the opening prayer for the Jordan. 55 Šilmai and Nidbai are mentioned throughout the baptism liturgy where they are described initially as “delegates of Manda-d-Hiia who rule over the great jordan of Life, for they baptize with the great baptism of Light.” CP, 8. CP, 9, 10, 12, 13 names them as helpers, those who bear witness, and baptizers. 56 CP, 13. See also CP, 10–13. 57 MD, 245 defines mambuha as a “spring of water, water that wells up”. As used in the maṣbuta it is blessed water from a running water source, while the mambuha used in the masiqta is “the mingling of wine with water.” For the two prayers for the mambuha used in the masiqta, see CP, 40–41, prayers 44, 45, 60. Also ARR, 16, 28, 43, 48. 58 ATŠ, 187. 59 ARR, 47. In a diversification of this symbolism, in ARR (11), the role of Mother and Father is given to two loaves of bread. 60 ATŠ, 135. 53

114

SANDRA VAN ROMPAEY

ADAM, THE WELLSPRING AND THE DATE PALM

The creation and the bringing forth of Adam as Adam Kasia 61 and his soul involves a series of actions that are initially portrayed through the two fertilizing agents expressed in ARR, these being the wellspring and date palm. It is important though, to understand which particular version of Adam is implied here. The Adam of Mandaean literature is representative of two realms. Generally speaking, the earthly Adam was established in the World of Darkness and is referred to as Adam or Adamd-pagria (physical Adam), while the Adam of the World of Light is mostly represented through the identity of Adam Kasia. It is Adam Kasia, as arch-priest, who in ARR simultaneously symbolizes the candidate for priesthood, the ašualia. Drower describes Adam Kasia as “the crowned and anointed Anthropos, Arch-priest and creator of the cosmos made in his form” 62 and “the archetype of a crowned and anointed priest.” 63 She notes further that he is “the ultimate expression of humanity, perfected and spiritualized as a crowned, anointed King Priest.” 64 These descriptions effectively describe the identity of the Adam of ARR. The motifs of the sindirka (date-palm) 65 and aina (wellspring), 66 are present in a variety of forms in the illustrated manuscripts. 67 The representation of the date palm in Fig. 2 has more in common with the male date-palm spathe, laden with seed, than the actual tree with its outspread upper branches, suggesting that it is intended to symbolize the male fertilizing power of the phallus, needed in this scroll for the creation of Adam Kasia. 68 This function of primordial reproduction is completed by the date palm’s attachment to the Wellspring which is named the Womb, designated by seven concentric circles.

MD, 199, defines kasia as “secret, hidden, concealed”. See also SA, 21–24. SA, p. xi. 63 ARR, 7, n. 8. 64 ARR, ix. 65 MD, 328, defines sindirka as, “palm tree, dates.” 66 MD, 15, for the second meaning of aina “wellspring, fountain, source, origin.” It is a creative force of the Lightworld. 67 See MSA, ch. 5. 68 This is in opposition to the creation of Adam-d-pagria by the demiurge Ptahil and his lowerorder workers. In DA, 15, Abatur asks Ptahil to “install your son […] and sow seed.” This version of Adam’s creation is more complex than a simple creation, as are some of the various versions portrayed in the Ginza Rba. 61 62

THE CEREMONIAL CREATION OF THE BODY OF ADAM

115

Fig. 2. Date Palm and Wellspring, in a detail at the beginning of Alma Rišaia Rba. Bodleian Library, University of Oxford [MS. Drower 41 (r)]. 69

The male–female duality represented by these two major motifs is also expressed in the textual description of ritual activity in the Dabahata which has two major com-

In ARR the wellspring is not named but the textual information linking it with the date palm and its actual circular form point to this probability. Also symbolized here are other plants emerging from the central wellspring: wheat, sesame, myrtle, and the walnut that are used in the sacraments described in ARR. To the right of the date palm is a sesame plant, and on the left is a wheat plant. The walnut and the myrtle are diagonally below the wellspring.

69

116

SANDRA VAN ROMPAEY

ponents. The first masiqta is celebrated for the ‘Mother’ and the second for the ‘Father’. 70 The use of the two eternal symbols of creative power are signalled at the beginning of the descriptive part of the scroll: “Thus was I formed from the Wellspring and Date palm. I am a king who is all light […]. I conceived a plan for planting Plants.” 71 This ‘king’ who is in harmony with the world of Light is then addressed as follows: “O lofty king! O tree in whose shelter they will sit! Arise! create sons who will be called kings [referring also to the earthly sons of priests who will become priests]. […] The seed was cast and fell into the wellspring which is named the Womb.” 72 It remained three hundred and sixty days within the womb until everything had become strong, i.e. the First World, Adam Kasia, the ašualia, and their corresponding souls that were formed from the embryo. From beneath these seven circles, representing the incubation of Adam—as yet unborn—flows a central river (Jordan) which passes through a range of plants and lesser jordans that serve to nurture the symbolic Adam and the soul(s). This central division of flowing water finishes in the middle of the lower womb represented by nine concentric circles. Within the circles of the upper wellspring are written the names of items of attire worn by the ašualia in the early stage of the ceremony: “it is a ksuia (tunic) […] the šarwala (leggings) […] a nasifa (stole) […] the lbuša (vestment).” 73 This is a perfect example of the different functions that many Mandaean symbolic illustrations serve, combining various pieces of relevant information within the one motif. The focus in this initial section of ARR is the plan by the ‘Father’ to create his ‘first-born son’ Adam (a king), and the formation of his seed within the wellspring (womb) over a period of three-hundred and sixty days “until everything had become strong” and formed. 74 Adam was then sent an ‘inbreathing’ through the strength of Ayar-Dakia (Pure Ether) after which he arose. From his initial birth he “rested upon the Mountain” (to receive spiritual enlightenment) from which an endless stream of living water appeared. On contemplating his position as a ‘king’ (priest) a “voice came from above and he fell on his face and was without power to rise up” until a second inbreathing occurred through Ayar-Dakia, who appeared “carrying a letter in

ARR, 30–39, refers to the masiqta performed on the side of the mother, the end of the section describing the Mother as: “She is Earth who brings forth fruits and seeds. […] Earth is the Mother.” ARR, 39–51, refers to the side of the Father, being described as “the principal section” and representative of the “worlds of light” (39). 71 ARR, 4. The ‘plants’ here refer to Lightworld beings. 72 ARR, 5. 73 ARR, 3. As well as the five garments mentioned within the circles, the ašualia at the beginning of his ordination receives his margna and taga (priestly crown made of silk or cotton worn under his turban). Additionally, he receives a drabša. These five items of dress are worn by the ašganda who assists the priests in various rituals. In earlier times, the ašganda was usually the son of a priest who for many years had been instructed by his father and other priests. 74 ARR, 5. 70

THE CEREMONIAL CREATION OF THE BODY OF ADAM

117

his right hand”, 75 thus giving him a refreshed and more powerful life through the inbreathing of pure ether. Adam smelled it and sneezed. A further voice from above followed, and Mahzian-the-Word also gave Adam a letter which he carried in his right hand. Adam, however, not knowing its contents, prostrated himself before Mahzian, concentrated his thought, and arose once more from his sleep. Subsequently, the Word, as a messenger from the world of Light, imparted knowledge to Adam over a period of time “about the alphabet and the secret priestly knowledge of naṣiruta.” 76 This knowledge, described by Jonas as “a theoretical system” that provides “the soul’s way out of the world”, comprises the “sacramental and magical preparations for its future ascent and the secret names and formulas that force the passage through each sphere.” 77 These secret words and practices are an important part of the various exchanges between Lightworld figures within ARR. What appears to be enacted here on the cosmic level is also a model for the initial journey of a candidate for the priesthood, as well as his instruction by priests and his ganzibra over a period of time.

Plate 3: Ašualia in priestly attire preparing for baptism (Sydney, Australia, 2012)

THE ALPHABET AND THE ATTAINMENT OF KNOWLEDGE

The candidate for the priesthood needs to be of the right character and to have a complete knowledge of doctrine, holy books and rites, especially the maṣbuta, The letter mentioned here appears to represent a message or letter of introduction from the place of Light, sometimes delivered by an envoy, in order to introduce a new participant. See ARR, 6, 9, 11–12, 24. A letter sent from the ‘Celestial King’ to Pure-Ether, bearing the baptismal name of Adam, is mentioned in ARR, 11–12. 76 ARR, 6–7. 77 Jonas, The Gnostic Religion, 46–7. 75

118

SANDRA VAN ROMPAEY

masiqta and ’ngirta (letter, rite for the dying). As all the documents used by priests are in Mandaic, the knowledge of Mandaic in its spoken and written forms is essential. 78 Consisting of twenty-four letters, the alphabet is employed to represent hidden forces and knowledge in Mandaean esoteric literature and is associated with certain creative powers. Secret meanings are attached to letters of the alphabet, or to the number of letters employed in important words. The value attached to the acquisition of such alphabetical knowledge is demonstrated in ARR near the beginning of Adam’s journey, where the first instruction he receives from the ’uthra, Mahzian-theWord, is “about the alphabet” and the inner gnosis of Naṣiruta. 79 The alphabet as part of a visual image is evident in three sections of Fig.1, and is reproduced in detail below.

Fig. 3. Detail of the alphabet at the beginning of Alma Rišaia Rba. Bodleian Library, University of Oxford [MS. Drower 41 (r)].

In the first section, letters surround the drabša, 80 which is situated within a square enclosure at the beginning of the scroll. The second section shows letters within a circular space surrounding the face of the inverted geometric figure, and the third instance is within a section of the trunk of the figure. 81 Much of the symbolism associated with the alphabet is secret, but nevertheless there are references to it within See MII, 152, for further information. ARR, 6–7. 80 The drabša is a specially woven flag or banner, made of silk, set on a cross-bar whose form is uniquely Mandaean. It is primarily a symbol of radiance, light, and glory, and is located close to most Mandaean ceremonies. See MSA, chs 3 and 4, for a detailed discussion. 81 See ARR, 3, 6, 9, n. 3, where Drower notes that the Mandaeans attach mystical meanings to both letters and numbers. See also SA, 17–21; MII, ch. XIV; ATŠ, 117, 180, 181, 266; CP, 161– 2; DQRDK, 197, n. 245, 201–9, 246, for a series of explanations of and associations with certain letters of the Mandaean alphabet which contains twenty-four letters. 78 79

THE CEREMONIAL CREATION OF THE BODY OF ADAM

119

both the illustrated scrolls and the wider literature. 82 A register in DQRDK, displays letters of the alphabet within partitions containing illustrations of connected wellsprings. 83 In particular, whilst preparing for the masiqta for Adam, the Word assists Adam (in the Ether-world) in the building of a bimanda “all of pure crystal, because BIMANDA is composed of seven letters.” 84 It appears that this is a method of double indemnity, ensuring the protection of the place where the masiqta is performed.

PRIMAL CREATION: CONCEPTION AND GESTATION OF ADAM

During parts of the initiation ceremony the ašualia, tarmidia, ganzibria and ašganda become contemporaneous with the Lightworld beings. At the same time, the bimanda of crystal and the overall setting become reflective of the perfection of the divine world of Light. A mysterious exchange of personae occurs as if the mythical ancestors were present, that is, were engaged in creating the world or worlds needed for the Dabahata to take place. The present-day induction ceremony of the ašualia is a metaphorical replica of this particular version of original conception and birth of Adam Kasia through the action portrayed in the divine and perfect idealized world. At times the action appears as a collaboration between the beings of the Lightworld and the participants involved in the induction process on earth. Eliade describes the desire to “reintegrate the time of origin” as “also to wish to return to the presence of the gods to recover the strong, fresh, pure world” that existed at that time. 85 A particular act of primal creation is described in ATŠ as the “great occult first Wellspring […] that […] precedes all worlds and generations”, 86 and in a hymn of praise recited by Adam in ARR the great mystic First Wellspring is also named as a primal source of creation: In the name of the Life! Praised be the great First Radiance! Praised be the great First Light! Praised be the great first Wellspring and Palm-Tree. Praised be the hidden Tana (vapour) that rests within the great Secret Wellspring! Praised be the great Šišlam who sits on the bank of the Wellspring and Palm-tree! Praised is the great ’zlat! Praised be the great Yawar who was formed from the loins of Radiance! Praised be Simat-Hiia (Treasure-of-Life), Mother of all kings from whom all worlds proceeded, (she) who emanated from Himat-Razia-Kasiia! Praised be the first great Jordan! 87

See ARR, 6, where the young Adam is instructed in the alphabet and naṣiruṭa by the Lightworld being named the ‘Word’, a process that occurs during the initiation of a new tarmida. See also DQRDK, 195–201. 83 DQRDK, 197, n. 245, 246. The letters and words can be read variously depending on who is the reader. 84 ARR, 10. See also the seven-lettered word HAMBURA used in the final sealing of the soul and has secret meanings (50). ARR repeats the number seven in reference to the Seven planets (41, 42, 44, 45), purgatories (40) and angels (45). 85 Eliade, Sacred and Profane, 94. 86 ATŠ, 111. 87 ARR, 29. 82

120

SANDRA VAN ROMPAEY

The two powerful, life-giving elements of luminous rays at the forefront of the Mandaean religion, the primal First Great Radiance and the Great First Light, joined with the Great Mystic First Wellspring and Great First Palm Tree, typify the allegorical use and pairing of male and female elements to symbolize in a personified form the fundamental principles of creation. Radiance and the Palm Tree represent the male principle; Light and the Wellspring the female principle. 88 This cosmic pairing in the above prayer includes the key Lightworld identities Simat-Hiia 89 and Yawar, 90 along with Šišlam 91 (prototype priest) and ’zlat 92 who are also connected to the Wellspring (associated with the cosmic Womb) and the Date Palm (associated with male reproduction) in acts of original creation. 93 Of note here is that Simat-Hiia emanated from Himat-Razia, an epithet for the ‘Great Mother’ who is the mother of the soul of AdamShaq-Ziwa. 94 Additionally, the all-important factor, the Jordan, is praised. 95 The mythological nature of these identities is that they are considered sacred ‘mysteries’ and part of the history of the secret knowledge incorporated within naṣiruta. They are all part of a ‘community of souls’ that preserve the Mandaean lineage. The symbolism in the second or lower wellspring of Fig. 4 comprised of nine concentric circles differs in many ways from that of the upper wellspring in Fig. 2, but both are connected to birth and rebirth. The upper wellspring symbolizes Adam’s conception and the lower, with a geometric figure protruding beneath, symbolizes Aina (wellspring) is the name given to the female principle of initial creation in the Lightworld and is described as the Cosmic Womb. It is often seen as a prime source of life and an essential part of the creation process that not only contains water but also radiance. Naşiruta is claimed to derive from the Cosmic Wellspring. See ATŠ, 266; DMHZ, 76; see also SA, 7–11. 89 Simat-Hiia (Treasure of Life) is the major female Lightworld being who is predominantly coupled with Yawar. In ATŠ, 111, she is described as the “Mother of all worlds … from whom the upper, middle and lower worlds emanated.” 90 Yawar (also Yawar-Ziwa or Yawar-Rba), is a prominent active male figure of Light, and in a sequence of prayers in CP, 253, 257 and 259, where respectively he is said to be “head of reproductive powers”, “architect of the ether-world” and “king over Light” with a “garment of Radiance.” 91 Šišlam, or Šišlam-Rba, is a major male Lightworld being whom Drower describes (ATŠ, 294) as the “prototype of priest and bridegroom.” 92 ’zlat is portrayed as a prime female creative entity who is equated with the Great Wellspring and the Great Mother. She is also described as the “great ’zlat” (ATŠ, 111; CP, 105) and is usually coupled with Šišlam. 93 This aspect of the wellspring and date palm is discussed more fully in MSA, chs 6 and 7. 94 The epithet Himat-Razia is here applied to the Cosmic Mother (ARR, 12, n. 1). MD, 145, suggests the meaning “I came into existence as the result of mysteries” or rituals. In ARZ, 58, the Great Kanat is described as one “from whom all kings and mysteries emanated”, also as the “Mother of mysteries … and the Great Wellspring.” DMHZ, 81 makes the connection between Simat-Hiia and Himat-Razia. In Mandaean literature many roles given to female Lightworld beings vary, but they are always paired with a prominent male partner from the Lightworld. 95 In a later section of ARR, 47, the Jordan and the Wellspring are referred to as the Parents: “The Jordan-he is he Father and the Wellspring-she is the Mother.” See ARR 1, 5, 7, 9, 29, 34, 36, 38, 45 for further references. 88

THE CEREMONIAL CREATION OF THE BODY OF ADAM

121

his actual birth. 96 The circular motif embodies many aspects of Mandaean gnosis. The number nine is particularly significant, with the nine circles representing many things such as the nine vestments to be worn by the priests during the masiqta, 97 the nine months of gestation and from the two inscribed outer circular sections, the nine deities. 98 Nine is also important for understanding the soul’s role in this birth process, as is evident in the following passage from ATŠ, which clearly equates the nine months within the womb with the rebirth of the soul, and with the period the ašualia has spent leading up to the masiqta that he performs to attain kingship: And we clothe it with nine veils in the womb, and it emerges from each, one by one, and shines forth and dies not, nor is it held down within them. (Yea), we remove its coverings—they are nine months, nine thrones—for, every thirty days, she (the soul) rises up from one throne and seats herself on another firm throne. And (thus) by means of nine occult processes (ginzia) we set her up (at last) in the sublime Ether. 99

Although the inscribed ARR text refers only to the two aspects of the soul, nišimta and ruha, and not to Adam, 100 the figure’s emergence from beneath the nine circles portray the rebirth of Adam Kasia as arch-priest and the ašualia as a tarmida, as well as their respective souls and the Cosmic Soul. 101 A noticeable feature of the figure in Fig. 4 is that it is inverted and proceeds downwards from below, with two small branches providing an exit point from the wellspring or womb above, indicating birth. 102 Within this wellspring and inscribed figure, with its head proceeding first and its toes pointing down, are inscriptions that impart additional knowledge that serves to guide the instructing priest during the induction. One inscription names the innermost circle the “foetus, its aputa (mouth)”, that is to say its umbilicus, an obvious reference to birth. 103 This wellspring not only

The rectangular enclosure of trees below the inverted figure that have the “strength of Light” in them represents the final goal, the Place of Light and the renewal of life (see ARR, 9). 97 The vestments are named “stole”, “tunic”, “leggings”, “staff”, “crown”, “ring” (ARR, 8). Additional garments, are the girdle, turban, and staff. 98 The names of deities inscribed within these circles are all major Lightworld beings, including Mara-d-Rabuta, Abatur-Rana, Šišlam-Ṭaba, Manda-d-Hiia, Yušamin-Bukra, Ptahil, Šišlam-Rba, Hibil-’Uthra, and the grouping of Hibil, Šitil, and Anuš (see ARR, 8). 99 ATŠ, 186. 100 This figure has no inscription, but takes the generic form of a Mandaean figurative motif. In Mandaean illustrated scrolls figurative forms are geometric, but have their own individual representation. See MSA, chs 1 and 2 for further discussion. 101 ARR, 8. 102 The two small stems protruding from the wellspring in Fig. 3 are labelled (right) “myrtle” and (left) “This is a mulberry tree. Mara-d-Rabuta sits in its shade and instructs about all naṣiruta” (ARR, 8). This is an instructive example of how the accompanying inscription to a particular motif can add a new dimension to the actual form. See also MSA, ch. 2, for further discussion of this section of the scroll. 103 ARR, 8. 96

122

SANDRA VAN ROMPAEY

represents the creation of the new ašualia and soul, and provides guidance for the officiating priest, but also, importantly, presents certain instructive information for the ašualia to employ in his new role.

Fig. 4. Adam Kasia, detail of the last section of Alma Rišaia Rba. Bodleian Library, University of Oxford [MS. Drower 41 (r)].

The gestation of Adam, paralleling the apprenticeship of a suitable priestly candidate, is described in ARR as a period of incubation of “three hundred and sixty days”

THE CEREMONIAL CREATION OF THE BODY OF ADAM

123

in the womb (wellspring) “until everything has become strong.” 104 To oversee and guide this period, the “lofty strength” of Ayar, Ayar-Dakia or Ayar-Rba, in the role of the divine chief celebrant which in the earthly parallel must be a ganzibra, is sent from above effectively to breathe life into Adam. In addition, Adam is sent Mahzianthe-Word who like Ayar carried an ’ngirta (letter) from above and then set about instructing Adam about the alphabet and “all naṣiruta” or esoteric priestly knowledge “little by little.” 105 In reality, once a candidate has been especially selected, is deemed sufficiently knowledgeable in this priestly vocation, and is judged ready for initiation, the initial stage of the consecration of the ašualia begins. 106 This stage occupies a seven-day period which must be spent in absolute purity, and encompasses a process of instruction held within a specially built andiruna where the ašualia is accompanied by the officiating ganzibra, one or two ašgandas, and various other priests. 107 Outside the specially erected tent sit onlookers and supporters. Each day the ašualia is instructed in various rites and protocols which include the meanings within certain texts, the correct way of wearing of the taga (white silk fillet) and other priestly attire and the “teaching of three secret words” each day. Plate 1 shows the ašualia receiving instruction in the andiruna. 108 On the final day (Sunday) of this seven-day period, the ašualia (left figure in Plate 3) 109 makes preparations and then baptizes his teacher or rba (i.e. ganzibra) in the river, but always under instruction by a priest (left figure in Plate 2). 110 This is followed by the celebration of the zidqa-brika in the andiruna, with a variety of foods and sacramental drinks placed on the ritual table (see Plate 4). Once this first stage of consecration is completed the ašualia must isolate for sixty days of purity, 111 after which preparations and the performance of the Dabahata by the ašualia in the bimanda begins. 112 Symbolically, Adam has spent the first seven months in the womb growing and being nurtured, and the next two months in isolation ready for birth from the lower womb of nine circles.

ARR, 5. ARR, 7. 106 See CGŠ, 1–25, for a description of this seven-day period. 107 The number of participants officiating can vary. There must be a ganzibra, one or two ašgandas and other priests (usually three). There can also be two ganzibria as the author witnessed in Australia at the ordination of a new priest. 108 MII, 155. The author witnessed the last two days of this period of instruction and prayers, which included the baptism of the officiating ganzibra and the Blessed Oblation, concluding the seven days. See Plate 1: Priests discussing the content of particular documents with the ašualia. 109 Plate 3: Ašualia in priestly attire preparing for baptism (Sydney, Australia, 2012). 110 Plate 2: Ašualia baptizing his rba on the last day of his seven-day isolation. 111 See CGŠ, 25, for a discussion of the prayers used in this period. See also MII, 156, for a description of this period of isolation. 112 See CGŠ, 26–35, for a description of the masiqta. 104 105

124

SANDRA VAN ROMPAEY

THE DABAHATA AND ITS PREPARATIONS

The male–female duality expressed in much of the Mandaean literature is also a component of the two consecutive masiqtas of the Dabahata 113 performed by the emerging priest, whose emergence is likened in ARR to the birth of a baby. The first part is said to represent the side of the Mother and the second that of the Father. Adam is said to undergo a metaphoric conception within the great Wellspring or Womb where he stays until, at the ninth month, Ayar Dakia enters and turns his head downwards while proclaiming: “For every soul that departs the body descends below and then, rejoicing, it obtains mercy, leaps upward, grows in honour and rises towards Me” (i.e. the Father). 114 In addition to the birthing process, the text here refers to the air or ayar entering the body and giving it the breath of life. Simultaneously, it encompasses the birth of the Cosmic soul, the soul of Adam-Shaq-Ziwa, and that of a new priest as he assumes kingship. 115 The next stage of the preparations in the development of Adam is initiated by a ‘Letter’ announcing the raising up of his soul through the ceremony of masiqta. Issuing from the Celestial King, the letter is addressed to Mara-d-Rabuta and calls on him to “arise, construct a sanctuary (bimanda).” 116 This symbolic call or message from the House of Life is mentioned several times in ARR as well as in other Mandaean works. 117 Jonas describes the symbol of the call in Gnosticism as “the form in which the transmundane makes its appearance.” 118 A further call from above is then delivered to Mahzian the-Word in preparation for the masiqta, asking him to “rise, take white sesame, wheat, walnuts, grapes, a pomegranate and a quince”, 119 all symbolic plants used in the formation of the spiritual body of the soul. These plants are placed around the first date palm and wellspring in Fig. 2. In addition, a dove is requested for the soul. 120 Adam arrives at the scene with Mahzian the Word (co-celebrant) and they set to work to build the bimanda, express oil from white sesame, mill the wheat, See MII, 158–68, for Drower’s interpretation of this ceremony that was first published in 1937. She notes in MII,156–9, that the first masiqta is read by the ašualia in the name of his rabi (teacher), which he must perform alone and that the name of the officiating ganzibra is inserted where a name is mentioned. The ašualia must be able to perform the double masiqta by himself once he is in the bimanda. The officiating ganzibra (rba) is in the enclosure with him for support. The masiqta must be completed by sunset (personal communication: 9 June, 2021 with Shadan Chohili, in consultation with his father, Ganzibra Salah Chohili, whom he assists as ašganda). Additionally, Ganzibra Brikha Nasoraia has stated that no paper documentation is allowed in the bimanda. The only permitted written information is the masiqta which has been inscribed onto a metal plate that must be baptized in the jordan before use (personal communication: 10 June 2021). CGŠ, 29, for comments on this masiqta. 114 ARR, 7. 115 See ARR, 7. 116 ARR, 9. 117 ARR, 6, 9, 11. 118 Jonas, Gnostic Religion, 74. On p.119 he also links the letter to the symbolism of the call. 119 ARR, 10. 120 ARR, 10. An illustration of the dove is shown in the top square in Fig. 1. 113

THE CEREMONIAL CREATION OF THE BODY OF ADAM

125

knead and bake bread with oil, and fold and wrap their pandama (face veil) around their mouths to prevent contamination from “defiling mysteries of the body”, occupying themselves with these arrangements “until dawn.” 121 On finishing these preparations, the celestial participants undertake rahmia (daily devotional prayers) 122 and perform kušṭa (ritual handclasp) with Ayar-Dakia that acts to seal this part of the ceremony. 123 Important symbolism is associated with the next process, that of setting up the ṭariana, which in the World of Light is said to be made of “pure crystal”. 124 This is a mark of its value, for it is the place, once set up within the škinta (bimanda) 125, where much of the activity in building the body of the soul occurs. 126 On the earthly plane the image of the ṭariana incorporates the eternal idea of the archetype of the Great Mother who is associated with the Earth and “raises up physical life.” 127 In the commentary in ARR, 128 Ayar-Rba says to Mara-d-Rabuta: “When you set up the altar-table the Great Mother gazes attentively at you, She, who is the wellspring of the mysteries” adding that, once seated, it “gives strength to your body.” 129 In the same text, the soul is said to gaze at Mara-d-Rabuta as he arranges the ṭariana, in anticipation of the dress which he is about to give her, to clothe her on her journey to salvation. The symbolism of the wellspring/womb implied within the form of the ṭariana provides a vehicle for the transformation of the original creation of the seed of Adam Kasia, along with his soul, into a new form, cleansed and purified, that is fit to enter the Place of Light.

ARR, 10. The pandama is made from the long end of the turban being folded over the lower part of the face as seen in the baptising figure in Plate 2. ATŠ, 240, for comments on its protective qualities. 122 CP, 106–51. Drower, 106 notes that these daily prayers must be fully memorized and that “their correct recitation is an essential part of every priest’s training”. 123 ARR, 10. Kušṭa in the ceremonial sense is the ritual clasping of the right hand by the officiating priest to signify good faith, and the ritual sealing of this part of the ceremony. See also ATŠ, 12, 210, 254, 283–84; CP, 4, n. 1; MD, 209–10 defines kušṭa as “truth, good-faith, sincerity, […] giving the right hand in troth, […] the ritual hand-clasp”. 124 ARR, 11. A ṭariana is a round clay table with a small recession formed at the side. It is placed on a clay base and is a receptacle for food and drink that is used for ritual purposes. For special ceremonies a new ṭariana is made. 125 Škinta is according to MD, 465 a celestial dwelling. It is often synomynous with bimanda or cult-hut. 126 See MII, 135, also ch. VIII. 127 ATŠ, 239. 128 ARR, 30–49. 129 ARR, 13. Virtually the same words are used in ARZ (75) to compare the setting up of the ṭariana with the “Great First Wellspring which you bring to grow mysteries.” Two prime Lightworld female creative figures who are equated with the Great Wellspring and the Great Mother are Kanat and ’zlat. Both are paired with prominent male Lightworld partners. 121

126

SANDRA VAN ROMPAEY

Plate 4. Ritual food on a ṭariana during the ordination of an ašualia (Sydney, Australia, 2012).

Having set up the ṭariana in the bimanda, the celestial celebrant puts on his seven vestments, sits with his ṭariana before him, and places on it specially prepared food: faṭira (bread), ba (dove), asa (myrtle), miša (oil of unction) in a crystal cup and “grapes placed in a bowl.” 130 He then inserts the riha (incense) into its holder, a terracotta cube called a qauqa. 131 The grapes, which contain the mystery of the mother, are used in combination with the jordan (living water) from the inner phial to make hamra (unfermented grape juice or raisins). Two phials of water (that come into play in the next part of the preparations) add to the ceremony another layer of meaning. Switching to the earthly realm, ARR describes the celebrant as taking his “crown and ritual staff in his left hand” and “two phials in his right” hand. Filling them, he places the “outer phial on the bank of the spring” and the inner phial, containing pure water from the Jordan and places a walnut over its mouth, before himself on the ṭariana. 132

SYMBOLISM WITHIN THE MASIQTA FOR THE MOTHER

Once the name of Adam-Shaq-Ziwa, son of Himat-Razia, (sent by the Celestial King via a letter carried by Bihdad, the messenger) has been bestowed on Adam by AyarDakia, and once he has been assisted with certain preparations, he can commence

ARR, 12, 13. The ba (dove) is ritually baptized, killed, salted and then cooked on the bit rihia (incense brazier). The ba is then taken into the bimanda and placed on the ṭariana. 131 See ARR, 13. 132 ARR, 13. In ATŠ, 235, the walnut is said to “preserve the strength of the inner brain matter.” 130

THE CEREMONIAL CREATION OF THE BODY OF ADAM

127

the first stage of the Dabahata. 133 This first part for the side of the Mother is read in the name of the rba; the second for the Father is in the name of the ancestors. 134 Most of the items used in the masiqta have a symbolic meaning attached to them: wheat is for the sacramental bread, sesame seeds for anointing, grapes are used to make the sacramental wine associated with Great Mother and the womb and asa (myrtle) is associated with healing and everlasting life. The inner phial represents the “waters of life”, the seed and the Father. 135 Three of these plant-based items (sesame, wheat, and myrtle) are shown sprouting from the upper wellspring in Fig. 2. Their by-products, the klila, pihta and miša have prayers especially dedicated to them and are also prepared just prior to the performance of the masiqta. 136 A range of additional foods such as fruit, green vegetables, dates, kidney beans and herbs, which alongside the previously named plants give sustenance to the soul, also provide sustenance for the priests and ašganda in attendance. 137 Two further ingredients to be added (for the soul) are the dove and the stabilizing salt that is placed in the recess of the ṭariana to be used when needed (see Plate 4). The Mandaean word for salt is described in ARR as being “composed of five letters, which are MIHLA, that is the symbol of the himiana (sacred girdle of the soul), for anything (any rite?) in which there is no himiana is unstable.” 138 The two unleavened, unsalted loaves of bread prepared by the celebrant for the masiqta also carry important symbolism as they represent the two parts of the masiqta for the Parents (Dabahata). The first is celebrated for the Mother, the “Earth, which brings forth fruit and seeds”, and involves the formation from one of the loaves of sixty faṭiria that are used to build the body of the soul. 139 The second is for the second masiqta for the Father, ancestors and the worlds of light. 140 At the beginning of the first masiqta conducted in the heavenly škinta, Adam stands in his priestly vestments and ‘honours’ his silk taga. This crown brings “radiance, light and glory from whom a flow of living waters streamed out to the heavenly škinta”, 141 which is envisaged as being made of “pure crystal”, as are the ṭariana and ARR, 11. On receipt of the letter, Ayar-Dakia kisses it three hundred and sixty times before opening it and reading its “sublime words.” 134 ARR, 11-13. MD, 319 translates Shaq as “he rejoiced.” 135 ATŠ, 155. Here, the water of the inner phial is also said to be “semen, and the wine is the mystery of the Womb and pertains to the Mother.” 136 See CP, 32–43. These prayers are for mambuha, pihta, misa, riha, and klila (myrtle wreath). 137 ARR, 10–11. 138 ARR, 11. See further references to salt in ARR, 12, 13, and 50, where it is said to “symbolize the soul.” 139 ARR, 39. The faṭiria used in the masiqta are unsalted, small discs of bread made of milled white flour and prepared by the officiating priest. They receive only a token baking. See Plate 4 for these small discs of bread. 140 ARR, 39 which states that the masiqta for the Father is the “principal one”, as it is the place where the “passes and signs are numerous.” See also ATŠ, 232–60, for a commentary on this ‘lofty’ masiqta or Dabahata. 141 CP, 3. 133

128

SANDRA VAN ROMPAEY

oil cup described in ARR. 142 The earthly plane presents a sharp contrast in materials used, where the bimanda, ṭariana and qauqa (incense cube) are predominantly made of clay and river water. 143 Symbolism of a different nature is also applied to the two phials of water mentioned in the two preparatory masiqta prayers that involve sacramental water and incense. The first prayer for the mambuha (sacramental drink) 144 is recited by the celebrant, with his protective pandama covering his mouth and nostrils, as he takes up the (inner) phial and recites over it “Water of Life.” 145 The performance of this recitation is said by Mara-d-Rabuta in ARR to “awaken the semen that seeks to flow down into the Womb”, because he is seeking “to command water to fall on earth.” 146 It appears that this water not only purifies the earth but gives life to it, just as semen gives life to the embryo in the womb. 147 The second prayer, read for the riha, 148 carries its own two distinct meanings. As the incense is cast on the fire it is described as the “fragrance of the Gnosis of Life”, 149 but it also summons a “swift messenger” who vanquishes “hell-beasts and purgatory demons.” 150 When the King of Darkness smelt the incense, he was “shattered and it shook the world.” 151 With the great Life praised and evil influences vanquished from the sacred environment, further preparations and prayers are performed to advance the soul’s journey. The prayers for the sacramental mambuha, 152 pihta, 153 and hamra include another layer of symbolism. The eight prayers for the pihta are described at this stage

ARR describes various items as crystal: sanctuary (10), bimanda (11), cup (13), throne (16). Sometimes certain vegetation is added to the clay used for the ṭariana to give it added strength. 144 See the glossary in ATŠ, 13, where Drower describes mambuha as “the name given to water drunk sacramentally; also the epithet of the mingled cup drunk in the masiqta (see hamra). Drinking the mingled cup in the masiqta is an act performed by the celebrant in the character of the deceased; later on, during the same rite, he communicates himself with […] pihta and mambuha, this time as a living person.” 145 CP, 33. 146 ARR, 32. The inner phial is placed on the ṭariana inside the škinta. The outer phial is placed outside the škinta. 147 ARR, 14, 32. See also ATŠ, 232, in a section discussing the Dabahata where the “first Semen” is described as a sublime force that is likened to the marrow “formed before all other mysteries.” 148 MD, 432, defines riha as “a) breath, small, scent and perfume, (b) incense.” 149 See CP, 33, prayer 34, for the incense. 150 ARR, 32. 151 ARR, 14. 152 ARR, 32. See also CP, 33, prayer 33, for the mambuha. 153 Pihta (the sacramental bread) is made by the officiating priest by adding a little salt to plain white flour which he quickly carries in the palm of his hand to the river. Here, he mixes it with some of the blessed or ‘living’ water to be formed into small wafers and baked. Pihta is used in rites described in ATŠ, 242 as the means to “open the Door of Nourishment to the soul and spirit.” 142 143

THE CEREMONIAL CREATION OF THE BODY OF ADAM

129

as representing “the eight months in which an infant is formed in the womb.” 154 The two prayers for the mambuha are recited over the hamra, 155 which in various sections of ARR is described as “a bowl of wine” which is “the Womb.” 156 As the soul continues her journey, she longs for the ninth month which is Paradise or Biriawiš, 157 which is described in a prayer specifically devoted to it as the “source of living waters … first upsurging that springs forth great outbursts of the radiance of all abundant Life.” 158 The klila d-asa, misa and pihta play a role in the next crucial part of the masiqta, protecting the soul as various prayers are recited over them. 159 The myrtle wreath is an essential inclusion in Mandaean ceremonies. 160 Myrtle’s properties, including perfume, abundance, light, endurance, freshness and healing, 161 also apply to the klila d-asa which is made by twisting two myrtle twigs together and forming a circlet or wreath that represents the spirit and soul. One prayer highlights the role of the myrtle leaves’ fragrance in assisting the emerging, new-born soul during the taking of mambuha by a figure of light, the messenger Hibil-Ziwa wearing a klila d-asa under his turban, on the riverbank following his baptism in the jordan: “And when the mambuha was brought it called into life the mystery of the soul and caused her to inhale the living fragrance there between the leaves of the wreath so that she

ARR, 16. See CP, 243–50, for the eight prayers said for the pihita. See also CP, 49–50, prayer 42. 155 ARR, 16, n. 1. Hamra used in this masiqta is made by pouring water from the Jordan from the inner phial over grapes or raisins and macerating them in a bowl. 156 ARR, 37. The symbolism associated with hamra is complicated and at times guarded through warnings as in ARR, 36. Although it carries obvious connections to a form of creation associated with the soul, it is difficult to be more specific. However, in ARR, hamra appears to be used in different ways and at different stages, in conjunction with pihta, klila and dates. 157 ARR, 16. 158 CP, 40, prayer 44, the “appointed prayer for mambuha.” At the end of the double masiqta Adam eats the pihta and drinks the mambuha with accompanying prayers, drinks halalta (rinsing water from the outer phial delivered by the ašganda) and says “life is fulfilled.” See ARR, 28. See also CP, 51, prayers 59, 60, for the pihta and mambuha read at the final stages of the masiqta. 159 ARR, 16. 160 During maṣbuta the baptismal candidate wears a klila. The priests also wear a klila as a crown hidden beneath the burzinqa (turban). In certain rituals, it is combined with the sacramental bread to clothe the soul. In addition, a klila is made for the margna used in full baptism, and a small klila is made for bridal couples and as part of the decoration of the andiruna. A crown of seven myrtle twigs is placed at the crossbar of the drabša. 161 In the baptism liturgy there are number of prayers that refer to the myrtle wreath (CP, 5, 14, 15, 29, 30). Additionally, a sequence of myrtle prayers forms the final part of the Blessed Oblation (CP, 308–11). 154

130

SANDRA VAN ROMPAEY

breathed in the great Mana.” 162 Misa, another essential component of the ceremony, is made from grinding white sesame seeds in a small brass bowl. The oil of unction is held in a cup that has the recitation appointed for the masiqta read over it by the celebrant, indicating the end of the first sequence of preparations for the ascent of the soul. 163 The prayer in the Baptism Liturgy read over the soul describes this “precious oil” that delivers “radiance, light and glory” as a “son of white sesame, son of the Euphrates-bank” and of “water-pools.” 164 After the prayers for the klila d-asa and misa, a further transition takes place in the ceremony for the spirit and soul as they prepare to advance to the side of the Father. The heavenly celebrant, simply named ‘he’, is described in ARR as sitting on his crystal throne with his hand placed on a faṭira reciting, “This, the glory and light of Life, is to bring the spirit and soul of Adam-Shaq-Ziwa, son of Himat-Razia of this masiqta out of his body and to clothe the living soul”, as he wraps soft pihta dough around the klila and signs it with oil to provide symbolically a protective garment for the soul. 165 Sauriel the Deliverer 166 is now introduced, for he is responsible for releasing the “spirit and soul of Adam-Shaq-Ziwa” from his body. 167 While this occurs, crucial rites are performed where the soul is clothed in the important vesture of Yuzaṭaq-Mandad-Hiia, 168 a garment which provides an extra level of protection, by two of the senior Lightworld beings combined into one entity. The celebrant performs certain signs, DMHZ, 56. This prayer is recited after Hibil-Ziwa has been baptized in the jordan and returned to the riverbank to partake in a further part of the baptism ceremony, where he is signed with the oil of unction. Drower refers to the Lightworld being Mana in DMHZ, 35, as “an Over-Soul or Over-Mind, the earliest manifestation of the Great Life.” Mana and mana are both mentioned in CP, 4, in a prayer for the turban that also mentions the wreath. Additional references are found in two prayers for the myrtle wreath in the masiqta. Prayer 46 (CP, 41– 2) links Mana to “an ether-wreath, with benefits that are from the Place of Life”, and in the following prayer the ether-wreath is said to be “set on the heads of the souls of this ascent.” See also CP, 36–7, prayer 36. 163 See CP, 42–3, prayer 48, for the recitation appointed to the masiqta. 164 See CP, 19–20, prayer 23. 165 ARR, 16. WW, 251–2 explains this process with the ašganda making the dough to be wrapped around the klila. 166 ARR, 16–17, 17, 19, 22, 25, 44 for Sauriel, the Deliverer (the ‘releaser’) a messenger who releases the spirit and soul from the body during a masiqta and is sometimes called the ‘death angel’. See also CP, 44, prayer 49. Sauriel “the slaughterer” is illustrated in the Diwan Abatur scroll on the boat of Sin (Moon), holding three steering paddles that are assigned to him, suggesting that he powers the boat. 167 ARR, 17. 168 ARR, 17. See also CP, 43–6, prayer 49. This long prayer includes the soul’s release from the body by Sauriel, who covers her with the vesture of Yuzaṭaq-Manda-d-Hiia, rendering her immune to the planets, thus allowing her to reach the Gates of Abatur. As she continues, she receives many garments to clothe her and keep her safe. The combination of the two highranking Lightworld beings, Yuzaṭaq (Gnosis of Life, Source of Life) and Manda-d-Hiia (Knowledge of Life) to represent this garment, underscores its immense protective power. 162

THE CEREMONIAL CREATION OF THE BODY OF ADAM

131

and passes and prayers are read, resulting in the ruha of Adam-Shaq-Ziwa assuming the nature of the nišimta. 169 Spirit and soul are now effectively one. According to one of the masiqta prayers, the wreath “with its mysteries” is set on the soul’s head to accompany her on the ascent to the next stage of her journey, the “great gate of Abatur’s House.” 170 The nišimta in this section, having “cast off her bodily garment”, is described as being “enveloped in the ninth month.” 171 Sitting by the Womb, she is “issued from the sphere of death”, whereupon she “receives a sign from the Jordan—which is Semen and then enters the Scales of Abatur.” 172 The House of Abatur is the celestial region where the “scales are set up and the soul is questioned” before Abatur (“Lofty, Holy and Guarded one”) 173 as to her name, signs and baptism. Her deeds and rewards are weighed in the scales to be judged by Abatur. 174 After more passes and prayers the soul “casts off her bodily garment” and if judged well is cleansed and clothed in some of the radiance of Abatur in preparation for the next stage of her journey to receive new garments.

BUILDING THE SPIRITUAL BODY OF ADAM

The description of the actual building of the body of the soul of Adam-Shaq-Ziwa is a fragmented, and complex process, differently described in various Mandaean texts. It is a ritual process that is only truly understood by knowledgeable priests. However, the commentary in ARR describes part of this process of constructing the body of the soul that is undertaken through the use of faṭiria on which various particles of food are placed to form the qina on the tariana. 175 Sixty faṭiria are used in the first masiqta performed for the side of the Mother (earth), and for the construction of the “spiritual body of the cosmic womb.” 176 Symbolically, these sixty faṭiria “keep the babe safe: thirty for the days and thirty for the nights during which it breathes not yet the breath of life.” 177 As the last faṭira is reached a portion of the ba is enclosed within some of the pihta that has been separated from that which surrounds the klila. In this part of proceedings hamra assists in the creation or “awakening” of the reborn soul ARR, 17. CP, 42, prayer 47; ARR, 17. 171 ARR, 17. 172 ARR, 33–4. 173 Abatur is a key Mandaean deity who dwells in the House of Abatur. Two functional elements are within the one identity, situated at the scales of Abatur where the weighing and numbering of departed souls takes place. The higher element or counterpart is referred to as Abatur-Rama (high, lofty) and the other is Abatur-Muzania (Abatur of the Scales). At times he is just called Abatur and at times Third Life. His throne is placed at the Gate of Life. See also, MSA, ch. 1, for a discussion of Abatur as he is portrayed in Rudolph, Der mandaische “Diwan der Flusse”. 174 CP, 43–6, prayer 49. 175 See WW, 250–2, for Drower’s description of the consecration of the faṭiria used in the masiqta. 176 ARR, 34, n. 10. 177 ARR, 38; CP, 48, prayer 53. In the next section, the babe looks forward to baptism and the breath of life. 169 170

132

SANDRA VAN ROMPAEY

and in giving her life. 178 The living “water of the inner phial”, when poured over the four grapes in the bowl, is said to represent semen that “falls into the womb” and turns “water into wine.” 179 The sequence is concluded by dipping pihta into the wine bowl. 180 As the soul makes this transition through more prayers and rites, she then moves from the side of the Mother (earth) to the side of the Father (life, and the worlds of light) where the second masiqta is enacted through a repeat of various rites, prayers actions and signings. 181 At the stage of the building of the spiritual body of the soul/souls on the ṭariana in the second masiqta six quina are formed by the placement of six specified ingredients on each faṭira (ba, walnut, grapes, pomegranate, quince and, on top, myrtle). 182 Here, it is specifically stated that in this rite it is imperative that the discs of bread with the added food must be clothed with myrtle to “preserve the soul” and act as a seal. 183 With respect to the differing explanations surrounding the formation of parts of the spiritual body of Adam and its variants, the inclusion of the nature of marrow in an account in ATŠ provides an interesting connection to the Platonic theory of the soul in the Timaeus. ATŠ refers to the “primal mystery” of the body “which was formed from blood and from semen.” 184 Additionally, there was a “deposit called the marrow of bone and its name is the first faṭira.” 185 In both the Timaeus and this particular section of ATŠ, marrow is conceived as the foundational component of the human body and soul. 186 The subsequent faṭiria represent the bones, sinews, flesh, skin, and hair, 187 with specific parts being named: “The fifth is the knuckle-bone of the fingers, and the sixth is the joint of the middle of the forefinger.” 188 As in ARR,

ARR, 38. ARR, 18, 36, 37; CP, 48, prayer 54. At this point in the ceremony Abatur is said to question the soul. 180 See, CGŠ, 29; ARR, 36–7. In actuality, the precise interrelation of the details and performance of prayers and actions in this complex process is only known by the ganzibra overseeing the practices. 181 See ARR, 21–9, 39–49 for the procedures for and commentary on the second masiqta. 182 ARR, 34, n. 10. A faṭira to which the particles of food have been added is called a qina. See WW, 251, for further details. 183 ARR, 41–2. These sacred foods are the same as those utilized in ARZ, 75–6, to form the body of the cosmic soul. 184 ATŠ, 235. 185 ATŠ, 235. 186 See Plato, Timaeus, 73a–d. Roelof van den Broek, “The Creation of Adam’s Psychic Body in the Apocryphon of John” in Studies in Gnosticism and Hellenistic Religions: presented to Gilles Quispel on his 65th birthday, Roelof van den Broek and Maarten J. Vermaseren, eds (Leiden: 1981), 45 points out in a discussion of the Apocryphon of John, that the “components of Adam’s psychic body correspond to those of the carnal body in the Timaeus.” See also MSA, ch. 2. 187 ATŠ, 232–5. 188 ARR, 35. 178 179

THE CEREMONIAL CREATION OF THE BODY OF ADAM

133

this process of using the faṭira and specific plant matter to build the new body acts metaphorically to provide a strong functional basis for the rite. Having constructed the new spiritual body, the qinia are signed with misa and hence “the sign of Life”; the soul enters the House of Abatur once more where a letter arrives for Ayar. After reading it he announces that a letter signalling “union and victory” has come from the House of Life to “this the soul of Adam-Shaq-Ziwa son of Himat-Razia and [to] the souls of this masiqta.” 189 The souls mentioned in this masiqta for the Father include those of the fathers, teachers, brothers, and sisters who “have departed the body and of those still live in their bodies.” 190 The final rites are then performed: they include kušṭa and an accompanying prayer that serves, through the power of kušṭa, to give strength to the newly crowned Adam/priest. and to confer a blessing by the “Wellspring of living waters.” 191 Once the Dabahata is finished, the participants leave the bimanda and enter the andiruna to perform the zidqa brika in the name of the rba of the ašualia. 192 This oblation is performed in the andiruna on the ṭariana using sacred items, in particular, a tray of ritual food, hamra, and a bunch of fresh myrtle. 193 At the final stages the “soul is sealed with sixty-six seals” on the navel. 194 With the rebirth of the soul now complete and sealed, Adam “descended below, took a spouse and assumed kingship.” 195 He thus becomes Arch-priest, and simultaneously the ašualia becomes a tarmida.

ABBREVIATIONS

ARR = Drower, A Pair of Naṣoraean Commentaries (Alma Rišaia Rba) ARZ = Drower, Pair of Naṣoraean Commentaries (Alma Rišaia Zuṭa) ATŠ = Drower, The Thousand and Twelve Questions (Alf Trisar Šuialia) CGŠ = Drower, The Coronation of the Great Šišlam

ARR, 24. ARR, 24–6. This line of male and female ancestors and ’uthria who are blessed and have their sins forgiven at this final stage, includes other beings such as the earthly Adam and his wife Hawa, Ptahil, and the “three hundred and sixty-five priests who were driven out of the city of Jerusalem” (28). 191 CP, 160, prayer 178. ARR, 48. 192 ARR, 49. At the end of a masiqta a pious offering named the zidqa brika is performed for many souls of ancestors. See CP, 240–308 for prayers relating to this ceremony. See in particular a very long prayer in the Blessed Oblation for the ašualia (CP, 283–91, prayer, 378) that expressly mentions Adam as the “first man” who “shall be blessed.” Included are such items as a basket full of bread, a cup of mambuha, a ṭariana laden with fruit, jordans of living water, wellsprings of Radiance, and the drabša. 193 This hamra is different from that used in the masiqta. 194 ARR, 49–50. This final stage includes various prayers, signings and seals towards the critical end of the Dabahata and zidqa brika. 195 ARR, 51. 189 190

134

SANDRA VAN ROMPAEY

CP = Drower, The Canonical Prayerbook of the Mandaeans DC= Drower Collection , Bodleian Library, University of Oxford DMHZ =Diwan Maṣbuta d-Hibil-Ziwa in The Haran Gawaita and the Baptism of HibilZiwa DM‘L = Buckley, The Scroll of Exalted Kingship DQRDK = Nasoraia, “The Scroll of the Great Creation of the Image/Likeness of Truth” (Diwan Qadaha Rba d-Dmuth Kušta) GSS = Buckley, The Great Stem of Souls MD = Drower and Macuch, A Mandaic Dictionary MII = Drower, The Mandaeans of Iraq and Iran MSA = van Rompaey, Mandaean Symbolic Art SA = Drower, The Secret Adam WW = Drower, Water into Wine

BIBLIOGRAPHY Primary Sources

Drower Collection (DC) in the Bodleian Library, University of Oxford DC 7

Diwan d-Nahrawatha. MS. Drower 7 (r).

DC 8

Diwan Abatur. MS. Drower 8 (r).

DC 27

Zihrun Raza Kasia, MS. Drower 27 (r).

DC 35

Diwan Maṣbuta d-Hibil-Ziwa. MS. Drower 35 (r).

DC 41

Alma Rišaia Rba. MS. Drower 41 (r).

DC 48

Alma Rišaia Zuṭa. MS. Drower 48 (r). Secondary Sources

Buckley, Jorunn Jacobsen. The Great Stem of Souls: Reconstructing Mandaean History, Corrected 2nd printing (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2006). —— The Mandaeans: Ancient Texts and Modern People (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002). —— tr., The Scroll of Exalted Kingship (Diwan Malkuta ‘Laita) (Newhaven, CT: American Oriental Society, 1993). Drower, Ethel Stefana, tr., The Canonical Prayerbook of the Mandaeans (Leiden: Brill, 1959).

THE CEREMONIAL CREATION OF THE BODY OF ADAM

135

—— tr., The Coronation of the Great Šišlam (Leiden: Brill, 1962). —— tr., Diwan Abatur or, Progress through the Purgatories, Studi e Testi (Città del Vaticano: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1950). —— tr., The Haran Gawaita and the Baptism of Hibil-Ziwa (Città del Vaticano: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1953). —— The Mandaeans of Iraq and Iran: Their Cults, Customs, Magic Legends and Folklore (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1937). —— tr., A Pair of Naṣoraean Commentaries (Two Priestly Documents), the Great “First World” (Alma Rišaia Rba) and the Lesser “First World” (Alma Rišaia Zuṭa) (Leiden: Brill, 1963). —— The Secret Adam: A Study of Naṣoraean Gnosis (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1960). —— tr., The Thousand and Twelve Questions, Alf Trisar Šuialia (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1960). —— Water into Wine: A Study of Ritual Idiom in the Middle East (London: Murray, 1956). Drower, Ethel Stefana and Rudolf Macuch. A Mandaic Dictionary (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963). Eliade, Mircea. The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion, tr. Willard R. Trask (New York: Harcourt, 1959). Gündüz, Șinasi. The Knowledge of Life: The Origins and Early History of the Mandaeans and their Relation to the Sabians of the Qurān and to the Harranians [Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement 3] (Oxford: Oxford University Press on behalf of the University of Manchester, 1994). Jonas, Hans. The Gnostic Religion: The Message of the Alien God and the Beginnings of Christianity, 2nd edn. (New York: Beacon Press, 1963). Liddell, Henry George and Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon, revised edn. (Oxford: Clarendon Press 1940). Lidzbarski, Mark. Ginza: Der Schatz oder das Grosse Buch der Mandäer (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1925). Nasoraia, Brikha. A Critical Edition with Translation and Analytical Study of Diuan Qadaha Rba d-Dmuth Kušṭa (The Scroll of the Great Creation of the Image/Likeness of Truth)”, [unpublished PhD thesis, University of Sydney, 2005]. Rudolph, Kurt, Der mandaische “Diwan der Flusse” (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1982). van den Broek, Roelof. “The Creation of Adam’s Physic Body in the Apocryphon of John” in Studies in Gnosticism and Hellenistic Religions, Roelof van den Broek and Maarten J Vermaseren, eds (Leiden: 1981), 38–57.

136

SANDRA VAN ROMPAEY

van Rompaey, Sandra, with the participation of Erica C. D. Hunter, Mandaean Symbolic Art (Turnhout: Brepols, forthcoming 2023).

DANIEL OF ṢALAḤ’S INTRODUCTION TO THE PSALMS, CHAPTER 1–16:

TIMELESS ESSENTIALS FOR STUDENTS OF THE PSALTER JACOB THEKEMPARABIL ∗ AND DANIEL L. MCCONAUGHY (SEERI – CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE)

The mid-6th century writer, Daniel of Ṣalaḥ, is best known for his Commentary on the Psalms. This paper discusses chapters 1–16 of his Introduction to the Psalms that comprised 32 chapters. 1 Though written more than a millennium ago, Daniel’s introduction provides many useful and important points for the modern student, and he provides a wealth of ideas and quotes from earlier Syriac writers, including Ephrem and Aphrahat as well as Greek writers and Jewish traditions. The first to write on Psalms in the Syrian Orthodox tradition, Daniel of Ṣalaḥ’s impact has been significant and his work is still studied today in the Syrian Orthodox church. Daniel of Ṣalaḥ’s Commentary on the Psalms, a vast work of erudition and spirituality, appears to be the oldest known psalm commentary composed in Syriac. Comprising more than one thousand pages, it is divided into three volumes, each containing fifty psalms. A storehouse of Syrian Orthodox exegetical traditions, the work does not expound every line or word of the Psalms, but selects passages that are structured in the form of self-contained homilies. Since the early sixteenth century there have been

I first met Professor Rifiaat Ebied at the 1980 Patristics conference at Eichstadt, Germany. Since then, our friendship has grown deeper and deeper, and we were fortunate to meet at all the meetings of the Symposium Syriacum, and most notably in 2000, when it was organized by Prof. Ebied himself in Sydney. Faithful in attending the World Syriac Conferences organized by SEERI, he has been a regular contributor to the Harp and an External Examiner for PhD students at SEERI. I am grateful to Professor Ebied for his faithful and constant support of SEERI, its activities and its students. 1 An appendix with the titles of Chapters 17–32 is provided at the end of the contribution. ∗

137

138

JACOB THEKEMPARAMBIL AND DANIEL L. MCCONAUGHY

several attempts to edit this comprehensive commentary. 2 Most recently, David G.K. Taylor has been editing the work which will be published in the Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium (CSCO) series. In this contribution, the chapter headings and extracts supply more detail for the first two chapters to give a flavour of the detail which Daniel provides the reader. 3 In the subsequent chapters, the answers to the questions raised in each chapter are not full translations but are summaries, based on the original text and its German translation by Gustav Diettrich. 4 Chapter I: has no title but deals with the purpose of Book of Psalms and other important topics. The Book of Psalms teaches about: The works of the Patriarchs: reminding us of the covenant that God made with Abram, his oath to Isaac and his assurances to Jacob: “Do not touch my anointed ones; do my prophets no harm.” (Ps. 105:9, 15). 2. The Exodus of the Children of Israel from Egypt: “When Israel came out of Egypt, the house of Jacob, from a people of foreign tongues… .” (Ps. 114:1). 3. The Tent and Temple (Ps. 68:29): “On account of your temple Kings will bring gifts because of Jerusalem: “How beautiful are your dwellings, O Lord of Sabbath” (Ps.84:1). “Bring to the Lord” (Ps. 29:1). “Lord, I love the service in your house, the place where your glory dwells” (Ps. 26:8). 4. God’s Laws: “If your children keep my covenant, and the testimony that I teach” (Ps. 131:12). “All the ways of the Lord are loving and faithful for those who keep the

David G. K. Taylor, “Daniel of Ṣalaḥ”, in Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage: Electronic Edition, Sebastian P. Brock, Aaron M. Butts, George A. Kiraz and Lucas Van Rompay, eds., https://gedsh.bethmardutho.org/Daniel-of-Salah also provides details of previous attempts to edit the Commentary on the Psalms. 3 See the recent article by Steffan Jenkins, “The Antiquity of Psalter Shape Efforts”, Tyndale Bulletin 70.2 (2020), 161–80 that reviews some of the earliest patristic efforts to understand the shape of the Psalter and Psalms One and Two. Especially pp. 164–8 and 172–3. 4 Gustav Diettrich, Eine jakobitische Einleitung in den Psalter in Verbindung mit zwei Homilien aus dem grossen Psalmenkommentar des Daniels von Salah (Giessen: 1901). Other important works include, S. Peter Cowe, “Daniel of Salah as Commentator on the Psalter”, Studia Patristica 20 (1989), 152–9; Anne Sunderland, “Daniel of Salah, a sixth-century West Syrian Interpreter of the Psalms”, Byzantinische Forschungen 24 (1997), 51–61; David G. K. Taylor, ‘The manuscript tradition of Daniel of Ṣalaḥ’s Psalm Commentary’, Oriens Christiana Analecta 256 (1998), 61– 9; David G. K. Taylor, “The great Psalm Commentary of Daniel of Ṣalaḥ”, The Harp 11/12 (1999), 33–42; David G. K. Taylor, “The Christology of the Syriac Psalm Commentary (A.D. 541/2) of Daniel of Ṣalaḥ, and the ‘Phantasiast’ controversy”, Studia Patristica 35 (2001), 508– 15; David G. K. Taylor, “The Psalm commentary of Daniel of Ṣalaḥ and the formation of the 5th century Syrian Orthodox Identity” in Religious Origins of Nations? The Christian Communities of the Middle East, R. Bas ter Haar Romeny, ed. (Leiden: 2010), 65–92. 2

DANIEL OF ṢALAḤ'S INTRODUCTION TO THE PSALMS

139

demands of his covenant” (Ps. 25:10). Commandments: One should be thinking of them, keeping and doing them. (Ps. 103:8; 118:4). 5. Division of the Lands of Promise: “He should sow the fields & plant vineyards” (Ps. 107:37). 6. On the Judges and Kings of Israel: Ps. 2, 9. “In your strength, Lord, rejoices the King” (Ps. 21:1). 7.

The removal of slavery and the return of the people from Babel (Ps. 125:1).

8. On the First coming of the Messiah in many Psalms: On his birth from Mary: “You are my son (Ps. 2:6). “He will descend like rain on wool” (Ps.72:6). “He will come up from his town like plants of the earth” (72, 15). On his baptism: “The waters saw you, O God” (Ps. 77:16). 9. On His Passion (Ps. 69:21): “In my meal they gave sour stuff.” “They put gall in my food and gave me vinegar for my thirst” (Ps. 69:21). 10. On his death & descent into Sheol: (Ps. 88:5) “I was counted among the dead who sleep.” 11. On the Resurrection: (Ps. 78:65): “Wake up, Lord” (Ps. 68:1). “God will rise up and they were scattered.” 12. On His Ascension: (Ps. 68:18) “When you ascended to the heights, you led captives…” 13. On His Session at the right hand side of God the Father: “The Lord said to my Lord: Sit on my right hand” (Ps. 110:1). 14. On the Reward of those who keep the Commandments: (Ps. 124:4) “Do well to the good.” “Blessed are those who keep his judgments, and blessed is the man who does not walk on the road of the wicked” (Ps. 106:3; Ps. 1:1; Ps. 112:1). 15. On the Punishment of the Wicked: “His own wickedness will hunt him down for destruction” (Ps. 139:11; Ps. 79:6). 16. On the Calling of the Gentiles: “Clap your hands, all you gentiles” (Ps. 47:1). “Praise the Lord, all you nations” (Ps. 116:1). 17. On the Rejection and Departure of God’s People: “He raised his hand in order to make them perish among the gentiles” (Ps. 106:26). 18. Warning: “How long, o men, will you cover up my glory and love false gods” (Ps. 4:3). 19. On Gratitude and Confession: “I will confess the Lord with all my heart and I will confess you in the great church” (Ps. 111:1; Ps. 35:18; Ps. 105:1. 20. On the Faith in the Father, the Son and Holy Spirit: “By the word of the Lord were the heavens made and all his armies by the breath of his mouth” (Ps. 33:6; Ps. 56:10).

140

JACOB THEKEMPARAMBIL AND DANIEL L. MCCONAUGHY

21. On the Narration of God’s Visit and Punishments: “By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept, when we remembered Zion” (Ps. 136:1; Ps. 114:1). 22. Again we say that this Book of Psalms contains instructions regarding the ten themes (literally theories): (i) Theology, (ii) Incarnation, (iii) Prophecy, (iv) Prayer, (v) Warning, (vi) Punishment, (vii) Impeachment, (viii) Confession, (ix) Narration and (x) Resurrection, Judgment, Retribution. 23. Again we say that Epiphanius of Cyprus (d. 403) divided the entire corpus and the sayings of prophets and arranged them into ten parts: (i) Meditation (Ps. 67:6) (ii) Teachings (Ps. 24:1). “The Earth is the Lord’s and everything in it, the world and all who live in it.” (iii) Warnings (Ps. 37:1). (iv) Punishment (Ps. 50:21). “I will punish you”. (v) Complaints “Woe unto me” (Ps. 119:5). (vi) Prayers “Hear my prayer” (Ps. 102:2; Ps. 55:1). (vii) Narrations (Ps. 114:1, Ps. 78:2). (viii) Threats. (ix) Lamentations: “I went about mourning as though for my friend or brother; I went with him in grief, as though weeping for my mother” (Ps. 35:14). (x) Prophesies (Ps. 72:6, 15). So are revealed in this book of Psalms the themes of the priestly writings. What the priestly writings teach partly and briefly, the Book of Psalms teach fully. Chapter II: What is the use of this book of Psalms for us? What are the advantages that are found in them? Multiple and various are the advantages of the Book of Psalms. 1. Firstly, it helps us to progress in justice. For example: “Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path. I have taken an oath and I confirmed it, that I will hold on to your righteous decrees” (Ps. 118:106). 2. Then it helps us for repentance (Tyobuto) when repentant sinners pray, “Have mercy upon me according to your grace ….” (Ps. 51:1). 3. It helps us to banish (rdupyo) demons and evil people: “Deliver me from my enemies, O God” (Ps. 59:1). 4. Then it helps us remove stresses that surround us: “The anxieties of my heart are many, and lead me out of my anxieties... (Ps. 25:17).

DANIEL OF ṢALAḤ'S INTRODUCTION TO THE PSALMS

141

5. It helps us to persuade God to hear our prayer: “Lord, hear my prayer” (Ps. 102:2; Ps. 55:1). 6. It helps us to pray to God to punish us, not in anger, but with mercy, when we are punished justly: “Lord, do not punish me in your anger….” (Ps. 6:1). 7. It is useful for us to thank God for any favour received: “thank the Lord, from my whole heart …” (Ps. 111, 1). “I will thank you in the big community ….” (Ps. 35:18) “Thank the Lord…” (Ps. 106:1). 8. It helps to pray for redemption from God, when we see that the evil of the humans is indeed very big: “Help, Lord, for good persons are no more there …” (Ps. 12:1). 9. It helps us to know, who is made worthy to dwell in God’s city and rejoice in the heavenly kingdom: “Lord, who is worthy to dwell …” (Ps. 15:1). 10. It helps us to console the afflicted and to pray for them: “The Lord will listen to you on the day of afflictions ...” (Ps. 20:1). 11. It helps us to marvel at the order of Creation: “The heavens declare the honour…” (Ps. 19:2). 12. It helps us to contemplate the bodily and spiritual houses: “and if the Lord does not build the house” (Ps. 126:1). 13. It helps us to sing blessed are you, who repented and whose sins have been forgiven: “Blessed is he, whose sins are forgiven” (Ps. 32:1). 14. It helps us to warn people and not to be jealous of the wicked and to avoid their evil: “Do not fret because of the wicked …..” (Ps. 37:1). 15. It helps us to motivate people, to be merciful to the poor: “Blessed is he, who looks upon the poor….” (Ps. 41:1). “It is well with the man, who deals generously and lends….” (Ps. 112:5). 16. It helps us not to deviate when we face calumny from enemies: “Have mercy upon me, O God, because people trample me….” (Ps. 56:1). “The plowmen plowed on my back; they made their furrows long ….” (Ps. 129:3). “Why do you boast, O mighty one ……” (Ps. 52:1). 17. It helps us to pray to God and to ask him to deliver us from the enemies: “Deliver me O God, from my enemies…” (Ps. 59:1). “Deliver me, Lord, from evil men…” (Ps.139:1). 18. It helps us to obstruct hypocrites: “Yes, truly speak out justice….” (Ps. 58:1) “God will scatter the bones of those who count on favour of men…” (Ps. 53:6). 19. It is useful for praising God constantly: “Sing to the Lord, a new song…” (Ps. 98:1; Ps. 145:1; Ps. 148:1; Ps. 150:1). 20. It helps us to pray constantly for God’s mercy: “God, have mercy upon us….” (Ps. 67:1; Ps. 51:1; Ps. 122:3).

142

JACOB THEKEMPARAMBIL AND DANIEL L. MCCONAUGHY

21. It helps us not to be scandalized, when we see the evil people flourish and the good ones are in affliction: “God is generous to Israel and to the simple-hearted… ” (Ps. 73:1). “Behold the wicked, flourishing in the world and strongly influential …” (Ps. 73:12). 22. It helps us not to be disappointed when we see the wicked and the enemies going to the house of God: “God, the nations have come into your inheritance…” (Ps. 79:1). 23. It helps us to long for and earnestly desire God’s dwelling and the house of the Lord: “How lovely is your dwelling place, Lord” (Ps. 84:1) “Lord, I loved the service of your house…” (Ps. 26:8). 24. It helps us to sing thankfully, when the Lord brings an end to his punishment inflicted upon us in a matter whatsoever. “Lord you are pleased with your land” (Ps. 85:1) “When the Lord brought back the captives of Zion…” (Ps. 125:1). 25. It helps us to praise the Lord constantly: “I will praise the Lord all times…” (Ps. 34:1; Ps. 103:1, 22). 26. It helps us to put to flight the devil from our surroundings: “God will stand up and his enemies will be scattered…” (Ps. 68:1; Ps. 59:1). 27. It helps us to put our trust on God: “Protect me, O God, for in you I trust…” (Ps. 16:1; Ps. 18:2). 28. It helps us to sing when God delays and even does not answer our petitions: “How long, Lord, will you forget me forever….?” (Ps. 13:2; Ps. 74:1). 29. It helps us to be fittingly patient in times of afflictions that befall us: “I await the Lord….” (Ps. 40:1; Ps. 71:1). 30. It helps us to take refuge under the wings of God in all our misfortunes: “He who sits in the shelter of the Most High…” (Ps. 91:1). 31. It helps us amidst the anxieties that surround us: “I am in distress—make haste to answer me…” (Ps. 69:18; Ps. 25:17). 32. It helps us to liberate us when temptations come upon us for the purpose of testing us: “O Lord, you have searched me and known me…” (Ps. 138:1). 33. It helps us to entrust our cause not to the humans, but to God, when we are offended by evil people. “Vindicate me, O God, and defend my cause…” (Ps. 43:1; Ps. 26:1). 34. Again this Book helps us to sing on the main feast days of our Lord: (a). On His birth in flesh: Ps. 72:1; Ps. 2:6; Ps. 87:2. (b). On His feast of baptism: Ps. 29:1; Ps. 77:1; Ps. 42:1; Ps. 114:1 and other Psalms that speak of water. (c). On the feast of Hosannah (Palm Sunday): Ps. 8:1; Ps. 65:1; Ps. 146:1; Ps. 147:1.

DANIEL OF ṢALAḤ'S INTRODUCTION TO THE PSALMS

143

(d). On the week of Passion: “My Lord, My Lord, why did you abandon me”: Ps.22:1; Ps. 35:1; Ps. 69:20; Ps. 109:1 (e). On Resurrection: Ps. 93:1; Ps. 97:1; Ps. 99:1; Ps. 88:1; Ps. 98:1. (f). On Ascension: Ps. 24:1; Ps. 110:1; Ps. 47:1; Ps. 68:1. (g). On the days of commemoration and vigils of Martyrs: Ps. 44:1; Ps. 79:1. 35. Again, this Book is useful for us to sing it every day, every year, yes, all the days of our life. For Saint Basil says about the Book of Psalms: “Every book imparts transparently instruction on the mysteries of incarnation, miracles of the Lord, accusations against Him by the Jews, the cross, mocking and teasing, descent into Sheol, redemption announced to the souls there, resurrection from the dead, ascension, sitting on the right hand side of the Father, peace mission of the apostles, calling of the nations, the faith, that should have been found in Israel, the honours which the saints will be awarded at the end of times, the city above, the way that leads from the earth to immortality of the bodies and similar (topics). At this point, Daniel quotes from St. Basil († 379 C.E.), St. Cyril († 444 C.E.). 5 Chapter III: Before which books should the Book of Psalms be read? Why? The Book of Psalms is to be read before all the books of the Old and New Testaments, and before all the other remaining books. There are two reasons: It trains the children and disciplines the youth. It helps a man to find whatsoever he asks for, as we saw in the previous chapter.

We should therefore be beginning with the Book of Psalms, which cares for the teaching and practice of virtue and justice. The Book of Psalms should be read before all mysteries (sacraments) and before the books of the prophets. Before all the mysteries, the Book of Psalms should be read because it sanctifies the interior of the heart and prepares it for the reception of the sacrament of priesthood and high priesthood. On account of this a person should not be consecrated a deacon, before he can sing the Psalms. Before all the books of the prophets, the Book of Psalms should be read, because what is said in the prophetical books in detail is briefly said in the Psalms. Thus, the Book of Psalms narrate only little and shortly about the work of creation, while the Book of Moses deals with it in detail and explicitly. What is said briefly here is said there extensively. All the same, let us note that David and the remaining prophets spoke about one and the same in the same Spirit and in interior harmony. This is taught by St. Dionysus in the 2nd Chapter on Baptism, and also a few commentators of the books of the Septuagint, when they say: “While David prophesied only by way of hints, the prophets came and spoke about them in detail and extensively. Again 5

See Jenkins, “Antiquity of Psalter”, 164–8 and 172–3.

144

JACOB THEKEMPARAMBIL AND DANIEL L. MCCONAUGHY

some of the interpreters say: The Book of Psalms should be read before all the holy books because all these speak about four themes: about deeds and words, which are of God in Psalms and of godly people in some others. And the Book of Psalms contains in it these four themes, about which all the books speak. Therefore, the Psalter should be read before them. Chapter IV: In how many books is the Book of Psalms to be divided? Athanasius of Alexandria († 373 C.E.) in his Homily on the Psalms, and Epiphanius of Cyprus († 403 C.E.), in his treatise on Weights and Measures say: in five chapters that, according to the Hebrews it was divided thus: 1st Book Ps. 1:1-41:1 2nd Book Ps. 42:1-72:1 3rd Book Ps. 73:1-89:1 4th Book Ps. 91:1-106:1 5th Book Ps. 107:1-150:1 At the end of each book is written: “Blessed is the Lord, the God of Israel from eternity to eternity, Amen, Amen.” At the end of the fifth book is written: “Everything that has breath praise the Lord.” It is to be noted that there is also the division of Psalms for liturgical purposes: 15 Marmyata 6= 60 Šubheik= 2416 Zauge 7= 4382 Petgome

8

Chapter V: Whose are the Psalms and to whom are they attributed? Theodore the Nestorian († 429 C.E.) and others with him say: all the psalms are of David; all of them are attributed to him. Reasons being the title: Book of Psalms of David and secondly, the custom of people who consider them as those of David. But we say it is not true. Why? The Titles given to the psalms by the Hebrews and Syrians are different. The Hebrews do not entitle it as “The Book of Psalms of David,” but “Sephartellim” 9 Also, the Acts

Marmyata, ‫ ܡܪܡܝܬܐ‬a subdivision of the Psalter. Jessie Payne Smith, Compendious Syriac Dictionary (Oxford: 1903), 563 notes that the (Jacobite) West Syriac tradition subdivided the ̈ Psalter into fifteen Marmyata, each containing four Šubhe, ‫ܫܘܒܚܐ‬. 7 Payne Smith, Compendious Syriac Dictionary, 112.defines ‫ ܙܘܓܐ‬Zauga as couplet, or distich of two Petgome ‫ ܦܬܓܘܡܐ‬and on p. 469 lists as a text of scripture; in poetry a line, verse or half verse. 8 The arithmetic works in the first instance: 15 X 4 = 60, but it is not clear how the 60 multiplies to 2416 or the 2416 to 4382. Perhaps the text is corrupted. Note: 60 X 40 = 2400 and 2400 X 2 = 4800, which are not too far from the text. 9 Hebrew term “Book of Praises.” 6

DANIEL OF ṢALAḤ'S INTRODUCTION TO THE PSALMS

145

of Apostles do not say “Book of Psalms of David,” but only the “Book of Psalms.” The name of David is left out in the Acts 1: 20. Regarding the second reason, we say: all people do not regard the Psalms as those of David, for instance: Athanasios of Alexandria († 373 C.E.) in his commentary on Psalms; Irenaeus of Lyon († circa 202 C.E.) in the first homily of interpretation of Samuel; Hippolytus of Rome († 236 C.E.); Origen († circa 253 C.E.) in his Treatise on Psalms, Jacob of Edessa († 708 C.E.), in his letter to the Stylite Yuhannon, 10 All these and others say: All the psalms do not belong to David. There are two reasons for this. Firstly, the book’s title being in Hebrew Sephartellim. Secondly, The Psalms were written in Hebrew and not in Syriac. So the Hebrew title is genuine and true, but not the Syriac. All of the psalms are not of David. They belong in part to him and partly to others, whose names are partly known. They are: Moses, Solomon, Assaph and Ethan, the children of Qorah, Iduthim and Heman who were from the Tribe of Levy; Haggai and Zachariah, Ethan the Israelite. Chapter VI: Whether David alone was the singer? Or were there other singers with him? The answers to these questions were not given in Daniel’s introduction to The Psalms. Chapter VII: How many singers were there with David? For what reason were they selected to sing with him? These questions are not answered by Daniel. Chapter VIII: Were the Psalms sung without accompaniment or with Harp, Lyre, Cymbal, Horn and other musical instruments? David did not sing alone. He sang to God not without accompaniment. Others sang with him. Hippolytus of Rome says that David appointed 4 singers from the tribe of Levi: Assaph, Ethan, Iduthim and Heman. To each one of them he added seventytwo singers. Altogether there were 288 male singers. The number seventy-two replaces the seventy-two languages that caused confusion in the construction of the tower of Babel. Together with David, the seventy-two singers praised God. The commentaries of St. Basil and Irenaeus similarly deal with this question. St. Basil says: Iduthim was one of the singers and players who were dancing before the ark (qibuto) with musical instruments in front of the Ark of the Lord, as the Book of Chronicles reports: Heman and Iduthim, and the rest of the children of Asaph played simple and double horns very loudly and let the Lyres, Harps and Cymbals accompany before God. Irenaeus of Lugdun says in his first Memre—Interpretation of Samuel—when it pleased David to lead the Ark of the Lord from the house of Aminadab,

10

See the translation in: Diettrich, Eine jakobitische Einleitung, 34–5, note 5.

146

JACOB THEKEMPARAMBIL AND DANIEL L. MCCONAUGHY

where it had been kept for twenty years, he assembled 70,000 young people and chose, according to the directions of the priests, four singers: Assaph, Heman, Ethan and Iduthim. And they carried with themselves lyres, harps, cymbals, drums and trumpets. To each one of the singers, seventy-two people were given who, after him, played and responded with the Halleluiah. The seven leaders went ahead and the players followed them. David stood in the centre, carrying in his hands a lyre and dressed in colourful clothes. The ark on the chariot came after them and then Israel in her totality. They all signify the seventy old languages that were in Babel which now are gathered in a Church and praise God. The Holy Spirit was very pleased with them and tabernacled in each one of them and each one played according to what was given to him by the Spirit. And it happened thus: When David played, then rested the others each one according to his row. When Assaph played, David rested and the others too, each one according to his row. Then played another one whom the Holy Spirit had simply moved and the rest replied. Thus were a good number of psalms sung, when the Ark of the covenant came. Chapter IX: Which are David’s Psalms and which are those of others? This chapter is based on the thoughts of Hippolytus of Rome. Psalms 1 and 2 do not mention their authors. Among the Jews these two Psalms make one single Psalm. But we say that they are of David and are attributed to him (See Acts 4:24). Seventy-three Psalms are of David: Psalms 3-16; 18-25; 29-36; 38, 40; 43, 51–61; 63–5; 68–71; 86; 91; 93–9; 103; 108; 136–43. Moses is said to have composed one Psalm 90, while Solomon composed Psalm 72. Eleven Psalms were composed by Assaph and Ethan, the children of Qorah: Psalms 42, 44–9; 84; 87. Heman composed eight Psalms: Psalms 17; 26–8; 37; 101; 110; 144 and Iduthin fourteen: Psalm 50; 73–83; 39; 62. Ethan composed Psalm 89, while Haggai and Zachariah composed Psalms 145–8. The authors of the remaining Psalms are anonymous. Chapter X: The totality of Psalms does not belong to David. Then why are they all put under his name and as his compositions? Why are they named after him? David gave the start and appointed musicians to play the instruments as accompaniment to the Psalms. The Psalter is named as David’s property, why? This is because: 1.

David started composing psalms as poems.

2.

He caused and chose musicians to accompany the recital of psalms.

3.

He was king, prophet and priest.

4. Eusebius of Caesarea reports that it was David who first gave to the Hebrews this new art of Psalm songs. 5. The glory of God, the Word, was laid on him, from whom He was to come in the future.

DANIEL OF ṢALAḤ'S INTRODUCTION TO THE PSALMS

147

Chapter XI: Why were the Psalms written and collected as not those of a single person, but as those of several authors? Ezra, the scribe (Sopro), 11 collected, after the return to Jerusalem from slavery, all the Psalms which were scattered, and put them all together in this book. He even included in it ‘sayings’ which were not completely Psalms. So he, at least by way of titles, ascribed some to David, some to Moses and Solomon, some to the children of Qorah, still some others to Iduthim, and finally some others without any title. Chapter XII: Everything written in this book: are they all psalms or not? All are not psalms. Some are psalms; some are hymns of praise. Some are words that were spoken through the Spirit and are included in this book for the benefit of their readers and their hearers. On this point, we agree with some of the earlier exegetes. Chapter XIII: What is the meaning of the word Mazmuro? From where is the word taken and derived? Some say: Mazmuro means a hymn of praise; it was accompanied by a small musical instrument. It is from this hymn of praise that was played on the harp, that the word Mazmuro was taken. One should know that the harp has twenty-four wires, while the lyre has two to ten wires. The harp produces the tone when it is struck from the top, the lyre from below and has only one way of striking the wires. The harp, however, has several ways to strike. When the harp is played with the song of praise, this is called Mazmuro. The Hebrews call this instrument Zabla 12 or Yabla. 13 The Greeks: Chelus. 14 The Syriac: Kenara. 15 Chapter XIV: How does Mazmuro differ from Zmirta and Tesbukhta? Mazmuro is a chant accompanied by a harp or a chant accompanied by any musical instrument, while Zmirtha is a very general term for a song expressing joy and happiness. Tesbukhta can denote any song, without the accompaniment of harp or any other musical instrument. Chapter XV: Were the Psalms spoken of by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of David and other singers who composed them? The Psalms were spoken by the Holy Spirit through David. St. Chrysostom speaks about this. Chapter XVI: Was David the only Prophet who prophesied with a musical instrument or were there also other prophets?

Ezra 7:6, 12. The Syriac term ‫ܣܦܪܐ‬, is cognate with the Hebrew term, sofer, ‫סופר‬. ‫ – זכל‬lyre. 13 Perhaps yubal, ‫יוכל‬, ram’s horn, used as a musical instrument. 14 Χελυς – lyre. 15 ‫ – ܟܢܪܐ‬harp or lyre. This is a cognate with the Hebrew kinnor, ‫כנור‬. 11 12

148

JACOB THEKEMPARAMBIL AND DANIEL L. MCCONAUGHY

David alone was the prophet who made his prophecy to be accompanied by a musical instrument. Here one should note that all the psalms were unaccompanied by music instruments. A few; namely Psalms 3, 6, 51, which speak of persecution and his own sins were unaccompanied by music instruments, but with pain, sorrow and weeping.

CONCLUDING COMMENTS

This brief introduction to Daniel of Ṣalaḥ’s, Introduction to the Psalms shows the depth and scale of his ‘introduction’. His work is valuable, not the least that it cites many early writers, displaying a broad knowledge of the patristic literature of his day, not only in Syriac but also Greek.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Diettrich, Gustav. Eine jakobitische Einleitung in den Psalter in Verbindung mit zwei Homilien aus dem grossen Psalmenkommentar des Daniels von Salah [Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft V] (Giessen: J. Ricker’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1901). Jenkins, Steffan. “The Antiquity of Psalter Shape Efforts”, Tyndale Bulletin 70.2 (2020), 161–80, especially 164–8 and 172–3. Payne-Smith, Jessie. Compendious Syriac Dictionary (Oxford: Clarendon, 1903). Sunderland, Anne. “Daniel of Salah, a sixth-century West Syrian Interpreter of the Psalms”, Byzantinische Forschungen 24 (1997), 51–61. Taylor, David. G. K. “The manuscript tradition of Daniel of Salah’s Commentary”, Oriens Christiana Analecta 256 (1998), 61–9. —— “The great Psalm commentary of Daniel of Salah”, The Harp 11/12 (1999), 33– 42. —— “The Christology of the Syriac Psalm Commentary (A.D. 541/2) of Daniel of Salah and the ‘Phantasiast’ controversy”, Studia Patristica 35 (1901), 508–15. —— “The Psalm commentary of Daniel of Ṣalaḥ and the formation of the 5th century Syrian Orthodox Identity” in Religious Origins of Nations? The Christian communities of the Middle East, Bas ter Haar Romeny, ed. (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 65–92. —— “Daniel of Ṣalaḥ”, in Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage: Electronic Edition, Sebastian P. Brock, Aaron M. Butts, George A. Kiraz and Lucas Van Rompay, eds, https://gedsh.bethmardutho.org/Daniel-of-Salah.

