Cyriacus of Tagrit and his Book on Divine Providence 9781463234652

Citation preview

Cyriacus of Tagrit and his Book on Divine Providence

Gorgias Eastern Christian Studies

33 Series Editors George Anton Kiraz István Perczel Lorenzo Perrone Samuel Rubenson

Gorgias Eastern Christian Studies brings to the scholarly world the underrepresented field of Christianity as it developed in the Eastern hemisphere. This series consists of monographs, collections of essays, texts and translations of the documents of Eastern Christianity, and studies of topics relevant to the unique world of historic Orthodoxy and early Christianity.

Cyriacus of Tagrit and his Book on Divine Providence

Volume 1

Mikael Oez

9

34 2012

Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2012 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. 2012

‫ܓ‬

9

ISBN 978-1-4632-0172-2

Printed in the United States of America

ISSN 1539-1507

TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ..................................................................................... v  Preface ....................................................................................................... ix  Abbreviations ........................................................................................... xi  PART I INTRODUCTORY CONSIDERATIONS 1.1.  Introduction ..................................................................................... 3  1.1.1. Cyriacus’ Life ......................................................................... 3  1.1.2. Historical Context ................................................................. 5  1.1.3. Cyriacus’ Work and Theology............................................. 8  1.1.4. Aim and Method ................................................................. 13  1.2.  Sources ............................................................................................ 15  1.2.1. Cyriacus’ own Writings ...................................................... 15  1.2.1.1. Canons issued in Beth-Botin in A.D. 794.............. 15  1.2.1.2. Creed issued in Qenneshrin in A.D. 797 ............... 17  1.2.1.3. Treatises on Divine Providence, A.D. 800 ............ 18  1.2.1.4. Two Synodical Epistles ............................................. 27  1.2.1.4.1. Letter to Patriarch John IV ............................. 28  1.2.1.4.2. Letter to Patriarch Mark III ............................ 28  1.2.1.5. Canons issued in Harran in A.D. 813..................... 28  1.2.1.6. Three Discourses ....................................................... 29  1.2.1.6.1. On Severus of Antioch.................................... 29  1.2.1.6.2. On the Sunday of the Priests.......................... 30  1.2.1.6.3. On the Vineyard of the Beloved .................... 30  1.2.1.7. Homily on Virginity................................................... 31  1.2.1.8. The Liturgy of Cyriacus ............................................ 31  1.2.1.9. Letter of the Synod of Mosul A.D. 817 ................. 31  1.2.2. Syriac texts composed in honour of Cyriacus ................ 32  1.2.2.1. Three Madroshe on Cyriacus ................................... 32  1.2.3. Chronicles and other literature referring to Cyriacus .... 33 

v

vi

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

PART II HISTORICAL IMPACT 2.1.  Cyriacus’ Life .................................................................................. 37  2.1.1. Edessa ................................................................................... 40  2.1.2. The Heavenly Bread ........................................................... 42  2.1.3. The Julianists ....................................................................... 55  2.1.4. Problems in Tagrit .............................................................. 58  2.1.5. Cyriacus as Ecclesiastical Leader ...................................... 64  PART III CYRIACUS′ BDP WITHIN THE SYRIAC TRADITION 3.1.  Divine Providence ......................................................................... 71  3.1.1. Earlier Writers ..................................................................... 73  3.1.2. Subsequent Writers ............................................................. 76  3.2.  A Bird’s-Eye View of Cyriacus’ BDP ......................................... 81  3.2.1. Key theological Principles ................................................. 82  3.2.2. Human experience .............................................................. 82  3.2.3. More Theory ........................................................................ 84  3.2.4. Proof of this by examination of all human history........ 87  3.2.5. This will continue in the future ........................................ 94  3.2.6. Remaining Treatises............................................................ 96  3.3. Free Will and Predestination .......................................................101  3.3.1. Incarnation .........................................................................106  3.3.2. That God is not the Cause of Evil .................................107  3.3.3. God’s Inscrutable Judgements ........................................111  3.3.4. Divine Providence or Fate? .............................................112  3.3.5. Riches and Poverty ...........................................................115  3.3.6. Various kinds of Deaths ..................................................117  3.3.7. Free Will and Predestination ...........................................121  3.3.8. Fixed Term.........................................................................124  3.3.9. Conclusion .........................................................................132  3.4. Eschatology: The Middle State of Souls....................................135  3.4.1. Question I: Knowledge of Souls ....................................138  3.4.2. Question II: Commemoration of the Dead .................145  3.4.3. Question III: Passage of Souls........................................151  3.4.4. Conclusion .........................................................................156  3.5. Apocalypse .....................................................................................159  3.5.1. The Purpose of Gehenna ................................................167  3.5.2. Against Predestination .....................................................170 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

vii

3.5.3. Concerning the Antichrist ...............................................171  3.5.4. Why God permits the Antichrist to come ....................177  3.5.5. Conclusion .........................................................................179  PART IV NAMED THEOLOGICAL SOURCES OF CYRIACUS' BDP 4.1.  Patristic Citations in the BDP ....................................................183  4.1.1. Treatise Fourteen, Chapter three ...................................185  4.1.2. Treatise Seventeen, Chapter One & Two .....................187  4.1.3. Treatise Eighteen, Chapter One .....................................189  4.1.4. Treatise Twenty, Chapter One, Two & Three .............195  4.1.5. Conclusion .........................................................................205  PART V CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS 5.1. Conclusion .....................................................................................211  5.2.  Bibliography .................................................................................217  5.2.1. Cyriacus ..............................................................................217  5.2.1.1. Manuscripts Consulted ...........................................217  5.2.1.2. Published Studies on Cyriacus ...............................217  5.2.2. Other Primary Sources.....................................................218  5.2.2.1. Syriac ..........................................................................218  5.2.2.2. Other languages .......................................................220  5.2.3. Catalogues of Syriac Manuscripts ...................................220  5.2.4. Secondary Literature .........................................................222  5.3. Cyriacus in Art ...............................................................................235  5.4 Index ................................................................................................237 

viii

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

VOLUME II Table of Contents ...................................................................................... v PART VI TEXTS AND TRANSLATIONS 6.1. Cyriacus’ BDP ..................................................................................... 1 6.2. The Creed Drawn up at Qenneshrin in A.D. 797 ....................453 6.3. The Report of Accusations........................................................ 461 6.4. The Letter Written at the Synod of Beth Gobrin, A.D. 808. 465 6.5. The Letter Written at the Synod of Mosul, A.D. 817 ..............471 6.6. Patriarch George’s letter on the Heavenly Bread .....................477 6.7. Homily on ‘The Vineyard of the Beloved’ .................................489 6.8. The Liturgy of Cyriacus ................................................................505 6.9. Three Madroshe on Cyriacus .......................................................523 Biblical Citation Index ..........................................................................545 Patristic Citation Index .........................................................................551 ′Saints′ & Heretics in the Homologia .................................................553

PREFACE Who is Cyriacus? What happened to the Syrian Orthodox Church and its literature in the 8/9th century, in the centuries immediately after the arrival of Islam? These are the fundamental questions that have driven my research. I received an e-mail in September 2005 from my supervisor, Professor David G.K. Taylor, who is lecturer in Aramaic and Syriac at the University of Oxford, suggesting that I write my doctoral thesis about a text entitled the Book on the Divine Providence, produced by Cyriacus who was a Syrian Orthodox Patriarch from 793-817 and a little-known figure amongst Syriac scholars. So I requested a digital copy of the manuscript from David, so that I could read it before making my decision. Having read through it to get a sense of its contents, I immediately replied to David, saying: Yes! I would like to work on Cyriacus and his Book on the Divine Providence. I would like to thank my Professor, David Taylor, who has constantly supported me in bringing the present work into being. I convey my appreciation for all the time he has taken to proofread my translation of Cyriacus’ texts, and for all the improvements and comments he has made throughout the thesis. Gratitude is also owed to Dr. Assad Sauma-Assad, lecturer in Aramaic and Syriac at the University of Stockholm/Uppsala, who is responsible for the encouragement of my higher education studies, and has always been there for me during all my academic research. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank my parents, who have supported me, both morally and financially. For this reason I would like to dedicate the current work to their departed son, and my brother, Mattias Oez, who passed away in September 1984. Mikael Oez 22/01/2012 ix

ABBREVIATIONS BDP Book on Divine Providence; DP Divine Providence BHLS Bar Hebraeus’ Lamp of Sanctuaries B.L. British Library BSOAS Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Languages CSCO Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium CPG Clavis Patrum Graecorum EChR Eastern Churches Review GPS Clavis Patrum Graecorum JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society JSAI Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam JSOR Journal of the Society of Oriental Research JSS Journal of Semitic Studies JCSSS Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies JTS The Journal of Theological Studies LM Le Muséon MBKS Moshe bar Kipho, Book of the Soul MBKDP Moshe bar Kipho, Book on Divine Providence NESTTR Near East School of Theology, Theological Review OKS Ostkirchliche Studien OCA Orientalia Christiana Analecta OCP Orientalia Christiana Periodica OLP Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica OrChr Oriens Christianus OrChrA Orientalia Christiana Analecta OrChrP Orientalia Christiana Periodica OrSyr L’Orient Syrien ParOr Parole de l’Orient PG Patrologia Graeca PO Patrologia Orientalis ROC Revue de l’Orient Chrétien VC Vigiliae Christianae xi

1.1.

INTRODUCTION

The subject of this study is Cyriacus of Tagrit and his literary remains, with a particular focus on his major composition, ‫ܟܬܒܐ‬ ‫ܕܥܠ ܒܛܝܠܘܬܐ ܐܠܗܝܬܐ‬, The Book on Divine Providence (henceforth BDP),1 which has been, for the purpose of this work, edited, translated, and analysed, along with other texts by and on Cyriacus. This work was composed to educate members of his church, often in reply to their questions, and not as a controversial text addressed to outsiders. This study examines the light this throws on his concerns and priorities, in relation both to his theology and to his ecclesiastical political career, as well as his secular politics.

1.1.1. CYRIACUS’ LIFE Studies documenting Cyriacus’ life are sparse. Anton Baumstark,2 William Wright3 and Arthur Vööbus,4 among western scholars, 1 The manuscript is preserved in St. Mark’s monastery in Jerusalem and listed as manuscript no. 129. See Dolabani, Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in St. Mark’s Monastery, pp. 289-296; Barsaum, Scattered Pearls, p. 377. 2 Baumstark, Geschichte, p. 270. 3 Wright, A Short History of Syriac Literature, pp. 156-7, 196-7. 4 Vööbus, Syrische Kanonessammlungen, Beitrag zur Quellenkunde, I: Westsyrische Originalurkunden 1A-B, CSCO.S 35, 38, Louvain 1970; Idem., The Synodicon in the West Syrian tradition, II: 1-2; CSCO.S, pp. 163-164, Louvain 1975-76; Idem., ‘Discovery of the biography of Severus of Antioch by Qyriaqos of Tagrit’, Rivista di Studi Bizantini e Neoellenici, 12-13, (197576), pp. 117-124; Idem., ‘Die Entdeckung der Memre des Qyriaqos von Antiochien’, OKS 25 (1976), pp. 193-195; Idem., ‘Neue Angaben über die Regierungszeit des Patriarchen Qyriaqos’, OrChr 52 (1968), pp. 87-91; Idem., Syriac and Arabic Documents regarding legislation relative to Syrian Ascetism, Stockholm 1960.