Chapter XVII:

APPENDIX: TITLES OF CHAPTERS 17–32

Why did the Holy Spirit make the Psalms to be sung in melody then and now?

DANIEL OF ṢALAḤ'S INTRODUCTION TO THE PSALMS

149

Chapter XVIII: Against those Jews who say that David was not a prophet, because God did not speak to him and send him? Chapter XIX: Are the Psalms collected and arranged in the same order as that of their composition? Or, are they arranged in a different order? Chapter XX: Who gave the present order to the Psalms in the Book of Psalms? Chapter XXI: Are the headings of the Psalms same in all these three languages: Hebrew, Greek and Syriac? Or, are they different? Chapter XXII: About the total number of Psalms: How many Psalms are there altogether? Why that many, and not more or not less? Chapter XXIII: The total number and divisions of the Psalms: Are they the same in Hebrew, Greek and Syriac? Or, are they different and variable? Chapter XXIV: Why do we use and read the books of the Old Testament? Chapter XXV: On the question of the Godless people: Why do you leave all their books and pray from the book of Psalms only? Chapter XXVI: Why do we leave the books of other prophets, so that we do not praise (God) in them, but only in the Book of Psalms? Why do you praise ? Chapter XXVII: Which are the customary words and expressions that David uses mostly to speak about God? Chapter XXVIII: How many translations of the Old Testament are there from Hebrew to Greek and Hebrew to Syriac? Which of these is more exact than the other translations? Chapter XXIX: The Psalms should be interpreted only in the literal sense; others interpret them spiritually. Others interpret the Psalms both literally and spiritually, like the entire Bible.

150

JACOB THEKEMPARAMBIL AND DANIEL L. MCCONAUGHY

Chapter XXX: How should one sing the Psalm? Chapter XXXI: Who ordered the Psalms to be sung by two choirs in the Church? Chapter XXXII: What is the meaning of Halleluiah that we sing at the end of the verse of the Psalms?

THE COLLECTIVE AUTHORSHIP OF THE PESHITTA NEW TESTAMENT TERRY C. FALLA ∗

(PILGRIM THEOLOGICAL COLLEGE, UNIVERSITY OF DIVINITY, AUSTRALIA) O! lure of the Lost Lagoon,— I dream to-night that my paddle blurs The purple shade where the seaweed stirs— I hear the call of the singing firs In the hush of the golden moon. Emily Pauline Johnson (Tekahionwake)

Who translated the Peshitta New Testament? Francis C. Burkitt, in an influential 1904 publication, identified the translator as Rabbula, bishop of Edessa (411–435), a theory that became popular and proved tenacious. Bruce M. Metzger’s The Early Versions of the New Testament of 1977 was a turning point. Primarily on the basis of Arthur Vööbus’ research, Metzger concluded that the translator could not have been Rabbula. As Metzger emphasized, Burkitt’s hypothesis was based entirely on external and circumstantial evidence. Until Metzger, scholarship had been slow to respond, but now accepts that Rubbula was not the translator of the Peshitta New Testament. However, irrespective of the person, the Peshitta New Testament cannot be attributed to the labour of just one individual. The reason is the focus of this contribution.

One of my most vivid memories of Rif Ebied is his hosting of the Symposium Syriacum VIII at the University of Sydney in 2000: his welcome, hospitality, enthusiasm, energy, and concern for the welfare of all participants. Another memory is his involvement as a delegate at the St Ephrem Ecumenical Research Institute (SEERI) International Syriac Conferences in Kottayam, Kerala, in Southern India: his delight in greeting old acquaintances, in meeting people new to him, and his charismatic participation in the events of the programme. These two memories are, for me, a glimpse of the man and the scholar. This contribution is in honour of Rif.

∗

151

152

TERRY C. FALLA Through an examination of the Peshitta text itself, including comparisons with the Greek Vorlage and variants, 1 this article confirms the findings of Vööbus and the conclusion of Metzger. Furthermore, it also demonstrates the danger of relying on circumstantial evidence and the necessity of investigating texts internally as well as externally. Proof of the Peshitta as the work of a plurality of translators is significant for future versional research and biblical studies generally. Unavoidably, the single-author theory omitted concerns central to a critical examination of a multi-authored work. Gone, for instance, was the impetus to search for translational differences between one book and another. Gone from this ancient translational lagoon was the lure of its subtle shades and the call of its singing firs. By contrast, to see the Peshitta New Testament as the creation of multiple translators opens new vistas for research. Inevitably, each book of a multi-authored biblical translation invites critical in-depth comparison with the companions that share its corpus, and therefore each book asks to be examined in its own right: for its theology, its exegesis, its stylistics, its translation technique, its syntax, the semantics of its vocabulary, and for its use in the ongoing textual criticism of the Greek New Testament. Each becomes a summons to see its localised uniqueness and what is shares in common with its wider landscape.

DEBATING THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE PESHITTA

The story of who translated the Peshitta New Testament is intriguing. The improbable conclusion that this Syriac version was the creation of a single translator claimed almost three generations of biblical scholarship. In 1904, Francis C. Burkitt named Rabbula, Bishop of Edessa (411–435 C.E.), as the person who produced the Peshitta New Testament. In his words, “For these reasons, therefore, I identify the ‘translation’ spoken of by Rabbula’s biographer with the Peshitta itself. I regard it as a revision prepared by him or under his immediate direction (emphasis added), and I understand the use of it to have been enforced by him during his tenure of the see of Edessa.” 2 As Bruce M. Metzger observed, the hypothesis “soon came to be adopted by almost all scholars, being persuaded perhaps more by the confidence with which Burkitt propounded it than by any proof other than circumstantial evidence.” 3

For the methodology for determining Greek correspondences see Terry C. Falla, A Key to the Peshitta Gospels, (Leiden: 1991), vol. i, XXVI–XXXVII. 2 Francis C. Burkitt, Early Eastern Christianity (London: 1904), 57. 3 Bruce M. Metzger, The Early Versions of the New Testament: Their Origin, Transmission, and Limitations (Oxford: 1977), 57–8. 1

THE COLLECTIVE AUTHORSHIP OF THE PESHITTA NEW TESTAMENT

153

Few demurred. 4 By 1912, Frederick G. Kenyon’s well-known Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament assured its readers, “The conclusion is obvious, and is now generally accepted, that Rabbula’s version was the Peshitta itself.” 5 “Perhaps”, reads the 1926 edition, “the most notable single contribution to the textual history of the New Testament … a fact which clears the way for a reasonable view of the Syriac versions in general.” 6 In 1944, Hope B. Downs confidently asserted that Burkitt “showed that Rabbula … was responsible for the standard Syriac translation, the Peshitto.” 7 In 1949 Paul E. Kahle affirmed in The Cairo Geniza that “The author (of the Peshitta New Testament) was as Professor Burkitt has made nearly certain, Rabbula, Bishop in Edessa from 411 to 435.” 8 Metzger was among those who helped bring an end to the dominance of the Rabbulan authorship theory. 9 Almost three-quarters of a century after its introduction, he concluded, “The question who it was that produced the Peshitta version of Among those who did were Albert C. Clark, The Acts of the Apostles (Oxford: 1933), 297; Alphonse Mingana, “The Remaining Syriac Versions of the Gospels”, The Expository Times 25 (1914–1915), 379–81; François Nau, “L'Araméen chrétien (syriaque). Les traductions faites du grec en syriaque au VIIe siècle”, Revue de l’histoire des religions 99 (1929), 232–87, and “Les ‘Belles Actions’ de Mar Rabboula: Évêque d’Edesse de 412 au 7 Août 435 (ou 436)”, Revue de l’histoire des religions 103 (1931), 97–135. 5 Frederick G. Kenyon, Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, 2nd edn. (London: 1912), 163. Hermann F. von Soden’s critical edition, Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments in ihrer ältesten erreichbaren Textgestalt, 2 vols (Göttingen: 1913) shows the consequence of the single-authorship theory. His use of the Peshitta New Testament as a witness makes no distinction between the books of the Peshitta version in that in its innumerable text-critical evaluations and retroversions of Greek words into Syriac it does not distinguish between the way in which one book differs from another in translating a particular Greek word. 6 Kenyon, Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, 2nd edn. [reprint] (London: 1926), 364. 7 Hope B. Downs, “The Peshitta as a Revision; its background in Syriac and Greek texts of Mark”, Journal of Biblical Literature 63 (1944), 141. 8 Paul E. Kahle, The Cairo Geniza, 2nd ed. (Oxford: 1959), 296. 9 See also Antonio Piñero and Jesús Peláez, The Study of the New Testament: A Comprehensive Introduction (Leiden: 2003); Sebastian Brock, “The Use of the Syriac Fathers for New Testament Textual Criticism” in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis, vol. xlii, 2nd ed. (Leiden: 2013), 412–4. See also Bas ter Haar Romeny and Craig E. Morrison, “Peshitta” in Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage (Electronic edn, https://gedsh.bethmardutho.org/Peshitta, accessed 9 Nov 2021: “The history of the translation of the Greek NT into Syriac begins with Tatian’s Diatessaron, a 2nd-cent. Gospel harmony. The Old Syriac Version (3rd cent.) is the oldest translation of the four separate Gospels and the Peshitta (early 5th cent.) is a revision that brought the Old Syriac closer to the Greek. Burkitt (1904) attributed the Peshitta to Rabbula, the bp. of Edessa (411–435 C.E.) who had vigorously suppressed the use of the Diatessaron in the Syriac Church. While Rabbula 4

154

TERRY C. FALLA

the New Testament will perhaps never be answered. That it was not Rabbula has been proved by Vööbus’ researches.” 10 Nevertheless, Burkitt’s theory of the Rabbulan authorship lingers on in the twenty-first century as in the comment in a 2014 publication, based on a 1951 publication by Matthew Black, that presents the Peshitta New Testament as the version that “Rabbula (d. 435) is believed to have edited.” 11 The notation is probably not intended to support the theory but due to the writer not being aware that it has been proved to be false. The idea embedded in Burkitt’s Rabbulan theory that the Peshitta had a single translator was contested as early as 1915 by Alphonse Mingana and again in 1951 by Arthur Vööbus in the CSCO publication Studies in the History of the Gospel Text in Syriac. From his study of “the mannerisms of revisers and their revision techniques both in the Gospels and the Apostolos”, and “more particularly the way in which the ancient variants and readings were modified by the reviser”, Vööbus was convinced that “the Peshitta is not the work of a single person but is, rather, a collective work.” 12 He refers to the earlier work of Mingana who “had called attention to the same truth, but from the point of view of linguistics and style.” 13 Yet, neither scholar published textual evidence in support of his observations. 14 But in 1970, the foundational work for my lexicon, A Key to the Peshitta Gospels [hereafter KPG], which included a complete concordance of references, led to the publication of a surprising insight into the authorship of the Peshitta Gospels. 15 Each Gospel took a distinctively different approach to the translation of the Greek’s terminology for demons and demoniacs. It was a beginning. In 1997, in The Early Versions of the New Testament, Metzger drew

may have enforced the dissemination of the Peshitta version, the theory that he was responsible for its creation was convincingly challenged by Vööbus (1951) who illustrated how Rabbula’s own writings contained quotations from the Old Syriac Version and the Diatessaron” (author emphasis added). 10 Metzger, Early Versions of the New Testament, 59. 11 Emran Iqbal El-Badawi, The Qur’ān and the Aramaic Gospel Traditions (London/New York: 2014), 33. 12 Arthur Vööbus, Studies in the History of the Gospel Text in Syriac (Louvain: 1951), 53–4. 13 Mingana, “The Remaining Syriac Versions”, 381. 14 I will remember always Arthur Vööbus telling me, as we sat at the front of a Chicago train, with only glass between us and the tracks rushing towards us, of his having at a few minutes notice to abandon forever his completed manuscript of a concordance to the Peshitta New Testament, along with the rest of his research, and with his family flee from their home and his pastorate in Estonia. I also learned that, after the Second World War, Metzger supported Vööbus’ move to an academic position in the USA where he and his family found a permanent new home. 15 Terry C. Falla, “Demons and Demoniacs in the Peshitta Gospels”, Abr-Nahrain IX (1970), 43–65, esp. 44–49 and 59.

THE COLLECTIVE AUTHORSHIP OF THE PESHITTA NEW TESTAMENT

155

attention to Vööbus’ and my findings, to suggest that the Peshitta New Testament was, in his words, “not homogeneous, but the work of several hands.” 16 Not all heeded these observations. 17 In 1960, a decade after Vööbus’ publication, the respected researcher Tjitze Baarda maintained the notion of a sole translator. In a review of Paul Peeters’ theory of the Peshitta’s authorship, Baarda concludes, “It does not seem probable then that Hiba was the author of the Peshitta” (author emphasis added). 18 Similarly, in 1994, Jeffrey P. Lyon in Syriac Gospel Translations: A Comparison of the Language and Translation Method Used in the Old Syriac, the Diatessaron, and the Peshitto, implies that while we do not know the identity of the Peshitta’s author there may have been only one, and that the same may have been true for the Old Syriac: “We have no name to attach to this version”, he writes, and “The translator of the Old Syriac was almost certainly a Jewish Christian” (author emphasis added). 19 Unlike Baarda, Lyon is, however, explicitly open to the possibility of more than one translator. His earlier section on ‘The Character of the Syriac Gospel Translation’ begins with the caveat “(In the following paragraphs I speak of ‘the Syriac Translator’. This is from convenience, as is the use of ‘he’ when ‘they’ or ‘she’ would serve equally well.” Then, a few pages later, where he sets out helpful guidelines for the text-critical citing of the Peshitta, he uses the expression ‘Peshitto revisor(s)’ (author emphasis added). 20 At the same time, Lyon’s three text-critical ‘principles which underlay the creation of this text’ do not include the possibility of collective authorship as a fourth text-critical guideline. 21 Metzger, Early Versions of the New Testament, 60. His footnote reads: Cf. Arthur Vööbus, Early Versions of the New Testament, 98 sqq., and Terry C. Falla, Studies in the Peshitta Gospels: an Examination of Four Groups of Peshitta Gospel Words and Their Contribution to the Study of the Peshitta as a Revision [unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Melbourne, 1971], 328–33. 17 The idea of the multiple authorship of a Syriac version of the Gospels was not new. Eleven years before Mingana published his article, Arthur Hjelt argued for a plurality of translators for Syrs in Die altsyrische Evangelienübersetzung und Tatians Diatessaron, besonders in ihrem gegenseitigen Verhältnis (Leipzig: 1903), 96-101. Hjelt’s observations are detailed by Jean-Claude Haelewyck, “The Old Syriac Versions of the Gospels. A Status Quaestionis (From 1842 to the Present Day)”, Bulletin de l’Académie Belge pour l’Étude des Langues Anciennes et Orientales, DOI:10.14428/babelao. vol. viii (2019), 149–52. As Haelewyck observes, New Testament scholarship remained unconvinced. Jeffrey P. Lyon, Syriac Gospel Translations: A Comparison of the Language and Translation Method Used in the Old Syriac, the Diatessaron, and the Peshitto (Louvain: 1994), 90, for example, accepts Burkitt’s conclusion that “Dr. Hjelt does not, I venture to think, allow sufficiently for the difficulties of consistency”; Francis C. Burkitt, Evangelion da-Mepharreshê; the Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels, with the Readings of the Sinai Palimpsest…, 2 vols (Cambridge: 1904), vol. i, 211. 18 Tjitze Baarda, “The Gospel Text in the Biography of Rabbula”, Vigiliae Christianae 14/2 (1960), 126. 19 Lyon, Syriac Gospel Translations, 202–3. See n. 17 for Hjelt’s view, which Lyon does not mention, that Syrs was the product of multiple translators. 20 Lyon, Syriac Gospel Translations, 190 and 196. 21 Lyon, Syriac Gospel Translations, 195–6. 16

156

TERRY C. FALLA

A curious feature of this decades-long debate is that both Burkitt and those who revealed the flaws in his theory called upon evidence external to the Peshitta text itself. 22 Lyon, for instance, who studied selections of the earliest Syriac versions in detail, relied entirely on external evidence with regard to the authorship of the Peshitta Gospels. Under the heading ‘Identity of the Translator’, he writes: I will not recount the work of Vööbus here, but Rabbula’s own Gospel quotations encountered in this study would confirm Vööbus rather than Burkitt, namely that Rabbula is not the author of the Peshitto which represents a recension of the Old Syriac more or less finalized in the fifth century. 23

This article aims to demonstrate that the Peshitta New Testament is indeed the product of multiple translators. This conclusion does not preclude the question of who may have organized and/or promulgated the Peshitta New Testament enterprise, but it does invalidate any claim that the Peshitta New Testament, in the form that it has been transmitted, 24 can be attributed to a particular translator or reviser. As an outcome, the article also demonstrates that the recognition of the Peshitta as a collective work has significant implications for its study as a major literary and translational undertaking. As a feature that underlies the creation of the text, to borrow Lyon’s apt expression, 25 the collective character of the Peshitta translation also constitutes an indispensable principle for the text-critical use of the Peshitta New Testament.

THE METHODOLOGICAL NEED FOR DETAILED ANALYSIS OF ALL ASPECTS OF PESHITTA NEW TESTAMENT WORDS

As is evident in the following sections, to present the translational use of Syriac words as examples of the collective authorship of the Peshitta New Testament necessitates their study from various perspectives: their relationship to the Greek underlying the Syriac, a semantic, often syntactic, and sometimes etymological analysis of the source and target texts, the translational use of Greek words in Syriac, the recognition of Syriac words wrongly classified as Greek loan words, Peshitta Gospel variant readings, and for the Gospels a comparison of the Peshitta with the Old Syriac. In some instances, it is also useful to compare a Peshitta New Testament term and the Greek it translates with a counterpart in the Peshitta Old Testament, Hebrew Bible, LXX, or in Ancient Greek. To avoid oversights and ensure accuracy, the article provides a forensically detailed and referenced examination of each of these aspects. At no point in considering ‘some objections’ to his theory does Burkitt examine the actual text of the Peshitta New Testament or discuss the possibility of collective authorship; see Early Eastern Christianity, 58–66. 23 Lyon, Syriac Gospel Translations, 202. 24 See, for instance, Matthew Black, “The Text of the Peshitta Tetraeuangelium” in Studia Paulina in honorem Johannis de Zwaan septuagenarii, Jan N. Sevenester and Willem C. van Unnik, eds (Haarlem: 1953), 20–7, and Andreas Juckel’s Introduction, vi-vii, to reprint of Pusey and Gwilliam, Tetraeuangelium Sanctum. 25 Lyon, Syriac Gospel Translations, 195. 22

THE COLLECTIVE AUTHORSHIP OF THE PESHITTA NEW TESTAMENT

157

Because evidentiary references for Peshitta New Testament words and their Greek correspondences and Old Syriac counterparts are foundational to the analysis of those words, this article gives a priority to their full citation, mainly in footnotes. The Term Peshitta New Testament

In this article, the term Peshitta New Testament refers to the majority text of the Gospels collated by Philip E. Pusey and George H. Gwilliam (1901; reprint 2003), plus the variant readings in the critical apparatus that complement it, and to the text of the rest of the New Testament published by the British and Foreign Bible Society, 1905–1920 (reprint 1950). This present study takes the variant readings in Pusey and Gwilliam’s critical apparatus of the Gospels into account, aware that they and the collated text that they serve are incomplete. Andreas Juckel draws attention to these limitations in his introduction to the 2003 reprint of Pusey and Gwilliam in which he shows that the representation of the transmission of the text is partial and the history of the text is insufficiently reflected by the critical apparatus. The Value of Making the Peshitta Gospels a Primary Focus

The four Peshitta Gospels, Acts, and Hebrews form the primary focus of this investigation, though the study of these six books and differences between them tangentially involves some of the Pauline and Catholic Epistles. The Peshitta Gospels are a particularly attractive and productive place to begin because they can be compared, not only with each other, but, as revisions of an Old Syriac text-type, also with the surviving versions of the Old Syriac. As a result, we can bring to the fore readings not to be found in the Old Syriac versions that have come down to us—other copies have probably been lost 26—and that translationally differentiate one Peshitta Gospel from another. In addition, the Peshitta Gospel translations of parallel accounts can be compared with one another as well as with the Greek and Old Syriac. Editions employed for the Peshitta Old and New Testaments: •

•

Peshitta Old Testament: George A. Kiraz and Andreas Juckel, eds., et al., The Antioch Bible: The Syriac Peshiṭta Bible with English Translation (Piscataway, NJ: 2012–). Peshitta New Testament: Philip E. Pusey and George H. Gwilliam, Tetraeuangelium Sanctum juxta simplicem Syrorum versionem ad fidem codicum, Massorae, editionum denuo recognitum (Oxford: 1901; reprint with introduction by Andreas Juckel, Piscataway, NJ: 2003), and The New Testament in Syriac (London: British and Foreign Bible Society, 1905–1920; reprint 1950).

The Relationship between the Peshitta New Testament and Greek Texts

Given the often-intricate relationship between the Peshitta and the Greek text it translates, a methodological imperative is that an exhaustive syntactic and semantic

26

Haelewyck, “The Old Syriac Versions of the Gospels”, 147.

158

TERRY C. FALLA

analysis is basic to examining the Syriac rendition of the Greek text. Good translations are an art form. Their brushstrokes are not accidental; they are worthy of study and deserve to be understood. Over the years I have become increasingly impressed with the Peshitta New Testament as a translation and as a work of art. The translators’ skill as bilingualists is to be seen in their familiarity with the most intricate details of Greek syntax, semantics, and poetics. 27 There are numerous instances where the Peshitta translators reveal their intimate acquaintance with a Greek semantic or syntactic nuance that is available to us in only the most sophisticated and specialized modern Greek lexicon or grammar, perhaps the most notable example being that of Walter Bauer, Frederick W. Danker, William F. Arndt and Felix W. Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 28 As to poetics, I have argued elsewhere that the Peshitta is more than a collective plenitude of individual phenomena such as parallelism, paronomasia, double entendre, inclusio, alliteration, assonance, and even snippets of pure poetry. Rather, as the Parable of the Good Samaritan in the Gospel of Luke illustrates, the artistry of the Peshitta revision helps to make it an enduring oral performance of words in which poetics, spirituality, theology, exegesis, pedagogy and liturgy merge and are one. 29

The Peshitta translators knew what they were doing. An example discussed in this article is the Greek particle οὖν. In the Fourth Gospel, οὖν is used in a way that distinguishes it from other books of the Greek New Testament. Its most distinctive characteristic is its repetitive use as a common and non-inferential connective between sentences. The translator of Peshitta John knew this and replicated it by utilizing renderings that distinguish between the functions and meanings of the underlying Greek οὖν. But without a proper appreciation of the difference between the use of this Greek particle in the Synoptics and John, the Peshitta Syriac’s rendering of it could be misinterpreted. See Terry C. Falla, “Grammatical Classification in Syriac Lexica: A Syntactically Based Alternative” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography III, Janet Dyk and Wido van Peursen, eds (Piscataway, NJ: 2008), 110–1; Wido van Peursen and Terry C. Falla, “The Particles ‫ ܶܓܝܪ‬and ‫ ܶܕܝܢ‬in Classical Syriac: Syntactic and Semantic Aspects” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography II, Peter J. Williams, ed. (Piscataway, NJ: 2009), 78–92. 28 Walter Bauer, Frederick W. Danker, William F. Arndt and Felix W. Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd edn., revised and ed. Frederick W. Danker (Chicago: 2000) [hereafter BDAG]. Other significant works include Friedrich Blass and Albert Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: 1961); John D. Denniston, The Greek Particles, 2nd edn., revised K. J. Dover (Oxford: 1954), and Archibald T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, 4th edn. (Nashville: 1934). 29 Terry C. Falla, from the abstract of “Peshitta Parables as Oral Performance” in The Third Lung: New Trajectories in Syriac Studies, Brouria Bitton-Ashkelony, Miriam L. Hjalm, and Robert Kitchen, eds (Louvain: forthcoming). 27

THE COLLECTIVE AUTHORSHIP OF THE PESHITTA NEW TESTAMENT

159

GREEK TEXT EDITIONS AND EVALUATION OF VARIANT READINGS

The findings regarding the Peshitta New Testament’s collective authorship rests on the provability of real translational differences between one book and another. In turn, the credibility of these differences rests on the evaluation of all the New Testament occurrences of a particular Syriac term in relation to the Greek these occurrences translate. An authoritative translational analysis of a particular Syriac New Testament vocable, be it a verb, noun, adjective, or particle, requires a detailed and comprehensive consideration of the Greek underlying the Syriac. Often, this can be gained only by examining all other occurrences of that Syriac word and the nature of their relationship to the Greek. 30 The 28th edition of Nestle-Aland [hereafter NA28] 31 is used as the basis of the Greek New Testament. There are many instances in this study where a comparison of parallel Synoptic readings in both the Greek and Syriac texts has proved invaluable. 32 In many instances, the Greek term underlying a Syriac term is to be found only in a variant Greek reading cited in the critical apparatus of NA28, in Kurt Aland, Vollständige Konkordanz zum griechischen Neuen Testament, vol. i (Berlin: 1983) or in one or another of the critical editions of the Greek New Testament. 33 Often it is impossible to know which of two or more Greek readings may have been in the Peshitta translators’ text, or where in some instances an agreement between a Syriac reading and a Greek variant is coincidental. 34 All such readings are considered in a comprehensive approach that is important in order to gain an authoritative estimate of the relationship between the Peshitta text and the Greek underlying it. The methodology adopted for evaluating variant Greek readings is the same as in KPG, adopting two criteria. The first is that only extant variant Greek readings are considered as potential corresponding terms. Presumed retroversions of Peshitta and Old Syriac renderings such as we find in the critical apparatus of von Soden’s Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments are excluded. The second criterion is that a variant Greek reading is considered only when, based on an analysis of the relevant data, it can be demonstrated that its Syriac parallel is, in the context in which it occurs, conceivable as its translation. Accordingly, it is not the nature or extent of Greek manuscript evidence that is used as a criterion, but whether the term in the receptor language is conceivable as a rendering of the variant reading in the source text. 35

For a full discussion, see KPG, vol. i, XXXIV–XXXVII. Barbara and Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, Bruce M. Metzger, eds, Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th rev. edn. (Munster/Westphalia: 2014). 32 The citation of these parallels is indebted to Kurt Aland, ed., Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum, 15th revised edn. (Stuttgart: 1997). 33 For an annotated list of these editions see KPG, vol. i, XXIX–XXXII. 34 See Peter J. Williams, Early Syriac Translation Technique and the Textual Criticism of the Greek Gospels (Piscataway, NJ: 2004), 29. 35 KPG, vol. i, XXXII. 30 31

160

TERRY C. FALLA The Peshitta New Testament and the Old Syriac Gospels

Lyon observed that the Peshitta “is a conservator of older traditions”, 36 preserving many readings found in the Old Syriac and Diatessaron even though “these had no support in his (that is, the translator’s) Greek text.” 37 For this reason, wherever necessary, the Peshitta is compared with the Old Syriac versions as representatives of an Old Syriac text-type of which the Peshitta shows itself to be a revision. At no point are the surviving Old Syriac versions necessarily equated with the Old Syriac that formed the base of the Peshitta translators’ revision. Were it able to be accessed, that base might prove to be more different than we might imagine. The Sinaitic palimpsest discovered by Agnes Smith Lewis and Margaret Dunlop Gibson demonstrated this as did the extent of its divergences from the Syriac manuscript of the Gospels which William Cureton edited and published. 38 But where the Old Syriac versions are extant, they do allow us to see where the Peshitta, as a revision, had a precedent for a term or expression under consideration. Comparing the Peshitta with the Old Syriac thus acts to alert the researcher to instances where the Peshitta translators may have chosen to depart from their Old Syriac base(s). Editions employed for the Old Syriac versions: • • •

•

George Anton Kiraz, Comparative Edition of the Syriac Gospels Aligning the Sinaiticus, Curetonianus, Peshîttâ & Harklean Versions, 4 vols (Leiden: 1996). Jerome Lund, The Old Syriac Gospel of the Distinct Evangelist: A Key-Word-inContext Concordance, 3 vols (Piscataway, NJ: 2004). Francis C. Burkitt, Evangelion da-Mepharreshê; the Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels, with the Readings of the Sinai Palimpsest…, 2 vols (Cambridge: 1904). Agnes Smith Lewis ed., The Old Syriac Gospels, or Evangelion da-Mepharreshê; being the text of the Sinai or Syro-Antiochian Palimpsest (London: 1910).

Neither Mk 1:44–2:14 nor Jn 1:47–2:12a, which are to be found only in the third more-recently-discovered Old Syriac Gospel manuscript identified as NF (New Finds), are applicable to the Peshitta texts examined for this article. 39 For ease of reading, the article does not abbreviate the term Peshitta, but does employ the abbreviation Syrp in the footnotes. The abbreviations for the Sinaitic and Curetonian versions are Syrs and Syrc with square brackets indicating that the Old

Lyon, Syriac Gospel Translations, 196. Lyon, Syriac Gospel Translations, 196. 38 William Cureton, Remains of a very Ancient Recension of the Four Gospels in Syriac (London: 1858); Agnes Smith Lewis, A Translation of the Four Gospels from the Sinaitic Palimpsest (London: 1894). 39 Sebastian Brock, “Two Hitherto Unattested Passages of the Old Syriac Gospels in Palimpsest from St Catherine’s Monastery, Sinai”, Δελτίο Βιβλικῶν Μελετῶν (Deltion Biblikōn Meletōn), 31Α, 7–18 (see also Haelewyck, The Old Syriac Versions of the Gospels, 145–6), edits, reproduces, and translates both of these passages. NF consists of two palimpsest manuscripts belonging to the one version: NF Syr. 37 and NF Syr. 39. 36 37

THE COLLECTIVE AUTHORSHIP OF THE PESHITTA NEW TESTAMENT

161

Syriac version they enclose is lacunose. Thus Syr[s]cp indicates that the Sinaitic version is not extant for the reference that it distinguishes, Sys[c]p that the Curetonian version is not extant for the reference that it distinguishes, and Syr[sc]p that neither the Sinaitic nor Curetonian versions are extant for the reference that they distinguish.

PESHITTA RENDERINGS OF GREEK NOUNS

An appropriate starting point for an examination of translational differences between books of the Peshitta New Testament are their renderings of some common Greek nouns that cannot be attributed to the influence of the Old Syriac. Boats and Ships

The Greek New Testament has five terms for boats, which are analysed in the following order: σκάϕη, κιβωτός, πλοιάριον, πλοῖον, and ναῦς. The Peshitta New Testament ܳ ܺ ܳ ܽ ܺ ܳܽ ܰ ܳ ‫ ܶܐ‬, ‫ܟ ܶܘܝ ܴܠܐ‬, ܶ ‫ܝܢܬܐ‬ also has five terms: ‫ܠܦܐ‬ ‫ܣܦ‬, ‫ܒܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܩ‬, and ‫ܪܩܘܪܐ‬ ‫ܩ‬, but their relationship to the underlying Greek does not follow a term-for-term equivalence. Instead, it reveals translational patterns that differ from one cluster of New Testament books to another. Taken together these patterns point to the presence of collective authorship. Peshitta rendering of σκάϕη:

All three New Testament occurrences of σκάϕη (Acts 27:16, 30, 32) small boat, skiff, ܳ ܽ ܰ 42 ship’s boat, 40 ordinarily in tow, 41 are rendered by ‫ܪܩܘܪܐ‬ ‫ܩ‬, which is parallel in meaning, and exceptional in that, unlike the four other Peshitta terms for boats, it is limited to the one book and the one Greek term. 534F

BDAG, 926–7; James Hope Moulton and George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament (London: 1949), 576. 41 Lionel Casson, Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World (Princeton: 1971), 248. ܳܽ ܰ 42 ‫ܪܩܘܪܐ‬ ‫ ܩ‬which does not occur elsewhere in the Peshitta Bible, is a Greek loanword from κέρκουρος, see Louis Costaz, Dictionnaire Syriaque-Français, 2nd edn. (Beirut: 1963), 332; Raimund Köbert, Vocabularium Syriacum (Rome: 1956), 177; Robert Payne Smith, Thesaurus Syriacus, 2 vols (Oxford: 1897–1901), vol. ii, col. 3759; Michael Sokoloff, A Syriac Lexicon: A Translation from the Latin, Correction, Expansion, and Update of C. Brockelmann’s Lexicon Syriacum (Winona Lake, IN/Piscataway, NJ: 2009), 1416. According to Casson, Ships and Seamanship, 163, κέρκουρος or κερκοῦρος (which does not occur in the LXX or Greek New Testament) is an Assyrian loanword from qurqurru defined (a) as a “light vessel” by most Ancient Greek lexicons; Robert Beekes, ed., Etymological Dictionary of Greek, 2 vols (Leiden/Boston: 2010), vol. i, 679, “embarkation légère sersait originellement employee par les Chypriotes selon”, also “Le mot subsiste en grec moderne pour designer une sort de cotre”, Pierre Chantraine, Dictionnaire étymologique langue grecque: histoire des mots, 4 vols (Paris: 1968–80), vol. ii, 520, “light vessel, boat, esp. of the Cyprians; used for Nile transport”; Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, and Henry Stuart Jones, with the assistance of 40

162

TERRY C. FALLA Peshitta renderings of Κιβωτός

In the Greek New Testament, κιβωτός has the central meaning of ‘box, chest’. This denotation extends to a ‘seafaring vessel’ and a ‘chest for cultic objects’. 43 The seafaring vessel is Noah’s ‘ark’ (Mt 24:38; Lk 17:27; Heb 11:7; 1 Pet 3:20) and the chest for cultic objects is the ‘ark’ of the covenant (Heb 9:4; non-Peshitta Rev 11:19). The ܶ from χηλός large chest or coffer, 44 Peshitta has two renderings, the loanword ‫ܝܠܐ‬ ܴ ‫ܟ ܶܘ‬, ܳ ܽ ܺ 45 and the loanword ‫ܩܒܘܬܐ‬, from κιβωτός. These renderings correspond, not to the two different meanings, but to the predilections of different books. Mt 24:38 and Lk 17:27 ܶ which refers to Noah’s ark. Heb 11:7 and 1 Pet 3:20 have ‫ܒܘ ܳܬܐ‬ ܽ ‫ܩ‬, ܺ which have ‫ܝܠܐ‬ ܴ ‫ܟ ܶܘ‬, also refers to Noah’s ark, and is the term used for Noah’s ark in Gen 6:14-9:18. 46 Rev 538F

Roderick McKenzie, Greek-English Lexicon, 9th revised edn. (Oxford: 1940), 943 [hereafter LSJ9], also P. G. W. Glare, ed., with assistance of Anne A. Thompson, Revised Supplement to LSJ9 (Oxford: 1996), which has the same as LSJ9 except for “invented by the Cyprians acc. to Plin.HN7.208”, 175; “boat, skiff”, Franco Montanari, ed., The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek (Leiden/Boston: 2015), 1118; “small, quick ship”, John Enoch Powell, A Lexicon to Herodotus (Cambridge: 1938), 195. (b) at least three resources register κερκοῦρος as a large seagoing vessel: “merchant galley, oared carrier”, Casson, Ships and Seamanship, 157–66; “a kind of ship, galley”, James Diggle, Bruce Fraser, Patrick James, Oliver Simkin, Anne A. Thompson, and Simon Westripp, eds, The Cambridge Greek Lexicon, 2 vols (New York: 2021), vol. 1, 797; “a long merchant ship powered by sails and oars”, Oliver Nicholson, ed., Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity, 2 vols (Oxford: 2018), vol. i, 857. In personal correspondence (28 June, 2022), Anne Thompson confirms from many Ancient Greek sources that κέρκουρος refers to both small and large vessels, and that, in accordance with context, not a few translations have “galley” as well as “light vessel”, cf. sources cited by Thesaurus Linguae Graecae® Digital Library. Ed. Maria C. Pantelia. University of California, Irvine. http://www.tlg.uci.edu (accessed June 26, 2015). In other words, a κέρκουρος can be any one of a number of vessels such as the seagoing ναῦς in the allusion to Homer in Acts 27:41 (see n. 54-57), a πλοῖον or πλοιάριον (see n. 46-47), or σκάϕη towed after a large ship as in Acts ܳܽ ܰ 27:16, 30, 32, which the Peshitta renders by the Syriac loanword ‫ܪܩܘܪܐ‬ ‫ܩ‬. 43 BDAG, 544; Johannes P. Louw, and Eugene A. Nida, et al., eds, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, 2 vols (New York: 1988), §6.44 [hereafter GEL]; Moulton and Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament, 343. 44 Carl Brockelmann, Lexicon Syriacum 2nd edn. (Halle: 1928; reprint Hildesheim: 1982), 321; Sokoloff, Syriac Lexicon, 605; “(very) doubtfully from χηλός” according to Sebastian P. Brock, “Greek Words in the Syriac Gospels (Vet and Pe)”, Le Muséon 80 (1967), 404, note 24, citing Anton Schall, Studien über griechischen Fremdwörter im Syrischen (Darmstadt: 1960), 85. Ancient Greek lexicons gloss χηλός as: coffre: Pierre Chantraine, Dictionnaire étymologique langue grecque, vol. iv, 1256; chest, drawer, coffer; EDG, vol. ii, 1629; chest, trunk (used for storage); Diggle et. al, Cambridge Greek Lexicon, vol. ii, 1500; coffer, strongbox; coffin; Franco Montanari, ed., The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek (Leiden and Boston: 2015), 2356. 45 Brock, “Greek Words in the Syriac Gospels”, 404; Sokoloff, Syriac Lexicon, 1306, cited under ܳ ‫ ܺܩܐܒ ܽܘܬܐ‬. 46 Werner Strothmann, Konkordanz zur Syrischen Bibel. Der Pentateuch (Wiesbaden: 1986), vol. ii, 2092–4.

THE COLLECTIVE AUTHORSHIP OF THE PESHITTA NEW TESTAMENT

163

ܳ ܺ 11:19 also has ‫ܩܒ ܽܘܬܐ‬, but there it refers to the ark of the covenant. The Sinaitic ܳ ܺ version has this alternative term, ‫ܩܒ ܽܘܬܐ‬, for both Gospels, but like the Peshitta, the Lucan Curetonian version of the Old Syriac has ‫ܝܠܐ‬ ܴ ‫ ܶܟ ܶܘ‬and may therefore witness to a precedent that the translator chose to retain. The Curetonian is lacunose for the Matܳ ܺ thean verse, so it is not possible to ascertain whether it used ‫ܝܠܐ‬ ܴ ‫ ܶܟ ܶܘ‬or ‫ܩܒ ܽܘܬܐ‬. Peshitta renderings of πλοιάριον and πλοῖον:

The most arresting feature of the Peshitta New Testament’s translation of Greek terminology for boats is its treatment of the primary term πλοῖον 47 and the infrequent diminutive πλοιάριον, which functions as a virtual synonym. 48 Outside the Gospels, πλοῖον features in only Acts, James, and non-Peshitta Revelation. Πλοιάριον features only in Mark, Luke, and John. When Greek variant readings are taken into account—where πλοῖον has πλοιάριον as a variant and πλοιάριον has πλοῖον as a variant 49—πλοῖον occurs between sixty-five to seventy times 50 and πλοιάριον between three to eight times. 51 Excluding variant readings, πλοῖον and πλοιάριον occur seventy times in the Greek New Testament. With only two exceptions, 52 every one of these seventy occurrences are translated by one ܳ ܺ ܳ ‫ ܶܐ‬and ‫ܝܢܬܐ‬ of two etymologically unrelated synonyms, ‫ܠܦܐ‬ ‫ܣܦ‬. That they are synonyms is shown from passages where they both refer to the one vessel (see n. 53).

In the Gospels, πλοῖον always refers to a relatively small vessel used on Lake Gennesaret (Lake Galilee), generally for fishing; elsewhere in the New Testament also of a seafaring vessel: Acts (all references); Jas 3:4; Rev 8:9; 18:17*, 19. See BDAG, 830–1; Frederick W. Danker with Kathryn Krug, The Concise Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Chicago and London: 2009), 288 [hereafter CGEL]; GEL, §6.41; Moulton and Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament, 521. 48 Πλοιάριον small ship, boat, small boat, does not focus on its diminutive form. Like πλοῖον, it refers to any kind of relatively small boat, see BDAG, 830; CGEL, 288; Moulton and Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament, 521; Barclay M. Newman, A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament (London: 1971), 145. 49 There are five instances where the Greek underlying the Peshitta reading conceivably may be πλοῖον or πλοιάριον: Mk 4:36; Lk 5:2; Jn 6:22, 23, 24. 50 Πλοῖον: thirteen in Matthew, eighteen in Mark (or πλοιάριον in one instance), eight in Luke (or πλοιάριον in one instance), eight in John (or πλοιάριον in three instances), nineteen in Acts, one in James, and three in non-Peshitta Revelation. Mt 4:21, 22; 8:23, 24; 9:1; 13:2; 14:13, 22, 24, 29, 32, 33; 15:39; Mk 1:19, 20; 4:1, 36, 36 (or πλοιάριον), 37, 37; 5:2, 18, 21; 6:32, 45, 47, 51, 54; 8:10, 13, 14; Lk 5:2 (or πλοιάριον), 3, 3, 7, 7, 11; 8:22, 37; Jn 6:17, 19, 21, 21, 22 (or πλοιάριον), 23 (or πλοιάριον), 24* (or πλοιάριον); 21:3; Acts 20:13, 38; 21:2, 3, 6; 27:2, 6, 10, 15, 17, 19, 22, 30, 31, 37, 38, 39, 44; 28:11; Jas 3:4; Rev 8:9; 18:17 (= plural of πλοῖον in variant Greek reading ἐπὶ τῶν πλοίων πλέων), 19. 51 Πλοιάριον: Mk 3:9; 4:36* (or πλοῖον); Lk 5:2* (or πλοῖον); Jn 6:22, 22* (or πλοῖον), 23 (or πλοῖον), 24 (or πλοῖον, though MS evidence suggests πλοιάριον); 21:8. 52 The Peshitta omits the second occurrence of πλοῖον in Mk 4:37, and translates the second ܶ ‫ ܶܡ‬one of them. occurrence of πλοῖον in Lk 5:3, ἕν τῶν πλοίων one of the boats by ‫ܢܗܝܢ‬ 47

164

TERRY C. FALLA

The choice of synonym is not, however, random. This is evident in the dramatic difference between Matthew and the other Gospels, a difference that stands in contrast to the agreement between Matthew and the rest of the New Testament. In all ܳ ‫ ܶܐ‬is the sole term employed by Matthew, Acts, James, and but two instances, 53 ‫ܠܦܐ‬ non-Peshitta Revelation. There are thirty-four occurrences, all of which have πλοῖον as their equivalent: eleven in Matthew, nineteen in Acts, one in James, and three in non-Peshitta Revelation. 54 To πλοῖον may be added the single New Testament occurrence of ναῦς in Acts ܳ ‫ ܶܐ‬. It is the second last of fourteen references to 27:41, for it is also translated by ‫ܠܦܐ‬ the sea-going ship that was wrecked at Malta. 55 The other thirteen use πλοῖον. Friedrich Blass traces the phrase ἐπέκειλην τὴν ναῦν they ran the ship aground to Homer’s 546F

ܳ ܺ Mt 8:23; 14:22 both employ ‫ܣܦܝܢܬܐ‬. Neither of these departures from the Matthean norm ܳ ܺ ܳ ‫ܝܢܬܐ( ܶܐ‬ can be explained by its context as both are explicitly employed as synonyms of ‫ܠܦܐ‬ ‫ܣܦ‬ ܳ ܺ ܳ ܳ ܶ ܶ in Mt 8:23, ‫ ܐܠܦܐ‬in Mt 8:24, and ‫ ܣܦܝܢܬܐ‬in Mt 14:22, ‫ ܐܠܦܐ‬in Mt 14:24, 29, 32, 33). In Mt ܳ ܺ 8:23, Syrs also has ‫ܣܦܝܢܬܐ‬ (Syrc is not extant), so the Matthean reading might be explained as the preservation of an Old Syriac remnant, but this would not accord with Matthew’s otherܳ ܺ ܳ ‫ܐ‬. ܶ Moreover, the Old Syriac cannot be appealed wise consistent use of ‫ܣܦܝܢܬܐ‬ rather than ‫ܠܦܐ‬ ܳ ܶ s c to for Mt 14:22; both Syr and Syr have ‫ܐܠܦܐ‬. ܳ ‫ ܶܐ‬renders (a) zero or one occurrence of πλοιάριον: Jn 6:24 (or πλοῖον), and (b) 54 In total, ‫ܠܦܐ‬ thirty-four or thirty-five occurrences of πλοῖον: Mt 4:21, 22; 8:24; 9:1; 13:2; 14:13 (omitted in codex 2, Pusey and Gwilliam, Tetraeuangelium Sanctum, 91), 24, 29, 32, 33; 15:39; Jn 6:23 (or πλοιάριον); Acts 20:13, 38; 21:2, 3, 6; 27:2, 6, 10, 15, 17, 19, 22, 30, 31, 37, 38, 39, 44; 28:11; Jas 3:4; Rev 8:9; 18:17*, 19. ܳ ܺ ܳ ‫ ܶܐ‬and ‫ܝܢܬܐ‬ 55 Synopsis of the semantic relationship between ‫ܠܦܐ‬ ‫ ܣܦ‬and the biblical terms they translate: (a) both terms refer to different kinds of vessels both small and large; their size ܳ ‫ܶܐ‬ ranges from a relatively small fishing boat to a sea-going ship, including a warship (pl. of ‫ܠܦܐ‬ Dan 11:40). Both Syriac nouns translate πλοῖον in the Gospels (see n. 50), where that term ܳ ‫ܐ‬ ܶ probably refers to a smaller fishing boat (see n. 47). In at least one instance, Jn 6:24, ‫ܠܦܐ‬ translates πλοιάριον (see n. 51), and in three definite instances, Mk 3:9; Jn 6:22(1o); 21:8, ܳ ܺ ‫ܣܦܝܢܬܐ‬ also translates πλοιάριον (see n. 51) where that term refers to a relatively small boat ܳ ‫ܶܐ‬ (see n. 48). Both Syriac nouns translate Hebrew and Greek terms for a sea-going ship (i) ‫ܠܦܐ‬ ܳ ܶ pl. = Heb. ‫ ֳאנִ י‬ships, fleet 1 Kings 22:49, 49, 50; Dan 11:40; ‫ = ܐܠܦܐ‬Heb. ‫ ֳאנִ יָּ ה‬ship Deut 28:68; Job 9:26; Ps 48:7; 107:23; Prov 30:19; 31:14; Isa 2:16; 23:1, 14; 60:9; Jon 1:3, 4, 5(1o); = ܳ ܺ ܳ ‫( ܶܐ‬2o), not ‫ܝܢܬܐ‬ Heb. ‫ ְס ִפּינָ ה‬vessel, ship (note correspondence is ‫ܠܦܐ‬ ‫ = ;)ܣܦ‬ναῦς Acts 27:41; = ܳ ܺ πλοῖον Acts (all nineteen occurrences—see n. 54); Jas 3:4; Rev 18:17*, 19; (ii) ‫ܣܦܝܢܬܐ‬ pl. = ܳ ܺ Heb. ‫ ֳאנִ י‬ships, fleet 1 Kings 9:26, 27; 10:11, 22, 22, 22; ‫ = ܣܦܝܢܬܐ‬Heb. ‫ ֳאנִ יָּ ה‬ship Gen 49:13; Judg 5:17; 2 Chron 8:18; 9:21; 20:36, 36, 37; Ps 104:26; Isa 43:14; Eze 27:9, 29. In 2 Chron ܶ ܰ ܶ ‫ ܶܐ‬sea-going ships occurs in‫ܝܡܘܢ‬ ܶ ‫ܪܘ ܶܐ‬ ܺ ‫ܕܝ‬ ܽ ܶ ‫ ܥܰܡ ܥܰ ̈ܒ ܰܕܘܗܝ ܰܕܫܠ‬:‫ܕܝ ܳܡܐ‬ ܽ ‫ܡܕ ܳܒ‬ ܰ ܰ ‫ܕܥܢ ܠ‬ ܰ ‫ܠܦܐ‬ ܰ ‫ܶܠܦܐ‬ ܳ ‫ܒ̈ܪܐ ܰܣ ܳܦ ̈ܢܶܐ‬ 8:18, ‫ܕܝ ܳܡܐ‬ ‫ܓ‬, ̱ ܳ ܶ which translates ‫ם־ﬠ ְב ֵדי ְשׁ�מֹה‬ ַ ‫ﬠ ָב ִדים ױ ְֹד ֵﬠי יָ ם וַ יָּ בֹאוּ ִﬠ‬. ֲ In Deut 33:19, ‫ ܐܠܦܐ‬is a misreading of its Hebrew Vorlage, see Michael P. Weitzman, The Syriac Version of the Old Testament: An Introduction (Cambridge: 2008), 127; so also in Eze 27:24, see George A. Kiraz and Joseph Bali, The Antioch Bible: The Syriac Peshiṭta Bible with English Translation: Ezekiel (Piscataway, NJ: 53

THE COLLECTIVE AUTHORSHIP OF THE PESHITTA NEW TESTAMENT

165

Odyssey, describing ἡ ναῦς as “obsolete” and ἐπικέλλω instead of ἐποκέλλω as “altogether poetical.” 56 From the Odyssey, Blass cites νῆας … ἐπικέλσαι and νῆα … ἐκέλσαμεν. The respective contexts of these two citations read: 57 πρὶν νῆας ἐϋσσέλμους ἐπικέλσαι (Od.9.148) until the well-constructed ships beached themselves, 58 and νῆα μὲν ἔνθ’ ἐλθόντες ἐκέλσαμεν ἐν ψαμάθοισιν (Od.9.546) on coming there we beached our ships on the sands. 59 Unlike the author of the Greek text, the Peshitta translator was unable to distinguish the term for “ship” in Acts 27:41 from elsewhere in the shipwreck narrative, but ܳ ‫ ܶܐ‬. Peshitta Acts is consistent in rendering both πλοῖον and ναῦς by ‫ܠܦܐ‬ In contrast to Matthew and the rest of the New Testament, Mark, Luke, and ܳ ܺ 61 ܳ ‫ܐ‬, ܶ 60 employ only ‫ܝܢܬܐ‬ John, with only two exceptions where John has ‫ܠܦܐ‬ ‫ܣܦ‬. Where 53F

2015), XXXII and 161, n. 4. The Peshitta Old Testament does not recognize the Hebrew noun ‫( ִצי‬Num 24:24; Isa 33:21; Eze 30:9; Dan 11:30) as meaning “ship.” (b) for Heb. ‫ ֳאנִ י‬and ‫ =( ֳאנִ יָּ ה‬ναῦς and πλοῖον in LXX), see Francis Brown, Samuel R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: 1906), 58; David Clines, et al., eds, The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, 8 vols (Sheffield: 1993), vol. i, 341; Ludwig Köehler, Walter Baumgartner, M. E. J. Richardson, and Johann Jakob Stamm, et al., The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 5 vols (Leiden/New York-Köln: 1994), vol. i, 71, and for ‫ ְס ִפּינָ ה‬see Brown, Driver, and Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon, 706; Clines, et al., Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, vol. vi, 181; Köehler, Baumgartner, et al., Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, vol. ii, 764. (c) for ναῦς in Acts 27:41 as a larger sea-going vessel, see BDAG, 667; GEL, §6.43, and for πλοῖον in Acts as a larger sea-going vessel, see BDAG, 830; GEL, §6.41; Moulton and Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament, 521. (d) all LXX references to ναῦς and πλοῖον are to a sea-faring vessel. See Takamitsu Muraoka, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint (Louvain/Paris/Walpole, MA: 2009), 472; for references see Edwin Hatch and Henry Adeney Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint and the Other Greek Versions of the Old Testament (including the Apocryphal Books) (Oxford: 1897; reprint Graz: 1975); George Morrish, A Concordance of the Septuagint (London: 1970). 56 Friedrich Blass, Philology of the Gospels (London: 1898; reprint Whitefish, Montana: 2022), 186; see also BDAG, 667, and the comment in Moulton and Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament, 423, “[t]hat Luke should use Homer is natural: cf. also the Epic words and forms appearing in late Hellenistic and vulgar epitaphs, especially the metrical ones.” 57 Greek text cited from Martin L. West, ed., Homerus Odyssea: Recensuit et Testimonia Congessit (Berlin: 2017). 58 Translation from Roger David Dawe, The Odyssey – Translation and Analysis (Sussex: 1993), 9.148. 59 Translation from Dawe, The Odyssey, 9.546. 60 Jn 6:23, 24. ܳ ܺ 61 ‫ܣܦܝܢܬܐ‬ renders (a) between three to seven occurrences of πλοιάριον, one or two in Mark, zero or one in Luke, and between two to four in John: Mk 3:9; 4:36 (or πλοῖον); Lk 5:2(or πλοῖον); Jn 6:22 (or πλοῖον), 22, 24 (or πλοῖον); 21:8, and (b) between twenty-nine to thirty-four occurrences of πλοῖον, two in Matthew, sixteen or seventeen in Mark, six or seven in Luke, and

166

TERRY C. FALLA

ܳ ܺ they are extant, all four Old Syriac Gospels attest, with one exception, 62 only ‫ܣܦܝܢܬܐ‬. ܳ ܺ Where it is extant, the Old Syriac has ‫ ܣܦܝܢܬܐ‬for πλοιάριον, which is consistent with its rendering of πλοῖον, or omits πλοιάριον. 63 In summary, in this study of Greek New Testament words for boats and ships and their counterparts in the Peshitta, the predilection of Peshitta books for either ܳ ܽ ܺ ܳ ܺ ܳ ‫ ܶܐ‬or ‫ܝܢܬܐ‬ ‫ ܶܟ ܶܘܝ ܴܠܐ‬or ‫ܒܘܬܐ‬ ‫ ܩ‬as the correspondence for κιβωτός, and ‫ܠܦܐ‬ ‫ ܣܦ‬for πλοῖον and πλοιάριον, which, in the case of the Gospels, cannot be attributed to the Old Syriac, is the first of many pointers to the Peshitta New Testament as the product of multiple translators. 5F

Clothing: Tunics and Cloaks

Distinctive differences between some Peshitta Synoptic parallels also point to the Peshitta’s collective authorship. An example is their translations of ἱμάτιον. In Mt 21:7–8 the two occurrences of ἱμάτιον, cloak, coat, worn over the χιτών tunic, are reܳ ܳ spectively translated by the plurals of ‫ܚܬܐ‬ ܴ ‫ ܢ‬cloak, garment and ‫ ܳܡܐܢܐ‬cloak, garment: ܰ They brought the donkey and the colt and put their cloaks (‫ܚܬܝ ܽܗ ̈ܘܢ‬ ܱ ‫)ܢ‬ on the colt Mt 21:7. ܰ ‫)ܡ‬ ܳ on the road Mt ܽ ‫ܐܢ‬ Most of the crowd were spreading their tunics (‫ܝܗ ̈ܘܢ‬ 21:8.

Mk 11:7–8 reverses the order of these two Greek nouns. Lk 19:35–36 uses the plural ܳ ‫ ܳܡ‬in both instances. All occurrences of both ‫ܐܢܐ‬ ܳ ‫ ܳܡ‬and ‫ ܳܢܚܬܐ‬differ from the of ‫ܐܢܐ‬ ܴ ܽ ‫ ܰܡ‬cloak, garment, 64 a Old Syriac, which, where it is extant, uses the plural of ‫ܪܛܘ ܳܛܐ‬ term that never appears in the Peshitta Gospels and elsewhere in the Peshitta New Testament occurs only in Acts 9:39. Another distinctive difference between the Synoptic Gospels’ translation of ἱμάτιον is where they speak of the senselessness of putting a new patch on an old ܳ ܳ ܳ As in the translagarment. Mt 9:16 has ‫ܚܬܐ‬ ܴ ‫ ܢ‬while both Mk 2:21; Lk 5:36 use ‫ܡܐܢܐ‬. tion of πλοῖον, Matthew differs from the two other Synoptics, but in this case the first between five to eight in John: Mt 8:23; 14:22; Mk 1:19, 20 (omitted in codices 7, 16, and Editions, Pusey and Gwilliam, Tetraeuangelium Sanctum, 202); 4:1, 36, 36 (or πλοιάριον), 37; 5:2, 18, 21; 6:32, 45, 47, 51, 54; 8:10, 13 (= variant Greek reading), 14; Lk 5:2 (or πλοιάριον), ܶ ‫ ܶܡ‬one of them), 7, 7, 11; 8:22, 37; 3 (the first occurrence of πλοῖον in this vs. is rendered by ‫ܢܗܝܢ‬ ܳ ܺ Jn 6:17, 19, 21, 21, 22 (or πλοιάριον), 23 (or πλοιάριον), 24 (or πλοιάριον); 21:3. The noun ‫ܣܦܝܢܬܐ‬ ܳ ܺ ̇ ܰ also occurs in Mk 4:38 in ‫ ܚܪܬܗ ܣܦܝܢܬܐ‬the stern of the boat, which translates πρύμνα rear part of ܳ ܺ ܶ ‫ܝܢܬܐ‬ ܳ ‫ܘܩ ܺܪ‬ ܰ the boat was near to sinking, a boat, stern, and in Lk 8:23 in the clause ‫ܠܡܛܒܱܥ‬ ‫ܝܒܐ ̱ܗ ܳܘܬ ܣܦ‬ which translates καὶ συνεπληροῦντο καὶ ἐκινδύνευον. Both attest further to the Marcan and Lucan ܳ ܺ ܳ ‫ܐ‬. ܶ preference for ‫ܣܦܝܢܬܐ‬ over ‫ܠܦܐ‬ ܳ ‫ܐ‬. ܶ There is nothing exceptional about this context; in 62 sc Mt 14:22, for which Syr have ‫ܠܦܐ‬ ܳ ܺ fact, in vs. 24 both Old Syriac versions revert to ‫ܣܦܝܢܬܐ‬ to refer to the same vessel. 63 s[c] s[c] Mk 3:9 Syr ; Lk 5:2 (or πλοῖον) Syr ; Jn 6:22 Syrc (Syrs omits), 22 (or πλοῖον) Syrsc, 23 (or πλοῖον) Syrsc, 24 (or πλοῖον) Syrc (Syrs omits); 21:8 Syrs[c] omits. 64 Mt 21:7 Syr[s]c, 8 Syr[s]c; Mk 11:7 Syrs[c], 8 Syrs[c]; Lk 19:35, Syrsc 36 Syrsc.

THE COLLECTIVE AUTHORSHIP OF THE PESHITTA NEW TESTAMENT

167

two Gospels have an apparent precedent in the Old Syriac (Luke is not extant for this passage). In these three instances, each Peshitta translator may have seen in the Old Syriac a rendering that corresponded to his own lexical predilection. Nonetheless, all such instances must be treated with caution, for the parallels serve not as a convincing example of multiple authorship, but rather as an example of a difference that might be attributed purely or primarily to the Peshitta’s retention of an Old Syriac reading. 65 Yet another difference is between the Synoptic parallel for Mt 9:22, Mk 5:27, and Lk 8:44. In this case, Matthew and Mark differ from Luke. The first two render ܳ ‫ܡ‬. ܽ garment, cloak, clothing. Luke has ‫ܐܢܐ‬ ܳ Where it is extant, the Old ἱμάτιον by ‫ܠܒܘ ܳܫܐ‬ ܽ ‫ ܰܡ‬for Matthew Syriac again differs from the Peshitta; it has the plural of ‫ܪܛܘ ܳܛܐ‬ ܳ ܽ and Syrc has ‫ܚܬܐ‬ (Syrs[c]). For Luke Syrs has ‫ܠܒܘ ܳܫܐ‬ ܴ ‫ܢ‬. This comparison of the Synoptics leads to further insights regarding the translation of ἱμάτιον by the Peshitta New Testament. Each of the following references to a Synoptic parallel in a particular Gospel is complemented by the Syriac term(s) employed in the other parallel(s). ܳ • John has only one rendering for ἱμάτιον: ‫ܚܬܐ‬ ܴ ‫ ܢ‬Jn 13:4, 12; 19:5, 23, 24 (none of these references have parallels in the Synoptics). Syrs[c] also has ܳ ‫ܚܬܐ‬ ܴ ‫ ܢ‬for Jn 13:4, 12. Neither version is extant for the three other verses. ܳ ‫ܡ‬, ܳ ܳ not ‫ܚܬܐ‬ • Non-Peshitta Revelation also has only one: ‫ܐܢܐ‬ ܴ ‫ܢ‬: Rev 3:4, 5, 18; 4:4; 16:15. ܳ ‫ ܳܡ‬and ‫ܢܚܬܐ‬:ܳ (a) ‫ܐܢܐ‬ ܳ ‫ ܳܡ‬Lk 5:36, 36 (also ‫ܐܢܐ‬ ܳ ‫ ܳܡ‬Mk 2:21, • Luke has two, ‫ܐܢܐ‬ ܴ ܳ ܽ Mt 9:20⫽Mk 5:27); 19:35 (also but ‫ܚܬܐ‬ ܴ ‫ ܢ‬Mt 9:16, 16,); 8:27, 44 (= ‫ܠܒܘ ܳܫܐ‬ ܳ ܳ ܳ ܳ ‫ ܡܐܢܐ‬Mk 11:7; = ‫ܚܬܐ‬ ܴ ‫ ܢ ܢ‬Mt 21:7), 36 (also ‫ ܳܡܐܢܐ‬Mt 21:8⫽Mk 11:8); (b) ܳ ܳ ܳ ‫ܚܬܐ‬ ܴ ‫ ܢ‬Lk 22:36; 23:34 (= ‫ ܡܐܢܐ‬Mt 27:35⫽Mk 15:24). Both versions of the Old Syriac are lacunose for two of these eight Lucan instances, 66 and have a different reading from the Peshitta for four of the other six. 67 • Matthew and Mark, for which Synoptic parallels are paired, both have ܳ ‫ܡ‬, ܳ ܳ ‫ܳܡ‬ ܽ ܽ Mt 9:20 68⫽Mk 5:27 (= ‫ܐܢܐ‬ ܳ and ‫ܚܬܐ‬ ܳ ‫ܐܢܐ‬ four: ‫ܠܒܘ ܳܫܐ‬, ‫ܠܒ ܳܫܐ‬, ܴ ‫ܢ‬: (a) ‫ܠܒܘ ܳܫܐ‬ ܳ ܳ Lk 8:44); Mt 14:36⫽Mk 6:56; Mk 5:28 (= ‫ ܳܡܐܢܐ‬Mt 9:21); 9:3 (= ‫ܚܬܐ‬ ܴ ‫ ܢ‬Mt 17:2); 58 F

59F

For examples of the Peshitta both retaining elements of the Old Syriac and departing from it, see Logan Copley, Translation Technique and Verbal System of the Old Syriac and Peshitta Versions of Luke 1, https://www.academia.edu/37887461/Translation_Technique_and_Verbal_System_of_the_Old_Syriac_and_Peshitta_Versions_of_Luke_1, 10 and 125; Terry C. Falla, “Translation, Genre, and Lexicography: A Study of the Syriac Versions of the New Testament”, The Harp 21 (2006), 40–50; Falla, “Peshitta Parables as Oral Performance”; Lyon, Syriac Gospel Translations; Williams, Early Syriac Translation Technique; see also George A. Kiraz, Comparative Edition of the Syriac Gospels Aligning the Sinaiticus, Curetonianus, Peshîttâ & Harklean Versions, 4 vols (Leiden: 1996). 66 Lk 5:36 Syrsc, 36 Syrsc. ܳ ‫ ܳܡ‬Lk 8:27 Syrp = ‫ ܳܢܚܬܐ‬Syrsc; ‫ܐܢܐ‬ ܳ ‫ ܳܡ‬Lk 8:44 Syrp = ‫ܠܒܘ ܳܫܐ‬ ܳ ܳ ܽ 67 ‫ܐܢܐ‬ Syrs and ‫ܚܬܐ‬ ܴ ܴ ‫ ܢ‬Syrc; ‫ ܳܡܐܢܐ‬Lk ܽ p p sc ܳ ܰ 19:35 Syr , 36 Syr = ‫ ܡܪܛܘܛܐ‬Syr . ܽ ‫ ܰܡ‬in Mas. 3, Pusey and Gwilliam, Tetraeuangelium Sanctum, 60. 68 ‫ܪܛܘ ܳܛܐ‬ 65

168

TERRY C. FALLA ܽ 69 ܳ Mt 24:18⫽Mk 13:16 (or ‫;)ܠܒܘ ܳܫܐ‬ (b) ‫ܠܒ ܳܫܐ‬ Mk 10:50; ܳ ܳ ‫ ܳܡ‬Lk 19:36; = ܽ ܳ ܳ (c) ‫ ܡܐܢܐ‬Mt 9:21 (= ‫ ܠܒܘܫܐ‬Mk 5:28); Mt 21:8 (also ‫ܐܢܐ‬ ܳ ܳ ܳ ‫ܚܬܐ‬ ܴ ‫ ܢ‬Mk 11:8); Mt 26:65; Mk 2:21 (also ‫ ܳܡܐܢܐ‬Lk 5:36, but ‫ܚܬܐ‬ ܴ ‫ ܢ‬Mt 9:16); ܳ ‫ ܳܡ‬Lk 19:35; = ‫ ܳܢܚܬܐ‬Mt 21:7); Mk 15:20 (= ‫ ܳܢܚܬܐ‬Mt Mk 5:30; 11:7 (‫ܐܢܐ‬ ܴ ܴ ܳ ܳ 27:31); Mk 15:24 (= ‫ܚܬܐ‬ ܴ ‫ ܢ‬Mt 27:35; Lk 23:34); Lk 5:36 (also ‫ ܳܡܐܢܐ‬Mk ܳ ܽ 2:21, but ‫ܚܬܐ‬ Mt 9:20⫽Mk 5:27); Lk 19:35 ܴ ‫ ܢ‬Mt 9:16); Lk 8:44 (= ‫ܠܒܘ ܳܫܐ‬ ܳ ܳ ܳ ܳ ܳ (also ‫ ܡܐܢܐ‬Mk 11:7; = ‫ܚܬܐ‬ ܴ ‫ ܢ‬Mt 21:7); Lk 19:36 (‫ ܳܡܐܢܐ‬Mt 21:8; = ‫ܚܬܐ‬ ܴ ‫ܢ‬ Mk 11:8); ܳ ܳ ܽ (d) ‫ܚܬܐ‬ ܴ ‫ ܢ‬Mt 9:16, 16 (= ‫ ܳܡܐܢܐ‬Mk 2:21; Lk 5:36, 36); Mt 17:2 (= ‫ܠܒܘ ܳܫܐ‬ ܳ ܳ ܳ ܳ Mk 9:3); Mt 21:7 (=‫ ܡܐܢܐ‬Mk 11:7; Lk 19:35); Mt 27:31 (= ‫ ܡܐܢܐ‬Mk ܳ ܳ 15:20); Mt 27:35 (also ‫ܚܬܐ‬ ܴ ‫ ܢ‬Lk 23:34; = ‫ ܳܡܐܢܐ‬Mk 15:24); Mk 11:8 (= ܳ ‫ ܳܡ‬Mt 21:8; Lk 19:36). ‫ܐܢܐ‬ 561 F

For Matthew and Mark, the gap between the Peshitta and extant Old Syriac is great and, judging from extant Old Syriac data, it may be surmised that the gap would be greater if missing readings were recovered. In only one of the ten instances, Mt 14:36, is the Curetonian version extant for the first Gospel, and it disagrees with both the Peshitta and Sinaiticus. 70 Five of the remaining eight also vary from the Peshitta. 71 In only three places can it be established that the Peshitta agrees with an Old Syriac reading. 72 For Mark, three of the twelve instances are lacunose in both versions of the Old Syriac. 73 The other nine are extant only in the Sinaitic version. Seven of these nine vary from the Peshitta. 74 In only two places can it be established that the Peshitta agrees with an Old Syriac reading. 75 ܳ ‫ܡ‬, ܳ ܽ ܽ ‫ܡ‬, ܳ ‫ܪܛܘ ܳܛܐ‬ ܰ ‫ܚܬܐ‬ ܳ or ‫)ܠܒܘ ܳܫܐ‬, • Acts has four (which do not include ‫ܠܒ ܳܫܐ‬, ‫ܐܢܐ‬ ܴ ‫ܢ‬, ܳ ܰ ܳ ܽ ܳ ܳ ܰ and ‫ܟܣܝܬܐ‬ ܻ ‫ܬ‬: (a) ‫ ܡܐܢܐ‬Acts 18:6; 22:20, 23; (b) ‫ ܡܪܛܘܛܐ‬Acts 9:39; (c) ܳ ܰ ܳ ‫ܚܬܐ‬ ܴ ‫ ܢ‬Acts 7:58; 14:14; 16:22 and (d) ‫ܟܣܝܬܐ‬ ܻ ‫ ܬ‬Acts 12:8.

ܽ in codices 2, 14, 15, 20, 40, Pusey and Gwilliam, Tetraeuangelium Sanctum, 284. ‫ܠܒܘ ܳܫܐ‬ ܽ ܽ ‫ ܰܡ‬Syrs, ‫ܣܛܠܐ‬ ܳ ‫ ܠܒܘܫܐ‬Mt 14:36 Syrp = ‫ܪܛܘ ܳܛܐ‬ ܴ ‫ ܶܐ‬Syrc. The Syrc reading ‫ܣܛܠܐ‬ ܴ ‫ ܶܐ‬long robe, garment (from Gr. Στολή. See Brock, “Greek Words in the Syriac Gospels”, 419; Sokoloff, Syriac Lexicon, 69) is unique in that it translates ἱμάτιον and thus deviates from its usual rendering of στολή long outer garment, robe, as in Mk 16:5 Syrs[c]p; Lk 15:22 Syrscp. In two instances, Mk 12:38 ܶ as in Syrp, but by ‫ܣܛܘܐ‬ ܳ Syrs[c]; Lk 20:46 Syrsc, στολή is rendered, not by ‫ܣܛܠܐ‬ ܴ ‫ܐ‬, ‫ ܶܐ‬porch, portico, from στοά (see Brock, “Greek Words in the Syriac Gospels”, 418; Sokoloff, Syriac Lexicon, 68), which it usually translates (Jn 5:2 Syr[s]cp; 10:23 Syrs[c]p). Critical editions of the Greek New Testament do not cite στοά as a variant of στολή for Mk 12:38 or Lk 20:46. ܳ ܽ ܽ ‫ ܰܡ‬Syrs; ‫ܠܒ ܳܫܐ‬ ܽ ‫ ܰܡ‬Syrs; ‫ܚܬܐ‬ 71 ܳ Mt 24:18 Syrp = ‫ܪܛܘ ܳܛܐ‬ ‫ܠܒܘ ܳܫܐ‬ Mt 9:20 Syrp = ‫ܪܛܘ ܳܛܐ‬ ܴ ‫ ܢ‬Mt 9:16 Syrp ܳ ܳ ܳ ܽ s p s p ܳ ܳ ܳ = omission Syr ; ‫ ܡܐܢܐ‬Mt 27:35 Syr = ‫ ܠܒܘܫܐ‬Syr and ‫ ܡܐܢܐ‬Mt 9:21 Syr = ‫ܚܬܐ‬ ܴ ‫ ܢ‬Syrs. ܳ ܳ 72 sp sp sp ܳ ‫ ܡܐܢܐ‬Mt 26:65 Syr ; 27:31 Syr ; ‫ܚܬܐ‬ ܴ ‫ ܢ‬Mt 9:16 Syr . ܳ ‫ܡ‬. ܽ 73 ܳ Mk 5:27, 28 for which Syrp has ‫;ܠܒܘ ܳܫܐ‬ Mk 5:30 for which Syrp has ‫ܐܢܐ‬ ܳ ܽ ܽ 74 p s p s ܳ ܰ ܳ ܳ ܳ ܳ ܳ Syrp Mk 13:6 = ‫ ܠܒܘܫܐ‬Syr Mk 6:56 = ‫ ܡܪܛܘܛܐ‬Syr ; ‫ ܠܒܫܐ‬Syr Mk 10:50 = ‫ ܡܐܢܐ‬Syr ; ‫ܠܒ ܳܫܐ‬ ܳ ܳ ܳ ܽ ܽ s p s p ܳ ܳ ܰ ܳ ܳ ‫ ܠܒܘܫܐ‬Syr ; ‫ ܡܐܢܐ‬Syr Mk 11:7, 8 = ‫ ܡܪܛܘܛܐ‬Syr ; ‫ ܡܐܢܐ‬Syr Mk 15:20, 24 = ‫ܚܬܐ‬ ܴ ‫ ܢ‬Syrs. ܳ ܽ 75 sp sp ܳ ܳ ‫ ܡܐܢܐ‬Mk 2:21 Syr ; ‫ ܠܒܘܫܐ‬Mk 9:3 Syr . 69 70

THE COLLECTIVE AUTHORSHIP OF THE PESHITTA NEW TESTAMENT • •

169

ܳ ܰ ܳ ܰ ܳ ܳ Hebrews has two, ‫ܚܬܐ‬ ܴ ‫ ܢ‬and ‫ܟܣܝܬܐ‬ ܴ ‫ ܢ‬Heb 1:11; and (b) ‫ܟܣܝܬܐ‬ ܻ ‫ܬ‬: 76 (a) ‫ܚܬܐ‬ ܻ ‫ܬ‬ Heb 1:12. James and 1 Peter each have one occurrence of ἱμάτιον, respectively renܳ ‫ ܳܡ‬and ‫ܠܒܘ ܳܫܐ‬: ܽ dered by ‫ܐܢܐ‬ in Jas 5:2; 1 Pet 3:3.