3

4

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

present minimal information, largely based on the Syriac chronicles of Michael the Great5 and Bar Hebraeus.6 The exact date of Cyriacus’ birth is unknown, but this was almost certainly in the first half of the eighth century. Cyriacus was a patriarch of the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch between A.D. 793 and 817,7 and he is the fifty-second patriarch of the Syriac Orthodox Patriarchal succession, according to the traditional reckoning. During the seventh and the eighth centuries, patriarchs were always elected from among monks, and not from among bishops as is the more recent practice.8 This rule also applied to Cyriacus, who was elected as patriarch from the ‘Monastery of the Pillar’. Given his title, one would expect Cyriacus to have had his see in Antioch, but this was not the case, and in fact, since the time of Severus of Antioch the Syrian Orthodox patriarchs were never based in Antioch itself. Prior to the arrival of Islam, the Nestorian and Jacobite churches were in practice divided by the border between the Byzantine and Persian empires, with the exception of a minority population of the Jacobite churches established in the Persian Empire.9 When the Arab conquest took place and this border was moved further West and North, the two Syriac-speaking churches came into regular direct contact through population movements. Nestorian churches were to be found in the cities of Edessa, Harran, Damascus, and Jerusalem,10 and vice versa with regards to the Jacobites: they moved further eastwards, into Persian lands.11 However, the important city of the patriarchate, Antioch, 5 Michael the Great, Chabot, J.B. (ed.), Chronique de Michel le Syrien, v. IV, Paris 1899-1910. 6 Abbeloos, J. B., & Lamy, Th. J. (eds), Gregorii Barhebraei Chronicon Ecclesiasticum, vols. I-III, [ed. & tr.], Louvain 1872-1877. 7 Michael the Great, Chronique, v. IV, pp. 484, 498; Bar Hebraeus, Chronicon Ecclesiasticum, v. I, pp. 329, 343; Baumstark, Geschichte, p. 270; Barsaum, Scattered Pearls, p. 377; Palmer, Monk and mason, p. 179; Kaiser, ‘Die syrische ''Liturgie'' des Kyriakos, p. 174. 8 See table I in Hage, Die syrisch-jakobitische Kirche. 9 Witakowski, Chronicle of Pseudo-Dionysius, p. 49. 10 Hage, Die syrisch-jakobitische Kirche, p. 81. 11 Witakowski, Chronicle of Pseudo-Dionysius, p. 49.

INTRODUCTION

5

was in the hands of the Melkites for a long period after the Arab conquest. This is why the Jacobite patriarchs lived in monasteries, and in most cases those of their origin.12

1.1.2. HISTORICAL CONTEXT Cyriacus’ career and influence depend on two geographical accidents. The first is the fact that Cyriacus came from Tagrit, which was an important city at the time, and was a powerful centre of the Syrian Orthodox in the region.13 Syrian Orthodox merchants in Tagrit were very wealthy and infuential in the church, and were clearly delighted to have one of their own citizens elected as patriarch. Their continued enthusiasm and support can be seen in various literary and artistic remains. One of these is the three madroshe14 which were written by an anonymous writer about Cyriacus, where much praise is given to Cyriacus, and the city of Tagrit. This type of madrosho praising patriarchs is rare in Syriac literature. The second is an inscription on one of the walls in the monastery of Deir al-Surian in Egypt, which was bought and refounded by Tagriti merchants, which says in Syriac, ‫ܩܕܝܫܐ ܩܘܪܝܩܘܣ‬ ‫ܦܐܛܪܝܪܟܐ ܕܐܢܛܝܘܝܟܝܐ‬, "Holy Cyriacus, patriarch of Antioch".15 This was most probably sponsored by a merchant from Tagrit. The last one is extremely unusual, a stylized portrait of Cyriacus in a manuscript of The book of Holy Hierotheos, which is preserved in Deir al-Surian.16 The portrait beside Cyriacus is the supposed author of the book, Hierotheos, and above are two figures possibly to be associated with the monastery and also with the city of Tagrit. The second geographical accident is that Cyriacus was educated in the city of Al-Raqqah (in Arabic, ‫)الرقة‬, identified as Callinicum in Syriac sources, which is a city in north central Syria located on the north bank of the Euphrates River, about 160 km Hage, Die syrisch-jakobitische Kirche, p. 11. Cf. Fiey, ‘Tagrit. Esquisse d’histoire chrétienne’, OrSyr 8 (1963), pp. 289-342. 14 See Chapter 1.2.2.1. Three Madroshe on Cyriacus. 15 See picture I in chapter 5.3. Cyriacus in Art. 16 Ms. Deir al-Surian, Syr. 20, fol. 4r, The Book of Holy Hierotheos; See picture II in chapter 5.3. Cyriacus in Art. 12 13

6

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

east of Aleppo. Al-Raqqah is an ancient Greek city, which was founded by the Seleucid king, Seleucos II Kallinikos (ruled 246-225 BC).17 The city was destroyed by the invasion of the Sasanians under the rule of Shahanshah Khusrau I Anushirvan (reigned 531579), but was subsequently rebuilt by the Byzantine emperor Justinian I (reigned 527-565). This city flourished during the rule of Harun al-Rashid (764-809), when it was also called Al-Rashid. The famous caliph, who ruled between 786 and 809, decided to build several palatial residences in 796 in Al-Raqqah, and made it his headquarters against the Byzantines.18 Since 786, when Rashid became the ruler of the Abbasid Empire, he had led several campaigns against the Byzantines.19 The city Callinicum is also where we find several major Syrian Orthodox monasteries, the second most important20 of which was the Monastery of the Pillar, in Syriac ‫ܕܝܪܐ ܕܐܣܛܘܢܐ‬, also referred to as ‫ܕܝܪܐ ܕܒ ܼܝܙܘܢܐ‬. This is where Cyriacus became a monk and received his theological education during the middle of the eighth century, and which also acted as his official residence when he ruled as a patriarch between 793 and 817.21 The fact that Cyriacus was the only patriarch to come from the Monastery of the Pillar, which was not a traditional nursery of patriarchs, may well have been at the root of Cyriacus’ later conflicts with certain other monasteries. The dates of Harun al-Rashid’s transfer of imperial residence, 796, and the election of Cyriacus being elected patriarch, 793, do not match. Nevertheless, Harun’s transfer of power was

17 The city was named Leontopolis for a short time during the Byzantine period by the emperor Leo (reigned 457-474 AD), but returned to the name Callinicum. 18 Meinecke, ‘Raqqa on the Euphrates’, pp. 17–32; Heidemann, ‘The Citadel of al-Raqqa’, pp. 122-150. 19 Cf. El-Hibri, Tayeb. Reinterpreting Islamic Historiography: Harun alRashid and the Narrative of the Abbasid Caliphate. New York, 1999. 20 The most important monastery of this city was Deir Mār Zakkā, mentioned by various sources up to the 10th century. It dates back to the 6th century when Callinicum became a centre of Syriac monasticism. 21 Baumstark, Geschichte, p. 270; Barsaum, Scattered Pearls, p. 377; Palmer, Monk and Mason, p. 179.

INTRODUCTION

7

arguably planned for years, since the city was growing in importance as a regional centre prior to the move. From a historical episode reported by many Syriac scholars, it is clear not only that Cyriacus had to tread carefully in his Muslim environment but also that he had well-placed friends. In A.D. 814 grave accusations were made against Cyriacus before the Caliph, Harun al-Rashid. The Caliph became furious and commanded his men to destroy the Churches in the country of Tagra and to bring Cyriacus for interrogation. But Cyriacus was handed over to the Caliph’s secretary, who released him, on account of their good personal relations, and sent him back to his monastery in Callinicum.22 Middle-Eastern Churches have often elected patriarchs and senior bishops with local family links to ruling groups, and whilst it is possible that Cyriacus came to know the secretary after his appointment as patriarch, it is also conceivable that he knew him through earlier family or local connections. This event is discussed in Part II. The monk Cyriacus became patriarch of the Syrian Orthodox Church during the key period in which Islam consolidated its religious and political control of the region. As mentioned earlier, the documentation of Cyriacus’ life is sparse, and when scholars write articles on his life they go back to the Chronicle of Michael the Great, which in this section was heavily dependent on the Chronicle of Dionysius of Tellmahre.23 Modern scholars have therefore always overlooked the potential consequences of the fact that Dionysius of Tellmahre was a monk during Cyriacus’ rule, and that he was the next patriarch of the Syrian Orthodox Church. At the very least we should be cautious about presuming that this description of Cyriacus’ leadership as patriarch was objective and impartial. For instance, one negative description Dionysius gives of Cyriacus is that he was hot-headed, and this picture has simply been repeated by all subsequent writers, who deplore the hot-headedness24 with 22 Bar Hebraeus, Chronicon Ecclesiasticum, v. I., p. 339; Baumstark, Geschichte, p. 270; Michael the Great, Chronique, v. IV, pp. 488-9. 23 Subsequent patriarch who ruled in A.D. 818-45. See Bar Hebraeus, Chronicon Ecclesiasticum, v. I, p. 343. 24 Barsaum, Scattered Pearls, p. 377,

8

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

which Cyriacus reacted to his Gubite opponents and their eastern friends, apparently provoking instead of sidestepping confrontation.25 But as we will see in Part II, this interpretation is challenged by a comparison of the actions and decisions of Dionysius and Cyriacus.

1.1.3. CYRIACUS’ WORK AND THEOLOGY During Cyriacus’ rule as patriarch he produced several interesting works in Syriac, mostly in theology. However, no critical editions of his theological works have yet been published, and modern scholarship is limited to a few scattered articles. Cyriacus is also an important figure in the development of ecclesiastical canons. He is one of the few Syrian Orthodox patriarchs who regularly issued lists of canons. Cyriacus held five synods during his rule as a patriarch, in a number of which he sought to improve clerical discipline.26 In two of the synods, however, much weightier, political issues were addressed. In the second held at the Monastery of Nawawis in the province of Qenneshrin in 797/98 he sought to reconcile the Phantasiasts (Julianists)27 and add them to the church, but his efforts were blocked by internal ecclesiastical opponents.28 This raises the obvious question: after all the debates Cyriacus’ predecessors had had with and against the Julianists, why would he agree to a union with them now?29 In the third synod at Beth Go25 Baumstark, Geschichte, p. 270; Michael the Great, Chronique, v. IV, pp. 484, 488. 26 The canons issued at two of the synods have been published by Vööbus, The Synodicon in the West Syrian Tradition II, pp. 6-27 (For a new recension of the canons of Beth Botin see fol. 196 of the edition of Cyriacus' BDP).; A letter is preserved in Michael the Great, Chronique, v. IV, pp. 495-497, See chapter 6.5. The Letter written at the Synod of Mosul in A.D. 817. 27 The Julianists were opposed by Severus, patriarch of Antioch (A.D. 464-538). 28 Michael the Great, Chronique, v. IV, p. 498; Barsaum, Scattered Pearls, p. 377; Baumstark, Geschichte, p. 270. 29 This is one of the episodes in Cyriacus’ life to which a scholarly article has been dedicated. See Chapter 1.2.1.2. The Creed drawn up at Qenneshrin in A.D. 797.

INTRODUCTION

9

brin in 808, he excommunicated the monks at the Gubba monastery, to which they retaliated by excommunicating the patriarch.30 Cyriacus also produced three interesting discourses, filling seven manuscript pages. In the first he praises the virtues of Severus of Antioch. It begins with, "The clear and pure mirror which reflects the wonderful merits of St. Severus, requires a clear mind with great imagination to look through it."31 The second discourse, on the Sunday of the priests, begins with, "When we remember the chief priests and priests of the orthodox faith, who departed from this transient world..."32 The third discourse on the "vineyard of the beloved" mentioned by the prophet Isaiah, begins with: "When our Saviour spoke to the descendants of Israel by parables and symbols.33 Beside these discourses, Cyriacus also produced a homily on Virginity.34 His most important work, however, is his BDP, consisting of three volumes and divided into ninety-eight treatises. This is preserved in a single manuscript in St. Mark’s monastery in Jerusalem, which dates to A.D. 804. What remains of this book is the third volume, and only twenty-two treatises, some of whose chapters are wanting. Two of these treatises he wrote at the request of Theodosius, bishop of Seleucia-Ctesiphon35 and Walid and Yeshu' of Tirminaz, in the province of Cyrrhus.36 It is written in a smooth and proficient Syriac, with minimal use of Greek loans and calques. Cyriacus also wrote ten letters in reply to the questions sent to him by the said Yeshu', deacon of Tirminaz. These were added to his book. The treatises cover a wide variety of topics, like Fate, Eschatology and Apocalypse, and each is divided into chapters, in one case up to eight.