The Peshitta translation of ἱμάτιον discloses differences not only between each of the four Gospels but also between the Gospels taken as a unit and Acts and Hebrews. These differences cannot be explained as the result of a nuanced semantic matching of one term rather than another with particular textual contexts. Nor can differences between the Gospels be attributed to antecedent translational patterns in the Old Syriac. Revelation does not belong to the Peshitta canon, but it is nevertheless worth observing that it shares with the Peshitta Gospel of John the commonality of restricting itself to one correspondence. There is nevertheless disagreement between John ܳ ܳ ܳ ‫ܚܬܐ‬ ܴ ‫ ܢ‬and Revelation ‫ܡܐܢܐ‬. Acts distinguishes itself by two correspondences that do not occur in the Gosܽ ‫ܡ‬, ܰ which is not found elsewhere in the Peshitta New Testament. pels. One is ‫ܪܛܘ ܳܛܐ‬ ܳ ܰ The other is ‫ܟܣܝܬܐ‬ ܻ ‫ܬ‬. It appears twice in the Peshitta New Testament, the other being one of the two correspondences in Hebrews. ܽ Only Matthew, Mark and I Peter attest to ‫ܠܒܘ ܳܫܐ‬. Matthew and Mark do not, ܽ in two Synoptic however, always use it in parallel contexts. Both Gospels have ‫ܠܒܘ ܳܫܐ‬ parallels; namely, Mt 9:20⫽Mk 5:27 and Mt 14:36⫽Mk 6:56. But in two instances, ܳ ‫ ܳܡ‬Mt 9:21, ܽ where Matthew uses another term: ‫ܠܒܘ ܳܫܐ‬ ܽ Mk 5:28 = ‫ܐܢܐ‬ Mark has ‫ܠܒܘ ܳܫܐ‬ ܳ ܽ ܳ and ‫ ܠܒܘܫܐ‬Mk 9:3 = ‫ܚܬܐ‬ ܴ ‫ ܢ‬Mt 17:2. ܳ The most common Peshitta correspondence for ἱμάτιον is ‫ܚܬܐ‬ ܴ ‫ ܢ‬that occurs in six books: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, and Hebrews. In four out of five instances, ܳ ܳ where one Synoptic uses ‫ܚܬܐ‬ ܴ ‫ ܢ‬another Synoptic has another term: ‫ܚܬܐ‬ ܴ ‫ ܢ‬Mt 9:16 (1o) ܳ ܳ ܳ ܽ o ܳ ܳ = ‫ ܡܐܢܐ‬Mk 2:21; Lk 5:36 (2 ); ‫ܚܬܐ‬ ܴ ‫ ܢ‬Mt 17:2 = ‫ ܠܒܘܫܐ‬Mk 9:3; ‫ܚܬܐ‬ ܴ ‫ ܢ‬Mt 21:7⫽Mk ܳ ‫ ܳܡ‬Lk 19:35; ‫ ܳܢܚܬܐ‬Lk 23:34 = ‫ܐܢܐ‬ ܳ ‫ ܳܡ‬Mt 27:35⫽Mk 15:24. 11:7 = ‫ܐܢܐ‬ ܴ ܳ ‫ܡ‬. ܳ It is present in six books. The second most common correspondence is ‫ܐܢܐ‬ ܳ Two of these books are different from those that use ‫ܚܬܐ‬ ܴ ‫ܢ‬: Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, James, and non-Peshitta Revelation. In three out of thirteen instances, where ܳ ܳ one Synoptic uses ‫ܚܬܐ‬ ܴ ‫ ܢ‬another Synoptic has another term: ‫ ܳܡܐܢܐ‬Lk 5:36 (2o) =

The Greek text of Heb 1:11–12 quotes part of Ps 102:25–27 from the LXX (Ps 101), see Harold W. Attridge, Hebrews: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Philadelphia: 1989), 60–1; Gareth Lee Cockerill, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids, Michigan: 2012), 112–3. ܳ ܰ ܳ It is therefore prudent to check whether Peshitta Hebrews choice of ‫ܚܬܐ‬ ܴ ‫( ܢ‬vs. 11) and ‫ܟܣܝܬܐ‬ ܻ ‫ܬ‬ garment, cloak (vs. 12) was influenced by the Peshitta Old Testament. This is not the case. The ܽ ܽ ‫( ܰܡ‬Ps 102:26). Nor terms the Peshitta Old Testament uses in parallelism are ‫ܠܒܘ ܳܫܐ‬ and ‫ܪܛܘ ܳܛܐ‬ ܳ ܰ can ‫ܟܣܝܬܐ‬ ܻ ‫ ܬ‬in Heb 1:12, as a rare Peshitta New Testament term, be compared with a potential Old Syriac counterpart. Josef Kerschensteiner, Der Altsyrische Paulustext (Louvain: 1970), does ܳ ܰ not record any Old Syriac reading for the first three chapters of Hebrews. ‫ܟܣܝܬܐ‬ ܻ ‫ܬ‬, which is well attested in the Peshitta Old Testament, does not occur in the Old Syriac Gospels. 76

170

TERRY C. FALLA

ܳ ܳ ܳ ‫ ܳܡ‬Lk 19:35 = ‫ܳܢܚܬܐ‬ ܽ Mt 9:20⫽Mk 5:27; ‫ܐܢܐ‬ ‫ܚܬܐ‬ ܴ ‫ ܢ‬Mt 9:16 (1o); ‫ ܳܡܐܢܐ‬Lk 8:44 = ‫ܠܒܘ ܳܫܐ‬ ܴ Mt 21:7⫽Mk 11:7. Overall, the nature of the differences between one corpus and another regarding the translation of ἱμάτιον in the Peshitta New Testament are too distinctly patterned to lend themselves to the idea of variety on the part of the one translator. Rather, these differences are best explained as further testimony to different vocabulary choices on the part of different translators. The Rendering of Δαιμόνιον, Δαίμων, and Δαιμονίζομαι in the Peshitta 77 ܳ ‫ ܽܪ‬spirit, 78 ‫ܒܱܪ‬ The Peshitta Gospels have four basic terms for demons or devils: ‫ܘܚܐ‬ ܳ ܳ ‫ ܰܕ‬demon, devil, and ‫( ܶܐ ܳܓܪܐ‬lit. son of the roof) roof demon, demon that causes lunacy, ‫ܝܘܐ‬ ܳ ܺ ܳ ‫ܽܪ‬ ‫ ܫܐܕܐ‬demon, devil, evil spirit. The first two terms may be set aside in this study as ‫ܘܚܐ‬ ܳ ܳ ܶ always translates the Greek noun πνεῦμα and ‫ ܒܱܪ ܐܓܪܐ‬is reserved for the only two

New Testament occurrences of the deponent Greek verb σεληνιάζομαι. 79 However, ܳ ‫ܫ‬, ܳ ‫ ܰܕ‬and ‫ܐܕܐ‬ ܺ as they are employed in the Pecomparison of the two other terms, ‫ܝܘܐ‬ shitta Synoptics reveals remarkable and unforeseeable patterns that cannot be attributed to the influence of the Old Syriac, from which they differ radically 80 and that could not exist in the Greek behind the Syriac. One of these patterns is shared by Matthew and Mark. The other sets Luke apart from its Synoptic companions. The Greek vocabulary for ‘demon/devil’ is narrower than its classical Syriac counterpart. The substantive δαιμόνιον accounts for forty-eight of its fifty occurrences. For the other two it has the etymologically related substantive δαίμων. 81 By contrast, classical Syriac has the freedom to choose between two etymologically unrelated ܳ ‫ܫ‬. ܳ ‫ ܰܕ‬and ‫ܐܕܐ‬ ܺ The Peshitta Synoptics terms for its rendering of δαιμόνιον and δαίμων: ‫ܝܘܐ‬ ܳ ‫ ܰܕ‬in exploit this freedom and employ both terms. They translate δαιμόνιον by ‫ܝܘܐ‬ 572F

Some data in this section draws on a chapter in my unpublished doctoral thesis, Studies in the Peshitta Gospels: An Examination of Four Groups of Peshitta Gospel Words and Their Contribution to the Study of the Peshitta as a Revision (University of Melbourne, 1971). The chapter is a revision of Terry C. Falla, “Demons and Demoniacs.” Most material is, however, new. 78 Usually qualified by an adjective attribute, for example, ‘evil spirits’ Lk 7:21; ‘dumb spirit’ Mk 9:17; ‘deaf and dumb spirit’ Mk 9:25; ‘unclean spirit’ Mt 10:1; Mk 1:23; 5:8; ‘spirit of infirmity’ Lk 13:11; ‘spirit of an unclean demon’ Lk 4:33. 79 Mt 4:24; 17:15. ܳ ‫ ܺܫ‬lack ܳ ‫ ܰܕ‬and fourteen to ‫ܐܕܐ‬ 80 Where the Old Syriac versions are extant (eight references to ‫ܝܘܐ‬ ܳ ܳ ‫ܰܕ‬ ܺ a witness), the term ‫ ܫܐܕܐ‬is used almost exclusively: it is the equivalent of the Peshitta ‫ܝܘܐ‬ ܳ ܳ ܰ ܺ and ‫ ܫܐܕܐ‬in forty-two instances. The term ‫ ܕܝܘܐ‬is used in only three places in the Old Syriac, and two of them are in the Beelzebub title (Mt 12:24Syrsc; Lk 11:15Syrsc). The other place, Mk 16:17, is in the Curetonian fragment of the longer Marcan ending (Syrs does not include the ܳ ‫ܫ‬. ܳ ‫ ܰܕ‬does, ܺ This Syrc occurrence of ‫ܝܘܐ‬ longer Marcan ending). The Peshitta equivalent is ‫ܐܕܐ‬ c however, point to the possibility that Syr may have attested to a different use of the two terms from Syrs. 81 Δαίμων also occurs as a variant reading in Lk 8:29, but the Peshitta reading, ‘the unclean spirit’, equates with the primary Greek reading. 77

THE COLLECTIVE AUTHORSHIP OF THE PESHITTA NEW TESTAMENT

171

ܳ ‫ ܺܫ‬in twenty-six instances. 83 Both instances of twenty-two instances 82 and by ‫ܐܕܐ‬ ܳ ܳ ‫ܰܕ‬ 84 ܺ δαίμων are rendered by ‫ܫܐܕܐ‬. They also use these two terms, plus the noun ‫ܝܘ ܳܢܐ‬ ܰ ‫ܕܫ‬ ܺ ‫ ܰܗܘ‬person possessed by devils, demoniac demoniac 85 and the substantive phrase ‫ܐܕ ̈ܘ ̱ܗܝ‬ 86 (literally, that one whose were the devils), to render the twelve occurrences of δαιμονίζομαι, 87 which is substantivized in all but one instance. 88 In contrast to their relationship to Luke, Matthew and Mark always agree in ܰ But the manner of their agreement adds further fascination to the ܳ ‫ܕ‬. their use of ‫ܝܘܐ‬ ܳ ‫ܰܕ‬ nature of the relationship between these two Peshitta Gospels. Mark only uses ‫ܝܘܐ‬ 89 where it occurs in a parallel Matthean passage. Matthew, on the other hand, does ܳ ‫ ܺܫ‬is ܳ ‫ ܰܕ‬where the term has no parallel in Mark. 90 It therefore follows that ‫ܐܕܐ‬ use ‫ܝܘܐ‬ the Marcan correspondence for δαιμόνιον in all other places, including those where ܳ ‫ܫ‬. ܺ The no Matthean parallel is provided. 91 In Mk 9:26, 92 the translator has added ‫ܐܕܐ‬ 579F

580F

ܳ ‫ ܰܕ‬in codex 8, Mt 9:33, 34, 34; 10:8; 11:18; 12:24(2º), 27, 28; Mk 1:34, 34; 3:15 (pl. of ‫ܝܘ ܳܢܐ‬ ܳ ‫ܫ‬, ܺ Pusey and Gwilliam, Tetraeuangelium Sanctum, 213), 22, 22; Lk 8:27, 30; 9:42, 49 (pl. of ‫ܐܕܐ‬ ܰ ܳ where the majority text has pl. of ‫ܕܝܘܐ‬, is also well attested in Edd. and codices, Pusey and Gwilliam, Tetraeuangelium Sanctum, 382); 11:15, 15, 18, 19, 20. ܳ ‫ ܰܕ‬in Sch. W, Pusey and Gwilliam, Tet83 Mt 7:22; 12:24(1º); 17:18; Mk 1:39; 6:13; 7:26 (‫ܝܘܐ‬ ܰ ܳ raeuangelium Sanctum, 242), 29, 30; 9:38 (pl. of ‫ ܕܝܘܐ‬in codex 40, Pusey and Gwilliam, Tetraeuangelium Sanctum, 256); 16:9, 17; Lk 4:33, 35, 41; 7:33; 8:2, 29, 33, 35, 38; 9:1; 10:17, 20 (= variant Greek reading); 11:14, 14; 13:32. ܳ ‫ܫ‬, ܺ its correspondence for δαιμόνιον (see n. 80); Syrc is 84 Mt 8:31. Mk 5:12*. Syrs also has ‫ܐܕܐ‬ lacunose in both verses. 85 Mt 4:24; 8:16, 28, 33; 12:22; Mk 1:32; Lk 8:36; Jn 10:21. The Old Syriac never uses the ܳ ‫( ܰܕ‬see Lund, The Old Syriac Gospel of the Distinct Evangelist). In Mt 4:24 and Mk 1:32 term ‫ܝܘ ܳܢܐ‬ ܳ ܰ ܳ ‫ܫ‬. ܺ In Luke it has ‫ܒܪܐ ܰܗܘ‬ it omits the Greek. In Matthew it has expressions that employ ‫ܐܕܐ‬ ‫ܓ‬. ܰ ܳ s c For John, Syr (Syr is lacunose) has ‫( ܕܝܘܐ‬see Kiraz, Comparative Edition, 196). 86 Mk 5:15, 16, 18. Syrs (Syrc is not extant) does not use this expression. ܰ ‫ܕܫ‬ ܳ ‫ ܰܕ‬Mt 8:16; 9:32; (ii) = ‫ܐܕ ̈ܘܗܝ‬ ܺ Mk 5:15, 16; (iii) = 87 (a) δαιμονίζομαι substantivized (i) = ‫ܝܘܐ‬ ̱ ܳ ܰ ܰ ‫ܕܫ‬ ܳ ܺ Mk ‫ ܕܝܘܢܐ‬Mt 4:24; 8:28, 33; 12:22; Mk 1:32; Lk 8:36; Jn 10:21; (b) ὁ δαιμονίσθειϛ = ‫ܐܕ ̈ܘ ̱ܗܝ‬ ܳ ܰ ܳ ܰ ܳ ܰ 5:18; ‫ ܓܒܪܐ ܗܘ ܕܝܘܢܐ‬Lk 8:36. ܳ ܰ ܶ ܳ ‫ܒܪܐ ܶܡܢ ܺܫ‬ 88 Finite verb δαιμονίζομαι = ‫ܐܕܐ‬ ‫( ܡܬܕ‬my daughter) is (severely) led/driven by a demon Mt 15:22. ܳ ‫ ܰܕ‬and their Matthean parallels are: Mk 1:34 = Mt 8:16 (Heal89 The Marcan references to ‫ܝܘܐ‬ ings in the Evening); Mk 3:15 (The Appointment of the Twelve) = Mt 10:8 (The Mission ܰ Charge); Mk 3:22 ‘Beelzebub is in him, and by the Chief of Demons he casts out demons (‫’)ܕ ̈ܝ ܶܘܐ‬ (A Controversy about Casting out Demons) = Mt 9:34 ‘by the Chief of Demons he casts out ܰ (The Healing of a Dumb Demoniac). Technically speaking, the last two referdemons (‫’)ܕ ̈ܝ ܶܘܐ‬ ences are not exact Synoptic parallels, see Aland, Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum. The techniܳ ‫ܫ‬, ܰ ܳ ‫ܕ‬. ܺ not of ‫ܝܘܐ‬ cally correct parallels are Mk 9:34 and Mt 12:24, which have the plural of ‫ܐܕܐ‬ The Peshitta Marcan translator saw Mk 3:22 and Mt 9:34 as authentic parallels as they are closer in detail than Mk 3:22 and Mt 12:24, which reads ‘this one is not casting out devils ܺ ܶ ‫ ) ̈ܫ‬except by Beelzebub the Chief of Demons (‫ܕܕ ̈ܝ ܶܘܐ‬ ܰ ‫ܝܫܐ‬ ܳ ‫’)ܪ‬. (‫ܐܕܐ‬ Mt 9:34 and Mt 12:24 are also ܻ ܰ ܳ ‫ܫ‬. ܳ ܺ testimony to this Gospel’s interchangeable use of ‫ ܕܝܘܐ‬and ‫ܐܕܐ‬ 90 Mt 9:32, 33; 11:18; 12:27, 28. 91 Mk 1:39; 6:13; 9:38; 16:9, 17. 92 Syrs (Syrc is not extant) does not have this addition. 82

172

TERRY C. FALLA

term lacks an explicit correspondence in the Greek but has a precise Synoptic parallel ܳ ‫ ܺܫ‬in Mt 17:18 where “Jesus rebuked it [that is, the ‫ ܰܒܪ ܶܐ ܳܓ ܳܪܐ‬roof demon named in ‫ܐܕܐ‬ ܳ ‫)ܫ‬ ܺ came out of him. And the child was earlier in the passage] and the devil (‫ܐܕܐ‬ healed at once.” In the Marcan narrative the demon that afflicted the child was, up ܳ ‫ ܽܪ‬Mk 9:17, 20), a general term for an adverse or evil to that point, called a spirit (‫ܘܚܐ‬ ܳ ‫ ܺܫ‬has the effect of identifying the demon-spirit incorporeal being. The addition of ‫ܐܕܐ‬ ܳ ‫)ܫ‬ ܺ yelled out. It tormented him and came out.” more exactly: “And the devil (‫ܐܕܐ‬ There are Marcan passages (Mk 1:23–27; 3:11, 30; 6:7) in which only the general ܳ ‫ ܽܪ‬is used where the translator has not sought to achieve a more precise term ‫ܘܚܐ‬ definition, but none has a Matthean parallel. The exacting nature of the preceding translational agreements between Peshitta Matthew and Mark as against the many places where they so clearly disagree gives ܳ ‫ ܰܕ‬except where it is one reason to pause. The fact that (a) Mark never employs ‫ܝܘܐ‬ employed in a parallel Matthean passage and conversely always uses it where it ocܳ ‫ ܰܕ‬, denoting a particular class of curs in a Matthean parallel, (b) Matthew uses ‫ܝܘܐ‬ ܳ ‫ ܺܫ‬in demons, 93 where the term has no parallel in Mark, and (c) the addition of ‫ܐܕܐ‬ ܳ ܺ Mk 9:26 has a precise Synoptic parallel in ‫ ܫܐܕܐ‬in Mt 17:18, would seem to point beyond these translations being the product of different hands (which they clearly are) to a relationship of influence of one upon the other. Could it be that here are intimations of the order in which the Peshitta Gospels were translated: Matthew before Mark? Thus, does the Marcan translator, or a possible later editor, in addition to leaving distinctive translational footprints throughout the work, also in his use of ܳ ‫ ܺܫ‬leave indications of his indebtedness to an already existing Peshitta ܳ ‫ ܰܕ‬and ‫ܐܕܐ‬ ‫ܝܘܐ‬ Matthean version? As indicated above, the Peshitta Gospels employ four different terms to translate the twelve occurrences of δαιμονίζομαι, which is substantivized in all but one instance. ܳ ‫ ܺܫ‬demon, devil, ܳ ‫ ܰܕ‬demon, ‫ܝܘ ܳܢܐ‬ ܳ ‫ ܰܕ‬demoniac, ‫ܐܕܐ‬ For the substantivized forms they have ‫ܝܘܐ‬ ̈ ܰ ܺ and ‫ ܗܘ ܕܫܐܕܘ ̱ܗܝ‬person possessed by devils, demoniac. For the single instance of the finite ܳ ܰ ܶ ܳ ‫ܒܪܐ ܶܡܢ ܺܫ‬ verb δαιμονίζομαι, Mt 15:22 has ‫ܐܕܐ‬ ‫( ܡܬܕ‬my daughter) is (severely) led/driven by a demon. It is of interest that the application of these terms, which differ from the ܱܰ ܳ ‫ܕ‬. Old Syriac in all but one instance, 94 is not uniform. All four Gospels employ ‫ܝܘ ܳܢܐ‬ ܳ ܰ ܳ ܳ ܶ ܶ ܺ Matthew has ‫( ܕܝܘܐ‬two instances) and ‫ܬܕܒܪܐ ܡܢ ܫܐܕܐ‬ ܱ ‫( ܡ‬one instance in agreement ܳ ܰ ܳ ‫( ܺܫ‬one instance), and Luke ‫ܝܘ ܳܢܐ‬ ܳ ‫ܒܪܐ ܰܗܘ ܰܕ‬ with Syrs), Mark ‫ܐܕܐ‬ ‫( ܓ‬one instance). Howܰ ‫ܕܫ‬ ܺ ‫ܗܘ‬, ever, most noticeable of all is the threefold use of the substantivized idiom ‫ܐܕ ̈ܘ ̱ܗܝ‬ which is unique to Mark, though it should be noted that while Syrs differs, Syrc is lacunose, so whether it provided a witness to a precedent remains unknown. Intriguingly, except for the two narratives (the Synoptic Beelzebub narrative and the Gadarene Demoniac narrative) discussed below, where the three Synoptics relate the same story, Peshitta Luke invariably inverts Matthew and Mark’s use of ܳ ‫ܫ‬. ܳ ‫ ܺܫ‬for ܳ ‫ ܰܕ‬and ‫ܐܕܐ‬ ܳ ‫ ܰܕ‬for δαιμόνιον, Luke has ‫ܐܕܐ‬ ܺ Where Matthew and Mark have ‫ܝܘܐ‬ ‫ܝܘܐ‬ Cf. the use of the plural ‫ ܰܕ ̈ܝ ܶܘܐ‬in Mt 12:22–30 and Lk 11:14–20 where we find the title ܶ ܰ ‫ܠܙܒܘܒ ܺܪ ܳܫܐ‬ ܽ ܶ‫ ܒܥ‬Beelzebub the Chief of Demons. ‫ܕܕ ̈ܝܘܐ‬ ܳ ܳ ܶ ܺ 94 ‫ܬܕܒܪܐ ܡܢ ܫܐܕܐ‬ ܱ ‫ ܶܡ‬Mt 15:22 has a precedent in Syrs. 93

THE COLLECTIVE AUTHORSHIP OF THE PESHITTA NEW TESTAMENT

173

ܳ ‫ ܺܫ‬for δαιμόνιον, and the same Greek noun. 95 And where Matthew and Mark have ‫ܐܕܐ‬ ܰ ܳ 96 97 in one instance δαίμων, Luke has ‫ ܕܝܘܐ‬for δαιμόνιον. Hence, in five passages, Luke ܳ ‫ ܺܫ‬where the other Synoptics have ‫ܝܘܐ‬ ܳ ‫( ܱܰܕ‬n. 95), and in three ‫ܝܘܐ‬ ܳ ‫ ܱܰܕ‬where they uses ‫ܐܕܐ‬ ܳ ܺ have ‫( ܫܐܕܐ‬n. 97). Whatever the reason, this inversion cannot be attributed to the narrative context and seems to indicate that Peshitta Luke was produced later than Matthew and Mark. In the nine instances where a Lukan δαιμόνιον does not have a term-specific Synoptic parallel (and does not occur in the Beelzebul narrative), Peܳ ‫ܫ‬. ܺ 98 shitta Luke consistently has ‫ܐܕܐ‬ The Synoptic Beelzebub narrative (Mt 12:24–28, Mk 3:22, Lk 11:15–20) is one of the two exceptions referred to in the preceding paragraph. The three Synoptic ܽ ܶ‫ ܒܥ‬Beelzebub) as the ruler of Beelzebub narratives present Βεελζεβούλ Beelzebul (‫ܠܙܒܘܒ‬ ܶ ܽ τῶν δαιμονίων the demons. Once the Syriac ‫ ܒܥܠܙܒܘܒ‬has been introduced, Peshitta Luke ܳ ‫ ܺܫ‬in ܳ ‫ ܰܕ‬and never by ‫ܐܕܐ‬ as well as Matthew and Mark render δαιμόνιον only by ‫ܝܘܐ‬ ܰ ܳ these narratives. Within this delimited context, ‫ ܱܕܝܘܐ‬functions in two ways. One is as ܶ ‫ܕܕ‬ ܰ ‫ ܺܪ ܳܫܐ‬the Chief of Demons and ‫ܠܙܒܘܒ ܺܪ ܳܫܐ‬ ܽ ܶ‫ܒܥ‬ the equivalent of δαιμόνιον in the titles ‫ܝܘ ̈ܐ‬ ܶ ‫ܕܕ‬ ܰ Beelzebub the Chief of Demons. 99 In these titles, ‫ܝܘܐ‬ ̈‫ܝܘܐ‬ ܳ ‫ ܱܰܕ‬is not merely some comprehensive term for a demon; rather it probably denotes a specific class to be distinguished from other demon nomenclature, and/or as a superior entity that includes other demonological entities. 100 If this is the case, then it functions differently from its use outside of the Peshitta Beelzebub accounts, for outside of these accounts its ܳ ‫ ܺܫ‬are employed as no more than opnarrative contexts suggest that both it and ‫ܐܕܐ‬ tional synonyms. ܳ ‫ ܱܰܕ‬functions in these Beelzebub accounts is as an The other way in which ‫ܝܘܐ‬ essential part of them, but not as part of a title. Thus, in all three Peshitta Gospels, every rendering of δαιμόνιον that functions within the account but not within a title 590 F

ܳ ‫ ܺܫ‬in Luke where Matthew and Mark have ‫ܝܘܐ‬ ܳ ‫( ܱܰܕ‬i) Lk Lk 4:41; 7:33; 9:1; 11:14, 14 (a) ‫ܐܕܐ‬ 4:41(= Mt 8:16; Mk 1:34 Healings in the Evening); (ii) Lk 9:1(the Mission of the Twelve) = Mt 10:8 (the Mission Charge) and Mk 3:15 (the Appointment of the Twelve). Mk 3:15 is understandably treated as a Synoptic parallel. Mk 6:7, the technically accurate Synoptic parallel, ܳ ܳ ܰ ܶ ܽ ܳ ‫ ܺܫ‬in Luke where Matthew has ‫ܝܘܐ‬ ܳ ‫( ܱܰܕ‬Mark does not have has ‫ܢܦܬܐ‬ ‫ ̈ܪܘܚܐ ܛ‬unclean spirits; (b) ‫ܐܕܐ‬ a parallel) (i) Lk 7:33 = Mt 11:18 (Concerning John the Baptist); (ii) Lk 11:14, 14 = Mt 9:32 (the Casting out of a Devil that was Mute; Mark does not have a parallel). 96 Δαίμων in Synoptic parallels Mt 8:31 and Mk 5:12* = δαιμόνιον in Lk 8:30. ܳ ‫ܫ‬: ܳ ‫ ܰܕ‬in Luke where Matthew and Mark have ‫ܐܕܐ‬ ܺ Lk 8:30 = Mt 8:31 97 Lk 8:30; 9:42, 49 (a) ‫ܝܘܐ‬ and Mk 5:12* (The Gadarene Demoniac); Lk 9:42 = Mt 17:18 and Mk 9:26 (the Healing of an ܳ ‫( ܺܫ‬Matthew does not have a parallel): Lk ܳ ‫ ܰܕ‬in Luke where Mark has ‫ܐܕܐ‬ Epileptic Boy); (b) ‫ܝܘܐ‬ ܳ ܺ 9:49 (see n. 82 for variant reading ‫ = )ܫܐܕܐ‬Mk 9:38 (Saying of Rebuke). 98 Lk 4:33, 35; 8:2, 29, 33, 35, 38; 10:17; 13:32. ܰ ‫ ܺܪ ܳܫܐ‬he cast out ‫ ܰܕ ̈ܝ ܶܘܐ‬demons); 99 Mt 9:34; 12:24; Mk 3:22 (‘Beelzebub is in him, and by ‫ܕܕ ̈ܝ ܶܘܐ‬ Lk 11:15. ܳ ‫ ܰܕ‬is an import from neighbouring Persia; see Old Persian daiva-, Middle 100 Etymologically, ‫ܝܘܐ‬ Persian dēw in SL, 293; Michael Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Christian Palestinian Aramaic (Louvain: 2014), 26; Claudia Ciancaglini, Iranian Loanwords in Syriac (Wiesbaden: 2008), 151; also Ernst Herzfeld, Zoroaster and His World (Princeton: 1947) vol. i, 370–9. 95

174

TERRY C. FALLA

ܱܰ For example, in Mk 3:22 “He has Beelzebub in him, and by the ܳ ‫ܕ‬. is rendered by ‫ܝܘܐ‬ ܶ ‫”)ܕ‬. ܰ chief of demons he casts out demons (‫ܝܘ ̈ܐ‬ Likewise, the Lucan parallel (Lk 11:15), ܶ ܰ ܳ ̈ instead of inverting the Marcan ‫ ܕܝܘܐ‬to ‫ ܺܫܐܕܐ‬also employs it: “By Beelzebub, the ܶ ‫”)ܕ‬. ܰ prince of demons, this man 101 casts out demons (‫ܝܘ ̈ܐ‬ A second example: Mt 12:27– ܶ ‫)ܕ‬, ܰ by whom do your followers ̈ 28 reads, “And if by Beelzebub I cast out demons (‫ܝܘܐ‬ ܰ by the Spirit of God, the kingdom of cast them out? But if I cast out demons (‫)ܕ ̈ܝ ܶܘܐ‬ God has come near you”. Again, the Lucan parallel (Lk 11:20), instead of inverting ܶ ‫ ܰܕ‬to ‫ܐܕܐ‬ ܳ ‫ܫ‬, ܺ also employs it. the Matthean ‫ܝܘ ̈ܐ‬ ܳ ‫ܱܰܕ‬ In two instances, the rendering of δαιμόνιον within a Beelzebub narrative by ‫ܝܘܐ‬ ܳ ܺ is accentuated by the presence of ‫ܫܐܕܐ‬, (which also renders δαιμόνιον) rather than by ܱܰ immediately before that narrative. The Matthean narrative begins: ܳ ‫ܕ‬, ‫ܝܘܐ‬ And all the crowds were amazed, and said, ‘Is this not the Son of David?’ ܳ ‫ܺܫ‬ But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, ‘This one is not casting out ‫ܐܕܐ‬ ܶ ܰ 102 (devils) except by Beelzebub the Chief of ‫( ܕܝܘܐ‬Demons)’. 594F

The Lucan narrative begins: ܳ ‫( ܺܫ‬devil) that was mute, it hapNow as he (Jesus) was casting out a ‫ܐܕܐ‬ ܳ ‫( ܺܫ‬devil) had gone out, the mute man spoke, and pened that when the ‫ܐܕܐ‬ the crowds were amazed. But some of them said, ‘By Beelzebub the Chief ܶ ‫( ܰܕ‬demons)’. 103 of ‫( ܕܝ ܶܘܐ‬Demons) this one is casting out ‫ܝܘܐ‬ 59F

To sum up: within the Beelzebub narrative, Peshitta Luke (Lk 11:15–20), like Matthew and Mark, identifies all demons associated with Beelzebub as ‫ܕܝ ܶܘܐ‬. The Synoptic Gadarene Demoniac narrative (Mt 8:28–34, Mk 5:1–20, Lk 8:26– 39) constitutes the second exception to the inversions discussed above. Lk 8:27 at the beginning of the account of the Gadarene Demoniac reads: When he (Jesus) came to land, a man from the town met him in whom there had ܳ ‫ܝܘܐ( ܱܕ‬ ܳ ‫ )ܕܐܝܬ ܷܒܗ ܱܕ‬for a very long time. been a ‫ܝܘܐ‬ ܻ

ܳ ‫ ܰܕ‬is exceptional for two reasons. First, its Synoptic This Peshitta Lucan use of ‫ܝܘܐ‬ ܶ ܶ ܳ parallel is ‫ ܬܪܝܢ ܴܕܝܘܢܐ‬two demoniacs in Mt 8:28, 104 which, because of its semantic closeܳ ‫ ܱܰܕ‬may perhaps be regarded as an equivalent. If this were the case, then it ness to ‫ܝܘܐ‬ departs from the Peshitta Lucan pattern that inverts the Matthean and Marcan use ܳ ‫ܫ‬. ܳ ‫ ܰܕ‬and ‫ܐܕܐ‬ ܳ ‫ ܰܕ‬as an equivܺ However, even if the Lucan translator did not see ‫ܝܘ ܳܢܐ‬ of ‫ܝܘܐ‬ ܰ ܳ alent of ‫ ܕܝܘܐ‬and therefore not to be inverted, one would, for the second reason, still

ܳ Literally ‘this one’ (‫)ܗ ܳܢܐ‬. Mt 12:24. 103 Lk 11:14–15. ܽ ܳ ‫ܘܚܐ ܰܛ‬ 104 ܳ ‫ܪ‬, ‫ܢܦܐ‬ the parallel in Mk 5:2, can be set aside. The introduction to this section on Peshitta renderings of δαιμόνιον (Rendering Δαιμομιον, Δαιμων, and Δαιμονιζομαι in the Peshitta) shows that Luke as well as the other Peshitta Gospels always translate the Greek noun πνεῦμα ܽ ܳ ‫ܪ‬, by ‫ܘܚܐ‬ irrespective of whether πνεῦμα occurs in a phrase modified by an adjectival attribute. 101 102

THE COLLECTIVE AUTHORSHIP OF THE PESHITTA NEW TESTAMENT

175

ܳ ‫ ܺܫ‬and not ‫ܝܘܐ‬ ܳ ‫ ܺܫ‬as the correspondܳ ‫ ܰܕ‬since Luke consistently employs ‫ܐܕܐ‬ expect ‫ܐܕܐ‬ ence of δαιμόνιον wherever δαιμόνιον, except in the Beelzebub narrative, does not have a term-specific Synoptic parallel. ܳ ‫ ܰܕ‬in Lk 8:27 be explained as other than an inadvertently How then might ‫ܝܘܐ‬ inconsistent occurrence, which might be expected in a major ancient version and not difficult to find in contemporary biblical translations? Could it be because it is intended to alert the reader/listener to its plural counterpart three verses later on in ܳ ‫( ܰܕ‬for δαιμόνιον) is an inversion of the narrative (vs. 30)? In this verse, the Lucan ‫ܝܘܐ‬ ܳ ܺ the Matthean and Marcan parallel ‫( ܫܐܕܐ‬for δαίμων). 105 Lk 8:30 reads: ܽ ܶ ‫’)ܠ‬, he says, because Jesus asked him, ‘What is your name’? ‘Legion (‫ܓܝܘܢ‬ many ‫ ܰܕ ̈ܝ ܶܘܐ‬had gone into him. ܳ ‫ ܰܕ‬at the beginning of the narrative sets the scene. It Understood in this way, the ‫ܝܘܐ‬ 597F

identifies for the audience the kind of demon that possesses the Gadarene demoniac, which is also in the narrative referred to, in accordance with Luke’s translational ܳ ‫ܘܚܐ ܰܛ‬ ܳ ‫( ܺܫ‬vss. 29, 33, 35, ܳ ‫ ܽܪ‬an unclean spirit (vs. 29) and ‫ܐܕܐ‬ correspondences, as ‫ܢܦܐ‬ 106 38). Lk 8: 29 reads: ܳ ‫ܘܚܐ ܰܛ‬ ܳ ‫ ܽܪ‬to come out of the man … Now he For Jesus had ordered the ‫ܢܦܐ‬ 598F

had been tied up with chains and restrained by bonds. But he had broken ܳ ‫ ܺܫ‬into the wilderness. his shackles and been driven by the ‫ܐܕܐ‬ ܳ ‫ ܺܫ‬in Peshitta Luke raises the question as to ܳ ‫ ܱܰܕ‬and ‫ܐܕܐ‬ Looking at the overall use of ‫ܝܘܐ‬

what motivated the inversion of these two terms. Why in Synoptic parallels does ܳ ‫?ܫ‬ ܳ ‫ ܰܕ‬and ‫ܐܕܐ‬ ܺ Certainly, Peshitta Luke invariably invert Matthew and Mark’s use of ‫ܝܘܐ‬ the consistency of the pattern would make it difficult to conceive of it being other than intentional. But why would a translator or editor have gone to this trouble? What emerges is that, putting aside the Beelzebub and Gadarene demoniac narraܳ ‫ ܱܰܕ‬with a semantic value that made tives, it was not because the translator invested ‫ܝܘܐ‬ ܳ ‫ ܺܫ‬as a demonic being. This is evident when ‫ܝܘܐ‬ ܳ ‫ ܱܰܕ‬in the two different it superior to ‫ܐܕܐ‬ ܳ ܺ contexts of Lk 9:42 and Lk 9:49 is compared with ‫ ܫܐܕܐ‬in passages such as Lk 4:35, 4:41, 9:1, and Lk 10:17–20. Both terms occur in comparable contexts. Furthermore, ܳ ‫ ܱܰܕ‬is both terms have a significant place in the transmission of Lk 9:49, for while ‫ܝܘܐ‬ ܳ ‫ ܺܫ‬is also well attested in both the reading of Pusey and Gwilliam’s majority text, ‫ܐܕܐ‬ Editions and codices (see n. 82). So, how might we explain this intriguing inversion? For some personal and/or professional reason, did a translator/reviser at some crucial stage in the transmission of Peshitta Luke decide, not only to consult the other Synoptics, but differ from their parallel renderings of δαιμόνιον? From the perspective of translation technique, perhaps it was because that Lucan translator/reviser sought to fulfill two complementary goals; on the one hand to produce a translation that

Mt 8:31 and Mk 5:12*. ܳ ‫ ܺܫ‬has a matching term in either Synoptic None of these four Lucan occurrences of ‫ܐܕܐ‬ parallel. All translate δαιμόνιον. All therefore accord with the Peshitta Lucan pattern of transܳ ‫ ܺܫ‬instances of δαιμόνιον that do not have a Synoptic parallel. lating by ‫ܐܕܐ‬ 105 106

176

TERRY C. FALLA

adhered to the Greek more closely than the Old Syriac had done, and on the other, as in a work of art, to create an unmistakeably personalized palette of translational colours. The Peshitta Gospels’ translation of δαιμόνιον, δαίμων, and δαιμονίζομαι reveals a trajectory of translational differences from which three patterns have merged. One is exclusive to Matthew and Mark, another to Luke, and a third to the Fourth Gospel which, unlike the three Synoptic Gospels, does agree with the Old Syriac. Peshitta ܰ 107 The one ܳ ‫ܕ‬. John translates all six occurrences of δαιμόνιον by one term only: ‫ܝܘܐ‬ ܳ ܰ ܰ it ܳ ܳ ‫ܕ‬, 108 Johannine occurrence of δαιμονίζομαι is rendered by ‫ܕܝܘܢܐ‬, though, unlike ‫ܝܘܐ‬ ܱ s lacks a witness in the Old Syriac, for which only Syr is extant. Collectively, these renderings forge further evidence of the Peshitta version’s multiple authorship. Intriguingly, they also disclose an intra-Gospel heterogeneity suggesting the order in which the Synoptics may have been produced: Matthew followed by Mark, and Luke, which through the nature of its divergences from the other two Synoptics, draws attention to its familiarity with them. Lack of Faith, Unbelief

Not all discrepancies between the Peshitta translation of a Greek noun are on the scale of those discussed above. While examples that involve only a few instances must be treated with caution, as a difference in terminology might be nothing more than a variation in lexical choice on the part of the one translator, some smaller scale discrepancies ask to be added to the list of indications of multiple authorship because of the nature of their variance. An example is the difference between Matthew and Mark’s translation of the five occurrences of ἀπιστία, lack of faith, unbelief. 109 Matܳ ܽ ܳ ܰ ܽ ܽ ‫ܝܡ‬ ܽ ‫ ܰܚ ܺܣ‬. Accentuating this difference ܳ ‫ܝܪܘܬ ܰܗ‬ thew uses ‫ܢܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܠܐ ܗܝܡ‬ ܴ . Mark prefers ‫ܬܗܘܢ‬ ‫ܢܘ‬ is the fact that two of the references, Mt 13:58 and Mk 6:6, are Synoptic parallels. The Old Syriac versions do not share the Peshitta’s consistency in either Gospel, and in Matthew use different terms from the Peshitta in both verses. Peshitta Matthew Translation of Νομικός (Lawyer)

This next comparison is as small as a sole fossilized footprint, but may be a further example of Peshitta Matthew and Luke’s divergence from each other. Mt 22:35, not indebted to the readings of either of the Old Syriac versions, distinguishes between νομικός legal expert, lawyer (which does not occur elsewhere in this Gospel) and ܳ ‫ܡ‬ ܽ ‫ܕܝ ܰܕܥ ܳܢ‬ ܳ γραμματεύς legal scholar, teacher of the law. Matthew renders νομικός by ‫ܘܣܐ‬ ܳ ܳ who knew the law and γραμματεύς by the noun ‫ ܣܦܪܐ‬scribe, lawyer, teacher of the law. Matthew unites with the three other Gospels in translating all but one occurrence of

Jn 7:20; 8:48, 49, 52; 10:20, 21. Jn 10:21. 109 Mt 13:58; 17:20; Mk 6:6; 9:24; 16:14. 107 108

THE COLLECTIVE AUTHORSHIP OF THE PESHITTA NEW TESTAMENT

177

ܳ ܳ 110 γραμματεύς by ‫ܣܦܪܐ‬. By contrast, Peshitta Luke does not adopt Matthew’s distincܳ tion but employs ‫ ܳܣܦܪܐ‬to render all occurrences of both Greek terms. In consequence, ܳ ܳ ‫ܡ‬ ܽ ‫ܕܝ ܰܕܥ ܳܢ‬ ܳ its Synoptic parallel in Mt 22:35. ‫ ܳܣܦܪܐ‬translates νομικός in Lk 10:25 and ‫ܘܣܐ‬ Νομικός does not occur in Mark or John. Matthean Hands and Lucan Arms

Mt 4:6 and its Synoptic parallel Lk 4:11 include a quotation from Ps 91:11–12 referring to the protection of angels. Peshitta Luke, in agreement with the Peshitta Old ܳ Testament, has the phrase “and on ‫( ܪܥܰܝ ܽܗ ̈ܘܢ‬their arms) they will bear you up”, thus disagreeing with the Greek which has χειρῶν hands in both Gospels and with Syrs ܰ ܻ‫( ܐ‬their hands). Whether Lu(Syrc is lacunose) which, following the Greek, has ‫ܝܕ ̈ܝ ܽܗܘܢ‬ ܳ ̈ ̈ ܰ ܰ c ܽ ܽ can Syr had ‫( ܪܥܝܗܘܢ‬their arms) or ‫( ܐܻ ܝܕܝܗܘܢ‬their hands), the fact remains that Peshitta Luke chose to depart from the Greek and adopt the reading of the Peshitta Old Testament. In doing so, Luke also disagrees with Peshitta Matthew which follows the ܰ ܻ‫( ܐ‬their hands–codices 2 and 40 have the variant ‫) ܳܪܥܰܝ ̈ܽܗܘܢ‬. The MatGreek with ‫ܝܕܝ ܽܗ ̈ܘܢ‬ ܽ ܰ‫( ܳܪܥ‬their arms) so, based on their witness, it seems thean texts of Syrsc both have ‫ܝܗ ̈ܘܢ‬ likely that Peshitta Matthew departed from the Old Syriac to revise the text in favour of the Greek. It is an interesting series of opposites. Both Peshitta Gospels disagree with Syrsc, albeit that Syrs is extant only for Luke. In doing so, Peshitta Luke departs from its Greek base, perhaps from the Old Syriac, becomes distinguished from Peshitta Matthew, and perhaps knowingly aligns itself with the Peshitta Old Testament. Whether or not part of Luke’s intention was to be distinguished from Matthew, it is another instance of these two Gospels differing from each other in a distinctive context.

PESHITTA RENDERINGS OF GREEK VERBS

The Peshitta Gospels frequently differ in their translation of Greek verbs. However, those differences often replicate the Old Syriac, or the Old Syriac is lacunose and does not permit the kind of comparison that allows one to conclude that the differences are due to different translators. The following four renderings have been selected for what insight they impart about the Peshitta’s collective authorship. Άποδημέω (Leave One’s Locality)

The Greek verb ἀποδημέω (“travel away from one’s domicile,” “go away from one’s locality”, 111 “implying for a considerable period of time and at quite a distance” 112) go on a trip, take a trip, leave occurs six times in the New Testament: three in Matthew (Mt 21:33; 25:14, 15), once in Mark (Mk 12:1) and twice in Luke (Lk 15:13; 20:9).

ܺ The exception is Mt 21:15 which has the Diatessaron reading ‫ ܦܪ ̈ܝ ܶܫܐ‬the Pharisees. BDAG, 109; CGEL, 45. 112 GEL, §15.47. 110 111

178

TERRY C. FALLA

Three of these instances are Synoptic parallels. 113 Peshitta Matthew and Mark translate all five occurrences by Peal ‫ ܚܙܩ‬go away, go on a journey, go abroad. 114 Peshitta Luke has two correspondences. For its Synoptic parallel in Lk 20:9 it has Aphel ‫ܒܥܕ‬ go abroad, go far away, stay far away, 115 and for the other occurrence in Lk 15:13 it uses Peal ‫ ܐܙܠ‬go away. All three Peshitta Synoptics disagree with the Old Syriac (though the latter is lacunose for Syrc of Mark). Significantly, the Lucan Aphel ‫ ܒܥܕ‬is a hapax legomenon in the Peshitta New Testament and never occurs in the Old Syriac Gospels. In classical Syriac literature, the Aphel ‫ ܒܥܕ‬has more than one connotation. Michael Sokoloff’s A Syriac Lexicon glosses this verb simply as “to depart”, 116 but that would seem to underestimate a far more nuanced meaning as indicated by the lexica of Robert Payne Smith and his daughter (n. 115). Thus, we may translate it in its Lucan context as “and he went abroad for a ܳ long time” (‫ܓ ܳܝܐܐ‬ ܻ ‫) ܰܘܐܒܥܶܕ ܰܙܒܢܐ ܰܣ‬. Following the Greek, the Synoptic parallels Mt 21:33 and Mk 12:1 do not have the qualification “for a long time”, but end with the verb: ܰ ܰ ‫”)ܘ‬. “and he went away/went abroad (‫ܚܙܩ‬ While the Aphel ‫ ܒܥܕ‬is well attested in classical Syriac literature, it appears not to have been as widely used as the Peal ‫;ܚܙܩ‬ Luke would seem to have introduced it either as a rarer synonym and/or a more nuanced alternative. Once more, as a translation, Luke stands apart from the other Synoptics, and again, as a New Testament hapax legomenon, this rendering has that seeming touch of individuality. Λέγω in the Passive with the Meaning ‘Be Called’

The Fourth Gospel is the only Peshitta New Testament book to employ Ethpeel ‫ܐܡܪ‬ with the meaning ‘be called, named’; for example, “Thomas, who is called the Twin”. 117 Five of the six instances (Jn 11:16; 19:17; 20:16, 24; 21:2) render the passive of Greek verb λέγω. The sixth (Jn 19:13) lacks a Greek correspondence. Regrettably there is no access to Syrc for any of these occurrences, nor Syrs for two of them. 118 However, what makes this Johannine use notable is that in the four instances for which Syrs is extant it omits the underlying Greek phrase concerned. 119 Furthermore, even if the missing Syrc version supported the Peshitta in all instances, Peshitta John would remain a witness to this unique use in the Peshitta New Testament as the other Peshitta Synoptic Gospels prefer Ethpeel ‫ܩܪܐ‬.

Mt 21:33; Mk 12:1; Lk 20:9. ܰ ‫ ܱܕ‬who went on a journey Mk 13:34. Cf. ἀπόδημος rendered by ‫ܚܙܩ‬ 115 Jessie Payne Smith, ed., A Compendious Syriac Dictionary (Oxford: 1903; repr. Winona Lake: 1998), 50; Payne Smith, Thesaurus Syriacus, vol. i, col. 559. 116 Sokoloff, Syriac Lexicon, 168. 117 Jn 11:16. 118 Jn 19:13, 17. 119 Jn 11:16; 20:16, 24; 21:2. 113 114

THE COLLECTIVE AUTHORSHIP OF THE PESHITTA NEW TESTAMENT

179

Γονυπετέω (kneel down [before] …)

The Greek verb γονυπετέω kneel down (before) occurs four times in the Greek New Testament, twice in Matthew and in Mark respectively: in supplication Mt 17:14; Mk 1:40; in respectful gesture Mk 10:17; and in feigned display of respect Mt 27:29. 120 Peshitta Matthew and Mark use markedly different expressions to translate this Greek verb. Matthew employs Peal ‫ ܒܪܟ‬kneel, bow down, bend the knee, followed by ܶ ܰ ܰ ܽ ‫ܒܪܟܘ ܥܰܠ ܽܒܘ̈ܪ ܱܟ‬ ‫ܘܗܝ‬ they knelt down Mt 27:29. ̱ ‫ ܒܪܟ ܥܠ ܽܒܘ̈ܪ ܱܟ‬he knelt down Mt 17:14; ‫ܝܗܘܢ‬ Mark has Peal ‫ ܢܦܠ‬fall in both instances, but follows it with two different qualifying ܰ ܰ ܰ phrases. One is ‫ܘܗܝ‬ ̱ ‫ ܥܠ ܽܒܘ̈ܪ ܱܟ‬on his knees, as used by Matthew: ‫ܘܗܝ‬ ̱ ‫ ܢܦܠ ܥܠ ܽܒܘ̈ܪ ܱܟ‬he fell on ܰ ܶ ܰ ܰ ܶ ܰ ̈ ̈ ܰ his knees Mk 10:17; the other being ‫ ܥܠ ܪܓܠܘ ̱ܗܝ‬at his feet in ‫ ܢܦܠ ܥܠ ܪܓܠܘ ̱ܗܝ‬he fell at his feet Mk 1:40. All three idioms have a precedent in the Old Syriac. In Mt 17:14, howܶ ܰ ܰ ܰ ever, both Syrs and Syrc have ‫ܘܗܝ‬ ̱ ‫ ܢܦܠ ܥܠ ܽܒܘ̈ܪ ܱܟ‬he fell on his knees, and not ‫ܒܪܟ ܥܠ‬ ‫ܘܗܝ‬ ̱ ‫ ܽܒܘ̈ܪ ܱܟ‬he knelt down. This Peshitta reading therefore shows itself to be independent of the Old Syriac and thereby, whether consciously or unconsciously, makes its two readings internally consistent. By contrast, Peshitta Mark retains the two differing idioms of the Marcan Old Syriac and thereby in this instance, whether intentionally or unintentionally, sets itself apart from Peshitta Matthew. ʾΩφελέω (help, benefit)

Peshitta Mt 16:26, Mk 8:36, and Lk 9:25 are Synoptic parallels in which the Greek verb ὠφελέω (provide assistance: help, aid, benefit, be of use [to] …) is translated by two different verbs. Matthew, following Syrc (Syrs is lacunose), has Ethpaal (or Ethpeel) ‫( ܗܢܐ‬obtain or secure something desired: gain, profit): 121 “what does a person gain if they win the whole world and lose their life.” The difference between Matthew and the other Synoptics is accentuated as this verb never occurs in the other three Gospels but is used in the Ethpeel conjugation in Mt 15:5 where it has the same meaning, translates the same Greek verb, and again has a witness in the Old Syriac (Syrsc). The only other occurrence of this verb in the Peshitta New Testament is in 1 Cor 15:32 where the meaning is the same. 122 In contrast to Peshitta Matthew Ethpaal ‫ܗܢܐ‬, Mark and Luke have Ethpaal ‫ܥܕܪ‬ (be to the advantage or profit of …). Just as Peshitta Mark and Luke never employ Ethpaal ‫ܗܢܐ‬, so Peshitta Matthew and (as far as is known) the Old Syriac 123 never use Ethpaal ‫ܥܕܪ‬. Furthermore, there are only two other occurrences of Ethpaal ‫ ܥܕܪ‬in the Peshitta New Testament, one in Mark and one in Hebrews, 124 both translating ὠφελέω. For the Marcan reading, Syrs has Ethpeel or Ethpaal ‫( ܗܢܐ‬Syrc is lacunose), the same as Peshitta Matthew. For Luke, Syrsc have Aphel ‫( ܝܬܪ‬gain, gain advantage, benefit). While Peshitta Luke does not use this verb in this instance, the Gospel does 613F

614 F

Quoted from CGEL, 81. On the question of whether the conjugation is Ethpaal or Ethpeel see KPG, vol. ii, 38. ܺ ‫ ܳܡ ܳܢܐ ܶܐ‬what did I gain? translates τί μοι τὸ ὄφελος. 122 ‫ܬܗܢܝܬ‬ 123 See Lund, The Old Syriac Gospel. 124 Mk 5:26; Heb 13:9. 120 121

180

TERRY C. FALLA

use it elsewhere. Moreover, it is not unfamiliar to Peshitta Matthew and some other books of the Peshitta New Testament. 125 These patterns of Ethpaal ‫ ܗܢܐ‬in Peshitta Matthew and Ethpaal ‫ ܥܕܪ‬in Peshitta Mark and Luke as renderings of ὠφελέω and the nature of the relationship of these Gospels to the surviving Old Syriac, point to predilections for one verb over another, apparently intentional choices of vocabulary, and exhibit yet another indication of multiple authorship.

PESHITTA PARTICLES

Were the Peshitta New Testament’s renderings of Greek particles investigated in detail they would almost certainly disclose a treasure trove of translational differences between books. This section uses the lexical entries in KPG to examine 4 particles: ܰ ܶ ‫ܗ ܺܟܝܠ‬, ܰ ܳ ‫ܒܪܡ‬, ‫ܕܝܢ‬, and ‫ܟܝ‬. Background of ‫ ܷܕܝܢ‬in Syriac Grammars, Lexica, and Critical Editions of the Greek New Testament

Aaron Butts showed in a recent article that the Syriac ‫ ܷܕܝܢ‬has a long linguistic history and “is not a loanword from Greek.” 126 That, however, is not the way this conjunctive adverb has been portrayed in the past. Before turning to the way Peshitta translators employ ‫ ܷܕܝܢ‬, it might be helpful to outline how this particle, along with the conjunctive adverb ‫ ܶܓܝܪ‬with which it is often associated, has been presented in Syriac grammars, lexica, and critical editions of the Greek New Testament, and thus the assumptions that have been made about these two particles. As discussed by Wido van Peursen and Terry C. Falla, Syriac ‫ ܶܓܝܪ‬and Greek γάρ, and Syriac ‫ ܷܕܝܢ‬and Greek δέ have perhaps always been recognized as formal and syntactical equivalents. 127 Yet Syriac grammars and lexica continue to promulgate the view that they are also functional and semantic equivalents, a perception that has continued from one generation to the next, helping to shape the way the functions and meanings of ‫ ܶܓܝܪ‬and ‫ ܷܕܝܢ‬are understood. This is evident in some grammars and lexica from the nineteenth century

Mt 27:24; Lk 9:17; 19:16; Jn 12:19; Acts 19:24; Rom 9:29; 1 Cor 14:6; 1 Tim 4:8; Titus 3:8; Heb 4:2. 126 Aaron Michael Butts, “Between Aramaic *’idhayn and Greek δε: The Linguistic History of Syriac den”, Syriac in its Multi-cultural Context (Louvain: 2017), 17–30, esp. 29. 127 Wido van Peursen and Terry C. Falla, “The Particles ‫ ܶܓܝܪ‬and ‫ ܶܕܝܢ‬in Classical Syriac: Syntactic and Semantic Aspects” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography II, Peter J. Williams, ed. (Piscataway, NJ: 2009), 78–92; see also Patrick B. Pearson, Syriac Rhetorical Particles: Variable Second-Position Clitic Placement, BYU Scholars Archive, https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/5640, 2015, esp. §2.5.3. 125

THE COLLECTIVE AUTHORSHIP OF THE PESHITTA NEW TESTAMENT

181

to the present that treat either one or both of these Syriac particles as Greek loanwords, ‫ ܶܓܝܪ‬from γάρ and ‫ ܷܕܝܢ‬from δέ. 128 In some notable instances, ‫ ܶܓܝܪ‬and ‫ ܷܕܝܢ‬are not listed as though they were loanwords, but γάρ and δέ are alone listed as their respective equivalents. 129 These resources contribute significantly to the virtual consensus among standard Syriac works that Syriac ‫ ܶܓܝܪ‬is to be identified with Greek γάρ and Syriac ‫ ܷܕܝܢ‬with Greek δέ. This consensus is reinforced by Theodor Nöldeke’s comment that “‫ ܶܓܝܪ‬and ‫ܕܝܢ‬,ܷ are genuine Syriac words which, however, have been employed almost entirely to imitate γάρ and δέ” (emphasis added). 130 More recently James F. Coakley noted in his 2002 revision of Robinson’s primer that ‫ ܶܓܝܪ‬is “like Greek γάρ” and ‫“ ܷܕܝܢ‬like Greek δέ” and Barbara Jändl commented that “Die Konjunktion gēr wird im Syrischen ganz nach dem Muster der griechischen Partikel γάρ gebraucht.” 131 Otto Klein breaks this cycle when he correctly cites οὖν as a correspondence of ‫ܷܕܝܢ“[ ܷܕܝܢ‬ οὖν”] but is misleading in that he makes it seem as if οὖν is the only correspondence in the corpus he treats. 132 Other widely used grammars of this period and lexical works from Carl Brockelmann to the present have similar comments that identify ‫ܶܓܝܪ‬ with γάρ and ‫ ܷܕܝܢ‬with δέ. Eberhard Nestle, for instance, has “‫ ܶܓܝܪ‬γάρ nemlich; namely, for” and “‫ ܷܕܝܢ‬δέ, aber, nämlich; but, for”, George Phillips, “‫ ܶܓܝܪ‬γάρ for” and “‫ ܷܕܝܢ‬δέ but”, and—with reference to ‫ ܶܓܝܪ‬only—Rubens Duval has “‫ ܶܓܝܪ‬ou ‫ ܶܓܪ‬γάρ”, and Steven C.

‫ ܶܓܝܪ‬William Jennings, Lexicon to the Syriac New Testament, rev. Ulric Gantillon (Oxford: 1962); Henry F. Whish, Clavis Syriaca (London: 1883; Cambridge: 1883), 11, does not list ‫ܷܕܝܢ‬ as a loanword in that he has the qualifying comment “‫ܕܝܢ‬,ܷ the same as the Gr. δέ, used in the same way and signification.” Both ‫ ܶܓܝܪ‬and ‫ܕܝܢ‬:ܷ Moshe H. Goshen-Gottstein, A Syriac-English Glossary with Etymological Notes (Wiesbaden: 1970), 13 and 16; Eberhard Nestle, Syriac Grammar with bibliography, chrestomathy and glossary, tr. R. S. Kennedy, 2nd edn. (London: 1889), 144 and 147; Massimo Pazzini, Lessico Concordanziale del Nuovo Testamento Siriaco (Jerusalem: 2004), 68 and 83; George Phillips, The Elements of Syriac Grammar (Cambridge: 1837), 100– 1, George Phillips, Syriac Grammar (London: 1866), 134; Payne Smith, Compendious Syriac Dictionary, 69 and Payne Smith, Thesaurus Syriacus, 90. 129 ‫ = ܶܓܝܪ‬γάρ: Carl Brockelmann, ‘Glossar,’ 158, in Syrische Grammatik (Leipzig: 1960); Costaz, Dictionnaire Syriaque-Français, 47; Benjamin Harris Cowper, The Principals of Syriac Grammar, tr. and abr. from the work of Hoffmann (Leipzig: 1858), 86; Steven C. Hallam, Basics of Classical Syriac: Complete Grammar, Workbook, and Lexicon (Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2016), 307; Otto Klein, Syrisch-Griechisches Wörterbuch (Giessen: 1916), 37; ‫ = ܶܓܝܪ‬γάρ and ‫ = ܷܕܝܢ‬δέ: Brockelmann, Lexicon Syriacum, 114 and 151; James F. Coakley, Robinson’s Paradigms and Exercises in Syriac Grammar (Oxford: 2003), 152–3; Theodor Nöldeke, Compendious Syriac Grammar, tr. J. A. Crichton (London: 1904), 101; and Ludovico Palacios, Grammatica Syriaca, 2nd edn. (Rome/New York: 1954), 242 and 243. 130 Nöldeke, Compendious Syriac Grammar, 101, n. 1. 131 Coakley, Robinson’s Syriac Grammar, 152–3; Barbara Jändl, “Die syrischen Konjunktionen und Partikeln kād, w-, dēn und gēr” in Neue Beiträge zur Semitistik, Norbert Nebes, ed. (Wiesbaden: 2002), 89. 132 Otto Klein, Syrisch-Griechisches Wörterbuch (Giessen: 1916), 40. 128

182

TERRY C. FALLA

Hallam, as recently as 2016, “‫ ܶܓܝܪ‬ger for (Gk. γάρ)”. 133 In his Evangelion daMepharreshê, Burkitt has the notation “‫( ܷܕܝܢ‬i.e. δέ).” 134 Brockelmann notes only one Greek equivalent, δέ for ‫ ܷܕܝܢ‬and for ‫ ܶܓܝܪ‬Klein cites only γάρ. 135 Even Massimo Pazzini’s ܶ 136 and more recent lexical work has the unqualified comment “Gr. γάρ” under ‫ܓܝܪ‬, 137 his entry on ‫ ܷܕܝܢ‬the comment, “Ha un uso simile al greco δέ.” The assumption of equivalence between the Syriac and the Greek also underlies the sometimes-erroneous citation of ‫ ܶܓܝܪ‬and ‫ ܷܕܝܢ‬as witnesses to γάρ and δέ in modern editions of the Greek New Testament, from Constantinus Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum Graece (1869–1872) to Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece (NA27, 1993). One of numerous examples is ‫ ܷܕܝܢ‬cited as a witness to δέ against οὖν—which is frequently rendered by ‫ ܷܕܝܢ‬or ‫ܘ‬, or is absorbed into the translation without a specific equivalent, especially in the Peshitta text of John (see below Peshitta Johannine Rendering of Οὖν)—Jn 3:25 in Alford, 138 Tischendorf, Heinrich J. Vogels, Novum Testamentum Graece et Latina, 139 many places in von Soden, 140 and Jn 13:22 in Alford, Tischendorf, von Soden, Nestle-Aland27, Aland’s SFG, and Aland’s SQE. Another example is Tregelles’ treatment of οὖν in Jn 5:18. The Peshitta has ‫ܘ‬, which proves itself to be a frequent and genuine correspondence of the Johannine οὖν. However, Tregelles does not cite the Peshitta ‫ ܘ‬as a witness to οὖν but retroverts ‫ ܷܕܝܢ‬in Syrc to δέ, which lacks a witness in the Greek. He thereby identifies ‫ ܷܕܝܢ‬with δέ rather than with οὖν, although ‫ܕܝܢ‬,ܷ like ‫ܘ‬, proves itself to be a frequent and considered correspondence of the Johannine οὖν. 141 A third example is ‫ ܷܕܝܢ‬cited as a witness to δέ against 629F

Eberhard Nestle, Syriac Grammar with bibliography, chrestomathy and glossary, tr. R. S. Kennedy (2nd edn., London: 1889), 144 and 147; Phillips, The Elements of Syriac Grammar, 100– 1, Phillips, Syriac Grammar, 134; Rubens Duval, Traité de grammaire syriaque: écriture, phonétique, orthographie les parties du discours et les formes des mots syntaxe, index des mots (Amsterdam: 1969), 285; Hallam, Basics of Classical Syriac, 307. 134 Burkitt, Evangelion da-Mepharreshê, 89. For Burkitt’s comment in its context see n. 171. 135 Brockelmann, Lexicon Syriacum, 151; Klein, Syrisch-Griechisches Wörterbuch, 37. For analyܶ 78– sis of ‫ ܶܓܝܪ‬as a translation of the Greek see Peursen and Falla, “The Particles ‫ ܶܓܝܪ‬and ‫”ܕܝܢ‬, 86. 136 Pazzini, Lessico Concordanziale del Nuovo Testamento Siriaco, 68. 137 Pazzini, Lessico Concordanziale del Nuovo Testamento Siriaco, 83. 138 Henry Alford, The Greek New Testament, vol. i, 6th edn. (Cambridge: 1868). 139 Heinrich J. Vogels, Novum Testamentum Graece et Latina, 4th edn. (Freiburg: 1955). 140 Jn 4:1, 45; 5:19; 6:14, 15; 7:11, 40; 8:12; 10:7; 11:33; 18:10, 28, 29, 33; 19:8, 30, 31; 20:6, 21, 30; 21:7, 13, 15. 141 Cf. the citation of the Johannine ‫ ܘ‬as a witness to δέ and καί against οὖν in von Soden (a) δέ against οὖν Jn 4:52, 53; 5:18; 6:5, 13, 19, 24, 60, 67; 7:25, 30, 43; 9:15; 11:3, 41, 45, 47, 56; 12:17; 18:6, 25; 19:20, 32, 40; 20:2, 3, 10, 11, 20; 21:7, 23; (b) καί against οὖν Jn 5:10; 13:27; 21:3. Tischendorf, unlike von Soden, does not cite ‫ ܘ‬as a witness to δέ and καί against οὖν. In some instances, he differentiates between ‫ ܘ‬and οὖν: Jn 4:52; 6:13, 67; 7:25, 30; 12:17; 18:25; 20:20. 133

THE COLLECTIVE AUTHORSHIP OF THE PESHITTA NEW TESTAMENT

183

καί—even though ‫ ܷܕܝܢ‬proves itself to be a frequent and genuine Peshitta Gospel correspondence of καί 142—Mk 4:1 in von Soden and Legg, 143 Mk 4:5; 11:8; 13:11, 12 in Alford, Legg, and Tregelles, Lk 2:25; 23:35 in The New Testament in Greek: The Gospel according to St. Luke 144, and Lk 7:40 in von Soden and IGNTP. Another example is ‫ܶܓܝܪ‬ which renders δέ in Mt 23:12. As they do not acknowledge that ‫ ܶܓܝܪ‬is sometimes the correspondence of δέ (cf. Lk 2:44; 4:25; 12:48), Tischendorf, Tregelles, von Soden, ܶ and IGNTP assume that the Greek equivalent is γάρ. One further example is ‫ܓܝܪ‬ ܶ which renders ὅτι in Lk 2:11. IGNTP does not recognize that ‫ ܓܝܪ‬corresponds to ὅτι (cf. Lk 6:19; 16:8; 18:14; Jn 5:30; 8:20) assuming that ὅτι is omitted in the Peshitta. 145 ܶ and δέ In Syriac translations of Greek works, γάρ is frequently rendered by ‫ܓܝܪ‬, by ‫ܕܝܢ‬,ܷ but to conclude that the Syriac is virtually exclusively dependent on the two Greek particles in question is an erroneous assumption in both Syriac and Greek scholarship. It is to deracinate these Syriac words, along with the particle ‫( ܘ‬a frequent and accurate correspondence of the Johannine οὖν) from their linguistic soil. Neither translationally, nor lexically, can ‫ ܶܓܝܪ‬and ‫ ܷܕܝܢ‬be justifiably presented in a manner that suggests that they are respectively to be equated with γάρ and δέ. Translational Characteristics of ‫ ܷܷܕܝܢ‬in the Peshitta Gospels The entry in KPG shows that the Syriac ‫ ܶܓܝܪ‬οften has no connection with the Greek γάρ, nor ‫ ܷܕܝܢ‬with the Greek δέ in the Peshitta Gospels. The following analysis focuses on the differences between the Gospels in their treatment of ‫ܕܝܢ‬.ܷ excluding Peshitta Syriac variant readings in Pusey and Gwilliam, Tetraeuangelium Sanctum. 146 From a semantic, linguistic, lexicographical, and concordantial perspective, analysing usage KPG, vol. i, 127–30. Stanley C. E. Legg, Novum Testamentum Graece, secundum Textum Westcotto-Hortianum, Evangelium secundum Marcum (Oxford: 1935). 144 The American and British Committees of the International Greek New Testament Project, eds., The New Testament in Greek: The Gospel according to St. Luke. Part One. Chapters 1–12 (Oxford: 1984); Part Two. Chapters 12–24 (Oxford: 1987) [hereafter IGNTP]. 145 For examples of the comparable misuse of ‫ ܶܓܝܪ‬as a witness to γάρ against a correct correspondence see the entry for ‫ ܶܓܝܪ‬in KPG, vol. i, 110. This can be achieved by comparing Greek correspondences other than γάρ with their citation in critical editions of the Greek New Testament. 146 The analysis of the primary part of the entry on ‫ ܷܕܝܢ‬in KPG, vol. i, 128, demonstrates that such variants are too few or too slightly supported to alter the identified patterns; only six have the support of more than one codex: (a) ‫ ܶܓܝܪ‬for ‫ ܷܕܝܢ‬Mt 19:30 (codices 13, 17, 21); Mk 6:44 (codices 2, 11, 23, 36); 9:41 (codices 7, 12, 19, 36, 37, Edd.); 10:31 (codices 23, 26); Lk 6:41 (Sch. W); 7:47 (1, 11, 23, 26)—other variants with support of only one codex: Mt 8:11; 12:7; 20:17; 22:31; 23:11; 24:6; 26:29; Mk 15:6; Lk 1:6; 24:21; (b) ‫ ܘ‬for ‫ ܷܕܝܢ‬Mt 20:2 (codex 20); (c) ‫ܷܕܝܢ‬ omitted Mt 10:13 (Edd., Mas. 1), 23 (Sch., W); 25:29 (codices 13, 17, 23); Mk 16:17 (Mas. 2); Lk 3:1 (codices 14, 21); 10:41 (codices 6, 8, 40); 12:2 (7, 11); 22:28 (codices 7, 36, 37, Edd.), 51 (Sch., W); Jn 3:19 (10, 36); 6:71 (Sch., W); 11:49 (Bar-Heb. ap. Jon. et Schw.)—other variants with support of only one codex: Mt 13:39; 20:23; 21:28; Mk 10:24; 13:2; Lk 7:40; 9:61; 12:20; 22:70; Jn 2:6; 9:31; 10:7. 142 143

184

TERRY C. FALLA

of ‫ ܷܷܕܝܢ‬in the Peshitta Gospels is akin to uncovering personal and perhaps unconscious lexical signatures on the part of the translators. Overall, the translational patterns that are exhibited are quite different from the presentation of this conjunctive adverb in the Old Syriac Gospels. Peshitta Matthew: δέ is overwhelmingly the Greek equivalent of ‫ܕܝܢ‬.ܷ In only nine out of three-hundred and thirty-four instances does ‫ ܷܕܝܢ‬not correspond to δέ. Three do not have a correspondence in the Greek. 147 Peshitta Mark and Luke: In numerous instances, ‫ ܷܷܕܝܢ‬has a term other than δέ as its underlying Greek correspondence in Peshitta Mark and Luke. Taking Greek variant readings into account, Mark renders δέ by a term other than ‫ ܷܷܕܝܢ‬in twenty-four to thirty-two instances out of a total of one-hundredand-sixty-four, and Luke in twenty-eight to thirty-seven instances out of a total of threehundred-and-eighteen. Most of these Marcan and Lucan instances translate καί. 148 By contrast, with only two certain exceptions, 149 καί is never rendered by ‫ ܷܕܝܢ‬in Matthew and John. 150 More specifically, Marcan ‫ ܷܕܝܢ‬translates καί in twenty-one to twenty-eight places, and Lucan ‫ ܷܕܝܢ‬in nineteen to twenty-eight places. These renderings underscore not only a difference between these two Synoptics and Matthew and John, but also a further difference between Luke and the other two Synoptics. If in Luke instances are excluded where the Greek behind the Peshitta ‫ ܷܷܕܝܢ‬could conceivably be either καί or δέ, and included where καί is the only possibility. With two exceptions, 151 640F

643F

‫ = ܷܕܝܢ‬γάρ Mt 26:12; = καί Mt 10:14; = καί ἰδού Mt 9:3; = οὖν Mt 12:12; πλήν Mt 18:7; 26:64 (see Peshitta New Testament Renderings of Πλήν below); n.c. Mt 4:2; 7:16; 11:21. 148 BDAG, 494, notes that in the Greek New Testament, “[T]he vivacious versatility of κ[αί] (for earlier Gr, s. Denniston, The Greek Particles, 289–327) can easily be depressed by the tr. ‘and’, whose repetition in a brief area of text lacks the support of arresting aspects of Gr. Syntax.” The same can be said regarding the Syriac New Testament ‫ܘ‬, and the translation of ‫ ܷܕܝܢ‬which, to use BDAG’s expression, ‘can easily be depressed’ by resorting only or primarily to the translation ‘and’ or ‘but’. 149 Mt 10:14; Jn 1:24 (Mt 9:4 and Jn 20:4 are also possibilities, but in both instances ‫ ܷܕܝܢ‬may render the variant reading δέ). 150 For references for this section see the lexical entry on ‫ ܷܕܝܢ‬in KPG, vol. i, 127–30 which includes cross-references to collocations of which ‫ ܷܕܝܢ‬is part. 151 Lk 8:43 is parallel to Mt 9:20 and Mk 5:25, and Lk 20:19 to Mt 21:46 and Mk 12:12. Lk 23:35 might also be considered as parallel to Mk 15:29, though, except for καί, the wording differs. Moreover, Lk 23:35 and Mk 15:29 differ in their rendering of καί. Lk 23:35 has ‫ ܷܕܝܢ‬only (majority text), or ‫ ܷܕܝܢ‬... ‫( ܘ‬Raph. ap. Sch., Pusey and Gwilliam, Tetraeuangelium Sanctum, 468), unless in the case of the latter only one of the two particles is seen as the equivalent of καί and the other as an addition. Mk 15:29 has the conjunctive compound ‫ ܷܕܝܢ‬... ‫ ܘ( ܳܘܐܦ‬is omitted by codex 15, Pusey and Gwilliam, Tetraeuangelium Sanctum, 306). The Old Syriac attests only to ‫( ܘ‬Lk 23:35 Syrsc; Mk 15:29 Syrs[c], which omits the initial clause and prefixes ‫ ܘ‬to the ܺ ‫)ܡܓ‬. ܰ participle ‫ܕܦܝܢ‬ 147

THE COLLECTIVE AUTHORSHIP OF THE PESHITTA NEW TESTAMENT

185

every one of the eighteen instances 152 is in a passage, or sentence, or in one instance in a phrase, 153 unique to the Lucan Gospel—that is, in a passage with no parallel in Matthew or Mark. Why the Lucan translator should render καί by ‫ ܷܕܝܢ‬only in passages that are purely Lucan is a puzzle. Numerically, it is a noticeable translational feature and seems to be yet a further mark of this Peshitta Gospel’s individuality. By contrast, most of Mark’s twenty-one occurrences of ‫ ܷܕܝܢ‬that translate καί—again excluding instances where the Greek behind the Peshitta ‫ ܷܕܝܢ‬could conceivably be either καί or δέ—do have a Synoptic parallel, 154 but they do not exhibit a pattern of relationship with Matthew. In terms of translation, these occurrences distinguish Mark from the other Gospels. Peshitta John: the usage of ‫ ܷܷܕܝܢ‬differs from ‫ ܷܷܕܝܢ‬in the Synoptic Gospels more than they differ from each other. Johannine ‫ ܷܷܕܝܢ‬has five Greek correspondences—δέ, καί, τέ, μέντοι, and οὖν —with no Greek correspondence in eight instances. 155 64F

647 F

•

δέ, one of the most common Greek particles, used to connect one clause to another, either to express simple continuation or contrast, 156 underlies approximately three-quarters of the two-hundred-and-fifty occurrences of the Johannine ‫ܕܝܢ‬.ܷ 157 The fact that a quarter of the occurrences of the Johannine ‫ ܷܕܝܢ‬do not translate δέ distinguishes this Gospel from Matthew, in which, as we have seen, δέ is overwhelmingly the Greek term underlying ‫ܕܝܢ‬.ܷ

•

καί, the most frequent of all Greek particles in the New Testament, is translated in only one, or perhaps two instances by the Johannine ‫ܕܝܢ‬.ܷܷ 158 This characteristic stands in contrast to Mark and Luke in which καί is a significant correspondence of ‫ܕܝܢ‬.ܷ

Lk 1:7, 21, 25, 33; 2:51, 52; 3:23; 4:12, 20; 5:10(2°); 7:40, 49; 8:43; 16:15(1°); 19:7; 20:19; 23:35, 50. The Old Syriac differs markedly from Peshitta Luke. In eleven instances (four of which are lacunose in Syrc), it either omits καί or has ‫ ܘ‬rather than ‫ܕܝܢ‬:ܷ Lk 4:12 Syrs[c], 20 Syrs[c]; 5:10(2°) Syrs[c]; 7:40 Syrsc, 49 Syrsc; 8:43 Syrsc; 16:15(1°) Syrsc; 19:7 Syrsc; 20:19 Syrsc; 23:35 Syrsc, 50 Syrsc. There are only three instances where the Lucan Peshitta ‫ ܷܕܝܢ‬has a precedent in the Old Syriac: Lk 2:51 Syrsc, 52 Syrsc; 3:23 Syrsc. Four instances (Lk 1:7, 21, 25, 33) are lacunose in both versions. 153 Lk 23:50 has a parallel in the other Synoptics, but the phrase in question, καί ἰδού ἀνὴρ, does not. 154 Mk 2:8, 17, 18; 3:32; 4:8, 38; 5:25, 30; 6:44, 47; 7:17; 8:17; 9:28, 43; 10:23; 12:34; 13:2, 10; 14:10, 57; 16:2. All but four of these instances of ‫ ܷܕܝܢ‬have a different rendering in Syrs (Syrc is not extant). 155 Jn 3:33; 4:22; 5:28; 6:50, 54; 9:25; 12:29; 14:24. 156 BDAG, 213; CGEL, 84. “As a connective”, Denniston, The Greek Particles, 162 states, “δέ denotes either pure connexion, ‘and’, or contrast, ‘but’, with all that lies between.” 157 This estimate takes variant Greek readings into account; see KPG, vol. i, 127–30, which includes cross-references to collocations cited as separate entries. 158 Jn 1:24; 20:4 (or δέ). 152

186

TERRY C. FALLA •

τέ is translated by ‫ ܷܕܝܢ‬only once, in Jn 6:18. 159 It is one of the two instances in John where this Greek particle is used alone and in English may be translated as ‘and, and so, so’. 160 The other instance in Jn 4:42 is translated by ‫ܘ‬. Both ‫ ܷܕܝܢ‬and ‫ ܘ‬are appropriate renderings. The Old Syriac has ‫ ܘ‬in both places, though Syrs is lacunose for Jn 4:42.

•

μέντοι yet, nevertheless, though, which has a confirmatory or an adversative sense, 161 is unique in that it does not occur in the Synoptic Gospels. Four of the five occurrences are translated by ‫ܕܝܢ‬,ܷ 162 a semantically apt rendering. Μέντοι has the same semantic value in 2 Tim 2:19 163 where it also has ‫ ܷܕܝܢ‬as its equivalent. The fifth occurrence in Jn 21:4 is rendered by ‫ܘ‬, which in the context is also an apt rendering. 164 65F

•

οὖν, John’s fifth correspondence for ‫ܕܝܢ‬,ܷܷ which with certainty underlies ‫ܷܷܕܝܢ‬ only once in Matthew, once in Mark, and five times in Luke, 165 introduces yet further characteristics that distinguish the Peshitta Fourth Gospel from all three Synoptics. 657F

Peshitta Johannine renderings of Οὖν

Peshitta John has four correspondences for the semantically and syntactically disܶ ‫ܗ‬, ܳ ‫ܗ ܺܟܝܠ‬, ܳ and ‫ܘ‬. Frequently, οὖν is left untranslated. The tinct Johannine οὖν: ‫ܕܝܢ‬,ܷ ‫ܝܕܝܢ‬ ܶ ‫ ܳܗ‬then, thereupon, which two most minor correspondences are the adverb of time ‫ܝܕܝܢ‬ translates οὖν in only two instances and is discussed below, and the conjunctive adverb ‫ ܳܗ ܺܟܝܠ‬so, therefore, consequently, accordingly, then, so then (introducing a result of or an inference from what precedes). Οὖν is rendered by ‫ ܳܗ ܺܟܝܠ‬in only eleven instances. This contrasts with the Peshitta Synoptic Gospels in which ‫ ܳܗ ܺܟܝܠ‬is the overwhelmingly primary correspondence of οὖν, rendering it in all but three to five 166 of eighty-seven instances. 167 658F

659 F

Jn 6:18. BDAG, 993. 161 BDAG, 630; CGEL, 227; Denniston, The Greek Particles, 398; Joseph Henry Thayer, Ludwig Wilibald Grimm and Christian Gottlob Wilke, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament being Grimm’s Wilke’s Clavis Novi Testamenti Translated, Revised, and Enlarged by Joseph Henry Thayer, 4th edn. (Edinburgh: 1901; reprint New York: 2010), 399. 162 Jn 4:27; 7:13; 12:42; 20:5. The fifth occurrence in Jn 21:4 is rendered by ‫ܘ‬. Of these five occurrences, only Jn 4:27 lacks a precedent in the Old Syriac. 163 BDAG, 630; CGEL, 227. 164 For the various meanings of the conjunction ‫ ܘ‬see KPG, vol. ii, 42–53. 165 Mt 12:12; Mk 16:19; Lk 3:18; 11:36; 12:26; 20:29; 21:14. 166 In Mk 2:28 ‫ ܳܗ ܺܟܝܠ‬renders ὥστε; Mk 9:40 γάρ, and Lk 11:48 ἄρα. In Lk 20:25 ‫ ܳܗ ܺܟܝܠ‬may render τοίνυν or οὖν and in Jn 9:30 γάρ or οὖν. 167 This count excludes Jn 7:53 and Jn 8:5, which are included in KPG, and Kiraz, A ComputerGenerated Concordance to the Syriac New Testament, as Jn 7:53–8:11 was not part of the early Syriac canon. 159 160

THE COLLECTIVE AUTHORSHIP OF THE PESHITTA NEW TESTAMENT

187

For sound semantic reasons, the conjunctive adverb ‫ ܷܕܝܢ‬and conjunction ‫ ܘ‬are the primary correspondences of Johannine οὖν. 168 For ‫ܕܝܢ‬,ܷ the Old Syriac frequently uses another term or leaves the Greek untranslated. 169 Leaving οὖν frequently untranslated, again for sound semantic reasons, is a feature that Peshitta John shares with the Old Syriac, but not with the Synoptic Gospels. Approximately a quarter of the occurrences of ‫ ܷܕܝܢ‬in Peshitta John find their Greek correspondence in οὖν. Conversely, in thirty instances where οὖν has ‫ ܷܕܝܢ‬as an equivalent, it does not have a variant Greek reading and is therefore the only term that ‫ ܷܕܝܢ‬could have translated. 170 As to the Old Syriac, were no-longer extant verses able to be checked, there might have been other occurrences where Peshitta ‫ ܷܕܝܢ‬as the equivalent of οὖν has an Old Syriac precedent. But even with an increase of the number of instances of ‫ ܷܕܝܢ‬in the Old Syriac, the Peshitta Johannine ‫ ܷܕܝܢ‬would remain a distinctive and independent rendering of οὖν numerically more prominent than ܳ Is there an explanation for this dominance of ‫ ܷܕܝܢ‬over ‫?ܗ ܺܟܝܠ‬ ܳ ‫ܗ ܺܟܝܠ‬. From his work on the Curetonian and Sinaitic versions of the Old Syriac, Burkitt concluded that ‫ ܳܗ ܺܟܝܠ‬was “the natural Syriac equivalent” of οὖν. 171 Similarly, Sebastian Brock in his discussion of the ‘Limitations of Syriac in Representing Greek’ considers the Peshitta Johannine ‫ ܷܕܝܢ‬as the equivalent of οὖν to be a remnant of occurrences ܳ 172 However, this analysis shows that in Peshitta John that were not corrected to ‫ܗ ܺܟܝܠ‬. 64F

In sixteen instances, critical editions of the Greek New Testament have δέ as a variant reading of οὖν, so that in these instances it is conceivable that ‫ ܷܕܝܢ‬is a rendering of either οὖν or δέ; see KPG, vol. i, 127–30. 169 In some instances, ‫ ܷܕܝܢ‬as the equivalent of οὖν has a precedent in the Old Syriac: Jn 2:22Syr[c]s; 4:1Syrcs; 6:14Syrcs; 7:11Syrc (‫ ܘ‬Syrs), 40Syrs (‫ ܘ‬Syrc); 12:3Syrs[c]; 13:12Syrs[c]; 18:10(1°)Syrs[c], 19Syrs[c]; 20:6Syrs[c], 11Syrs[c]; 21:7Syrs[c]. But many Peshitta Johannine instances of ‫ ܷܕܝܢ‬as the equivalent of οὖν have no precedent in the Old Syriac: note (a) ‫ ܘ‬Jn 4:6Syr[c]s, 45Syrc[s], 46Syrc[s]; 6:15Syrc; 9:8Syr[c]s; 11:20Syr[c]s (1° Syrp), 33Syr[c]s; 12:1Syr[c]s, 18:28Syr[c]s, 29Syr[c]s; 20:30Syr[c]s; 21:9Syr[c]s, 15Syr[c]s; (b) n.c. Jn 5:19Syrcs; 6:15Syrs; 8:12Syrcs; 10:7Syr[c]s; 12:7Syr[c]s; 18:17Syr[c]s; 20:21Syr[c]s; 21:13*Syr[c]s. In seven instances, neither Old Syriac version is extant for comparison. 170 See KPG, vol. i, 127–30. 171 Burkitt, Evangelion da-Mepharreshê, vol. ii, 89: “The rendering of οὖν presents some interest on account of its extraordinary frequency as a connecting particle in S. John. The natural Syriac equivalent is ‫ܗܟܝܠ‬, (emphasis added) but like the English ‘therefore’, to which it very nearly corresponds, it is slightly stronger than οὖν. Consequently, we find in the Evangelion daMepharreshê that ‫ ܘ‬and ‫( ܷܕܝܢ‬i.e., δέ) are used to render οὖν. Simple omission also is not infrequent.” 172 Sebastian P. Brock, “Limitations of Syriac in Representing Greek” in Metzger, The Early Versions, 94 states, “In the later Syriac versions οὖν is regularly represented by hakil, but in the Old Syriac the situation is complicated, for, whereas οὖν is fairly often rendered by hakil, there are many instances, as Burkitt pointed out, where it is loosely rendered by w- or den; in such places P normally corrects to hakil, but there remain several instances (especially in John) 168

188

TERRY C. FALLA

‫ ܳܗ ܺܟܝܠ‬is an applicable rendering of οὖν in only a minority of contexts. These contexts ܳ are where the syntactic and semantic function of the Johannine οὖν is, like ‫ܗ ܺܟܝܠ‬, “inferential, denoting that what it introduces is the result of an inference from what precedes.” 173 This is a common use in the Synoptic Gospels. In such contexts οὖν means so, therefore, consequently, accordingly, then, so then. With one exception, 174 every occurrence of οὖν in John that the Peshitta translates by ‫ ܳܗ ܺܟܝܠ‬has this semantic ܳ of which there value. 175 Conversely, every occurrence of the Peshitta Johannine ‫ܗ ܺܟܝܠ‬, are thirteen, has this semantic function. Hence Peshitta John limits ‫ ܳܗ ܺܟܝܠ‬to this function of οὖν, though, as in major English translations, Peshitta John does not limit this ܳ but also employs other forms of correspondence. 176 function of οὖν to ‫ܗ ܺܟܝܠ‬, where no such correction has been made. As a general criterion it may be said that, where hakil is present in S C P, it may be assumed that οὖν was to be found in their Greek Vorlage, but the absence of hakil does not necessarily mean that οὖν did not feature in their underlying Greek text either.” Lyon, Syriac Gospel Translations, 47, shares Burkitt’s and Brock’s view of ܳ Moreover, he introduces his analysis of the Old Syriac the relationship between οὖν and ‫ܗ ܺܟܝܠ‬. and Peshitta’s translation of οὖν in Mt 18:4 with the comment that “P’s (i.e., the Peshitta’s) use of ‫ ܳܗ ܺܟܝܠ‬for οὖν is typical”, which it is for the Synoptics, but not for the Fourth Gospel. 173 BDAG, 736. 174 The exception is in Jn 6:62 where ‫ ܳܗ ܺܟܝܠ‬interprets οὖν as inferential, but BDAG, 737, cites οὖν as a marker of continuation of a narrative. The syntactic function of οὖν in Jn 13:14 is ambiguous. BDAG does not cite it. The Peshitta and NRSV interpret it as inferential. George R. Berry, The Interlinear Literal Translation of the Greek New Testament (Chicago: 1952), JB, Moffatt, NEB, NIV, NJB, and REB interpret it as non-inferential. 175 Jn 1:21, 25; 3:29; 6:45*, 62; 8:5, 36; 9:30*; 12:50; 13:14; 18:3, 39. Note: the Greek behind ‫ ܳܗ ܺܟܝܠ‬in Jn 9:30 might be γάρ or the variant reading οὖν. In Jn 9:30, both terms, like the Peshitta ܳ have an inferential function. In favour of οὖν: while οὖν is limited to Codex Bezae—see ‫ܗ ܺܟܝܠ‬, José M. Bover, Novi Testamenti Biblia Graeca et Latina, 5th edn., (Madrid: 1968), Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum Graece; von Soden, Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments; see also James D. Yoder, Concordance to the Distinctive Greek Text of Codex Bezae (Leiden: 1961), 52—it is not unusual for Codex Bezae and the Peshitta to witness to the same variant reading. Moreover, ܳ this would be the only Johannine occurrence. γάρ is not the normal correspondence of ‫ܗ ܺܟܝܠ‬: The one other instance in the Gospels is in Mk 9:40 where γάρ is not contested by a variant reading (see KPG, vol. i, 26). In favour of γάρ: it could be argued that, in this context, the Peshitta translator saw ‫ ܳܗ ܺܟܝܠ‬as the best option for rendering γάρ so, then, certainly as “a marker of inference” (BDAG, 190), introducing “the sarcastic astonishment of the former blind man” (Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John, 2 vols (London: 1971), vol. i, 375). Syrs omits γάρ (Syrc is lacunose). 176 In Jn 4:11; 6:30(2º), 9:19 inferential οὖν, used in real questions, is left untranslated in the Peshitta. Contemporary English translations JB, NIV, NEB, NJB, NRSV, and RSV also leave Jn 4:11untranslated. The REB has ‘so’, and Brown, Gospel according to John, 166, ‘then’ as in ‘where, then’. Brown, Gospel according to John, JB, NIV, NEB, NJB, and REB also leave Jn 6:30(2º) untranslated. The NRSV and RSV have ‘so’. The NIV, NEB and REB leave Jn 9:19 untranslated, while Brown, Gospel according to John, 370, JB and NJB have ‘so’ in ‘if so’ and the NRSV and RSV have ‘then’ in ‘How then’? In Jn 6:13 οὖν is translated by ‫ܘ‬. English translations again take a comparable approach: Brown, Gospel according to John, 231; JB, NJB, NIV, NRSV and RSV with ‘so’, and NEB and REB with no specific equivalent.