Michael the Great, Chronique, v. IV, p. 484. See Chapter 1.2.1.6.1. On Severus of Antioch. 32 See Chapter 1.2.1.6.2. On Sunday of the Priests. 33 See Chapter 1.2.1.6.3. On the Vineyard of the Beloved. 34 See Chapter 1.2.1.7. Homily on Virginity. 35 The city Seleucia-Ctesiphon is located in today’s Iraq, on the Tigris River. 36 The province of Cyrrhus is in the territory of Antioch. 30 31

10

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

The focus of previous scholarship on the Syrian Orthodox Church has been the period before the middle of the seventh century. This period has been seen as an idealised ‘golden age’ of Syriac literature, in which the Christological controversies and the use of Greek philosophical ideas in Philoxenus of Mabbug and others represents a crucial moment in the separation of the Syrian Orthodox from the church of the Roman empire. The interest of these scholars has largely been in how Syriac writers interacted with the intellectual debates of the Greek-speaking world: their focus has not been on Syriac theology for its own sake. A lack of interest in the period in general and in Syriac churches in particular has often prevented historians and theologians from using the writings of later Syriac writers. In the period that followed the Arab conquests there was much continuity with earlier Syriac theological traditions. Thus symbolic theology may have continued to be just as important as philosophical theology in Syrian Orthodox Christology. From this perspective, Cyriacus was a continuator of a tradition that goes back to Ephrem, Aphrahat and Jacob of Serugh. At the same time, it will also be emphasised that Cyriacus represented himself as an ‘orthodox’ theologian through his use of florilegia. We know for a fact that florilegia were already being widely used by Syriac writers in the fifth century, at the latest, and that subsequent writers continued to use and expand such texts, but there has been little written about this activity. Comparing the citations of Cyriacus’ BDP with the florilegia and the original texts of the citations, I have established that Cyriacus nearly always made use of florilegia, rather than consulting the original texts. This has also made me go further and see if there are any links between Cyriacus (BDP),37 Moshe bar Kipho (in his Book on the Soul,38 ‘henceforth MBKS’ and his work on Divine Providence,39 ‘henceforth Microfilmed by: Brigham Young University, Roll 2, Item 7, Ms. No. 129. Date filmed: 14 March 1988. See William F. Macomber, Final Inventory of the Microfilmed Manuscripts of St. Mark’s Convent in Jerusalem, Brigham Young University 1995. 38 MBKS, VatSyr 147, fol. 1b-90a. 39 B.L. Add. 14731, Wright, Catalogue, v. II, pp. 853-5. 37

INTRODUCTION

11

MBKDP’), Anton of Tagrit (the work on Divine Providence)40 and Bar Hebraeus (The Lamp of the Sanctuaries, ‘henceforth BHLS’ ).41 Interestingly, they have all either consulted similar florilegia, or they have taken their citations from each other (which is certainly likely in the case of Bar Hebraeus, who made heavy use of Moshe bar Kipho)42 and so in many cases they not only have the same citations, but also the same introductory rubrics. One can argue that Cyriacus’ use of florilegia of earlier patristic writings is essentially an assertion of Cyriacus’ orthodoxy and his connection to an unchanging canon of earlier theologians, even if his actual ideas are often very original and do not rely on his florilegium citations. This makes it very hard to identify Cyriacus’ actual sources, since some of his ideas are unidentified after comparison with other Christian writers. It is very hard to prove direct Islamic influence on Cyriacus, and I have found no evidence to suggest that he was reading any Islamic authors (unlike Bar Hebraeus, 400 years later), but he was clearly a man of his age, and he was forced to respond to controversial issues raised by members of his church, and these, as always, were stimulated by larger debates within society. This is particularly visible in his concentration on such issues as fate and on the relationship between life and the afterlife. He approaches these ideas through his discussion of life (free will and the causes of death), eschatology (the fate of the soul after death, the knowledge and location of the soul after death and before the resurrection) and apocalyptic treatises about the end of the world. He intersperses this with a discussion of the Bible, which anticipates the questions of the members of his community in response to his more general theology, and avoids the more didactic style of a pupil posing questions to his master. Many of these issues were not novel, but Cyriacus’ focus on Divine Providence as a single topic is unprecedented within Syriac literature. This does not seem to have been the direct result of deB.L. Add. 14726, Anton of Tagrit, Divine Providence. Bar Hebraeus, ed. Çiçek, Y. Y., Lamp of Sanctuaries, Holland 1997. 42 Cf. Taylor, ‘L’importance des Pères de l’Église dans l’oeuvre spéculative de Barhebraeus’, pp. 63-86. 40 41

12

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

bates with Muslims, but it does seem to reflect broader intellectual trends within the caliphate and the contemporary interest in fate and free will. Significantly, earlier Syriac authors such as John of Phenek43 and pseudo-Methodius44 had written apocalyptic texts in response to Arab conquests and in anticipation of a Roman counter-attack, which they saw as a prelude to the end of the world. It is notable that Cyriacus’ own use of apocalypse is focused upon his discussion of free will (e.g. on why God will allow the Antichrist to come and the unimportance of the material world) and is much more de-politicised and spiritual than these earlier writers. And instead of using contemporary history as a context for his apocalypse he uses the Bible itself.45 Many of the arguments which Cyriacus advances in his discussion of Divine Providence are extremely distinctive and personal. His stress on God’s role in providing discipline for men, through biblical catastrophes and natural disasters, and his parallel idea that Satan was given a period of time to repent, and that Gehenna is a support for the kingdom of heaven, is an incentive for men to choose good and repent. Cyriacus explains how the Accuser and his angels were created as angels and that Gehenna was prepared for them as support for the Kingdom. That is to say, so that man would fear Gehenna and humble himself in repentance so as to be worthy of the Kingdom of Heaven. He claims that Gehenna is supportive of the Kingdom for man, and not for the Accuser and his angels. The Accuser and his angels were given the chance to repent from the time of their fall until the crucifixion of Christ. They too died at the crucifixion and became the inheritors of Gehenna, since they did not repent during the time between their fall and the crucifixion of Christ.46 These personal arguments remind us that Cyriacus was, in some respects, an outsider, educated outside the traditional patriarchal nurseries, and that his ideas may thus Brock, ‘Syriac Sources for Seventh-Century History’, pp. 35-6; Harris, The Gospel of the XII Apostles together with the Apocalypses of each one of them. 44 Brock, ‘Two Apocalyptic Texts of A.D. 691’, p. 222; Idem, ‘Syriac Sources for Seventh-Century History’, pp. 34-35. 45 See Cyriacus, BDP, XIX. 46 See Cyriacus, BDP, XXI-XXIII. 43

INTRODUCTION

13

reflect original approaches to established problems to a greater degree than other writers.

1.1.4. AIM AND METHOD Very few post-seventh-century Syrian Orthodox theological texts have been edited, and so Cyriacus’ text provides a fascinating window into the theological concerns and training of the Syrian Orthodox in the early Islamic world. Comparative material has largely been based on unpublished Syriac manuscripts which are widely cited. Hopefully, this will be a beginning for modern scholars to take an interest in Cyriacus and other contemporary writers, and will stimulate further detailed study. No scholar has yet attempted to link Cyriacus’ writings together, or to show how these controversies and debates were related one to another, or to analyse Cyriacus’ role in them. This study seeks to fill this gap in scholarship, making particular use of the long-neglected BDP, and examining the light this throws on the theology and political career of Cyriacus, and his impact on the Syrian Orthodox Church. The structure of this work is divided into six parts. Part I, Introductory Considerations, contains data on all of Cyriacus’ works, plus writings composed in his honour, and information on chronicles and other literature referring to him. Part II, Historical Impact, tells the narrative of Cyriacus in detail, by combining different sources, by consulting his works and by using the different perspectives of later Syriac chronicles, such as those of Michael the Great and Bar Hebraeus. Part III, Cyriacus’ BDP within the Syriac Tradition, contains a commentary on key aspects of the largest work of Cyriacus, which is on Divine Providence. Comparisons and contrast have been made with other contemporary writers and especially with authors mentioned in Part IV. Part IV, Named Theological Sources in Cyriacus’ BDP, places it in the context of previous and subsequent Syriac authors who have discussed similar topics, and also Cyriacus’ use of patristic citations. Part V, Concluding Reflections, contains a concluding chapter with bibliographies, and a chapter containing Cyriacus in Art. Part VI, Texts and Translations, contains the text and translation of Cyriacus’ BDP, plus various other texts by him, or about him. The following method has been chosen to perform the analytical studies on Cyriacus’ and his writings. In order to understand

14

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

the ecclesiastical as well as the political context and his relations with contemporary religions during Cyriacus’ reign, an edition of the Syriac text and an English translation with a detailed examination of its theology has been provided. To this is added the surviving fragments of his other writings, collected from a wide range of manuscripts in the hope that they will throw further light on this remarkable author, about whom very little has been written.

1.2.

SOURCES

The career of Cyriacus can be partially reconstructed from a series of disparate sources, in the absence of any systematic secondary literature on his life. Alongside his great work on divine providence, which was addressed to the members of his own church, we can use his synodal decrees and canons to reconstruct his attitudes to the education and governance of different parts of his church. In addition, his letters to bishops within his church and in Egypt give us a sense of how his government worked in practice. Finally, these sources can be combined with the often polemical accounts preserved in later Syriac chronicles, some of which are biased against Cyriacus’ origin as a ‘new man’, without earlier appointments and coming from outside the traditional patriarchal monasteries such as Qenneshrin. This section will set out the manuscript traditions for these sources and provide a preliminary assessment of their usefulness before integrating the analysis of the sources into later chapters. The key sources consulted for studies on Cyriacus are divided in three categories: 1.2.1. Cyriacus’ own writings, 1.2.2. Syriac texts composed in honour of Cyriacus, and 1.2.3. Chronicles and other literature referring to Cyriacus.

1.2.1. CYRIACUS’ OWN WRITINGS Information about Cyriacus’ writings and the sources which have been consulted for this work will be provided in this section. Cyriacus’ writings have been examined chronologically according to the events in his life, wherever this is possible. Regrettably there is no absolute certainty about the dating of his major work, the BDP. I have however suggested a possible timeframe for his important work, which is discussed in chapter 3.1. Divine Providence. 1.2.1.1. Canons issued in Beth-Botin in A.D. 794 In November A.D. 794, one year after becoming patriarch, Cyriacus issued forty-six canons in the Synod of Beth-Botin, in the territory of Harran, and made them public in a universal letter. These 15

16

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

canons exist today in BL. Add. 14493, fol. 160a-162a, a codex of the 10th century.1 The manuscript is made of vellum, about 10 ¾ in. by 6 3/8 in., consisting of 189 leaves, some of which are much stained and torn. These canons were edited and translated by Arthur Vööbus2 who also consulted a manuscript from the Syrian Orthodox patriarchal library, Dam. Patr. 8/11, fol. 112a-117a, which is dated A.D. 1204. The canons issued at this synod concern the obedience and discipline of priests which appear to have become less than ideal during the troubled reigns of Cyriacus’ predecessors, patriarch George (d. 790), who spent most of his time in prison, and patriarch Joseph (d. 792), who only ruled as a patriarch for two years. Cyriacus faced various rebellions when he began his own office as patriarch, as we shall see in our account of his life, particularly over his attempts to reunite Zechariah, the bishop of Edessa, with his community, and over the liturgical formula, ‘the heavenly bread’. Hence he writes in the introductory letter to the canons: “When we found that these laws and commandments had a long time since become obscure in the minds of the believers and had become unknown to them, we also saw that various rebellions and sufferings of every kind had come upon us due to foreign people.” Cyriacus was clearly worried that his community was not maintaining its own identity but was being unduly influenced by neighbouring Christian communities, such as the Nestorians, the Chalcedonians, and the Julianists. This can be seen in his fourteenth canon which is as follows: 14. Priests and deacons or laymen or women who go to the churches or the monasteries of the Nestorians, Chalcedonians or the Julianists and give them their gifts, or their vows, or give wives [to their believers] – these priests and deacons shall be deposed from their ranks, and the laymen and women may not

1 Wright, Catalogue, v. I, p. 222; Assemani, Bibliotheca Orientalis II, pp. 116, 342. 2 Vööbus, The Synodicon in the West Syrian Tradition II, pp. 6-18; For a new recension of the canons of Beth Botin see fol. 196 of the edition of Cyriacus' BDP.