THE COLLECTIVE AUTHORSHIP OF THE PESHITTA NEW TESTAMENT

189

However, in John, οὖν has another and major syntactic and semantic function, which constitutes “the commonest connective between sentences in this Gospel.” 177 As defined by BDAG, it is as a “marker of the continuation of a narrative, so, now, then (s. Rob. 1191: ‘a transitional particle relating clauses or sentences loosely together by way of confirmation’)”, 178 either “to resume a subject once more after an interruption”, or “to indicate a transition to something new” to carry along the narrative “with no necessary thought of cause or result” (emphasis added). 179 BDAG’s definition finds a partial precedent in Denniston, The Greek Particles, which defines this use of οὖν as “connecting particle, marking a new stage in the sequence of events: ‘Well’, ‘Now’.” 180 It is to meet the different requirements of this function that Peshitta John uses ‫ܕܝܢ‬.ܷ 181 That, however, is only half the story. ‫ ܷܕܝܢ‬in its function as a transitional particle expressing continuation matches this second usage of οὖν, but as we ܶ ‫ܗ‬, ܳ then, thereupon, have seen it is only one of four renderings: the adverb of time ‫ܝܕܝܢ‬ occurring only twice. The conjunctive ‫ ܘ‬is used far more frequently than ‫ ܷ;ܕܝܢ‬182; renderings that absorb the underlying οὖν into the translation without explicitly representing it. 183 ܶ ‫ ܳܗ‬then, at the time in question, thereupon, after that in Jn The adverb of time ‫ܝܕܝܢ‬ 18:12; 20:18* deserves special comment, as it occurs only twice as the correspondence of οὖν. In all four Peshitta Gospels, τότε is the usual Greek correspondence, and, 675F

Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, 1191; see also Blass and Debrunner, A Greek Grammar, §451; and Brown, The Gospel According to John, vol. i, 43. 178 BDAG, 736; ‘s’ = see; ‘Rob.’ = Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament. 179 BDAG, 736–7. 180 Denniston, The Greek Particles, 425–6. 181 (a) where οὖν does not have δέ as a variant and is the only possible term underlying ‫ܕܝܢ‬:ܷ Jn 2:22; 4:1, 6, 45, 46; 5:19; 6:14, 15; 7:11, 40; 8:12; 9:8; 10:7; 11:20(1º), 33, 54; 12:1, 3, 7; 13:6, 12; 18:10(1º), 17, 19, 28, 29, 33; 19:6, 8, 13, 23(1º ), 26, 31; 20:6, 11, 21, 30; 21:7, 9, 13*, 15. As may be observed from a perusal of Kiraz, Comparative Edition of the Syriac Gospels, approximately half of these readings are different in the Old Syriac, though for many Syrc is missing; (b) where οὖν has δέ as a variant so that either term might conceivably be the correspondence of ‫( ܷܕܝܢ‬though in most cases δέ has very little support): Jn 2:18; 3:25; 6:10 (δέ is primary reading), 41, 52; 9:18, 20; 10:20*(δέ is primary reading); 11:31, 38; 12:19; 13:22, 30; 16:19*; 18:4, 24; 19:15, 26, 30; 20:19. 182 (a) where οὖν does not have δέ or καί as a variant and is the only possible term underlying ‫ܘ‬: Jn 1:22; 4:5, 28, 30*, 40, 53; 5:4*, 10, 18; 6:5, 19, 21, 24, 42*, 60; 7:28, 33, 43, 45; 8:59; 9:7, 11, 16, 24; 10:19*, 24, 31*; 11:3, 6, 17, 21, 36, 41, 53, 56; 12:9; 16:17, 18; 18:6, 11, 16, 25, 27, 40; 19:21, 32, 40, 42; 20:2, 3, 10, 11, 25; 21:5, 6, 7, 11, 23; (b) where οὖν has δέ as a variant so that either term might conceivably be the correspondence of ‫ܘ‬: Jn 4:52(οὖν 1º); 5:12*; 6:10, 11, 13, 53, 67; 7:25, 30; 8:31; 9:15, 26; 10:20*; 11:45, 47; 12:4, 17, 29; 13:25; 18:6; 19:5, 16(οὖν 2º), 20, 24(οὖν 1º), 38; 20:20; (c) where δέ or καί is a variant of οὖν so that conceivably either of the three terms might be the correspondence of ‫ܘ‬: Jn 7:3, 15; (d) where καί is a variant of οὖν so that conceivably either term might be the correspondence of ‫ܘ‬: Jn 10:39; 12:2, 28; 13:26, 27; 21:3*. 183 Variant readings that omit οὖν are excluded from the following references: Jn 2:20; 4:33(or δέ); 6:30, 34; 7:35; 8:13, 19, 21, 22, 57; 9:10; 11:12, 16; 18:37; 19:24(= οὖν 2º). 177

190

TERRY C. FALLA

ܶ ‫ܗ‬. ܳ 184 It is therefore of note unlike John, the Peshitta Synoptics never render οὖν by ‫ܝܕܝܢ‬ that, in their contexts in Jn 18:12; 20:18*, both instances do justice to the use and meaning of the underlying οὖν. Hence, ‘then’ is the translation of οὖν in Jn 18:12 in more than one contemporary English version, 185 and would be equally applicable to the addition οὖν in Jn 20:18. The addition, recorded by von Soden and Tischendorf, 186 is the second word in the verse: ἔρχεται οὖν Μαριὰμ ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ ... (then Mary Magdalen came ….). 187 ܶ ‫ܗ‬, ܳ ‫ܘ‬, and no overt corTo sum up: all four Peshitta translational options (‫ܕܝܢ‬,ܷ ‫ܝܕܝܢ‬ respondence) witness to an observable concinnity with this function of the Johannine οὖν that would not have been achieved had ‫ ܳܗ ܺܟܝܠ‬been employed. Furthermore, with one exception, 188 every one of the more than fifty references cited by BDAG as an example of οὖν as “marker of continuation of a narrative” are rendered by ‫ ܷܕܝܢ‬or ‫ ܘ‬or are left without an explicit translation. 189 All four also have a parallel in contempoܶ ‫ܗ‬, ܳ and ‫ܘ‬, or leaves οὖν without an rary translations. Where Peshitta John uses ‫ܕܝܢ‬,ܷ ‫ܝܕܝܢ‬ explicit translation, major English translations such as Brown, Gospel according to John, JB, NEB, NIV, NJB, NRSV, REB, and RSV alternate mainly between ‘so’ and ‘then’, occasionally ‘now’, or leave οὖν untranslated. These observations raise a final question. Whilst this analysis of Peshitta John’s translation of οὖν points to the perspicacity of the translator’s acumen, does it also lead to evidence that its treatment of οὖν is different from that of the Synoptics? The answer is twofold. There is no perceivable difference between their renderings of οὖν where this Greek particle has an unequivocal inferential function. All four Gospels ܳ 190 In some instances, all four Gospels also use ‫ ܘ‬or leave οὖν predominantly use ‫ܗ ܺܟܝܠ‬. 679 F

ܶ ‫ ܳܗ‬corresponds to καί, and in See KPG, vol. ii, 25, 44 col. a. In one instance, Lk 24:25, ‫ܝܕܝܢ‬ one, Mt 5:12, lacks a Greek correspondence. 185 See, for example, Berry, The Interlinear Literal Translation of the Greek New Testament; Robert K. Brown and Philip W. Comfort, The Greek-English Interlinear New Testament: a new interlinear translation from the Greek New Testament United Bible Societies’ Fourth Revised Edition with the New Revised Standard Version, New Testament (Carol Stream, Ill.: 1990); NIV, and Phillips. 186 No doubt because it finds its usual Greek correspondence in τότε, von Soden saw the apܶ ‫ ܳܗ‬in Jn 20:18 as anomalous and not as a witness to the variant οὖν. In consepearance of ‫ܝܕܝܢ‬ quence, he incorrectly retroverts it as τότε, citing the Diatessaron, without specifying a diatessaronic version or versions, as well as the Peshitta. Jn 20:18, however, is not cited in editions of Ephrem’s commentary on the Diatessaron. See Carmel McCarthy, Saint Ephrem’s Commentary on Tatian’s Diatessaron, (Oxford: 1993), Abbreviations, vi, for a listing of these editions. On the care that must be taken before claiming a reading as diatessaronic, see William L. Peterson, Tatian’s Diatessaron: Its Creation, Dissemination, Significance, and History in Scholarship (Leiden: 1994). ܳ 187 ܰ ‫ܝܕܝܢ ܶܐ ܳܬܬ ܰܡ‬ Cf. the Peshitta: ‫ܝܬܐ‬ ܴ ‫ܪܝܡ ܰܡܓܕܠ‬ ܷ ‫( ܳܗ‬then Mary Magdalen came ….). 188 Jn 6:62, cited earlier; the Peshitta translator has understood οὖν to be inferential and so ܳ translates it by ‫ܗ ܺܟܝܠ‬. 189 BDAG, 736–7. Jn 13:31 is one of these BDAG references, but a variant reading, followed by the Peshitta, excludes it. 190 KPG, vol. ii, 26–27. 184

THE COLLECTIVE AUTHORSHIP OF THE PESHITTA NEW TESTAMENT

191

without an explicit translation. 191 But this similarity between the Peshitta Gospels does not apply to their translation of οὖν where it is “more loosely used as a temporal connective in the continuation or resumption of a narrative.” 192 For this purpose, the ܳ which is reserved for inferential οὖν. Peshitta John translator never employs ‫ܗ ܺܟܝܠ‬, ܳ 193 thus investing οὖν with a Yet in ten places at least the Synoptics do employ ‫ܗ ܺܟܝܠ‬, clear inferential interpretation, or at the least infer that it has an inferential connotation. Five of these instances have a precedent in the Old Syriac 194 and one an alternative reading. 195 The other four lack a correspondence, though for three of them this may be due to Syrc being lacunose. 196 Even if these ten Peshitta-Synoptic instances of ‫ ܳܗ ܺܟܝܠ‬could be explained as retentions from the Old Syriac text-type, now lost, of which the Peshitta is a recension and of which Syrsc are representative, the difference between the Peshitta Synoptics and Peshitta John still remain. The care the Johannine Peshitta translator must have taken in rendering οὖν suggests that readings in the Old Syriac source text that did not discriminate between the two primary functions of the Greek particle would have been rejected and replaced. As such, it would not be difficult to maintain the distinction in future translations of Peshitta John. It would simply require assigning context-sensitive meanings to ‫ ܷܕܝܢ‬and ‫ܘ‬, such as ‘so’, ‘then’, and even in some instances ‘now’, where it has the same import as ‘then’ as a temporal connective in the continuation or resumption of a narrative. Peshitta New Testament Renderings of Πλήν

The Peshitta New Testament has five contextually-sensitive renderings for πλήν, which functions syntactically as both a conjunction and a preposition. The first two ܰ are the conjunction ‫ ܒܪܡ‬but, yet, nevertheless, and the conjunctive adverb ‫ ܷܕܝܢ‬but. Both terms translate πλήν as a conjunctive “marker of something that is contrastingly added for consideration.” 197 In the light of the differences detected between each of the first five books of the Peshitta New Testament, it can be noted that, in all fourteen occurrences, Peshitta Luke is completely consistent in its rendering. 198 In this regard, Luke accords with the one instance of πλήν in Acts, one in Ephesians, and two in For example, ‫ ܘ‬Mt 21:25; 22:43; Mk 11:31; Lk 20:17; without translation Mt 13:27, 28; 27:22; Lk 8:18; 10:40; Jn 4:11; 6:30(= οὖν 2º). 192 Blass and Debrunner, A Greek Grammar, §451. 193 For example, Mt 5:19, 23; 6:2; 24:26 (all these Matthean references are cited by BDAG, 737, as examples of οὖν as a marker of the continuation of a narrative). Mk 9:11*; 15:12; Lk 4:7 (cf. Mt 5:19, 23); 7:31 (‫ = ܷܕܝܢ‬δέ in Synoptic parallel Mt 11:16); 16:11 (cf. Mt 5:19, 23; Lk 4:7); 20:15. 194 Mt 5:19Syrc (n.c. Syrs); Mt 5:23Syrsc; Mt 6:2Syrc (n.c. Syrs); Mk 15:12Syrs[c]; Lk 7:31Syrsc. ܽ in Lk 16:11Syrsc (see Pearson, Syriac Rhetorical Particles, 30). This particle 195 The particle ‫ܥܘܕ‬ is never employed in the Peshitta New Testament. 196 Neither version has a correspondence for Lk 20:15. For the other three Syrc is missing: Mt 24:26; Mk 9:11*; Lk 4:7. 197 BDAG, 826; see also CGEL, 287. 198 Lk 6:24, 35; 10:11, 14, 20; 11:41; 12:31; 13:33; 18:8; 19:27; 22:21, 22, 42; 23:28. 191

192

TERRY C. FALLA

ܰ Philippians, which are also rendered by ‫ܒܪܡ‬. 199 Peshitta Matthew does not exhibit ܰ this consistency. In three out of five instances it has ‫ܒܪܡ‬, and in two ‫ܕܝܢ‬.ܷ Both particles are contextually sensitive. 200 Both have ‘but’ as an English equivalent. 201 Luke no less than Matthew has contexts in which ‫ ܷܕܝܢ‬would be applicable, so Luke’s consistency is due to lexical choice rather than contextual requirement. Both Matthew and Luke depart from the Old Syriac. 202 The third contextually-sensitive rendering is in 1 Cor 11:11. In the Peshitta New Testament, it is the only and therefore distinctive instance of the adverbial-conjuncܰ tive combination ‫ ܒܪܡ ܷܕܝܢ‬but nevertheless, on the other hand. 203 It is a collocation famils iar to both Syr and Syrc and to other classical writings. 204 All of the Old Syriac ocܰ currences are in Luke and have ‫ ܒܪܡ‬as their Peshitta counterpart, indicating that the ܰ Peshitta Lucan reviser rejected the longer formulation ‫ܒܪܡ ܷܕܝܢ‬, if this was in fact the ܰ reading in the Old Syriac text-type, and replaced it with ‫ܒܪܡ‬. In a comparable manܰ ܰ ner, Acts, Ephesians, and Philippians evidently favoured ‫ ܒܪܡ‬over ‫ܒܪܡ ܷܕܝܢ‬. This being ܰ the case, the one occurrence of ‫ ܒܪܡ ܷܕܝܢ‬in the Peshitta New Testament stands out for its singularity and may be set aside for future study as a potential distinctive of Peshitta 1 Corinthian vocabulary. ܰ except in Acts 8:1; 15:28 and ‫ ܶܐܠܐ ܶܐܢ‬except, but only in Acts 27:22 present ‫ܠܒܪ‬ the fourth and fifth contextually sensitive renderings. 205 Both translate πλήν as a preposition (with the genitive) as distinct from its conjunctive function in all other instances. 206 The conjunctive adverb ‫ ܳܗ ܺܟܝܠ‬so, so then, therefore, consequently, accordingly in post-Peshitta Rev 2:25 is the one rendering that is not as sensitive to its context as the others cited above. In this context, BDAG assigns to πλήν the glosses “only, in any case, on the other hand, but”: “only (πλήν) hold fast to what you have until I ܰ come”. 207 In this instance, the Syriac is not as translationally exacting as what ‫ܒܪܡ‬, 694F

Acts 20:23 (= πλήν ὅτι); Eph 5:33; Phil 3:16; 4:14 (in Phil 1:18 πλήν may have, according to BDAG, the same function, but is left untranslated in the Peshitta). 200 Mt 18:7; 26:64. 201 See Berry, Interlinear Literal Translation; Brown and Comfort, The Greek-English Interlinear New Testament (Carol Stream, Ill.: 1990); Moffatt; NEB; NIV; NRSV; and REB. NRSV does not have an explicit translation for Mt 18:7, and Berry, Interlinear Literal Translation, has ‘moreover’ for Mt 26:64, otherwise all have ‘but’ for both vss. ܰ 202 Matthew: ‫ ܒܪܡ‬Mt 11:22 (‫ ܶܡ ܽܛܠ ܳܗ ܳܢܐ‬Syrsc), 24 (‫ ܶܡ ܽܛܠ ܳܗ ܳܢܐ‬Syrc, Syrs has n.c.); 26:39; ‫ ܷܕܝܢ‬Mt 18:7 ܶ sc (‫ ܐܠܐ‬Syr ); 26:64 (Syrs has n.c. and Syrc is not extant); Luke: ‫ ܶܐܠܐ‬Lk 11:41Syrsc; 22:42Syrsc; ܰ 23:28Syrsc; ‫ ܒܪܡ ܷܕܝܢ‬Lk 6:35Syrs; 10:11Syrsc; 19:27Syrsc; Lk 22:21Syrsc, 22Syrsc; ‫ ܳܗ ܺܟܝܠ‬Lk 12:31Syrs; ܺ ܶ ܶ ‫ܗ ܺܟܝܠ‬, ܳ nor ‫ ܶܡ ܺܟܝܠ‬are semantically attuned to the Greek. In other ‫ ܡܟܝܠ‬Lk 12:31Syrc. Neither ‫ܐܠܐ‬, ܰ instances, one or both Old Syriac versions have ‫ܒܪܡ‬. 203 “on the other hand” is the translation of Daniel King, The Antioch Bible: The Syriac Peshitta Bible with English Translation. Romans-Corinthians (Piscataway, NJ: 2013), 135. ܰ 204 Lk 6:35Syrs[c]; 10:11Syrsc; 10:20Syrs (Syrc has ‫ ܒܪܡ‬only); 19:27Syrsc; 22:21Syrsc; 22:22Syrsc. 205 ܰ Cf. ‫ ܠܒܪ‬in Mk 12:32. 206 BDAG, 826; see also CGEL, 287. 207 BDAG, 826. 199

THE COLLECTIVE AUTHORSHIP OF THE PESHITTA NEW TESTAMENT

193

ܰ ‫ܕܝܢ‬,ܷ or ‫ ܒܪܡ ܷܕܝܢ‬would have been, for translationally ‫ ܳܗ ܺܟܝܠ‬slides from πλήν’s function of contrasting to denoting the result of an inference. Presence and Absence of ˝Αρα in Peshitta Gospels, Acts, and 2 Corinthians

Sometimes the absence of an element in one part of the Peshitta New Testament can reveal as much as its presence in another part. Such is the case with the small colourful particle ‫ ܰܟܝ‬which the Peshitta Gospels consistently use to translate the Greek particle ἄρα, and its absence outside of the Gospels where in three or four instances in Acts and one instance in Romans ἄρα is left untranslated or is rendered by another term. Before examining these differences in the Peshitta New Testament’s approach to ἄρα it is helpful to define the syntactic function and meaning of ‫ ܰܟܝ‬which Beryl Turner has defined as: Intensifying and/or exclamatory particle marking a heightened response which is usually in the form of a startled, puzzled, amazed, freighted or poignant rhetorical question or exclamation; occurs only in direct or reported speech, and can be glossed with an expression that suits the situation; is the second element in a ܽ phrase: ... ‫ ܶܐܠܘ ܰܟܝ ܳܝ ܰܕܥܬܝ‬Oh if only you knew …! Lk 19:42; ‘Who on earth is this ( ‫ܰܡ ܽܢܘ‬ ܶ ‫ܠܡܐ ܰܟܝ ܳܢ‬ ܳ Surely he ‫) ܰܟܝ ܳܗ ܳܢܐ‬, that the winds and the sea obey him!’ Mk 4:41;‫ܦܫܗ ܳܩ ܶܛܠ‬ ܰ won’t kill himself? Jn 8:22; cf. Gen 27:33; 2 Sam 9:1; 2 Kings 3:10; Ps 58:11; ‫ܒܪܡ‬ ܶ ܶ ܳ ܶ ‫ܕܐ ܳܢ ܳܫܐ‬ ܳ ‫ܝܡ ܽܢܘܬܐ ܥܰܠ ܰܐ‬ ܳ ‫ܘܢܫܟܱܚ ܟܱܝ ܰܗ‬ ‫ܪܥܐ‬ ̱ ‫ ܺܢܐܬܐ ܒܪܗ‬but the Son of Man will come, yet will he indeed find faith on earth? Lk 18:8. 208 70F

BDAG analyses all fifty Greek New Testament occurrences of ἄρα, which it defines as “marker of an inference made on the basis of what precedes.” 209 A subsection defines thirteen of these occurrences more closely as “freq. in questions which draw an inference fr. what precedes; but oft. simply to enliven the question.” 210 Nine of these thirteen occurrences of ἄρα are found in the Gospels, 211 three in Acts 212 and one in 2 Corinthians. 213 The Peshitta translates all nine Gospel occurrences by the particle ‫ܰܟܝ‬ (these include Mk 4:41 that Turner cites in her definition as an illustrative example). Three of these do not have a precedent in Syrsc, though in the case of two this may be due to lacunae in one or both versions. 214 Conversely, the Peshitta does not use ‫ܰܟܝ‬ as a correspondence for any of the thirty-seven occurrences of ἄρα in the other BDAG

ܰ lexical entry prepared for Terry C. Falla and Beryl Turner, A Key to the Beryl Turner, “‫”ܟܝ‬, Peshitta Gospels, vol. iii, Kaph–Έ (Leiden: Brill). Available on request from the authors. 209 BDAG, 127. 210 Cf. Denniston, The Greek Particles, 33–40. 211 Mt 18:1; 19:25, 27; 24:45; Mk 4:41; Lk 1:66; 8:25; 12:42; 22:23. 212 Acts 7:1*; 12:18; 21:38. Acts 7:1 is a variant reading attested in Codex Bezae—see Yoder, Concordance to the Distinctive Greek Text of Codex Bezae, 8—with which the Peshitta often accords, as well as in a few other Greek manuscripts (see Bover, Novi Testamenti Biblia Graeca et Latina, Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum Graece, Tregelles, The Greek New Testament et al.). 213 2 Cor 1:17. 214 Mk 4:41Syr[sc]p; Lk 1:66Syr[c]p; 12:42Syrp. 208

194

TERRY C. FALLA

subsections. The Peshitta Gospel translators (for the most part following the Old Syriac) and BDAG therefore concur in their understanding of this particular usage of ἄρα, and BDAG’s analysis unwittingly serves as an accurate witness to the discernment of the translators of the Peshitta Gospels. Yet none of the four syntactically and semantically identical occurrences of ἄρα in Acts and 2 Corinthians are rendered by ܰ Instead, two of the occurrences in Acts (if the variant reading in Acts 7:1 was in ‫ܟܝ‬. the translator’s Greek Vorlage) and the one in 2 Corinthians lack a specific correspondence. 215 The other occurrence of ἄρα in Acts 12:18 is translated by the preposiܶ ܳ ‫ܕܡ ܳܢܐ‬ ܽ ‫ܥܰܠ ܶܫ‬ ܳ ‫ܡܥܘܢ‬ tion ‫ܥܰܠ‬, which may be translated as ‘concerning, about’ in ‫ܗܘܐ ܠܗ‬ ܰ concerning Simon, what had happened to him. The choice of ‫ ܥܠ‬is comparable to the translations of Moffatt, NRSV, and RSV which have “over” in “over what had become of Peter”, and NIV and Phillips, which have “as to.” Three factors make the absence of ‫ ܰܟܝ‬in these contexts conspicuous and so draw attention to the presence and absence of ἄρα in Peshitta Gospels, Acts, and 2 Corinthians. One is that there is no discernible syntactic and semantic difference between the Gospel and non-Gospel occurrences of ἄρα; ‫ ܰܟܝ‬would have suited the non-Gospel contexts no less than the Gospel ones. Another is consistency: the Peshitta Synoptics are consistent in translating every ocܰ and Acts and 2 Corinthians are consistent currence of ἄρα (as defined above) by ‫ܟܝ‬, in using their alternative. The third factor is that whereas ‫ ܰܟܝ‬never occurs in the Peshitta New Testament outside of the Gospels, it is used in the Gospels where it does not have ἄρα as its Greek correspondence. There are seven instances. 216 Two do not have a precedent in either version of the Old Syriac. 217 As would be expected, all fulfill the function of ‫ ܰܟܝ‬as defined by Turner. Two, which heighten the rhetorical effect of the text, both in Luke, do not have a Greek correspondence. 218 710F

Acts 7:1; 21:38; 2 Cor 1:17. Lk 4:36; 9:46; 18:8; 19:42; 24:18; Jn 7:35; 8:22. 217 Lk 9:46; 19:42. The Old Syriac also has eight occurrences of ‫ ܰܟܝ‬that are not in the Peshitta: Mt 12:23Syrsc. Mk 9:10Syrs[c]; 10:26Syrs[c]; Lk 3:15Syrsc; Jn 4:33Syrsc; 7:35Syrsc; 13:22Syrs[c]; 16:18Syrs[c]. 218 Lk 4:36; 24:18. The other five translate (a) ἂν εἴη in indirect question (see BDAG, 57) Lk 9:46; (b) ἆρα marker of a tone of suspense or impatience in interrogation (BDAG, 127) = ‫ ܰܟܝ‬... ‫ܘ‬, or ‫ܰܟܝ‬ and ‫ ܘ‬has no correspondence Lk 18:8; the two other occurrences of ἆρα in the Greek New Testament are not rendered by ‫ ܰܟܝ‬but by ‫ ܶܐܢ‬where it functions in a question in an asseveration and may be translated as ‘not’ (see Payne Smith, Compendious Syriac Dictionary, 20): ‘do you not understand what you are reading’? Acts 8:30, and by ‫ ܳܡ ܶܕܝܢ‬then Gal 2:17; (c) καί in καὶ σύ: εἰ ܽ ܶ ἔγνως καὶ σὺ = ‫ܥܬܝܐ‬ ‫ ܠܽܘ ܰܟܝ ܳܝ ܰܕ‬Oh if only you knew …! Lk 19:42 (or καὶ σὺ καί γε―on καί γε as intensifying καὶ σύ see BDAG, 190; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke, 2nd edn. (Garden City, N.Y: 1981-1985) vol. ii, 1258, also for the Greek conditional subordinate clause as aposiopesis. See also Blass and Debrunner, A Greek Grammar, §482; Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, 1203; (d) μή Jn 7:35; 8:22 (or μήτι). 215 216

THE COLLECTIVE AUTHORSHIP OF THE PESHITTA NEW TESTAMENT

195

PESHITTA PROPER NAMES Peshitta Additions of the Personal Name ‫ܶܝ ܽܫܘܥ‬

In his book Early Syriac Translation Technique and the Textual Criticism of the Greek Gospels, Peter Williams formulates “new guidelines about the use of Syriac witnesses to attest Greek variants.” 219 His study shows “that early Syriac witnesses of the Gospels do not support many of the Greek variants they have been claimed to support.” 220 Analysing the use of the name Jesus he writes, 221 “It is clear from even a superficial analysis of the Gospels that Syriac texts, particularly P(eshitta), introduced the word ‫ ܶܝ ܽܫܘܥ‬where there was no Ἰησοῦς (arthrous or anarthrous) in their Vorlage.” 222 Of particular interest to this article is William’s observation that “the striking difference between P(eshitta) and txt (= Nestle-Aland27) having only about half of the number of occurrences of the name that P has, is scarcely attributable to Vorlage.” 223 In Luke, says Williams, “Greek witnesses have a small number of occurrences of the name ‘Jesus’ relative to the length of the gospel and there are many additional examples of the name in P. On the other hand, in John, the concentration of the name is relatively high in Greek witnesses and there are relatively fewer additional occurrences in P.” 224 He emphasizes that John (in contrast to Luke) shows “the highest concentration of the name.” 225 As he shows, the reasons for the Peshitta additions of the name Jesus are complex, but overall they cannot be attributed to translators following variant readings in their Vorlagen: KPG cites twenty-nine for Matthew, twentyone for Mark, fifty-one for Luke, and twenty-two for John. “[T]hough it is impossible to be certain with regard to individual readings”, says Williams, “it is likely that many of these agreements are coincidental.” 226 The disparity between Luke and John to which Williams draws attention does not seem to be coincidental and is probably best explained as the result of two different translators. 714F

715F

716F

71F

718F

Peshitta Renderings of the Surname Πέτρος

The Peshitta Gospels and Acts do not consistently render the surname Πέτρος (Peter), 227 given to Simon, the most prominent of the twelve disciples. Nor are they consistent in their inconsistencies. Semantically, the accurate equivalent for Πέτρος ܳ ‫( ܺܟ‬Cephas). All four Gospels also translate Πέτρος by the disciple’s personal is ‫ܐܦܐ‬

Williams, Early Syriac Translation Technique, 1. Williams, Early Syriac Translation Technique, 1. 221 Williams, Early Syriac Translation Technique, 23–37. 222 Williams, Early Syriac Translation Technique, 24. 223 Williams, Early Syriac Translation Technique, 25. 224 Williams, Early Syriac Translation Technique, 25. 225 Williams, Early Syriac Translation Technique, 31. 226 Williams, Early Syriac Translation Technique, 29. 227 Danker glosses Πέτρος as ‘Peter, Rockman’, in CGEL, 282. 219 220

196

TERRY C. FALLA

ܳ ‫ܡܥܘܢ ܟ‬ ܽ ‫( ܶܫ‬Simon), and the full name ‫ܐܦܐ‬ ܽ ‫( ܶܫ‬Simon Cephas). Acts, whername ‫ܡܥܘܢ‬ ܻ ܳ ‫ ܺܟ‬for its Greek counterpart ever possible either avoids using the Syriac surname ‫ܐܦܐ‬ ܳ ‫ܡܥܘܢ ܟ‬ ܽ ‫ܶܫ‬ ܽ ‫ ܶܫ‬. The five books favour the personal name ‫ܡܥܘܢ‬ or uses the full name ‫ܐܦܐ‬ ܻ ܺ ܳ over the surname ‫ ܟܐܦܐ‬in sixty-nine instances, and the full name in twelve instances. For the Gospels, some of these renderings have a precedent in the Old Syriac, but not all. The preference for one name over another differs from book to book. The ܳ ‫ܡܥܘܢ ܟ‬ ܽ ‫ ܶܫ‬and the full name ‫ܐܦܐ‬ ܽ ‫ܶܫ‬ rendering of Πέτρος by the personal name ‫ܡܥܘܢ‬ ܻ cannot be explained on contextual grounds such as direct speech versus narrative. 228 There are many instances where, in the Gospels, Synoptic parallels disagree in their choice of rendering. In all but two instances, the one rendering on which the five books agree is where the names Σίμων and Πέτρος occur in the combination Σίμων Πέτρος (Simon Peter), 229 or in contexts in which the two names occur together, for example ‘Simon ܺ As in each case ܳ ‫ܟ‬. ܽ ‫ ܶܫ‬and Πέτρος by ‫ܐܦܐ‬ … called Peter’. 230 Σίμων is rendered by ‫ܡܥܘܢ‬ ܽ ‫ܫ‬, ܶ the the personal name Σίμων requires its equivalent Syriac personal name ‫ܡܥܘܢ‬ ܺ ܳ translators were left with no option other than to use ‫ ܟܐܦܐ‬for Πέτρος; for this reason, this analysis excludes these occurrences. The transliterated form Κηφᾶς (Cephas) in ܳ ‫ ܺܟ‬renders it and every other occurrence in Jn 1:42 231 can also be set aside since ‫ܐܦܐ‬ the New Testament. 232 ܳ ‫ ܺܟ‬as the semantically Peshitta Matthew is exceptional in its predilection for ‫ܐܦܐ‬ ܳ ‫ ܺܟ‬transaccurate equivalent of Πέτρος. Taking the above exclusions into account, ‫ܐܦܐ‬ lates all but four of twenty-one occurrences of Πέτρος distributed throughout the ܽ ‫ ܶܫ‬234 Gospel. 233 The four are rendered by two occurrences of the personal name ‫ܡܥܘܢ‬ ܳ ܽ 235 ܶ and two occurrences by the full name ‫ܫܡܥܘܢ ܻܟܐܦܐ‬. In most instances, one or the other of the Old Syriac versions is not extant, but there are five instances where both 720F

724 F

72F

ܽ ‫ ܶܫ‬Mt 8:14; 17:26*; Mk 8:29, 33; 11:21; 14:54, 66, 72; Lk 8:51; 9:20, 28, Πέτρος (a) =‫ܡܥܘܢ‬ ܽ ‫ܶܫ‬ 32, 33; 22:34, 54, 55, 61, 62*; 24:12; Jn 1:44; 18:16, 16, 17, 18, 26, 27; 20:3, 4; (b) = ‫ܡܥܘܢ‬ ܳ ‫ ܻܟܐܦܐ‬Mt 15:15; 26:58; Mk 5:37; Lk 8:45; 12:41; 18:28; Jn 21:20. 229 Mt 16:16; Lk 5:8; Jn 6:8, 68; 13:6, 9, 24, 36; 18:10, 15, 25; 20:2; 21:2, 3, 11, 15. In the two exceptions, Jn 1:40 and 20:6, the full name Σίμων Πέτρος is represented by only the perܳ ‫ܡܥܘܢ ܟ‬ ܽ ‫ܫ‬. ܽ ‫ ܶܫ‬for Jn 1:40 and is not extant ܶ Both agree with Syrs; Syrc has ‫ܐܦܐ‬ sonal name ‫ܡܥܘܢ‬ ܻ for Jn 20:6. 230 Mt 4:18; 10:2; Mk 3:16; 14:37; Lk 6:14; Acts 10:5, 18, 32; 11:13. 231 The Peshitta omits ὃ ἑρημνεύεται Πέτρος in Σὺ εἶ Σίμων ὁ υἱὸς Ἰωάννου, σὺ κληθήσῃ Κηφᾶς, ὃ ἑρημνεύεται Πέτρος ‘You are Simon son of John, you are to be called Cephas, which is translated ܰ ‫)ܝ‬, ܽ ‫)ܫ‬ ܶ son of Jona (‫ܘܢܐ‬ ܳ you will be called Peter’ in Jn 1:42 and settles for ‘You are Simon (‫ܡܥܘܢ‬ ܺ ܳ Cephas (‫’)ܟܐܦܐ‬. ܳ ‫ ܺܟ‬prepared for Falla 232 1 Cor 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:5; Gal 1:18; 2:9, 11, 14; see the entry on ‫ܐܦܐ‬ and Turner, A Key to the Peshitta Gospels. Available on request from the authors. 233 The seventeen references (twenty-one minus four) are: Mt 14:28, 29; 16:18, 22, 23; 17:1, 4, 24; 18:21; 19:27; 26:33, 35, 37, 40, 69, 73, 75. 234 Mt 8:14; 17:26*. 235 Mt 15:15; 26:58. 228

THE COLLECTIVE AUTHORSHIP OF THE PESHITTA NEW TESTAMENT

197

are extant with Peshitta Matthew differing from them. 236 Peshitta Matthew also disagrees with the Old Syriac in seven other instances, but they must be discounted because they have a witness in only one version, namely Syrs. 237 As to agreements— as against disagreements—with the Old Syriac, there are extant witnesses for three. 238 The translation of Πέτρος is more evenly distributed in Mark than in Matthew: ܺ ܳ ܳ ‫ܡܥܘܢ ܟ‬ ܽ ‫( ܶܫ‬six), 240 with only one instance of ‫ܐܦܐ‬ ܽ ‫ܫ‬, ܶ which is ‫( ܟܐܦܐ‬nine) 239 and ‫ܡܥܘܢ‬ ܻ 241 in a list of four of the disciples. One occurrence of Πέτρος is represented by the 3ms. suffix. 242 Only Syrs is extant for the Old Syriac, but the relationship of the Peܳ ‫ ܺܟ‬and the 3ms. suffix have shitta to it is very consistent. All nine occurrences of ‫ܐܦܐ‬ ܺ ܳ ‫ ܟ‬for all six Peshitta occurrences of ‫ܡܥܘܢ‬ ܽ ‫ܫ‬. ܶ Syrs a precedent. In contrast, Syrs has ‫ܐܦܐ‬ ܳ ܽ ܶ is not extant for the sole occurrence of ‫ܫܡܥܘܢ ܻܟܐܦܐ‬. The most obvious difference between Peshitta Luke and the three other Gospels ܳ ‫ ܺܟ‬to render Πέτρος where Πέτρος is not preceded by is its relatively minor use of ‫ܐܦܐ‬ Σίμων. There are only four out of eighteen instances. 243 All four have a precedent in the Old Syriac. 244 Eleven of the other fourteen are rendered by the Lucan preference ܳ ‫ܡܥܘܢ ܟ‬ ܽ ‫ܫ‬, ܽ ‫ܫ‬. ܶ 245 and three by ‫ܐܦܐ‬ ܶ 246 But as is the case with Matthew, Luke’s de‫ܡܥܘܢ‬ ܻ ܽ ‫ܶܫ‬ parture from the Old Syriac is significant. Of the fourteen instances that have ‫ܡܥܘܢ‬ ܳ ‫ܡܥܘܢ ܟ‬ ܽ ‫ ܶܫ‬only one, which has ‫ܡܥܘܢ‬ ܽ ‫ܫ‬, ܶ is in accord with the two extant Old or ‫ܐܦܐ‬ ܻ ܽ ‫ ܶܫ‬the Old Syriac has either 247 Syriac versions. For the eleven occurrences of ‫ܡܥܘܢ‬ ܺ ܳ ܳ ܳ ‫ܡܥܘܢ ܟ‬ ܽ ܽ ‫ ܶܫ‬the Old Syriac 248 ܶ ‫ ܟܐܦܐ‬or ‫ܫܡܥܘܢ ܻܟܐܦܐ‬, and for the three instances of ‫ܐܦܐ‬ ܻ ܺ ܺ ܳ ܳ 249 has ‫( ܟܐܦܐ‬or ‫)ܟܦܐ‬. The Fourth Gospel rendering of Πέτρος is closest to Luke. It too ܺ ܳ ‫—ܟ‬nine ܽ ‫ ܶܫ‬over ‫ܐܦܐ‬ prefers ‫ܡܥܘܢ‬ out of sixteen instances, 250 with four instances of 742F

ܳ ‫ ܺܟ‬and the Old Syriac versions ‫ܐܦܐ‬ ܳ ‫ܡܥܘܢ ܟ‬ ܽ ‫;ܫ‬ ܶ Mt 8:14 Mt 14:28, 29; 18:21; 19:27 have ‫ܐܦܐ‬ ܻ ܳ ܽ ܽ ܶ ܶ has ‫ ܫܡܥܘܢ‬and the Old Syriac versions ‫ܫܡܥܘܢ ܻܟܐܦܐ‬. ܺ Syrs ‫ܡܥܘܢ‬ ܳ ‫ܟ‬, ܽ ‫ܫ‬, ܽ ‫ ܶܫ‬and Syrs 237 ܶ and Mt 26:33, 35 have ‫ܡܥܘܢ‬ Mt 26:37, 40, 69, 73, 75 have ‫ܐܦܐ‬ ܳ ܽ ܶ ‫ܫܡܥܘܢ ܻܟܐܦܐ‬. ܳ ‫ ܺܟ‬in Syr[s]c of Mt 16:18; ‫ܡܥܘܢ‬ ܽ ‫ ܶܫ‬in Syrc of Mt 17:26* (Syrs leaves Πέτρος untranslated), 238 ‫ܐܦܐ‬ ܳ ܽ ܶ and ‫ ܫܡܥܘܢ ܻܟܐܦܐ‬in both versions of Mt 15:15. 239 Mk 8:32; 9:2, 5; 10:28; 13:3; 14:29, 33, 70; 16:7. 240 Mk 8:29, 33; 11:21; 14:54, 66, 72. 241 Mk 5:37. 242 Mk 14:67. 243 Lk 22:8, 58, 60, 61(1º). The other fourteen references are: Lk 8:45, 51; 9:20, 28, 32, 33; 12:41; 18:28; 22:34, 54, 55, 61(2º), 62*; 24:12. 244 ‫ ܺܟ ܳܦܐ‬in Lk 22:60. 245 Lk 8:51; 9:20, 28, 32, 33; 22:34, 54, 55, 61(2º), 62*; 24:12. 246 Lk 8:45; 12:41; 18:28. 247 Lk 24:12. ܳ ‫ ܺܟ‬in Syrs Lk 9:32; 22:34 (Syrc has no correspondence), 54; in both versions Lk 8:51; 248 ‫ܐܦܐ‬ ܳ ‫ܡܥܘܢ ܟ‬ ܽ ‫ ܶܫ‬in Syrc Lk 9:32; 22:54; in both versions Lk 9:28, 33; 22:55, 61(2º)[‫ ܺܟ ܳܦܐ‬in Syrs]; ‫ܐܦܐ‬ ܻ 9:20. Unlike the Peshitta, neither Old Syriac version follows the variant Gr. reading Πέτρος in Lk 22:62. ܳ ‫ ܺܟ‬in Lk 8:45Syrsc; 12:41Syrs; 18:28Syrsc; ‫ ܺܟ ܳܦܐ‬in Lk 12:41Syrc. 249 ‫ܐܦܐ‬ 250 Jn 1:44; 18:16, 16, 17, 18, 26, 27; 20:3, 4. 236

198

TERRY C. FALLA

ܺ 251 and three of ‫ܐܦܐ‬ ܳ ‫ܟ‬, ܳ ‫ܡܥܘܢ ܟ‬ ܽ ‫ܫ‬. ܶ 252 The Old Syriac is extant in Syrs only and so its ‫ܐܦܐ‬ ܻ ten agreements and six disagreements 253 must be set aside. Marks of translational individuality discerned in the four Peshitta Gospels are heightened further by differences between Synoptic and Johannine parallels as these comparisons show: In a Synoptic list of three disciples, the counterpart to Πέτρος in ܺ but in Lk 9:28 it is ‫ܡܥܘܢ‬ ܳ ‫ܟ‬, ܽ ‫( ܶܫ‬Syrsc have Mt 17:1 and Mk 9:2 is ‫ܐܦܐ‬ ܺ ܳ ‫)ܟܐܦܐ‬. • In a Marcan and Lukan list of disciples, the counterpart to Πέτρος ܳ ‫ ܺܟ‬in Mk is ‫ܐܦܐ‬ ܺ ܳ ‫)ܟ‬. 5:37, but ‫ ܫܡܥܘܢ‬in Lk 8:51 (Syrs has ‫ ܺܟ ܳܦܐ‬and Syrc ‫ܐܦܐ‬ ܳ ܽ ‫ܫ‬, ܶ its • The counterpart to Σίμων Πέτρος in Mt 16:16 is ‫ܡܥܘܢ ܻܟܐܦܐ‬ translationally exact equivalent, but the counterpart to Πέτρος in ܳ ‫ܡܥܘܢ ܟ‬ ܽ ‫( ܶܫ‬Syrsc have ‫ܐܦܐ‬ ܽ ‫)ܫ‬. ܶ Mk 8:29 and Lk 9:20 is ‫ܡܥܘܢ‬ ܻ ܳ ‫( ܺܟ‬Mat• The counterpart to Πέτρος in Mt 19:27 and Mk 10:28 is ‫ܐܦܐ‬ ܳ ܳ ܽ ܽ ‫ܶܫ‬ sc 254 ܶ thean Syr have ‫)ܫܡܥܘܢ ܻܟܐܦܐ‬, but in Lk 18:28 it is ‫ܡܥܘܢ ܻܟܐܦܐ‬ ܺ ܳ ‫)ܟ‬. (Syrsc have ‫ܐܦܐ‬ ܺ but ܳ ‫ܟ‬, • The counterpart to Πέτρος in Mt 26:33 and Mk 14:29 is ‫ܐܦܐ‬ ܽ s c ܶ in Lk 22:33 it is ‫( ܫܡܥܘܢ‬neither Syr nor Syr have a correspondܳ ‫ܡܥܘܢ ܟ‬ ܽ ‫ܫ‬. ܶ 255 ence) and in Jn 13:37 it is ‫ܐܦܐ‬ ܻ ܳ ‫ܡܥܘܢ ܟ‬ ܽ ‫ܫ‬. ܶ 256 In Mk • The counterpart to Πέτρος in Mt 26:58 is ‫ܐܦܐ‬ ܻ ܺ ܳ ܽ ܽ ‫ܶܫ‬ s ܶ 14:54 and Lk 22:54 it is ‫( ܫܡܥܘܢ‬Luke has ‫ ܟܐܦܐ‬in Syr and ‫ܡܥܘܢ‬ ܺ ܳ c ‫ ܟܐܦܐ‬in Syr ). In Jn 18:15, the full name Σίμων Πέτρος is matched ܳ ‫ܡܥܘܢ ܟ‬ ܽ ‫ܫ‬. ܶ by ‫ܐܦܐ‬ ܻ ܺ but ܳ ‫ܟ‬, • The counterpart to Πέτρος in Mt 26:73 and Mk 14:70 is ‫ܐܦܐ‬ ܽ ‫ܫ‬. ܶ (The Old Syriac is available in only one in Jn 18:26 it is ‫ܡܥܘܢ‬ version for each of the three passages). ܺ but in Mk 14:72 ܳ ‫ܟ‬, • The counterpart to Πέτρος in Mt 26:75 is ‫ܐܦܐ‬ ܺ ܺ ܳ ‫ ܟ‬in Syrc). 257 ܽ ‫ ܟ ܳܦܐ( ܶܫ‬in Syrs, ‫ܐܦܐ‬ and Lk 22:61 it is ‫ܡܥܘܢ‬ ܳ ‫ ܺܟ‬as the equivalent of Πέτρος where the latter Acts is unique. It completely avoids ‫ܐܦܐ‬ •

74F

749F

is unaccompanied by the personal name Σίμων. Acts therefore stands at the other end Jn 18:11; 21:7, 17, 21. Jn 13:8, 37; 21:20. ܳ ‫ ܺܟ‬in all four instances, ‫ܡܥܘܢ‬ ܳ ‫ܡܥܘܢ ܟ‬ ܽ ‫ ܶܫ‬for ‫ܐܦܐ‬ ܽ ‫ ܶܫ‬for ‫ܐܦܐ‬ ܽ ‫ ܶܫ‬in Jn 21:20, ‫ܡܥܘܢ‬ ܽ ‫ܶܫ‬ 253 Syrs has ‫ܡܥܘܢ‬ ܻ ܳ ܽ ܶ ‫ ܻܟܐܦܐ‬for ‫ ܫܡܥܘܢ‬in Jn 18:16(1º), 26, no correspondence for Jn 18:17, 18, and an alternative reading for Jn 20:3. 254 Syrs for Mark also disagrees in that it lacks a correspondence for Πέτρος, but Syrc is not extant. ܳ ‫ܡܥܘܢ ܟ‬ ܽ ‫ ܶܫ‬is independent of the Greek, which does not have a corresponding variant 255 ‫ܐܦܐ‬ ܻ reading. ܳ ‫ܡܥܘܢ ܟ‬ ܽ ‫ ܶܫ‬is independent of the Greek, which does not have a corresponding variant 256 ‫ܐܦܐ‬ ܻ reading. 257 The Old Syriac is available in only one version for Matthew and Mark. 251 252

THE COLLECTIVE AUTHORSHIP OF THE PESHITTA NEW TESTAMENT

199

of the translation spectrum from Matthew with that Gospel’s preference for the more ܺ and is closer to, but still differs from Luke and ܳ ‫ܟ‬, semantically accurate surname ‫ܐܦܐ‬ ܽ ‫ܫ‬. ܶ For the fifty-two occurJohn with their preference for the personal name ‫ܡܥܘܢ‬ ܳ ‫ܡܥܘܢ ܟ‬ ܽ ܽ ‫ ܶܫ‬in ܶ rences of Πέτρος, Acts employs ‫ ܫܡܥܘܢ‬in forty-one instances, 258 ‫ܐܦܐ‬ ܻ ܳ 259 260 eight, the 3ms. suffix in two, and the transliteration ‫ ܷܦܛܪܘܣ‬for the first occurrence of Πέτρος in a list of the eleven apostles. 261 ܳ The lone occurrence of the transliteration ‫ ܷܦܛܪܘܣ‬cannot help but draw attention to itself not only as a further difference between Acts and the Gospels but as a fifth form of translation for Πέτρος. It is not, however, the only place in the Peshitta New Testament that attests to this transliteration. It is also the sole rendering of the three occurrences of Πέτρος in 1 and 2 Peter as in the titles of these two epistles. 262 All ܳ ܽ ‫ ܶܫ‬in ‫ܛܪܘܣ‬ ܽ ‫ ܶܫ‬as the translation three occurrences modify the personal name ‫ܡܥܘܢ‬ ‫ܡܥܘܢ ܷܦ‬ of the full name Σίμων Πέτρος, although 2 Peter is not part of the Peshitta New Tesܳ tament canon. The number is small, but consistent, and as a rendering ‫ ܷܦܛܪܘܣ‬stands out as distinctively different from anything in the Gospels. It also stands in contrast to the only other translations of Πέτρος in the New Testament; two occurrences in ܺ 263 the first preference of Matthew, the second ܳ ‫ܟ‬, Galatians, both of which have ‫ܐܦܐ‬ preference of Mark, and occurring only four times in Luke and four times in John. In summary, this analysis of the Peshitta New Testament’s rendering of Πέτρος discloses Synoptic Gospel parallels that disagree in their choice of rendering and in doing so illustrates significant translational differences between every book in which this proper name appears. 753F

75F

Peshitta Hebrews and Renderings of Αρχιερευς (priest) and Ιερευς (priest)

Of all the translational differences between books of the Peshitta New Testament, the departure of Hebrews from other writings in its rendering of the Greek nouns ἀρχιερεύς high priest, chief priest and ἱερεύς priest is the most immediately noticeable. The translator of Hebrews has replaced the renderings of these and associated terms in other Peshitta books with an alternative that is total in its application. This alternative is as consistent as it is thorough. Like the books from which it diverges, Hebrews does not discriminate between an ἀρχιερεύς and an ἱερεύς in Israel’s cultic life ܺ ܳ ‫)ܡܫ‬. and with reference to Jesus the Messiah (‫ܝܚܐ‬ There are no semantically nuanced shadows. In total, six Greek terms and six Peshitta Syriac terms are involved. The Greek terms are ἀρχιερατικός high-priestly, ἀρχιερεύς high priest, chief priest, ἱερατεία priestly office, ἱερεύς priest, ἱερωσύνη priestly office, priesthood, and νεωκόρος temple ܳ ܽ ܳ ܳ ܳ ܳ ܳ ‫ ܳܟ‬priest, ‫ܘܬܐ‬ keeper. The Syriac terms are ‫ܗܢܐ‬ ‫ ܟܗܢ‬priesthood, priestly office, ‫ܗܢܝܬܐ‬ ‫ܟ‬ Acts 2:37, 38; 3:3, 4, 6, 11, 12; 4:13; 5:3, 8, 9, 15, 29; 9:32, 34, 38, 39, 40, 40; 10:9, 13, 14, 17, 19, 21, 25, 26, 34, 44, 46; 11:2, 4, 7; 12:5, 6, 11, 14, 14, 16, 18; 15:7. 259 Acts 1:15; 2:14; 3:1; 4:8, 19; 8:14, 20; 12:3. 260 Acts 10:45; 12:7. 261 Acts 1:13. 262 1 Pet 1:1; 2 Pet 1:1. 263 Gal 2:7, 8. 258

200

TERRY C. FALLA

ܳ ܽ ܳ ܳ priestly, sacerdotal, ‫ ܽܟܘܡܪܐ‬priest, ‫ ܽܟܘܡܪܘܬܐ‬priesthood, and ‫ ܽܟܘܡܪܬܐ‬priestess. Every occurrence of all twelve words has been examined, with low-frequency words proving to be as significant as high-frequency ones because they confirm the translator’s technique. Ἀρχιερεύς high priest, chief priest and ἱερεύς priest appear in the Gospels, Acts, and Hebrews. Ἱερεύς also occurs three times in non-Peshitta Revelation. In the Gospels and Acts, the one-hundred-and-seven occurrences ofܳ ἀρχιερεύς correspond to the noun ܳ ܽ ܳ ܳ ‫ ܳܟ‬priest, with two exceptions. One of these, ‫ܘܬܐ‬ ‫ ܟܗܢ‬priesthood, priestly office, is ‫ܗܢܐ‬ ܳ ܳ from the same root as ‫ ܟܗܢܐ‬and is applicable to its context in Lk 3:2. 264 The other exception is where the Peshitta, without the support of a Greek variant, omits ἀρχιερεύς in the phrase “in the courtyard of the high priest” in Jn 18:15. The translaܰ tion of the New Testament hapax legomenon ἀρχιερατικός high-priestly by ‫ ܕ̈ܪ ܰܒܝ ܳܟ ̈ܗ ܶܢܐ‬of ܳ ܳ 265 the chief priests is consistent with the rendering of high-frequency ἀρχιερεύς by ‫ܟܗܢܐ‬. In the Gospels, Acts, and non-Peshitta Revelation, the nineteen occurrences of ἱερεύς ܳ ‫ ܳܟ‬as their correspondence. One of the two excepalso, with two exceptions, have ‫ܗܢܐ‬ ܳ ܳ ܳ tions, in non-Peshitta Revelation, is the hapax-legomenon adjective ‫ܗܢܝܬܐ‬ ‫ ܟ‬priestly, ܳ ܳ 266 sacerdotal, from the same root as ‫ ܟܗܢܐ‬and also applicable to its context. ܶ̈ ܰ ܶ ܳ ܳ ܳ The second exception is ‫ ܽܟܘܡܪܐ‬priest in the phrase ‫ܠܗܐ‬ ‫ܕܡܪܐ ܐ‬ ‫ ܽܟܘܡܪܐ‬the priest of the lord of gods in Acts 14:13, which translates ἱερεύς τοῡ Διὸς the priest of Zeus. It is the only instance in these six books that departs from a word with the root ‫ ܟܗܢ‬to translate the Greek New Testament’s words for priest. It is also the only instance in the New Testament that renders ἱερεύς where this Greek noun is used with reference to other than a priest of Israel, or Christ, or the followers of Christ, to distinguish a ܳ ‫ ܳܟ‬a priest in the Israelite and Christian priest of “the polytheistic world” 267 from ‫ܗܢܐ‬ traditions. Although this distinction is not a characteristic of the use of these Syriac terms in classical Syriac literature generally, 268 that the translator intentionally used ܳ it is confirmed by the use of the feminine noun ‫ ܽܟܘܡܪܬܐ‬priestess, temple keeper, one having charge of a holy place in Acts 19:35; 269 it is a hapax legomenon in the Peshitta New Testament translating the Greek New Testament equivalent νεωκόρος temple keeper, one who is responsible for the maintenance of a temple. 270 762 F

ܳ ܽ ܳ The feminine noun ‫ܗܢܘܬܐ‬ ‫ ܟ‬occurs twice in the Peshitta New Testament. The other occurrence (which maintains the equivalence between Peshitta Syriac nominal forms from the root ‫ ܟܗܢ‬and the Greek ἱερατεύω family of words) in Lk 1:9 translates the ܳ adjective ἱερατεία priestly ܳ ܽ ܳ ܳ ‫’)ܒ‬. office in the phrase ‘according to the custom of the priestly office (‫ܗܢܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܱܥܝ ܳܕܐ ܕܟ‬ 265 Acts 4:6. 266 Rev 1:6. 267 CGEL, 174. 268 See Sokoloff, Syriac Lexicon, 608. 269 Payne Smith, Compendious Syriac Dictionary, 209. Sokoloff, Syriac Lexicon has the gloss ܳ “(pagan) priestess”, 608. Costaz, Dictionnaire Syriaque-Français, 152, cites ‫ ܽܟܘܡܪܬܐ‬as the femܳ ܽ inine of ‫ ܟܘܡܪܐ‬and glosses it simply as “prêtresse, priestess.” 270 BDAG, 670; see also CGEL, 241; GEL, §53.95. 264

THE COLLECTIVE AUTHORSHIP OF THE PESHITTA NEW TESTAMENT

201

The distinction in Acts between different priestly traditions is accentuated by ܳ ܳ ‫ܟ‬: ܳ all eighteen occurPeshitta Hebrews with its preference for ‫ ܽܟܘܡܪܐ‬rather than ‫ܗܢܐ‬ ܳ rences of ἀρχιερεύς and fifteen occurrences of ἱερεύς are translated by ‫ ܽܟܘܡܪܐ‬and, in ܳ ܽ one instance, by ‫ ܽܟܘܡܪܘܬܐ‬priesthood. 271 Five other Peshitta New Testament occurܳ ܽ ܽ rences of ‫ ܟܘܡܪܘܬܐ‬are all in Hebrews. Four translate the noun ἱερωσύνη priestly office, priesthood. 272 The fifth translates the noun ἱερατεία priestly office. 273 In its turn, this Greek noun calls attention to Lk 1:9, its one other occurrence in the New Testament, where it is rendered by one of the two occurrences in the Peshitta New Testament of ܳ ܽ ܳ the feminine noun ‫ܗܢܘܬܐ‬ ‫ ܟ‬priesthood, priestly office. The other is in Lk 3:2 where it renders ἀρχιερεύς. Reviewing this complexity of interweaving Greek-Syriac correspondences, it is apparent that Peshitta Hebrews consistently translates the noun ἀρχιερεύς and the ܳ ܽ ἱερατεύω family of words in its source text by the related Syriac nominal forms ‫ܟܘܡܪܐ‬, ܳ ܽ ܳ ܽ ܽ ‫ܟܘܡܪܘܬܐ‬, and ‫ܟܘܡܪܬܐ‬. Likewise, the Gospels, Acts, and non-Peshitta Revelation are consistent in translating ἀρχιερατικός, ἀρχιερεύς, and words from the ἱερατεύω family by Syriac nominal forms from the root ‫ܟܗܢ‬, unless, as in Acts, those words refer to priests of the Greek-Roman polytheistic world. Comparison of a Synoptic Passage in Peshitta Matthew and Luke

Throughout this analysis, Peshitta readings that can be attributed to the influence of the Old Syriac have been set aside except where the nature of their retention in the Peshitta text justifies their consideration. This has been to avoid a contamination of evidence. It could be argued, for instance, that the one translator could have retained two quite different renderings of a Synoptic parallel from the Old Syriac finding no good reason to alter them. However, now that the evidence points to each Peshitta Gospel being the product of a different translator, a Synoptic parallel can be viewed from a different perspective. A good example is the return of the evil spirit in Mt 12:43–44 and Lk 11:24–25. In the Greek, this passage is virtually the same in both Gospels, with no variant readings. Peshitta Matthew and Luke’s translations of the Greek are, however, markedly different from each other. This difference would have been discounted because, except for two small details, 274 the Lucan translation finds a precedent in one or another of the Old Syriac Gospels. However, the analysis of Peshitta Luke reveals an independence of style and attention to detail which leads to the conclusion that the rendering of the Old Syriac would not have been retained unless it fulfilled the translator’s purpose. The parallel Matthean and Lucan accounts can be compared and seen as a further and final exquisite example of a difference between two translators, and, added to the other examples, of multiple authorship. Heb 7:3. Heb 7:11, 12, 14*, 24. 273 Heb 7:5. 274 In Lk 11:24 Syrsc has ‫ ܐܗܦܘܟ ܐܙܠ‬and Syrp has ‫ ܐܗܦܘܟ‬only, and in Lk 11:25 Syrsc respectively ܶ Syrp departs from the Greek but is not due to a variant has ‫ ܡܐ‬and ‫ ܘܡܐ‬and Syrp has ‫ܘܐܢ‬. reading. 271 272

202

TERRY C. FALLA

Here, the most effective way to compare is to let the texts speak for themselves in order to observe the different use of: ܳ ‫ ܘ‬with ‫ܕ‬, ‫ ܘ‬with ‫;ܘܡ ܴܐ ܕ‬ ܳ • particles (Mt 12:43⫽Lk 11:24 ‫ ܶܐ ܰܡܬܝ ܕ‬with ‫ܡܐ ܕ‬, ܶ ܶ ܶ ܰ ܰ Mt 12:44⫽Lk 11:24–25 ‫ܝܟܐ ܕ‬ ܴ ‫ ܡܢ ܐ‬with ‫ܐܝܡ ܴܟܐ ܕ‬, ‫ ܘ‬with ‫)ܘܐܢ‬. ܶ • verbal constructions (Mt 12:43⫽Lk 11:24 imperfect ‫ ܬ ܽܦܘܩ‬with perfect ܶ single pt. ‫ ܶܡܬܟܪܟܐ‬with two pts. ‫ܶܡܬܟܪܟܐ‬ ܳ act. pt. ‫ܥܝܐ‬ ܰ ‫ܢ‬, ܳ ‫ ܳܒ‬with ‫ܦܩܬ‬ ̱‫ܐ ܳܙܠܐ‬, ܴ ܱ ܴ ܱ ܶ ܶ ܶ ܶ ܳ ܰ imperfect ‫ܬܒܥܐ‬, act. pt. ‫ ܡܫܟܚܐ‬with perfect ‫ ;ܐܫܟܚܬ‬Mt 12:44⫽Lk 11:24– ܶ ܶ act. pt. ‫ܫܟܚܐ‬ ܶ ܳ ‫ ܳܐ‬with perfect ‫ܐ ܳܬܬ‬, ܳ ‫ ܶܡ‬with perfect ‫ܚܬܗ‬ 25 act. pt. ‫ܬܝܐ‬ ‫)ܐܫ ܱܟ‬. ܶ ܳ ܽ ܶ ܳ ‫]ܕܝܢ[ ܕܪ‬ • general sentence structure (for example, ‫ܘܚܐ ܰܛܢܦܬܐ ܬ ܽܦܘܩ‬ ܷ ‫ ܐ ܰܡܬܝ‬Mt ܳ ܰ ܳ ܽ ܶ ܳ ܰ 12:43 with ‫ ܪܘܚܐ ܛܢܦܬܐ ܡܐ ܕܢܦܩܬ‬Lk 11:24). Mt⫽Lk Mt 12:43 Lk 11:24 Mt⫽Lk Mt 12:43 Lk 11:24

Mt 12:44

Lk 11:24

Mt⫽Lk Mt 12:44 Lk 11:25

Ὃταν δὲ [Lk lacks δὲ] τὸ ἀκάθαρτον πνεῦμα ܳ ܽ ܳ ‫ܕܪ‬ ‫ܘܚܐ ܰܛܢܦܬܐ‬ ‫ܶܐ ܰܡܬܝ ܷܕܝܢ‬ Now when an unclean spirit ܳ ܳ ‫ܽܪ‬ ‫ܘܚܐ ܰܛܢܦܬܐ‬ An unclean spirit

ἐξέλθῃ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου

διέρχεται δι’ ἀνύδρων τόπων ζητοῦν ἀνάπαυσιν ܰ ܰ ‫ܐܬܪ ܳܘ ܳܬܐ‬ ܽ ‫ܕܡ ̈ܝܴܐ ܠܰܝܬ‬ ‫ܪܟܐ ̈ ܱܒ‬ ‫ܒܗܘܢ‬ ܴ ‫ܶܡܬ ܱܟ‬ it wanders through waterless regions ܰ ܰ ܰ ‫ܐܬܪ ܳܘ ܳܬܐ‬ ‫ܪܟܐ ̈ ܱܒ‬ ‫ܕܡ ̈ܝܴܐ ܠܝܬ‬ ܴ ‫ܳܐ ܳܙܠܐ̱ ܶܡܬ ܱܟ‬ ܽ ‫ܒܗܘܢ‬ it goes wandering through waterless regions

καὶ οὐχ εὑρίσκει Mt⫽μὴ εὑρίσκον Lk

τότε λέγει εἰς τὸν οἶκόν μου ἐπιστρέψω ܳ ܳ ܽ ‫ܡܪܐ ܶܐ‬ ܰ ‫ܗܦܘܟ‬ ‫ܠܒܝܬܝ‬ ‫ܝܕܝܢ ܐ‬ ܷ ‫ܳܗ‬ Then it says, ‘I will return to my house λέγει ὑπoστρέψω εἰς τὸν οἶκόν μου ܳ ܳ ܽ ‫ܡܪܐ ܶܐ‬ ܰ ‫ܗܦܘܟ‬ ‫ܠܒܝܬܝ‬ ‫ܐ‬ says, ‘I will return to my house

ὅθεν ἐξῆλθον

καὶ ἐλθὸν εὑρίσκει σχολάζοντα ܺ ܳ ܳ ‫ܐܬܝܐ ܶܡ‬ ‫ܫܟܚܐ ܱܕܣܪܝܩ‬ ‫ܳܘ‬ And it comes finding that it is vacated, ܶ ܺ ܳ ‫ܶܘܐܢ ܶܐܬܬ ܶܐܫ ܱܟܚܬܗ ܕܣܪܝܩ‬ And should it have come, it would have found it vacated

σεσαρωμένον καὶ κεκοσμημένον ܺ ‫ܰܘ‬ ܰ ‫ܘܡܨܒܱܬ‬ ‫ܚܡܝܡ‬ and swept, and put in order

ܳ ‫ܶܬ ܽܦܘܩ ܶܡܢ ܒ‬ ‫ܱܪܢ ܳܫܐ‬ goes out of a person ܶ ‫ܳܡܐ‬ ܰ ‫ܕܢ‬ ‫ܦܩܬ ܶܡܢ ܒܱܪ ܐ̱ ܳܢ ܳܫܐ‬ when it has gone out of a person

ܳ ܳ ‫ܥܝܐ‬ ܳ ‫ܘܒ‬ ܳ ‫ܘܠܐ ܶܡ‬ .‫ܫܟܚܐ‬ ܴ ‫ܢܝ ܳܚܐ‬ and seeks rest and does not find it ܶ ܳ .‫ܢܝ ܳܚܐ‬ ܳ ‫ܕܬܒܥܶܐ ܠ ܳ ̇ܗ‬ ܰ ‫ܕܠܐ ܶܐ‬ ‫ܫܟܚܬ‬ ܴ ‫ܘܡ ܴܐ‬ to seek rest. And when it does not find it

ܶ ‫ܶܡܢ ܰܐܝܟܐ‬ ܶ ‫ܕܢ‬ ‫ܦܩܬ‬ ܴ from which I came out’. ὅθεν ἐξῆλθον ܶ ‫ܝܡܟܐ‬ ܶ ‫ܕܢ‬ ‫ܦܩܬ‬ ܴ ܶ ‫ܰܐ‬ from which I came out’.

ܺ ‫ܰܘ‬ ܰ .‫ܘܡܨܒܱܬ‬ ‫ܚܡܝܡ‬ and swept, and put in order

THE COLLECTIVE AUTHORSHIP OF THE PESHITTA NEW TESTAMENT

CONCLUDING COMMENTS

203

This article begins with the closing lines of the well-known poem 'The Lost Lagoon' by Emily Pauline Johnson. The loss was temporary and tidal, due to the ebbing of the sea. Today the lagoon has become a permanently protected lake but is—due to the poem—called the Lost Lagoon. For the Peshitta New Testament, the loss of the multi-authored tapestry of its text and the recognition of those who created it, is also temporary. Regaining what was always there can change the ways in which the Peshitta New Testament is studied and read. Once, biblical scholarship thought that the Peshitta New Testament was the work of a major figure in the ancient world; a theory that, through its dominance, determined the lens through which the translation was seen. This theory shaped how the Peshitta New Testament was viewed as a literary creation, affecting the nature of its relationship to earlier Syriac versions of the Gospels and Apostolos, and the later mirror translation of the Harklean version. Inevitably, it also determined the Peshitta New Testament’s use as a versional witness to the text of the Greek New Testament. But when we take this translation in our hands and see in it the life-force of many, we begin to see in it textures and histories that would otherwise remain hidden. A different kind of personal dimension enters as well as more sweeping manifestations. No longer can insights be imposed from one book on another. Through the sifting of their semantic and syntactic choices and of their perceptions of their Greek and Syriac sources, the touch of different translators working towards a common goal can be detected. Over what period of time and at what points of time in the transmission of the text these various differences were woven into its fabric will probably always remain hidden from us. Be that as it may, what we can see in this collectively-authored work is the presence of bilingualists who were as proficient in the finest nuances of Greek syntax as they were in their own language. They prove themselves familiar with syntactic and semantic nuances which, in contemporary Western scholarship, can be found only in the most technical publications. At a time when Syriac was at the peak of its influence, they skilfully moved between the encyclopaedias of two great and very different linguistic systems and cultures. This article accentuates difference. But there is another characteristic of the Peshitta New Testament that is equally intrinsic and is opposite in what it reveals, though not in the sense that it mitigates evidence regarding collective authorship. It is an attribute that has not yet been properly explored, would constitute a major investigation in its own right, and lies beyond the scope of this present work. In brief, it is the cohesion of translation technique that seems to pervade the revision to the extent that Andreas Juckel calls it “a unity of style” that “is the true mystery of the

204

TERRY C. FALLA

Peshitta.” 275 Certainly, this revision is as different from the Old Syriac versions that have survived as the music of a Ludwig van Beethoven is from a Gustav Mahler, an Alexandre Desplat from a Ryuichi Sakamoto. What constitutes this unity of style? Can it be explained as the result of the translators making their revision conform more closely to the Greek? In part. But there is, it seems, something more, something that goes beyond that aim. Is it the sum total of a legion of lexical agreements, which in themselves deserve serious investigation? Again, that would be no more than a partial explanation. Whatever future research may reveal, the one matter on which consensus would remain is that this ubiquitous feature, like the revision’s disagreements in use of vocabulary and phraseology, lies deeply embedded in the history and transmission of the text and would have been an inherent part of what José Ortega y Gasset describes as the ‘misery and splendour’ of the translation process. 276

POSTSCRIPT

Rif, as I brought this article to completion, I saw you in the company of those gifted Peshitta translators whose presence was always there in their text waiting to be revealed. Their names we will never know. But their contribution to their culture and time and something of the spirit that imbues it, we do know. And so here in your Festschrift, celebrating your life-work, we can offer this song-line that sees you and these ancient Syriac scholars as fellow collaborators in a community that has valued a still-living language for more than two millennia.

ABBREVIATIONS act. pt. = active participle

General

Bar-Heb. ap. Jon. = Bar-Hebraei in Jones; critical-apparatus abbreviation in Pusey and Gwilliam, Tetraeuangelium Sanctum, xiv, for an edition of the Peshitta Gospels Edd. = Editiones (Editions); critical-apparatus abbreviation in Pusey and Gwilliam, Tetraeuangelium Sanctum, xiv Heb. = Hebrew Jon. = Jones; critical-apparatus abbreviation in Pusey and Gwilliam, Tetraeuangelium Sanctum, xiv, for an edition of the Peshitta Gospels In personal correspondence (3 August 2022). I record here my thanks to both Andreas Juckel and Anne Thompson for their encouragement and insights, Andreas into the Syriac text of the New Testament and Anne into lexical aspects of Ancient Greek. 276 José Ortega y Gasset, “The Misery and the Splendour of Translation”, tr. Elizabeth Gambel Miller, in Theories of Translation: An Anthology of Essays from Dryden to Derrida, Rainer Schulte and John Biguenet, eds (Chicago/London: 1992). 275

THE COLLECTIVE AUTHORSHIP OF THE PESHITTA NEW TESTAMENT

205

LXX = Septuagint Mas. = Massora; critical-apparatus abbreviation in Pusey and Gwilliam, Tetraeuangelium Sanctum, xiii n.c. = no correspondence: indicates that a Peshitta reading does not have a correspondence in the Greek Raph. = Raphelengii; critical-apparatus abbreviation in Pusey and Gwilliam, Tetraeuangelium Sanctum, xiv, for an edition of the Peshitta Gospels Sch. W = Widmanstadi; critical-apparatus abbreviation in Pusey and Gwilliam, Tetraeuangelium Sanctum, xiv, for an edition of the Peshitta Gospels * = Asterisk distinguishes references to variant Greek readings ⫽ = parallel to

Lexicons

BDAG = Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich, Greek-English Lexicon CGEL = Danker, The Concise Greek-English lexicon GEL = Louw and Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament IGNTP = International Greek New Testament Project KPG = Falla, A Key to the Peshitta Gospels LSJ9 = Liddell, Scott, and Jones, Greek-English Lexicon, 9th rev. edn.

JB = Jerusalem Bible

Bible Translations - English

Moffatt = Moffatt, The New Testament: A New Translation NEB = New English Bible NIV = New International Version NJB = New Jerusalem Bible NRSV = New Revised Standard Version Phillips = Phillips, The New Testament in Modern English REB = Revised English Bible with the Apocrypha Syriac Bible Versions

Syrc = Curetonian version of the Old Syriac

Syr[c] = [ ] indicates that the Curetonian version of the Old Syriac is not extant Syrp = Peshitta version of the New Testament

206

TERRY C. FALLA

Syrs = Sinaitic version of the Old Syriac Syr[s] = [ ] indicates that the Sinaitic version of the Old Syriac is not extant

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aland, Kurt, ed. Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum, 15th rev. edn. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1997). Aland, Barbara and Kurt, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini and Bruce M. Metzger, eds. Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th rev. edn. (Munster/Westphalia: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2014). American and British Committees of the International Greek New Testament Project, eds. The New Testament in Greek, The Gospel according to St. Luke, ed. by the Part One. Chapters 1–12 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1984); Part Two. Chapters 12–24 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1987). —— Vollständige Konkordanz zum griechischen Neuen Testament, vol. i (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1983). Alford, Henry. The Greek New Testament, vol. I, 6th edn. (Cambridge: Rivingtons & Deighton Bell, 1868). Attridge, Harold W. Hebrews: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Philadelphia: Fortress,1989). Baarda, Tjitze. “The Gospel Text in the Biography of Rabbula”, Vigiliae Christianae, 14/2 (1960), 102–27. Bauer, Walter, Danker, Frederick William, Arndt, William F., and Felix W. Gingrich, (BDAG), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd edn., rev. and ed. Frederick William Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000). Beekes, Robert, ed., Etymological Dictionary of Greek, 2 vols (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2010). Berry, George R. The Interlinear Literal Translation of the Greek New Testament (Chicago: Wilcox & Follet, 1952). Black, Matthew. “The Text of the Peshitta Tetraeuangelium” in Studia Paulina in honorem Johannis de Zwaan septuagenarii, by J. N. Sevenester and W. C. van Unnik, eds (Haarlem: De Erven F. Bohn N. V., 1953), 20–7. Blass, Friedrich. Philology of the Gospels (London: Macmillan, 1898; repr. Whitefish, Montana: Kessinger, 2022). Blass, Friedrich and Albert Debrunner. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. A revision of F. Blass and A. Debrunner: Grammatik der neutestamentlichen Griechisch, incorporating supplementary notes

THE COLLECTIVE AUTHORSHIP OF THE PESHITTA NEW TESTAMENT

207

by A. Debrunner, Robert W. Funk, tr. and ed. (Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press, 1961). Bover, José M. Novi Testamenti Biblia Graeca et Latina, 5th edn. (Madrid: Gráficas Condor, 1968). Brock, Sebastian P. “Greek Words in the Syriac Gospels (Vet and Pe)”, Le Muséon 80 (1967), 389–426. —— “Limitations of Syriac in Representing Greek” in The Early Versions of the New Testament: Their Origin, Transmission, and Limitations, Bruce M. Metzger, ed. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1977). —— “Two Hitherto Unattested Passages of the Old Syriac Gospels in Palimpsest from St Catherine’s Monastery, Sinai”, Δελτίο Βιβλικῶν Μελετῶν (Deltion Biblikōn Meletōn) 31Α, 7–18. —— “The Use of the Syriac Fathers for New Testament Textual Criticism” in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis, Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes, eds, 2nd edn. (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 407–28.

Brockelmann, Carl. Lexicon Syriacum, 2nd edn. (Halle: Max Niemeyer, 1928; repr. Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1982). —— Syrische Grammatik mit Paradigmen, Literatur, Chrestomathie und Glossar (Leipzig: Enzyklopädie,1960). Brown, Francis, Samuel R. Driver and Charles A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1906). Brown, Raymond E. The Gospel According to John, 2 vols (London: Chapman, 1971). Brown, Robert K. and Philip W. Comfort. The New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament: a new interlinear translation from the Greek New Testament United Bible Societies’ Fourth Revised Edition with the New Revised Standard Version, New Testament (Carol Stream, Ill.: Tyndale, 1990). Burkitt, Francis C. Early Eastern Christianity: St. Margaret’s Lectures, 1904, on the Syriac-Speaking Church (London: Murray, 1904). —— Evangelion da-Mepharreshê; the Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels, with the Readings of the Sinai Palimpsest…, 2 vols (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1904). Butts, Aaron M. “Between Aramaic *’idhayn and Greek δε: The Linguistic History of Syriac den” in Syriac in its Multi-cultural Context, Herman Teule, et al., eds (Louvain: Peeters, 2017), 17–30. Casson, Lionel. Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1971).

208

TERRY C. FALLA

Chantraine, Pierre. Dictionnaire étymologique langue grecque: histoire des mots, 4 vols (Paris: Klincksieck, 1968–80). Ciancaglini, Claudia A. Iranian Loanwords in Syriac (Wiesbaden: Reichert, 2008). Clark, Albert C. The Acts of the Apostles, A Critical Edition with Introduction and Notes on Selected Passages (Oxford: Clarendon, 1933). Clines, David, et al., eds. The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, 8 vols (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993–2011). Coakley, James F. Robinson’s Paradigms and Exercises in Syriac Grammar (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003). Cockerill, Gareth Lee. The Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2012). Copley, Logan. Translation Technique and Verbal System of the Old Syriac and Peshitta Versions of Luke 1. accessed 9 Nov. 2021. Costaz, Louis. Dictionnaire Syriaque-Français/Syriac-English Dictionary, 2nd edn (Beirut: Dar El-Machreq, 1963). Cureton, William. Remains of a very Ancient Recension of the Four Gospels in Syriac (London: Murray, 1858). Danker, Frederick W. with Kathryn Krug. The Concise Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press, 2009). Dawe, Roger David. The Odyssey—Translation and Analysis (Lewes: Book Guild, 1993 Denniston, John D. The Greek Particles, 2nd edn. rev. (K. J. Dover, Oxford: Clarendon, 1954; repr. Bristol Classical Press, 2013). Diggle, James, and Bruce Fraser, Patrick James, Oliver Simkin, Anne Thompson, and Simon Westripp, eds. The Cambridge Greek Lexicon, 2 vols (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2021. Duval, Rubens. Traité de grammaire syriaque: écriture, phonétique, orthographie les parties du discours et les formes des mots syntaxe, index des mots (Amsterdam: Philo, 1969). El-Badawi, Emran Iqbal. The Qur’ān and the Aramaic Gospel Traditions (London/New York: Routledge, 2014). Falla, Terry C. ‘Demons and Demoniacs in the Peshitta Gospels’, Abr-Nahrain, IX (1970), 43–65. —— Studies in the Peshitta Gospels: An Examination of Four Groups of Peshitta Gospel Words and Their Contribution to the Study of the Peshitta as a Revision [unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Melbourne, 1971]. —— A Key to the Peshitta Gospels, vol. i: ʾĀlaph–Dālath (Leiden: Brill, 1991); vol. ii: Hê –Yôdh (Leiden: Brill, 2000).

THE COLLECTIVE AUTHORSHIP OF THE PESHITTA NEW TESTAMENT

209

—— “Grammatical Classification in Syriac Lexica: A Syntactically Based Alternative”, in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography III, Janet Dyk and Wido van Peursen, eds (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2008), 71–138. —— “Peshitta Parables as Oral Performance”, in The Third Lung: New Trajectories in Syriac Studies, Brouria Bitton-Ashkelony, Miriam L. Hjalm, and Robert Kitchen, eds (Louvain: Peeters, forthcoming). Falla, Terry C. and Beryl Turner, A Key to the Peshitta Gospels, vol. iii: Kaph–Έ (Leiden: Brill, in preparation). Fitzmyer, Joseph, A., The Gospel According to Luke, 2 vols, 2nd edn. (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1981-1985). Glare, P. G. W., ed. with assistance of Anne A. Thompson, Revised Supplement of Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, Henry Stuart Jones, and Roderick McKenzie, Greek-English Lexicon, 9th rev. edn. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996). Goshen-Gottstein, Moshe H. A Syriac-English Glossary with Etymological Notes (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1970). Haelewyck, Jean-Claude. “The Old Syriac Versions of the Gospels. A Status Quaestionis (From 1842 to the Present Day)”, Bulletin de l’Académie Belge pour l’Étude des Langues Anciennes et Orientales, DOI:10.14428/babelao. Vol. viii, 2019. Hallam, Steven C., Basics of Classical Syriac: Complete Grammar, Workbook, and Lexicon (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2016). Harris Cowper, Benjamin. The Principals of Syriac Grammar, tr. and abr. from the work of Hoffmann (Leipzig: 1858). Hatch, Edwin and Henry Adeney Redpath. A Concordance to the Septuagint and the Other Greek Versions of the Old Testament (including the Apocryphal Books) (Oxford: Clarendon, 1897). Herzfeld, Ernst. Zoroaster and His World, 2 vols (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1947). Hjelt, Arthur L.M. Die altsyrische Evangelienübersetzung und Tatians Diatessaron, besonders in ihrem gegenseitigen Verhältnis [Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons und der altkirchlichen Literatur, 7.1] (Leipzig: Deichert, 1903). Jändl, Barbara. “Die syrischen Konjunktionen und Partikeln kād, w-, dēn und gēr” in Neue Beiträge zur Semitistik, Norbert Nebes, ed. [Jenaer Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient 5] (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2002), 77–90. Jennings, William, Lexicon to the Syriac New Testament, revised Ulric Gantillon (Oxford: Clarendon, 1962). Jerusalem Bible (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1967).

210

TERRY C. FALLA

Juckel, Andreas. “Introduction”, i–xiii, to Gorgias repr. of Pusey and Gwilliam’s Tetraeuangelium Sanctum (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2003). Kahle, Paul, E. The Cairo Geniza, 2nd edn. (Oxford: Blackwell, 1959). Kenyon, Frederick G. Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, 2nd edn. (London: Macmillan, 1912, [reprint] 1926). Kerschensteiner, Josef. Der Altsyrische Paulustext (Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1970). King, Daniel. The Antioch Bible: The Syriac Peshitta Bible with English Translation. Romans-Corinthians (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2013). Kiraz, George A. A Computer-Generated Concordance to the Syriac New Testament, 6 vols (Leiden: Brill, 1993). —— Comparative Edition of the Syriac Gospels Aligning the Sinaiticus, Curetonianus, Peshîttâ & Harklean Versions, 4 vols (Leiden: Brill, 1996). Kiraz, George A. and Andreas Juckel, et al., eds. The Antioch Bible: The Syriac Peshiṭta Bible with English Translation (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2012-). Klein, Otto. Syrisch-Griechisches Wörterbuch (Giessen: Töpelmann, 1916). Köbert, Raimund, Vocabularium Syriacum (Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1956). Köehler, Ludwig, Walter Baumgartner, M. E. J. Richardson, and Johann Jakob Stamm, et al., The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 5 vols (Leiden-New York-Köln: Brill, 1994–2000). Legg, Stanley C. E. Novum Testamentum Graece, secundum Textum Westcotto-Hortianum, Evangelium secundum Marcum (Oxford: Clarendon, 1935). Lewis, Agnes Smith. A Translation of the Four Gospels from the Sinaitic Palimpsest (London: Macmillan, 1894). —— The Old Syriac Gospels, or Evangelion da-Mepharreshê; being the text of the Sinai or Syro-Antiochian Palimpsest, including the latest additions and emendations, with the variants of the Curetonian text (London: Macmillan, 1910). Liddell, Henry George, Robert Scott, and Henry Stuart Jones, with the assistance of Roderick McKenzie. Greek-English Lexicon, 9th rev. edn. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1940). Louw, Johannes P., and Nida, Eugene A., et al., eds. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, 2 vols (New York: United Bible Societies, 1988). Lund, Jerome. The Old Syriac Gospel of the Distinct Evangelist: A Key-Word-in-Context Concordance, 3 vols (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2004).

THE COLLECTIVE AUTHORSHIP OF THE PESHITTA NEW TESTAMENT

211

Lyon, Jeffrey P. Syriac Gospel Translations: A Comparison of the Language and Translation Method Used in the Old Syriac, the Diatessaron, and the Peshitto (Louvain: Peeters, 1994). McCarthy, Carmel. Saint Ephrem’s Commentary on Tatian’s Diatessaron (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993). Metzger, Bruce M. The Early Versions of the New Testament: Their Origin, Transmission, and Limitations (Oxford: Clarendon, 1977). Mingana, Alphonse. “The Remaining Syriac Versions of the Gospels”, The Expository Times 25 (1914–1915), 379–81. Moffatt, James. The New Testament: A New Translation (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1913). Montanari, Franco, ed. The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2015). Morrish, George. A Concordance of the Septuagint (London: Macmillan, 1970). Moulton, James Hope and George Milligan. The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1949). Muraoka, Takamitsu. A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint (Louvain/Paris/Walpole, MA: Peeters, 2009). Nau, François. “L'Araméen chrétien (syriaque). Les traductions faites du grec en syriaque au VIIe siècle”, Revue de l’histoire des religions 99 (1929), 232–87. —— “Les ‘Belles Actions’ de Mar Rabboula: Évêque d’Edesse de 412 au 7 Août 435 (ou 436)”, Revue de l’histoire des religions 103 (1931), 97–135. Nestle, Eberhard. Syriac Grammar with bibliography, chrestomathy and glossary, tr. R. S. Kennedy, 2nd edn. (London: Williams & Norgate, 1889). Nestle, Eberhard, et al., eds., Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th edn. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung, 2013). New English Bible, 2nd corrected edn. (Oxford and Cambridge: Oxford and Cambridge University Presses, 1972). New International Version (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1973). New Jerusalem Bible (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1966). New Revised Standard Version (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989). New Testament in Syriac (London: The British and Foreign Bible Society, 1955). Newman, Barclay M. A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament (London: United Bible Societies, 1971).