SOURCES

17

enter [our] church and may not participate in the holy mysteries.

Other canons explicitly demonstrate the influence of Islamic marriage practices on Cyriacus’ community. For example, in canon thirty-four he states: 34. He who takes two wives at the same time, also he who abandons his wife except for the cause of fornication and takes another, he shall be rejected from intercourse with Christians and shall not enter the church of God and shall not participate in the divine mysteries until they return to the way of established marriage and take back their legal wives. Likewise, a wife who abandons her husband shall be rejected; so (too) that one who took her. If, however, they separate, they shall stay without marriage – she from her first husband, for it is not possible to return lest the “earth on which they walk becomes polluted”3 according to the word of the prophet.

He also issued canons for the clergy concerning the order of the Eucharist, and states that bishops are not allowed to appoint priests or deacons without his authorisation – a clear attempt to impose his authority on the church. 1.2.1.2. Creed issued in Qenneshrin in A.D. 797 A Creed composed in the year A.D. 797 survives in a single manuscript in BL. Add. 17145.4 The manuscript is on vellum, 11 in. by 7 in., and consists of 28 leaves. The text is clear to read with the exception of the last paragraph where the names of the participating clerics are listed. The text is about two pages long, fol. 27b, and 28b. Wright states that the manuscript is written in a neat regular hand which he dates to the eighth or ninth century. This creed was drawn up by patriarch Cyriacus and the Julianist anti-patriarch Gabriel, as part of their efforts for reunion. The creed is called “the Creed of St. James, the brother of our Lord”, and since the main

3 4

Cf. Is 24:5. Wright, Catalogue, v. II, p. 418.

18

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

Syrian Orthodox eucharistic anaphora5 is traditionally associated with St. James, who was a patriarch amongst the Jewish Christians at Jerusalem, this naming appears to form part of an attempt to find common ground with the Julianists, and to avoid references either to the sixth-century protagonists or to contemporary church leaders. The creed was published in Le Muséon 54 (1941) 91-106 by R. Draguet,6 with a French translation. The Syriac is also printed in Wright’s Catalogue.7 A transcription of the Syriac text with an English translation has been provided in Part VI.8 1.2.1.3. Treatises on Divine Providence, A.D. 800 Most significant of all of Cyriacus’ preserved works is the BDP. Michael the Great said: “Patriarch Cyriacus wrote a book on theological teaching as well as a magnificent collection of letters.”9 A major part of the theological teaching Michael informs us about seems to be the BDP. The book on theological teaching was originally contained in three volumes and was divided into ninety-eight treatises.10 The BDP was in the third volume. Along with most of his theological writings, the collection of letters appears to be lost, although some examples of individual letters survive both in the Jerusalem manuscript containing the BDP, and in other manuscripts listed in the section on the sources. The major witness to Cyriacus’ writings, and the only known extant witness to his BDP, is a single manuscript in St. Mark’s monastery in Jerusalem, which is numbered 129 by Dolabani,11 and

5 It is still the main liturgy of the Syrian Orthodox Church, the Syrian Catholic Church, the Indian Orthodox Church, the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church, and the Mar Thoma Church. 6 Draguet, Le Pacte d’union de 797 entres les jacobites et les julianistes du Patriarcat d’Antioche, pp. 91-106. 7 Wright, Catalogue, v. II, p. 418. 8 Chapter 6.2. The Creed drawn up at Qenneshrin in A.D. 797. 9 Michael the Great, Chronique, v. IV, p. 498. 10 Barsaum, Scattered Pearls, p. 377. 11 Dolabani, Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in St. Mark’s Monastery, pp. 289-296, (Listed as Manuscript Nr. 129); Barsaum, Scattered Pearls, p. 377.

SOURCES

19

3* by Baumstark, Graf, and Rücker.12 (A hand-written copy of this manuscript was made for Rücker in 1915 by the monk Yūhannā Garūm, and is now preserved in the university library in Münster as Ms. orient. 1. It contains no additional material, and omits words and passages which the scribe could not easily read.13) The colophon to the Jerusalem manuscript (fol. 189i-ii) informs us that it originally belonged to Stephen, the son of Barhadbshabo, son of Aho, of the city of Tagrit. The manuscript was copied on a Tuesday, 3rd of October 806 (AG 1118, AH 102), by a certain Theodosius14 in the Pillar Monastery, near Callinicum, from the autograph manuscript of the still-living author, and was then compared with the manuscript belonging to Theodoros, the Tagritan priest from the monastery of the Pillar.15 A Karshuni note on the endpapers records (fol. 197) that it was rebound in 1881 on the orders of metropolitan Gregorios Jarjis of Jerusalem, and dedicated as a waqf (property) to the monastery of St Mark. According to Baumstark (who got his information from Rücker), and later by Rücker himself,16 this manuscript had been divided into two parts, although this division is not obvious in the microfilm17 produced by Brigham Young University in 1988, and subsequently digitised, which is the only means by which I have 12 A. Baumstark, G. Graf, and A. Rücker, ‘Die literarischen Handschriften des jakobitischen Markusklosters in Jerusalem’, OrChr n.F. 2 (1912) [pp. 120-136], pp. 125-126. 13 See H. Kaufhold, ‘Die syrischen und christlich-arabischen Handschriften der Universitätsbibliothek in Münster’, Oriens Christianus 72 (1988), pp. 89-113. According to Kaufhold, p. 92, n.8, a second copy of the Jerusalem manuscript was made in 1915 for the later patriarch Ignatios Afrām Barsaum. 14 NB manuscript reads ‫ܬܝܕܘܣ‬, Thesaurus Syriacus, p. 4427, lists ‫ܬܝܕܣ‬ without ‫ ܘ‬as a short form of Theodosius; See Barsaum, Scattered Pearls, p. 370. 15 Cyriacus, BDP, fol. 189i-189ii; Cf. Barsaum, Scattered Pearls, p. 370. 16 Rücker, ‘Das dritte Buch der Mēmrē des Kyriakos von Antiochien’, OrChr 31 (1934), [pp. 107-115], pp. 107-8. 17 Microfilmed by: Brigham Young University, Roll 2, Item 7, Ms. No. 129. Date filmed: 14 March 1988. See William F. Macomber, Final Inventory of the Microfilmed Manuscripts of St. Mark’s Convent in Jerusalem, Brigham Young University 1995 [no page numbering].

20

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

had access to this text.18 The manuscript is made of vellum and now contains 98 folios, measuring 24 by 16 cm (although Baumstark recorded a width of 17.2 cm),19 with 2 columns on each page, each column measuring 19 by 5.5 cm, and containing 32-35 lines. The text is written in estrangelo letters (except fol. 190-196, which are written in a 9th century serto). When the work was rebound, or possibly later, page numbers written in European numerals were added at the top centre of every page, running from 1-196. In the top left of the recto of every folio is also to be seen the older folio numeration written in Syriac alpha-numeric figures, in a late scrawled estrangelo script that includes many serto features, and which runs from ‫ ܨܒ‬to ‫ܩܨܒ‬. However, when the volume was rebound, or possibly prior to that, some of the folios were incorrectly ordered,20 so that they they are now found as follows: pages 1-2 (‫)ܨܗ‬, 3-4 (‫)ܨܕ‬, 5-6 (‫)ܨܒ‬, 7-8 (‫)ܨܓ‬, 9-10 (‫)ܨܘ‬, 11-12 (‫)ܨܚ‬. An examination of the text reveals that even the older Syriac folio numeration was incorrect, and that the original textual order was as follows: 3-4 (‫)ܨܕ‬, 56 (‫)ܨܒ‬, 7-8 (‫)ܨܓ‬, 1-2 (‫ ;)ܨܗ‬many pages have then been lost from the original manuscript, since the text jumps from the first I would like to take the opportunity here to thank Brigham Young University, and especially Dr Kristian Heal, the Director of the Center for the Preservation of Ancient Religious Texts, for all the help and support they have given me during my dissertation research. 19 This variation might be due to an error by one or other cataloguer, or might indicate that the manuscript has been rebound since it was examined by Baumstark and Rücker. 20 Rücker, writing in 1934 (‘Das dritte Buch der Mēmrē des Kyriakos von Antiochien’, pp. 107-8), also noted that the opening pages of the manuscript had been misordered, but his discussion relates to fragmentary parts of the discourses of Abba Isaiah (Syriac discourses 1-5) and a fragment of the end of treatise thirty of the Liber Graduum, which must once have been bound before the text of Cyriacus, but which have since been removed, although this is slightly curious given that the present volume of Cyriacus was rebound as early as 1881. Baumstark’s less-detailed description of the manuscript, mentioning the misordered beginning, was dependent upon earlier information received from Rücker, and this led to Macomber’s confused comments (Final Inventory, pp. 65-6) about the contents of the opening pages of the current manuscript. 18

SOURCES

21

paragraph of Treatise 7 chapter 1 to the final paragraphs of Treatise 12 chapter 1, which are found on pp. 9-10 (‫)ܨܘ‬. The text of the following chapter flows smoothly from p.10-11, despite the fact that the Syriac folio numeration jumps from ‫( ܨܘ‬9-10) to ‫( ܨܚ‬1112), and so the omission of ‫ ܨܙ‬is simply a scribal error. (In fact the scribe also jumps in his numeration from ‫ ܩܘ‬to ‫ܩܚ‬, and from ‫ܩܝܘ‬ to ‫ܩܝܚ‬, and it is only from ‫ ܩܟܙ‬on that he remembers to includes the letter ‫ ܙ‬, representing the numeral 7, in his counting.)21 One folio has been lost between pp. 24 and 25 (within treatise 13.1); several folios have also been lost between pp.184 and 185 (within treatise 28); and at least one folio has been lost at the end of the manuscript, since the canons there break off abruptly. Quire marks, written in Syriac alpha-numeric figures, in an old estrangela script that looks contemporary with the main text, are to be found at the bottom right of the recto of the first folio, and at the bottom left of the verso of the last folio, of each quire. The first of these to be preserved is the front marker of ‫( ܚ‬no. 8) on p.25, and the last is the end marker of ‫( ܝܗ‬no. 15) on p.184.22 There are 10 folios (or 5 folded sheets) to each quire. Across the top of the opening where one quire ends and another starts, and across the top of the opening of the central sheet in each quire,23 there is the header: ‘Third book of the holy, blessed and godly clothed Mor Cyriacus, Patriarch of Antioch of Syria.’24 Before p.25, which falls in the middle of treatise 13, there were thus once to be found 7 quires, or 70 folios, of which only 12 folios survive. (The Syriac folio numeration which begins with ‫( ܨܒ‬92), and which 21 He also incorrectly wrote ‫ ܩܨ‬to ‫ ܩܨܛ‬instead of ‫ ܩܦ‬to ‫ܩܦܛ‬, and only later corrected this. 22 The following quire marks are preserved: start ‫( ܚ‬p.25), end ‫ܚ‬ (p.44), start ‫( ܛ‬p.45), end ‫( ܛ‬p.64), start ‫( ܝ‬p.65), end ‫( ܝ‬p.84), start ‫ܝܐ‬ (p.85), end ‫( ܝܐ‬p.104), start ‫( ܝܒ‬p.105), end ‫( ܝܒ‬p.124), start ‫( ܝܓ‬p.125), end ‫( ܝܓ‬p.144), start ‫( ܝܕ‬p.145), end ‫( ܝܕ‬p.164), start ‫( ܝܗ‬p.165), end ‫ܝܗ‬ (p.184). 23 Among the early folios, pp.6-7 and pp.16-17 are examples of such central sheets which have been preserved when outer sheets of the quires were lost. 24 ‫ ܕܩܕܝܫܐ ܘܛܘܒܬܢܐ ܘܠܒ ܼܝܫ ܐܠܠܗܐ܆ ܡܪܝ ܩܘܪܝܩܘܣ‬.‫ܟܬܒܐ ܕܬܠܬܐ‬ ‫ܦܐܛܪܝܐܪܟܝܣ ܕܐܢܛܝܘܟܝܐ ܕܣܘܪܝܐ‬