212

TERRY C. FALLA

Nicholson, Oliver, ed. Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity, 2 vols (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018). Nöldeke, Theodor. Compendious Syriac Grammar, tr. J. A. Crichton (London: Williams & Norgate, 1904. [repr. with appendix: the handwritten additions in Theodor Nöldeke’s personal copy, Anton Schall, ed.; tr. Peter T. Daniels (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2001)] Ortega y Gasset, José. “The Misery and the Splendour of Translation”, tr. Elizabeth Gambel Miller in Theories of Translation: An Anthology of Essays from Dryden to Derrida, Rainer Schulte and John Biguenet, eds (Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press, 1992). Palacios, Ludovico. Grammatica Syriaca, 2nd edn. (Rome/Paris/New York/Tournai: Desclée, 1954). Payne Smith, Jessie. A Compendious Syriac Dictionary, founded upon the Thesaurus Syriacus of R. Payne Smith (Oxford: Clarendon, 1903; repr. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1998). Payne Smith, Robert. Thesaurus Syriacus, 2 vols (Oxford: Clarendon, 1897–1901; with Supplement by J. P. Margoliouth, Oxford: Clarendon, 1927). Pazzini, Massimo. Lessico Concordanziale del Nuovo Testamento Siriaco (Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 2004). Pearson, Patrick B. Syriac Rhetorical Particles: Variable Second-Position Clitic Placement (Brigham Young University Scholars Archive, 2015 accessed 9 Nov, 2021). Petersen, William L. Tatian’s Diatessaron: Its Creation, Dissemination, Significance, and History in Scholarship (Leiden: Brill, 1994). Peursen, Wido van and Terry C. Falla. “The Particles ‫ ܶܓܝܪ‬and ‫ ܶܕܝܢ‬in Classical Syriac: Syntactic and Semantic Aspects” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography II, Peter J. Williams, ed. (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2009), 63–98.

Phillips, George. The Elements of Syriac Grammar (Cambridge: Deighton & Parker, 1837). —— Syriac Grammar, 3rd ed., rev. and enl. (London: Bell & Daldy, 1866). Phillips, John B. The New Testament in Modern English (London: Archbishops’ Council, 1958). Piñero, Antonio and Peláez, Jesús. The Study of the New Testament: A Comprehensive Introduction, David E. Orton and Paul Ellingworth, ed. and tr. (Leiden: Deo, 2003). Powell, John Enoch, A Lexicon to Herodotus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1938).

THE COLLECTIVE AUTHORSHIP OF THE PESHITTA NEW TESTAMENT

213

Pusey, Philip E. and George H. Gwilliam. Tetraeuangelium Sanctum juxta simplicem Syrorum versionem (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1901; repr. as Tetraeuangelium Sanctum: The Fourfold Holy Gospel in the Peshitta Syriac Version. As revised in accordance with the readings of ancient manuscripts and early editions; with introduction by Andreas Juckel (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2003). Revised English Bible with the Apocrypha (Oxford and Cambridge: Oxford and Cambridge University Presses, 1989). Robertson, Archibald T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, 4th edn. (Nashville: Broadman, 1934). Romeny, Bas ter Haar and Craig E. Morrison. “Peshitta” in Sebastian P. Brock, Aaron M. Butts, George A. Kiraz and Lucas Van Rompay, eds. Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage (Electronic Edn., 2011), accessed 9 Nov. 2021. Schall, Anton. Studien über griechischen Fremdwörter im Syrischen (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1960). Sokoloff, Michael. A Syriac Lexicon: A Translation from the Latin, Correction, Expansion, and Update of C. Brockelmann’s Lexicon Syriacum (Winona Lake, IN/Piscataway NJ: Eisenbrauns, Gorgias, 2009). —— Dictionary of Christian Palestinian Aramaic (Louvain: Peeters, 2014). Strothmann, Werner. Konkordanz zur Syrischen Bibel. Der Pentateuch, 4 vols (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1986). Thayer, Joseph Henry, Ludwig Wilibald Grimm and Christian Gottlob Wilke, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament being Grimm’s Wilke’s Clavis Novi Testamenti Translated, Revised, and Enlarged by Joseph Henry Thayer. 4th edn. (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1901; repr. New York: 2010). Thesaurus Linguae Graecae® Digital Library. Ed. Maria C. Pantelia. University of California, Irvine. http://www.tlg.uci.edu. Tischendorf, Constantinus. Novum Testamentum Graece, 2 vols, 8th edn. (Leipzig: Giesecke & Devrient, 1869–1872). Tregelles, Samuel P. The Greek New Testament (London: Samuel Bagster & Sons, 1857–1879). ܰ lexical entry prepared for Terry C. Falla and Beryl Turner, A Key Turner, Beryl, “‫”ܟܝ‬, to the Peshitta Gospels, vol. iii: Kaph–Έ (Leiden: Brill, in preparation). Vogels, Heinrich. J. Novum Testamentum Graece et Latina, 4th edn. (Freiburg: Herder, 1955). Von Soden, Hermann. Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments in ihrer ältesten erreichbaren Textgestalt, 2 vols (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1913).

214

TERRY C. FALLA

Vööbus, Arthur. Studies in the History of the Gospel Text in Syriac, Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, vol. cxxviii, Subsidia tome iii (Louvain: Durbecq, 1951). Weitzman, Michael P. The Syriac Version of the Old Testament: An Introduction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008). West, Martin L., ed. Homerus Odyssea: Recensuit et Testimonia Congessit (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2017). Whish, Henry F. Clavis Syriaca (London/Cambridge: George Bell & Sons; Deighton, Bell & Co., 1883). Williams, Peter J. Early Syriac Translation Technique and the Textual Criticism of the Greek Gospels (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2004). Yoder, James D. Concordance to the Distinctive Greek Text of Codex Bezae (Leiden: Brill, 1961).

EPHREM (ALLEGEDLY) ON HIMSELF: TWO SYRIAC POEMS SEBASTIAN P. BROCK ∗

(ORIENTAL INSTITUTE, UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD) Two texts attributed to St Ephrem, each described as being ‘On himself’ are edited and translated. Neither of these texts is at all likely to go back to the hand of Ephrem himself, but they nevertheless have an interest in their own right, and do not deserve to be left aside and forgotten.

ATTRIBUTIONS TO EPHREM

The first text presented below has been long known; it was originally published by Ignatius Ephrem II Rahmani in the first volume of his Studia Syriaca. 1 The great Estonian Syriacist, Arthur Vööbus, discussed the poem on two occasions, 2 and rightly came to the conclusion that it was too self-confident and laudatory to be genuine. He also drew attention to the existence of a second ‘autobiographical’ poem, preserved in Mingana syr. 190, ff.126r–127v, with the opening ‘Comforter of all Mourn̈ ers’ (‫ܐܒܝܠܝܢ‬ ‫)ܒܘܝܐܐ ܕܟܠ‬. He considered it had a better chance of being by Ephrem himself in view of its confession of sinfulness. Vööbus never published the text, so this seems an opportune occasion to do so, but his optimism that it might genuinely be by Ephrem, however, was unfounded. The vocabulary of this poem at once indicates that it cannot have been written before the end of the fifth century, since it Among Rifaat Ebied’s many valuable contributions to Syriac literature are a couple of articles that published texts which have been transmitted under Ephrem’s name. These include Rifaat Ebied and Lionel Wickham, “A short treatise on the Trinity in Syriac attributed to St Ephrem the Syrian”, The Harp 27 (2011), 343–51, and “A collection of acrostic admonitions in Syriac attributed to St Ephrem the Syrian”, The Harp 29 (2014), 41–53. Accordingly, it seems appropriate to offer in his honour an edition and translation of two texts attributed to St Ephrem, each described as being ‘On himself’. 1 Ignatius E. Rahmani, Studia Syriaca I (Mt Lebanon: 1904), 11–12 (Latin tr.), 56 (note); 12*– 13* (text). 2 Arthur Vööbus, Literary Critical Studies and Historical Studies in Ephrem the Syrian (Stockholm: 1958), 16–8; Arthur Vööbus, History of Asceticism in the Syrian Orient: a contribution to the history and culture of the Near East, 2 vols (Louvain: 1958–1988), vol. II, 73–4. ∗

215

216

SEBASTIAN P. BROCK

includes the term ‘angelic’, an adjectival form that is not found in any Syriac author before Philoxenus († 523 C.E.), who has the earliest attested use of it in his late commentary on the Prologue of John.

THE FIRST POEM, EDITED BY RAHMANI

Like many soghyatha (dialogue poems), the poem is transmitted in liturgical manuscripts containing the Syriac Orthodox Fenqitho, or festal hymnary, covering the entire liturgical year, featuring—as one might expect—in the Commemoration of St Ephrem, on the first Saturday of Lent (in the surprising company of St Theodore). 3 Rahmani stated that the source of his edition of the present poem was drawn ‘from many liturgical codices’, and provides a few variant readings in his footnotes. The text is also printed in full in the Mosul edition of the Fenqitho, 4 prepared by Bishop Clemens Joseph David; in the shorter Indian edition (Pampakuda) only alternate i.e. odd-numbered verses are provided. 5 Such a situation is often found in Fenqitho manuscripts, since they were often copied specifically for one or other of the two choirs (gude). Harvard Syr. 30, f.89v (twelfth century) provides a counterpart with only even-numbered verses. Two other published sources have also been consulted: Julius Y. Çiçek Qinotho d-qurobo alohoyo (St Ephrem Monastery, NL. 1993), 138–9, and the reproduction of a Fenqitho for Lent, copied by Gabriel Aktash in Bakisyan (Tur ‘Abdin) in December 2002 (as indicated in the colophon on p. 92). It is very likely that the poem will be found in several other Fenqitho manuscripts for Saturday of the First Week of Lent (e.g. Harvard Syr. 140, f. 52v; Berlin, Sachau 323, f. 116v, and 236, f. 51v [Verzeichnis, nr. 19, 20]). Complete witnesses: M (= text)

Mosul Fenqitho IV (1991), 191–2.

R

ed. Rahmani, Studia Syriaca 1 (1904), 12*–13*; a doxological final verse is added at the end, based on the ‘onitha.

Partial witnesses: C

ed. Çiçek, Qinotho d-qurobo alohoyo (1993), 138–9: 1, 2, 8, 12, 16.

H

Harvard Syr. 30, folio 89v: alternate verses, even numbers.

L

Lent Fenqitho (2002), 92: alternate verses, odd numbers (with 15 coming after 19, since it begins with ‘Praise to You…’).

This goes back at least to the beginning of the 11th century, cf. BL Add 12147, of 1005/6. See William Wright, Catalogue of Syriac manuscripts in the British Museum: acquired since 1838 (London: 1870–2), 261. 4 Breviarium iuxta Ritum Ecclesiae Antiochenae Syrorum, IV (Mosul: 1891), 191–2. 5 Fenqitho II (Pampakuda: 1963), 62–3. See also Sebastian P. Brock, “Some hidden treasures of the Pampakuda Fenqitho”, The Harp 20:II (2006), 59–73 for overall discussion of the Pampakuda Fenqitho. 3

‫‪EPHREM (ALLEGEDLY) ON HIMSELF‬‬

‫‪217‬‬

‫‪Pampakuda Fenqitho II (1963), 62-3: alternate verses, odd numbers.‬‬

‫‪P‬‬

‫‪The metre is 5+5+5+5+5.‬‬ ‫)‪EDITION AND TRANSLATION Text (= M‬‬

‫̇‬ ‫ܕܣܡܗ ܥܠ‬ ‫ܣܘܓܝܬܐ ܥܠ ܡܪܝ ܐܦܪܝܡ‬ ‫ܒܩ ܚܘܬܘ ̈‬ ‫ܐܚܝ ̈ܪܫܝܡܐ ‪٧‬‬ ‫̇‬ ‫̈‬ ‫‪ .١‬ܟܦܢܬ ܟܡܐ ܙܒܢܝܢ ܕܟܝܢܝ ܬܒܥ ܗܘܐ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܠܗܘ ܛܘܒܐ ܕܢܛܝܪ ̈‬ ‫ܠܨܝܡܐ܀‬ ‫ܘܐܬܟܠܝܬ ‪ ٨‬ܘܠܐ ܐܟܠܬ ܕܐܫܬܘܐ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܡܝܐ ܠܫܩܘܬܐ ܬܒܥܢܝ ܟܝܢܝ ܛܝܢܐ‬ ‫‪.٢‬‬ ‫ܘܐܪܦܝܬܗ ܕܢܐܒܫ ܕܢܐܙܠ ܘܢܬܦܪܦܥ ܒܛܠܗ ܕܦܪܕܝܣܐ܀‬ ‫̈‬ ‫‪ .٣‬ܘܡܛܠ ‪ ٩‬ܚܘܬܚܬܘܗܝ ܕܣܓܝܘ ܒܟܠܥܕܢ‬ ‫ܠܛܠܝܘܬܝ ܘܠܣܝܒܘܬܝ ܓܢܒܬ ܚܕ ܚܕ ܝܘܡ ܥܕܡܐ ܠܫܘܠܡܐ܀‬ ‫‪ .٤‬ܒܨܦܪܐ ̇ܪܢܐ ܗܘܝܬ ܕܥܕ ‪ ١٠‬ܪܡܫܐ ܐܡܘܬ‬ ‫ܘܐܝܟ ܓܒܪܐ ܕܡܐܬ ܦܠܚܬ ܕܠܐ ܩܘܛܥ ܟܠܗ ܐܝܡܡܐ ‪١١‬܀‬ ‫‪ .٥‬ܒܪܡܫܐ ܗܘܐ ܚܘܫܒܝ ܕܠܨܦܪܐ ܠܝܬܝ‬ ‫ܘܥܕܡܐ ܕܢܓܗܬ ܫܡܫܬ ܙܗܝܐܝܬ ܘܩܡܬ ܒܨܠܘܬܐ܀‬ ‫‪ .٦‬ܘܟܕ ܬܒܥܢܝ ܦܓܪܐ ܫܢܬܐ ܠܣܘܢܩܢܗ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܡܪܢ ܠܕܥܝܪܝܢ܀‬ ‫ܒܗܘ ‪ ١٢‬ܛܘܒܐ ܕܝܗܒ ܗܘܐ‬ ‫ܒܫܘܕܠܐ‬ ‫ܕܒܪܬܗ‬ ‫‪ .٧‬ܐܢܐ ܠܝ ܥܒܕܬ ܥܕܬܐ ܠܡܫܝܚܐ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܥܡܠܐ ‪١٣‬‬ ‫ܕܗܕܡܝ܀‬ ‫ܒܣܡܐ ܘܗ̈ܪܘܡܐ‬ ‫ܒܓܘܗ‬ ‫ܘܩܪܒܬ ܠܗ‬ ‫‪ .٨‬ܡܕܒܚܐ ܗܘܐ ܪܥܝܢܝ ܘܟܗܢܐ ܗܘܐ ܨܒܝܢܝ‬ ‫ܘܐܝܟ ܐܡܪܐ ܕܟܝܐ ܕܒܚܬ ܐܢܐ ܩܢܘܡܝ ‪ ١٤‬ܘܩܪܒܬ ܩܘܪܒܢܐ܀‬ ‫‪ .٩‬ܕܠܐ ܐܡܫܘܚ ܡܫܚܐ ܙܗܝܪ ܗܘܝܬ ܕܠܐ ܣܟܐ‬ ‫ܡܛܠ ܕܐܬܡܫܚܬ ܚܕܐ ܙܒܢ ܒܥܡܕܐ ܒܡܫܚܐ ‪ ١٥‬ܕܪܘܚ ܩܘܕܫܐ܀‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܒܡܝܐ ܣܓܝ ܩܢܝܛ ܗܘܝܬ‬ ‫‪ .١٠‬ܕܠܐ ܐܣܚܐ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫‪١٦‬‬ ‫ܕܣܚܝܬ ܒܓܘ ܡܝܐ ܕܢܦܩܘ ܡܢ ܕܦܢܗ ܕܡܪܢ ܒܙܩܝܦܐ܀‬ ‫‪ .١١‬ܢܘܪܐ ܕܩܘܪܒܢܐ ܐܡܬܝ ̇‬ ‫ܕܫܩܠ ‪ ١٧‬ܗܘܝܬ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫‪١٨‬‬ ‫ܗܕܐ ܗܘܬ ܒܥܘܬܝ ܕܬܘܩܕ ܙܝܙܢܐ ܕܝܥܪܐ ܕܗܕܡܝ܀‬ ‫ܢܦܫܗ ‪٦‬‬ ‫‪٧٧٥‬‬

‫‪٧٧٦‬‬

‫‪٧٧٧‬‬

‫‪٧٧٨‬‬

‫‪٧٧٩‬‬

‫‪٧٨٠‬‬

‫‪٧٨١‬‬

‫‪٧٨٢‬‬

‫‪٧٨٣‬‬

‫‪٧٨٤‬‬

‫‪٧٨٥‬‬

‫‪٧٨٦‬‬

‫‪٧٨٧‬‬

‫̇‬ ‫ܕܣܡܗ ܥܠ ܢܦܫܗ ‪H‬‬ ‫ܣܘܓܝܬܐ ܥܠ ܡܪܝ ܐܦܪܝܡ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܕܐܡܪܗ ܡܪܝ ܐܦܪܝܡ ܐܠ ܢܦܫܗ ‪L‬‬ ‫ܣܘܓܝܬܐ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܕܣܡܗ ܗܘ ܩܕܝܫܐ ܡܪܝ ܐܦܪܝܡ ܥܠ ܩܢܘܡܗ ‪P‬‬ ‫ܣܘܓܝܬܐ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܣܘܓܝܬܐ ܕܐܡܪܗ ܡܪܝ ܐܦܪܝܡ ܥܠ ܢܦܫܗ‪R .‬‬ ‫‪7‬‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܠܐܬܠܝܛܘܗܝ ‪= L R (om. P). L R adds‬‬ ‫ܥܘܢܝܬܐ‪ .‬ܫܘܒܚܐ ܠܟ ܡܪܢ ܡܚܝܠ‬ ‫‪8‬‬ ‫‪om. waw L.‬‬ ‫‪9‬‬ ‫‪om. waw L.‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬ ‫ܥܕ ‪H‬‬ ‫ܟܠܗܘܢ ̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫‪11‬‬ ‫)ܝܘܡܝ( ̈‬ ‫ܚܝܝ )‪H R(cod‬‬ ‫ܫܢܝ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫‪12‬‬ ‫ܕܗܘ ‪H‬‬ ‫‪13‬‬ ‫‪HLP + syame.‬‬ ‫‪14‬‬ ‫ܠܩܢܘܡܝ ‪C H‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬ ‫ܒ‪L om. -‬‬ ‫‪16‬‬ ‫ܕܪܕܘ )‪R(cod.‬‬ ‫̇‬ ‫‪17‬‬ ‫ܕܢܣܒ ‪L‬‬ ‫‪18‬‬ ‫ܘܝܥܪܐ ‪L‬‬ ‫‪6‬‬

‫‪SEBASTIAN P. BROCK‬‬

‫‪.١٢‬‬ ‫‪.١٣‬‬

‫‪218‬‬

‫̈‬ ‫ܒܗܕܡܝ ‪١٩‬‬

‫̈‬ ‫ܐܚܝ‬ ‫ܢܘܪܐ ܕܫܪܝܐ ܗܘܬ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܒܕܡܗ ܕܐܠܗܐ ܕܥܟܬ ܓܘܙܠܬܗ ܕܠܐ ܬܘܩܕ ܠܩܢܘܡܝ܀‬ ‫ܦܓܪܗ ܕܐܠܗܐ ‪ ٢٠‬ܕܫܩܠܬ ܒܝܬ ܩܘܕܫܐ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̇‬ ‫‪٢١‬‬ ‫ܢܟܝܢܝܢ ܕܡܢ ܗܘ ܕܐܩܪܒ ܥܡܝ܀‬ ‫ܗܘ ܢܛܪܗ ܠܩܢܘܡܝ ܡܢ ܟܠ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܒܪܡܫܐ ̇ܚܬܡ ܗܘܝܬ ܟܠܗܘܢ ܗܕܡܝ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܢܚܠܨܝܗ ܠܒܬܘܠܘܬܝ܀‬ ‫ܒܫܡܗܐ ܬܠܬܐ ܕܠܐ ܢܐܬܐ ܒܝܫܐ‬ ‫ܫܘܒܚܐ ܠܟ ܡܢ ܟܠ ܚܝܠܐ ܬܠܝܬܝܐ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܕܚܝܠܬܗ ܠܣܝܒܘܬܝ ܒܐܓܘܢܐ ܪܒܐ ‪ ٢٢‬ܢܘܓܪܐ ܕܫܢܝܐ܀‬ ‫ܡܢ ܛܠܝܘܬܝ ܠܣܝܒܘܬܝ ܢܝܪܟ ܫܩܠܬ ܡܪܝ‬ ‫ܘܦܠܚܬ ܕܠܐ ܩܘܛܥ ܟܠܝܘܡ ܚܕܝܐܝܬ ܥܕܡܐ ܠܫܘܠܡܐ܀‬ ‫ܠܛܘܪܦܐ ܕܟܦܢܐ ܚܝܒܬ ܘܙܟܝܬܗ‬ ‫ܕܚܙܝܬܟ ܕܐܟܠܬ ‪ ٢٣‬ܡܪ̈ܪܐ ܡܛܠܬܝ ܒܝܢܬ ̈‬ ‫ܓܝܣܐ܀‬ ‫ܠܐܘܠܨܢܐ ܕܨܗܝܐ ܚܫܒܬܗ ܐܝܟ ܠܝܬܘܗܝ‬ ‫ܕܚܙܝܬ ܕܒܨܠܝܒܐ ܐܫܬܝܬ ‪ ٢٤‬ܡܛܠܬܝ ܚܠܐ ܒܐܣܦܘܓܐ ‪٢٥‬܀‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܐܦܝ ܐܬܝܪܩܝ ‪٢٦‬‬ ‫ܒܨܘܡܐ ܘܒܫܗܪܐ‬ ‫ܕܒܝܘܡ ܢܘܚܡܐ ܐܚܙܝܟ ‪ ٢٧‬ܐܝܟ ܡܘܫܐ ܢܒܝܐ ‪ ٢٨‬ܘܐܙܕܗܐ܀‬ ‫ܚܙܝܬܟ ܕܨܠܝܒ ܐܢܬ ‪ ٢٩‬ܥܪܛܠ ܥܠ ܩܝܣܐ‬ ‫ܘܥܒܕܬ ܠܒܘܫܝ ܣܩܐ ܘܝܬܒܬ ܥܠ ܣܒܪܟ ܘܣܟܝܬ ܠܡܐܬܝܬܟ ‪٣٠‬܀‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܡܐܟܠܬܐ ܘܫܛܬ ܚܡ̈ܪܢܐ‬ ‫ܐܣܠܝܬ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܥܝܢܝ ܡܫܬܘܬ ܡܠܟܘܬܟ ܚܬܢܐ ܫܡܝܢܐ܀ ‪٣١‬‬ ‫ܕܨܪܬ ܩܕܡ‬ ‫‪٧٨٨‬‬

‫‪٧٨٩‬‬

‫‪٧٩٠‬‬

‫‪.١٤‬‬ ‫‪.١٥‬‬

‫‪٧٩١‬‬

‫‪.١٦‬‬ ‫‪.١٧‬‬

‫‪٧٩٢‬‬

‫‪.١٨‬‬

‫‪٧٩٣‬‬

‫‪.١٩‬‬

‫‪٧٩٥‬‬

‫‪٧٩٦‬‬

‫‪.٢٠‬‬

‫‪٧٩٤‬‬

‫‪٧٩٧‬‬

‫‪٧٩٨‬‬

‫‪٧٩٩‬‬

‫‪.٢١‬‬

‫‪٨٠٠‬‬

‫‪Translation‬‬ ‫‪Soghitha on Mar Ephrem which he composed concerning himself. Qala: Go down,‬‬ ‫‪my brethren who are marked. 32‬‬ ‫‪How often have I thirsted, for my nature was demanding,‬‬ ‫‪but I was held back and did not eat so that I might be held worthy of that‬‬ ‫‪blessed state which is reserved for those who fast.‬‬

‫‪1.‬‬

‫̈‬ ‫ܒܗܕܡܝ ̈‬ ‫ܐܚܝ ‪H‬‬ ‫ܕܡܫܝܚܐ ‪L‬‬ ‫‪21‬‬ ‫ܡܢ ‪HLP‬‬ ‫‪22‬‬ ‫ܕܚܝܠܬ ܣܝܒܘܬܝ ܩܡܬ ܒܐܓܘܢܐ ‪P‬‬ ‫‪23‬‬ ‫ܕܚܙܝܬ ܠܡܪܝ ܕܐܫܬܝ ‪L‬‬ ‫‪24‬‬ ‫ܒܨܠܝܒܐ ܕܐܫܬܝܬ ‪H‬‬ ‫‪25‬‬ ‫ܚܙܝܬ ܠܡܪܝ ܕܐܫܬܝ ܚܠܐ ܒܐܣܦܘܓܐ ܡܛܠ ܚܛܝܘܬܝ )‪H(cod.‬‬ ‫̈‬ ‫‪26‬‬ ‫ܐܬܝܩܕܝ! ‪L‬‬ ‫‪27‬‬ ‫‪L om.‬‬ ‫‪28‬‬ ‫ܐܚܙܝܟ ‪L +‬‬ ‫‪29‬‬ ‫ܚܙܝܬܗ ܠܡܪܝ ܕܨܠܝܒ ܥܪܛܠ )‪ , R(cod.‬ܡܪܝ ܕܨܠܝܒ ܕܥܪܛܠ ‪H‬‬ ‫‪30‬‬ ‫ܣܒܪܗ‪...‬ܠܡܐܬܝܬܗ )‪R(cod.‬‬ ‫‪31‬‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܕܐܬܠܝܛܘܗܝ‪R adds a further stanza: .‬‬ ‫ܫܘܒܚܐ ܠܟ ܝܫܘܥ ܣܒܪܐ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܒܚܝܠܟ ܢܬܚܝܠܘܢ ܥܒܕܝܟ ܘܣܓܘܕܝܟ ܕܒܫܡܟ ܚܬܝܡܝܢܢ܀‬ ‫‪32‬‬ ‫‪The first words of a well-known baptismal hymn; the ‘mark’ is that of the pre-baptismal anoint‬‬‫‪ing. L and R add a Refrain, ‘Praise to Your, our Lord, (the One who) strengthens His athletes’.‬‬ ‫‪19‬‬ ‫‪20‬‬

EPHREM (ALLEGEDLY) ON HIMSELF

219

2.

My clay-like nature demanded of me water to drink, but I allowed it to dry up, so that it might go and luxuriate in the dew of Paradise.

3.

Because its enticements at all times were many for my youth and my old age, I stole away each day until the very end.

4.

In the morning to evening I was thinking I would die before evening, and like a man about to die, I toiled unflinchingly the entire day. 33

5.

In the evening my thought was that I might not live till the morning, and before it became light, I served (the Psalms) 34 chastely and I stood in prayer.

6.

When my body demanded of me sleep for its needs, I guided it with the enticements of that bliss that our Lord has provided for those who are wakeful.

7.

I made myself into a church for Christ and within it I offered to him incense and fragrances—the labour of my limbs.

8.

My mind served as an altar, and my will was the priest, and like a pure lamb, I sacrificed myself and offered (it) up (as an) offering. 35

9.

I was endlessly careful not to anoint myself with oil because I had been anointed once (and for all) at baptism with the oil of the Holy Spirit.

10. I was greatly afraid so as not to wash in water since I had washed in the water that issued 36 from the side of our Lord on the Cross. 37 11. When I received the Fire of the Oblation, this was my supplication: that it should burn up the tares of the weeds of my limbs. 12. The fire that resided in my limbs, O my brethren, with the Blood of God, the flame was quenched, so as not to burn up my person. 13. The Body of God 38 which I received in the Sanctuary 807F

H R(cod.) all the years (Rcod. days) of my life. A monastic background is implied. 35 Stanzas 7 and 8 reflect Discourse 12 of the Book of Steps, on the three churches, in heaven, on earth, and in the heart. 36 R(cod.) flowed (cf. John 7:38). 37 John 19:34. For the use of this verse in some West Syriac baptismal services, see Sebastian P. Brock, The Holy Spirit in the Syrian Baptismal Tradition (Piscataway NJ.: 2008), 107–14. 38 L Christ. 33 34

220

SEBASTIAN P. BROCK has preserved my person from all harms that (come) from him who has waged war with me.

14. In the evening I used to sign all my limbs with the three-fold names, lest the Evil One come and snatch away my virginity. 15. Praise to You from all, O threefold Power, for You have given power to my old age in the great contest over the length of years. 16. From my youth to my old age I have carried your yoke, O Lord, and I have toiled without flinching each day rejoicing, right up to the end. 17. I have overcome and vanquished the vexation of hunger for I beheld You, how you consumed bitterness for my sake between the (two) thieves. 39 18. I considered as nothing the affliction of thirst for I saw that on the Cross You drank on my behalf vinegar in the sponge. 40 19. With fasting and vigil my face has grown pale so that on the day of the resurrection may I see You, like Moses the prophet, 41 and shine out. 20. I have seen you, Lord, crucified and naked on the Wood and I have made sack-cloth my clothing and have sat in hope of you, awaiting your coming. 21. I rejected (fine) foods, I despised any kind of wine, for I have depicted before my eyes the banquet of Your Kingdom, O heavenly Bridegroom!. 42 R adds: Praise to You, Jesus, Hope of Your (lit. his) athletes; with Your strength may Your servants and worshippers be strengthened, for we are sealed with Your name.

THE SECOND POEM, IN MINGANA SYR. 190

Despite Vööbus’ optimistic remarks about the possibility that this poem might possibly be genuinely by Ephrem, a closer study of it indicates that this cannot be the case, seeing that there are several features which belong to a time at the very least a century after his death. Perhaps most obvious is the appearance (in stanza 13) of the adjectival form mal’akaya, ‘angelic’; totally unknown to fourth century writers, and

Matthew 27:34. John 19:29. 41 Cf. Exodus 34:29. 42 The title occurs in (Ps.) Ephrem, Sermones (ed. Edmund Beck) II, iii. 883, and is common in liturgical poetry. 39 40

EPHREM (ALLEGEDLY) ON HIMSELF

221

first attested in Philoxenus’ late work, the Commentary on the Prologue of John. 43 Furthermore, its combination with eskimo in the technical sense of ‘monastic habit’ belongs to the context of a well-developed monastic tradition, again pointing to a time long after Ephrem, who only knew the earlier Syriac ‘proto-monastic’ tradition. Another jarring anachronism is to be found in stanza 22, where ‘Ephrem’ states that he was in ‘the rank of the priests’, completely in contradiction to the early attestation (dated 392 C.E.) by Jerome, in his de viris illustribus, that Ephrem was a deacon. Possibly the true author of the poem had in mind the existence of a short poem attributed to Ephrem ‘On the priesthood’. 44 A further anachronistic feature is the reference in stanza 11 to the intercession of Mary and the saints, a feature not found till after Ephrem’s lifetime. All this indicates that the terminus post quem for the dating of the poem is at least the sixth century. If, as seems likely in the context, teshmeshta is used in stanza 23 in the sense of the monastic Office, this would probably imply at least a seventh-century date. In the light of this one might tentatively suggest an approximate date of the seventh or eighth century for the composition of the poem. EDITION AND TRANSLATION Mingana Syr. 190, ff. 126r–127v 45 On the few occasions where I have corrected the text, the reading of the manuscript is indicated in the footnote. The metre is 7+7+7+7 syllables.

‫ܕܝܠܗ ܕܩܕܝܫܐ ܡܪܝ ܐܦܪܝܡ ܣܘܓܝܬܐ ܥܠ ܢܦܫܗ‬ ̈ ̈ ‫ܕܥܝܝܩܐ‬ ‫ܐܒܝܠܝܢ ܘܡܠܒܒܢܐ‬ ‫ ܒܘܝܐܐ ܕܟܠ‬.١ ̈ ‫ ܚܫܐ ܡܢ ܟܠ ܕܘܟ܀‬٤٦ ‫ܒܝܐ ܡܪܝ ܠܐܒܝܠܘܬܝ ܕܚܕܪܘܢܝ‬ ‫ ܟܪܝܘܬ ܠܒܐ ܟܪܝܟܐ ܠܝ ܘܥܩܬܐ ܘܚܫܐ ܡܫܝܡܝܢ ܠܝ‬.٢ ̈ ‫ܐܦ‬ ‫ܫܘܢܩܐ ܡܣܪܕܝܢ ܠܝ ܒܟܝܐ ܪܒܐ ܥܠܝ ܘܝ ܠܝ܀‬ ̈ ̈ ‫ ܝܡܐ ܕܚܛܗܐ ܥܫܢ ܠܝ ܘܡܒܘܥܐ ܕܕܡܥܝ ܓܙ ܠܗ‬.٣ ̈ ‫ܡܢ ܣܚܘܐ ܒܝܫܐ‬ ‫ܕܚܘܒܝ ܘܝܐ ܠܩܢܘܡܝ ܠܝ ܘܝ ܠܝ܀‬ ̇ ‫ ܬܐܪܬܐ ܒܥܠܕܝܢܝ‬.٤ ‫( ܡܫܢܩܐ ܠܝ‬126v) ‫ܕܝܢܐ ܠܝ ܘܐܝܟ ܬܒܘܥܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܘܚܛܗܝ ܠܝ ܿ ܼܡܥܗܕܐ ܠܝ ܒܟܝܐ ܪܒܐ ܥܠܝ ܘܝ ܠܝ܀‬ ٨١٥

André de Halleux, Commentaire du Prologue Johannique/Philoxène de Mabbog (Louvain: 1977), 179; slightly earlier occurrences in translated texts are to be found in the Syriac translations of Evagrius and Gregory Nazianzus. Cf Antoine Guillaumont, tr., Les six centuries des ‘Kephalaia gnostica’. Édition critique de la version syriaque commune et édition d'une nouvelle version syriaque, intégrale, avec une double traduction française (Paris: 1958) IV.38 and Jean-Claude Haelewyck, ed., Sancti Gregorii Nazianzeni opera: versio syriaca. 4, orationes XXVIII, XXIX, XXX et XXXI (Leuven, Turnhout: 2007), 14–5; both translations probably belong to near the end of the fifth century. 44 Ignatius E. Rahmani, ed., I Fasti della Chiesa Patriarchale Antiochena: conferenza dʼinaugurazione tenuta in nome dellʼistituto pontificio orientale il 18 gennaio MCMXX (Rome: 1920), vii–x. See also Kees den Biesen, Annotated Bibliography of Ephrem the Syrian, Student Edition (The Author: 2011), §100, 49. 45 Copied in Mosul in 1874 by the prolific scribe Mattai bar Paulos. 46 ms ‫ܕܚܕܪܘܢ‬ 43

‫‪SEBASTIAN P. BROCK‬‬

‫‪.٥‬‬ ‫‪.٦‬‬ ‫‪.٧‬‬ ‫‪.٨‬‬ ‫‪.٩‬‬

‫‪222‬‬

‫ܠܚܘܠܕܐ ܗܐ ܐܬܕܡܝܬ ܠܝ ܘܚܫܟܐ ܣܢܝܐ ܪܚܡܬ ܠܝ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܚܛܗܝ ܘܝ ܠܝ܀‬ ‫ܘܠܢܘܗܪܐ ܠܐ ܪܓܬ ܠܝ ܘܝ ܠܝ ܡܢ‬ ‫ܢܒܟܘܢ ܥܠܝ ̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܝܕܘܥܝ ܘܟܠܗܘܢ ̈‬ ‫ܐܚܝ ܘܐܚܝܢܐ‬ ‫ܥ ̈‬ ‫̇‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܒܕܝ ܒܝܫܝܢ ܠܝ ܘܝ ܠܝ܀‬ ‫ܒܚܛܗܝ‬ ‫ܝܘܡܝ‬ ‫ܕܐܦܩܬ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܐܪܥܐ ܡܒܓܢܐ ܡܢ ܚܘܒܝ ܘܛܘ̈ܪܐ ܼܡܝܠܠܝܢ ܡܢ ܪܘܫܥܝ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܚܛܗܝ ܠܝ ܘܝ ܠܝ܀‬ ‫̈ܪܡܬܐ ̈ܐܠܝܢ ܥܠܝ ܕܣܓܝܘ‬ ‫ܐܒܝ ܘܐܡܝ ܫܒܩܘܢܢܝ ܡܢܗܘܢ ܘܩ̈ܪܝܒܝ ܒܪܘܚܩܐ ܩܡܘ ܠܗܘܢ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܘܝܕܘܥܝ ܐܪܚܩܘ ܠܗܘܢ ܘܝܠܝ ܡܘܢ ܐܥܒܕ ܘܝ ܠܝ܀‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܢܐܬܐ ܠܝ ܒܪ ܚܠܩܝܐ ܢܒܝܐ ܕܚܫܐ ܐܪܡܝܐ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܚܛܗܝ ̈‬ ‫ܒܝܫܐ ܘܝ ܠܝ܀‬ ‫ܢܐܠܦܢܝ ‪ ٤٧‬ܒܟܝܐ ܥܡ ܐܠܝܐ ܥܠ‬ ‫ܼܿ‬ ‫ܡܪܝܐ ܕܚܣܝ ܠܚܛܝܬܐ ܘܨܕ ܡܢ ܒܐܪܐ ܠܫܡܪܝܬܐ‬ ‫ܥ ̈‬ ‫ܗܒ ܠܝ ܕܐܒܟܐ ܒܬܚܢܢܬܐ ܥܠ ̇‬ ‫ܒܕܝ ̈‬ ‫ܒܝܫܐ ܘܝ ܠܝ܀‬ ‫ܡܪܢ ܒܨܠܘܬ ܝܠܕܬܟ ܘܕܫܦܪܘ ܘܫܦܪܝܢ ܠܨܒܝܢܟ‬ ‫ܗܒ ܠܝ ̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܕܐܒܟܐ ܥܠ ‪٤٨‬‬ ‫ܚܛܗܝ ܘܝ ܠܝ܀‬ ‫ܕܡܥܐ ܒܛܝܒܘܬܟ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܘܫܠܝܚܐ ܬܘܒ ܕܢܩܦܘ ܠܟ‬ ‫ܬܦܝܣܟ ܚܠܦܝ ܝܠܕܬܟ‬ ‫ܒܨܠܘܬܗܘܢ ܚܘܣ ܥܠ ܓܒܝܠܬܟ ܘܠܐ ܐܗܘܐ ܡܒܥܕ ܡܢܟ܀‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܠܡܓܒܝܐ‬ ‫ܐܣܟܝܡܐ ܡܠܐܟܝܐ ܢܣܒܬ ܕܐܦܠܘܚ‬ ‫ܘܢܚܬܬ ܠܕܪܓܐ ܕ̈ܪܦܝܐ ܒܨܒܝܢܝ ܪܦܝܐ ܠܝ ܘܝ ܠܝ܀‬ ‫ܐܪܦܝܬ ܦܘܠܚܢ ̈‬ ‫ܛܒܬܐ ܘܗܘܝܬ ܥܒܕܐ ܠܚܛܝܬܐ‬ ‫ܘܗܐ ̇‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܪܥܐ ܐܢܐ ܚܝܘܬܐ ܒܥܪܝ̈ܪܝܬܐ ܘܝ ܠܝ܀‬ ‫‪٤٩‬‬ ‫ܝܫܘܥ ܝܡܐ ܕܚܢܢܐ ܕܒܪܢܝ ܒܛܝܒܘ ܠܟ ܡܦܝܣ ܐܢܐ ܏‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܚܛܗܝ ܡܪܝܪܝܢ ܘܝ ܠܝ܀‬ ‫ܚܘܣ ܥܠܝ ܒܝܘܡܐ ܕܕܝܢܐ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܢܦܫܐ ܪܚܝܡܬܐ ܘܚܒܝܒܬܐ ܕܐܝܬܝܗ ܒܕܡ ܝܫܘܥ ܙܒܝܢܬܐ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܦܠܦܠܬܗ ܡܩܝܡ ܠ̈ܪܡܝܐ ܥܕܪܝܢܝ܀‬ ‫ܚܛܗܝ‬ ‫ܒܣܪܝܘܬ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫̇‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܨܒܝܢܝ ܒܟܐܢܘ ܪܫܐ ܠܝ ܘܐܝܟ ܕܝܢܐ ܕܐܢ ܠܝ‬ ‫ܥ ̈‬ ‫ܘܚܛܗܝ ܠܝ ܡܥܗܕ ܠܝ ܘܝ ܠܝ ܥܠ ̇‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܒܕܝ ܘܝ ܠܝ܀‬ ‫ܒܚܛܝܬܐ ܡܬܠܒܒ ܐܢܐ )‪ (127r‬ܘܒܡܟܣܐ ܡܬܒܝܐܐ ܐܢܐ‬ ‫ܘܒܓܝܣܐ ̇‬ ‫ܚܐܪ ܐܢܐ ܘܠܦܣܩ ܣܒܪܐ ܠܐ ̇ܐܬܐ ܐܢܐ܀‬ ‫̇‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܒܚܫܐ ܪܒܐ ܒܥܐ ܐܢܐ ܘܠܩܢܘܡܝ ܘܝܐ ܝܗܒ ܐܢܐ‬ ‫ܐܚܝ ̇‬ ‫ܘܡܢܟܘܢ ̈‬ ‫ܒܥܐ ܐܢܐ ܕܬܒܟܘܢ ܥܠܝ ܠܝ ܘܝ ܠܝ܀‬ ‫ܒܥܐܘܘܢ ܥܠܝ ܡܢ ܚܢܢܐ ܕܒܣܝܡܐ ܗܘ ܘܡܪܚܡܢܐ‬ ‫ܕܢܚܘܣ ܥܠܝ ܒܝܘܡܐ ܕܕܝܢܐ ܘܢܦܨܝܢܝ ܡܢ ܓܝܗܢܐ܀‬ ‫ܙܪܝܙܐ ܗܘܝܬ ܠܝ ܠܚܛܝܬܐ ܘܡܐܝܢܐ ܠܦܘܠܚܢ ̈‬ ‫ܛܒܬܐ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܘܬܙܝܙܐ ܠܘܬ ̈‬ ‫ܘܠܚܛܗܝ ܘܝ ܠܝ܀‬ ‫ܒܝܫܬܐ ܘܝ ܠܝ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܕܟܗܢܐ ܐܬܡܢܝܬ ܘܟܟܪܐ ܒܛܝܒܘ ܕܡܪܝ ܢܣܒܬ‬ ‫ܒܕܪܓܐ‬ ‫ܘܐܝܟ ̇‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܕܙܕܩ ܠܐ ܐܬܬܓܪܬ ܚܛܗܝ ܡܪܝ̈ܪܐ ܘܝ ܠܝ܀‬ ‫ܦܩܕܢܝ ܡܪܝ ܕܐܗܘܐ ܥܝܪܐ ܘܒܬܫܡܫܬܐ ܬܘܒ ܙܗܝܪܐ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܚܛܗܝ ܡܪܝ̈ܪܐ ܘܝ ܠܝ܀‬ ‫ܘܐܢܐ ܦܘܩܕܢܗ ܫܛܬ‬ ‫ܘܝ ܠܝ ܡܐ ̇‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܕܐܬܐ ܚܬܢܐ ܘܬܒܥ ܟܟܪܐ ܘܝܘܬܪܢܐ‬ ‫ܡܘܢ ܐܥܒܕ ܠܐ ̇ܝܕܥ ܐܢܐ ܕܐܬܚܙܝܬ ܠܝ ܚܒܢܢܐ܀‬ ‫‪٨١٦‬‬

‫‪.١٠‬‬ ‫‪.١١‬‬

‫‪٨١٧‬‬

‫‪.١٢‬‬ ‫‪.١٣‬‬ ‫‪.١٤‬‬ ‫‪.١٥‬‬ ‫‪.١٦‬‬ ‫‪.١٧‬‬ ‫‪.١٨‬‬ ‫‪.١٩‬‬ ‫‪.٢٠‬‬ ‫‪.٢١‬‬ ‫‪.٢٢‬‬ ‫‪.٢٣‬‬ ‫‪.٢٤‬‬

‫‪٨١٨‬‬

‫ܢܐܠܦܢ ‪ms‬‬ ‫)‪ (vid.‬ܥܠܝ ‪ms‬‬ ‫‪49‬‬ ‫ܕܒܪܢ ‪ms‬‬ ‫‪47‬‬ ‫‪48‬‬

EPHREM (ALLEGEDLY) ON HIMSELF

223

̈ ‫ܘܝ ܠܝ ܕܐܡܬܝ‬ ̈ ‫ܩܕܡܢ ܠܝ ܠܒܝܬ ܡܠܟܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܕܙܢܝܬܐ‬ ̈ ̇ ̈ ‫ܘܠܝ ܡܫܕܪܝܢ ܠܝ ܠܓܘ ܦܚܬܐ ܥܠ ܥܒܕܝ ܒܝܫܐ ܘܝ ܠܝ܀‬ ̈ ‫ܥܝܢܝ ܠܒܝ ܠܘܬܟ ܡܪܝܡ ܐܢܐ ܝܫܘܥ ܝܡܐ ܕܚܢܢܐ‬ ̇ ̇ ٥٠ ‫ܕܗܐ ܩܪܝܢ ܠܟ ܒܐܘܠܨܢܐ܀‬ ‫ܚܘܣ ܥܠ ܥܒܕܟ ܒܥܐ ܐܢܐ‬ ̈ ٥١ ‫ܘܐܢ ܐܢܐ ܠܫܡܟ ܡܪܡܪܬ‬ ‫ܘܒܝܫܬܐ ܩܕܡܝܟ ܣܥܪܬ‬ ̈ ̈ ‫ܩܕܝܫܐ ܠܡܘܢ ܡܬܐܠܨܝܢ ܘܡܢ ܒܥܠܕܒܒܝܗܘܢ ܥܫܝܩܝܢ܀‬ ̈ ̈ ‫ܡܪܢ ܒܨܠܘܬ‬ ‫ܣܗܕܐ ܕܩܛܝܠܝܢ ܚܠܦܝܟ‬ ‫ܩܕܝܫܝܟ‬ ̈ ̈ ‫ܥܒܕܝܟ ܕܗܐ ܪܕܝܦܝܢ ܕܥܝܢܝܗܘܢ ܠܘܬܟ ܡܪܝܡܝܢ܀‬ ‫ܗܘܝ ܥܡ‬ ‫ܐܘ ܕܐܬܚܝܕ ܠܟܝܢܢ ܚܝܕ ܠܢ ܡܪܝ ܒܪܚܡܬܟ‬ ̈ ‫ܚܕܕܐ ܐܬܦܪܫܢܢ ܒܥܕܝܢ ܥܡ‬ ̈ ‫ܘܕܡܢ‬ ‫ܚܕܕܐ ܚܠܘܛ ܠܢ܀‬ ‫ܘܝ ܠܝ ܡܪܝ ܡܐ ܕܚܒ̈ܪܝ ܦܪܚܝܢ ܒܐܐܪ ܘܐܝܟ ܫܡܫܐ ܡܨܡܚܝܢ‬ ̈ ‫ܥ‬ ̈ ̇ ‫ܘܐܢܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܘܠܚܛܗܝ ܘܝ ܠܝ܀‬ ‫ܚܫܘܟܝܢ ܘܝ ܠܝ‬ ‫ܒܕܝ‬ ̈ ̇ ‫ܘܝ ܠܝ ܕܡܬܓܠܝܢ ܥܒܕܝ ܘܡܬܦܪܣܝܢ ܐܦ ܣܘ̈ܪܚܢܝ‬ ̈ ‫ܥ‬ ̈ ‫ܘܒܗܬ ܐܢܐ ܩܕܡ‬ ̇ ‫ܝܕܘܥܝ ܡܢ‬ ̇ ̈ ‫ܒܕܝ‬ ‫ܒܝܫܐ ܘܝ ܠܝ܀‬ ̇ ‫( ܕܐܒܐ ܠܒܪܗ ܠܐ ܚܐܢ ܘܠܐ ܡܥܕܪ ܠܗ‬127v) ‫ܘܝ ܠܝ ܡܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܥ‬ ̇ ‫̇ܡܢ‬ ̇ ̇ ‫ܗܘܐ ܠܝ‬ ‫ܒܕܝ ܡ̈ܪܝܪܐ ܘܝ ܠܝ܀‬ ‫ܒܗܝ ܫܥܬܐ‬ ̇ ̇ ‫ܝܫܘܥ ܒ̈ܪܚܡܝܟ ܛܦܣ ܐܢܐ ܘܒܚܢܓܬܐ ܠܟ ܩܪܐ ܐܢܐ‬ ̇ ‫ܠܐ ܬܥܒܕ ܥܡܝ ܐܝܟ‬ ̈ ‫ܘܠܚܛܗܝ ܘܝ ܠܝ܀‬ ‫ܕܫܘܐ ܐܢܐ ܘܝ ܠܝ‬ ̈ ̇ ‫ܒܐܟܣܢܝܐ ܗܐ‬ ‫ܥܡܪ ܐܢܐ ܘܡܢ ܝܕܘܥܝ ܪܚܝܩ ܐܢܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܥ‬ ̇ ‫ܘܠܒܐ ܥܝܝܩܐ ܩܢܐ ܐܢܐ ܥܠ‬ ̈ ‫ܒܕܝ‬ ‫ܒܝܫܐ ܘܝ ܠܝ܀‬ ‫ܫܠܡ‬

.٢٥ .٢٦

٨١٩

٨٢٠

.٢٧ .٢٨ .٢٩ .٣٠ .٣١ .٣٢ .٣٣ .٣٤

Translation By the same holy Mar Ephrem: soghitha which he uttered concerning himself. 1.

O Consolation of all Mourners, 52 Encourager of those in anguish, Comfort, O Lord, my state of mourning, 53 for sufferings have surrounded me on all sides.

2.

Sorrow of heart surrounds me, 54 grief and suffering oppress me, torments, too, terrify me: there is great lamentation for me, alas is me! 55

3.

A sea of sins overpowers me, the fountain of my tears has dried up

̈ ms ‫ܥܒܕܝܟ‬ (see note 70 to translation). ms! ‫( ܡܪܡܪܝܐ‬vid.). 52 Cf. Matthew 5:4. 53 The specialised sense of abilutha, referring to the ascetic life, is first found in the Life of Abraham of Qidun and his niece Mary (§21), attributed to Ephrem, but in fact from the end of the fourth century. 54 Cf. Isaiah 1:5 ‫ܟܠ ܠܒܐ ܠܟܪܝܘܬܐ‬ 55 The repeated ‘alas is me’ was probably suggested to the author by its recurring appearance in the Lament of Mary, niece of Abraham of Qidun, evidently a well-known work. See English translation in Sebastian P. Brock and Susan A. Harvey, Holy Women of the Syrian Orient (Berkeley: 1987), 37–9. 50 51

224

SEBASTIAN P. BROCK as a result of the evil immersion of my wrongdoings. Alas for myself, alas is me!

4.

Conscience, my adversary, judges me, torturing me like an exactor, and it reminds me of my sins: there is great lamentation for me, alas is me!

5.

I have become like a mole, 56 and have loved the hateful darkness; I have had no desire for the light. Alas for me for my sins, alas is me!

6.

Let those who know me weep for me, all my brethren and relations, for I have expended my days in sins, my deeds are evil, alas is me!

7.

The earth makes complaint because of my wrongdoings, the mountains lament over my wicked actions; the hills wail over me, seeing that my sins are so many, alas is me!

8.

My father and my mother have abandoned me, 57 my neighbours stand at a distance, those who know me stay away from me. 58 Alas for me, what shall I do? Alas is me!

9.

Let Hilkiah’s son come to me, Jeremiah that prophet of sufferings, let him teach me weeping and lamentation over my wicked sins, alas is me!

10. O Lord, who forgave the Sinful Woman and ensnared the Samaritan Woman at the well, 59 grant to me that I may weep in supplication over my evil deeds, alas is me! 11. Our Lord, at the prayer of her who bore you, and of those have pleased, and who please your will, in Your grace grant to me tears, so that I may weep for my sins, alas is me! 12. May she who bore you make request on my behalf, the apostles too, who accompanied you: at their prayer, have pity on what you have fashioned, and may I not be distanced from you. 13. I received the angelic habit 60 so that I might minister to the chosen, but I descended to the level of the lax—of my own lax will, alas is me! 14. I let go the ministry of good deeds 61 and became a slave to sin, and I

That is, living in the dark. Psalm 27:10. 58 Cf. Psalm 18:11(12) (‫) ܩ̈ܪܝܒܝ‬. 59 Cf. Luke 7:36-50 and John 4:7–26. 60 The precise term ‘angelic habit’ seems to be first attested in Babai the Great, Commentary on Evagrius’ Centuries. See Wilhelm Frankenberg, Euagrius Ponticus (Berlin: 1912), f. 102b and also the Introduction. ̈ ‫ ܦܘܠܚܢ‬is not uncommon in writings of the fifth century onwards. 61 The combination ‫ܛܒܬܐ‬ 56 57

EPHREM (ALLEGEDLY) ON HIMSELF

225

herded wild beasts, 62 alas for me! 15. O Jesus, Ocean of mercy, 63 who created me by grace, I beg of You, have pity on me on the day of judgement; my sins are bitter, alas is me! 16. That dear and beloved soul (of mine) which was purchased with Jesus’ blood, I defiled with the filth of my sins; You who raise up the fallen, come to my help! 17. My will rightly reproves me, judging me like a judge, reminding me of my sins; alas for my deeds, alas is me! 18. I take heart at the Sinful Woman, 64 and find comfort at the Publican; 65 I gaze upon the Thief, 66 and (so) do not come to despair. 19. With great suffering do I weep, attributing woe to my person. From you, my brothers, I ask that you weep for me. Alas is me! 20. Make request to the Merciful One concerning me, for he is kind and compassionate, so that he may have pity on me on the day of judgement, and rescue me from Gehenna. 21. I was diligent in the matter of sin, but sluggish over the performance of anything good; I was fervent for all that was bad. Alas for me and for my sins; alas is me! 22. I was numbered in ranks of the priests, and out of my Lord’s grace I received the talent, 67 but I failed to make any profit with it as was needed. O my bitter sins! Alas is me! 23. My Lord bade me to be vigilant, and attentive in the Office, 68 but I spurned His commandment. O my bitter sins! Alas is me! 24. Alas for me when the Bridegroom comes, requiring the talent and the profit (from it); What I should do I know not, for I have shown myself to be lazy.

̈ See Alphonse Mingana, ed., Narsai Doctoris Syri HomiThat is, the passions; for ‫ܚܫܐ ܒܥ̈ܪܝܪܝܐ‬. liae et Carmina (Mosul: 1905), vol. I, 118, 355, and Paul Bedjan, ed., Homiliae selectae MarJacobi Sarugensis, 5 vols (Paris/Leipzig: 1905–8), vol. I, 283; II, 776. 63 The divine title ‘Ocean of mercy’ is already found in Edmund Beck, Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen contra haereses, 2 vols (Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1957), 35:11. 64 Luke 7:36–50. 65 Luke 18:9–14. 66 Luke 23:40–43. 67 Cf. Matthew 25:14–30. 68 This specialised sense of teshmeshta implies at least a sixth- or seventh-century date. 62

226

SEBASTIAN P. BROCK

25. Alas for me when prostitutes enter the Kingdom before me, 69 while me they send off to the Pit because of my evil deeds. Alas is me! 26. I raise up the eyes of my heart towards You, Jesus, Ocean of compassion: have pity on Your servant, I beseech you, for I call out 70 to You in affliction. 27. If I have caused grief to Your name and performed evil deeds in Your presence, why is it that the saints are afflicted, oppressed by their enemies? 28. Our Lord, at the prayer of Your saints, the martyrs who were slain for Your sake, be with Your servants who are being persecuted, for they lift up their eyes to You. 29. You who were united to our human nature, 71 unite us, Lord, in Your love, and because we have been separated from one another, mingle us together with one another in Eden. 30. Alas for me, Lord, for my companions fly up in the air, shining brightly like the sun, but as for me, my deeds are darkened. Alas for me and for my sins! Alas is me! 31. Alas for me when my deeds are revealed and my wrongdoings disclosed and I am in shame before those who know me because of my evil deeds, alas is me! 32. Alas for me, when a father does not spare his son and fails to help him, what will happen to me at that hour? O my bitter deeds, alas is me! 33. O Jesus, I take refuge in Your mercy, with a groan I call out to You: do not deal with me in the way that I deserve. Alas for me and my sins! Alas is me! 34. I reside in a foreign country, 72 I am far away from those who know me, I possess a heart that grieves for my evil deeds, alas is me!

Cf. Matthew 21:31. The manuscript has ‫ ̇ܩܪܝܢ‬qārēn, a rare abbreviated form of the participle + 1 sing. Pronoun (see Theodor Nöldeke, Compendious Syriac Grammar (London: 1904), 45, §64B); the scribe, however, must have taken it as 3rd plural ‘they call out’, and so altered ‘your servant’ to ‘your servants’, in order to provide a subject. 71 The verb ‫ ܚܝܕ‬is only rarely used to describe the incarnation, but see Gunnar Olinder, ed., Iacobi Sarugensis Epistulae quotquot supersunt (Paris: 1937), 116 ‫‘ ܕܐܬܚܝܕ ܠܦܓܪܐ ܐܢܫܝܐ‬who was united to a human body’. 72 The loanword aksenya (< Greek xenos) is first attested in Jacob of Serugh. 69 70

EPHREM (ALLEGEDLY) ON HIMSELF

227

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Beck, Edmund. Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen contra haereses, 2 vols [Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 169–170, Subsidia Syriaca 76–77] (Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1957). Bedjan, Paul, ed. Homiliae selectae Mar-Jacobi Sarugensis, 5 vols (Paris, Via Dicta/Leipzig, Harrassowitz: 1905–8). Brock, Sebastian P. The Holy Spirit in the Syrian Baptismal Tradition (Piscataway NJ: Gorgias, 2008). —— “Some hidden treasures of the Pampakuda Fenqitho”, The Harp 20:II (2006), 59–73. Brock, Sebastian P. and Susan A. Harvey. Holy Women of the Syrian Orient (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987). Çiçek, Julius Y. Qinotho d-qurobo alohoyo (St Ephrem Monastery: NL, 1993). Ebied, Rifaat and Lionel Wickham. “A short treatise on the Trinity in Syriac attributed to St Ephrem the Syrian”, The Harp 27 (2011), 343–51. —— “A collection of acrostic admonitions in Syriac attributed to St Ephrem the Syrian”, The Harp 29 (2014), 41–53. Frankenberg, Wilhelm. Euagrius Ponticus [Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Phil.-hist. Kl. N.F. 13,2] (Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1912). Guillaumont, Antoine, tr., Les six centuries des ‘Kephalaia gnostica’. Édition critique de la version syriaque commune et édition dʼune nouvelle version syriaque, intégrale, avec une double traduction française (Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1958). Haelewyck, Jean-Claude, ed., Sancti Gregorii Nazianzeni opera: versio syriaca. 4, orationes XXVIII, XXIX, XXX et XXXI (Turnhout: Brepols; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2007). de Halleux, André, Commentaire du Prologue Johannique/Philoxène de Mabbog [Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientaliam 380–1 = Scriptores Syri 165–6] (Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1977). Mingana, Alphonse, ed. Narsai Doctoris Syri Homiliae et Carmina, 2 vols (Mosul: Fratrum Praedicatorum, 1905). Nöldeke, Theodore. Compendious Syriac Grammar (London: Williams and Norgate, 1904). Olinder, Gunnar, ed. Iacobi Sarugensis Epistulae quotquot supersunt [Corpus scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 45, Scriptores Syri, Series 2, t. 45] (Paris: 1937). Rahmani, Ignatius E. Studia Syriaca I (Mt Lebanon: Charfet, 1904).

228

SEBASTIAN P. BROCK

—— ed. I Fasti della Chiesa Patriarchale Antiochena: conferenza dʼinaugurazione tenuta in nome dellʼistituto pontificio orientale il 18 gennaio MCMXX (Rome: Accademia Dei Lincei, 1920). Vööbus, Arthur. History of Asceticism in the Syrian Orient: a contribution to the history and culture of the Near East, 2 vols [Corpus scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium Subsidia 17, Corpus scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium; v. 197] (Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1958–88). —— Literary Critical Studies and Historical Studies in Ephrem the Syrian [Papers of the Estonian Theological Society in Exile 10] (Stockholm: Estonian Theological Society in Exile, 1958). Wright, William. Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum I–III (London: Longmans, 1870–2).

EUKHITISM AND ANONYMITY IN THE ʻBOOK OF STEPSʼ BRIAN E. COLLESS ∗

(MASSEY UNIVERSITY, NEW ZEALAND) The collection of ascetic discourses variously known as The Book of Ascents otherwise The Book of Degrees, or Liber Graduum, and now commonly called The Book of Steps (Syriac ktaba d-masqata), has long been suspected of having connections with the ancient controversy surrounding the people known to their adversaries as Messallians. This Syriac term meaning ‘praying people’ was transcribed in Greek as Messalianoi or Eukhites (Ευχηται ‘prayer devotees’). Elsewhere, in my book entitled The Wisdom of the Pearlers, I have expressed my acceptance of the relationship between The Book of Steps and Eukhitism. This contribution examines the case more closely, and considers the question of the book’s anonymity, proposing that its connection with the Messallian movement caused its authorship to be concealed, rather than modesty on the part of its author.

THE BOOK OF STEPS AS A MESSALLIAN MANUAL OF SPIRITUALITY

A fundamental weakness in research on The Book of Steps, with regard to its possible Messallian connections, is failure to remember that it describes a two-tier system (though it actually had three levels, including a celestial stratum). This is what happens in practice: the bishops who catalogued the alleged heresies of the so-called Messalianoi (Messallians, ‘praying people’) spoke chiefly about matters concerning the elite class (the ‘spiritual ones’, those who had received the Paraclete); but the scholars who seek to dismiss the charge of Messallianism against the book tend to concentrate on the lower order of the system, scrutinizing what is said about the ordinary church members. My first encounter with Rifaat Ebied was when he gave me a surprise visit in my office at Massey University in New Zealand. I had studied Hebrew and other languages at Sydney University (1954–1960), but I went to Melbourne University to read Syriac, and be introduced to the Liber Graduum and Syriac Christian mysticism. I returned to Sydney University in 2000 to attend the VIII Symposium Syriacum organized by Rif, where I spoke about this Book of Steps.

∗

229

230

BRIAN E. COLLESS

For example, the Church fathers accused the Messallians of rejecting baptism and pious fasting; but The Book of Steps includes baptism and fasting, so it is judged to be free of the ‘taint’ of the Messallian heresy. This is sleight-of-hand scholarship, juggling apples and oranges but not distinguishing the two types. The Book of Steps makes a clear distinction between a lower class and an upper class in the church, namely the ‘upright’ and the ‘perfect’; hence its information about the ‘perfect’ members of the church is what should be examined when searching for connections with the list of alleged heretical doctrines. Physical matters such as baptism and fasting are not the main concerns of someone who is in the state of perfection; their place in the Christian life is not denied. The original Messallians were certainly within the established church, but they were the ‘spiritual’ members, who saw themselves as having moved to a higher level of spirituality, just like the ‘perfect’ or ‘the spiritual’ of The Book of Steps, who have made a higher ascent on the path of perfection, as laid down by Jesus Christ: “Be ye perfect” (Matthew 5:48). That the Messallians were indeed insiders is shown by the fact that Bishop Flavian of Antioch was able to call them to account. Theodoret’s Ecclesiastical History notes that they “did not separate themselves from ecclesiastical communion.” 1 Moreover, when John of Damascus says: “they shun the work of the hands as not fit for Christians”, 2 it is apparent he is confirming that they were followers of Jesus Christ, not Manichaeans or Buddhists; both of these religions had elite classes of devotees. Accordingly, given that the Messallians were indeed members of the Christian Church, it is not valid to remove The Book of Steps (with its patent elitism) from the controversy, merely by pointing out that it contains all the institutions of the Church, when it also includes features comparable with the Messallianism documented by ecclesiastical councils of the 5th century. However, in taking a critical approach to the problem, it is important to recognize that the adversaries of the Messallian movement were not unbiased reporters, and their ‘information’ was manifestly loaded with distortion, misquotation, and vituperation. It could well be that The Book of Steps gives the ideal ideology of the movement founded by Adelphios of Mesopotamia, while recognizing the excesses of some of the followers, who created public disorder. Because the doctrine of ‘perfection’ (which entails ‘maturity’) was carried to extremes, some became sectarian ‘Enthusiasts’ (‘possessed ones’, another designation for Messallians). Heresy-hunters may have taken some of their incriminating statements from such extremists. The Messallians would have covered themselves with apt proof-texts from Scripture; this is certainly the case with the Greek Spiritual Homilies, attributed to Ma-

Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus. Ecclesiastical History. A History of the Church in five books. From A.D. 322 to the death of Theodore of Mopsuestia A.D. 427. A New Translation from the Original with a Memoir of the Author, an account of his writings and the chronology of the events recorded (London: 1843), Book IV, Chapter XI, 225. 2 Frederic H. Chase Jr., tr., Writings. Saint John of Damascus (Washington, D.C.: 1958), 133. 1

EUKHITISM AND ANONYMITY IN THE 'BOOK OF STEPS'

231

karios, and also to one Symeon, who may have been the Messallian Symeon of Mesopotamia mentioned by Theodoret. In the same vein, it is plausible to suggest that the Syriac Book of Steps was another ascetic manual that was stigmatized as Messallian, and that its author might have been Adelphios of Mesopotamia, who was also charged with being a leader (or founder) of the movement. The Book of Steps does indeed reflect the Messallian accusatory statements, but not absolutely clearly, because of the distorting mirrors used by the adversarial bishops. However, the work can be employed to correct their inaccuracies and misrepresentations (hopefully without setting up elegant circular arguments). Jesus Christ laid down a path of perfection, and his first followers practised asceticism and non-attachment to possessions, but it soon became apparent that not every Christian disciple could follow the higher calling. Similarly, the Buddha acknowledged that not every follower of his could be a monk or a nun, and he allowed that there must be pious ‘householders’ to feed the monks who had committed themselves to the path of self-denial and enlightenment. The Book of Steps likewise makes the distinction between the faithful Upright (or Righteous) and the spiritual Perfect, “the Upright are inferior to the Perfect” (Memra 15.9). This is an elitist system, in which “the Perfect lack clothing and food … and the Upright can give alms” (Memra 28.11).

MESSALLIANISM AND THE BOOK OF STEPS

The heresiological accusations against the Messallians have been conveniently collected and catalogued under themes (with original Greek text, and English translation) by Columba Stewart in The Messalian Controversy in History, Texts, and Language to AD 431. 3 These are the source that will be utilized here (quoting from Stewart’s Appendix 2, Synopsis of Anti-Messalian Lists): Th = Theodoret, Haereticarum fabularum compendium 4.11, in Patrologia Graeca 83, cols. 429–32. TC = Timothy of Constantinople, De iis qui ad ecclesiam ab haereticis accedunt, Patrologia Graeca 86, 45–52. JD = John of Damascus, De haeresibus 80. The case will be presented in this manner: •

HEADING: summarizing the alleged heretical doctrine, and identifying in brackets the particular ‘theme’ of Stewart’s synopsis (Theme 1 to Theme 10)

•

QUOTATIONS: relevant statements of informants, from the sources in the synopsis

•

EXCERPTS: passages from The Book of Steps that relate to the allegations

Columba Stewart, ‘Working the earth of the heart’: The Messalian Controversy in History, Texts, and Language to AD 431 (Oxford: 1991), 244–79. 3

232

BRIAN E. COLLESS

INDWELLING OF THE SATAN AND THE HOLY SPIRIT (THEME 1) ‘The Satan and the Holy Spirit co-dwell in a person.’ (JD 3) This concept has an obvious and apparently unique counterpart in The Book of Steps: •

Memra 3.11: There are people who have in them something from God and something from the Satan; they do good works because of the mingling (mixture-ingredient or pledge or deposit) of the Spirit of Holiness (the Holy Spirit) that is in them; and they transgress and do evil works because of the mingling (or pledge or deposit) of Sin that is in them…. If they conquer the Evil One they become Upright; and if they are willing to raise themselves further they become Perfect … they have purified themselves from the mingling of Satan, and every hour of every day of their life they are full of the Spirit of God … the Paraclete

•

Memra 3.12: There are people who have only a little of our Lord, a minor blessing, that is, the minor portion, which is called the mingling (or pledge or deposit) from God; and there are some who have received the greatest gift of all, which is called the Spirit, the Paraclete; they are completely filled with this gift by God, so that Christ dwells in them completely

•

Memra 3.13: There are major gifts and minor gifts, and there is the mingling (or pledge) and there is the blessing … the portion of Martha was smaller than that of Mary … only his mingling was in Martha … Mary chose the good portion (Lk 10:42)

•

Memra 3.13: But anyone who does not perform a single virtuous deed has nothing of the Spirit of the Lord mingled in him

•

Memra 1.2: One becomes a ‘blessed one of the Father’ (Mt 25:34) through the mingling (or pledge) of the Spirit

•

Memra 15.5: the sin that dwells in us until we kill it

The basis for this doctrine of ‘indwelling’ is surely Paul’s account of his internal struggle with good and evil (Romans 7–8), where he refers to “the sin that dwells” in a person (Romans 7:17, 20), and also the Spirit of Christ indwelling (Romans 8:9, 11). The idea of Satan dwelling in a soul is not explicit in the Scriptures, but there are cases of possession by demons (Mt 17:14–21) and Jesus and his disciples casting out devils (Mt 7:21). It was even said of John the Baptizer that “he has a devil” (Mt 11:18). With regard to ‘co-dwelling’, Memra 3.13 has the idea of the Spirit, and also Satan, being ‘mixed’ or ‘mingled’ (√‫ )ܥܪܒ‬4 in a person; and in Memra 3.11 and also 1.2 there is from the same root, the masculine singular nominative “mingling” or 846F

Jessie Payne Smith, ed., A Compendious Syriac Dictionary (Oxford: 1903), 426–7, specifically Pa‘el; Michael Sokoloff, A Syriac Lexicon. A Translation from the Latin, Correction, Expansion and Update of C. Brockelmann’s Lexicon Syriacum (Winona Lake, IN/Piscataway NJ: 2009), 1134.

4

EUKHITISM AND ANONYMITY IN THE 'BOOK OF STEPS'

233

ܳ

ܽ ) 5 of the Spirit, or a “mixture-ingredient” (or perhaps “contribuܳ ‫ܥܘ‬ “mixture” (‫ܪܒܢܐ‬ tion”), though √‫ ܥܪܒ‬can also mean “pledge.” 6 There may well be a connection with the “pledge” (ἀρραβῶν) of the Spirit (2 Corinthians 1:22, 5:5), but with a strange new concept termed ‘the pledge of Satan’. The case for ‘mixture-ingredient’ seems to be stronger than for ‘pledge’, especially in the light of the evidence presented in Memra 3. The term might be translated as ‘contribute’ and ‘contribution’; but it cannot be ܳ rendered as ‘portion’ (and the verb as ‘apportion’), because ‘portion’ (mnatha ‫)ܡܢܬ ܳܐ‬ is in the same context (concerning spiritual gifts bestowed by God). However, its presence shows that the mingling is about ‘apportionment’, though it is the ‘minor portion’ (Memra 3.12), as seen in the comparison between Martha (who had the smaller portion, the mingling) and Mary (who chose the good portion); Mary would have purified herself from the mingling of Satan (as in Memra 3.11). Words denoting ‘mingle’ and ‘indwell’ are characteristic of the Homilies of Pseudo-Makarios as well as The Book of Steps. Both Theodoret and Timothy alleged that every person had their own particular demon (rather than a contribution or ‘mingling’ of Satan): •

“They say that a demon immediately falls upon each person born, and it incites one to unnatural practices” (Th 3)

•

“They say that a demon is substantially joined immediately to each person born, this having befallen from the condemnation of Adam” (TC 1)

‘The mystery of the indwelling demon’ will be explored in the Adelphios section, below. The sin of Adam is the cause of this situation; the human inclination to sin is passed on to his descendants, Memra 5.14). 7

THE SOLE EFFICACY OF PRAYER (THEME 3)

The soul can only be purified and liberated through energetic prayer. •

“Neither baptism nor anything else can free the soul, but only the energy of prayer” (Th 4)

•

“The reception of the divine mysteries does not purify the soul, but with them only zealous prayer” (JD 4bc)

The Book of Steps offers ample evidence concerning this doctrine. •

Memra 18.2: It is necessary for us to strive to be without sin, and to entreat our Lord to deliver us from sin

•

Memra 18.3: When we cut off all our visible sins, we can take up the struggle against the sin that dwells within us, the evil thoughts that sin forges in our

Payne Smith, A Compendious Syriac Dictionary, 407. Payne Smith, A Compendious Syriac Dictionary, 283; Sokoloff, A Syriac Lexicon, 1133. 7 See below: EACH PERSON BORN DERIVES FROM THE FIRST FATHER HIS NATURE AND SLAVERY TO THE DEMONS. 5 6

234

BRIAN E. COLLESS heart…. When we are without external sins we should engage in the struggle of prayer as our Lord said and did…. He was heard and was perfected (Hebrews 5:9)…. Until we are afflicted in prayer like him, and shed tears as he did, and implore vehemently as he did (Lk 22:42–44, Hebrews 5:7–9), we will not be liberated from the sin that dwells in the heart

THE INEFFICACY OF BAPTISM (THEME 2)

Baptism does not root out embedded sin. •

“They say that baptism does not benefit those who undergo it” (Th 1)

•

“Not even baptism perfects a person” (JD 4a)

•

“Not in the Church’s baptism, nor by the ordination of clerics do the baptized fully receive Holy Spirit, but by their prayers … the baptism of Holy Spirit” (JD d).

The Book of Steps has a higher and lower form of baptism, but both are valid and necessary. •

Memra 12.4: A person is baptized in visible waters, and some are baptized in fire and the Spirit (Matthew 3:1, Acts 1:5, 2:3–4), which are invisible; and when a person has faith, he loves, and when he has loved he becomes perfect, and when he has been perfected he reigns; but without this visible baptism a person cannot be baptized in fire and the Spirit

•

Memra 12.1: Since we know that the perfect are baptized in Jesus Christ and are purified, let us believe and affirm this visible baptism, that it is of the Spirit and is the absolution and pardoning of sins for whoever believes in it, and is baptized in it, and performs good deeds

“Like a razor baptism takes away the first growth of sinful deeds, but it does not cut out the root of sin” (Th 1). This is echoed in the Book of Steps 18.3: “When we cut off all our visible sins, we shall rise up against the sin that dwells in us internally.” “Continuous prayer radically pulls up the root of sin, and drives out from the soul the evil demon inhering from the beginning” (Th 2). The Book of Steps (Memra 10.2 and Memra 3.14) also attests the notion of ‘continual prayer’ but not in this connection. The idea of ‘uprooting the root of sin’ occurs in the Book of Steps with the analogy of cutting down and uprooting a tree: •

Memra 20.4: A person uproots the hidden death, which Adam experienced in the transgression of the commandment, all the thoughts of sin … when he eliminates the external sins, he reaches the inner root

•

Memra 20.7: When we have ascended these steps, and have uprooted sin and its fruits from the heart, then we will be filled with the Spirit, the Paraclete, and our Lord will dwell in us completely

EUKHITISM AND ANONYMITY IN THE 'BOOK OF STEPS' •

235

Memra 19.1: The end of your road is perfection, and its beginning is when you start to uproot from yourself all your faults

The instrument for uprooting embedded sin is prayer: •

Memra 18.4: Sin will not be uprooted from our heart, nor will the evil thoughts and their fruits disappear, unless we pray as our Lord and his preachers prayed

HOLY COMMUNION (THEME 9)

This sacrament does not remove indwelling sin. •

“They say that the holy reception of the sacred body and blood of Christ our true God neither benefits nor harms those who receive them worthily or unworthily” (TC 12)

•

“Not even baptism perfects a person, nor does the reception of the divine mysteries cleanse the soul but with them only zealous prayer” (JD 4)

As with baptism (water-baptism also fire-baptism) there is a lower and higher form, and the lower sacraments (of the visible earthly Church) do not liberate the soul or perfect a person. The lower ecclesiastical system is important: Let us not despise the visible church (and its altar and priesthood), since it is the teacher of all the infants (Memra 12.3). However, the heavenly church is greater and higher, and at its altar Christ (our great High Priest) is the celebrant, and the saints and angels serve (Memra 12.1). Milk is the food in the visible church, for the children (the upright, weaker brethren), but “solid food is for the perfect” (Hebrews 5:14), and “they eat our Lord” (John 6:53-8). The body, blood, and bread are not interpreted as referring to the Eucharist, as Theodoret does, but they will enter the city of Jesus our King (Memra 12.3).

THE SPIRITUAL ONES (THEME 6) •

“They call themselves spiritual ones”(Th 6; TC 13)

•

“The spiritual ones see sin and grace within and without” (JD9)

•

“They say they can see in what condition the souls of the perfected are” (TC17)

The Book of Steps designates the spiritual achievers as ‘the Perfect’, but the term ‘the Spiritual’ occurs (3.16, 28.8) and even the monastic term ‘solitary’ or ‘monk’ (19.1, 30.1).

APATHEIA (THEME 5) •

“Both soul and body come into apatheia” (TC 9)

•

“Before the transgression Adam had union with Eve impassively” (JD 4)

236

BRIAN E. COLLESS

It is not easy to find a Syriac word for apatheia (‘impassibility’, not ‘apathy’) in the Book of Steps. However, the aim of the ascetic exercises was to achieve the Adamic state, the human condition of innocence and purity (in body and soul) before the transgression of the commandment. •

Memra 15.3: What man or woman can stand unclothed before each other without their desire being aroused in their hearts, seeing each other naked, except those whose heart is pure from desire and are holy in their heart and body, as was the Adam family before they sinned? In this respect, our Lord said: Unless you are converted and become like these children (Matthew 18:3), you will not become like the first creation of Adam, when he had not yet transgressed the commandment of his Maker

Memra 15 addresses the copulation instinct in Adam, with Memra 15.2 stating: They had no instinctual desire for union until they were persuaded by the evil one to be earthly … there was no desire in Adam and Eve before they sinned. This gives no support to the statement: “Before the transgression Adam had union with Eve without passion” (JD 14). In the Book of Steps, ‘union’ may indicate sexual intercourse; but it might simply mean spiritual communion.

FASTING AND ASCETICISM (THEME 5)

Austerity is not required. •

“They say that after the expulsion of the demon … there is no need for fasting or other discipline of soul or body” (TC 9)

The idea that the perfect do not need to practise physical asceticism is also found in the Book of Steps (see the evidence below). In their poverty, the perfect do not have the wherewithal to commit the sin of gluttony; and, for the same reason, almsgiving is also beyond their means. Their fasting is spiritual and ethical: ‘fasting to the world’, with renunciation of evil thoughts in the heart; but they might continue to fast with the body as an example to others. •

Memra 30:19: Here the first mission of the Apostles is considered (Luke 10:8), when they were instructed to eat whatever was given to them, without question (Buddhism has a similar precept for monks): They were the disciples who had received the Spirit, the Paraclete, and they were perfected and filled with the Spirit, until it poured forth from them onto others, and their hearts were purified from sin’; and we who are purified from sin should likewise eat what is placed before us, though in moderation, a little, as is fitting

•

Memra 30.20: Speaking of older people who know they still have sin in their soul, but practise fasting, vigil, and lowliness: When they have conquered they will walk in chastity and asceticism on account of their humility, even though they do not need to, so as to be an example to their disciples, in deeds as well as words, according to the model of our Lord

EUKHITISM AND ANONYMITY IN THE 'BOOK OF STEPS' •

237

Memra 12.1: Brethren, since we believe that there is a hidden renunciation of the heart, which forsakes the earth and is raised up to heaven, we should also physically renounce our possessions and our inheritance … Since we know that there is a hidden fasting of the heart from evil thoughts, let us fast openly, as our Lord fasted, and his first and last preachers

ABSTINENCE FROM LABOUR (THEME 6) •

“As ‘spiritual ones’ they undertake no work” (Th 6; TC 13; JD 18)

The Book of Steps recommends that the Perfect desist from physical work: •

Memra 3.15: He who provides everything can provide for everyone in need, as he does for the higher realms, where they do not labour or work for clothing and sustenance, but continually give praise … God desired all humans to praise him without labour; if only Adam had acted rightly

•

Memra 12.6: The one who feeds the sheep of Christ (John 21:15-17) cannot go and guide the plough and work the visible earth

•

Memra 15.13: The Perfect do not take wives, nor work on the land, nor acquire possessions, nor do they have anywhere to lay their head on the earth, like their Teacher (Mt 8:20)

•

Memra 16.11: Lest the spiritual ministry cease from their soul they (the Perfect) have not done earthly work

Timothy says that in shunning the work of hands because they are ‘spiritual ones’ … the Messallians are ‘repudiating the tradition of the Apostles’, but the Book of Steps (Memra 3.16) supports its position that a spiritual ministry is greater than a physical ministry by contrasting Simon Peter’s serving the Lord spiritually and Tabitha’s physical ministry, feeding and clothing the needy (Acts 9:36ff). Paul’s occupation as a tentmaker is not considered (Acts 18:3), nor is the Benedictine ideal of the unity of working and praying (laborare est orare).

WOMEN AS TEACHERS

Women are given high positions. •

“They promote women as teachers of the doctrines of their peculiar heresy; they even permit them to rule over men, including priests, making women their head, and dishonouring the one who is the head, Christ our God” (TC 18).

Timothy’s complaint seems misogynistic; but he was concerned about violation of social norms and disruption of church order. The author of The Book of Steps understands the need for leaders to exert authority, and chastise rebels (Memra 19:31). However, he wishes the bishops would cease harassing the Perfect, and allow them to carry out their God-given ministry: ‘instructing and teaching everyone in love and

238

BRIAN E. COLLESS

in lowliness, which is what our Lord Jesus taught and showed us in his person, and revealed to us by his grace and mercy’ (Memra 19.31). In The Book of Steps women are likewise esteemed and promoted. •

Memra 16.5: ‘If our Lord greeted women in his lowliness, it is right for us to bow down before men and women’

•

Memra 17.9: A person who wishes to know the mysteries, and needs directions on the road to heaven, should not ‘despise a woman’

•

Memra 3.13: Martha and Mary (Lk 10:38–42) are models for the Upright and the Perfect; Martha owned a house, and Mary was a teacher. Mary had chosen the better portion (Lk 10:42); she took up the Cross, practised lowliness, kept the major commandments (leading to spiritual perfection), died to the world, separated from its business, and lived in the Lord spiritually; and, significantly, ‘she instructed and taught, and made women-disciples for our Lord, who were worshipping and ministering with those disciples who received the Paraclete, serving the Lord in perfection

PERJURY (THEME 10)

Deceit is practised and justified. •

“After apatheia (freedom from passions) neither perjury nor cursing can harm those who have become, as they say, spiritual ones (πνευματικοί); they have it from the tradition of their teachers” (TC 19)

•

“They are prepared to deny, and if constrained they readily anathematize the ones saying these things” (Th 10)

•

“They readily condemn the excommunicated; they freely swear and perjure, and hollowly anathematize their heresy” (JD 18)

When the sectarians were brought before the authorities they deviously denied their beliefs, not admitting to being heretics, and rejecting the charges brought against them. One such occasion was when Bishop Flavian interviewed Adelphios (for the full confession, see below) privately at a synod, telling him that all his young accusers did not understand spiritual things. He persuaded Adelphios to ‘vomit out all his concealed poison’. This is not an apt example of Messallian prevarication and deceit; quite the contrary! The Book of Steps elucidates this shrewd form of conduct. •

Memra 30.9: The disciples of love (those who are striving to be spiritually perfect) in situations where they may be led away from the love of their Lord, remember that he told them to be ‘cunning’ like a serpent (Matthew 10:16); perhaps significantly, in the original context, it is when they are delivered up to councils that they should exercise such subtlety (Mt 10:17)

•

Memra 4.6: Peacemakers may use white lies to effect reconciliation between enemies

EUKHITISM AND ANONYMITY IN THE 'BOOK OF STEPS'

239

It seems that accusers would point the finger and say: ‘You are a Messallian’; but the accused Christian believers would not, in any circumstance, say: ‘I am a Messallian’.