22

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

implies the loss of 91 folios, must therefore have been added when an already damaged text of Cyriacus was bound after a collection of texts by other authors, the first volume mentioned by Baumstark and Rücker.) Given that pp. 25 to 185 contain most of treatises 13 to 28, it seems likely that all of the missing folios would have been needed for the lost parts of treatises 1 to 12. The manuscript thus now contains only part of the third book of Cyriacus’ theological writings. The first treatise whose opening title has been preserved is treatise 7, and in the margin this is also numbered as text 77. (The last text in the third book, treatise 28, is also numbered 98.)25 Thus the now lost first two books by Cyriacus presumably contained treatises 1 to 70. These cannot have been included in the lost pages of the current manuscript, but must once have been included in separate manuscripts which have since perished. The Book on the Divine Providence formed only part of the third book of Cyriacus’ writings, and its constituent treatises were given a separate numeration within the larger book. From the titles and texts which survive it is clear that the Book on the Divine Providence originally contained 14 treatises, corresponding to treatises 10 to 23 within the third book, and 80 to 93 within the whole collection of his writings. Further discussion concerning the date and a summary of the contents of Cyriacus theological treatises is provided in chapter 3.1.-3.2. Here, therefore, I will simply list the rubrics of Cyriacus theological treatises: •

Treatise six is divided in five chapters. - Chapter one and two are not preserved. - Chapter three: [That the incarnation of God the Word is appropriate for God]. - Chapter four: Concerning [the question], if the coming of the Lord was beneficial and salvific for our race, why did He not come at the beginning of the ages, but rather at the end of the ages? - Chapter five: Concerning why

The Ten questions posed to Cyriacus by the deacon Yeshu', which follow after the end of the third book, and are copied by the same scribe, are not given any numeration. 25

SOURCES

•

•

•

•

Christ God came to the testing of death and endured this through the Cross.26 Treatise seven is divided in two chapters. - Chapter one: That God is good and just in nature, and in knowledge, and in will, [and in power], and in operation. - Chapter two is not preserved.27 Treatise twelve (the third concerning DP) is divided into five chapters. – Chapter one: [That God is the cause of good things, and He is never the cause of evil things.] - Chapter two: Concerning the fact that all disciplines that are brought about by God are good and advantageous, and there is nothing evil in them, even if, due to human weakness, they are in certain places called evils. - Chapter three: Concerning the fact that God does not in any way willingly agree with or accept the impudent purpose of evil beings, and so neither [does He agree] with that of Satan and the evil spirits. - Chapter four: Concerning the fact that even if God on many occasions allows the activities of demons or of evil people to have power over humans,—for reasons which He alone knows—even so He never desists from His protection and care for them. - Chapter five: Concerning the fact that none of the created or made beings is able to comprehend the depth of God’s judgements.28 Treatise thirteen (the fourth concerning DP) is divided in two chapters. - Chapter one: Concerning the fact that all that happen are wisely governed through Divine Providence, and are not due to fortunes or fates, or astrological birth-signs, or the providence of these, as has seemed good to the deceivers. - Chapter two: Concerning whether wealth and poverty are distributed by God to all who possess these, or only to a few, or whether [they are distributed] by fates, and fortunes, and through the motion of astrological birth-signs, as the deceivers rave.29 Treatise fourteen (the fifth concerning DP) is divided in four chapters. - Chapter one: Concerning whether God’s care is dif-

Cyriacus, BDP, VI, fol. 3i-8ii and 1-2ii. Cyriacus, BDP, VII, fol. 2ii.. 28 Cyriacus, BDP, XII, fol. 8i-23i. 29 Cyriacus, BDP, XIII, fol. 23i-31ii. 26 27

23

24

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

•

•

30 31

ferent or the same in the case of deaths which are calm and peaceful, and those which are sudden, or grievous, or agonizing, or through murders, or in [mine]-cuttings, or through other accidents, at various stages of life, whether full-grown or not fullgrown. - Chapter two: Concerning infants who are snatched away when they have just received baptism, and concerning those who are taken away in their childhood without having been deemed worthy of baptism; there is also [discussion] in it about those who are permitted to flourish in this life in fullgrown stages [of life] even though they are going to become evil. - Chapter three: Concerning the various plagues which affect various kinds and age-groups [of people], and whether each person departs from life in this world at his own [determined] end or not, and whether a fixed end is determined by God [for people] in general, or for each person individually. - Chapter four: Concerning the preparation of wars, and the victories and defeats of nations and kingdoms.30 Treatise fifteen (the sixth concerning DP) is divided in three chapters. - Chapter one: Whether all things that are going to happen happen because God knows them, or whether He knows them because they are going to happen, or because of both reasons at the same time. - Chapter two: Concerning whether all things that God knows will happen happen in any case, and do not fail to happen, or whether they do fail [to happen]. - Chapter three: Concerning whether God wills, or does not will, the accomplishment of all those things which He knows will happen.31 Treatise sixteen (the seventh concerning DP) is divided in four chapters. - Chapter one: Concerning whether there is any of those things which happen through God’s providence for His creatures that is newly brought to His knowledge, or [whether] it is eternally manifest to Him as the Knower of All. - Chapter two: Concerning whether the knowledge of God concerning the benefits which, of whatever kind, are brought into being for livingbeings through Him, diminishes with the accomplishment of the benefits, or not. - Chapter three: Concerning why God’s Cyriacus, BDP, XIV, fol. 31ii-46ii. Cyriacus, BDP, XV, fol. 46ii-50ii.

SOURCES

•

•

•

•

knowledge is different from His will in regards to those things which happen. - Chapter four: Concerning why God’s approval and command are different from His permission.32 Treatise seventeen (the eighth concerning DP) is divided in two chapters. - Chapter one: Concerning whether the will of rational beings is theirs by nature, or not. - Chapter two: Concerning the [reproductive] impulse implanted within us, that it is ours by nature, and not something from outside.33 Treatise eighteen (the ninth concerning DP) is divided in two chapters. - Chapter one: Concerning that everyone departs from this life at his own particular [determined] end, and not by chance. - Chapter two: About problematic passages taken from the Spirit-inspired Scripture.34 Treatise nineteen (the tenth concerning DP) is divided in eight chapters. - Chapter one: Concerning Divine Providence in the period of time from the beginning of our creation until the flood. - Chapter two: Concerning Divine Providence, in the period of time from the flood to the building of the tower of Babel. - Chapter three: Concerning Divine Providence, in the period of time from the division of languages and the fall of the tower until Abraham. - Chapter four: Concerning Divine Providence, in the period of time from Abraham until the Law of Moses. - Chapter five: Concerning Divine Providence, in the period of time from the Law of Moses until the coming of Christ. Chapter six: Concerning Divine Providence, in the period of time from the coming of Christ until the holy teachers. - Chapter seven: Concerning Divine Providence, in the period of time from the holy teachers until the end of the world. - Chapter eight: Concerning the fact that there are eleven causes of the afflictions and of the various tests that come upon the saints.35 Treatise twenty (the eleventh concerning DP) which is concerning things that he was asked by his secretary. It is divided in three chapters. - Chapter one: Concerning whether souls have

Cyriacus, BDP, XVI, fol. 50ii-59ii. Cyriacus, BDP, XVII, fol. 59ii-68ii. 34 Cyriacus, BDP, XVIII, fol. 68ii-83i. 35 Cyriacus, BDP, XIX, fol. 83i-113i. 32 33

25

26

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

•

•

•

• •

•

knowledge after their separation from bodies. - Chapter two: Concerning the fact that the departed gain benefit from the offerings that are offered on their behalf. - Chapter three: Concerning the passage of souls after their separation from bodies, and what they encounter and where they arrive and remain before the resurrection.36 Treatise twenty-one (the twelfth concerning DP). It is divided in two chapters. - Chapter one: Concerning the Accuser and his angels, and what Gehenna is, and that it was prepared for them, and was prepared for the benefit of the Kingdom. - Chapter two: Against those who say that God made two [kinds of] beings or creatures, one [destined] for the Kingdom and the other for Gehenna.37 Treatise twenty-two. From the Gospel of Matthew, on those [passages] concerning the Antichrist and the coming of the Lord.38 Treatise twenty-three. Against those who say that it is inappropriate for Antichrist to be permitted to come, since all this destruction that is mentioned will happen on his arrival.39 Treatise twenty-four. On that parable in Matthew’s Gospel concerning that net which was cast, or thrown, into the sea.40 Treatise twenty-five. Concerning the fact that souls do not precede bodies, [about which] we were questioned by Theodosius, bishop of Seleucia.41 Treatise twenty-six. Concerning the question which was asked by Walid and Yeshu',42 the believers, who live in the village of Tirminaz.43

Cyriacus, BDP, XX, fol. 113i-131i. Cyriacus, BDP, XXI, fol. 131i-139i. 38 Cyriacus, BDP, XXII, fol. 139i-155i. 39 Cyriacus, BDP, XXIII, fol. 155i- 162i. 40 Cyriacus, BDP, XXIV, fol. 162ii-166ii. 41 Cyriacus, BDP, XXV, fol. 166ii-171i. Seleucia-Ctesiphon are two connected cities, which were the capital of the Sassanids. Both these cities were destroyed at the beginning of the Arab conquest. Near their site is the present village of Salman Pak. Barsaum, Scattered Pearls, p. 558. 42 This is the same person who posed the ten questions at the end of this book. 36 37

SOURCES • • • • • •

•

27

Treatise twenty-seven. Concerning the passions for the love of money, and also concerning that for fornication.44 Treatise twenty-eight. Concerning passion for the desire for leadership, and also that of vain glory.45 10 Questions. The explanation of the questions asked by the deacon Yeshu', who lives in the village of Tirminaz.46 Colophon.47 Homologia. The confession of faith of the holy and divinely clothed Mor Cyriacus, Patriarch of Antioch of Syria.48 Fragmentary Canons. A recension of the canons of BethBotin.49 Note by Binder.50

1.2.1.4. Two Synodical Epistles According to Barsaum, Cyriacus wrote a large collection of letters, which is apparently now lost. He states that just two of his synodical epistles survive; one addressed to John IV and one to Mark III, patriarchs of Alexandria.51 These letters were originally written in Greek, and then translated into Arabic, which is why the letter addressed to Mark III is in imperfect Arabic.52

43 Cyriacus, BDP, XXVI, fol. 171ii-177ii. Tirminaz, in the province of Cyrrhus, which is in the territory of Antioch. See footnote, Michael the Great, Chronique, v. III, p. 29. 44 Cyriacus, BDP, XXVII, fol.177ii-183i. 45 Cyriacus, BDP, XXVIII, fol. 183i-185i. 46 Cyriacus, BDP, fol. 185i-188ii. This text also circulated in an Arabic translation, as can be seen from the Damascus Patriarchate manuscript 4/41, which is a composite of two manuscripts written in the fourteenth century and in AD 1603. Cf. Dolabani, Ph. Y., Lavenant R., Brock, S.P., Samir, S.K., ‘Catalogue des manuscrits de la bibliothèque du patriarcat syrien orthodoxe à Homs (auj. à Damas)’, ParOr 19 (1994) [pp. 555-661], p. 573. 47 Cyriacus, BDP, fol. 188ii-189ii. 48 Cyriacus, BDP, fol. 190-195. 49 Cyriacus, BDP, fol. 196. 50 Cyriacus, BDP, fol. 197. 51 Barsaum, Scattered Pearls, p 378. 52 Personal conversation with Herman Teule.