VISIONS AND PROPHECY (THEME 6)

In their passionless state they have supernatural gifts. •

“They say that after their so-called apatheia, people can foresee things to come, and perceptibly behold invisible powers” (TC 10)

•

“Deceived by the demon, and frenzied, they claim that they see revelations; and when they try foretelling things to come, they are belied by the facts” (Th 7)

The Book of Steps would attribute these spiritual gifts to the Paraclete, not demonic reception. •

Memra 15.16: If an upright person does not ‘fast to the whole world, he will not be able to receive the Paraclete; and so the whole truth will not be revealed to him, nor will he hear the voice of God like the prophets, though the pledge of the Holy Spirit is in him’. However, ‘if he lowers himself more, the Lord will be revealed to him in this world, and he will hear the voice of God, and be able to distinguish the voice of God from the voice of Satan

•

Memra 15.17 (John 14:15–21, paraphrased with extra details): whoever loves me keeps my commandments, and I will love him and show myself to him, and reveal things about myself to him, and he will understand the power of my mysteries in what I manifest to him

•

Memra 15.18: In the parable of the wastrel son and the loving father (Lk 15:11–32), the parent’s bestowing of a splendid robe and fine food is given an allegorical interpretation: He fills him with the holiness for which he hungered, and indues him with perfection, the sublime garment of the supreme level; and while he remains physically on the earth, every day his mind lives spiritually in heaven, and there our Lord speaks with him, like that father with his son; and to others he distributes heavenly riches, spiritual food Final Memra: You see how the Lord pours out his Spirit at various times, and sons and daughters prophesy (Joel 2:28; Acts 2:17), those who keep the commandments of our Lord and imitate his humility.… So, do not demur and say that today there are no people who prophesy or talk about God. However, the author does not claim to give signs from God, but asks that his preaching (memra) be accepted because it is based on the testimony of the books of holy people who did perform powerful signs. Is the preacher (possibly Adelphios himself) simply demonstrating his own humility by saying this? 8

8

See below: The person clearly foresees the things that are to come.

240

BRIAN E. COLLESS

THE HEAVENLY BRIDEGROOM (THEME 4)

This is the realm of mystical communion. •

“After apatheia the soul feels such communion with the heavenly Bridegroom as a woman feels in being with a man” (TC 4, JD 8)

•

“The faithful person does not receive the immortal and divine garment through baptism, but through prayer” (JD 6)

•

“It is possible, they say, for a person to receive perceptibly the substance of the Holy Spirit” (JD 17)

Once again, the typically Messallian necessity of prayer for the experiences of the higher order; the liberating and purifying prayer, the heavenly garment (after Mt 22:1–14, the Son’s marriage feast in a hall, at which proper wedding garments are required), and the soul’s mystical union of love with Christ (reclining at the wedding feast or in the bridal chamber) are all found in the Book of Steps: •

Memra 20.14: Unless we pray as our Lord prayed with crying and with tears and making supplications for a long time, the Saviour will not come to us; as the Lord said: “If you love me and keep my commandments … I will love you, and my Father and I will come to you” (John 14:21). If we do not raise our hands purely together with our heart, full of love for everyone and the love of our Lord, we will not be able to enter his bridal chamber with our Lord … the glorified Bridegroom … The wedding garments of the Lord’s feast (Matthew 22:11–14) are the purity of a perfect heart, as it is written, “blessed are those who are pure in their heart for they shall see God” (Matthew 5:8) … so they see his face inside his bridal chamber, and dwell with him, and are glorified with him, and enjoy him.

CONTEMPLATION OF THE TRINITY (THEME 4) •

“They say that the all-holy and life-giving blessed Trinity, which is by nature invisible to every creature, can be seen with the eyes of the flesh by those who have come into what they call apatheia; and that vision, seen by them bodily, happens only to such persons” (TC 5)

•

“They haughtily claim to be able to see the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, with the eyes of the body” (Th 8)

Whenever the accusation is made that Syrian mystical monks are claiming to see God with their physical eyes (as here), they respond with the image from 1 Corinthians 2: we see the glory of God in the polished mirror of our purified heart, aka excerpts from the Book of Steps: •

Memra 18.3: ‘When all sin has been eradicated from the heart, we may see him face to face: ‘As it is written, Blessed are those who are pure in their heart for they shall see God (Matthew 5:8); in this world, as Paul said (1

EUKHITISM AND ANONYMITY IN THE 'BOOK OF STEPS'

241

Corinthians 13:12), we see our Lord with the eyes of our hearts as in a mirror, but in that world face to face’ •

Memra 16.12: ‘That heavenly glory is what our Lord meant: The eye of the flesh has not seen … the thing that God has prepared for those who love him (1 Corinth 2:9)…. Those who lower, sanctify, and empty themselves from this world will be perfected and attain to observing their Lord in heaven as in a mirror in their mind, and imitating him in all his lowliness; and when they depart from this world they will be with our Lord’

•

Memra 18.3 and elsewhere (4.3, 4.7, 12.7, 19.24, 20.14) articulates the cardinal text for Syriac Christian mysticism: “the pure in heart shall see God” (Matthew 5:8), but understood as seeing God in the heart, or in the mind; both are found in these extracts from the Book of Steps (though the heart was considered to encompass the mind)

Timothy states that only those who achieve apatheia will have the vision; this implies two classes of Christians, and the Book of Steps certainly does not allow the Upright to see such glory in this world, though a glorious experience is prepared for them in the celestial realm (Memra 16.12). Note also that Paul distinguishes the spiritual person (who knows this glory) from the unspiritual (‘natural’) person, when speaking of this ‘mystery’ (1 Corinthians 2).

ANTINOMIANISM (THEME 5)

Licentiousness and antinomian (‘against the law’) behaviour after the attainment of impassibility. •

“Those possessing the sensation of the Spirit are considered by them to be perfect and free from all sin … and no longer burdened with the hazards of sin” (JD e)

•

“They say that giving oneself up to wantonness and licentiousness after the so-called apatheia is guiltless and harmless, since one is no longer oppressed by any passion, but is free to pursue licentiously the forbidden passions” (TC 16)

Timothy is referring to cases of antinomianism, where some of the perfect thought they were now above the law, and were obviously in need of a dose of Paul’s admonitions in Romans 6 (on the temptation to ‘continue in sin so that grace may abound’). The Book of Steps does not permit such excesses; the author does recognize and bemoan lapses of the perfect (notably in Memra 29.3: there are times when ‘we do not do what we say’, that is, they do not practise what they preach).

ADELPHIOS AND THE ‘BOOK OF STEPS’

Theodoret in Historia Ecclesiastica, Book 4, Chapter XI records what Adelphios allegedly said to Bishop Flavian. It is doubtful that this is a verbatim report, but Theodoret

242

BRIAN E. COLLESS

may have known the Book of Steps and used it as a source of Messallian doctrine. The allegations are basically the same as those stated above, but if there is strong correspondence with the Book of Steps then the case for Adelphios as its author might be strengthened. *He said that no benefit follows from holy baptism to those who are worthy; zealous prayer alone drives out the indwelling demon. 9 If these are the very words of Adelphios, then he accepts that baptism is ‘holy’; as the author of the Book of Steps says: If we doubt and despise this public church … and the propitiating baptism, then our body will not become a temple, nor our heart an altar and a palace of glory (Memra 12.2). If ‘the worthy’ are the ‘perfect’ of the Book of Steps, then they are certainly ‘baptized in Jesus Christ’ (Memra 12.1); further, ‘without this visible baptism a person cannot be baptized with fire and the Spirit’ (Memra 12.4). Certainly, the essential efficacy of prayer for uprooting sin from the heart is affirmed more than once in the Book of Steps: The heart is not purified unless the hidden sin has vanished from it … and the evil thoughts hidden and buried in it through the power of the indwelling sin; and sin will not be uprooted from our heart … unless we pray as our Lord and all of his preachers prayed’ (Memra 18.4). The idea of an ‘indwelling demon’ is not easily attested anywhere else, but Paul enunciates the notion of indwelling sin in Romans 7:17. This question will be discussed in more detail below. 10 *Each person born derives from the first father his nature and slavery to the demons. This statement says that ever since the sin of Adam, human nature is plagued by servitude to evil spirits. In this respect the Book of Steps offers such counterparts as: •

Memra 5.14 This inclination (to sin) was implanted in Adam on the day he transgressed the command, and from then on it has been implanted in all of his offspring from their mother’s womb

•

Memra 15.1 Satan desired that Adam should become like him, and be subservient to him

•

Memra 29.2 sin is mingled (√‫ ܡܙܓ‬not √‫ )ܥܪܒ‬in people by the transgression of the commandment

Additional relevant pieces are: The wastrel son wondering how he was created, and why he was created, and why he was made a slave to sin (Memra 15.18); the struggle against the evil spirits and Satan the destroyer (Memra 12.7); for corroboration of slavery to the demons, we have the assertion that unclean spirits take over people … and they become their slaves (Memra 7.8); the sons of Adam are convicted because

See above: INDWELLING OF THE SATAN AND THE HOLY SPIRIT (The Satan and the Holy Spirit codwell in a person); THE SOLE EFFICACY OF PRAYER; THE INEFFICACY OF BAPTISM. 10 See below: THE INDWELLING DEMON. 9

EUKHITISM AND ANONYMITY IN THE 'BOOK OF STEPS'

243

they learn from Satan (Memra 7.9); our body has tasted death from the beginning through the transgression of the commandment by our father Adam (Memra 29.18). *When these demons are driven away by zealous prayer, then comes the All-Holy Spirit, giving perceptible and visible signs of its coming. The experience would be the baptism with fire and the Spirit (Memra 12.4, after Matthew 3:11). The palpable indications of the presence of the Paraclete (‘signs of its coming’) are outlined in the Book of Steps: •

Memra 20.7 When we have climbed these steps and have uprooted sin and its fruits from our heart, then we will be filled with the Spirit, the Paraclete, and our Lord will dwell in us completely … and then we will be able to love and be merciful to all people, and pray with love for all … and our heart being pure we will increase in perfection

•

Memra 28.2 How do we know that one has received the Paraclete? There is no defect in him, he is full of good things, and he knows all the truth (John 15:26, 16:13).

*The body is freed from the impulse of the passions, and the soul is completely released from the inclination towards worse things. 11 This is the experience of apatheia, freedom from passions, and its aspects are described in the Book of Steps in these terms: When the Paraclete comes, a person learns the whole truth … and fear is gradually taken away from him … and he is set free … and he is made perfect … and he grows in love daily (Memra 5.19). ‘The perfect are fulfilled and do not have faults’ (Memra 15.11). The perfect are those whose heart is pure from lust, and who are holy in their heart and bodies, just as Adam and Eve were before they sinned (Memra 15.3). *So the body no longer needs constraint by fasting, nor restraint by teaching. 12 The Book of Steps includes an entire chapter on disciplining the body (Memra 29), which recommends subduing the body with ‘hunger, thirst, nakedness, vigil, weariness, austerity, emaciation, and much fasting and prayer’ (Memra 29.1). However, the Perfect simply fast to the world (Memra 29.6); they are free from all evil, and they fast from the world and its pleasures (Memra 4.4), and so they do not need to practise physical asceticism. The Perfect have received the Paraclete and know the whole truth, and thus they are not in need of instruction:

•

11 12

Memra 6.2 A person who has lowered himself from all things on the earth … and emptied himself of all he possessed … our Lord will look upon his lowliness and send him the Spirit, the Paraclete, and he will know the truth … and so he will be able to distinguish truth from falsehood, and wrestle with

See above: APATHEIA. See above: FASTING AND ASCETICSM.

244

BRIAN E. COLLESS Satan and overthrow him … and be free of evil thoughts … and then rest from this enemy’s burning arrows

*The person clearly foresees the things that are to come. 13 For someone who has received the Paraclete: •

Memra 6.2 Christ will say: Behold, this person is now as perfect as on the day I fashioned him; then our Lord will open the gates of heaven to him, and he will enter and enjoy the riches of its mysteries … our Lord had taken away his mind and introduced it into Paradise

This passage is presenting a form of realized eschatology, or the anticipated resurrection (as described in Ephesians 2:1–7); in some sense it involves foreseeing ‘the things that are to come’, but the alleged Messallian gift of prophecy is not emphasized in the Book of Steps. Nevertheless, its anonymous author affirms in his closing words (Memra 30.30): You see that the Lord has poured out his Spirit at certain times, and sons and daughters prophesy (Joel 2:28, Acts 2:17) … Therefore do not have doubts and say that there are no people who prophesy in our time. *And beholds the divine Trinity with the eyes. 14 The Book of Steps mentions praising the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, the perfect Trinity, but contemplating the Holy Trinity is not envisaged. However, giving another aspect of the anticipated resurrection, it declares that the Perfect are in heaven with our Lord … and they see the Lord himself in the Spirit, in this world as in a mirror, and when they have departed from their bodies, they will see him face to face (Memra 2.5). 15 *The indwelling demon Scholars investigating the Messallian controversy construct a set of propositions on the basis of the heresiologies, and the first of these is: the indwelling of the soul by a demon, from the time of one’s birth. This formulation has prejudicially blighted their research since the Book of Steps makes no mention of ‘the indwelling demon’; they are thus tempted to abandon any exploration of Eukhitism in that document. However, in Theodoret’s litany of accusations against Adelphios, although he begins with a single indwelling demon, he then moves to demons (plural) and servitude to them, and driving demons away. Finally he speaks about passions. It is striking that he does not mention ‘the Satan’, and this applies equally to his other account of the Eukhite heresy (which has been reproduced in detail, above), and likewise to the allegations of Timothy of Constantinople against the ‘Adelphians’, (one of his names for the Eukhites). By contrast, John of Damascus, who uses the significant See above: VISIONS AND PROPHECY. See above: CONTEMPLATION OF THE TRINITY. 15 With regard to the Book of Steps and its sparse transmission, it is known that scribes avoided or altered things that were considered heretical, and contemplation of the Trinity with the eyes is a heterodox concept, susceptible to intentional parablepsis. 13 14

EUKHITISM AND ANONYMITY IN THE 'BOOK OF STEPS'

245

appellation ‘Satanians’ as one of his designations for Eukhites, does not have the single indwelling demon, but reports that “the Satan and the Holy Spirit co-dwell in a person” (JD 3). This clearly echoes the Book of Steps (Memra 3.1). 16 John Damascene also says: “the Satan co-dwells like a person with a human, and rules him in every way” (JD 1); “the Satan and the demons possess the mind of people, and the nature of humans is in union with the spirits of evil” (JD 4a); and “a person is compounded with sin even after baptism” (JD 5); and “baptism does not perfect a person” (JD 4). Possible connections with the Book of Steps are detectable in these indictments (‘compounded with sin’ would correspond to the indwelling of sin); the term ‘possess’ is strange, but it is suggestive of a solution for the origin of the mysterious ‘indwelling demon’ that the bishops were accustomed to subpoena as a witness at the heresy trials. The Syriac emphatic singular noun does not distinguish between the definite ܳ ‫( ܳܣ ܳܛ‬satana) in the Book of Steps could mean “an adand indefinite article hence ‫ܢܐ‬ versary” as well as “the Adversary” (Satan); 17 the term could sometimes be simply referring to a demon, not the supreme Devil. Secondly, there may be a clue relating to ‘possession’ of the mind by the Satan and the demons (as expressed by John of Damascus); in the Book of Steps there are allusions to the healing of the boy “with a dumb spirit” (Mark 9:14–29), through the quoting of Christ’s injunction in Mark 9:29: “This kind cannot be made to come out by anything but fasting and prayer” (according to the Syriac Peshitta, and also at Matthew 17:21, but Greek manuscripts vary). The Book of Steps has these reverberations: 859 F

•

Memra 20.11 You will defeat this kind of satan by fasting

•

Memra 29.9 This kind of satan and sin only comes out through fastings, humiliations, love, and good works

In the latter case, prayer is not included (partly because the sermon deals with ‘the disciplining of the body’); but in the context the point is that ‘when the body is sick through fasts and humiliations, the soul is strong in spirit and in prayer’. Similarly, the other quotation (Memra 20.11) is in a passage about the intense prayer that will drive out the sin that is in us. 18 The point is made here that our Lord prayed and fasted continually even though he did not need to practise austerity, since he had no sin; and so we need to pray even more in order to be ‘perfected’. Consequently, ‘the indwelling demon’ may have been concocted by the heresyhunters, from a Messallian citation of a saying of Jesus (Mark 9: 29, in which the ܳ ‫( ܳܣ ܳܛ‬satana) had been inserted to clarify that the term ‘this word in which the word ‫ܢܐ‬ kind’ (in the original utterance) referred to a possessing demon that had been exorcized.

See above: THE SATAN AND THE HOLY SPIRIT CO-DWELL IN A PERSON Payne Smith, A Compendious Syriac Dictionary, 373; Sokoloff, A Syriac Lexicon, 996. 18 See above: THE INEFFICACY OF BAPTISM; HE SAID THAT NO BENEFIT FOLLOWS FROM HOLY BAPTISM TO THOSE WHO ARE WORTHY; ZEALOUS PRAYER ALONE DRIVES OUT THE INDWELLING DEMON. 16 17

246

BRIAN E. COLLESS

The accusers of Adelphios may have had his teachings in written texts, and it is possible that the discourses collected in the Book of Steps are his sermons (written before or after the crisis). However that may be, it is quite clear (allowing for deliberate distortions in the reporting) that the Book of Steps contains material that corresponds to the main accusations (disregarding such details as shooting demons with their fingers, the desire to cut off their own physical members, the indwelling demon exiting through sneezing, coughing, and spitting): only intense prayer can drive out the demons (based on Mark 9:29), root out the indwelling sin (Romans 7:17), allow the Spirit to dwell in the person (Romans 8:9–11), purify the heart (Matthew 5:8), enabling the perfected one (Matthew 5:48) to see God (Matthew 5:8), but as in a mirror (2 Corinthians 3:18). Let us not forget that we are here privileged to be observing the birth of Syriac Christian mysticism, which in all stages of its growth was constantly under the suspicion and condemnation of ecclesiastical overseers.

AUTHORSHIP AND ANONYMITY

The Book of Steps is just as much a source of condemned Messallian doctrines as the Spiritual Homilies of Pseudo-Makarios, possibly because the Syriac collection of sermons was the work of Adelphios of Edessa, and Symeon of Mesopotamia composed the Greek homilies. The Syriac editor of the thirty discourses that make up the Book of Steps, says at the end that “they were set down by the blessed one who did not make known his name.” 19 Laying aside the interesting coincidence of ‘the blessed one’ Tubana ܳ ܽ ) and Makarios (μακὰριος), being applied to the authors of both collections of (‫ܛܘ ܳܒܢܐ‬ exhortations to perfection through zealous prayer, the question that has to be asked is why the Syriac author did not reveal his name. Humility, which is promoted in his book, may be the simple and complete answer, but concealment of identity may have been necessary to ensure the continued existence of the work (which survives only in one complete manuscript, plus one incomplete selection, and fragmentary extracts). The types of false authorship attested in the Syriac world are: (1) Pseudonymity as seen in: Dionysios the Areopagite; Holy Hierotheos for Stephen bar Sudaili; and the ‘blessed one’, in the Greek Eukhite Asketikon (Spiritual Homilies) is ‘the blessed Makarios’. (2) Anonymity is applied when the author has been proscribed (as with Adelphios). Here the case of John of Dalyatha can be drawn on for a supporting analogy. His own (East Syriac) church rejected him for alleged Messallianism. While Patriarch Timothy I spearheaded his condemnation, his own community of monks did not. No socalled ‘Nestorian’ or East Syriac manuscripts of his writings are known. They were transmitted by Syriac Orthodox monks of the Miaphysite tradition under such titles as ‘the holy saba’ and ‘the spiritual sheikh’, but also “John the Elder (saba)’.

Robert A. Kitchen and Martien F.G. Parmentier, eds, The Book of Steps: The Syriac Liber Graduum (Kalamazoo: 2004), 364.

19

EUKHITISM AND ANONYMITY IN THE 'BOOK OF STEPS'

247

(3) Affixing names of acceptable fathers to works of Evagrios (Nilus, for example); and some of John of Dalyatha’s pieces were slipped into the collection of Isaac the Syrian. The name Philoxenos of Mabbug was attached to treatises of Joseph Hazzaya, who was also an alleged Messallian. There is irony in the fact that the Book of Steps is preserved in the same manuscript as the spiritual discourses of Philoxenos, who ‘exposed’ Adelphios; and yet these works attributed to Philoxenos show clear influence not only from Evagrios but also from the Book of Steps. This raises doubts as to whether Philoxenos was their author. The Makarian Homilies have the name Symeon in the manuscript tradition, and this assists the case for Symeon of Mesopotamia as their author. No clue appears in manuscripts of the Book of Steps for applying the name Adelphios to this work. The later Syriac editor had no idea of the authorship, but it was plain to him that the writer was a prophet who had received the Spirit, the Paraclete, and was a great and perfect man, and must have been one of the last disciples of the Apostles. Citing Acts 11:28 he toys with the name Agabus (a prophet who came from Jerusalem to Antioch and predicted a famine) as a speaker of Aramaic who could have composed these Syriac discourses (as Dionysios the Athenian Areopagite, mentioned as a convert of Paul in Acts 17:34, was a Greek Christian whose name could be attached to the Greek treatises on mysticism). Agabus was obviously not the author of the Book of Steps, but Adelphios has good credentials for its authorship. He acknowledges that bishops have to exert power over enthusiasts and rebels. Yet the long-suffering Adelphios can be heard in his direct plea to the ecclesiastical authorities in Memra 19.31 that the leaders should show understanding of the ways of the Perfect, and not complain about them, nor accuse them in matters that concern them, nor hate them, nor drive them away from their God-given and Christ-revealed ministry of instructing and teaching everyone in love and in lowliness.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Primary Sources

Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus. Ecclesiastical History. A History of the Church in five books. From A.D. 322 to the death of Theodore of Mopsuestia A.D. 427. A New Translation from the Original with a Memoir of the Author, an account of his writings and the chronology of the events recorded (London: Samuel Bagster, 1843), 225–7. —— Haereticarum fabularum compendium 4.11, in Patrologiae Graeca 83, J.-P. Migne, ed. (Paris: Imprimerie Catholique, 1864), cols. 429–32. Timothy, Presbyter of Constantinople, De iis qui ad ecclesiam accedunt sive de reception haereticorum in Patrologiae Graeca 86, J.-P. Migne, ed. (Paris: Imprimerie Catholique, 1865), cols. 45–52. John of Damascus, De haeresibus. For an English translation of his section on the Messallians see, Frederic H. Chase, Jr. tr., Writings. Saint John of Damascus,

248

BRIAN E. COLLESS (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America, 1958), 131–7. Secondary Sources

Colless, Brian E. The Wisdom of the Pearlers: An Anthology of Syriac Christian Mysticism (Kalamazoo: Cistercian, 2008). Heal, Kristian S. and Robert A. Kitchen, eds. Breaking the Mind: New Studies in the Syriac “Book of Steps” (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of Press, 2014). Kitchen, Robert A. and Martien F.G. Parmentier, eds. The Book of Steps: The Syriac Liber Graduum (Kalamazoo: Cistercian, 2004). Kmosko, Michael, ed., Liber Graduum [Patrologia Syriaca 3] (Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1926). Payne Smith, Jessie. A Compendious Syriac Dictionary, founded upon the Thesaurus Syriacus of R. Payne Smith, D.D. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1903). Sokoloff, Michael. A Syriac Lexicon. A Translation from the Latin, Correction, Expansion and Update of C. Brockelmann’s Lexicon Syriacum (Winona Lake/Piscataway NJ: Eisenbrauns, Gorgias, 2009). Stewart, Columba. ‘Working the Earth of the Heart’: The Messalian Controversy in History, Texts, and Language to AD 431 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1991).

MANA AND DUALISM IN THE MANDAEAN TRIPARTITE SYSTEM: WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE ESOTERIC TEXT, DIWAN-

QADAHA-RBA-D-DMUTH-KUŠṬA BRIKHA H.S. NASORAIA ∗

(UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA) The three Ideas of divine Infinite Light, Macrocosm, and Microcosm are central to the Mandaean religion. These concepts are called upon extensively in the Mandaean sacred literature and esoteric art as One(s), conveying insight into a Great Universal Living ‘Being’, called Hiia Rbia (the Great Living One(s)/Great Life) or Mana Rba (the Great Mind) or Mara d-Rabuta (the Lord of Greatness). As with Platonism, Aristotelianism, Philonic thought, Kabbalah and some philosophical theologies, the universe or the cosmos is also explained, but in many motifs, as an orderly or harmonious beautiful universal system(s). Mandaeism presents its own authentic view of God, humanity and the universe, through its own special theological vision. This includes the ‘Anticosmic World-Rejection’ that has often been misunderstood for simple dualism. The purpose of this investigation is to show briefly how the Mandaeans view God as the universal (Magnificent) Great Mind or Consciousness (Mana Rba (Kabira) in general and how they view human mind (its nature, soul, spirit) and body in particular. The perceived aspects of dualism within Gnostic Mandaeism will be examined in a unique way, with its place within the Mandaean tripartite system(s) that coalesces with the idea of an original and pure form of monotheism.

Professor Rifaat Ebied wonderfully devoted himself to the dissemination of critical research on Semitic studies and related diverse linguistic, cultural and religious issues, for the better understanding between communities of different cultures and traditions.

∗

249

250

BRIKHA H.S. NASORAIA

THE GREAT MIND, KNOWLEDGE, WISDOM AND HUMAN NATURE IN MANDAEAN RELIGION 1

The Mandaean religion can be counted amongst the monotheistic religions from Antiquity and may possibly represent the most well organized religious and philosophical Gnostic movement that prospered in the middle-to-late phases of Classical Antiquity. 2 In fact, it is the last living central branch of ancient pre-Christian Gnosticism. 3 In Mandaeism, extraordinary details have been given not only to the physical, metaphysical, and ethical teachings, but more importantly to the creation of the universe(s) 4—known as qadaha rba (literally meaning ‘the Big Bang’, and metaphorically meaning ‘the Great Creation (of the Universal Truth kušṭa)’—and to the creation of

The author thanks Professor Garry W. Trompf for his kind proofreading of this article which draws largely from a work in progress that is an in-depth study of the esoteric documents and mystical tradition in Naṣoraean Mandaeism. 2 For details see Brikha H.S. Nasoraia, “Sacred Text and Esoteric Praxes in Sabian Mandaeism” in Religious and Philosophical Texts: Rereading, Understanding and Comprehending Them in the 21st Century, vol. 1, Bayram Çetinkaya ed. (Istanbul: 2012), 27–54. 3 See also Kurt Rudolph, Mandaeism (Leiden: 1978), 1–4; Şinasi Gündüz, The Knowledge of Life: The Origins and Early History of the Mandaeans and Their Relation to the Sabians of the Qur’an and to the Harranians (Oxford: 1994), 1–3; Edwin M. Yamauchi, Pre-Christian Gnosticism: A Survey of the Proposed Evidences (London: 1973), e.g. 23, 117–42, 229. See also Brikha H.S. Nasoraia, “Do Mandaeans ‘Believe’? The Role of Gnosis and Belief in the Mandaean Worldview” in Belief in all its States, Garry W. Trompf, Raphaël Liogier and Paul Morris, eds (Elgin., Ill./ Slough, Eng./Delhi, forthcoming, 2023). 4 Three main Mandaean holy books deal with these subjects. Ginza Rba [hereafter GR], also called Sidra Rba or Sidra d-Adam or Ginza d-Hiia (the Great Treasure, the Great Book, the Book of Adam, the Treasure of Life, respectively) is the holiest text and is divided is divided into Ginza Yamina ‘Right Ginza’ and Ginza Smala ‘Left Ginza’ [hereafter GY and GS, respectively]. Early works on this holy text include translations by Matthias Norberg, Codex Nasaraeus Liber Adami appellatus, 3 vols (London: 1815–16); Mark Lidzbarski, Ginza: Der Schatz oder das Grosse Buch der Mandäer (Göttingen: 1925). The work was also described and edited by Julius Petermann, Thesaurus s. Liber magnus vulgo “Liber Adami” appellatus: opus Mandaeorum summi ponderis, 2 vols (Leipzig: Weigel 1867). The official book of the Mandaean rituals is the Qulasta and was translated by Ethel Stephana Drower, The Canonical Prayerbook of the Mandaeans (Leiden: 1959) [hereafter CP]. See also Mark Lidzbarski, Mandäische Liturgien mitgeteilt, übersetzt und erklärt (Berlin: 1920) and Julius Euting, Qolasta: oder Gesänge und Lehren von der Taufe und dem Ausgang der Seele (Stuttgart: 1867). The third major work, Drašia d-Yahia or Drašia d-Malkia (the Teachings/Book of Yahia [John the Baptist]), the Teachings/Book of the Kings/Angels) was also translated by Mark Lidzbarski, Das Johannesbuch der Mandäer (Giessen: 1915) [hereafter JB] with a recent edition and translation by Charles G. Häberl, and James McGrath, The Mandaean Book of John: Critical Edition, Translation, and Commentary (Berlin/Boston: 2019). 1

MANA AND DUALISM IN THE MANDAEAN TRIPARTITE SYSTEM

251

the earthly realm. 5 The (semi-) creator-god or formator or maker of the latter is Ptahil, a lower ranked Lightworld Force, not God, equivalent to the demiurgic ‘maker or creator’, of the material (including earthly living bodies), in many other Gnostic traditions. Therefore, this world is ‘imperfect’ and ‘mortal’; it is not the world of ‘Truth’. That would explain the Mandaean Gnostic ‘world rejection’ view, which is usually been misjudged for a ‘mere dualism’, which is in need of correcting in accordance with the tradition’s own priestly wisdom. 6 The guiding mystics of the Mandaean tradition are called Naṣoraeans (the Guardians or Custodians of the Divine Knowledge and Wisdom i.e., naṣiruta). They are the truth-seekers and the ascribed authentic elites who are inspired with profound intellectual, spiritual and healing powers. Those Naṣoraean teachings of that which makes sense but can’t fit into sense explain the deeper levels of the Mandaean-Naṣoraean sacred scriptures and the belief systems. 7 Mandaeans believe that: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

The material world is the ‘product’ of a primeval imperfection accomplishments. The earthly world is part of the ‘material universe’ and part of the Worlds of Darkness. The human soul (nišimta), as a pure mind or consciousness or energy of enlightenment (Mana), is imprisoned in materiality. nišimta, mana and the Secret (heavenly) Adam (Adam Kasia = Adakas [(i) Adakas Mana (Adakas, the Soul/Mind), (ii) Adakas Ziwa

For further details see Kurt Rudolph, Theogonie, Kosmogonie und Anthropogonie in den mandäishen Schriften (Göttingen: 1965); Brikha H.S. Nasoraia, A Critical Edition, with Translation and Analytical Study of Diuan Qadaha Rba d-Dmuth Kušṭa (The Scroll of Great Creation of the Image/ Likeness of Truth) [unpublished PhD thesis, University of Sydney, Sydney, 2005] (Turnhout: forthcoming 2023) [hereafter DQRDK], Brikha H.S. Nasoraia, The Esoteric and Mystical Concepts of the Mandaean Naṣoraean Illustrated Scroll: Diwan Qadaha Rba d-Dmuth Kušṭa (the Scroll of the Great Creation of the Image/Likeness of Truth) [unpublished PhD thesis, University of Sydney, Sydney, 2010] (Turnhout: forthcoming 2023) [hereafter EMC]; Brikha H.S. Nasoraia, “Mystical Elements in Mandaean Sacred Art: A Brief Study of Folio 6 of the Secret Mandaean Scroll Diwan Qadaha Rba d-Dmuth Kušṭa (The Scroll of Great Creation of the Image/Likeness of Truth)”, The International Journal of Religion and Spirituality in Society (Vancouver) 2/4 (2013), 33–45. 6 Cf. Rudolph, Theogonie, Kosmogonie und Anthropogonie, 248–58, 305–11. 7 For more details on the Naṣoraeans and naṣiruta see Ethel Stefana Drower, The Secret Adam: A Study of Naṣoraean Gnosis (Oxford: 1960) [hereafter SA]; Brikha H.S. Nasoraia, “Naṣiruta: Deep Knowledge and Extraordinary Priestcraft in the Mandaean Religion” in Esotericism and the Control of Knowledge, Edward Crangle, ed. (Sydney: 2004), 306–60. naṣiruta and Naṣoraeans hold a significant place in Mandaean literature, for example CP mentions naṣiruta more than fifteen times (CP, 58 n. 6, 83, 112, 130, 160, 181, 184, 194, 202, 241, 275, 285 n. 3, 287, 314, 316), and Naṣoraean(s) are mentioned more than eighteen times (CP, 31, 38-9, 52, 68, 71, 83 n. 8, 91, 139, 148, 154, 155, 179, 245, 248, 251, 269). 5

252

BRIKHA H.S. NASORAIA (Adakas, the Radiant/Light) and (iii) Adakas Malala (Adakas, the divine Word/Speech)], MD, 7a) discussed below, are identified with and parallel to each other in many levels and stages of the cosmic process. Adam Kasia appears in a form of Adakas (mana). He became the transmitter of mana and also exchanges role with it, as if they are one. All of them are associated with Manda d-Hiia (Knowledge or Gnosis of Life), as He is the original transporter, custodian and cosmic redeemer of the soul. 8

The soul descends from the Worlds of Light with the help of Manda d-Hiia and Lightworld-Beings or ’Utras like Hibil (Ziwa), Abatur (the Guardian of the Gate to the Lightworlds, the Third Life and the Father of ’Utras) and Adakas Ziwa. The principal determination of everything is to reveal (and conceal) the Truth and re-establishing cosmic balance and order. 9 Consequentially, the cosmic purpose is determined to enlighten all of Worlds of Darkness (almia d-hšuka), including the earthly Body and the earthly World, with phases and platforms of ‘Primordial Elements’ like: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v)

mia-hiia (Living Water, Water of Life). ziwa (Radiance). nhura (Light). ’šata haita (Living Energy or Power). manda (spiritual saving Knowledge/Enlightenment or Gnosis or Logos, also as a spiritual Helper or Saviour (e.g., CP, no 75). (vi) naṣiruta (spiritual/deep Wisdom, usually called ‘Sophia’ in other Gnostic traditions). (vii) manda-naṣiruta (multi-layered profound of true Enlightenment and true Wisdom). (viii) kušṭa (cosmic Truth or true (re-)creational Light and Life). (ix) laufa/laupa (sacred cosmic of renew Union). (x) hiia (revealing and establishing the Self and the World with true universal Life (hiia) and everlasting Happiness with God (Hiia, the Life or Living One(s)). 10 GY, III; GR, 65 n. 1, 332 n. 2; CP, 88. n. 1, 158 n. 2, 236, 297 n. 6 (for Adam Kasia), 293, 302 (for Adakas), 301-2, 304 (for Adakas Mana). See also Ethel Stefana Drower, The Mandaeans of Iraq and Iran: Their Cults, Customs, Magic, Legends and Folklore (Oxford: 1937) [hereafter cited as MII], 93 n. 1; Ethel Stefana Drower and Rudolf Macuch, A Mandaic Dictionary (Oxford: 1963) [hereafter MD], 246b–47a; SA, 2 n.1. Also see below further discussion about the meanings and role of mana. 9 See also GY, Vi; CP, nos. 1–20. 10 For more details on the above and more Mandaic terms used in the Mandaean creation story consult Rudolph, Theogonie, Kosmogonie und Anthropogonie. See also Brikha H.S. Nasoraia, “Almandaeyah wal-takwin (The Creation and Formation in Mandaeism)” in Studies in Mandaeanism: History and Beliefs, Majid F. Al-Mubaraki, ed. (Sydney: 2000), 101–20; Brikha H.S. Nasoraia, “Khalq al-ensan- adam wa-hawaa (The Creation of Human Beings: Adam and Eve)” in Studies in Mandaeanism: History and Beliefs, Majid F. Al-Mubaraki, ed., (Sydney: 2000), 121–41. 8

MANA AND DUALISM IN THE MANDAEAN TRIPARTITE SYSTEM

253

Thus, primordially, nišimta/mana is troubled between the perfection (represented by the Universal/Cosmic ‘Mind’ or ‘Mind’ of God) and imperfection (represented by a complex matrix or a combination of human mind, soul, spirit and body). The harmony of this matrix is disturbed not by dualistic system but rather a tripartite cosmic one(s). Mandaeism teaches how to give cosmic life, light, love, purity, harmony and peace through the practises of laufa, ‘one gnosis and one mind’ (CP, no 49). 11 At the beginning of The Secret Adam, Ethel Stefana Drower sheds light on the Naṣoraean ‘use of some terms and epithets in relation to God, angels, general existence and the Creation, illustrating matters that in the following way: When a playwright has his plot sketched out, his characters conceived, and his stage set—‘Let there be light!’—he takes his place, as it were, in the audience while those of whose existence he is the author work out the play before him. Often, indeed, his puppets develop in ways hardly intended, but the main plot is unaffected and the dramatist remains the supreme authority. Such, on a cosmic scale, is the Naṣoraean concept of Existence emerging from nonExistence in the beginning. The Naṣoraean ‘Author of Being’, to use a Western phrase, is Existence in excelsis. It is absolutely without sex or human attribute and in speaking of It the pronoun ‘They’ is used, for Hiia, ‘Life’, in the abstract plural. Creation is delegated to emanations, and appeals are addressed to It to come into being are made by the two great creative forces which is the first endurance of Itself, namely Mind [mana]—the instrument of evocation—and a personification of active Light, Ziwa or Yawar-Ziwa (Awaking, or Dazzling, Radiance). When Yawar is about to call into existence the ‘ether-world’ and spirits to inhabit it, he approaches the Author-Spectator as a suppliant, humbly: ‘If it please You, Great Life; if it please You, Mighty Life!’ seeking permission to begin his predestined task. We find the ideas which Naṣoraean writers try to convey to us expressed in often contradictory terms. The picture changes, merges, melts before us as they envisage from ever-fresh angle the parṣufa rba, the ‘Great Immanence’ or ‘Great Countenance’, an epithet applied to the Great Life. Sometimes the Cause seems to become the Causer or the Causer the Cause; the Thinker the Mind or the Mind the Thinker. The Great Life is described as nukraiia, literally ‘alien’, meaning ‘remote, incomprehensible, ineffable. 12

The teaching of Mandaeism emphatically emphasises the centrality and superiority of the universal collective Great Mind or Consciousness. Mana Rba, the Great (Perfect) Mind (also called Mana (Rba) Qadmaia, the (great) Primal/First Mana), who/which is held to be a pre-existence cosmic Source of emanations, including MII gives a general introduction to the Mandaean religion, the Mandaeans, their history, beliefs, worship and celebrations. See also the recent publications of Brikha H.S. Nasoraia, Mandaeism: History, Beliefs, Worship and Celebrations (Taipei: 2017); Brikha H.S. Nasoraia, Mandaeism: A Key to Understanding the Mandaean Religion (Taipei: 2017); Brikha H.S. Nasoraia, The Mandaean Religion: Worship Practice and Deep Thought (Delhi: 2021). 12 SA, 1–2. 11

254

BRIKHA H.S. NASORAIA

manda (Knowledge or Intelligence), naṣiruta (Wisdom) and Ziwa (Radiance). Mana appears commonly in Mandaean ancient parts of the chief sacred literature, but in various forms and meanings, esp. in GR and CP. For example: GY, 234: 16 ziwa iaqid bgu mana “Radiance (of the Divine Light) luminescent (or glowing, emanating, lit. burning, radiating) inside Mana”. An alternative reading being, “A luminescent glow shining within Mana, the Enlightened One).” The two main meanings of mana are: (i) as used in Aramaic languages generally i.e., ‘vessel’, ‘robe’, ‘garment’, ‘instrument’, ‘utensil’, ‘implement’; and (ii) ‘intelligence’, ‘mind’, ‘thought’, ‘soul’. 13 Many powerful hymns in CP refer to mana this way. 14 In SA, Drower refers to one of them confirming that “a Naṣoraean hymn praises Yawar-Ziwa, the first Radiance which illumined the stage of existence, and the Mind which produced it.” 15 She cites the following extract: I worship, praise and laud The four hundred and forty-four [thousand] names Of Yawar-Ziwa, son of ‘Radiance-Appeared’ [Nbaṭ-Ziwa, lit. ‘Radiance burst forth’.], 16

For various examples on the unique uses of mana in Mandaean literature, see MD, 246b– 47a. mana in its singular form mentioned in CP alone more than one hundred forty times; and in plural form (mania, i.e., manas) more than fifteen times. The meanings that refer to the Mind alone are more than thirty-six times, and more than thirty-eight references to mana as the ‘First’, ‘Mighty’, ‘Magnificent’, ‘Great’, ‘intelligent’ etc. For example, when a Mandaean priest wants to perform any formal ritual, he needs to make laufa (sacred/secret union) and connect with almia d-nhura (the Worlds of Light) and enter malkuta ’laita (the Exalted Kingdom of Hiia, i.e., Life/God). To flow into this spiritual state, the priest must re-construct or re-create himself fully as a ‘Lightword Being’ or ‘Saviour/Messiah King/Angel’. See Brikha H.S. Nasoraia (as Hathem Saed), “Christian and Mandaean Perspectives on Baptism”, The Journal of Eastern Christian Studies (2004), 319–47. He ought to accomplish all kind of purifications to the mind, soul, spirit and body. First, he baptizes himself in the living water/water of life and put on his white garment (Rasta), including his sacred ring (šum yawar ziwa) and his sacred staff (margna). He starts by deep meditation, and then recites five prayers to put on and consecrate his crown (taga). One of these prayers refers to mana several times. See CP, no. 5: “In the name of the Great Life! Let there be light, let there be light! Let there be the light of the Great First Life! There shone forth wisdom, vigilance and praise of the First Mana [extra-terrestrial Mind or cosmic Intellect] which came from its place. He who twineth the wreath is Yufin-Yufafin: the bringer of the wreath is ’It-’Nsibta-’utria. ’It-Yawar son of ’Nsibta-’utria set on the wreath. He brought it and placed it upon the head of the implanted mana which was transplanted from guarded (?) manas.” 14 E.g., CP, nos. 1–2: “The wreath flames and the leaves of the wreath flame! Before the Mana there is light, behind the Mana glory, and at either side of the Mana radiance, brilliance and purity. And at the four corners of the House and the seven sides of the firmament silence, bliss and glory prevail (lit. are found). And Life be praised!” 15 SA, 2. 16 SA, 2, n.2. 13

MANA AND DUALISM IN THE MANDAEAN TRIPARTITE SYSTEM

255

King of ’uthras [’Utras], 17 [the] great Viceregent of škinata (sanctuaries [or cosmic Abodes, divine Realms or Spheres]), Chief over mighty and celestial worlds Of radiance, light and glory. (He) who is within the Veil, Within his own shekinah [škinta], He, before whom no being existed. Then I worship, laud and praise The one great Name which is great, The Name which is powerful. Then I worship, laud and praise That mystic First Mind (Mana) of Glory, Who emanated from Himself, Whose brilliance Exceedeth all (other) mystic glories; It is greater than word of mouth (Can describe) And His light mightier than lips can express. For He is the great mystic First Mind (Mana) The glory of Which was transmitted Neither from the uttermost ends of the earth Nor from gates within it. For It is Mind (Mana), the Great, Mysterious, First, The glory which was transmitted By redoublings of radiance And by intensifications of light 18

Mana works with nišimta ‘the soul’ on one side, while ruha ‘the spirit’ and pagra the human body stand on the other side. Their union contains the possibility of enlightenment and immortality, as it is frequently indicated in Mandaic texts. CP, no. 49 illustrates this in a wonderful way, since at the beginning of the nukraiia prayer, during the masiqta (anointing and baptismal ceremony, which is used for the spiritual rising-up or connection and ascending or spiritual resurrection), the following important and inspiring prayer is read: In the name of Nukraiia (the Strange or Alien or Sublime) [ref. to the Great Life/Great Living One(s), Hiia Rbia]. This, the glory (ziwa) and light (nhur) of Life (hiia), is to give rise to (or bring forth, mipaq) the spirit (ruha) and soul (nišimta)

An ’Utra (transcribed as Othrā) is an ethereal Being, a spirit of light and Life, i.e., a ‘good, pure, beneficial and helpful’ high spirit of Light who protects Light and Life cosmically. ’Utria (pl.) are type of essential Lightworld Beings or Forces, kind of Guardian Angels. They were created when the Ether-world came into being. See SA, 2, n.3, also Chapter VII; Nasoraia, The Mandaean Gnostic Religion: Worship Practice and Deep Thought [Studies of World Religions 3] (Delhi: 2021), passim, e.g., 4, 7, 9, 13, 14, 21, 27, 37, 50, 68, 70, 71, 79, 90, 95, 98, 104, 105, 112, 114–5, 116, 117, 121. Cf. MD, 347a–b. 18 SA, 2–3. Cf. CP, no. 374, 267–8. 17

256

BRIKHA H.S. NASORAIA from the body (pagra) and to clothe the Living Soul (or Soul of Life, nišmat hiia) in the Living Garment (or Garment of Life, lbuš hiia). 19

For the second main meaning of mana, Mandaean teaching also views the Great Mind as a Pure enlightened cosmic Being or Force or Helper. In some secret scrolls, especially DQRDK, 20 the Great Mind is viewed as a divine ‘Helper’, collective ‘Saviour’ and cosmic ‘Baptizer.’ Complementary to this, Mana Rba is also an intelligent mysterious Power and cosmic Force of Wisdom. Mana-Nišimta also represent the soulstirring creations that fill the Mandaean person with true knowledge, wisdom, healing, mindfulness and meaning. 21 Mandaeans believe, however, that their baptism and their religion was established as a cosmic Order, within the pre-existence of the Worlds of Light (Almia dNhura), and was also practised by various forms of enlightened living Beings and ethereal Creatures. It originated from Hiia (the Primal Perfect Source of ‘Life’ and first Cause) and from the primal Knowing, Manda d-Hiia (Knowledge or Gnosis or ‘Science’ of Life). As Divine Knowledge, Manda d-Hiia formed the First ‘Knowledge/Science’ or Religion [also called: Root/Religion of Life (Širša d-Hiia)] and that the ‘Religion of Manda/Gnosis’ was passed on to a cosmic (or prototype or architype) Adam, called Adam Kasia or Adakas, and in later stages to his earthly duplicate or likeness, i.e., the earthly Adam, who was the head of the first family or human race, and from whom Mandaeans are descended. 22 Mandaeans understand themselves to be the original and central branch of the ‘Great Tree of Life’ (’lana rba d-hiia) in all ‘Worlds and Generations/Ages’ (almia udaria). 23 They believe that Manda d-Hiia (the Gnosis/Knowledge of Life) inspired and taught Adam two main things: (i) the ‘Divine Knowledge and Wisdom’ (i.e. MandaNaṣiruta) and (ii) the ‘Sacred Cosmic Rituals’ that were practised originally by the Light-world Beings and ethereal Creatures. This was to ensure that Adam and his race have maṣbuta (Baptism, i.e., cosmic re-construction, re-connection and initiation of Enlightenment) and parwanqa (Salvation), as well as masiqta (the secret and direct ‘Access’ to the Worlds of Light), so that humans can successfully make laufa (cosmic

Cf. CP, 43. See DQRDK, especially in its artwork of Folio 6. See also discussion below. 21 For references to and images of Mana Rba in DQRDK, see lines 17–18, 22, 38, 100, folio 3, Y, folio 6, U4, V4, O5, folio 7, F5, I5. 22 Consult Nasoraia, “Naṣiruta”, esp. 347–56. 23 ’lana rba d-hiia (the Great Tree of Life) is a central mystical ‘Symbol’ used in the naṣiruta of esoteric Mandaeism. The concept of the Universal or Great Tree of Life applies metaphorically. It refers to the relationships between Hiia Rbia Qadmaiia (the Great First Life, i.e., God) and all other created or manifested things or forms of life in the Universe. In certain cases, it describes the structure and dynamic of ‘Existence’, especially among the ‘Worlds and Generations’ (almia u-daria). Cf. the Kabbalistic Tree of Life or Etz haChayim (‫ )עץ החיים‬in Jewish mysticism. 19 20

MANA AND DUALISM IN THE MANDAEAN TRIPARTITE SYSTEM

257

Union) with these Heavenly Worlds through the purificatory practices of the mind, soul, spirit and body. 24 Mana delivers aspects for the earthly material world as a form of mind to primordial humanity, which is represented by the first complete intelligent human, i.e., Adam. It is interesting to note that Mandaeans believe that the primitive human (before the complete Adam) looked like animals. DQRDK, folio 9 (esp. R5 and S5) depicts the image of the first form of the primitive human condition without the presence of the soul (nišimta). The human form is represented as animalistic (long finger- nails) and primitive (unable to stand straight), yet he can move about due to the spirit within him, having “a face like an ape, and made noises like a sheep.” 25 The material world, however, can only arise out of an admixture of both Light and Dark, marking its intermediate state between the upper and lower Worlds. The Human at the beginning was made up of body (pagra) and spirit (ruha), but was not complete (only anaša or br (a)naša, lit. ‘(son of) Man’ = ‘(primeval or primitive) human’, 26 in some later creation stages called naša qadmaia ‘the primal Man’ (DQRDK, folio 9, S5, also linked to e.g., Lidzbarski, Mandäische Liturgien, 54; CP, nos. 35, 49, 66, 353), until the angel Ptahil (the former and creator of Adam and the earthly world) 27 asked for assistance that came in the form of the ‘emissaries’ nišimta (soul, qua Light-being) or mana (enlightened Mind), whose qualities, sent by the First Life, enter Adam unbeknownst to ‘wicked Ptahil’ himself (e.g., CP, nos. 49, 66, 68, The body refers to both: the ethereal body (dmuta) and the earthly body (pagra). See also Brikha H.S. Nasoraia, “Mandaean Gnostic Thought and Art”, ARAM 33 (2020), 83–104.[hereafter ARAM]; Brikha H.S. Nasoraia, “The Mandaean Approach to Protecting the Human Soul from Defilement” in The Pathway to the Centre–Purity and the Mind, Edward Crangle, ed., (Sydney: 2010), 143–69, esp. 144–64; Nasoraia, “Christian and Mandaean Perspectives on Baptism”, esp. 337–8; Majella Franzmann, “Living Water Mediating Element in Mandaean Myth and Ritual”, Numen 36 (1989), 156–72. 25 See MII, 257. This important subject and the depiction are discussed in detail in DQRDK, esp. 233–7, and EMC, esp. 314ff., 372 n. 16. See also Brikha H.S. Nasoraia, and Garry W. Trompf, “Mandaean Macrohistory”, ARAM 22 (2010), 391–425. Parallels with Blavatsky are very interesting in this case, see Garry W. Trompf, “Macrohistory in Blavatsky, Steiner and Guénon” in Western Esotericism and the Science of Religion, Antoine Faivre and Wouter Hanegraaff, eds (Louvain: 1998), 274–86, esp. 283. 26 Cf. the phrase ‘Son of man’ in Judaism, which used not only ben-adam (Hebrew ‫ )בן־אדם‬or the Aramaic equivalent i.e., bar-adam, but in the Book of Daniel and in the post-biblical literature, the parallel terms bar-anoš and bar-naša are also used. In Christianity, the phrase, as an expression, refers to Jesus in various writings, including the four Gospels, the Book of Revelation and the Acts of the Apostles. 27 Ptahil (along with the planets and zodiacal Forces) plays an important role in the creation of the earthly world including Adam and the living bodies. He is the Fourth Life and the lowest rank Lightworld Being. His world is situated before the border of the Worlds of Light. Ptahil is like the Gnostic Demiurge and parallel with the Egyptian creator deity, Ptah. See Nasoraia, “Mandaean Macrohistory”; MII; Ethel Stefan Drower, Diwan Abatur or, Progress through the Purgatories (Città del Vaticano: 1950) [hereafter DA], SA; See also Maria V. Cerutti, “Ptahil e Ruha: per una Fenomenologia del Dualismo Mandeo”, Numen 24 (1977), 186–206. 24

258

BRIKHA H.S. NASORAIA

74, 75, 89, 96, 119, 173, 353). Thus Adam Pagr(i)a or Adam d-Pagria (the earthly or bodily Adam) was completed. 28

Fig. 1. Image of br (a)naša and anaša, ‘(son of) (Hu-)Man’; also, ‘he is a primeval (primitive) (hu)man’, DQRDK, folio 9, R5 and S5

Mana acts as an intermediate or a facilitator or an inspirational cosmic tool of the flow of Knowledge among the ‘Worlds and Generations’ (almia u-daria). Thus, mana can associate with human life and the soul and still retain its purest form. This primordial mind precedes all manifestations of human life and embodies the meaning and substance of reality. In terms of other aspects of the mind, this primordial mind remains buried, deep within human beings. Most of the time, it is unnoticed and unseen. According to Mandaean teachings, both positive and negative attributes are present in the Earthly mind, because of the influence of evil which devitalizes material forces. The mind consists of positive attributes like insight, compassion, and tolerance. These positive characteristics are ascribed usually to the secret effective power of nišimta, ‘the soul’. The mind also consists of negative tendencies that can cause sinful thoughts and actions, like hatred, sadness, anger, fighting, killing, impurity, adultery. The negative aspects are attributed to Ruha, a Dark Force, (and its followers) as well as ruha ‘spirit’, the vile and evil influential powers of the Worlds of Darkness. 29 These negative influences include the zodiacal and planetary effects. Thus, dualism, both cosmologic and ethical—Worlds of Light and Worlds of Darkness; Good and Evil; Male and Female; Father and Mother; Heavens and Earth; Soul

See also Edmondo Lupieri, The Mandaeans: The Last Gnostics, trans. Charles Hindley (Grand Rapids, Mich: 2002), 187, 189; DQRDK, Ch. 6 pp. 232–4, ns. 501 and 503. Also consider GR, esp. GY (III) 100–4 = Lidzbarski, Ginza, 107–13, also GY (III, XII. 6, XV. 13). 29 For example, see CP, 10:14; GY, 226:24, 381:20-21; Lidzbarski, Ginza, 189 n. 2, 227 n. 4; Svend A. Pallis, Mandaean Studies, 2nd edn. (London: 1926), 79–80. See also MD, 428b–49. 28

MANA AND DUALISM IN THE MANDAEAN TRIPARTITE SYSTEM

259

and Spirit; Adam and Eve, and so on—is well represented in Mandaeism. 30 An extract from a long and important prayer in CP, no. 75 (pp. 73–4) may explain the above: At the Radiance which surpasseth all radiance, At the Light which surpasseth all lights, And at the Good Being who crossed the worlds And came and cleft the firmament and revealed Himself. When the Life gazed (down) and looked on the earth And Its Glory alighted upon the roofs of Its Building, (Lo!) they were sitting on thrones of rebellion. They got down meekly from their thrones And fell upon their faces. It eclipsed and took away The glory of the worlds and generations And quenched the flames of their lamps. It set the eyes of the planets in the depths of the earth And in the lower glooms of Darkness. Spirit (ruha) lifted up her voice, She cried aloud and said, “My Father, My father Why didst Thou create me? My God, my God, My [God, ʼAlāhā] why hast thou set me afar off And cut me off and left me in the depths of the earth And in the nether glooms of darkness So that I have no strength to rise up thither?” All arose, prayed and praised the majesty of mighty (Life) And their voices sang to the Glory that is mighty Praising the Radiance which surpasseth (all) radiance And the Light which surpasseth (all) lights, And the Good Being who crossed the worlds, Came, cleft the firmament and revealed Himself. He sundered Light from Darkness and sundered Good from Evil, He sundered Life from Death, And He brought out those who love His name of Truth From Darkness to Light and from Evil to Good And from Death to Life and set them On roads of Truth and Faith. And Thou hast spoken to us with Thy Word And hast commanded us with Thy commandment “Be My glory and I will be your Glory. Be my light and I will be your Light. And my name shall be in your mouths And I will be with you”.

See DQRDK, 10–12; Nasoraia, “Naṣiruta, 306–60, esp. 314–20; See also MII (book I, e.g., IIIVI, esp. 50–2); CP (many places), e.g., no., 75. 30

260

BRIKHA H.S. NASORAIA

As a result, Mandaeans—including lay members, priests and Naṣoraeans (mystics or wise guardians of the divine secret Wisdom, i.e., naṣiruta), but above all the truly enlightened ones—practise many techniques for awakening, for eliminating negative thoughts, and for revealing the hidden mana. Various teachings offer contemplative practices: meditation, contemplation, prayers, enlightened teaching, philanthropy, and rituals (including baptism), in order to reduce the defilement of darkness or negative energies, while enhancing the positive aspects of the human earthly nature. By using these practices, Mandaeans act correctly to heal themselves and direct themselves so that they can connect with Mana Rba (the Great Mind), Hiia Rbia (the Great Life), and almia d-nhura (the Worlds of Light). The Mandaean Naṣoraean teaching indicates that by hearing, reading and knowing these instructions, and by fully internalizing them, all human beings will be able eventually to throw off impurities, sadness and painful uncertainties. They will be empowered to transform themselves by replacing the misery of the average human being’s condition with a clarified and purified mind, heart, soul, spirit and body. Such will allow human beings to be at peace, as well as be filled with knowledge and understanding. Mandaeans are usually encouraged to engage frequently in these practices, especially to undertake frequent baptism, with the assistance of enlightened beings. Some Mandaeans receive enlightenment and self-knowledge without been taught by human or books, being usually taught directly by Mana-Naṣiruta and not by ordinary teachings. 31 These teachings’ purpose is to connect and share knowledge and wisdom with the Great Mind so that the enlighten Mandaean can live forever with Hiia (Life/God) in everlasting happiness as GY, 11f. states: Happy is he who knows you (the King of Light, God), and happy is he who speaks in your knowledge… Happy is he who inspires by your wisdom and is liberated from the defilements and disorder of this world. 32

This is part of the central (long) prayer in the Mandaean tradition, which also depicts the ancient and authentic monotheistic view of the divine, warning against false dualistic views and directing people towards the concepts of the great Mind, i.e., God. 33 The practices and teachings are often repeated in various ways in most of the Mandaean sources. In addition to these teachings, spiritual Knowledge plays an important role and shows Mandaeans the means to search for and to recognize their pure primordial mind and soul; thereby to gain more knowledge, and to spiritually enlighten their vision, thoughts and understanding. 34 Thus CP, no. 78 (p. 88) exhorts:

See Brikha H.S. Nasoraia and Edward Crangle, “The Asuta Wish: Adam Kasia and the Dynamics of Healing in Mandaean Contemplative Praxis”, ARAM 22 (2010), 349–90. 32 Cf. the translation by Kurt Rudolph in Werner Foerster, Gnosis: A Selection of Gnostic Texts, Robert McL. Wilson, trans. and ed. (Oxford: 1974), 153. See Nasoraia, “The Mandaean Approach” for defilement and healing. 33 These concepts are examined in EMC, esp. Chapter 1 and 3 (3.2). See also DQRDK, 7ff. 34 See n. 27, above. 31

MANA AND DUALISM IN THE MANDAEAN TRIPARTITE SYSTEM

261

In the name of the Great Living One(s), May my thoughts, my knowledge and my understanding Enlighten me, …, By means of these (devotional) Responses and Homilies—for Baptism and the Masiqta (Rising Up).

Furthermore, these teachings guide Mandaeans in the means to know and to experience a contented life, the right way of knowing ’uhra d-haii (the great Path of Life, Truth and Enlightenment), and the way to live as enlightened Lightworld beings with the Great Life and Light. The Naṣoraeans, as enlightened people, hold the power of destiny (hiia ‘Life’). They find their own way towards ziwa or the radiance of nhura or the clear Light of kušṭa, Truth, because they already see this light of truth from within. The clear Light of kušṭa exists in Manda (d-Hiia), the True Knowledge (of Life), in the person’s nišimta (soul) and in their mana (Mind).

DUALISM IN THE MANDAEAN TRIPARTITE SYSTEM(S)

Hiia is known as ‘the Great First Alien/Mystical Life/Living One, from the Worlds of Light, the Sublime One that stands above all works.’ 35 From Hiia manifest and emanate other Forces and spiritual Beings, which/who become increasingly corrupted. ‘Three’ other ‘Lives’, can also be spoken of, being the gradual emanations of Yušamin (Second Life), Abatur (Third Life) and Ptahil (Fourth Life). 36 As a result, the (Lightworld) ruler, Ptahil, with the help of His (Darkworld) assistants and companions, created the Earthly world in this physical and imperfect way. However, His Fathers (like Hibil Ziwa and Abatur) and other Messengers of Light (like Manda d-Hiia) make a desperate attempt to repair the Earthly world. With the permeation and the assistance of the Great (First) Life, they try to offer secret ways of implanting/restoring Life, Light, Love, Purity, Peace and harmonious cosmic Order. The valid method they used for this was naṣiruta (the ‘Divine Teaching’, representing the strong faith and true Knowledge in all aspects of Mandaean religion and the ‘Mysteries of Life and the Universe’) which provides the Earthly World with everlasting Enlightenment and Redemption. naṣiruta unifies the Three Worlds in cosmic union, i.e., laufa. In other words, restores cosmic order. Laufa plays a central role in lifting up the living Beings of Earthly World and the World of Darkness to the World of Light. Such would take place after systematic purification and enlightenment. This is a ‘tripartite cosmic cyclical system’ of manifestation, decay and repair understood as Death and Life. It

Hiia, the names of the creator, are considered to be Divine and embody His attributes and conceptions. The meanings of these names are usually obscure. In addition, the divinity and deity are referred to carefully, in a metaphorical theological language. See DQRDK, 1; 161 ns. 22–4. Cf. CP, no. 1 (p. 1). 36 Ptahil is similar to the Gnostic Demiurge; also the ruler of the Earthly world and of many Darkworld Beings such as Ruha, Šuba Šibiahia (the Seven Forces of the seven Planets) and Trisar Maluašia (the Twelve Forces of the Zodiac). 35

262

BRIKHA H.S. NASORAIA

illustrates the ‘End’ and the ‘Beginning’ at the same time within this ‘tripartite system.’ 37 True to form, Mandaean sacred documents such as GR, CP and DQRDK convey its Gnostic ideas through a dualistic worldview and its strong connection with the Mandaean theology and cosmogony. 38 Thus, dualism becomes especially central to explaining the concept of the tripartite system of the cosmos. That is, considering that in Mandaeism the Earthly World is located between the World of Light and World of Darkness. The Earthly World, of course, contains elements from both of these two worlds. 39 However, it is important to note that the language of the esoteric text of DQRDK should be interpreted in spiritually and metaphysically rather than in a literal way. Important Mandaic concepts are expressed, most instructively in DQRDK, as metaphoric and figurative. In short, the language of DQRDK contains highly charged cosmic and theosophical meanings reflecting the tripartite Mandaic Gnostic system, and needs careful attention. As presented in DQRDK, this tripartite system includes an intermediate juncture or grade that modifies the old dualistic Gnostic system(s). On the cosmic level, the Earthly World is formed and becomes an intermediate realm between the World of Light, which is the Upper World, and the World of Darkness, understood as the Lower World. On the spiritual level, ruha (spirit) is cast into the body and becomes an intermediary between the body and the soul, nišimta. For instance, ruha, as depicted in DQRDK, as well as in some other Mandaic sources, appears in the World of Darkness as Ruha, a female Darkworld Being or Force. 40 Ruha also appears in the Earthly Body as ruha, the spirit, sharing the body with the soul nišimta. This ruha and the soul in turn seek salvation and rehabilitation. 41 Finally, she appears in the World of Light as ruha/Ruha, when she is redeemed during her unification with nišimta in the ethereal body through the cosmic body of the Secret (or Hidden) Adam Kasia and the Lord of Greatness Mara d-Rabuta. 42 Redemption for both ruha/Ruha and nišimta can only be by means of the divine intervention of forces and beings from the Higher World. A

For frequent references to the above, consult GR (especially GS), CP (especially, CP, nos. 33 ff.). See also EMC, 3.4 (esp. 3.4.1 and 3). 38 See SA, passim, e.g., 2, 5, 7, 12, 45; Nasoraia, “Naṣiruta”, 312–6, 335; Şinasi Gündüz, The Knowledge of Life: the Origins and Early History of the Mandaeans and their Relation to the Sabians of the Qurān and to the Harranians [Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement 3] (Oxford: 1994), 1–2, 2 n. 6, 214–6. 39 See discussion later in this section. 40 In Mandaean theology, Ruha is the name of a Queen in the Darkworlds and the mother of the King of Darkness, i.e. ’Ur, while ruha is a term for the spirit. 41 For more details and examples consult also Jorunn Buckley, Spirit Ruha in Mandaean Religion [unpublished PhD thesis, University of Chicago, 1978]; Jorunn Buckley, “A Rehabilitation of Spirit Ruha in Mandaean Religion”, History of Religions 22 (1982), esp. 60ff., 83ff.; Jorunn Buckley, “The Mandaean Tabahata Masiqta”, Numen 28:2 (1981), 138–63. 42 See further discussion and explanatory diagrams, below. 37

MANA AND DUALISM IN THE MANDAEAN TRIPARTITE SYSTEM

263

parallel with the redemption of Sophia in the classic Gnostic tradition in Pistis Sophia may noted here. 43 The fate of humanity is a central theme in the Mandaean worldview. This is made evident by a close analysis of the Mandaean corpus, within which the earthly and ethereal journeys of purification and unification with the eternal Life are elaborated upon at length. Typical of most Gnostic trends, the aim is to liberate the divine elements ‘trapped’ in the material form. In Mandaeism, though, this is the liberation of Ruha/ruha and nišimta from all attachments to material things; the aim being to inaugurate their ascending journey’. 44 In Mandaeism, the soul (nišimta) is juxtaposed to the spirit (ruha) to indicate their different function within the Mandaean cosmic outlook. The soul is perceived as linked with the higher realms, whilst the spirit is associated with the lower realms. The creation of the Earthly World, particularly the creation of the human being, seems to have interfered from the Upper and Lower Worlds within the Mandaean dualistic system. The creation of the Earthly World, thus, caused a significant change in the cosmos, the result highlighting the meaning of the existence of the Earthly life. In one of the complex passages of Diwan Alf Trisar Šuialia (the scroll of The Thousand and Twelve Questions) [Hereafter ATŠ] the Lord of Greatness Mara d-Rabuta explains one of the important reasons behind the creation of humanity on earth (which is symbolized by Adam and Eve) and also the cause of human suffering: 45 For I brought the Physical Adam (and Eve) so that offspring might be born from them and be called to life (through them). But they will sink into darkness and the deeds of each one will hold him back, and his works will destroy him, for the planets demand a share in the Root of Adam. 46

See the previous two notes and EMC,1.3 and 4.3. On Pistis Sophia, see Garry W. Trompf, “Gnostic Vicissitudes in Late Antiquity”, in The Gnostic World, Garry W. Trompf, Gunner Mikkelsen and Jay Johnston eds (London: Routledge, 2019), 274–6. 44 Buckley, “A Rehabilitation”, 83 n.132 explains regarding this highlighting or shifting in the tripartite system that persists in the Mandaean religion as follows: “After furnishing the creative element needed for the creation of earthly life, the underworld seems to lose its former significance. Instead, the purgatories—in terms of numbers and of their watchers—form a parallel to the ordering of the underworld. This shift in emphasis indicates that the focus is on the ascending souls and spirits, no longer on the envoy Hibil’s dangerous sojourn among the demons.” 45 Ethel Stephana Drower, tr., The Thousand and Twelve Questions, Alf Trisar Šuialia (Berlin: 1960), 29, n.10 correctly notes that “The context shows that uhawa zawh and Eve, his wife, has been omitted by the scribes of both Mss” in conjunction with her comments on 29 (I. I, no. 88) aminţul ’iatilh (d ’tititlh) ladam d pagria [ulhaua zauH] d šitlia minaihun hawin umitiairia (umitiaiuria) ulhšuka šaflia ukul had had ’bidata nisakria u’bidata nauqrh (nauqria) amiţul d šibiahia baiin mnata mn širša d adam hinun. 46 ATŠ, 134. 43

264

BRIKHA H.S. NASORAIA

DQRDK has many examples revealing the tripartite system of Mandaean thinking. 47 Below are critical examples which play key roles in Mandaean theology, cosmology, cosmogony and mythology. Upper World

Earthly World

Lower World

Hiia The Living One Perfect Pure Eternal Life Malkuta (Divine Kingdom of God) King of Light

hiia cyclical life and death imperfect polluted life malkuta Kingdom of Adam Adam riša d-šurbta haita Adam, the king/head of the living (human) generation 48 Adam (d-)Pagria

hiia cyclical death and life imperfect polluted life malkuta Kingdom of Darkness King of Darkness

Mara d-Rabuta (Aba d’Utria) (Lord of Greatness (, the Father of ’Utras)) the Universal Perfect Being Adam Kasia (Secret/Hidden/Occult Adam) Adam Malka d-’Utria 49 (Adam the King of ’Utras)

(Bodily/Earthly/Physical Adam) Adam Gabra Qadmaia (Adam the first (hu)man)

Mara (or: MarH) d-Hšuka (Lord of the Darkness)

Adam br Ptahil 50 (Adam son of Ptahil)

’Ur 51

(Ptahil is a Lightworld Being, the Demiurge and the creator of the Earthly World, including Adam)

(a King in the World of Darkness, son of Ruha)

For examples see DQRDK, folios 3, 5, 6, 9 and 10. See GY, 26: 7. Cf. MD, 457a. 49 Cf. GY, 108:12; MD, 7a. 50 See EMC, 3.2 (n. 3). Cf. the image and textual commentaries in Drower, Diwan Abatur; MD, 7a. 51 ’Ur is a Giant Darkworld Being or ‘king’, son of Ruha (see Ruha). He became (also called) the King of Darkness/Darkworlds. ’Ur is described (in some detail, e.g. in GR, DA, ATŠ and DQRDK) as a mighty Serpent—(“slither” and “has no hands or legs”)—or Dragon of the Underworld and/or Worlds of Darkness. Drower, MII, 253–4, (Notes on B, no. 3) for a detailed description, accompanied by a drawing of ’Ur, the dragon. 47 48

MANA AND DUALISM IN THE MANDAEAN TRIPARTITE SYSTEM Lightworld Beings

human beings

Mana (Mind)/Nišimta (soul)

Nišimta + ruha (spirit) + body

Dmuth(a) 53 Divine Perfect (or Ideal) Image/Likeness/Counterpart/Prototype/ Twin or Double (of Truth) Škinta/Maškina Divine (or Celestial) Dwelling/ Abode/Realm/(sometimes) Womb or Source/or: Temple 54 Yardna Divine River ((of) the Ethereal Living Water -macrocosm)

Dmutha (The Guardian Twin, sometimes refers to the State of the Pure ‘Origin/Image’ also Nišma) škinta/maškina (temple) škinta d-Adam 55 (dwelling of Adam or Adam’s dwelling/abode)

Aina (Divine Wellspring/Source/ Womb/Uterus), e.g.: aina d-mia (Wellspring/Source of Water) Aina d-ziua (Wellspring of Radiance) Aina d-nhura (Wellspring of Light)

Yardna + zma (blood) Bodily River(s) ((of) the physical Living Water – microcosm) aina e.g.: aina d-arqa (well(spring)/source of earth)

265

Beings of the Darkness 52 (Darkworld Beings) Ruha (Queen in the Worlds Mother of ’Ur, the Seven planets, the Twelve zodiac and (metaphorically) Adam [i.e., Adam br Ruha (Adam son of Ruha) or Adam br Qin (Adam son of Qin, Mother of Ruha)] Dmuth(a) (the letter, ‘A’ or Source of Dark-Double(s) or Counterpart(s) Škinta/Maškina (a mysterious Dwelling/Realm (of Razia ‘Mysteries’ of (Dark/Black) magic, etc.) in the Lower Worlds) Yardna + Zma (Blood) Darkworld Rivers

aina e.g.: aina d-mia’kumia (Wellspring/Source of Black Water) aina d-sumqaq (Well of Sumqaq) (Sumqa, the Womb/Source (of Darkness)

This also includes the zodiacal and planetary Beings/powers/spirits. Cf. MD, 457a; Buckley, “A Rehabilitation”, 61ff. 54 Cf. MD, 255b, 465b–66a. 55 Cf. DQRDK, folio 9; DA; Diwan Abatur (at the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana in the Vatican City), Borgiani Siriaci 175 = BS175), line 33; MD, 7a, 465a. 52 53

266

BRIKHA H.S. NASORAIA

Qabin (Divine Marriage) Baia (Divine) Egg Marba (Divine Womb/Uterus) 56

qabin (marriage)

baia (egg) marba (womb/ uterus)

qabin (Marriage)

baia (Egg) Marba (Womb/ Uterus)

Many more examples fit into this tripartite system; among these being food, trees, animals, beings, elements, forces etc. In the tripartite Mandaean Gnostic system the material world, particularly the Earthly World, stands in the middle between the (divine) World of Light, which is understood as basically and overwhelmingly good, and the (demonic) World of Darkness, which is understood as fundamentally evil. Correspondingly, in the Earthly World, the light/good and darkness/evil are merged and so stand fundamentally against and opposed to each other in this system. Despite this opposition, the intermingling of these metaphysical and spiritual entities with physical and material entities in the Earthly World creates a shadowy grey realm, in which both dimensions, vertically and horizontally, internally and externally, compete to meet and cooperate at some points. 57 The evidence of this appears clearly in DQRDK as well as in many passages in GR, CP, JB, ATŠ and many other Mandaean documents. In addition, ATŠ points to the cosmic importance of the bridging of the light and darkness of existence and confirms the interdependent relationship between Light and Darkness, declaring: “Light and Darkness are bound together: if there had been no Darkness, then Light would not have come into being/arisen”. 58 These kinds of intermixtures of the earthly realms are shown in the diagrams of the Worlds of Light, Earthly World and Worlds of Darkness:

Fig. 2 Intersections between the Worlds of Light, Earthly World and Worlds of Darkness

Cf. MD, 251b (marba2). The Earthly world is sometimes understood as the battle or war ground that the two forces compete on/in. 58 ATŠ, 134 and n. 7. ATŠ, 29 (I. I, no. 89): nhura uhšuka laifin mn hdadia ’u hšuka la’huia hu nhura la ’tqaiam. Drower used the same passage in SA, 5 but without referring to its place in ATŠ and the translation was marked by slight differences: “Darkness and light are bound together; had there been no dark then light would not have come into being.” 56 57

MANA AND DUALISM IN THE MANDAEAN TRIPARTITE SYSTEM

267

In the shadowy grey area where both dimensions intersect, there is a new realm in which wickedness, vice, misery, impurity, cloudiness in knowledge and death (i.e., transitoriness/impermanence), all appear together with goodness, purity, wellbeing, enlightenment and permanence. Importantly, we find that the core of this shadowy grey realm, i.e., the Earthly World, is centred on humanity and the human being, i.e., Adam, its/his/her existence and fate. Three component forces share the human body which as a material realm represents the earthly realm. It is formed from the earthly element upon the entrance of nišimta and ruha into the body. Each of them coming to this realm brings some of the mysteries and necessities from their own worlds. According to the Mandaeans, these mysteries are considered important not only for the human being but also for life to exist in the earthly world. ATŠ explains this theory regarding nišimta and ruha particularly well: So when the Soul came from Worlds of Light and fell into the body, there came with her some of the mysteries which exist in the World of Light, some of its radiance and its light, some of its sincerity, some of its unity, its order, its peacefulness and its honesty; some of all that there is in the Realm of Light came to bear her company, to delight her, to purify her and to surround her in order that she may commune with them and that there may be for her that which will aid her against the evils and temptations of the earth. And the Evil Spirit [ruha bišta] 59 came with her, accompanied by all the mysteries that exist in darkness; and in the body she introduced (such evils) as song, frivolity, dancing, deceit and falsehood, excitement and lust, lying and witchcraft, violence and perversion, accompanying the spirit in the body of Adam, so that the Soul should not dominate her (the earthly spirit). For spirit and soul are distinct from one another, and I placed strife between them. Thus, boundaries were laid down between powers (lit. kings) (of Light and Darkness): and when souls depart from their bodies all those who are of Light (the Soul) so to the Light, and the spirit goeth with it to the light, but all that is of (obeyed) the (earthly) spirit falleth away to the darkness). 60

Drower explains about the use of this term in ATŠ, 215f. n. 10: “In all the three texts [copies of ATŠ] this is ruha bišta, However the ruha which accompanies the soul into the body is only evil because it is open to temptation, and it is because of this that the personified Ruha (Ruha d Qudša in polemical texts) is always represented as temptress, and evil. As appears elsewhere in this scroll, the ruha after purification ascends with the soul to the worlds of light. Hence bišta here is out of place.” 60 ATŠ, 215–16. Also, SA, 49. Drower comments further on ruha correctly stating that: “The ruha is united to the soul after purification, and her earthly qualities are shed in the maṭarata.” ATŠ, 216 n. 1. 59

268

BRIKHA H.S. NASORAIA

Fig. 3: Ascension of nišimta and ruha towards the Light after the purification in maţarata

MANA AND DUALISM IN THE MANDAEAN TRIPARTITE SYSTEM

269

It needs to be clarified briefly here that Adam/human in his complete form was made up of three component forces. 61 He was created according to his dmuta in the Ideal World of the True and perfect Prototypes (i.e., Mšunia Kušṭa, who is connected directly with the Worlds of Light). Dmuta, the perfect Likeness/Ideal/Counterpart/ Archetype/Prototype, is the Ideal ‘Twin’ Image/Likeness of Truth i.e., Dmuth Kušṭa. After earthly death 62 and purification, the departing ethereal component forces (i.e., nišimta and ruha) begin their ascension. At this stage, they unify in three main Laufas (Holy Unions). The First laufa is between themselves (i.e., within, in their own ethereal body). The second laufa is with its dmuta, the Ideal (Perfect) Twin/Prototype. 63 This one spontaneously leads to a laufa with Adam Kasia, the Cosmic Perfect Being, as well as with His perfect (True) World of the non-earthly or cosmic Mandaeans or people, i.e., Mšunia Kušṭa (the World of Perfect or Exalted Truth). This laufa leads to the third laufa, which is called laufa rba d-hiia (Great Union of Life). It is a divine Union with both Mara d-Rabuta (Lord of Greatness) and His Divine Worlds of Light (almia d-nhura). The ‘Triple’ laufa is also part of the tripartite system, fitting perfectly in the heart of Mandaeism. The ascending of the nišimta and ruha towards the Light after the purification in maṭarata is shown in figure 3. The human being, during life in the earthly world, has been given the ability to keep in touch with Adam Kasia, Mšunia Kušṭa and the Worlds of Light. He/she is granted a sacred access because of the ‘dwelling’ of nišimta (the soul) within, i.e. in the body. The pure/purified soul can easily access the other alian realms (nukraia/nukraiia). 64 The purification happens because of the Enlightenment (manda) and Wisdom (naṣiruta) of the manda-naṣiruta system that works through Knowledge, Wisdom, purification, baptism, meditation, prayer, good deeds, etc. The system again works perfectly in the general Mandaean tripartite system, transmuting/turning the enlightened person into a Light/Radiant Being. That Being becomes (i) a type of sacred/secret Light; (i) a travelling Light and (iii) a unifying Light with the Divine eternal Living Light, i.e., Hiia (God), that is to say laufa d-Hiia. 65 In DQRDK, this tripartite relationship is explained with interesting and detailed illustrations. 66 The Mandaean story of creation in DQRDK centres mainly upon these three worlds, 67 and particularly upon the struggle for survival and redemption of the three components of (human) beings among these three realms. The world of Mšunia Kušṭa and the earthly world are interconnected, both of which held between the

For more details, see the discussions and diagrams in this and EMC, Ch. 3, esp. 3.3 and 3.4. This is called muta (qadmaia) “the First death.” 63 The second laufa takes place in Mšunia Kušṭa. 64 Cf. MD, 293b. 65 For more details, see EMC, 3.3 and 3.4. See also n. 65, above and ATŠ, 215–6. 66 Consult DQRDK, Chapter 6, 154–248. 67 The World of Mšunia Kušṭa is included with the Upper Worlds (as seen in the diagram) because of its connection with both nišimta (the soul, during its period in the body) and the Worlds of Light. 61 62

270

BRIKHA H.S. NASORAIA

Upper and Lower Worlds, respectively. The ‘Four’ realms are interconnected, and they are interlapping to keep the Universe alive, as the following diagram explains: Diagram representing the four worlds

Fig. 4: The four worlds of the Mandaean religion

DQRDK reveals that the application of these beliefs, for the Mandaeans as Gnostic enlightened beings in this evil world entails the pressure to seek disengagement and purification from the evil and material boundaries of the Earthly World and the World of Darkness including the purgatories (maṭarata), which are controlled mainly by the powers and spirits of Darkness. The Mandaean follower can feel the rejoicing of the soul when the time of departing and salvation comes. The soul (nišimta) declares: [209]... “Good is the day when I split away from you, stinking body, and when I am saved from [210] evil deeds”. 68

Fig. 5: The four forces influencing the physical/ Earthly body

DM’L, 14. Cf. SA, 49 n. 1. This is a common issue in Mandaean theology and literature. For more passages and prayers see GS, CP (esp. nos. 92–103), DA; ATŠ.

68

MANA AND DUALISM IN THE MANDAEAN TRIPARTITE SYSTEM

271

Mandaeans believe that they must ascend and transcend these negative and evil things to the Worlds of Light and Life by way of observing the ritual and ethical requirements in their eminent secret Gnostic systems of belief (GR; CP; JB) in order to become utterly purified. After death, redemption is achieved by means of manda (Gnosis) that is for the spiritual parts of the self only (i.e., nišimta and ruha), while the elements of the physical body are returned to its origins (i.e., the Earthly World). Despite this process, it is often difficult to find instances in the Mandaean Gnostic teachings and practices where fundamental dualistic and tripartite principals coincide with the system and practices of asceticism. 69 This is because, Mandaeism is not a purely ascetic religion as the simple dichotomy of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ is complicated by a third level of human beings. Qualities such as celibacy and bachelorhood are as prohibited as licentiousness and polygamy. Also prohibited are harmful acts towards the body. These may include: the enduring of the suffering of starvation and thirst, mutilation of the body (e.g., circumcision), the ingestion of prohibited food or drink (such as, pork or alcohol) and the desecration of the Great Gifts of Life, e.g., holy water (yardna), baptism, holy works, etc. 70 In other words, Mandaeans must not deprive their soul, spirit and body from earthly pleasures as long as this is done in a way that follows the Law of Life (Hiia). Regarding these issues, Drower makes an interestingly and significant point: In spite of an original asceticism that saw in all functions of the body a species of defilement which laid open to the attacks of evil spirits, the Mandaeans have joy in life, and in marriage, though the latter is protected by elaborate ritual which aims at health and cleanliness. The mortifications, dirtiness, and self-deprivation of Christian asceticism in its medieval stage are unknown to these joyous mystics. All that the Spirit of Life sends is a good gift, to be used with praise. In spite of the sinconscious tones of the prayers, life is a pleasant thing, and the earth a happy prison. Death does not exist, since the living and the dead constantly meet at the table of the ritual meal. 71

Thus, Mandaeans and Naṣoraeans enjoy living earthly and ethereal lives simultaneously. They accomplish this dual function through various ways, but especially by the frequent performing of rituals and meditation, which are necessary for their purification and inner calm, and for their transmutation from the physical selves to

Edwin M. Yamauchi, Gnostic Ethics and Mandaean Origins (Piscataway, NJ: [2004]), 36 states that “there was no ‘original asceticism’ in the Mandaean religion” in his discussion of Drower’s statements and elaborates further on pp. 45–7. Cf. MII, 53; Kurt Rudolph, Die Mändaer, (Göttingen: 1960–1), I, 86. For Mandaean opprobrium of Christian asceticism, see Erica C.D. Hunter, “The Mandaeans—a case of mistaken Christian identity” in The Rowman and Littlefield Handbook of Christianity in the Middle East, Mitri Raheb and Mark A. Lamport, eds (New York/London: 2021), 165–6. 70 See n. 55, above. The Mandaean system has an exhaustive list of prohibited foods. 71 MII, 53. 69

272

BRIKHA H.S. NASORAIA

their rebirth in the Ethereal Worlds of Light. These ideas play a central role in forming and building the unique character and identity of the Mandaean Naṣoraean society.

CONCLUDING COMMENTS

Mandaean sacred literature (including DQRDK) depicts the Mandaeans as unique Gnostics. This corresponds to the general picture presented in many other esoteric documents such as, ATŠ, DA and Diwan Nahrawata. The Mandaeans have always had their own system of ceremonial lustrations, initiations, anointings, secret meals, cultic devotions and magical forms. In addition, they have their own esoteric version of the story of creation, including secret names of angelic and demonic beings that are cautiously and strictly committed to memory in a unique tradition. 72 Moreover, in accordance with the form of first covenant, DQRDK reinforces the Mandaeans’ belief that they are granted a covenant kušṭa and treaties by Hiia, and that they enter parity-treaties with contemporary powers of the ‘Living Divine Seed’ 73 and will be ‘mentioned by Life’. 74 The same divine covenant appoints Adam as the successor of the family and the nation of the ‘Sons of Light.’ 75 Mandaean scriptures, together with DQRDK, also make clear the fact that the Mandaean religion, with its multiple tripartite systems, contains a strictly dualistic nature, exhibiting perhaps an even greater division between Light and Darkness, than that of traditional Gnosticism. However, the existence of the tripartite system (which is reformed and repeated in the Earthly world), suggests possibilities of refinement and rehabilitation of the Darkness to cooperate, ascend and unify with the Light. Forgiveness and promise of ascension (to the highest levels in the Worlds of Light at the end of the earthly world) has been given to the non-perfect Lightworld Beings such as Yušamin (Second Life), Abatur (Third Life) and Ptahil (Fourth Life). Furthermore, the dark side in the physical earthly Body (i.e., ruha) and nišimta in the Earthly world has created a new environment that also suggests possibilities of refinement and rehabilitation of the dark side of the human beings (i.e., ruha) and the Beings of the World of Darkness (represented mainly by Ruha) and ascent to the Worlds of Light. Everything that exists in the Wider Universe is attuned with Hiia (the Creator and Originator of the Light, i.e., God). 76 See for instance DQRDK, Folios 1 and 2. The ‘living seed’ (Mazruta Haita) refers to the Water of Life, Living Water, and also to the lineage of the Lightworld beings. See DQRDK, 5, 83–4 and 163 and ns. 33–39. See also EMC, 152 and ns. 133, 134, 137. See refences and discussions in in many places in EMC, esp. 3.2, 3.4 and also the relevant discussions in EMC, Ch. 4, especially regarding the images of the seed in DQRDK, Folios 1, 3, 4, etc. 74 See also DQRDK, 10, 13 and 164 n. 53, 165 n. 61, 161 n. 24. 75 This is a Mandaean idea that places Adam at the head of the ‘human family’. As in the case of the biblical lineage, Adam is the father of human race. See DQRDK, n. 50. See n. 73 and n. 74. 76 For further discussions on the above issues see Brikha H.S. Nasoraia, The Mandaean Rivers Scroll (Diwan Nahrawata): An Analysis (London: 2022). 72 73

MANA AND DUALISM IN THE MANDAEAN TRIPARTITE SYSTEM

273

ABBREVIATIONS

ATŠ = Drower, The Thousand and Twelve Questions (Alf Trisar Šuialia) CP = Drower, The Canonical Prayerbook of the Mandaeans DA = Drower, Diwan Abatur DQRDK = Nasoraia, “The Scroll of the Great Creation of the Image/Likeness of Truth” (Diwan Qadaha Rba d-Dmuth Kušta) EMC = Nasoraia, “The Esoteric and Mystical Concepts of the Mandaean Naṣoraean Illustrated Scroll” GR = Ginza Rba GY = Ginza Smola GY = Ginza Yamina JB = Lidzbarski, Das Johannesbuch der Mandäer MD = Drower and Macuch, A Mandaic Dictionary MII = Drower, The Mandaeans of Iraq and Iran SA = Drower, The Secret Adam

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Buckley, Jorunn Jacobsen. Spirit Ruha in Mandaean Religion [unpublished PhD thesis, University of Chicago, 1978]. —— “A Rehabilitation of Spirit Ruha in Mandaean Religion”, History of Religions 22 (1982), 60–84. —— “The Mandaean Tabahata Masiqta”, Numen 28:2 (1981), 138–63. Cerutti, Maria V. “Ptahil e Ruha: per una Fenomenologia del Dualismo Mandeo”, Numen 24 (1977), 186–206. Drower, Ethel Stephana, tr., The Canonical Prayerbook of the Mandaeans (Leiden: Brill, 1959). —— tr., Diwan Abatur or, Progress through the Purgatories [Studi e Testi] (Città del Vaticano: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1950). —— The Mandaeans of Iraq and Iran: Their Cults, Customs, Magic Legends and Folklore (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1937). —— The Secret Adam: A Study of Naṣoraean Gnosis (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1960). —— tr., The Thousand and Twelve Questions, Alf Trisar Šuialia (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1960).

274

BRIKHA H.S. NASORAIA

Drower, Ethel Stefana and Rudolf Macuch. A Mandaic Dictionary (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963). Euting, Julius. Qolasta: oder Gesänge und Lehren von der Taufe und dem Ausgang der Seele (Stuttgart: F. Schepperlen 1867). Foerster, Werner. Gnosis: A Selection of Gnostic Texts, Robert McL. Wilson, trans. and ed. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1974). Franzmann, Majella. “Living Water Mediating Element in Mandaean Myth and Ritual”, Numen 36 (1989), 156–72. Gündüz, Şinasi. The Knowledge of Life: the Origins and Early History of the Mandaeans and their Relation to the Sabians of the Qurān and to the Harranians [Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement 3] (Oxford: Oxford University Press on behalf of the University of Manchester, 1994). Häberl, Charles G. and James McGrath. The Mandaean Book of John: Critical Edition, Translation, and Commentary (Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, 2019). Hunter, Erica C.D. “The Mandaeans–a case of mistaken Christian identity” in The Rowman and Littlefield Handbook of Christianity in the Middle East, Mitri Raheb and Mark A. Lamport, eds (Lanham/Boulder/New York/London: Rowman and Littlefield, 2021), 163–73. Lidzbarski, Mark. Das Johannesbuch der Mandäer (Giessen: Töpelmann, 1915). —— Ginza: Der Schatz oder das Grosse Buch der Mandäer (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1925). —— Mandäische Liturgien mitgeteilt, übersetzt und erklärt (Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1920). Lupieri, Edmondo. The Mandaeans: The Last Gnostics, trans. Charles Hindley (Grand Rapids, Mich: Eeerdmans, 2002). Nasoraia, Brikha H.S. (as Hathem Saed). A Critical Edition, with Translation and Analytical Study of Diuan Qadaha Rba d-Dmuth Kušṭa (The Scroll of Great Creation of the Image/ Likeness of Truth) [unpublished PhD thesis, University of Sydney, Sydney, 2005] (Turnhout: Brepols, forthcoming 2023). —— A Key to Understanding the Mandaean Religion (Taipei: Weber Publication International, 2017). —— “Al-mandaeyah wal-takwin (The Creation and Formation in Mandaeism)” in Studies in Mandaeanism: History and Beliefs, Majid F. Al-Mubaraki, ed. (Sydney: M.F. Al-Mubaraki, 2000), 101–20. —— “Christian and Mandaean Perspectives on Baptism”, The Journal of Eastern Christian Studies (2004), 319–47. —— “Do Mandaeans ‘Believe’? The Role of Gnosis and Belief in the Mandaean Worldview” in Belief in all its States, Garry Trompf, Raphaël Liogier and Paul

MANA AND DUALISM IN THE MANDAEAN TRIPARTITE SYSTEM

275

Morris, eds [Studies in World Religion, 5], (Elgin., Ill./Slough, Eng./Delhi: Sterling, forthcoming 2023). —— “Khalq al-ensan- adam wa-hawaa (The Creation of Human Beings: Adam and Eve)”, in Studies in Mandaeanism: History and Beliefs, Majid F. Al-Mubaraki, ed. (Sydney: M.F. Al-Mubaraki, 2000), 121–41. —— “Mandaean Gnostic Thought and Art”’, ARAM 33 (2020), 83–104. —— Mandaeism: History, Beliefs, Worship and Celebrations (Taipei: Weber Publication International, 2017). —— “Mystical Elements in Mandaean Sacred Art: A Brief Study of Folio 6 of the Secret Mandaean Scroll Diwan Qadaha Rba d-Dmuth Kušṭa (The Scroll of Great Creation of the Image/Likeness of Truth)”, The International Journal of Religion and Spirituality in Society (Vancouver) 2/4 (2013), 33–45. —— “Naṣiruta: Deep Knowledge and Extraordinary Priestcraft in the Mandaean Religion” in Esotericism and the Control of Knowledge, Edward Crangle ed. [Sydney Studies in Religion, 5] (Sydney: Dept. Studies of Religion, University of Sydney, 2004), 306–60. —— “Sacred Text and Esoteric Praxes in Sabian Mandaeism” in Religious and Philosophical Texts: Rereading, Understanding and Comprehending Them in the 21st Century, vol. 1, Bayram Çetinkaya ed., (Istanbul, 2012), 27–54. —— The Esoteric and Mystical Concepts of the Mandaean Naṣoraean Illustrated Scroll: Diwan Qadaha Rba d-Dmuth Kušṭa (the Scroll of the Great Creation of the Image/Likeness of Truth) [unpublished PhD thesis, University of Sydney, Sydney, 2010] (Turnhout: Brepols, forthcoming, 2023). —— The Mandaean Gnostic Religion: Worship Practice and Deep Thought [Studies of World Religions 3] (Delhi: Sterling, 2021). —— The Mandaean Rivers Scroll (Diwan Nahrawata): An Analysis (London: Routledge, 2022). Nasoraia, Brikha (H.S.) and Edward Crangle. “The Asuta Wish: Adam Kasia and the Dynamics of Healing in Mandaean Contemplative Praxis”, ARAM 22 (2010), 349–90. Nasoraia, Brikha (H.S.), and Garry W. Trompf. “Mandaean Macrohistory”, ARAM 22 (2010), 391–425. Norberg, Matthias, Codex Nasaraeus Liber Adami appellatus, 3 vols (London: Gothorum Berling, 1815–16). Pallis, Svend A. Mandaean Studies, 2nd edn. (London: Oxford University Press, 1926). Petermann, Julius H., Thesaurus s. Liber magnus vulgo "Liber Adami" appellatus: opus Mandaeorum summi ponderis, 2 vols (Leipzig: Weigel 1867).

276

BRIKHA H.S. NASORAIA

Rudolph, Kurt. Die Mandäer, 2 vols [Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments. Neue Folge; Hft. 56–7] (Göttingen : Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960–1). —— Mandaeism (Leiden: Brill, 1978). —— Theogonie, Kosmogonie und Anthropogonie in den mandäishen Schriften [Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testamentes, 88] (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965). Trompf, Garry W. “Gnostic Vicissitudes in Late Antiquity”, in The Gnostic World, Garry W. Trompf, Gunner Mikkelsen and Jay Johnston, eds (London: Routledge, 2019), 271–82. —— “Macrohistory in Blavatsky, Steiner and Guénon”, in Western Esotericism and the Science of Religion, Antoine Faivre and Wouter Hanegraaff, eds [Gnostica, Peeters, 2] (Louvain: Peeters, 1998), 274–86. Yamauchi, Edwin M. Gnostic Ethics and Mandaean Origins (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2004). —— Pre-Christian Gnosticism: A Survey of the Proposed Evidences (London: Tyndale Press, 1973).

AUFFASSUNG UND DARSTELLUNG DER TRINITÄT IN DER IKONOGRAPHIE

JEAN-PAUL DESCHLER ∗ (SEERI, KOTTAYAM)

The Old Testament emphasizes the unapproachability of God, but simultaneously affirms, through prophetic visions, the existence of the One Lord. The teachings and actions of Jesus bestowed the revelation of the Trinity on His disciples. For Christians, the incarnation admits no other interpretation than that God is a Threeness or Triunity in the persons of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It required much philosophicaltheological effort to ‘grasp’ this fundamental mystery of faith in a dogmatic statement and to assert it against heretical views. The distinctively Christian conception of God is also depicted by Iconography in the Eastern and Western Churches that shows many similarities since the end of antiquity; the representability of the Father and the Spirit was disputed for a long time, because only the Son appeared ‘in the flesh’. The liturgical manner of speaking, certain religious movements such as mysticism and different conceptions of art, e.g. Renaissance and Baroque in the West, have produced different, interesting and substantial, but also problematic, representations of the Trinity.

Bei verschiedenen Gelegenheiten, besonders im Zusammenhang mit Konferenzen, hatte ich die Freude, Rifaat Ebied zu begegnen. Statt “Freude” könnte ich ebenso gut “Vergnügen” sagen, denn neben dem Zugewinn an Wissen ist es auch der Genuss freundlicher, geselliger und humorvoller Unterhaltung, den man im Gespräch mit diesem außergewöhnlichen Semitisten erfährt. Ich erlebe ihn als Menschen, bei dem einem klar wird, warum Wörter wie Wissenschaft derselben idg. Wurzel entstammen: dt. wissen, weise, Weise, Witz, lat. videre, visere, visio, visus, griech. ἰδεῖν, ἰδέα, εἶδος (u. a., mit manchen Konnotationen).

∗

277

278

JEAN-PAUL DESCHLER

GROSSE NAMEN

Rifaat als arabischer Personenname ähnelt 1 in der Sicht des Germanisten den zahlreichen Namen, die im Deutschen mit Adel- oder Edel- zusammengesetzt sind. 2 Der Adel als höherer Stand einer Familie, einer Dynastie oder einer sozialen Gruppe hat in verschiedenen Ländern und Kulturen eine sehr unterschiedliche Geschichte, deren Ausdruck von kultischer Hochachtung bis zu physischer Vernichtung reichen kann. 3 Die alte Überzeugung, dass der Name irgendwie dem Wesen seines Trägers entspricht, veranlasst Eltern, ihrem Kind einen Namen zu geben, der es mit seiner Bedeutung prägt. 4 In vielen Kulturen gibt es außer den Namen, die “säkulare” Ideale wie Tüchtigkeit oder Klugheit ausdrücken, auch theophore Namen, mit denen einem Menschen eine besondere Beziehung zu einer Gottheit erbeten wird. 5 Das Alte Testament nennt mehrere Bezeichnungen für den Gott Israels, als eigentlichen Gottesnamen aber den, welchen Mose beim brennenden Dornbusch (Exodus 3:13–15) hörte: ‫–יַ ְהוֶ ה‬Jahwe (griech. ὁ ὤν– “der Seiende”). Von der Theologie her gesehen ist der Verzicht darauf, Gott einen Namen zu geben und damit magischen Vorstellungen zu erliegen, 6 eher gerechtfertigt als der Wunsch, mit einem Namen über Ihn verfügen zu können. Die Bezeichnung Manitou in den AlgonkinSprachen bedeutet etwa „das große Geheimnis“ und bezeugt die Ehrfurcht vor einem—pantheistisch oder theistisch aufgefassten—höchsten Wesen. Hochachtung und Verehrung drücken im Islam aber auch die so genannten 99 Namen aus ( ���‫أ�ْمَاء ُ ا‬ ‫“—ا�ْ�ُسْ� َى‬Gottes schöne Namen”), die der Koran als Attribute Allahs enthält, während der hundertste Name unbekannt ist.

Rifaat Arab. (oder turko-arab.?) ‫[ رفعت‬rifʕat] kann mit “Höhe, Erhöhung, Hoheit, Exzellenz” wiedergegeben werden. Falls die gefundenen Hinweise irrig sein sollten, nehme ich den Fehler auf mich. 2 Vgl. Albert < ahd. Adalber[h]t (Ethelbert u. ä., ae. Æþelbeorht bzw. Æþelbriht) bedeutet etwa “glänzender Adel” = “berühmter Vornehmer”; Adelheid “vornehme Gestalt”, Adelrich “mächtiger Adel”; vgl. ferner isl. aðaldyr “Haupteingang” u. a. Komposita; ahd. ediling, aisl. öðlingr, ae. æþeling “Anführer, Fürst”. 3 Ein Beispiel für das eine ist der römische Kaiserkult (Anerkennung des Herrschers als divus), für das andere die Ermordung der Zarenfamilie durch die Bolschewiken (1918). 4 Dies gilt selbst dann, wenn die ursprüngliche (etymologische) Bedeutung des Namens unbekannt ist oder mit einem Modenamen der Wunsch verbunden wird, dem Kind etwas vom Glanz einer berühmten Persönlichkeit zu verleihen. 5 Z.B. in Ägypten Tutanchamun, in Mesopotamien Nebukadnezzar (Nabuchodonosor), in Israel Elija, in Griechenland Demetrios, in Island Guðrún usw. 6 Die Meinung, mit der Kenntnis des Namens über das Genannte Macht auszuüben (vgl. das Märchen vom Rumpelstilzchen), ist auch in der Bibel präsent (Gen 32:30; Ri 13:6; Apg 19:13ff.), die vor allem die Zauberpraktiken der nicht-israelitischen Völker verurteilt (Lev 20: 27; Dtn 18:9ff.; Jerh 27:9; Ez 13:18ff.; Apg 13:6ff.). 1

AUFFASSUNG UND DARSTELLUNG DER TRINITÄT IN DER IKONOGRAPHIE

279

DER EINE GOTT IN DREI PERSONEN

Das Ereignis der Inkarnation, der Menschwerdung des ewigen Logos in Jesus, und die Erfahrung Seiner Worte und Taten brachten Seinen Jüngern die Offenbarung der Dreifaltigkeit. Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments lassen für Christen keine andere Interpretation zu als die, dass Gott eine Dreieinigkeit in den Personen des Vaters, des Sohnes und des Heiligen Geistes ist. Aus urchristlicher Liturgie entnommen ist—wie andere Stellen in Paulusbriefen— sicher schon der Segensgruß von 2Kor 13,13. Dieses fundamentale Mysterium des Glaubens in einer dogmatischen Aussage zu “fassen” und gegen häretische Ansichten zu behaupten, erforderte viel philosophischtheologische Mühe 7 und kostete lange Kämpfe 8—auch über das Konzil von Konstantinopel 381 C.E. hinaus. Auch im Bild versuchen die Gläubigen das unterscheidend Christliche in der Auffassung von Gott darzustellen. Die Ikonographie in den östlichen und westlichen Kirchen zeigt seit der ausgehenden Antike viele Gemeinsamkeiten. 9

Es ging um die Ablehnung einer polytheistischen Dreiteiligkeit gegenüber der Anerkennung einer monotheistischen Dreipersonalität. Als Erster hat Athenagoras († 190 C.E.), Lehrer in Athen und Alexandria, den Terminus Τριάς—Dreiheit verwendet; in seiner apologetischen Πρεσβεία περὶ χριστιανῶν geht er ausführlich auf die drei Begriffe Vater, Sohn und Geist ein, ein, vgl. Marie Joseph Rouët de Journel, Enchiridion Patristicum. Loci SS. Patrum, Doctorum doctorum scriptorum ecclesiasticorum (Barcinone: 1958), Nr 164f.—Der Islam taxiert den Dreifaltigkeitsglauben als Tritheismus (Koran 4,169; 112,3. Ironisch äußert sich Goethe zum Glauben, “daß drei eins sei und eins drei … ”, vgl. Johann Peter Eckermann, Gespräche mit Goethe in den letzten Jahren seines Lebens, Einführung und Textüberwachung mit Ernst Beutler (Zürich: 1976), 548 (4. Jan. 1824). 8 Die unterschiedlichen Termini für Begriffe wie ‘Wesen, Sein, Natur, Person’ haben zu Missverständnis und unnötigem Häresie-Verdacht geführt (1500 Jahre mit der abwertenden Bezeichnung ‘Monophysiten’ für die nicht-chalkedonischen Kirchen). Die theologischen Grundlagen der christlichen Ikonographie sind von Schönborn ausführlich dargestellt. 9 Äthiopische Künstler beispielsweise waren seit der ‘semitischen Auswanderung’ offen für Inspirationen von auswärts, und so finden wir in ihren Werken Motive und Stilmerkmale aller Richtungen: syrische, armenische, hellenistische, byzantinische, koptische, nubische, persische, indische und westeuropäische. Doch ist diese Entlehnung keineswegs eine bedenkenlose Übernahme, sondern führt zu echter Inkulturation, Jahrhunderte vor der Einführung dieses Fachausdrucks. “The sign of a high culture is its openness, its capacity to give and receive, its power to develop, to allow itself to be purified and become more conformed to truth…” Joseph Ratzinger, “Christ, Faith, and the Challenge of Cultures” (Lecture delivered to the presidents of the Asian bishops’ conference), Hong Kong 1993, (L'Osservatore Romano, Engl. edition, April 26, 1995, 6). Vgl. Johannes Paul II (Joseph Ratzinger), Apostolisches Schreiben «Orientale Lumen» ... zum hundertsten Jahrestag des Apostolischen Schreibens «Orientalium Dignitas» von Papst Leo XIII (Vatikanstadt: 1995), Art. 7; ferner Jean-Paul Deschler, “Die äthiopische Ikonographie. Ein Musterbeispiel der Inkulturation”, in Proceedings of the “First International Conference on Ethiopian Texts” (May 27–30, 2013), Daniel Assefa and Hiruy Abdu, eds (Addis Ababa: 2016), 55–73 und die dortigen Ausführungen. 7

280

JEAN-PAUL DESCHLER

Fig. 1. Theophanie (Ikone nach russischer Maltradition, Monika Deschler, 2001)

DIE ERSCHEINUNG DER DREI PERSONEN

Die Taufe Jesu im Jordan gilt als eine der Offenbarungen der Dreifaltigkeit: die Stimme aus dem Himmel ist die von Gott Vater, der Jesus als seinen geliebten Sohn bezeichnet, und der Heilige Geist kommt in Gestalt einer Taube aus dem geöffneten Himmel auf Ihn herab (Mt 3:16f. par.). Die bildliche Darstellung des Ereignisses trägt deshalb gewöhnlich den Titel Theophanie (Fig. 1), der den Ausdruck Epiphanie (‘Erscheinen’ oder ‘Auftreten’ eines Herrschers oder einer Gottheit) im christlichen Sinn sakralisiert (Fig. 2). 10 Die Hauptelemente dieser Ikonographie sind bereits im Rabbula-Evangeliar als Randminiatur vorgegeben, 11 wo noch die Flamme auf dem Jordanwasser als weitere Manifestation des Heiligen Geistes hinzukommt (Fig. 3). 12 Die Hand, die oft aus dem Himmelssegment ragt, ist als ‘legitime’ Repräsentation des Vaters geduldet, weil in der Bibel sein machtvolles Wirken—schaffend, rettend, strafend— gern mit Hand Gottes (z.B. Ez 25:13) oder Hand des Herrn (z.B. Apg 13:11) umschrieben wird. Niemand hat Gott je gesehen (Jo 1:18): Er ist allenfalls in prophetischer Vision sichtbar, meistens in erschreckender Majestät (Jes 6:1), sonst ist Er verborgen und in unzugängliches Licht gehüllt (Ex 33:20; Ps 104:1; 1Tim 6:16). Es war daher lange umstritten, die Vision des “Hochbetagten” (Dan 7:9) als ‘Modell’ für die Darstellung Gott Vaters zu nehmen. Es gibt daher auch Ikonen der Theophanie, auf denen Er im Himmelssegment thront. Der Παλαιὸς ἡμερῶν/ Antiquus dierum ist in

ܵ ‫ ܸܕ‬nimmt das Erscheinen bzw. den Aufgang eines Gestirns zum Der syrische Terminus ‫ܢܚܐ‬ Vorbild, das kirchenslavische Wort богоѧвле́нїе ist eine Lehnübersetzung des griech. θεοφάνεια. 11 Links neben der Kanontafel fol. 4v. 12 Vgl. den Zusatz lumen ingens ... de aqua zu Matthew 3:15 im Ebionäer-Evangelium (wohl M. 2. Jh.; vgl. Hennecke, Edgar and Wilhelm Schneemelcher, Neutestamentliche Apokryphen in deutscher Übersetzung, Bd 1: Evangelien (Tübingen: 1990), 141. 10

AUFFASSUNG UND DARSTELLUNG DER TRINITÄT IN DER IKONOGRAPHIE

281

der westlichen Ikonographie des Mittelalters als weißbärtiger Schöpfergott akzeptiert worden, während die östlich-orthodoxen und orientalischen Kirchen Ihn häufig als den präexistenten Christus interpretierten. 13 Die Synoden der Russisch-Orthodoxen Kirche sahen sich im 16. Jh. genötigt, sich mit den ihr ‘neuen Ideen’ auseinanderzusetzen, die im Zusammenhang mit der deutschen Mystik auch die russische Ikonenmalerei künstlerisch und theologisch beeinflussten. 14 Später machte sich auch der Einfluss der Renaissance und des Barock bemerkbar.

Fig. 2 . Epiphanie (Titel in Malayalam und Syrisch; George Kurisummoottil, 2000, Kerala)

Fig. 3. Taufe Jesu (Randminiatur, Rabbula-Evangeliar, fol. 4v, 6. Jh.; Plut. I, 56, BL Florenz)

Vgl. die Untersuchung der beiden Ansätze in der syrischen Tradition bei Sebastian P. Brock, “The Ancient of Days: the Father or the Son?”, The Harp XXII (2007), 121–30. Ein Beispiel zeigt die schöne Sogita im Nacht-Offizium von Weihnachten. Im Zwiegespräch zwischen Maria und den drei Magiern betonen diese: Dein Kind ist alt, o junges Mädchen, ist der Alte der Tage, früher als alle anderen: Adam ist weit jünger als Er... (vgl. Sebastian P. Brock, Bride of Light. Hymns on Mary from the Syriac Churches [Mōrān ’Eth’ō 6] (Piscataway, NJ: 1994), 128; dt. Übs. von mir. 14 Zu den Auseinandersetzungen zwischen den Befürwortern und Gegnern der Neuerungen, besonders an der ‘Hundertkapitelsynode’ (Стоглавый собор) 1551 und an der Synode von 1554, vgl. Léonide Ouspensky, La Théologie de l’icône dans l’Église orthodoxe (Paris: 1980), 259ff.; Walter Felicetti-Liebenfels, Geschichte der russischen Ikonenmalerei, in den Grundzügen dargestellt (Graz: 1972), 143f.; 162ff.; Egon Sendler, The Icon. Image of the Invisible. Elements of Theology, Aesthetics and Technique, English translation Steven Bigham (Redondo Beach, Calif: 1988), 75. 13

282

JEAN-PAUL DESCHLER

DIE GLEICHRANGIGKEIT DER DREI PERSONEN

Ich und der Vater sind eins (Jo 10,30). Diese und ähnliche Worte, dazu liturgische Hymnen, die in mannigfaltiger Abwandlung durch das Kirchenjahr erklingen, haben manche Versuche generiert, das Mysterium der Dreifaltigkeit in der sakralen Kunst angemessen zu veranschaulichen. Die bekannteste und theologisch am ehesten vertretbare Lösung ist die angelomorphe Darstellung, welche den Besuch der drei Männer bzw. Engel bei Abraham und Sara (Gen 18:1–15) als Präfiguration der dreipersönlichen Gottheit benutzen, daher alttestamentliche Dreifaltigkeit genannt. Unübertroffen ist das Werk von Andrej Rublëv, das in Form und Farbe die dogmatische Aussage in vollendeter Harmonie wiedergibt (Fig. 4). 15 Die Darstellung beschränkt sich mit deutlichem Hinweis auf das eucharistische Geschehen und das eschatologische himmlische Mahl auf die drei Engel, die sich bloß in der Farbe der Gewänder und durch ihre Haltung unterscheiden. Wenn noch die Gastgeber Abraham und Sara, häufig auch der schlachtende Knecht dazukommen, spricht man von der Philoxenie (φιλοξενία—Gastfreundschaft, Fig. 5).

Fig. 4. Alttestamentliche Dreifaltigkeit (Andrej Rublëv, A. 15. Jh.; TG Moskau)

Zahlreiche Abhandlungen beschäftigen sich mit der Rublëv-Ikone; vgl. das Standardwerk von Gabriel Bunge, Der andere Paraklet. Die Ikone der Heiligen Dreifaltigkeit des Malermönchs Andrej Rubljov (Beuron: 2018) (s. Literatur); Boris Bobrinskoy, Le Mystère de la Trinité. Cours de théologie orthodoxe (Paris: 1986), 143–6 (als ‘Appendice’); Konrad Onasch and Annemarie Schnieper, Ikonen. Faszination und Wirklichkeit (Freiburg: 1995), 142f.; Sendler, The Icon, 74. 104f. 181. 15

AUFFASSUNG UND DARSTELLUNG DER TRINITÄT IN DER IKONOGRAPHIE

283

Fig. 5. Philoxenie. (Mosaik, E. 20. Jh., Basilika St. Paul, Harissa, Libanon; Titel und Namen in Griechisch u. Arabisch)

DIE NEUTESTAMENTLICHE DREIFALTIGKEIT

Nachdem in der Russisch-Orthodoxen Kirche diese Form der Trinität lange Zeit allein erlaubt gewesen war, drangen aus dem katholischen Westen langsam auch die ‘unkanonischen’ Typen der neutestamentlichen Dreifaltigkeit ein. Es sind die anthropomorphen Bilder, für deren Berechtigung die Inkarnation und die erwähnte Vision Ezechiels vom ‘Alten der Tage’ angeführt werden. Der Synthronos-Typus zeigt Gott Sohn und Vater nebeneinander auf einem Thron oder einer ‘Wolkenbank’ sitzend, die Geisttaube zwischen oder mittig über ihren Häuptern schwebend (Fig. 6); zur Unterscheidung dient die Farbe des Haupt- und Barthaars, auch Attribute wie Evangelienbuch und Zepter, besonders deutlich die Art der Nimben—bei Christus der Kreuznimbus, beim Vater sowie beim Heiligen Geist entweder der vierzackige oder der achtzackige ‘Ewigkeitsnimbus’—und schließlich auch die Beschriftung. 16 Um die vollkommene Homoousie von Vater, Sohn und Heiligem Geist zu bekunden, setzen die Äthiopier drei identische männliche Gestalten in fürstlicher Aufmachung auf einen gemeinsamenThron (Fig. 7), 17 die alle den ‘Hochbetagten’ (s. o. DIE ERSCHEINUNG DER DREI PERSONEN) wiedergeben. Hie und da sind sie mit dem

Aufgrund der Variabilität kommen auch Fehler vor, z.B. wenn der Maler oder ein Restaurator alle drei Personen mit dem Kreuznimbus ausstattet (vielleicht als Ausdruck der Wesensgleichheit); auf der abgebildeten Ikone stehen über Christus die üblichen griech. Kürzel ΙϹ ΧϹ, über der Taube ksl. (hier ausgeschrieben und normalisiert) свѧты́ й ду́хъ und über dem Vater госпо́дь саваѡ́ѳъ. Als Titel steht auf dem oberen Rand irrtümlich свѧто́е ѻ҄те́чество – Heilige Vaterschaft. 17 Zur Kathedrale der äth.-kath. Eparchie እምድብር – ’Ǝmdəbər, der Wandmalerei und dem Ikonographen በርሄ ገብረኪዳን – Bärhe Gäbräkidan vgl. Egidio Todeschini (ed.), Cristianesimo e arte in Etiopia. La cattedrale cattolica di Emdibir| Christianity and Art in Ethiopia. The catholic cathedral of Emdibir (Clusone: 2015), bes. 97–111. 16

284

JEAN-PAUL DESCHLER

einfachen Wort ሥላሴ —Dreiheit bezeichnet, 18 selten mit አብ፡ወወልድ፡ወመንፈስ፡ቅዱስ—Vater und Sohn und Heiliger Geist. Wie die Maiestas-Bilder in Ost und West ist diese Dreifaltigkeit in der Regel von den “Vier Lebewesen” umgeben, 19 dazu von den “Vierundzwanzig himmlischen Priestern” begleitet. 20

Fig. 6. Neutestamentl. Dreifaltigkeit, Synthronos-Typ (Russland, E. 19. Jh.; Galerie Gerstenlauer)

Die Ikone der Vaterschaft (Fig. 8) 21 zeigt die drei göttlichen Personen ähnlich wie das Bild der Taufe Christi in der Mittelachse (Figs. 1-3). Sie legt weniger Gewicht auf die Wesensgleichheit als auf die kennzeichnenden Eigenschaften der drei Personen und ihr Verhältnis zueinander. Der göttliche Vater als Gott Zebaot bzw. ‘Alter der Tage’ sitzt auf dem Thron, 22 der Sohn als präexistenter Logos-Emmanuel auf seinem Schoß, 23 Im Beispiel von ’Ǝmdəbər mit ቅድስት፡ሥላሴ—Heilige Dreifaltigkeit (sprachlich als Femininum genommen), in anderen Fällen mit ሥዕለ፡ሥሉስ፡ቅዱስ —Bild der heiligen Dreiheit. Stanislaw Chojnacki, Ethiopian Icons. Catalogue of the Collection of the Institute of Ethiopian Studies, Addis Ababa University (Milan: 2000) präsentiert viele Beispiele, dazu S. 303f. eine differenzierte ikonographische Typologie. 19 Die τέσσαρα ζῷα (Ez 1:5-10, Off 4:6. 8, äth. አርባዕቱ፡እንስሳ), im Westen meist als Evangelistensymbole begriffen, werden in den äth. Darstellungen oft einzeln mit ገጸ᎓ሰብእ – Antlitz eines Menschen usw. bezeichnet; im Synaxarion (ስንክሳር) sind sie mehrmals erwähnt, insbesondere an ihrem Gedenktag (8. ኅዳር – Ḫədar, also julian. 4./ greg. 17. Nov.). 20 Die εἴκοσι τέσσαρες πρεσβύτεροι (Off 4:4. 10, äth. ዕሥራ፡ወአርባዕቱ፡ሊቃናት) werden – vom griech. und semit. Wortsinn sowie vom Wortlaut in der Apokalypse ausgehend – als Priester (wie eng. priest ein Lehnwort < lat. presbyter < griech. πρεσβύτερος) mit Weihrauchfässern dargestellt und in Äthiopien als Heilige verehrt, gefeiert am 24. ኅዳር (Ḫədar – 20. Nov./ 3. Dez.). 21 Mit der ksl. Aufschrift ҄ ѻ҄те́цъ и҄ сы́ нъ и҄ свѧты́ й ду́хъ (hier ausgeschrieben und normalisiert). 22 Das strahlend weiße Gewand spielt auf die unsichtbare geistige Wesenheit Gottes an. 23 Er ist der Ungeschaffene, vor aller Zeit Gezeugte, “der Gott ist und am Herzen des Vaters ruht” (John 1:18); vgl. den Kehrvers im Weihnachtskontakion des Romanos: παιδίον νέον· ὁ πρὸ αἰώνων Θεός. 18

AUFFASSUNG UND DARSTELLUNG DER TRINITÄT IN DER IKONOGRAPHIE

285

die Geisttaube mit Nimbus findet ihren Platz entweder unterhalb des Kopfes des Vaters oder in einer Himmels-Gloriole (einem Diskus, Clipeus oder Medaillon) vor dem Leib Emmanuels, je nachdem, welcher ‘Ausgang’ des Heiligen Geistes theologisch angenommen wird. 24 Deutlich erkennbar ist die Verwandtschaft dieser Anordnung mit dem westlichen Gnadenstuhl (Fig. 9), dem bekanntesten Dreifaltigkeitsbildnis seit dem ausgehenden Mittelalter. Es symbolisiert den dreifaltigen Gott als Vollstrecker der Erlösung durch das Kreuz.

Fig. 7. Dreifaltigkeit (Kathedrale ʼƎmdəbər, Äthiopien, Wandmalerei von Bärhe Gäbräkidan, 2014)

Fig. 8. Paternitas (‘Vaterschaft’, Russland, E. 14. Jh.; TG Moskau)

Fig. 9. Gnadestuhl (Österreichischer Meister, A. 15. Jh.; NG London)

Nicht nur die Ablehnung des Filioque, sondern auch die Nähe gnostischer Spekulationen bewog die Moskauer Synode von 1667, erneut das оте́чество (die Paternitas) zu beanstanden—freilich ohne Erfolg. 24

286

JEAN-PAUL DESCHLER

BESONDERE DARSTELLUNGEN

Da und dort sind außergewöhnliche Darstellungen der Dreifaltigkeit anzutreffen, die man unter theologischem und ästhetischem Gesichtspunkt ganz verschieden betrachten und beurteilen kann: von originell bis grotesk, von erstaunlich bis abstoßend. Nur zwei Beispiele sollen uns hier kurz beschäftigen. Ein Fresko von drei nimbierten Gestalten, die sich bei näherem Zusehen als eine einzige erweisen (Fig. 10), 25 da die drei Oberkörper sich nach unten zu einem Leib in einem Gewand verbinden und die drei verschmelzenden Nimben eigentlich nur einen Kreuznimbus bilden, sodass hier der Terminus Dreieinigkeit bestens passt. 26 Auffallend ist die mittlere Gestalt, die einen durchaus weiblichen Eindruck macht und deshalb Theologen, Psychologen und Feministinnen zum Grübeln bringen kann. Nun ist kaum anzunehmen, dass der Maler des 14. Jahrhunderts an das hebräische Femininum �‫רוּ‬ ַ (oder ܵ syr. ‫ܪܘܚܐ‬ ܼ ) gedacht hat, das heute so gern erwähnt und in deutschen Gottesdiensten etwa mit “Geistkraft” wiedergegeben wird. Eher dürfte man vermuten, dass er neben der Person mit weißem und der mit dunklem Bart eine dritte, bartlose meint und so, in irdisch-menschlichen Dimensionen mit der Vorstellung von Greis, Mann und Jüngling, sich die Vollkommenheit göttlichen Lebens ‘ausmalt’.

Fig. 10. Dreieinigkeit (Fresko, 14. Jh. Jakobus-Kirche, Urschalling, Bayern)

Fig. 11. Dreigesicht (Vultus trifrons, Ölgemälde, 19. Jh.; Augusteum, Salzburg)

Weniger gefällig wirkt das Dreigesicht, das als Gemälde und Relief in mehreren Varianten vorkommt: Die erste mit drei zusammengefügten Gesichtern, die mit drei Mündern und Nasen und vier zugeteilten Augen frontal dem Betrachter zugekehrt sind (Fig. 11), eine andere mit dem mittleren Antlitz in Frontalansicht und den beiden mit

Gemälde in einem Gewölbezwickel der Jakobus-Kirche von Unterschalling, Bayern. Vgl. den äth. Ausdruck ኅቡረ፡ህላዌ —‘vereinigtes Wesen’ für die Homoousie der göttlichen Personen.

25 26

AUFFASSUNG UND DARSTELLUNG DER TRINITÄT IN DER IKONOGRAPHIE

287

ihm verquickten Gesichtern im Profil seitwärts gerichtet. Die kirchliche Zurückhaltung 27 gegenüber dem vultus trifrons, der besonders an Kapitellen in Kirchen des 13. Jh. in Frankreich und England zu sehen ist, 28 hat verschiedene Gründe, darunter jedenfalls die Vorstellungen (und Darstellungen) von Antichrist und Satan, 29 die Tradition, Teufel und böse Menschen im Profil abzubilden, sowie das das Vorkommen erschreckender Missgeburten bei Vieh und Menschen. 30

KRÖNUNG DER GOTTESMUTTER

Für die Verehrung der Mutter Jesu können Grundlagen in verschiedenen Stellen der Evangelien angeführt werden. 31 Der Titel Muttergottes oder Gottesgebärerin (θεοτόκος, schon vor der Dogmatisierung in Ephesus 431 C.E. gebräuchlich) 32 ist jedoch nicht mit orientalischen Kulten von Muttergöttinnen gleichzusetzen, und auch die Ikonographie von Mariens Krönung basiert letztlich auf der Überzeugung, dass die bewährten Gläubigen von Gott den Kranz erhalten wie ein Sieger Wettlauf. 33 So verwundert es nicht, dass Maria nach der Aufnahme in den Himmel die verdiente Krone erhält, entweder von Jesus allein 34 oder vom dreifaltigen Gott. Die Holzplastik in der Basilika von Seckau (Fig. 12) zeigt mehrere Besonderheiten: Sie beteiligt die drei göttlichen Hypostasen als drei gleichartige Könige auf einer Bank –also vergleichbar den Bildern in Äthiopien (s.o. DIE NEUTESTAMENTLICHE DREIFALTIGKEIT u. Fig. 7)‚—vor der knienden Jungfrau, der sie eben die Krone aufgesetzt haben; erst bei genauerem Hinsehen stellt man fest, dass zu den drei Köpfen der Trinität nur ein Körper mit zwei Armen gehört, es sich also um einen Trizephalus (< τρικέφαλος) handelt. 35

Sogar Papst Urban VIII., sonst ein Kunstmäzen, erließ 1628 ein Verbot des Dreigesichts. Als Beispiel sei der Trifrons in der Marienkathedrale von Salisbury genannt. 29 Vgl. die visionäre Beschreibung ... vidi tre facce alla sua testa ... in Dantes Inferno 34,38ff. 30 In der Teratologie kennt der Mediziner für einen solchen Fall den Terminus Triprosopus (< ܿ ‫ < ܿܦ‬πρόσωπον mit den τριπρόσωπος), und dar kommt dem Syrotheologen gleich ‫ܪܨܘ ܵܦܐ‬ ܼ entsprechenden Konnotationen in den Sinn. 31 Mt 1 u. 2; Lk 1 u. 2; Gal 4:4 u. a. 32 Vgl. das Gebet Ὑπὸ τὴν σὴν εὐσπλαγχνίαν (Sub tuum praesidium), im 3. Jh. belegt. 33 Vgl. 2Tim 4:8; 1Pet 5:4.—Die Ikone von den vierzig Märtyrern zu Sebaste zeigt die vorbereiteten Siegeskronen im Himmel; über dem volkstümlichen Reiterheiligen Georg schwebt ein Engel mit einer Krone in den Händen, und im koptischen Lobgesang auf den hl. Georg wird dieser denn auch als  — König Georg angeredet. 34 Vgl. das Apsismosaik in Maria Maggiore zu Rom (E. 13. Jh.). 35 Später noch mehr als der Trifrons verpönt, weil gerade dämonische Wesen dreiköpfig gedacht werden, z.B. der triceps Beelzebub im Nikodemus-Evangelium. 27 28

288

JEAN-PAUL DESCHLER

Fig. 12. Maria Kronung (Holzplastik, 15. Jh., Basilika Mariä Himmelfahrt, Seckau)

Fig. 13. Maria Kronung (Wandmalerei, Bäträ Maryam, Zäge, Tana-See, Äthiopien)

Das Thema der Marienkrönung ist geeignet, konkret den Zusammenhang zwischen Liturgie, Poesie und Ikonographie zu beobachten. Als Stichworte seien genannt: aus dem Westen die marianischen Antiphonen 36 Salve Regina (11. Jh.), Ave Regina caelorum (Fastenzeit, 12. Jh.), Regina caeli, laetare (Osterzeit, 12. Jh.), die Lauretanische Litanei mit den Anrufungen Regina Angelorum usw., ferner die Stellen in Dantes Paradiso bei der Vision der Gottesmutter la Regina del cielo (31,100), Donna del cielo (32,29), nostra Regina (32,104), Regina (33,34); 37 aus dem Osten die Ikone der Παντάνασσα—‘Allherrscherin’ 38 (russ. Всецарица—‘Allkönigin’, mit zugeordnetem Akathistos); die Worte im ostsyrischen Nacht-Offizium zum ‫ܫܘ ܵܢ ܵܝܐ‬ ܼ am 15. August: 39 ... Mutter, du trägst jetzt eine Krone...; das häufig in koptischen Doxologien verwendete Epitheton ϯⲟⲩⲣⲱ  —die wahre und wirkliche Königin; die Anrede im beliebten äthiopischen Blumenlied (ማሕሌተ ጽጌ) ... ዝግሥተ፡ሰማያ – Königin des Himmels (3. Str.). 40 Der umfangreiche ‘Marienkult’ gerade der orientalischen Kirchen darf, 97F

Hymnen zum Abschluss von Vesper oder Komplet. Marina Warner, Maria. Geburt, Triumph, Niedergang – Rückkehr eines Mythos? (München: 1982) gibt einem Kapitel ihrer ausgedehnten Untersuchung den Titel Maria Regina (137–50). 38 Im Athos-Kloster Βατοπαιδίου (Vatopedi), 17. Jh. 39 Wörtlich ‘Wechsel, Übergang’ (für Transitus, Dormitio oder Assumptio bzw. Mariä Himmelfahrt). 40 Weitere Attribute in Str. 147: Königin, 155: Königin des Himmels und der Erde. 36 37

AUFFASSUNG UND DARSTELLUNG DER TRINITÄT IN DER IKONOGRAPHIE

289

theologisch richtig interpretiert, nicht als Mariolatrie eingestuft werden, denn er hat grundsätzlich christologische und soteriologische Bedeutung. Wie in den meisten westlichen Bildern späterer Zeit (besonders seit dem 15. Jh.) wird die Krönung der Maria auch auf der äthiopischen Ikone (Fig. 13) 41 durch die Hände von Gott Vater und Christus vollzogen, wobei die Geisttaube durch ihre Präsenz über ihnen ebenfalls beteiligt ist. Bei dieser Zeremonie gleichen sich Vater und Sohn sozusagen spiegelbildlich in Körperhaltung, Gestik, Haartracht und -Farbe sowie in der Kleidung und der hoheitlichen Mappula, denn Ich und der Vater sind eins (Jo 10:30) und Wer mich gesehen hat, hat den Vater gesehen (Jo 14:9).

SYMBOLISCHE DARSTELLUNG

Nicht nur in Zeiten der Verfolgung und ikonoklastischer Gefährdung, sondern auch sonst, im prof anen und im religiösen Alltag ebenso wie im wissenschaftlichen Bereich, verwenden wir oft Symbole, anschauliche Zeichen für konkrete Gegenstände oder abstrakte Begriffe. 42 Der Fisch ist als altchristliches Erkennungszeichen weitläufig bekannt. 43 Für die Vorstellung der göttlichen Dreifaltigkeit gelten auch Symbole, bei denen eine Beziehung der Ähnlichkeit zum gemeinten Gegenstand offensichtlich ist und die für Dreiheiten irgendwelcher Art verwendet worden sind, z.B. die Triquetra (Fig. 14). Das Dreieck erscheint häufig als ‘Sondernimbus’ oder eingeschrieben in den kreisförmigen Nimbus Gottes als Schöpfer bzw. von Gott Vater; es hat in beiden Fällen mit der Dreieinigkeit zu tun. Auch das Emblem des SEERI (Fig. 15), 44 zu dessen hoch geschätzten Konferenzteilnehmern der Orientalist Rifaat Ebied gehört (Fig. 16), ist mit der Kombination von Kreuz, Dreieck und Taube ein deutlicher Hinweis auf den dreifaltigen Gott im Glauben der indischen Thomas-Christen.

Fig. 14. Triquetra (altes Symbol für eine Dreiheit)

Fig. 15. Emblem des SEERI (Dreifaltigkeits-Symbol aus Kreuz, Dreieck und Taube)

Interessant ist ein Vergleich mit der Ausführung durch Hans Holbein d. Ä. (1496, Eichstätt): Vater und Sohn unterscheiden sich markant (Alter, Kleidung, Attribute), die Szene findet in einem gotischen Saal statt (Perspektive) usw. 42 Die Semiotik, die Naturwissenschaften und das moderne Kommunikationsdesign verwenden den Begriff Symbol mit unterschiedlichen Bedeutungen. 43 Weniger geläufig ist seine konventionelle Herkunft, das geniale griech. Akronym ΙΧΘΥΣ für das kurzgefasste Credo Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, Θεοῦ Υἱός, Σωτήρ—Jesus Christus, Gottes Sohn, Erlöser. 44 Saint Ephrem Ecumenical Research Institute in Kottayam, Kerala, ein Zentrum für die Erforschung des Erbes der Kirchen syrischer Tradition. 41

290

JEAN-PAUL DESCHLER

BEKENNTNIS DES GLAUBENS

‘Bei der Betrachtung der Ikone von der Taufe Jesu stellen wir fest, dass es sich nicht nur um die Darstellung eines Ereignisses im irdischen Leben zweier Propheten handelt, sondern auch um die Verkündigung und Bestätigung eines wichtigen Glaubensinhalts—ein ‘Evangelium in Farben’: das Kerygma vom dreieinigen Gott. 45 Sich das innertrinitarische Leben philosophisch-theologisch vorzustellen und sogar zu definieren, ist ein gewagtes Unterfangen; denn es bleibt ein Mysterium, das sowohl die gelehrten wie auch die einfachen Christen letztlich in begründbarem Glauben annehmen und feiern dürfen. Sie tun dies vor allem im liturgischen Stundengebet und in der Eucharistiefeier, wobei immer wieder das hymnische Lob der Dreifaltigkeit erklingt. Aber schon im einfachen Wortlaut zur Bekreuzigung bekräftigen sie ihren Glauben: ϧ    ϣ    ϯ : ⲙⲏⲛ —Im Namen des Vaters und des Sohnes und des Heiligen Geistes, ein einziger Gott. 46 So betet, bekennt und verkündet täglich—auch in gleichgültiger und feindseliger Umgebung—ein rechtgläubiger Kopte.

Fig. 16. Syrologist Rifaat Ebied, Syriac Conference, SEERI

Zur ‘Analogie von Wort und Bild’ vgl. Jean-Paul Deschler, “Iconographic Inscriptions and their Significance”, The Harp XI–XII (1998–1999), 8f. 46 Vgl. die äthiopische Praxis: በሰመ፡አብ፡ወወልድ፡ወመንፈስ፡ቅዱስ፡አሐዱ፡አምላክ፡አሜን። und die um ein ܳ ܽ ܳ ܺ ܳ ܶ ܳ ‫ܘܚܐ ܰܩ ܺܕ‬ ܳ ‫ܘܪ‬ Wort erweiterte westsyrische: ‫ ܰܐ ܺܡܝܢ܀‬.‫ ܰܚܕ ܰܐܠ ܳܗܐ ܰܫܪܝܪܐ‬.‫ܝܫܐ‬ ‫ܒܫܡ ܰܐ ܳܒܐ ܰܘܒܪܐ‬. 45

AUFFASSUNG UND DARSTELLUNG DER TRINITÄT IN DER IKONOGRAPHIE

291

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bobrinskoy, Boris. Le Mystère de la Trinité. Cours de théologie orthodoxe (Paris: Cerf, 1986). Brock, Sebastian P. Bride of Light. Hymns on Mary from the Syriac Churches [Mōrān ’Eth’ō 6] (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 1994). —— “The Ancient of Days: the Father or the Son?”, The Harp XXII (2007), 121–30. Bunge, Gabriel. Der andere Paraklet. Die Ikone der Heiligen Dreifaltigkeit des Malermönchs Andrej Rubljov (Beuron: Beuroner Kunstverlag, 2018). Chojnacki, Stanislaw. Ethiopian Icons. Catalogue of the Collection of the Institute of Ethiopian Studies, Addis Ababa University (Milan: Skira, 2000). Deschler, Jean-Paul. “Iconographic Inscriptions and their Significance”, The Harp XI– XII (1998–1999), 7–20. —— “Die äthiopische Ikonographie. Ein Musterbeispiel der Inkulturation”, in Proceedings of the “First International Conference on Ethiopian Texts” (May 27–30, 2013), Daniel Assefa and Hiruy Abdu, eds (Addis Ababa: CFRRC Press, 2016), 55–73. Eckermann, Johann Peter. Gespräche mit Goethe in den letzten Jahren seines Lebens [Einführung und Textüberwachung mit Ernst Beutler] (Zürich: Artemis, 1976). Felicetti-Liebenfels, Walter. Geschichte der russischen Ikonenmalerei, in den Grundzügen dargestellt (Graz: Akad. Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, 1972). Hennecke, Edgar and Wilhelm Schneemelcher. Neutestamentliche Apokryphen in deutscher Übersetzung, Bd 1: Evangelien (Tübingen: Mohr, 1990). Johannes Paul II. (Joseph Ratzinger), Apostolisches Schreiben «Orientale Lumen» ... zum hundertsten Jahrestag des Apostolischen Schreibens «Orientalium Dignitas» von Papst Leo XIII (Vatikanstadt: Vaticana, 1995). Onasch, Konrad and Annemarie Schnieper. Ikonen. Faszination und Wirklichkeit (Freiburg: Herder, 1995). Ouspensky, Léonide. La Théologie de l’icône dans l’Église orthodoxe (Paris: Cerf, 1980). Ratzinger, Joseph. “Christ, Faith, and the Challenge of Cultures” [Lecture delivered to the presidents of the Asian bishops’ conference], Hong Kong 1993. Rouët de Journel, Marie Joseph. Enchiridion Patristicum. Loci SS. Patrum, Doctorum doctorum scriptorum ecclesiasticorum (Barcinone: Herder, 1958). Schönborn, Christoph von. L’Icône du Christ. Fondements théologiques élaborés entre le Ier et le IIe Concile de Nicée (325–787) (Fribourg: Éditiones universitaires, 1976).

292

JEAN-PAUL DESCHLER

Sendler, Egon. The Icon. Image of the Invisible. Elements of Theology, Aesthetics and Technique, English translation Steven Bigham (Redondo Beach, Calif: Oakwood Publications, 1988). Todeschini, Egidio, ed. Cristianesimo e arte in Etiopia. La cattedrale cattolica di Emdibir| Christianity and Art in Ethiopia. The catholic cathedral of Emdibir (Clusone: EQUA, 2015). Warner, Marina. Maria. Geburt, Triumph, Niedergang – Rückkehr eines Mythos? (München: Trikont, 1982).

PATRIARCHAL BONE RELICS IN THE SYRIAN ORTHODOX DAYR-AL-ZA’FARAN IN MARDIN (TURKEY) AMIR HARRAK ∗

(UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO) A Syriac inscription fixed on the wall of the sanctuary within the church of Dayr-al-Za‛farān (the Saffron Monastery) commemorates the burial of bone relics of five patriarchs. A translation of this inscription is offered, for the first time, followed by a discussion of the city of Mārdīn and the nearby monastery of Dayr-al-Za‛farān, which was founded when institutional monasticism became widespread sometime after the fifth century. Despite the genocide of the Christians by the Ottomans during World War I, this venerable monastery was fortunately spared destruction. The final part of the paper offers a commentary on relics in Christianity and in the Syriac culture and on how the bones of the five patriarchs were worthy of being placed inside the sanctuary.

COMMEMORATING PATRIARCHAL RELICS

A Syriac inscription fixed on the wall of the sanctuary inside the church of Dayr-alZa‛farān (the Saffron Monastery) commemorates the burial of bone relics, indicating the importance of the commemoration of holy relics within Syriac Christianity. What is unique about this inscription is the fact that the bones relics belong to as many as five Syriac Orthodox patriarchs of the past, who are not said specifically to be sohdē ‘martyrs’, ṭubtōnē ‘blessed’, or qaddῑšē ‘saints’, to use modern religious appellations. Patriarchs, metropolitans and bishops were, of course, buried inside churches, as in the case of Metropolitan Athanasius I of Takrit (887–904 C.E.), 1 who was buried in the Church of Saints Sergius and Bacchus, part of which was confiscated by Muslims The present article is written in honour of Prof. Rifaat Ebied, a dear friend and eminent scholar of Eastern Christianity. A Fellow of the Australian Academy of the Humanities, he has produced countless publications namely on Christian-Muslim subjects and on Christian Arabic. 1 Takrit, a stronghold of Syriac Orthodoxy until the 14th century, is located midway between Mosul and Baghdad. ∗

293

294

AMIR HARRAK

to build an additional mosque in the city. 2 The Metropolitan was laid on his back inside a wooden coffin, his arms placed along his body and his head turned toward the west, while his inscribed seal in the shape of a cross facilitated his identification. 3 Burying an ecclesiastic inside the church upon his death is one thing, but burying collective bones of five patriarchs is another. Of course, these patriarchs were considered to be holy, on account of the ascetic and faithful lives that they had lived. In fact one of them, John bar-‘Abdūn, was called ‫‘ ܛܘܒܬܢܐ‬blessed’ by none other than Patriarch Michael the Great († 1199 C.E.), as described in his voluminous Chronicle. 4 90F

Plate 1: Syriac Inscription, Dayr al-Za‘farān. (Photo: Amir Harrak)

Amir Harrak, “Recent Archaeological Excavations in Takrit and the Discovery of Syriac Inscriptions,” Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 1 (2001), 20–3. 3 Amir Harrak, Syriac and Garshuni Inscriptions of Iraq (Paris: 2010), FA.01.04. 4 Gregorios Yuhanna Ibrahim, ed., The Edessa-Aleppo Syriac Codex of the Chronicle of Michael the Great, (Piscataway, NJ: 2009), column 2 after the red title, lines 1–6. 2

PATRIARCHAL BONE RELICS IN THE SYRIAN ORTHODOX DAYR-AL-ZAʿFARĀN

295

THE SYRIAC INSCRIPTION, TEXT AND TRANSLATION

Two yellowish stone slabs, measuring together 1.2 m by 82 cm, bear a 14-line Syriac inscription. Cut in relief in attractive Serto, the inscription is framed by a decorative, scalloped border making a very attractive piece. Each of the lines is delineated by a straight line, also cut in relief, creating a ruled effect. The inscription is clearly commemorative, containing a report of an historical event (lines 1–8); the names of those under whose rules the event took place (lines 9–13); and finally, a dating formula (line 14). Interestingly, the inscription bears the date 1947 and 1948 both in Arabic and Roman numerals rather than a Seleucid dating. Although this dating is late, the inscription’s mention of five past patriarchs is unique and its contents offer the opportunity to discuss these personalities, their times, and the events of their patriarchates located in the Ṭur ‘Abdin region of modern south-east Turkey. 1. In the year 1947 of Nativity, were brought and placed 2. here the bones of the Antiochene patriarchs 3. Yūḥanōn Bar-‘Abdūn the Younger, 4. Yūḥanōn the writer Bar-Shōshan, 5. ‘Abd-al-Masῑḥ, Shukr-Allāh 6. of Mārdīn, and Gōrgīs the Third 7. of Edessa. May the Lord give them rest 8. along with the holy fathers. 9. These things happened during the days of our lord 10. Mōr-Ignatius Ephrem the First, 11. the Patriarch of Antioch. and Mōr12. Philexenos Yūḥanōn, 13. Metropolitan of Mārdīn + 14. 1948 (Arabic numerals) February 1948

ܿ ‫ܐܨܡ ̄ܙ ̄ܡ ܐܬܬܝܬܝܘ ܘܐܬܬܣܝܡܘ‬ ‫ ܒܫܢܬ‬1

COMMENTARY

‫ ܗܪܟܐ ܓ̈ܪܡܐ ܕܦܛܪܝ̈ܪܟܘ ܕܐܢܛܝܘܟܝܐ‬2 ‫ ܝܘܚܢܢ ܒܪ ܥܒܕܘܢ ܙܥܘܪܐ‬3 ‫ ܘܝܘܚܢܢ ܟܬܘܒܐ ܒܪ ܫܘܫܢ‬4 ‫ܕܡܫܝܚܐ ܘܫܟܪܐܠܠܗ‬ ‫ ܘܥܒܕܗ‬5 ݂ ‫ ܡܪܕܝܢܝܐ ܘܓܘܪܓܝܣ ܬܠܝܬܝܐ‬6 ‫ ܡܪܝܐ ܢܢܝܚ ܐܢܘܢ‬.‫ ܐܘܪܗܝܐ‬7 ̈ ̈ ‫ܩܕܝܫܐ‬ ‫ܐܒܗܬܐ‬ ‫ ܥܡ‬8 ̈ ̈ ‫ ܗܠܝܢ ܕܝܢ ܗܘܝ ܒܝܘܡܝ ܡܪܢ‬9 ‫ ܡܪܝ ܐܝܓܢܐܛܝܘܣ ܐܦܪܝܡ ܩܕܡܝܐ‬10 ‫ ܘܡܪܝ‬.‫ ܦܛܪܝܪܟܐ ܕܐܢܛܝܘܟܝܐ‬11 ‫ ܦܝܠܘܟܣܝܢܘܣ ܝܘܚܢܢ‬12 ‫ ܡܝܛܪܦܘܠܝܛܐ ܕܡܪܕܐ ܍‬13 1948 : ‫ ܫܒܐܛ‬١٩٤٨ 14

Line 1: The inscription gives the date of 1947 but l.14 has the date 1948. The contents of the inscription must have been composed in the later months of 1947 but the slabs were probably cut in early 1948. The abbreviated independent letter ‫ ̄ܡ‬stands for Arabic ‫‘ مي��دية‬Nativity’ or Anno Domini. One would expect the date to be Seleucid,

296

AMIR HARRAK

since this computation system is almost sacred in the Syriac culture. 5 The Seleucid dating system is found as late as the end of the 19th century in chronicles, epistolography and epigraphy, sometimes along with Anno Mundi (based on the biblical account of the Creation) and with Hegira, beginning with the 7th century. The Syriac inscription is dated to the mid-20th century, in which drastic changes took place. Not only did the traditional computation systems fall in disuse as seen in this inscription, but also conservative church architecture, which has strong bearing on the very concept of the Eucharist, witnessed extreme modifications. 6 ‫ ܐܬܬܝܬܝܘ‬is Ettaph‘al, perfect 3rd masculine plural √‫( ܐܬܐ‬just like ‫ )ܐܬܬܣܝܡܘ‬and refers to the patriarchal bone relics but the inscription does not tell from where these were collected. Patriarchs Yūḥanōn Bar-Shōshan, Shukr-Allāh, and Gōrgīs III were all buried in Amida; their bones may have brought from there to Dayr-al-Za‛farān for security reasons. Amida (modern Diabekir) is now mostly a Kurdish city as it probably was in the mid-20th century. The remains of Yūḥanōn Bar-Shōshan were brought from the Syriac Orthodox Church of the Virgin Mary in Amida, which is still standing and functioning, where he was laid besides Patriarch Yūḥanōn VIII (1057–1059 C.E.). Line 3: ‫ ܙܥܘܪܐ‬is an adjective referring to Yūḥanōn Bar-‘Abdūn, meaning “Younger”, as there were other patriarchs named Yūḥanōn, after John the Evangelist or John the Baptist. The family name ‘Abdūn, a diminutive of ‘Abdā, is also given to other people who were not patriarchs. Line 4: The term ‫“ ܟܬܘܒܐ‬writer,” referring to Yūḥanōn Bar-Shōsha, already occurs in the Chronicle of Michael the Great. 7 93F

Lines 11–12: Patriarch Mōr-Ignatius Ephrem I Barṣūm rebuilt the Syriac Orthodox Church after the atrocities of World War One. 8 Born in Mosul in 1887, he became monk in Dayr-al-Za‛farān in 1905, was ordained priest in 1908 and bishop of Homs in 1918 and then Patriarch of Antioch in 1933. He died in 1957, and was buried in Emesa, where a commemorative inscription commemorates him. Lines 12–13: Philexenos Yūḥanōn Dolabānī, Metropolitan of Mārdīn, was born in Mārdīn in 1885 and became its bishop as of 1947. An ascetic prelate, multilingual and a prolific writer, he wrote on theology, history, and hagiography. 9 He died in Sometimes the expression ‘blessed Alexander’ (the Greek), and ‘blessed Greeks’, or even ‘blessed Arabs’ are noted in Seleucid or Hegira dates, highlighting the sacred character of these computation system; Harrak, Syriac and Garshuni Inscriptions of Iraq, 51–3. 6 In traditional churches, a wall separated the sanctuary, representing heaven, from the nave, which signified earth. The gate of the sanctuary, i.e. heaven, is opened only during the Eucharist, giving the participants on earth access to the bliss of heaven. This wall was often removed during the 20th century. 7 The Edessa-Aleppo Syriac Codex of the Chronicle of Michael the Great, folio 582 #3. 8 Khalid S. Dinno, The Syrian Orthodox Church in the Late Ottoman Period and Beyond: Crisis then Revival (Piscataway, NJ: 2017) for the revival of the Syriac Orthodox Church, with 272– 85 discussing this patriarch. 9 See Dinno, The Syrian Orthodox Church, 285–7. 5

PATRIARCHAL BONE RELICS IN THE SYRIAN ORTHODOX DAYR-AL-ZAʿFARĀN

297

Mārdīn in 1969 and is buried in Dayr-al-Za‛farān where his funerary inscriptions says: “+ Philexenos Yūḥanōn Dolabānī, Bishop of Mārdīn, departed from the temporal life for the eternal rest. He was buried by the care of Mōr-Ignatius Ya‛qūb III, Patriarch of Antioch; the year 1969 of Nativity.” 10

MĀRDĪN AND DAYR-AL-ZA‛FARĀN: STRONGHOLDS OF SYRIAC ORTHODOXY

A word on Mārdīn and on Dayr-al-Za‛farān will shed light on Lines 12 and 13 which mention Philexenos Yūḥanōn, Metropolitan of Mārdīn, near which Dayr-al-Za‛farān is located. Lines 5 and 6 also name one patriarch, Shukr-Allāh, who was not only native of Mārdīn but also a monk in Dayr-al-Za‛farān, that is still a stronghold of Syriac Orthodoxy, full of Syriac inscriptions which tell part of its long and glorious history until modern times. Mārdīn, located in south-eastern Turkey, was a Syriac city from probably the beginning of Christianity to First World War. It is attested in the Chronicle of Zuqnῑn, especially with regards to its successive bishops. 11 The 12th century Chronicle of Michael the Great (1126–1199 C.E.) talked about its rule by Turks, and details the life of two of its illustrious bishops as follows: At the time of the first invasion of Edessa, Bishop Basil Bar-‘Abbās was killed with many others. He had been the Bishop of Mārdīn but had left the diocese and returned to live on the mountain of Edessa in which he was crowned (martyr). MōrYūḥanōn was the Bishop in Mārdīn; he was also ordained in the days of Athanasius Abū-al-Faraj in the year 1436 (=AD 1125). He had a clear mind, right intention, and holy conduct, (living) in labour, vigilance, and the reading of the scriptures. Out of his own initiative, through grace, he became deeply versed in the mysteries and the natural science, and with diligence, he acquired science hidden from many. 12

Around the year 1164 C.E., Bishop Yūḥanōn of Mārdīn (1087/8–1165 C.E.) was also a surveyor. He brought water through newly constructed aqueducts to the Monastery of Bar-Ṣawmo, located on the high mountains of eastern Anatolia. 13 The troubles with the Turks began during the lifetime of Michael the Great. He recalls that Amīn-al-dīn, governor of Mārdīn, took away the courtyard of the Syriac Orthodox church and gave it to the Arabs who added it to their mosque. 14 In 1172 C.E., the Arabs seized the Church of Mār-Thomas in Mārdīn, destroyed it and built a

George Kiraz et al. ed., Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage, edited by (Piscataway, NJ: 2011), 130 for a picture of the inscription on which this translation is based. 11 Amir Harrak, Chronicle of Zuqnīn Parts III and IV (Toronto: 1999), 192. 12 Amir Harrak, The Chronicle of Michael the Great (The Edessa-Aleppo Syriac Codex): Books XVXXI from the Year 1050 to 1195 AD (Piscataway, NJ: 2019), 224. 13 Abdo Badwi and Fadi Baroudi, “Le couvent de Bar Souma: redécouverte du site”, Parole de l'Orient 31 (2006), 243–56. 14 Harrak, The Chronicle of Michael the Great, 326–7 10

298

AMIR HARRAK

mosque on its spot, a fact that caused much grief among the Christians. 15 A year later, in 1173 C.E., the Arabs pillaged the Church of the Forty Martyrs in Mārdīn, but the church was miraculously rescued. 16 The Monastery of Mōr-Ḥananiō (Ananias), called also Dayr-al-Za‛farān, which, along with the Monastery of Mōr-Gabriel in Ṭūr-‘Abdīn, miraculously escaped destruction a century ago, is undoubtedly the jewel of the city of Mārdīn. The date of the foundation of the Monastery of Mōr-Ḥananyō is unknown, but its name is based on a tradition that Ḥananyō II (793–816 C.E.), bishop of Mārdīn, built its church. 17 The monastery was renovated by Yūḥanōn bishop of Mārdīn, while Michael the Great turned it in 1166 C.E. into a patriarchal see, because of its convenient location between Mesopotamia and the East, and Syria and Anatolia in the West. 18 It provided the ecclesiastical seat from the time of Patriarch Ignatius Bar-Wahīb (1293–1333 C.E.) for over six hundred years until Patriarch Elīyyō III (1867–1932) who had to leave the city following the atrocities of World War One. Unfortunately for Mārdīn, and in fact for all of eastern Anatolia to the Euphrates, the Christian population diminished dramatically during the First World War.

BONE RELICS IN CHRISTIANITY

Martyrs and holy personalities, men and women, are held in great honour in Christianity and in Syriac Christianity in particular. Thus ‘Prayers for the Simple Days of the Week’ (Ṣlāwōtō d-yawmōtō šḥīmē d-šabtō) states: The prophets and the apostles along with the blessed martyrs: may your prayer be like strong walls for us… Martyrs, who crossed over bridges of fire (departing) to Heaven, pray so that we may not sink in the troubled sea of sins. 19

The relics of martyrs were venerated from the earliest days of Christianity. The Chronicle of Michael the Great graphically draws attention to the power of the bones of Saints Peter and Paul in Rome which Christians had planned to transfer to another place: In the year 15 of Trajan (died in 117 AD), the latter ordered that all foreigners to leave Rome because they caused hardships in the (Roman) cities. After thoughts, the (Hebrew) foreigners asked the king that they may take with them the bones of Peter and Paul because, they said, they also are foreigners in Rome, and he agreed. They went to take them (=bones), but thunders began in the entire city, along with Harrak, The Chronicle of Michael the Great, 346–7. Harrak, The Chronicle of Michael the Great, 354–5. 17 Afrām Barṣūm, Al-lu’lu’ al-mantūr fī tārīk al-‛ulūm wa-al-ādāb al-suriāniyya [The Scattered Pearls: The History of Syriac Sciences and Literature] (Homṣ: 1943), 510. 18 The Edessa-Aleppo Syriac Codex of the Chronicle of Michael the Great, ix–x. 19 Ṣlāwōtō d-yawmōtō šḥīmē d-šabtō [Prayers for the Simple Days of the Week] (Charfeh: 1996), 126. 15 16

PATRIARCHAL BONE RELICS IN THE SYRIAN ORTHODOX DAYR-AL-ZAʿFARĀN

299

dark clouds and darkness. Therefore, he (=king) returned the foreigners into the city. 20

One of the oldest references to bone relics in Syriac Christianity dates to the 3rd or 4th century, when bone relics of St. Thomas were deposited in Edessa. St. Ephrem, in his Carmina Nisibena, hymn 42, 21 tells that after the Apostle was put to death in India, (some of) his bones were eventually brought to Edessa by an unnamed merchant: The Devil lamented: Where can I now evade the righteous ones? I asked death that I would kill the apostles so that I may get rid of their tortures! Now I am being especially tortured by their deaths! The Apostle whom I killed in India preceded me in Edessa! (…) (Responsory:) Blessed is the Power that resides in the bones of the victorious ones! That (Indian) merchant carried the bones (of Thomas), or perhaps people carried them: Behold! Altogether they took up the trade! 22 (…) The reliquary of Thomas (in Edessa) killed me, for the hidden power that dwells in it tortures me!

Circa 380 C.E., Egeria visited Edessa and wrote: “And when we had arrived (in Edessa), we straightway proceeded to the church and the martyr-memorial of S. Thomas”, where prayers were offered. 23 A Syriac fragment from the monastery site at Turfan, located in Xinjiang, western China, and now housed in the Turfanforschung, Berlin, with the signature no. n. 394, ll. 6–8 makes specific reference to the protective power released by the bones of saints: 24 l. 6 … to our people. Mar Sergius and Mar [Bacchus]

[‫ ܠܥܡܢ ܡܪܝ ܣܪܓܝܣ ܘܡܪ]ܝ ܒܟܘܣ‬6

The Edessa-Aleppo Syriac Codex of the Chronicle of Michael the Great, folio 108, third column, near the end. 21 Gustavus Bickell, S. Ephraemi Syri: Carmina Nisibena (Leipzig: 1866), 79 (Syriac). Bickell’s Latin translation: Ululavit diabolus: Quem in locum nunc fugere possum justos? Mortem incitavi ad apostolos interficiendos, ut per mortem eorum evadam verberibus eorum. Sed nunc multo durius verberor. Apostolus, quem interfeci in India, praevenit mihi Edessam. (…) (Responsorium): Laudetur potentia, quae habitat in ossibus sanctis! Ossa porta- verat mercator ille, vel potius illa portaverunt eum. Ecce enim ab invicem lucrati siint. (…) Capsa autem Thomae interfecit me, quia virtus occulta, habitans in ea, excruciat me. 22 Syriac ‫ ܬܐܓܘܪܬܐ‬refers to trade with virtues and good deeds. 23 John H. Bernard, Pilgrimage of S. Silvia of Aquitana to the Holy Places (circ. 385 A.D.) (London: 1896), 36. 24 Erica C D Hunter, “Commemorating the Saints at Turfan” in Winds of Jingjiao Studies in Syriac Christianity in China and Central Asia, Li Tang and Dietmar Winkler, eds. (Vienna: 2016), 89–104, specifically 99. I am grateful to Dr. Hunter for reading this inscription and for providing me with information about its contents. 20

300

AMIR HARRAK

l. 7 the omnipotent power that dwells in the [‫ ܚܝܠܐ ̣ܡܨܐ ܸܚܠ ܟܠ ܕܫ̈ܪܐ ܒܓ̈ܪܡـ]ܐ‬7 bones. ̈ ‫ ܢܛܪ‬8 l. 8 May it protect our souls night and day. [‫ܢܦܫܬܢ ܒܠܠܝܐ ܘܒܐܝܡܡـ]ܐ‬ Other bones relics of Mesopotamian martyrs were transferred to northern Syria in the course of the 4th century. In 399 C.E., Mārūthā, bishop of Maipharqat, was sent by the Byzantine Emperor Arcadius at the accession of King Yazdgerd to the throne of Persia, to wish the new king well and to reassure him about the ongoing of the peace-treaty signed between Persia and Byzantium in 387 C.E. 25 Around that time, Marutha, as royal envoy and bishop, collected the bones of martyrs of the early Sassanian period and deposited them in his city Maipharqat. This then was called Martyropolis, ‘the City of Martyrs’. Besides the bone relics of martyrs, Syriac Christianity honoured the remains of other personalities, like prophets, apostles and holy ones, burying their bone relics inside walls and in church foundations. Monasteries, including that of Mār-Mattai near Mosul, and martyrions, including the Monastery of Mār-Behnām and St Barbara near Karamlaiss in the Plain of Nineveh, were built to commemorate such special personalities. They are also mentioned, along with the martyrs, in liturgical prayers, as in breviaries, and in calendrical commemorations. These specials personalities are all considered as intercessors between Divinity and Humanity, and thus, the faithful prayed before their remains and offered money and jewelry, as did King Khosrau II of Persia (590–628 C.E.), who offered a cross of gold. 26 In Syriac, bones relics are referred to in epigraphy with different names and the following list draws on inscriptions found in Iraq: •

Ṭūbō ‫ ܛܘܒܐ‬and Arabized ‫ ܛܘܒܐܢܝ‬ṭūbānī ‘blessed’.