28

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

1.2.1.4.1. Letter to Patriarch John IV John was patriarch of Alexandria during 776-799. Cyriacus wrote to him because his predecessor George spent much of his reign in prison and so did not have time to write to the patriarch of Alexandria.53 This letter was most likely written in order to re-establish the relations between the Coptic and Syriac Churches. I only know of this letter from Barsaum’s reference, and have not been able to identify his manuscript source.

1.2.1.4.2. Letter to Patriarch Mark III This synodical epistle, on the Trinity and the Incarnation, was addressed to Mark III who was patriarch of Alexandria during 799819. It exists only in imperfect Arabic, and it is clear that the original was written in Greek.54 This has been edited and translated into French by Herman Teule.55 Cyriacus also wrote a letter to Mark regarding the non-canonical patriarch, Abraham, who attempted to claim the authority of the Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate. This letter is not preserved, but the response to this letter by Mark is preserved.56 1.2.1.5. Canons issued in Harran in A.D. 813 In A.D. 813, Cyriacus issued twenty-six canons at the synod of Harran, which have been edited and published by Vööbus.57 Vööbus consulted the manuscript Dam. Patr. 8/11, fol. 117a-121a, dated A.D. 1204. These canons have also survived in B.L. Add. 14690, fol. 166b-168b, dated A.D. 1182.58

53 Severus, History of the Patriarchs of the Coptic church of Alexandria, pp, 382, 382. 54 This epistle exist in two manuscripts. (A). Hs. Vat. Arab. 101; (B). Ms. Paris. Ar. 183. 55 Teule, ‘La lettre synodale de Cyriaque, patriarche monophysite d'Antioche (793-817)’, pp. 121-140. 56 Severus, History of the Patriarchs of the Coptic church of Alexandria, pp, 417-8. 57 Vööbus, The Synodicon in the West Syrian Tradition II, pp 22-35. 58 Wright, Catalogue, v. I, p. 206.

SOURCES

29

These canons are mainly addressed to deacons, priests, and nuns. The canons applied to the deacons and priests concern order and age limits for ordinations. Cyriacus also set down rules and regulations for the nuns, in an attempt to tighten their discipline which he clearly thought lax. Amongst the canons addressed to the nuns are the following: 22. After the above I have also set down these [canons] below regarding the garment of the nuns and concerning the order of their convents. As we entered this your Christ-loving town we found in it those of the order of women who are clothed in the garment of monasticism, but in an unfitting way of life that is not seemly for the order of monasticism, deficient for the correction and the salvation of their lives, [and so] we have also determined these things which are recorded below: Under the anathema of the terrifying word of God that binds heaven and earth, a nun is not allowed by God to enter a bathhouse nor to wash her body in water. 23. It is not allowed by God for a nun to dress in garments of cotton or of anything else except a garment of wool alone. 24. It is not allowed by God for a nun to walk on the streets or circulate among the houses or to eat bread outside the convent in which she lives.

1.2.1.6. Three Discourses According to Aphram Barsaum,59 just three independent discourses of Cyriacus have survived to the present, On Severus of Antioch, On the Sunday of the Priests, and On the Vineyard of the Beloved.

1.2.1.6.1. On Severus of Antioch In the first, Cyriacus praises the virtues of Severus of Antioch. It begins with, “The clear and pure mirror which reflects the wonderful merits of St. Severus, requires a clear mind with great imagination to look through it.”

59

Barsaum, Scattered Pearls, p 378.

30

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

This text is preserved in MS. A. 12008 in the Oriental institute in Chicago, fol. 21b-24b. It was unknown to scholarship until Arthur Vööbus discovered it, and recognised it as a biography of Severus of Antioch by Cyriacus.60 According to Vööbus, the codex is written in three columns, carefully executed, and the text is written in estrangelo. The title of the larger text within which it is contained is as follows: “A penqitha of the turgome and memre of all the festivals, and orthodox teachers”. Vööbus dates the codex to the 12th or 13th century.61

1.2.1.6.2. On the Sunday of the Priests The second discourse, on the Sunday of the priests, begins: “When we remember the chief priests and priests of the orthodox faith, who departed from this transient world...” Barsaum62 claims that this text along with the previous mentioned one exist in the ‘Basibrina Homilies’, but unfortunately it has not yet been possible to discover any precise information about the manuscript containing the ‘Basibrina Homilies’, although it is likely that it is a fenqitho of homilies, like that described above, and that it came from (or was preserved in) Basibrina, a village in TurAbdin, also known as Bsorino/Basibrin.

1.2.1.6.3. On the Vineyard of the Beloved The third discourse, On the Vineyard of the Beloved,63 which expounds the meaning of the vineyard mentioned by the prophet Isaiah, begins: “When our Saviour spoke to the descendants of Israel by parables and symbols.” This discourse draws parallels between the descendants of Israel and the workers of the vineyard. The discourse, On the Vineyard of the Beloved has no date; it is preserved in a single manuscript, BL. Add. 14,727, dated by Wright

Vööbus, Discovery of the biography of Severus of Antioch by Cyriacus of Tagrit, pp. 117-124. 61 Vööbus, Discovery of the biography of Severus of Antioch by Cyriacus of Tagrit, p. 118. 62 Barsaum, Scattered Pearls, p 378. 63 Cf. Mt. 21:33-46. 60

SOURCES

31

to the 13th century.64 It consists of 10 pages, 110a-114b. I have edited this text and provided an English translation of it.65 1.2.1.7. Homily on Virginity Barsaum informs us that Cyriacus produced a Homily on Virginity.66 He says in a footnote that this text is preserved in the Kashkul collection of Basibrina “at our library”. Alas, not much is known of this collection today. 1.2.1.8. The Liturgy of Cyriacus Cyriacus drew up an anaphora which is preserved in at least four manuscripts today. Two of these are B.L. Add. 1469467 and B.L. Add. 14690,68 and two are in St. Mark’s in Jerusalem, mss. 96 (Baumstark 10) and 98 (Baumstark 14), both of the fifteenth century. The text of the anaphora of Cyriacus was edited from the first of these Jerusalem manuscripts and translated into German by Karl Kaiser.69 I have retranscribed the Syriac text, compared it with B.L. Add 14694, Fol. 95B-103A and B.L. Add. 14690, Fol. 166B-178A, and provided an English translation.70 1.2.1.9. Letter of the Synod of Mosul A.D. 817 In A.D. 817 Cyriacus wrote a letter to metropolitan Daniel of Mosul at the synod which took place in Mosul. This letter is preserved in the chronicle of Michael the Great, Chronique de Michel le Syrien, pp. 495-8. The letter declares that due to the controversy and the opposition to Daniel, the bishopric of Mosul would have no further authority within the East, outside its own diocese. The metropolitan of Tagrit, however, would not be allowed to ordain any bishop to any see under his authority who did not come from the

Wright, Catalogue, v. II, p. 887. Chapter 6.7. Homily on ‘The Vineyard of the Beloved’. 66 Barsaum, Scattered Pearls, p. 378. 67 Wright, Catalogue, v. I, p. 210. 68 Wright, Catalogue, v. I, p. 206 69 Kaiser, Die syrische ''Liturgie'' des Kyriakos von Antiocheia, pp. 177-97. 70 Chapter 6.8. The Liturgy of Cyriacus. 64 65

32

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

monastery of Mar Mattai. I have transcribed this letter, and have provided an English translation of it.71

1.2.2. SYRIAC TEXTS COMPOSED IN HONOUR OF CYRIACUS Information on Cyriacus himself is sparse. However, in addition to references in the standard chronicles, three madroshe were composed in honour of Cyriacus. 1.2.2.1. Three Madroshe on Cyriacus Three madroshe have been written by an anonymous person about Cyriacus. They have been preserved in B.L. Add. 17141.72 The first madrosho has five stanzas, and runs from fol. 25b to fol. 26a. The tune is given as: ‘Blessed are the chaste, those fasting’, ̈ ‫ܛܘܒܝܗܘܢ‬, and its refrain is: ‘My Lord, make me ̈ ‫ܠܢܟܦܐ‬ ‫ܨܝܡܐ‬ worthy to see Cyriacus in that land of the just and the righteous’. It sings the praises of Cyriacus who was ‘perfect in deeds and in words, and excellent and diligent among the apostles.’ The second has fifteen stanzas, and runs from fol. 26a to fol. 26b. It is sung to the same tune, and has the refrain: ‘Grant us Lord that we might see the spiritual one at the feast where the watchers serve.’ It is remarkable for the fact that it claims that Cyriacus is now, along with Mar Marutha, the true city wall of Tagrit. The third madrosho is composed of 28 lines, sung to the tune ‘Our little Father, you have gone’, ‫ܐܙܠܬ ܐܒܘܢ ܿܗܘ ܙܥܘܪܐ‬ ܼ , and begins on fol. 26b and ends on fol. 27a. It is a petition addressed directly to Mar Cyriacus, requesting his intercession with God on behalf of the speaker and the flock he has left behind, both now and at the time of the judgement. These madroshe are interesting for the light they throw on the esteem in which he was held, even after his death, but provide very little in the way of biographical information. It is noteworthy that few other patriarchs of the church seem to have had such

71 72

Chapter 6.5. The Letter Written at the Synod of Mosul in A.D. 817. Wright, Catalogue, v. I, p. 359.

SOURCES

33

madroshe written for them. I have edited these madroshe and added an English translation.73

1.2.3. CHRONICLES AND OTHER LITERATURE REFERRING TO CYRIACUS Secondary literature documenting Cyriacus’ life is very sparse. Amongst western scholars, Anton Baumstark,74 and Arthur Vööbus,75 present minimal information largely based on the chronicles of Michael the Great76 and Bar Hebraeus.77 Syrian scholars, such as Aphram Barsaum78 and Dolabani79 provide slightly more information. What is known about this man up until now comes almost completely from the account of Michael the Great,80 and Bar Hebraeus.81 To provide a more complete biography, it will be necessary to take account of his writings, as well as to more thoroughly survey the extant chronicles, and this I will attempt to do in the section which follows. It is likely, however, that a lack of evidence will still leave certain episodes unclarified, except by informed speculation.

Chapter 6.9. Three Madroshe on Cyriacus. Baumstark, Geschichte, pp. 270-1. 75 Vööbus, The Synodicon in the West Syrian Tradition II, 1976, pp. 6-18, 19-27 76 Michael the Great, Chronique, v. IV, pp. 484-497. 77 Bar Hebraeus, Chronicon Ecclesiasticum, v. I, pp. 329-343. 78 Barsaum, Scattered Pearls, pp. 376-378. 79 Dolabani, Die Patriarchen der syrisch orthodoxen Kirche von Antiochien, pp. 71-73. 80 Michael the Great, Chronique, v. IV, pp. 484-497. 81 Bar Hebraeus, Chronicon Ecclesiasticum, v. I, pp. 330-334. 73 74

2.1.

CYRIACUS’ LIFE

Cyriacus was patriarch of the Syrian Orthodox church between the years A.D. 793 and 817.1 He was elected as a patriarch in Harran and died in Mosul.2 He is the fifty-second patriarch of the Syriac Orthodox patriarchal succession, according to the traditional reckoning. Cyriacus was born and raised by Christian parents in Tagrit,3 which was a significant Christian centre at that time, having become the see of the Syrian Orthodox maphrianate in 629,4 during Athanasius I’s5 reign, and it was also the home of a prosperous Syrian Orthodox trading community.6 Recently a short remarkable 1 Michael the Great, Chronique, v. IV, pp. 484, 498; Bar Hebraeus, Chronicon Ecclesiasticum, v. I, pp. 329, 343; Baumstark, Geschichte, p. 270; Barsaum, Scattered Pearls, p. 377; Palmer, Monk and mason, p. 179; Kaiser, Die syrische ''Liturgie'' des Kyriakos, p. 174. 2 Michael the Great, Chronique, v. IV, pp. 484, 489; Bar Hebraeus, Chronicon Ecclesiasticum, v. I. pp. 329, 343, Bar Hebraeus specifies the day of his death which is the 16th of August.; Barsaum, Scattered Pearls, p. 377; Baumstark, Geschichte, p. 270; Kaiser, Die syrische ''Liturgie'' des Kyriakos, p. 176. Kaiser specifies the day of his death as the 19th of August, but this appears to be an error. 3 Barsaum, Scattered Pearls, p. 376: Tagrit is a town which is located in Iraq, about 140 km northwest of Baghdad on the Tigris River. 4 Fiey, Tagrit, pp. 289-342; Nau. Histoires d’Ahoudemmeh et de Marouta, p. 54. 5 ‫ܐܬܐܢܢܣܝܘܣ ܕܐܬܩܪܝ ܓܡܐܠ‬, Athanasius I, who was also called Camel Rider (595-631). An account of his life exists in Bar Hebraeus, Chronicon Ecclesiasticum, v. I, pp. 261-275. 6 The Tagritans were responsible for the building or re-building of Dair al Syrian in Egypt. Cf. Innemée & Van Rompay, ‘La présence des Syriens dans le Wadi al-Natrun (Égypte)’, pp.167-202.

37

38

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

inscription was discovered in the monastery of Deir al-Surian in Egypt, saying "Saintly Cyriacus, patriarch of Antioch". This indicates that either Cyriacus may have contributed to establishing or consolidating the monastery, or that he was seen as a hero for the Tagritans, some of whom made their fortunes as merchants trading with Egypt.7 Also a portrait of Cyriacus, with nimbus, has been preserved in a manuscript8 in Deir al-Surian which contains The Book of Holy Hierotheos. It is highly unusual for manuscripts to include portraits of patriarchs, and his inclusion next to Hierotheos, and under two saints named Zachaeus and Matthew (conceivably the Tagritans Mar Zachaeus, who is mentioned in the colophon of BN Syr 27 as having been buried in the monastery and for whose memory the manuscript was donated to the library, and the abbot Mar Mattai of c. 860) may also point to his continued veneration by the Syrian Orthodox of Tagrit. The exact date of Cyriacus’ birth is unknown.9 He received his education and also became a monk at the Monastery of the Pillar, in Syriac ‫ܕܝܪܐ ܕܐܣܛܘܢܐ‬, also referred to as ‫ܕܝܪܐ ܕܒ ܼܝܙܘܢܐ‬, near Callinicum (as it is called in Syriac sources),10 where he acquired a great deal of theological science and practised the monastic life.11 The Empress Theodora (d. 548) gave money for its construction and in A.D. 635 it was enlarged by the monks. At the time when alRaqqah served as capital of the western half of the Abbasid Empire, it was not inappropriate that this monastery should become the seat of the Syriac Orthodox Patriarch. By A.D. 956, one patriarch (Cyriacus) and ten bishops had graduated from it.12 As will be seen, the fact that the Monastery of the Pillar was not a traditional nurs7 Innemée & Van Rompay, ‘Deir al-Surian (Egypt): Its Wallpaintings, Wall-texts, Manuscripts’; The painting is reproduced in chapter 5.3. Cyriacus in Art, as picture I. 8 Ms. Deir al-Surian, Syr. 20, f. 4r; The painting is reproduced in chapter 5.3. Cyriacus in Art, as picture II. 9 Cyriacus was probably born around A.D. 740. 10 Today’s al-Raqqa, located on the north bank of the Euphrates River in Syria. 11 Michael the Great, Chronique, v. IV, p. 484; Bar Hebraeus, Chronicon Ecclesiasticum, v. I, p. 329; Baumstark, Geschichte, p. 270. 12 Barsaum, Scattered Pearls, p. 567.

CYRIACUS’ LIFE

39

ery of patriarchs may well have been at the root of Cyriacus’ later conflicts with certain monasteries, especially the Gubo-Baroyo monastery which had produced four patriarchs,13 and Qenneshrin which produced seven.14 On the 8th of August A.D. 793, after the death of patriarch Joseph, the Syrian Orthodox bishops gathered in Harran and proceeded to elect Cyriacus as his successor, and he was consecrated as patriarch on the 15th of August A.D. 793.15 It appears that Cyriacus had been elevated from monk to patriarch, without having spent any time as a local bishop/metropolitan, which there is no evidence of such episcopal work. He served the church as patriarch for twenty-four years.16 Michael the Great and Bar Hebraeus comment on his rule as follows: “his hand did not engage with gold or money during his entire leadership; he was zealous and strict with rule breakers. He passed his days in bitterness”.17 More bluntly, Aphram Barsaum states that Cyriacus was somewhat hot-headed,18 apparently on the authority of Dionysius of Tellmahre (d. 845), who himself was educated in the monastery of Qenneshrin.19 This

13 The four patriarchs who graduated from Gubo-Baroyo Monastery are Paul (567-575), Elio the first (709-724), Athanasius (724-739), Joseph (790-792). See Dolabani, Die Patriarchen der syrisch orthodoxen Kirche von Antiochien, pp. 50, 63, 64, 70. 14 The seven patriarchs who graduated from Qenneshrin Monastery are Julian (591-595), Athanasius (595-635), Theodore (649-667), Athanasius (667-684), Julian (688-708), George (759-790), Dionysius (818-845). See Dolabani, Die Patriarchen der syrisch orthodoxen Kirche von Antiochien, pp. 53, 54, 60, 62, 68, 74. 15 Michael the Great, Chronique, v. IV, p. 484; Bar Hebraeus, Chronicon Ecclesiasticum, v. I, p. 329; Barsaum, Scattered Pearls, p. 377; Baumstark, Geschichte, p. 270. 16 Bar Hebraeus, Chronicon Ecclesiasticum, v. I, p. 343; Michael the Great, Chronique, v. IV, p. 498; Barsaum, Scattered Pearls, p. 377; Baumstark, Geschichte, p. 270. 17 Michael the Great, Chronique, v. IV, p. 498; Bar Hebraeus, Chronicon Ecclesiasticum, v. I, p. 343. 18 Barsaum, Scattered Pearls, p. 377. 19 Dionysius of Tellmahre is the subsequent patriarch, who ruled from A.D. 818-45. See Michael the Great, Chronique, v. IV, p. 498; Bar

40

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

would seem to be supported by the way Cyriacus reacted towards his Gubite opponents and their eastern friends, provoking instead of side-stepping confrontation,20 although in this matter Cyriacus supported his predecessor’s policies in principle.21 Cyriacus also often supported hierarchs who were disliked by their congregations, like Simon, the metropolitan of Tagrit, whose diocese only gained peace through his death. Again, however, the same was also true of his successor who soon fell into conflict with the people of Mosul. Cyriacus often seems to be very headstrong and stubborn, insisting that his own will be followed in all matters, whatever the political and ecclesiastical consequences. Cyriacus’ installation into the patriarchal office plunged him immediately into continuous troubles. There were four major disputes that arose during his rule and came to dominate significant periods of it. These were: 1) the dispute concerning bishop Zechariah of Edessa; 2) the crisis over the liturgical formula ‫ܠܚܡܐ‬ ‫‘ ܫܡܝܢܐ ܩܨܝܢܢ‬We break the Heavenly Bread’; 3) the proposed union with the Julianists; 4) the dispute over the Metropolitanate of Tagrit. Although these disputes frequently overlapped one another, in order to maintain a clear narrative I will discuss them in the above order.

2.1.1. EDESSA At the beginning of Cyriacus’ work, he sought to settle a long standing dispute between the city of Edessa and its bishop Zechariah who came from the monastery of Qartmin.22 For reasons that Hebraeus, Chronicon Ecclesiasticum, v. I, p. 343; Barsaum, Scattered Pearls, p. 377. Michael the Great, Chronique, v. IV, pp. 484, 488. 20 Michael the Great, Chronique, v. IV, pp. 484, 488; Baumstark, Geschichte, p. 270. 21 Kaiser, Die syrische ''Liturgie'' des Kyriakos, p. 174. 22 Michael the Great, Chronique, v. IV, p. 482. Qartmin Monastery, four hour’s journey east of Midyat, is the most famous monastery in Tur ‘Abdin. It was built in 397 by the two ascetics, St. Samuel and St. Simon. It is commonly called the monastery of St. Gabriel, after its abbot and bishop Gabriel (d. 667). This monastery was the metropolitan see of Tur ‘Abdin from 615-1049. Afterwards, its metropolitan was the ecclesiastical leader of a large part of Tur ‘Abdin; still later, however, his jurisdiction

CYRIACUS’ LIFE

41

have not been recorded the Edessans had complained23 about their bishop to patriarch George (d. 790),24 who then removed Zechariah from his see.25 The dispute continued without resolution through the short reign of the next patriarch, Joseph (d. 792).26 Cyriacus was worried about Zechariah and travelled to the city of Edessa in order to bring the dispute to an end, and at first he was given an enthusiastic reception, “he was received like an angel of God”.27 He was adored by everybody until he mentioned the matter of Zechariah, at which point the mood rapidly changed, and they grew restless. Very serious objections were raised by the people in Edessa, whose disobedience he was not able to overcome. They refused to receive bishop Zechariah, so Cyriacus persuaded the Edessans to let him have the episcopal control of four rural districts of the diocese for life, on condition that on his death they revert to the bishop of the city, whom Cyriacus would choose.28 Subsequently, when the Edessans agreed with Cyriacus in this, he ordained a new bishop from the monastery of Qenneshrin,29 named Basil. On the surface Cyriacus appeared to have been more was restricted to a private diocese until 1915. This monastery claims four patriarchs, a maphryono and seventy bishops. It is still inhabited. See Barsaum, Scattered Pearls, p. 568. 23 The complaint is unknown. 24 Michael the Great, Chronique, v. IV, p. 483; Kaiser, Die syrische ''Liturgie'' des Kyriakos, p. 175. 25 Michael the Great, Chronique, v. IV, p. 482. 26 Michael the Great, Chronique, v. IV, p. 483; Bar Hebraeus, Chronicon Ecclesiasticum, v. I, p. 329. 27 Michael the Great, Chronique, v. IV, p. 484; In Syriac ‫ܘܐܬܩܒܠ ܐܝܟ‬ ‫ܡܐܠܟܐ ܕܐܠܗܐ‬. 28 Michael the Great, Chronique, v. IV, p. 484. 29 Qenneshrin Monastery was built in the name of the Apostle Thomas on the bank of the Euphrates, opposite Jarabulus, about 530. It was a famous monastery until the ninth century and at its high point housed about 370 monks. It was burned by some dissenters, but was restored by patriarch Dionysius I in 822. By 930, seven patriarchs and fifteen bishops had graduated from it. About 1025 it was attached to the diocese of Samosata. It is probable that it remained active until the thirteenth century, after which it was abandoned. See Barsaum, Scattered Pearls, p. 568.