Sometimes the term ṭūbō placed before or after personal names indicates that the persons bearing such adjectival-nouns are holy, as in this prayer from the Syriac breviary: How fitting and attractive is the voice of our Lord, saying in his Gospel and calling ṭūbō-blessed the attentive ones who loved him: Blessed are the poor in spirit for they will inherit the Kingdom; blessed are the mourning ones for they will be comforted; blessed are the persecuted and the martyrs who were killed for His Gospel, for they will inherit the Kingdom and the eternal life, for the suffering that they endured. 27

Garshuni inscriptions that refer to relics in the Chaldean Church of the Virgin Mary (al-Ṭahrā) in Mosul, use the Arabised adjective ṭūbānī, from the Syriac adjective ṭūbtōnō. The relics in that church belong to the Virgin Mary, unnamed ‘holy men’

Jean Baptiste Chabot, Synodicon Orientale ou Recueil de Synodes Nestoriens (Paris: 1902), 253 and n. 1, and 254ff (French translation). 26 Joseph Bidez and Leon Parmentier, eds., The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius (Amsterdam: 1964), #21, 235–8. 27 Ṣlāwōtō d-yawmōtō šḥīmē d-šabtō, 221. 25

PATRIARCHAL BONE RELICS IN THE SYRIAN ORTHODOX DAYR-AL-ZAʿFARĀN

301

and both Mār-Gabriēl and Mār-Abrāham. 28 Gabriel of Kashkar (4th century) was credited with founding monasticism in Mesopotamia, a reason for which he is considered holy. 29 As for Gabriel, the Abbot “of the Upper Monastery”, 30 although not much is known about him, he is, nonetheless, commemorated in the 4th Friday after the feast of Moses and then alone on October 13. 31 ̈ mnāwōtō 32 ‘remains, relics’ • mnōtō ‫( ܡܢܬܐ‬Garshuni manāt), plural ‫ܡܢܘܬܐ‬ 108F

This is probably the oldest name given to bone relics, but the earliest occurrence in Syriac inscriptions from Iraq only is dated to 1301 CE. 33 In the Chaldean Church of Simon the Elect in Mosul, a marble box bears the words “the box in which are relic (mnōtō) of the Virgin Mary.” 34 The term is also known within both the Syriac Orthodox and the Church of the East. At the Syriac Orthodox Church of St. Thomas, bone relics were placed in an elaborate niche inscribed with an inscription: “The relic (mnōtō) of the holy Mōr-Thomas the Apostle, which was found in this church in the year 1964 of Christ, is deposited here, during the time of his Holiness our lord MōrIgnatius Ya‛qūb the Third, Patriarch of Antioch, and our Father Mōr-Severius Zakkai, Metropolitan of Mosul.” 35 Bone relics of Mōr-Gīwōrgīs (St. George) were uncovered during renovations at the Syriac Orthodox Church of the Virgin Mary (al-Ṭāhira), near the (old) Public Hospital of Mosul: In the year 1878, when we were repairing and renovating what was destroyed in the church of our Lady the Virgin Mary, according to the recommendations of our Father, Bishop Bihnām, the head of the diocese of Mosul, and as we were busy, the divine Providence revealed to us the remains (manāt from Syriac mnōtō) of MārGīwōrgīs, about which it was written (in Syriac) “Gīwōrgīs the Martyr.” We reported this matter to his Excellency, being responsible of the whole affair, our leader the Bishop. So he ordered us to put it into writing, so as to make it known to the pilgrims and noted among all the Christians. 36

The (New) Syriac Orthodox Church of the Virgin Mary in downtown Mosul (alQal‛ah), built between 1872 and 1896, contains niches in which mnawōtō-relics are interred. Taken from the Church of the same name located near the (old) Public

Harrak, Syriac and Garshuni Inscriptions of Iraq, AA.02.04 and AA.02.06. Fiey, Jean Maurice, Saints Syriaques, ed. Lawrence Conrad (Princeton, N.J.: 2004), 25–6. 30 Fiey, Saints Syriaques, 80. 31 Fiey, Saints Syriaques, 80. 32 Harrak, Syriac and Garshuni Inscriptions of Iraq, AA.01.09. 33 Harrak, Syriac and Garshuni Inscriptions of Iraq, AA.04.01. 34 Harrak, Syriac and Garshuni Inscriptions of Iraq, AA.04.01. 35 Harrak, Syriac and Garshuni Inscriptions of Iraq, AA.12.02. 36 Harrak, Syriac and Garshuni Inscriptions of Iraq, AA.03.07. Tragically, this church was completely destroyed in 2014 by the Islamic State, which turned its land into a parking lot! 28 29

302

AMIR HARRAK

Hospital of Mosul, the bone relics belong to Mōr-Yūḥanōn (of Dailam) 37 and MōrGabriel of the Monastery of Qartmīn 38 “so that by it (them) the faithful may be blessed.” 39 In the (Old) Syriac Catholic Church of the Virgin Mary (al-Ṭāhirā) in Mosul, the bone relics of Jacob the Dismembered were found and placed inside an elaborate niche, the inscription of which says: “This is the relic (manāt) of Mōr-Jacob the Dismembered. It appeared to us in the church of the Virgin in the year two thousand and fifty-six of the Greeks (=1745).” 40 The martyr lived and died during the 5th century in Sassanian Mesopotamia. 41 •

Shkintō ‫‘ ܫܟܝܢܬܐ‬depository’

This term is reminiscent of the Hebrew ‫‘ )ܫܟܢ√( שכינה‬dwelling of the name of God’, 42 hence his presence in the temple (see Ezra 6:12). Syriac expanded the usage of this highly charged term in that bones of martyrs and of holy ones become shkintō. The term is attested in the Chaldean Church of Mār-Esha‛ia in Mosul, where an inscription commemorating the bone relics of John the Baptist states: 1028F

The deposition of the bones (sīmtō d-garmē) of the Saint is placed here, joined together in a clear and shining vessel made of marble. We were made worthy to see it during the rebuilding of this shrine dedicated to Mār-John, the Baptiser of his Lord, (inside) the holy of holies, during the time of Pope Pius the Ninth—may he (rule) in peace, and of ‛Abd-al-Majīd, more illustrious than his predecessors in reign, (in the year) 1855 of the One who was incarnated, becoming life and salvation, and [in (the days of) Mār]-Joseph servant on the throne of Babylon. 43

•

Garmē ‫‘ ܓ̈ܪܡܐ‬bones’

This basic term is encountered in the Chaldean Church of Mār-Esha‛ia and also in the inscription of Dayr-al-Za‛farān. Elsewhere in Syria and Turkey, bone relics of Philoxenus of Mabbug are found in the church of Midyat and in the Monastery of Mor-Gabriel. 44 The Syriac Orthodox church of Amida houses relics of Jacob of Serug, 45 a major writer who died in 521 C.E. In the 4th century Mārūthā of Maipherkat brought bones of martyrs from Mesopotamia and buried them in the church of his Syrian city which was duly named Martyropolis. John of Dailam (probably 7th century) is commemorated in Melkite, Maronite and Ethiopian liturgical calendars in the month of October. See Fiey, Saints Syriaques, 118–9 for further information. 38 Yūḥanōn of Qartmīn may an abbot of this monastery in the same region where the Monastery of Mōr-Gabriel is located. See Fiey, Saints Syriaques, 12. 39 Harrak, Syriac and Garshuni Inscriptions of Iraq, AA.10.03 and AA.10.04. 40 Harrak, Syriac and Garshuni Inscriptions of Iraq, AA.08.07. 41 On this popular martyr see Fiey, Saints Syriaques, 107–8. 42 Marcus Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babili and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature (New York: 1992), 1573. 43 Harrak, Syriac and Garshuni Inscriptions of Iraq, AA.01.09. 44 Kiraz, Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage, 291. 45 Kiraz, Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage, 19. 37

PATRIARCHAL BONE RELICS IN THE SYRIAN ORTHODOX DAYR-AL-ZAʿFARĀN

303

PATRIARCHAL BONE RELICS

The patriarchs of the Syriac Orthodox Church are de facto holy personalities, being the leaders, ecclesiastical and civil, who represent the Church as people before local and foreign governments. They are usually highly learned, multilingual, builders, and efficient administrators. The 9th century Patriarch, Dionysius of Tell Mahrē, wrote a non-extant chronicle, which was extensively quoted by Michael the Great and also the 1234 Chronicle. He served as an intermediary between the Abbasids and the Copts in Egypt. 46 Patriarch Michael the Great produced in the 12th century, the most voluminous world chronicle, which according to modern research, was consulted by scientists in the American National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), for details on climate changes, volcano eruptions, earthquakes and celestial events, like comets. 47 Such events are discussed, sometime in great detail, in the third part of the Chronicle which is reserved for natural history. As late as the 20th century, Patriarch Ephrem Barṣūm (line 10 in the inscription) energized Syriac Orthodoxy, which had greatly suffered at the beginning of that century under the Ottomans. 48

THE FIVE PATRIARCHS IN THE DAYR-AL-ZA‛FARĀN INSCRIPTION

The inscription mentions five patriarchs who lived between the years 1000 C.E. and 1750 C.E. who must have left a strong impression to justify having their bones buried within the sanctuary of Dayr-al-Za‛farān. •

Yūḥanōn Bar-‘Abdūn (line 3)

Michael the Great gave the vita of Yūḥanōn Bar-‘Abdūn 49 in admiration. According to Bar-Hebraeus, after the death of Patriarch Athanasius al-Ṣulḥῑ in 1002 C.E., the bishops unanimously elected Yūḥanōn Bar-‘Abdūn, who accepted their election, even though he was not even an ordained deacon! He was thus ordained deacon, and, on the following day, priest, then the next day patriarch of Antioch as of the year 1004 C.E. However, endemic problems with the Greek Orthodox Church marred his patriarchate. The Greek Metropolitan of Melitene denounced him before Emperor Romanos IV Diogenes († 1071 C.E.), claiming that the Syriac Orthodox did not confess ‘the

Amir Harrak, “Dionysius of Tell-Maḥrē: Patriarch, Diplomat, and an Inquisitive Chronicler,” in Syriac Encounters: papers from the sixth North American Syriac Symposium, Duke University, 26-29 June 2011, Maria Doefler, ed. (Leuven: 2015); 207–26. 47 See, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AU3GVWWdPDw “Why do NASA Scientists Read a 1000 Year Old Book?”. 48 Dinno, The Syrian Orthodox Church, 272–85. 49 The Chronicle of Michael the Great, 663 column 1 to 568 column 3 to the end. 46

304

AMIR HARRAK

Mother of God’, which was of course not true. 50 The patriarch went to Constantinople but as he did not submit to the Chalcedonian Christology, he was sent to exile in 1029 C.E. “in the monastery of Gaius (on the border of the Bulgarians).” 51 He was imprisoned there for four years and died there in February of the Seleucid year 1344 (1033 C.E.). Michael the Great called him “among the holy ones… who surrendered his life in exile, in virtuous martyrdom.” 52 Gregory Bar-Hebraeus adds these biographical details: He was born in Melitene and was raised in virtue. At the age of eighteen, he put on the respectable monastic attire in the Monastery of Rahōṭō (=John the Baptist) without the permission of his parents. While he was cherished by these, he moved up to the Monastery of Mōr-Barṣawmō, and from there he went down to live in a neighbourhood on the banks of the Euphrates. God instilled in him the grace of performing wonders and miracles. But when he realized that his name became famous, he moved to the Black Mountain. 53

The statement of Bar-Hebraeus tells much about the virtues of this man. Jean Maurice Fiey, who counted Yūḥanōn Bar-‘Abdūn among the ‘holy ones’, says that the bishops who accompanied the patriarch to the Byzantine capital also suffered persecution: Elijah of Simandu was stoned in Constantinople, Yūḥanōn of Ḥadat died in prison, and Yūḥanōn of Tell-Biṭrīq was freed upon the death of the Emperor. Those bishops who relented to the pressure of the Chalcedonians either died in sorrow or repented. 54 •

Yūḥanōn Bar-Shōshan the “writer’ (line 4)

Native of Melitene, he was elected patriarch in 1068 C.E. and died four years later. He was buried in Amida, but, as the above inscription says, his bone relics were brought from there to Dayr-al-Za‛farān. Bar-Hebraeus states the following: When Athanasius, who is Ḥayō (=Yiḥia?) died, the bishops gathered in the Monastery of Mōr-Abḥay which is on the bank of the Euphrates. A general agreement took place among all bishops that Yūḥanōn, who is Yēshū‛ Bar-Shōshan the Writer, be called to be ordained for the leadership of the Church. He was a wise and holy St. Ephrem in his poetry exalted Mary, Mother of Jesus, and since Jesus is God, his Mother is also the Mother of God: “Our Lord, no one knows how to call Your mother. If one calls her “virgin,” her child stands up, and “married,” no one knew her (sexually). And if your mother is unfathomable, who can comprehend you?” Edmund Beck, Des Heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen de Nativitate (Epiphania) (Louvain: 1959), 69 (Syriac); “You and Your Mother are the only ones who are more beautiful than all, for, O lord, there is no spot in You, nor is there a blemish in Your Mother”; Bickell, Carmina Nisibena, hymn 27. 51 Edessa-Aleppo Syriac Codex of the Chronicle of Michael the Great, fol. 567 column 2, lines 1– 10 from the bottom. 52 Edessa-Aleppo Syriac Codex of the Chronicle of Michael the Great, fol. 575 column 1 lines 5–7. 53 Jean-Baptiste. Abbeloos and Thomas J. Lamy, Gregorii Barhebraei Chronicon Ecclesiasticum, 2 vols (Louvain: 1872), vol. I, 419–21. 54 Fiey, Saints Syriaques, 114. 50

PATRIARCHAL BONE RELICS IN THE SYRIAN ORTHODOX DAYR-AL-ZAʿFARĀN

305

man, learned in the teachings and in the intellectual matters of the Church. He was walking cheerfully in the narrow way of renunciation. When he was called and did not accept, he confessed that he regretted his consent at the beginning. Nonetheless, he was compelled by recluses and holy men, as well as by the lawful compulsion of the bishops, and he agreed (to be ordained). 55

Michael the Great gave information about the writing skills of Yūḥanōn BarShōshan 56: He wrote twenty-four canons … He filled the universe with his letters and volumes filled with sound instruction, commentaries and sweet admonitions... And in most of the books that he wrote, he paid attention to the teachings of Mōr-Ephrem and Mōr-Isḥōq (=Isaac of Antioch), which he compiled in one book that he wrote with his own hands in his old age. 57

Elsewhere, the patriarchal Chronicler added: Bar-Shōshan, who is Mōr-Yūḥanōn, wrote four mīmrē-discourses on the destruction of Melitene, two according to the metre of Mōr-Ephrem and two according to the metre of Mōr-Balai. 58

Bar-Hebraeus concluded his account with the death of this holy patriarch, saying: He surrendered his life in the city of Amida. His body was buried in the Church of the Mother of God, in a marble coffin (placed) beside the grave of Mōr-Yūḥanōn the patriarch, 59 his teacher and educator. He served the patriarchate for nine years. He ordained seventeen bishops, while going around in the Arab territory because of the perfidy of the Greeks. 60

The fact that Yūḥanōn the patriarch was buried in a marble as opposed to a wooden coffin indicates that those who buried him must have considered him a truly ‘holy man’. By contrast, Metropolitan Athanasius of Takrit (887–904 C.E.), a renowned Syriac Orthodox ecclesiastical leader was laid to rest in a wooden coffin. 61

Abbeloos and Lamy, Gregorii Barhebraei Chronicon Ecclesiasticum, vol. I, 445. Edessa-Aleppo Syriac Codex of the Chronicle of Michael the Great, 663 column 1 to 568 column 3 to end. 57 Edessa-Aleppo Syriac Codex of the Chronicle of Michael the Great, 581 column 1 to 582 column 2 to the end = Harrak, The Chronicle of Michael the Great, 32-5. 58 Edessa-Aleppo Syriac Codex of the Chronicle of Michael the Great, 577 column 2 lines 6-12 = Harrak, The Chronicle of Michael the Great, 6–7. 59 Yūḥanōn VIII (1049–1057 C.E.). 60 Abbeloos-Lamy, Gregorii Barhebraei Chronicon Ecclesiasticum, vol. I, 447. 61 Harrak, Syriac and Garshuni Inscriptions of Iraq, FA.01.04. 55 56

306

AMIR HARRAK •

‘Abdeh-da-Mšīḥō (=‘Abd-al-Masīḥ) (line 5)

This name appears to be that of Patriarch ‘Abd-al-Masῑḥ I of Edessa, who ruled between 1662 C.E. and 1686 C.E., 62 since Ignatius Shukr-Allāh of Mārdīn (1722–1745 C.E.) is mentioned immediately after him. By this time, patriarchs were elected from among bishops who were also mafriōnē-Metropolitans. ‘Abd-al-Masῑḥ was established mafriōnō in 1655 C.E., but his term as patriarch was marred by internal problems, for an anti-patriarch, Ḥabīb of Midiat was also established in Ṭūr-‛Abdīn. The latter ruled alone for just six months after the death of the legitimate Patriarch ‘Abd-alMasῑḥ. 63 •

Shukr-Allāh (line 5)

Born in Mārdīn in 1674 C.E., Shukr-Allāh joined the nearby monastery of Dayr-alZa‛farān, and was then ordained bishop of Aleppo, Syria. He was exiled in 1720 C.E. by the Chalcedonians for four months and even escaped strangulation on account of his faith. He was elected patriarch just two years later, following the death of Patriarch Ignatius Isḥāq ‘Āzar of Mosul. 64 Two years after his election, he convened a synod in Amida in 1724 C.E. where he remained most of the time. He died in 1745 C.E. and was buried in Amida. 65 His name appears in a commemorative inscription written in Garshuni found in the Syriac Orthodox Church of St. Thomas in Mosul. The inscription mentions one renovation, among many others since at least the 8th century, as follows: When it was the year one thousand seven hundred and [fo]rty-four of Christ in date, during the leadership of the reverend Father Patriarch Šukr-Allāh, holder of the See of Antioch, this apostolic church of the holy Mār Thomas was rebuilt... 66

•

Gīwōrgīs III (or IV) 67 of Edessa (lines 6 and 7)

The inscription of Dayr-al-Za‛farān identifies him as native of Edessa. Bishop Sākā considers this patriarch as Gōrgīs III, but Patriarch Ephrem I Barṣūm (1887-1957) counted him as Gōrgīs IV (of Mārdīn; see below). The confusion is most likely due to the paucity of primary sources. Patriarch ‘Abd-al-Masῑḥ II ruled between 1895 and 1905. During his time, the Church of Mār-Ḥūdenī (=Aḥū-d-emeh) in Mosul was renovated thanks to “grants of our greatest lord and illustrious Sultan-Khāqan ‘Abd-al-Ḥamīd Khan al-Ġāzī”; Harrak, Syriac and Garshuni Inscriptions of Iraq, AA.07.01. 63 Bihnān Hindō, Tārīkh al-Kanīsa al-surianiyya (Lebanon: 1966), 412. 64 Ignatius Isḥāq “is our esteemed Father, Patriarch and leader of fathers, chosen Isḥāq worthy of blessing and benedictions; counting on the promises of the Gospel the Son of God, this shepherd left, departing from this painful world”; see Harrak, Syriac and Garshuni Inscriptions of Iraq, AA.12.09. 65 Isḥāq Sākā, Kanīsatī al-suriāniyya (Damascus: 1985), 170–1. 66 Harrak, Syriac and Garshuni Inscriptions of Iraq, AA.12.07. 67 The identification is even more confused in Hindō, Tārīkh al-Kanīsa al-surianiyya, 475 who classifies Gēwargῑs V of Aleppo as the 110th patriarch, ruling between 1818–1836. 62

PATRIARCHAL BONE RELICS IN THE SYRIAN ORTHODOX DAYR-AL-ZAʿFARĀN

307

Gōrgīs III followed Ignatius Shukr-Allāh as patriarch from 1745 C.E. to the year of his death in 1767 C.E. He was previously a monk at Dayr-al-Za‛farān; he was ordained bishop in 1722 C.E. and after five years, he was nominated bishop for the city of Aleppo in Syria, but upon becoming patriarch of the Syriac Orthodox Church, he resided in Amida. Gōrgīs III worked to strengthen the Syriac Orthodox existence in the Malabar, and thus he sent Bishop Shukr-Allāh as mafriōnō, 68 along with two bishops and deacons. 69 He wrote several letters with regards to India, dealing with several administrative issues as the following (verbose) letter sent in 1754 C.E. tells: In the name of the eternally existing One, the necessary Being, and the Omnipotent: Ignatius in grace Patriarch of Antioch, who is Gīwōrgīs + Ignatius, weak, servant, and servant of the servants of our Lord Jesus Christ—the Word, the Creating God whose mercy is abundant over all, whose grace is unlimited, and whose word is hidden to every person—patriarch of the sublime seat of Antioch. I offer divine greeting, and say: Divine peace from the Lord of peace—may He pacify and offer and bring (peace) to our beloved and cherished sons, the heirs of the heavenly kingdom. First for the ministry of the virtuous priests, glorious deacons, noble periodeutes, great leaders, mighty magistrates, philosophers and scholastics, accomplished wise men, diligent traders, famous wealthy ones, good and clever craftsmen, hardworking peasants, respectful elders, attractive youth, gorgeous and stunning youngsters, women, children, young and old children, the nobility and all the truthful believers, those who reside in India, the land of Malabar, along with the rest of the territories in which some of our own Syriac Jacobite nation reside and live, may the blessing of the Lord and the dominical diligence protect them from all evils and all harms and want through all the attending angels, indeed, amen. 70

Another letter deals with the nomination of mafriōnō-Metropolitan Shukr-Allāh: What we inform you—may the Lord God make you know of it with blessing—is the reason behind jotting the writing of this letter. First, it is the reason of love and desire for the sight of your glorious and gorgeous look. Second, we inform you concerning our reverend sons and brothers, Mōr Basil who is mafriān-Metropolitan Shukr-Allāh, and Mōr-Gregory who is mafriān-Metropolitan Yūḥanna. 71

Although the relations between the Syriac Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church were often tense, Patriarch Gōrgīs III corresponded with the Catholic Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in a more positive climate. A letter dated to 1776 C.E. and addressed to Pope Pius VI mentions the name of the sender: “From

Shukr-Allāh was the mafriōnō of Malabar from 1748 to 1764, the year he died and was buried in Kandanat. 69 Sākā, Kanīsatī al-suriāniyya, 171. 70 Amir Harrak, Syriac Orthodox Patriarchal Letters to India (in preparation) Letter 2B. 71 Amir Harrak, Syriac Orthodox Patriarchal Letters to India (in preparation) Letter 2C. 68

308

AMIR HARRAK

your Brother Mōr-Ignatius Gōrgīs Patriarch of Antioch, who is Gōrgīs the Third, (ruling) over the nation of the Syrians and over the rest of the East.” 72 Patriarch Ephrem I Barṣūm (1887–1957), commenting on this letter, wrote: “The letter of Mār-Ignatius Gōrgīs III (IV), the Patriarch of Antioch, in reply to the letter which the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith (addressed) to Pope Pius VI in September of the year 1776 of Nativity. It contains (statement on) the Orthodox Faith of the Syriac Church—written in Dayr-al-Za‛farān 10 February 1906.” 73 Patriarch Gīwōrgīs was buried in Amida near the grave of Patriarch ‘Abd-al-Masῑḥ of Edessa, the uncle of his father. In the Syriac Orthodox Church the holiness of exceptional persons is decided by its members, including its ecclesiastics and its people at large, whereas, by way of contrast, the Catholic Congregation for Cause of Saints often requires miracles performed by candidates to holiness. The inscription of Dayr-al-Za‛farān calls the bones of the five patriarchs ‫“ ܓ̈ܪܡܐ ܕܦܛܪܝ̈ܪܟܘ ܕܐܢܛܝܘܟܝܐ‬bones of the patriarchs of Antioch” and as seen above, the term ‫“ ܓ̈ܪܡܐ‬bones” is among the names given to bone relics. Lines 6 and 7 in the inscription beg the Lord to count the named patriarchs among the holy fathers who preceded them. Even if Patriarch ‘Abd-al-Massīḥ (line 5) suffered administrative troubles caused by the anti-patriarch Ḥabīb of Midiat, he persevered as the legitimate patriarch until his death in 1686 C.E. Interestingly, after the death of Patriarch ‘Abd-al-Massīḥ, the anti-patriarch died six month thereafter.

CONCLUSION

When the Islamic State invaded Mosul in 2014, such was the veneration attached to the saints’ bones, that the authorities at the Syriac Orthodox Church of St. Thomas, fearing that the relics of St. Thomas would be destroyed, rushed to remove them from the niche, and relocated them to safekeeping in the territory administered by the KRG. Inscriptions, as in the Syriac Orthodox Church of the Virgin Mary (al Ṭāhira) in Mosul, usually identify relics. 74 There are inscriptions commemorating mnawōtō d-qaddīšē “relics of holy ones”, 75 but these are not named. However, they are still greatly honoured by the local believers. There also are martyrions in which the bone relics are not exhibited, as in the shrine of Mār-Shīlā in the Koisinjaq region in the north of Iraq, or in Mār-Bēna (Mār-Behnām?) the Martyr, whose church is located between Kirkuk and Erbil, or in the shrine of Mār-Qardāg in Alqōsh. 76 These martyrions attract large number of people on the commemoration days of the martyrs, in Dinno, The Syrian Orthodox Christians in the Late Ottoman Period, 26 and 407, photo P1090943. 73 Dinno, The Syrian Orthodox Christians in the Late Ottoman Period, 406, photo 1090925. 74 Harrak, Syriac and Garshuni Inscriptions of Iraq, AA.03.07. 75 Harrak, Syriac and Garshuni Inscriptions of Iraq, AA.02.05 and 07. 76 On Mār-Bēnā: Narmin Muhammas Amin ‘Ali, “Discovery of Two New Churches in the North of Iraq: A Church with a Bema and a Martyrion,” Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 19 (2019), 52–8, especially 54ff. On Mār-Qardagh: Harrak, Syriac and Garshuni Inscriptions of Iraq, AO.04.01. 72

PATRIARCHAL BONE RELICS IN THE SYRIAN ORTHODOX DAYR-AL-ZAʿFARĀN

309

which prayers are held and countless candles are lit inside and outside the martyrions. There also those martyrs that are known only through liturgical commemorations, as in the case of Mār-Qardāġ, or just through popular piety that carried their memories through the ages. These martyrs are commemorated in the breviaries chanted every day. As for the bone relics of the named patriarchs in the inscription in Dayr-alZa‛farān, they are called garmē-bones as mentioned above. Available information about these leaders show that they were exceptional in piety and conduct. Patriarch Yūḥanōn Bar-‘Abdūn (line 3) is declared martyr by none other than Michael the Great, who was himself a virtuous man—judging from his World Chronicle. Patriarch Yūḥanōn Bar-Shōshan (line 4) “filled the universe with his (pastoral letters) … And in most of the books that he wrote, he paid attention to the teachings of Mōr-Ephrem and Mōr-Isḥōq (Isaac of Antioch)… .” Gīwōrgīs III (or IV) of Edessa (lines 6 and 7) went out of his way to consolidate Orthodoxy in India, while in one of his letters he humbly called himself “weak, servant, and servant of the servants of our Lord Jesus Christ!” It is thus amply clear that these patriarchs had left indelible marks on Syriac Orthodoxy, and were worthy of having their bone relics being buried in the sanctuary of Dayr-al-Za‛farān.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Primary Sources

Abbeloos, Jean-Baptiste and Thomas J. Lamy, eds. Gregorii Barhebraei Chronicon Ecclesiasticum quod e codice Musei Britannici descriptum conjunct opera ediderunt, 2 vols (Louvain: Peeters, 1872). Ṣlāwōtō d-yawmōtō šḥīmē d-šabtō [Prayers for the Simple Days of the Week] (Charfeh: Imprimerie Patriarcale, 1996). Secondary Sources

‘Ali, Narmin Muhammas Amin. “Discovery of Two New Churches in the North of Iraq: A Church with a Bema and a Martyrion”, Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 19 (2019), 52–8. Badwi, Abdo and Fadi Baroudi. “Le couvent de Bar Souma: redécouverte du site”, Parole de l'Orient 31 (2006), 243–56. Barṣūm, Afrām. Al-lu’lu’ al-mantūr fī tārīk al-‛ulūm wa-al-ādāb al-suriāniyya [The Scattered Pearls: The History of Syriac Sciences and Literature] (Homṣ: Maṭba‛at alSalāma, 1943). Beck, Edmund. Des Heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen de Nativitate (Epiphania) (Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1959). Bernard, John H. Pilgrimage of S. Silvia of Aquitana to the Holy Places (circa 385 A.D.) (London: Palestine Pilgrims’ Text Society, 1896).

310

AMIR HARRAK

Bickell, Gustavus, ed. S. Ephraemi Syri: Carmina Nisibena: additis prolegomenis et supplement lexicorum Syriacum (Leipzig: F.A. Brockhaus, 1866). Bidez, Joseph and Leon Parmentier, eds. The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius (Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1964). Chabot, Jean Baptiste. Synodicon Orientale ou Recueil de Synodes Nestoriens (Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1902) Dinno, Khalid S. The Syrian Orthodox Church in the Late Ottoman Period and Beyond: Crisis then Revival (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2017). Fiey, Jean Maurice. Saints Syriaques, Lawrence Conrad, ed. (Princeton, N.J.: Darwin Press, 2004). Harrak, Amir. The Chronicle of Michael the Great (The Edessa-Aleppo Syriac Codex): Books XV-XXI from the Year 1050 to 1195 AD (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2019). —— “Dionysius of Tell-Maḥrē: Patriarch, Diplomat, and an Inquisitive Chronicler” in Syriac Encounters: papers from the sixth North American Syriac Symposium, Duke University, 26–29 June 2011, Maria Doefler, ed. (Leuven: Peeters, 2015), 207– 26. —— Syriac and Garshuni Inscriptions of Iraq, 2 vols [Recueil des Inscriptions Syriaques, 2] (Paris: Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 2010). —— Syriac Orthodox Patriarchal Letters to India (article in preparation). Hindō, Bihnān. Tārīkh al-Kanīsa al-surianiyya (Lebanon: Publications of Bēt-ZabdaiĀzikh, 1966). Hunter, Erica C.D. “Commemorating the Saints at Turfan” in Winds of Jingjiao Studies in Syriac Christianity in China and Central Asia, Li Tang and Dietmar Winkler, eds (Vienna: 2016), 89–104. Ibrahim, Gregorios Yuḥannā, ed. The Edessa-Aleppo Syriac Codex of the Chronicle of Michael the Great (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2009). Jastrow, Marcus. A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babili and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature (New York: The Judaica Press Inc., 1992), 1573. Kiraz, George. et al. ed. Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2011). Sākā, Isḥāq. Kanīsatī al-suriāniyya (Damascus: al-Adīb, 1985).

PETER OF KALLINIKOS AND THE SYRIAC LANGUAGE IN THE LATE SIXTH CENTURY. FIRST NOTES LUCAS VAN ROMPAY ∗

(DUKE UNIVERSITY, NORTH CAROLINA, USA, EMERITUS) Peter of Kallinikos’ Treatise against Damian is examined here as an important witness to the Syriac language and literature in the late sixth century, a period of increasing hellenization of Syriac literary culture. In order to determine the place of the Treatise in this ongoing process, a number of topics, dealing with lexicon, morphology, morpho-syntax, and idiomatic phraseology, will be singled out for study. A few provisional conclusions will bring this pilot study to a close. For a long time to come Syriac scholars will owe a great debt of gratitude to Rifaat Y. Ebied for his contribution to the monumental edition and translation of Peter of Kallinikos’ Treatise against Damian. This massive work, incompletely preserved but still comprising nearly one thousand pages of printed Syriac text, was published in four volumes between 1994 and 2003, in a collaborative project in which Lionel R. Wickham and the late Albert Van Roey († 2000) participated in addition to Rifaat Ebied. 1 Ebied’s involvement in the project dates back to at least 1975 with a coauthored publication. 2 His first independent publication on Peter followed two years

This article is offered to Professor Rifaat Y. Ebied with great admiration for his multifaceted scholarship and with deep gratitude for many inspiring encounters and exchanges over a period of fifty years, starting at the first Symposium Syriacum held in Rome in 1972. 1 Rifaat Y. Ebied, Albert Van Roey, and Lionel R. Wickham, Petri Callinicensis Patriarchae Antiocheni Tractatus contra Damianum, I. Quae supersunt libri secundi (CGSG 29; Turnhout, Leuven: 1994); II. Libri tertii capita I-XIX (CCSG 32; 1996); III. Libri tertii capita XX-XXXIV (CCSG 35; 1998); IV. Libri tertii capita XXXV-L et addendum libro secundo (CCSG 54; 2003). To this fourvolume edition must be added: Peter of Callinicum. Anti-Tritheist Dossier (Leuven: 1981), which may have belonged to the otherwise lost first book of the Treatise against Damian. 2 Rifaat Y. Ebied and Lionel R. Wickham, “The Discourse of Mar Peter Callinicus on the Crucifixion”, The Journal of Theological Studies (N.S.) 26 (1975), 23–37. ∗

311

312

LUCAS VAN ROMPAY

later. 3 The collaboration of these three eminent Syriac scholars produced an impressive edition and translation, laid out in four volumes of homogeneously high quality. 4 For present-day scholars, Peter’s Treatise is not an easy read. It consists of an extended discussion of the substances in the Divine Trinity. Some theologians, emphasizing the individual nature of each of the substances (οὐσία), were accused by their opponents of confessing Tritheism, the belief in three gods. This debate raged across the Miaphysite communities of Syria and Egypt for much of the second half of the sixth century. 5 Peter, Syriac-Orthodox patriarch of Antioch from 580/1 C.E. to 591 C.E., and his confrere Damian, Coptic-Orthodox patriarch of Alexandria (578 C.E.–605 C.E.), at first were united in their fight against Tritheism. Their unanimity and friendship, however, soon broke down and they started attacking each other. In his Treatise, Peter accuses Damian of having fallen into the pitfalls of Tritheism himself. At the same time, he had to defend himself against Damian, who launched at him similar accusations of heresy. In Ebied’s own words, the Treatise is “long, longwinded and repetitive to an almost unbelievable degree.” 6 When the schism caused by the fight between the two patriarchs was resolved, in 616 C.E., their successors on the patriarchal thrones decided not to reopen the discussion or examine the relevant writings. With their authors’ death, they had become irrelevant, so it was decided. 7 Why then is it still worthwhile to study this Treatise and to spend half a lifetime editing and translating it? This is a question the three editors probably had to answer many times to their skeptical colleagues, their inquisitive students, and to themselves. One major reason lies in its abundance of patristic quotations. Peter quotes hundreds of passages from patristic authors, often of considerable length, with a special interest in Athanasios of Alexandria, the Cappadocian Fathers, Cyril of Alexandria, Severos of Antioch, and Theodosios of Alexandria. Several of these quotations were found already in Damian’s writings—from which Peter quotes long sections (nothing of Damian’s writings has reached us in direct tradition)—and Peter points

Rifaat Y. Ebied, “Peter of Antioch and Damian of Alexandria: The End of a Friendship” in A Tribute to Arthur Vööbus. Studies in Early Christian Literature and Its Environment, Primarily in the Syrian East, Robert H. Fisher, ed. (Chicago: 1977), 277–82. 4 On the title page of the fourth volume, the name of Jacques Noret was added, who did much of the editorial work for the four volumes. 5 For a convenient overview of the origins and early development of this debate, see Albert Van Roey, “La controverse trithéite jusqu’à l’excommunication de Conon et d’Eugène (557– 569)”, Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 16 (1985), 141–65. 6 Ebied, “Peter of Antioch”, 279. 7 See Matti Moosa, tr., The Syriac Chronicle of Michael Rabo (the Great): a universal history from the Creation, (Teaneck, NJ: 2014) Book 10, chapter 26; Gregorios Yuhanna Ibrahim, ed., The Edessa-Aleppo Syriac Codex of the Chronicle of Michael the Great, (Piscataway, NJ: 2009), 401b; Jean Baptiste Chabot, tr., Chronique de Michel le Syrien, Patriarche Jacobite d’Antioche (1166– 1199) (Paris: 1901), vol. 2, 391a–392a. 3

PETER OF KALLINIKOS AND THE SYRIAC LANGUAGE

313

out that Damian misunderstood them. 8 These quotations are an important contribution to our knowledge of patristic literature at an early stage of its transmission as well as of its Syriac reception. 9 This article takes a different approach to previous scholarly work on Peter of Kallinikos. In the Syriac text of the Treatise two leading Christian intellectuals display their mastery of patristic literature and their skills in interpreting it. How is their erudition reflected in the language? In the process of increasing hellenization of Syriac literary culture over the course of the fourth to seventh century, 10 where does the Treatise, datable to the late sixth century, stand? One important question first needs to be addressed. Peter wrote the Treatise in the second half of the 580s († 591 C.E.). The editors assume that he wrote in Greek, the official language of communication between the patriarchates of Antioch and Alexandria, and that the text subsequently was translated into Syriac. It is conceivable that the Syriac Treatise played a role in the negotiations that achieved the reconciliation of the two churches in 616 C.E. 11 That the translation would date from the period following this event seems unlikely, even though the editors rightly notice that the Treatise continued to be read and copied after 616 C.E. The main witness, ms. BL Add. 7,191, is dated by William Wright to the seventh century. 12 In the absence, however, of any trace of the Greek original, either in direct or in indirect tradition, the question is justified as to whether we can rule out the possibility that Peter, who was fluent in both languages, wrote the Treatise in Syriac. This question was first raised by Sebastian Brock, in his 2005 review of the fourth

Much of the Treatise consists of a fight over the correct interpretation of the Church Fathers. Peter rejects Damian’s critical and investigative reading of the Fathers and insists on remaining faithful to (what he sees as) established tradition, or the ‘royal middle way’ (IV, 395: 135). He may have inherited this approach from Severos of Antioch; see Frédéric Alpi, La route royale. Sévère d’Antioche et les Églises d’Orient (Beyrouth: 2009) and Yonatan Moss, Incorruptible Bodies. Christology, Society, and Authority in Late Antiquity (Oakland, California: 2016), 106–39 (Chapter 4). 9 For a recent case study, see Lucas Van Rompay, “Pierre de Callinique et les versions syriaques des Homélies de Grégoire de Nazianze”, Bulletin de l’Académie belge pour l’étude des langues anciennes et orientales 10–11 (2022), 481–95. 10 Sebastian P. Brock, “Charting the Hellenization of a Literary Culture: The Case of Syriac”, Intellectual History of the Islamicate World 3 (2015), 98–124, esp. 98–100. 11 Ebied, Van Roey, and Wickham, Petri Callinicensis, I, xxxv–xxxvi. See also Lionel R. Wickham, “Translation Techniques Greek/Syriac and Syriac/English” in V Symposium Syriacum 1988. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 29–31 août 1988, René Lavenant, ed. (Rome: 1990), 345– 53. 12 Ebied, Van Roey, and Wickham, Petri Callinicensis, I, xxix–xxx. It should also be noted that later editors of Syriac florilegia used the Syriac Treatise as a source for patristic quotations; see Albert Van Roey, “Un florilège trinitaire syriaque tiré du Contra Damianum de Pierre de Callinique, patriarche d’Antioche (581–591)”, Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 23 (1992), 189– 203. 8

314

LUCAS VAN ROMPAY

and final volume of the edition (2003). 13 Without offering a final answer, he suggested that the way in which previously existing Syriac patristic translations were slightly revised might betray the hand of Peter himself rather than that of a translator. One might adduce the counterargument that Peter’s text, written in Greek, might have been given for translation to one of the very skilled translators living around the year 600 C.E., who identified with Peter’s mission and carried out the work in an independent way. It may be too early to answer the question of the original language at this point. If Peter wrote in Syriac (aiming at a Syriac speaking audience), the work must be dated between ca. 585 C.E. and 591 C.E. If it was translated from Greek into Syriac, a later date for the Syriac text should be considered, no later, however, than 616 C.E., when the Syriac-Orthodox Church all but disavowed Peter’s magnum opus. In either case, the work offers per se very important evidence of Syriac literary culture at the end of the sixth or at the beginning of the seventh century. 14 The following pages present, rather arbitrarily, a small number of topics that may be illustrative of Peter’s or his translator’s language, imparting some insight on where this learned composition may be situated in the history of the Syriac language. 15

LEXICON

The rich vocabulary of the Treatise deserves to be fully explored and will lead to interesting additions to Syriac lexicography, both with new or rare words and with words that assume slightly different meanings. An example of the latter is the rather frequent use of the verb √‫( ܐܪܙ‬paʿʿel) with the meaning “to convey, to instruct”. 16 1079 F

-

IV, 17: 199: ‫“ ܘܢܚܙܐ ܕܡܢܐ ܡܐܪܙ ܠܢ ܡܛܠܗܕܐ ܫܠܝܚܝܐ ܐܬܢܣܝܘܣ‬And let us see what apostolic Athanasios instructs us on this (topic)”; comp. 69: 142 (‫“ ܐܪܙ ܠܢ‬he instructed us”, i.e., Cyril of Alexandria); 255: 25; 335: 24 (‫“ ܐܪܙܘ ܘܐܠܦܘ‬they instructed and taught”).

Sebastian P. Brock, Review of Ebied, Van Roey, and Wickham, Petri Callinicensis, in The Journal of Theological Studies 56.2 (2005), 702–6, especially 704–5. 14 Daniel King, The Syriac Versions of the Writings of Cyril of Alexandria. A Study in Translation Technique (Louvain: 2008), 248–9 and 279–80 briefly refers to the discussion on the original language of the Treatise against Damian. 15 In the present paper, references will be limited to the fourth and final volume of the edition of the Treatise (IV: CCSG 54, 2003). The focus will be on Peter’s narrative sections; when a passage is part of a quotation, from either Damian or patristic authors, this will be specifically mentioned. 16 For common meanings of the verb, see Michael Sokoloff, A Syriac Lexicon. A Translation from the Latin, Correction, Expansion and Update of Carl Brockelmann’s Lexicon Syriacum (Winona Lake, IN/Piscataway, NJ: 2009), 97a. The shift in meaning may have been inspired by the various meanings of Greek μυσταγωγεῖν; cf. Geoffrey W.H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon, 4th edn.. (Oxford: 1976), 890b. 13

PETER OF KALLINIKOS AND THE SYRIAC LANGUAGE -

315

Nouns based on the same root include ‫( ܡܐܪܙܢܘܬܐ‬e.g., ‫“ ܡܐܪܙܢܘܬܐ ܚܬܝܬܬܐ‬precise instruction”: 359: 339) and ‫“ ܡܐܪܙܢܐ‬teacher” (449: 84).

Of a different nature is the use of words built on the root √ ‫ܦܠܣܪ‬, which is ultimately of Latin origin. The root is attested in Classical Syriac, 17 but is used with greater frequency in the Treatise. 108F

-

‫‘ ܦܠܣܪ‬he falsified’

IV, 95: 126; 97: 161; 245: 132 and 151; 253: 235; 309: 236.

-

‫‘ ܦܠܣܪܐ‬falsifying’ or ‘falsifier’

IV, 107: 307-308 (‫“ ܐܝܕܗ ܦܠܣܪܬܐ‬his ̇ falsifying hand”); 301: 146 (‫ܦܠܣܪܗ‬ ‫“ ܕܘܝܐ‬its miserable falsifier”).

-

‫‘ ܦܠܣܪܘܬܐ‬falsification’

IV, 87: 29; 97: 170; 103: 257 ̈ (‫ܥܠܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܡܟܡܥܬ ܒܝܬ‬ ‫“ )ܦܠܣܪܘܬܟ‬your falsificạ tion that lies in wait at altars”, or “sacrilegious”, comp. βωμολόχος); 18 109: 320; 301: 148; 321: 2; plur. (‫ )ܦܠܣ̈ܪܘܬܐ‬87: 35; 245: 142.

The Treatise uses some noteworthy diminutives, reflecting its polemical nature. -

‫“ ܓܒ̈ܪܘܣܐ‬little men” 19

-

‫“ ܡܠܘܣܬܐ‬small word” 20

-

‫“ ܬܫܒܚܘܢܝܬܐ‬small glory” 22

1082F

IV, 7: 77 (quoting Gregory of Nyssa’s Contra Eunomium, PG 45, 676B: ἀνθρωπίσκοι). ̈ IV, 109: 318; 301: 153; plur. (‫)ܡܠܘܣܝܬܐ‬ 31: 407 (used by Damian); 99: 198; 279: 315; 429: 245 (quoting Cyril’s De recta fide). 21 ̈ plur. (‫)ܬܫܒܚܘܢܝܬܐ‬ IV, 87: 36 ̈ ̇ ‫ܝܗܘܕܝܬܐ‬ ̈ ‫)ܬܫܒܚܘܢܝܬܐ‬ (‫ܕܗܘ ܠܘܒܝܐ‬ “the small Jewish glories of that Libyan, i.e., Sabellius”); 455: 154 (of Eunomius).

Sokoloff, A Syriac Lexicon, 1202b. Lampe, Patristic Greek Lexicon, 1470a, lists φάλσευμα, φαλσεύω, φάλσος. A more likely intermediary between Latin and Syriac would be φαλσάριος, as suggested by Sokoloff. 18 Compare the same phrase, applied to men deserving anathema, in Ernest W. Brooks, The Sixth Book of the Select Letters of Severus, 1, part 1 (London: 1902), 225, 17–8, 2, part 1 (1903), 202 (the Syriac translation of the letters dates from 669 C.E.). 19 Sokoloff, A Syriac Lexicon, 202b (both ‫ ܓܒܪܘܣܐ‬and ‫ ܓܒܪܘܢܐ‬are attested). 20 Sokoloff, A Syriac Lexicon, 766a. 21 See King, The Syriac Versions, 185–6. Cyril’s Greek original reads: κεκομψευμένων ῥημάτων φενακισμός “the cheating of refined words”, which the Syriac translator of ms. BL Add. 14,557 ̈ ‫“ ܨܕܘܐ‬the mockery of garrulous words.” ̈ (perhaps Rabbula of Edessa) renders as ‫ܦܩܩܬܐ‬ ‫ܕܡܠܐ‬ Since nothing in the Greek original or in the early Syriac translation seems to prompt the use of a diminutive, this could be Peter’s or his translator’s own rendering. 22 Sokoloff, A Syriac Lexicon, 1673b. 17

316

LUCAS VAN ROMPAY

An interesting example of a rare adjective is ‫“ ܒܪܘܬܢܝܐ‬related to the Son” 23 (IV, 337: 65 and 341: 107), which renders υἱικός in a quotation from Ps.-Dionysios the Areopagite (Divine Names II. 1). The word is not used in Sergios of Reshʿayna’s translation, but does occur in the later translation by Phokas 24 (our passage has very few agreements with either of these translations). This may thus be an ad hoc translation by Peter, his translator, or a sixth-century predecessor. 1087F

FORMATION OF ADVERBS

It is not unexpected that a Syriac text from the late sixth century, either a Syriac composition or a text translated from Greek, would exhibit a high number of adverbs, marked with the ending -āʾit. 25 Many of them are interesting. Consider, e.g., Damian’s usage, as rendered by Peter (or his translator), of the adverb ‫“ ܐܒܗܐܝܬ‬in a fatherly way”, with the specific meaning of “patristically, according to the Church Fathers.” 26 Peter, in one of his letters to Damian—which may reflect his own words or the rendering of a translator—uses ‫“ ܐܪܣܛܛܠܐܝܬ‬in Aristotelian fashion” (with a negative connotation). 27 Adverbial compounds consisting of the construct state of a noun and an adverb can also be considered. In this particular usage, the ending -āʾit is not limited to the second component, but by means of the construct state it adverbializes the whole phrase. 28 Such formations have been known for a long time. Jacob of Edessa uses ‫ ܦܐܝܘܬ ܐܠܗܐܝܬ‬to render the Greek compound θεοπρεπῶς “in a manner befitting God” and ‫ ܦܐܝܘܬ ܐܢܫܐܝܬ‬for ἀνθρωποπρεπῶς “in a manner befitting humans” in his revision of the Cathedral Homilies of Severos of Antioch. In a 1983 paper, Sebastian Brock drew attention to the occurrence of the same rendering of ἀνθρωποπρεπῶς in Phokas 109F

Sokoloff, A Syriac Lexicon, 187b, does not list the adjective, but includes the adverb ‫“ ܒܪܘܬܢܐܝܬ‬with the title of son”. 24 Greek (PG 3, 637B): τῆς θεογόνου θεότητος, ἢ τῆς υἱικῆς; Peter: ‫ܡܛܠ ܐܠܗܘܬܐ ܿܡܢ ܝܠܘܕܬܐ ܐܘ‬ ‫ ; ܒܪܘܬܢܝܬܐ‬Sergios: ‫ ; ܥܠ ܐܠܗܘܬܐ ܓܝܪ ݁ܝܠܘܕܬܐ ܘܝܠܝܕܬܐ‬Phokas: ‫ ܐܘ ܥܠ ̇ܗܝ ܒܪܘܬܢܝܬܐ‬. . . (the first part is different). See Emiliano Fiori, Dionigi Areopagita. Nomi Divini, Teologia mistica, Epistole. La versione siriaca di Sergio di Rēšʿaynā (VI secolo) (Louvain: 2014), 14 (text); 24 (translation). 25 On this, see Aaron M. Butts, “The Etymology and Derivation of the Syriac Adverbial Ending -ɔʾiθ”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 69 (2010), 79–86. 26 E.g., Treatise, IV, 59: 15; 61: 37; 73: 187; 91: 97; 107: 293. Peter speaks of the ‫ܓܘܕܐ ܐܒܗܝܬܐ‬ “the choir of the (Church) Fathers” (81: 290–91) and the ‫“ ܢܝܪܐ ܐܒܗܝܐ‬the yoke of the (Church) Fathers” (85: 24). 27 Ebied, Van Roey, and Wickham, Peter of Callinicum, 85, 15 (text); 57, 24–25 (translation). 28 These expressions are different from the use of an adverb qualifying the lead component in a construct chain, mostly an adjective or a participle; for this, see Theodor Nöldeke, ̈ “(those) living Kurzgefasste syrische Grammatik, 2nd ed. (Leipzig: 1898), § 207, e.g., ‫ܚܝܝ ܒܝܫܐܝܬ‬ badly”. 23

PETER OF KALLINIKOS AND THE SYRIAC LANGUAGE

317

of Edessa’s translation of Ps.-Dionysios the Areopagite. 29 In these two cases it can be shown that these specific renderings are latecomers in Syriac. Indeed, both for Phokas’ and Jacob’s translation, there are earlier stages in the translation process, where a different rendering has been chosen. For Dionysios, Brock points out that Phokas’ sixth-century predecessor, Sergios of Reshʿayna, translates ἀνθρωποπρεπῶς with ‫“ ܐܝܟ ܕܦܐܐ ܗܘܐ ܠܐܢܫܘܬܗ‬as it befitted his humanity.” 30 For Severos’ Homilies, reference can be made to the evidence of the earlier, sixthcentury translation (perhaps to be attributed to Paul of Kallinikos): 1093F

Severos of Antioch, Hom. 109. -

Greek: 31 (How can I separate the Spirit) ἐκείνου παρ’οὗ θεοπρεπῶς ἐκπορεύεται “from the one from whom He proceeds in a manner befitting God?” Sixth-cent. translation: 32 ‫“ ܡܢ ܿܗܘ ܕܡܢܗ ܐܝܟ ܕܦܐܐ ܠܐܠܗܐ ܿܢܦܩ‬from the one from whom as befits God He proceeds?” Jacob of Edessa: 33 ‫“ ܡܢ ܿܗܘ ܕܡܢܗ ܦܐܝܘܬ ܐܠܗܐܝܬ ܿܢܦܩ‬from the one from whom He God-befittingly proceeds?”

Severos of Antioch, Hom. 80. -

Greek: 34 τὰς λέξεις ἀνθρωποπρεπῶς εἰρημένας “expressions said in a manner befitting humans.” ̈ Sixth-cent. translation: 35 ‫ܡܠܐ ܕܐܢܫܐܝܬ ܐܡܝ̈ܪܢ‬ ‫“ ܠܗܠܝܢ‬those words that are said in a human way”. ̈ Jacob of Edessa: 36 ‫ܠܡܠܐ ܗܠܝܢ ܕܦܐܝܘܬ ܐܢܫܐܝܬ ܐܡܝ̈ܪܢ‬ “those words that are said human-befittingly.”

It is clear that the earlier translators, Sergios and the first translator of Severos’ Homilies, both working in the first half of the sixth century, shied away from creating

Sebastian P. Brock, “Towards a History of Syriac Translation Technique” in IIIo Symposium Syriacum 1980, René Lavenant, ed. (Rome: 1983), 13. For a fuller discussion, see Sebastian P. Brock, “Some Remarks on the Use of the Construct in Classical Syriac” in Built on Solid Rock. Studies in Honour of E. E. Knudsen on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday April 11th 1997, Elie Wardini, ed. (Oslo: 1997), 56–7. 30 Brock, “Towards a History”, 13. 31 The Greek original is preserved in a Catena fragment: Françoise Petit, La chaîne sur l’Exode, I. Fragments de Sévère d’Antioche (Louvain: 1999), no. 107, 20: 43–4. 32 The earlier translation is preserved in ms. Vat. Syr. 143 (dated 563), f. 49vb. 33 Maurice Brière, Les Homiliae Cathedrales de Sévère d’Antioche. Traduction syriaque de Jacques d’Édesse. Homélies CIV à CXII (Paris: 1942), 743 [237], 4–5. 34 Françoise Petit, Sévère d’Antioche. Fragments grecs tirés des chaînes sur les derniers livres de l’Octateuque et sur les Règnes (Louvain: 2006), no. 13, 92: 1. 35 The earlier translation is preserved in ms. Vat. Syr. 142 (before 576), f. 35ra. 36 Maurice Brière, Les Homiliae Cathedrales de Sévère d’Antioche. Traduction syriaque de Jacques d’Édesse. Homélies LXXVIII à LXXXIII (Paris: 1927), 335 [169], 9. 29

318

LUCAS VAN ROMPAY

formal equivalents for Greek adverbial compounds. 37 In Peter’s Treatise, ‫ܦܐܝܘܬ‬ ‫ ܐܠܗܐܝܬ‬occurs in a quotation from Cyril of Alexandria’s Commentary on John (IV, 67: 114 and 75: 210). 38 That he or his translator was fond of the same adverbial formation is shown by the use of the following expression, not all of which can be traced back to Greek models. 10F

-

‫“ ܒܝܫܘܬ ܐܘܡܢܐܝܬ‬with an evil method” (κακοτέχνως?): IV, 445: 2. ‫“ ܢܦܝܚܘܬ ܐܠܗܐܝܬ‬in a divinely inspired manner” (θεοπνευστῶς): IV, 15: 191; 137: 337; 349: 210; 367: 432-3; 375: 536; 409: 323. ‫“ ܣܥܘܪܘܬ ܒܝܫܐܝܬ‬in an evil-acting manner”: IV, 61: 45; 309: 236. ‫“ ܦܐܝܘܬ ܟܗܢܐܝܬ‬in a manner befitting priests” (ἱεροπρεπῶς?): IV, 285: 375. 39 ‫“ ܨܢܝܥܘܬ ܒܝܫܐܝܬ‬in a maliciously evil manner” (κακουργῶς?) 40: IV, 155: 95; 235: 4; 367: 424-5; 43: 81 (preceded by ‫) ݁ܣܓܝ‬. 102F

‘BIDDING FAREWELL’

One of the most famous lexical calques 41 from Greek into Syriac is the greeting formula χαίρειν, rendered into Syriac as ‫( ܠܡܚܕܐ‬literally: ‘to rejoice’), in the first place by scholars and translators trained at the Monastery of Qenneshre over the course of the seventh century. 42 There is evidence that Peter or his translator adopted the same 105F

To the two passages quoted here, evidence from Severos’ Hom. 77 may be added. The earlier translator renders θεοπρεπῶς as ‫ܐܝܟ ܕܦܐܐ ܠܐܠܗܐ‬, whereas Jacob of Edessa uses ‫ܦܐܝܘܬ‬ ‫ ; ܐܠܗܐܝܬ‬see Marc-Antoine Kugener and Edgar Triffaux, Les Homiliae Cathedrales de Sévère d’Antioche. Homélie LXXVII (Paris: 1922), 801 [41], 8 and 9. As for the Syriac Homilies of Gregory of Nazianzus, in Hom. 31.30, both S1 and S2 render πολυθέως (PG 36, 168C) with ‫ ; ܣܓܝܐܘܬ ܐܠܗܐܝܬ‬see Jean-Claude Haelewyck, Sancti Gregorii Nazianzeni Opera. Versio Syriaca, IV (Turnhout/Leuven: 2007), 396, 20 and 397, 20. In Hom. 40.13, however, S2 renders μεγαλοπρεπῶς (PG 376A) with ‫ܪܒܘܬ ܦܐܝܐܝܬ‬, while S1 uses a prepositional clause with a different construct chain: ‫‘ ܒܪܒܘܬ ܦܐܝܘܬܐ‬in greatness of seemliness’; see Jean-Claude Haelewyck, Sancti Gregorii Nazianzeni Opera. Versio Syriaca, I (Turnhout: 2001), 46,14 and 47,13–4. 38 Whether it was Peter’s, or his translator’s, own renderings or whether an existing translation was used is unknown. The Greek original of the present fragment has not been preserved. 39 The Simtho database provides one occurrence of the same adverbial compound in Dionysios bar Salibi’s Commentary on the liturgy. See Jérôme Labourt, Dionysius bar Salibi. Expositio liturgiae (Paris: 1903), 75. 40 The phrase ‫ ܒܝܫܘܬ ܨܢܝܥܘܬܐ‬renders κακουργία in Jacob of Edessa’s translation of Hom. 77 of Severos of Antioch; see Kugener and Triffaux, Les Homiliae Cathedrales de Sévère d’Antioche. Homélie LXXVII, 815, 14. The same Greek term is translated by ‫ ܣܥܘܪܘܬ ܒܝܫܘܬܐ‬in Hom. 40. 21 of Gregorius of Nazianzus; see Haelewyck, Sancti Gregorii Nazianzeni Opera. Versio Syriaca, I. 82, 10 (S1). 41 For this type of contact-induced change on the lexical-syntactic level, see Aaron M. Butts, Language Change in the Wake of Empire. Syriac in Its Greco-Roman Context (Winona Lake, IN: 2016), 46 and 149–150. 42 Jack Tannous, The Making of the Medieval Middle East. Religion, Society and Simple Believers (Princeton: 2018), 174–6; Brock, “Charting the Hellenization”, 99. 37

PETER OF KALLINIKOS AND THE SYRIAC LANGUAGE

319

practice and thus may be among its earliest users. Three passages deserve further scrutiny. The first is in a quotation from Gregory of Nazianzus’ Homily 31. -

Greek (PG 36, 172A): ἔδοξέ μοι κράτιστον εἶναι τὰς μὲν εἰκóνας χαίρειν ἐᾶσαι καὶ τὰς σκιάς “It seemed best to me to let go the images and the shadows.” 43 ̈ ܵ ‫ …“ ܫܦܪܬ ܠܝ܆ ܕܐܚܝܕܬܐ ܐܝܬܝ ܿܗ܆‬that I would let S1: 44 . . . ‫ܕܨܠܡܐ ̇ܐܪܦܐ ܒܫܠܡܐ܆ ܘܛܠܢܝܬܐ‬ go in peace … .” ̈ ܿ ܵ ‫ܐܝܬܝܗ܆‬ S2: . . . ‫ܕܨܠܡܐ ܿܡܢ ܐܪܦܐ ܠܡܚܕܐ ܘܠܛܠܢܝܬܐ‬ ‫ …“ ܐܬܚܙܝܬ ܠܝ ܕܐܚܝܕܬܐ‬that I would bid farewell … .” Peter, Treatise (IV, 357: 302-3): ‫ܫܦܪܬ ܠܝ ܕܡܫܪܪܬܐ ܐܝܬܝ ܿܗ܆ ܕܝܘ ̈ܩܢܐ ܿܡܢ ̇ܐܪܦܐ ̇ܚܕܝܢ‬ ܼ ̈ . . . ‫ …“ ܘܛܠܢܝܬܐ‬that I would bid farewell (or: “let rejoice”) 45 … .” 108F

Even while Peter was not familiar with Paul of Edessa’s translation (S2), he made the same choice as Paul in providing a literal rendering of χαίρειν. The earlier translation (S1), which Peter or his translator in all likelihood did know, offers a dynamic equivalent, based on the Syriac greeting formula using ‫ܫܠܡܐ‬. The next two relevant passages are part of Peter’s quotations from Theodosios of Alexandria’s Theological Discourse. Its Greek original, composed between 560 C.E. and 564 C.E., has not been preserved, but two Syriac translations are extant. One translation is to be found in a collection of documents pertaining to the history and theology of the Miaphysites, which is preserved in ms. BL Add. 14,602 (6th or 7th cent.) edited by Jean-Baptiste Chabot. 46 A different translation exists in ms. BL Add. 12,155 (8th cent.), ff. 246r–255r, edited by Albert Van Roey and Pauline Allen. 47 Theodosios, ed. Chabot. -

41: 15–16: . . . ‫“ ܟܕ ܡܫܬܐܠܝܢܢ ܡܢ ܗܢܘܢ‬while we refrain (or ‘excuse ourselves’) from these (people who readily weave cobwebs).” ̈ 66: 9–10: ‫ܡܬܟܢܫܘܬܐ ܕܕܐܝܟ ܗܠܝܢ‬ ‫“ ܟܕ ܡܫܬܐܠܝܢ ܚܢܢ ܡܢ‬while we refrain (or ‘excuse ourselves’) from conclusions such as these.”

Theodosios, ed. Van Roey and Allen. -

149: 28: . . . ‫“ ܟܕ ܫܒܩܝܢܢ ܒܫܠܡܐ ܠܗܠܝܢ‬while we say ‘farewell’ to those (people who readily weave cobwebs).” ̈ ‫“ ܟܕ ܢܦܘܫܘܢ ܒܫܠܡܐ ܐܡܪܝܢܢ ܠܗܠܝܢ‬while we say ‘farewell’ to these 172:51–2: ‫ܟܘܢܫܐ‬ deductions (or: “that they should stay in peace”).”

For the combination ἐᾶν χαίρειν (τινά), see Henry G. Liddell and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: 1996), 1970 (III, 2, c). 44 For S1 and S2, see Haelewyck, Sancti Gregorii Nazianzeni Opera. Versio Syriaca, IV, 402–3. 45 The form ‫ ̇ܚܕܝܢ‬should probably be read as a plural participle. 46 Jean-Baptiste Chabot, Documenta ad origines monophysitarum illustrandas (Paris: 1907). 47 Albert Van Roey and Pauline Allen, Monophysite Texts of the Sixth Century (Louvain: 1994). 43

320

LUCAS VAN ROMPAY

Peter, Treatise. -

IV, 387: 26–7: . . . ‫“ ܟܕ ܚܕܘ ܐܡܪܝܢ ܚܢܢ ܠ ܿܗܢܘܢ‬while we say ‘farewell’ (‘rejoice!’) to these … .” ̈ ‫“ ܟܕ ܚܕܘ ܐܡܪܝܢܢ ܠܟܘܢ‬while we say ‘farewell’ (‘reIV, 285: 385–6: ‫ܫܐ ܕܐܝܟ ܗܠܝܢ‬ joice!’) to such deductions.”

The first passage, in the earlier translation of Gregory’s Homilies (S1), has a clear echo of the Syriac greeting formula (based on ‫‘ ܫܠܡܐ‬peace’), while Paul’s translation (S2) as well as the rendering in Peter’s Treatise adopt the innovative greeting formula (based on Greek ‘rejoice!’). In the two passages from Theodosios, the translation edited by Chabot translates the Greek expression ad sensum. The other translation, edited by Van Roey and Allen, keeps the greeting formula, but offers a dynamic equivalent of the Greek expression. The rendering in Peter’s Treatise goes one step further and uses a semantic equivalent of the Greek expression. If Peter or his translator took the initiative for this change, they joined company with Thomas of Ḥarkel and Paul of Edessa who, around the same time or a few years later, introduced similar expressions into their translation work.

THE STRUCTURE -‫ ܐܝܬ ܠ‬WITH AN ADVERB

It is well known that the structure consisting of the existential expression ‫ ܐܝܬ‬and the preposition lamadh with a pronominal suffix attached to it is commonly used in Syriac to render the Greek verb ἔχειν ‘to have’. The subject of the Greek clause is expressed in Syriac with lamadh; the Greek object is the grammatical subject in Syriac: ‘he has a book’ > ‘a book is to him’. 48 The equivalence of Greek ἔχειν and Syriac -‫ܐܝܬ ܠ‬, well established in the Syriac language from an early date, allowed the Syriac structure to be used in different contexts in which ἔχειν occurs. One such extension is the intransitive use of the Greek verb with an adverb of manner, e.g., καλῶς ἔχει “it is going well.” 49 Using the equivalence ἔχειν = -‫ܐܝܬ ܠ‬, Syriac created a new grammatical structure, which is a replication of the Greek structure. 50 The preposition lamadh marks the Greek subject, which may be a real subject or an impersonal one. This specific structure always requires the preposition. ̇ ‫(“ ̇ܗܝ‬the fact) that he thinks that it is well” 51: IV, 29: 373– ܿ ‫ܕܣܒܪ ܕܫܦܝܪܐܝܬ ܐܝܬ‬ - ‫ܠܗ‬ 1F

13F

4.

14F

See Daniel King, The Earliest Syriac Translation of Aristotle’s Categories (Leiden: 2010), 166– 9 (text) and 252 (commentary) for an interesting discussion of ἔχειν in Aristotle’s Categories XV and the various Syriac translations, the earliest of which may be traced back to the middle of the sixth century. 49 Liddell and Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, 750b. 50 For terminological and theoretical issues, see Butts, Language Change, 144–7 and 158–64. 51 Alternatively, the pronoun may refer back to the subject of the preceding sentence ̈ ‫)ܢܩܝܦܘܬܐ‬, i.e., “he thinks that the connection of the words is (going) well.” (‫ܕܡܠܐ‬ 48

PETER OF KALLINIKOS AND THE SYRIAC LANGUAGE -

321

‫“ ܗܟܢܐ ܕܝܢ ܐܝܬ ܠܗܝܢ‬they (i.e., his words) are as follows”: IV, 43: 92; 291: 33–4; ̇ ‫“ )ܕܐܝܬ‬for it (i.e., his word) is as follows.” 52 compare 155: 119 (‫ܠܗ ܗܟܢܐ‬ ‫“ ܠܘܬ ܐܢܫ ܡܥܕܪܢܐ ܕܝܠܝ ܒܥܠܕܒܒܐܝܬ ܐܝܬ ܗܘܐ ܠܗ‬to a benefactor of mine he was hostile”: IV, 7: 79 (quoting Gregory of Nyssa’s Contra Eunomium, PG 45, 676BC: πρὸς τὸν εὐεργέτην εἶχε τὸν ἐμὸν δυσμενῶς). 15F

-

This new structure, replicated on the Greek, shows some superficial similarities with a different Syriac construction in which an adverb may be used with ‫ ܐܝܬ‬plus a pronominal suffix. 53 An example of the latter, quoted by Nöldeke, is Peshitta Deut. 13:14: ‫“ ܐܢ ܫܪܝܪܐܝܬ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܦܬܓܡܐ‬if the word stands firmly.” 54 The same structure is found in the following translation of a line of Cyril’s De recta fide in Theodosios of Alexandria’s Theological Discourse, edited by Van Roey and Allen: 55 17F

18F

-

Greek: ἐκ τε τῆς καθ’ ἡμᾶς ἀνθρωπότητος τελείως ἐχούσης “from the humanity of ours, which is perfect (in his opinion).” ܿ Theodosios (ed. Van Roey and Allen, 1): 56 ‫ܐܝܬܝܗ‬ ‫ܡܢ ܐܢܫܘܬܐ ܕܝܠܢ ܕܡܫܡܠܝܐܝܬ‬ “from our humanity, which is perfect.”

A different translation, however, occurs in two other translations of the same Theological Discourse. One is found among the Documenta edited by Chabot; the other in an incomplete translation also edited by Van Roey and Allen. Both renderings are nearly identical. ܿ ‫ ܕܡܫܡܠܝܐܝܬ ܐܝܬ‬:‫“ ܡܢ ܐܢܫܘܬܐ ܕܠܘܬܢ‬from the hu- Theodosios (ed. Chabot): 57 ‫ܠܗ‬ -

manity of ours, which is perfect.” Theodosios (ed. Van Roey and Allen, 2): 58 ‫ܡܢ ܐܢܫܘܬܐ ܕܝܠܢ ܕܡܫܡܠܝܐܝܬ ܐܝܬ ܠܗ‬ “from our humanity, which is perfect.”

The structure found in these two quotations is identical to the one, replicated on the Greek, which was encountered in Peter’s Treatise, both in his narrative sections and in (at least) one quotation. It is clear, therefore, that both structures, the ‘traditional’ Interestingly, in the negative expression (with ‫)ܠܝܬ‬, the preposition with pronominal suffix may be absent: ‫“ ܠܝܬ ܗܟܢܐ‬it is not so” (IV, 347: 174, quoting Athanasios). 53 Nöldeke, Kurzgefasste syrische Grammatik, § 308. 54 A further example of the same structure may be found in Hom. 40.4 of Gregory of Nazianzus (PG 36, 361B): (those who are in love have the habit of) ἡδέως συνεῖναι καὶ τοῖς ὀνόμασιν “of pleasantly conversing (liter.: “being together”) also by (using) names”. Both S1 and S2 have the same translation, even though the verbal forms are different, S1: ‫ܕܗܢܝܐܝܬ ܢܗܘܘܢ ܐܝܬܝܗܘܢ‬ ‫ ; ܘܥܡ ̈ܫܡܗܐ‬S2: ‫( ܕܗܢܝܐܝܬ ܗܘܘ ܐܝܬܝܗܘܢ ܘܥܡ ܫܡ ̈ܗܐ‬the notion of togetherness seems to have been lost in Syriac); see Haelewyck, Sancti Gregorii Nazianzeni Opera. Versio Syriaca, I: 10, 6 and 11, 6. 55 For the following discussion, see King, The Syriac Versions of the Writings of Cyril of Alexandria, 179–82. 56 Van Roey and Allen, Monophysite Texts, 180, 26–7 (ms. BL Add. 12,155, f. 254ra). 57 Chabot, Documenta ad origines monophysitarum illustrandas, 74, 12–13. 58 Van Roey and Allen, Monophysite Texts, 210, 26 (ms. BL Add. 14,541, f. 44ra). The absence of a dot on the final hē may be due to oversight. 52

322

LUCAS VAN ROMPAY

one and the new one, coexisted in the sixth century. 59 The minimal difference beܿ ‫ )ܐܝܬ‬may have contributed to the actween the two (in the example: ‫ ܐܝܬܝ ܿܗ‬vs. ‫ܠܗ‬ ceptance of the innovation. The structure -‫ ܐܝܬ ܠ‬with an adverb, adopted by Peter or by his translator, gained in popularity in the course of the seventh century, being found in Jacob of Edessa’s translation of Severos’ Cathedral Homilies. 60 123F

̇ THE VERBAL STRUCTURE ‫ ܢܗܘܐ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ‬/ ‫ܐܝܬܝܗ‬ ‫ ܬܗܘܐ‬/ ‫ܢܗܘܘܢ ܐܝܬܝܗܘܢ‬

This structure can be traced back to the early period of Syriac literature. In Ephrem’s ܿ Commentary on Genesis, ‫ܐܝܬܝܗ‬ ‫ ܕܬܗܘܐ‬and ‫ ܕܢܗܘܐ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ‬are used in subordinate clauses, with the meaning ‘(so) that it would exist’. 61 In the early Syriac translation of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, ‫ ܕܢܗܘܐ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ‬likewise means ‘(so) that it would exist’ or ‘to existing / into existence’, rendering the Greek εἰς τὸ εἶναι. The addition of a conjugated form of hwā allows (‫ ܐܝܬ)ܘܗܝ‬to be conjugated. In the following centuries, the use of this specific structure developed further, in particular in translation literature. In Peter’s Treatise, the structure occurs both with the meaning of ‘existing’ or ‘being’ and as part of a nominal clause with a predicate. ‘Existing’ or ‘being’. -

-

-

̇ ‫“ ܐܚܪܬܐ ܗܝ ܓܝܪ ܿܗܝ ܕܢܗܘܐ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܡܕܡ ܘܢܫܬܡܗ ܐܝܟ ܫܘܘܕܥܗ‬It is different for something to exist and to be called according to its signification”: IV, 5: 38 (quoting Damian). ܿ ‫ܟܕ ܠܐ ܣܟ ܿܡܢ ܡܪܢܐܝܬ ܐܝܬ ܠܗ ̇ܗܝ ܕܢܗܘܐ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ܇‬ .‫ܒܗܝ ܕܝܢ ܕܡܫ ܼܘܬܦ ܒ ܿܗܘ ܕܡܪܢܐܝܬ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ‬ “while he does not at all have existence (lit.: “the fact that he exists”) in the proper sense, because he participates in him who exists in the proper sense”: IV, 183: 192–4. ܿ ‫“ ܿܗܝ ܕܡܪܢܐܝܬ ܬܗܘܐ ܐܝܬ‬he testifies that (the godhead that he fabricated) ‫ܝܗ ܡ ܼܣܗܕ‬ exists in the proper sense”: IV, 203: 466.

Nominal clause. -

̈ ‫“ ܢܩܢܐ ܟܠ ܚܕ ܡܢ ܬܠܬܐ ܩܢܘ‬each of the three hypostases ‫ܡܐ ܿܗܝ ܕܢܗܘܐ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܐܠܗܐ‬ would acquire 62 (it) to be God”: IV, 21: 266–7. Note that in a similar context, talking about the ousia, ‫ ̇ܗܝ ܕܬܗܘܐ ܐܠܗܐ‬is used (IV, 23: 295–6).

The same structure is found already in the earliest translation of Severos’ Cathedral Homilies. E.g., Hom. 109: Greek in Petit, La chaîne sur l’Exode, 18: 16–18: (each of the three hypostases,) ἀμίκτως μὲν ἔχοντα ‘being unmixed’; ms. Vat. Syr. 143 (dated 563), f. 49va: ‫ܕܠܐ ܚܠܝܛܐܝܬ ܿܡܢ ܐܝܬ‬ ‫ܠܗ‬. 60 Van Rompay, “Les versions syriaques”, in Petit, La chaîne sur l’Exode, 119, note 22. 61 For references to Ephrem and Eusebius, see Lucas Van Rompay, “Some Preliminary Remarks on the Origins of Classical Syriac as a Standard Language: The Syriac Version of Eusebius of Caesarea’s Ecclesiastical History” in Semitic and Cushitic Studies, Gideon Goldenberg and Shlomo Raz, eds (Wiesbaden: 1994), 84–5. 62 Note that ‫ ܢܩܥܐ‬needs to be corrected to ‫ܢܩܢܐ‬. 59

PETER OF KALLINIKOS AND THE SYRIAC LANGUAGE -

-

-

323

̈ ̈ ‫ܫܡܗܐ ܗܠܝܢ ܢܗܘܘܢ ܐܝܬܝܗܘܢ܇‬ ‫ܘܫܘܝܝ‬ ‫“ ܡܢܐ ܓܝܪ ܿܟܠܐ܇‬what prevents these from being ̣ homonyms?”: IV, 55: 266-7 (quoting Gregory of Nazianzus’ Hom. 29.14, PG 36, 92B: Τί γὰρ κωλύει ... καὶ ὁμώνυμα ταῦτα εἶναι 63). ‫(“ ܡܢ ܿܗܝ ܕܣܟ ܢܗܘܐ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܐܠܗܐ ܐܘ ܐܘܣܝܐ ܐܘ ܟܝܢܐ ܡ ܿܫܠܚ‬someone who) deprives him from being at all God, or an ousia or a nature”: IV, 191: 306–7. A few lines further down, in a similar context ‫ ̇ܗܝ ܕܠܐ ܣܟ ܢܗܘܐ ܐܠܗܐ ܘܐܘܣܝܐ ܘܟܝܢܐ‬is used (IV, 191: 318–9). ܿ ‫“ ܡܢ ܿܗܝ ܕܢܗܘܘܢ ܐܝܬܝܗܘܢ ܩܢܘ ̈ܡܐ‬he will alienate them from being hypostases”: ‫ܢܢܟܪܐ‬ IV, 219: 133–4. ܿ ‫“ ̇ܗܝ ܕܕܠܐ ܪܝܫܐ ܢܗܘܐ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܠܐ ܐܝܬ‬to be without beginning is not (his) ‫ܝܗ ܟܝܢܐ‬ nature”: IV, 447: 44.

The structure consisting of ‫ ܢܗܘܐ‬and an added (‫ ܐܝܬ)ܘܗܝ‬may specifically mark the meaning ‘existing, being’ as opposed to ‘becoming’ (which the simple form ‫ܢܗܘܐ‬ might have). The occurrence, however, of parallel passages with and without (‫ ܐܝܬ)ܘܗܝ‬suggests that the marking, depending on the context, was not always felt to be necessary. In Peter’s narrative sections, the addition is not used frequently, and it seems to occur more often in the quotations. Jacob of Edessa, in his revision of the Cathedral Homilies of Severos of Antioch, appears to use this structure much more frequently and in a more systematic way than is the case in the sixth-century translation. 64 As for the Homilies of Gregory of Nazianzus, while Paul of Edessa (S2) uses the structure more frequently than S1, it is not absent from the earlier translation either. More work needs to be done to determine Peter’s or his translator’s place in this development. 127F

PROVISIONAL CONCLUSIONS

It is disappointing not to know whether we have in our hands the Syriac original of Peter of Kallinikos’ Treatise against Damian or a Syriac translation of the Greek original. From its contents, it is clear that the Treatise was addressed to Peter’s own constituency. Damian is present on every page of the Treatise, but he is almost always spoken of in the third person. 65 Peter wants to convince his supporters and possible doubters, and warn them against the traps of Damian’s theology. His massive assault on Damian makes it unlikely that he thought only of an audience able to read Greek. Either he wrote it in Syriac, or he envisaged right from the beginning that his Greek text would be translated into Syriac. The question of the original language remains a vexing one, but it does not necessarily affect the immediate impact and the reception of the Treatise, if it can be assumed that this work, either in Greek or in Syriac,

Both S1 and S2 have the same structure: Haelewyck, Sancti Gregorii Nazianzeni Opera. Versio Syriaca, IV: 184, 4–5 and 185, 4–6. 64 Van Rompay, “Les versions syriaques”, 119–21. 65 Damian was of Syriac origin and, in all likelihood, was able to read Syriac as well as Greek; see Brock, in his review, Journal of Theological Studies 56.2 (2005), 704. However, that still does not mean that the Treatise was written primarily for him. 63

324

LUCAS VAN ROMPAY

reflects the historical context of the Syriac-Orthodox community in the last decades of the sixth and possibly the first decade of the seventh century. In such a context, that the translation (of an originally Greek text) would have been made much later, as a scholastic exercise, divorced from its original context, appears to be extremely unlikely. In Peter’s day, Syriac Christians, or at least the learned among them, were familiar with a huge body of Greek patristic writings. Some of these continued to be read in Greek; others circulated in multiple Syriac translations. As both the literary taste and the need for theological precision changed over time, there was a continuous process of revision and adjustment. Would it go too far to speculate that Peter, who was fluent in both Greek and Syriac and preoccupied with the exact interpretation of Greek patristic writings, was an active participant in this process? It may be assumed that he was in conversation with contemporary translators and that he was familiar with existing translations and with current projects of translation and revision. For his Treatise, he and possibly his translator had access to the Greek originals as well as to Syriac translations and revisions in progress. And, isn’t this what we see reflected in the Treatise? 66 Peter of Kallinikos thus occupies an intermediate position between the earlier Syriac translations of Greek patristic writings (many of them originating around 500 C.E. and in the first half of the sixth century), on the one hand, and the systematic revisions of the seventh century, on the other. The Treatise against Damian, written a few decades before Thomas of Ḥarkel, Paul of Tella, and Paul of Edessa—and perhaps paving the way for them—gives unique insight into the vibrant literary culture of the late sixth century, in the twilight zone between Greek and Syriac. 67

ABBREVIATIONS

CCSG = Corpus Christianorum. Series Graeca

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alpi, Frédéric. La route royale. Sévère d’Antioche et les Églises d’Orient [Institut français du Proche-Orient. Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 188] (Beyrouth: Institut français du Proche-Orient, 2009).

For some reflections on the ways in which lexical, stylistic, and grammatical innovations were taken over from Syriac translations of Greek works into indigenous Syriac compositions, see Sebastian P. Brock, “L’apport des Pères grecs à la littérature syriaque” in Les Pères grecs dans la littérature syriaque, Andrea Schmidt and Dominique Gonnet, eds (Paris: Geuthner, 2007), 9–26. 67 The author expresses sincere thanks to three colleagues who advised on various aspects of the present paper: Aaron M. Butts (Catholic University of America, Washington, DC), Emanuel Fiano (Fordham University, New York), and Emiliano Fiori (Università Ca’ Foscari, Venice). 66

PETER OF KALLINIKOS AND THE SYRIAC LANGUAGE

325

Brière, Maurice. Les Homiliae Cathedrales de Sévère d’Antioche. Traduction syriaque de Jacques d’Édesse. Homélies LXXVIII à LXXXIII [Patrologia Orientalis 20] (Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1927). —— Les Homiliae Cathedrales de Sévère d’Antioche. Traduction syriaque de Jacques d’Édesse. Homélies CIV à CXII [Patrologia Orientalis 25] (Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1942). Brock, Sebastian P. “Charting the Hellenization of a Literary Culture: The Case of Syriac”, Intellectual History of the Islamicate World 3 (2015), 98–124. —— “L’apport des Pères grecs à la littérature syriaque” in Les Pères grecs dans la littérature syriaque, Andrea Schmidt and Dominique Gonnet, eds [Études syriaques 4] (Paris: Geuthner, 2007), 9–26. —— “Some Remarks on the Use of the Construct in Classical Syriac” in Built on Solid Rock. Studies in Honour of E.E. Knudsen on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday April 11th 1997, Elie Wardini, ed. (Oslo: Novus Forlag, 1997), 44–60. —— “Towards a History of Syriac Translation Technique” in III Symposium Syriacum 1980, René Lavenant, ed. [Orientalia Christiana Analecta 221] (Rome: Pont. Institutum Studiorum Orientalium, 1983), 1–14. —— Review of Ebied, Van Roey, and Wickham, Petri Callinicensis in The Journal of Theological Studies 56.2 (2005), 702–6. Brooks, Ernest W. The Sixth Book of the Select Letters of Severus, 2 vols (London: Williams and Norgate, 1902–4). Butts, Aaron M. “The Etymology and Derivation of the Syriac Adverbial Ending ɔʾiθ”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 69 (2010), 79-86. —— Language Change in the Wake of Empire. Syriac in Its Greco-Roman Context [Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic 11] (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2016). Chabot, Jean-Baptiste, ed. Chronique de Michel le Syrien, Patriarche Jacobite d’Antioche (1166–1199) 5 vols (Paris: Leroux, 1899-1924). —— Documenta ad origines monophysitarum illustrandas [Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, Series Syriaca. II.37] (Paris: Typographeo Reipublicae, 1907). Ebied, Rifaat Y. “Peter of Antioch and Damian of Alexandria: The End of a Friendship” in A Tribute to Arthur Vööbus. Studies in Early Christian Literature and Its Environment, Primarily in the Syrian East, Robert H. Fisher, ed. (Chicago: Lutheran School of Theology, 1977), 277–82 Ebied, Rifaat Y., Albert Van Roey, and Lionel R. Wickham. Petri Callinicensis Patriarchae Antiocheni Tractatus contra Damianum, I. Quae supersunt libri secundi [CCSG 29] (Turnhout: Brepols and Leuven: University Press, 1994); II. Libri tertii capita

326

LUCAS VAN ROMPAY I-XIX (CCSG 32; 1996); III. Libri tertii capita XX-XXXIV (CCSG 35; 1998); IV. Libri tertii capita XXXV-L et addendum libro secundo (CCSG 54; 2003).

—— Peter of Callinicum. Anti-Tritheist Dossier [Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 10] (Leuven: Departement Oriëntalistiek, 1981). Ebied, Rifaat Y. and Lionel R. Wickham, “The Discourse of Mar Peter Callinicus on the Cruxifixion”, The Journal of Theological Studies (N.S.) 26 (1975), 23–37. Fiori, Emiliano. Dionigi Areopagita. Nomi Divini, Teologia mistica, Epistole. La versione siriaca di Sergio di Rēšʿaynā (VI secolo) [Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 656–7/Series Syriaca 252–3] (Louvain: Peeters, 2014). Haelewyck, Jean-Claude. Sancti Gregorii Nazianzeni Opera. Versio Syriaca, I [CCSG 49; Corpus Nazianzenum 14] (Turnhout: Brepols, 2001). —— Sancti Gregorii Nazianzeni Opera. Versio Syriaca, IV [CCSG 65; Corpus Nazianzenum 23; 2007] (Turnhout: Brepols, Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2007). Ibrahim, Gregorios Y., ed. The Edessa-Aleppo Syriac Codex of the Chronicle of Michael the Great, (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2009). King, Daniel. The Syriac Versions of the Writings of Cyril of Alexandria. A Study in Translation Technique [Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 626 /Subsidia. 123] (Louvain: Peeters, 2008). —— The Earliest Syriac Translation of Aristotle’s Categories, text, translation and commentary [(Aristoteles Semitico-Latinus 21] (Leiden: Brill, 2010). Kugener, Marc-Antoine and Edgar Triffaux. Les Homiliae Cathedrales de Sévère d’Antioche. Homélie LXXVII [Patrologia Orientalis 16] (Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1922). Labourt, Jérôme. Dionysius bar Salibi. Expositio liturgiae [Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 13/Series Syriaca 13] (Paris: Typographeo Reipublicae, 1903). Lampe, Geoffrey W.H. A Patristic Greek Lexicon, 4th edn. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976). Liddell, Henry G. and Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996) Moosa, Matti, tr. The Syriac Chronicle of Michael Rabo (the Great): a universal history from the Creation, (Teaneck, NJ: New Antioch Press, 2014). Moss, Yonatan, Incorruptible Bodies. Christology, Society, and Authority in Late Antiquity [Christianity in Late Antiquity (North American Patristics Society)] (Oakland, California: University of California Press, 2016). Nöldeke, Theodor. Kurzgefasste syrische Grammatik, 2nd edn. (Leipzig: Chr. Herm. Tauchnitz, 1898).

PETER OF KALLINIKOS AND THE SYRIAC LANGUAGE

327

Petit, Françoise, ed., tr., La chaîne sur l’Exode, I. Fragments de Sévère d’Antioche [Traditio Exegetica Graeca 9] (Louvain: Peeters, 1999). —— Sévère d’Antioche. Fragments grecs tirés des chaînes sur les derniers livres de l’Octateuque et sur les Règnes [Traditio Exegetica Graeca 14] (Louvain: Peeters, 2006). Sokoloff, Michael. A Syriac Lexicon. A Translation from the Latin, Correction, Expansion and Update of Carl Brockelmann’s Lexicon Syriacum (Winona Lakes/Piscataway: Eisenbrauns, Gorgias, 2009). Tannous, Jack. The Making of the Medieval Middle East. Religion, Society and Simple Believers (Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2018). Van Roey,Albert. “La controverse trithéite jusqu’à l’excommunication de Conon et d’Eugène (557-569)”, Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 16 (1985), 141–65. —— “Un florilège trinitaire syriaque tiré du Contra Damianum de Pierre de Callinique, patriarche d’Antioche (581-591)”, Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 23 (1992), 189–203. Van Roey, Albert and Pauline Allen, eds., Monophysite Texts of the Sixth Century [Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 56] (Louvain: Peeters and Departement Oriëntalistiek, 1994). Van Rompay, Lucas. “Pierre de Callinique et les versions syriaques des Homélies de Grégoire de Nazianze”, Bulletin de l’Académie belge pour l’étude des langues anciennes et orientales 10–11 (2022), 481–95. —— “Les versions syriaques”, in Françoise Petit, La chaîne sur l’Exode, I. Fragments de Sévère d’Antioche [Traditio Exegetica Graeca 9] (Louvain: Peeters, 1999), 111–208. —— “Some Preliminary Remarks on the Origins of Classical Syriac as a Standard Language: The Syriac Version of Eusebius of Caesarea’s Ecclesiastical History” in Gideon Goldenberg and Shlomo Raz, eds. Semitic and Cushitic Studies (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1994). Wickham, Lionel R., “Translation Techniques Greek/Syriac and Syriac/English”, in V Symposium Syriacum 1988. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 29-31 août 1988, René Lavenant, ed. [Orientalia Christiana Analecta 236] (Rome: Pont. Institutum Studiorum Orientalium, 1990), 345–53.

MARCO SPURIO?:

MARCO POLO ON THE CHURCH OF THE EAST IN CHINA SAMUEL N.C. LIEU ∗

(ROBINSON COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE) The Church of the East was the main form of organized Christianity east of Iran during the period of Mongol domination of Central Asia and the only form encountered by medieval Western travellers. The Il Milione of Marco Polo contains numerous passages on the ‘Nestorians’ who flourished along the main arteries of trade and in the Mongol Court. The present article examines two important passages found in the unique Z (Latin) Manuscript of the Il Milione, one on the monastery in Zhenjiangfu founded by a Turkic Christian missionary and the other on the ‘cryptoChristians’ of Fuzhou, and assesses their relevance to the ‘Did Marco Polo go to China?’ debate as both incidents appear to have external corroboration. Contact between Europe and the Far East in the pre-Modern Era reached its apogée when the Mongols under Qinggis (Genghis) Khan created a world Empire stretching from the Pacific to the heart of Europe. Beginning in 1206 C.E. with the unification of all the tribes in Mongolia under his rule, Qinggis expanded eastwards into North China in 1215 C.E. and westwards into Khwarizm in Central Asia. Merchants could now travel from China overland to Persia. When a group of over 400 of them were executed on the charge of espionage in the Sultan’s territory, Qinggis invaded and

I had the privilege of being Professor of Ancient History at Macquarie University (1996– 2015) which meant that I taught in the same metropolis as Professor Rifaat Ebied for almost two decades. We often met during this time either at research seminars at the University of Sydney or at meetings of the Asian Studies section of the Australian Academy of the Humanities. I became a great admirer of Prof. Ebied’s tireless efforts in promoting the study of Eastern Christianity through teaching and research. He was also a generous host; my wife and I enjoyed his hospitality. I very much hope that he will continue to contribute to his area of research which he so loves for many more years to come. ∗

329

330

SAMUEL N.C. LIEU

by 1231 C.E. the Mongols were in control of most of Persia and the Middle East. 1 By conquering Kiev and overrunning the Russian principalities in 1240 C.E., the Mongols had made a major incursion into the sphere of Byzantine influence. With their defeat of the Seljuks at the Battle of Köse Daǧ (26 June, 1243 C.E.), they were poised to replace the Muslims as the main enemy of Christendom. 2 Four decades earlier, the conquest of Constantinople by Frankish Crusaders and Venetian conquistatori in 1204 C.E. had also ushered in a new phase of Mediterranean history. Venice had played a major part in the diversion of the Crusader fleet to Constantinople instead of Egypt and she now stood to benefit from her investment. While priceless art treasures from the fallen Byzantine capital were shipped to decorate the public squares of Venice and the palaces of Doge Enrico Dandolo, many Venetian merchants took this unexpected opportunity to venture into the Levant and the Black Sea region. Among them were two members of the Polo (