42

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

successful than his predecessors in resolving this dispute, but his strong-arm approach alienated much of the local population. It seems that Cyriacus had a very authoritarian method of handling problems and even of making peace. He was always in a hurry with taking decisions as we will see later on. When Cyriacus saw that he was able to solve this problem, he then decided to tackle another long-running dispute by attempting to abolish the liturgical formula “We break the Heavenly Bread”.30

2.1.2. THE HEAVENLY BREAD The dispute for which Cyriacus is best known is the controversy over the recitation of the liturgical formula ‘We break the Heavenly Bread in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit’,31 which in fact goes back to the time of patriarch George, but is, as Michael the Great mentions, often blamed on Cyriacus. Evidence for the early period of this dispute is provided by a letter32 which was addressed by patriarch George to Gouria, the deacon,33 and which explains the issues at debate in this controversy. In the letter George discusses the possible origins of the formula, and the reasons why it is inappropriate to use it. Cyriacus also discusses this issue in treatise twenty-six of his theological treatises.34 There are two main reasons why some of the clergy are against this formula, amongst them George and Cyriacus. George explains in the letter that neither James, the first bishop (to whom the main Syrian Orthodox anaphora is attributed), nor Mark, Peter’s disciple, (after whom is named the Coptic anaphora), used the Michael the Great, Chronique, v. IV, p. 484. In Syriac: ‫;ܠܚܡܐ ܫܡܝܢܐ ܩܨܝܢܢ ܒܫܡܐ ܕܐܒܐ ܘܕܒܪܐ ܘܕܪܘܚܐ ܩܕܝܫܐ‬ This issue was discussed in a treatise on the Divine Eucharist, by Elijah of Harran, who was ordained a bishop of Salmaya, The text is preserved in B.L. Add. 14726, See Barsaum, Scattered Pearls, p. 371. 32 The letter is preserved by Michael the Great, Chronique, v. IV, pp. 480-1, and has been transcribed and translated into English in chapter 6.6. Patriarch George’s Letter on the Heavenly Bread. 33 Gouria of Edessa, was a deacon of Beth Naar, a village in Lebanon. Barsaum, Scattered Pearls, p. 370. 34 Cyriacus, BDP, XXVI, fol. 173ii-176i. 30 31

CYRIACUS’ LIFE

43

formula ‫ ܒܫܡܐ ܕܐܒܐ ܘܕܒܪܐ ܘܕܪܘܚܐ ܩܕܝܫܐ‬.‫ܠܚܡܐ ܫܡܝܢܐ ܩܨܝܢܢ‬, that is to say, ‘we break the heavenly bread in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.’ Neither does the formula appear in the Greek and Coptic liturgies,35 nor in the anaphoras of the famous fathers, Basil, Gregory, Timothy (Ailuros), or Severus. George was clearly opposed to this innovative liturgical formulation but states: “I have not imposed a ruling concerning this on anyone, neither that he should say it, nor that he should not say it, not because I do not know that it is inappropriate for it to be said, but in order that I should not provide any opportunity for troublemakers, or those who are not concerned with the building up of the church but with its destruction, so that in their love of primacy they might establish their own will, and create a pretext for schism so that they might steal away the simple ones.”36 A key argument produced by George against the use of the formula is that one can not break the bread twice. He gives examples of other mysteries in which an action is performed once, such as when Christ breathed on his disciples and said “If you forgive people’s sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”37 And so in the rite of baptism the priest makes the sign of the godly breath and the baptised receive the Holy Spirit in a spiritual rebirth. George demonstrates the similarity of this with the mystery of the body and blood and says that through the recitation of the words “He took the bread in His holy hands, and blessed, and broke it, and He gave it to his holy disciples” the miracle performed by Christ, who is God Almighty, is now performed by the weak. So just as it is not appropriate to breathe twice in the case of the baptism, so in the case of the breaking of the bread it is not appropriate to say this new formula as the bread can not be broken twice. He is also very unhappy, as shall be seen, that the body of Christ should be broken in the name of the Trinity, which appears

35

Krüger, Das syrisch-monophysitische Mönchtum im Tur-Ab(h)din, pp. 57-

36

Michael the Great, Chronique, v. IV, p. 481. Jn 20:23.

8. 37

44

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

to create a problematic distinction between Christ and the second person of the Trinity. George provides two possible explanations of how the formula may have come into use. He calls the first one ‘holy’ and he calls the second ‘far from holy’. The ‘holy explanation’ arises from the fact that the apostles insisted that there should be no Eucharist during Lent except on Saturday or Sunday, and that as a consequence the priest was to keep some of the consecrated elements, the Body and Blood, for the faithful who desired to receive the communion during weekdays. On these weekdays they instructed that the Eucharistic chalice should be signed with a cross by the priest, saying ‫ܡܬܪܫܡ ܟܣܐ‬ ‫ ܒܫܡܐ ܕܐܒܐ ܘܕܒܪܐ ܘܕܪܘܚܐ ܩܕܝܫܐ‬.‫ ܕܩܘܒܠ ܛܝܒܘܬܐ‬, that is to say, ‘the chalice of thanksgiving is signed in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.’ In this case it is the unconsecrated chalice itself which is being sanctified, and not the already consecrated holy wine/blood. But from this the practice of signing in the name of the Trinity may have spread to the sacred bread/body. The second ‘far from holy’ source is Diodore of Tarsus (d. 390),38 who was fiercely disliked by the Syrian Orthodox, and who is said to have introduced the phrase ‘He slaughters the Lamb of God before the Holy Trinity’.39 George claims that this distinction of the Son present in the bread and the Son present in the Trinity may have turned into the ideologically similar expression ‘we break the Heavenly Bread in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit’.40 George claims that if we break the bread in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, then somebody different from Christ represents the bread, because the Son is present as the Second Person in the Trinity. For George (and presumably Diodorus (d. 390), the leader of a monastic group at Antioch and the teacher of Theodore of Mopsuestia. This man was, and still is, revered by the Church of the East as a doctor of the church. See Trimingham, Christianity among the Arabs in pre-Islamic times, p. 55. 39 .‫ܕܕܒܚ ܠܡ ܐܡܪܗ ܕܐܠܗܐ ܩܕܡ ܬܠܝܬܝܘܬܐ ܩܕܝܫܬܐ‬ 40 Michael the Great, Chronique, v. IV, pp. 480-2. 38

CYRIACUS’ LIFE

45

Cyriacus) this looked suspiciously heretical. If Christ is the Heavenly Bread, and simultaneously is the Second person in the Trinity, then how, he asks, could the second person in the Trinity bless himself, since that would mean that the second person in the Trinity is not identical to the Heavenly Bread? Another important thing which is distinctive and worth mentioning here is that the majority of the extant Syrian Orthodox anaphoras are addressed to the Father only and not to the Trinity, since in traditional understanding the Son is being sacrificed to the Father and not to the Trinity.41 Cyriacus also thought that the formula implied a break with Trinitarian theology,42 and in contrast to George’s cautious approach he decided to forbid the formula “We break the Heavenly Bread”, which had gained a widespread following, at the very beginning of his patriarchal rule. The opposition was quick and the provocative action of the patriarch led to great disturbance within the church. Cyriacus did not escape the reaction and was required at a synod in Beth Botin (Harran diocese) in A.D. 794 to leave its usage to the discretion of individual priests. Cyriacus had to content himself with drawing up forty canons43 which almost entirely address liturgical reform and church discipline.44 In the canons Cyriacus appears to keep coming back to the formula of the Heavenly Bread, even if it is not named explicitly. One example is when he says:

41 The exceptions are those of John Maro and Peter III (addressed to the Son), and Dioscorus of Alexandria II (addressed to the Trinity); cf. S.P. Brock, ‘Towards a Typology of the Epicleses in the West Syrian Anaphoras’, in H-J. Feulner, E. Velskovska, and R.F. Taft (eds), Crossroad of Cultures. Studies in Liturgy and Patristics in Honor of Gabriele Winkler (OCA 260; Rome 2000), pp. 173-192. 42 Chronicle to the Year 813, p. 249. 43 One version counts them as forty-six, which suggests they were subsequently redivided into forty-six canons. 44 Michael the Great, Chronique, v. IV, p. 484; Bar Hebraeus, Chronicon Ecclesiasticum, v. I, p. 333; Die syrische ''Liturgie'' des Kyriakos von Antiocheia, p. 175; Krüger, Das syrisch-monophysitische Mönchtum im Tur-Ab(h)din, p. 57.

46

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP When we found that these laws and commandments had a long time since become obscure in the minds of the believers and have become as (a thing) unknown to them, we see that it is (for this reason that) various rebellions and sufferings of every kind have come upon us from foreign people.45

It seems likely that among these rebellions he had in mind the controversy of the formula of the Heavenly Bread which his predecessor had suggested might be of Diodoran and thus ‘Nestorian’ origin. Cyriacus disputed the continued usage of the ‘Heavenly Bread’ formula once again in the early ninth century, but yet again without success. Cyriacus had many opponents amongst the bishops. The keenest opponent of the patriarch was bishop Severus of Samosata,46 who was not pleased with Cyriacus from the beginning of the patriarchal election. Cyriacus is said to have been filled with sorrow regarding Severus and so made an official visitation in order to correct errors in the diocese caused by Severus. Unsurprisingly Severus did not like this, so he claimed that Cyriacus had come to his diocese in order to find a pretext for an argument. When Cyriacus went there, Severus did not open the gates of the church for him, which was a serious insult. Thus Cyriacus showed the local governor a document from the king47 confirming his authority, and the governor commanded that the church be opened, and so Cyriacus entered and excommunicated Severus at the altar. However, shortly afterwards Severus gathered the bishops, priests, monks, and people and went to Cyriacus, to his monastery, to apologise, and Cyriacus forgave him, and peace was established between them.48 This appears to have been an instance when Cyriacus had to demonstrate that he could impose his authority on rebels if need arose. Vööbus, The Synodicon in the West Syrian Tradition II, p. 8. Cf. Michael Le Quien, Oriens Christianus in quatuor patriarchatus digestus (Paris, 1740) vol. 2, col. 933-936. 47 Harun al-rashid. It seems that the patriarchs used to purchase a letter of recognition of their authority from the contemporary king/Caliph. 48 Michael the Great, Chronique, v. IV, p. 484; Bar Hebraeus, Chronicon Ecclesiasticum, v. I, p. 333. 45 46

CYRIACUS’ LIFE

47

Another opponent was named Bacchus, the bishop of the Cyrrhestians.49 Cyriacus reprimanded Bacchus on several occasions for various unacceptable errors that he made in the running of his diocese. Cyriacus even forbade him to serve as bishop at one point, and he was only allowed to go back after some other bishops had gone to intercede with Cyriacus. For this reason Bacchus wanted to take revenge and commanded his clergy to always use the ‘Heavenly Bread’ formula, and to recite it as loudly as possible, in order to annoy Cyriacus.50 Bacchus justified this by claiming that he wanted to sustain the Heavenly bread formula, because it had been handed down from the church-fathers. On his deathbed he called the clergy and the leaders of the diocese to him, and he uttered the following last words, which graphically illustrate the terrible state of his relations with the patriarch: Never allow the formula to be abolished, and never accept any bishops except for those from your own monastery.51 Nothing troubles my soul, except only this little man from Beth Garmai,52 who divides the land into two parts, and has abolished the formula ‘Heavenly Bread’.53

Whatever the exact historical veracity of this speech, it dramatically articulates the fierce hostility that was genuinely nursed by the Gubites against patriarch Cyriacus. When Bacchus died, around A.D. 798, the monks and others from the monastery of Gubo-Baroyo54 took Akhsnoyo, Bacchus’ 49 In the regions of Aleppo. Bar Hebraeus, Chronicon Ecclesiasticum, v. I, p. 337. 50 Chronicle to the Year 813, p. 255. 51 The monastery of Gubo-Baroyo. 52 See footnote 2 in Bar Hebraeus, Chronicon Ecclesiasticum, v. I, p. 338. 53 Michael the Great, Chronique, v. IV, p. 487; Bar Hebraeus, Chronicon Ecclesiasticum, v. I, p. 337; Krüger, Das syrisch-monophysitische Mönchtum im Tur-Ab(h)din, p. 59. 54 Gubo-Baroyo Monastery: located in the Euphrates desert between Aleppo and Mabug, was built at the end of the fifth and the start of the sixth century. Nothing is known about it after the middle of the ninth century. It produced four patriarchs and three bishops. See Barsaum, Scattered Pearls, p. 564.

48

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

disciple, and went to the patriarch, and they presented ‫ܚܡܪܐ‬ ‫ܘܡܕܝܩܐ ܘܫܒܘܩܬܐ ܕܝܠܗ ܕܒܟܘܣ‬,55 that is to say, the donkey, the

travelling-bag and the staff belonging to Baccus, according to the contemporary tradition of the church, and they requested him to ordain Akhsnoyo as bishop for them.56 The patriarch responded that it was not right that the dioceses should be regarded as hereditary, to be passed from one bishop to his chosen successor. Cyriacus suggested that he would consecrate a bishop for them from another territory, and would consecrate somebody from their territory to another diocese. Cyriacus’ compromise was not unreasonable, demonstrating that he had nothing against them, but could not accept their request. However, they rebelled against this and went to the Cyrrhestians and encouraged them to take their part and then declared that they would not accept any bishops except from among the monks of the monastery of Gubo-Baroyo, and that they wouldn’t accept any division of their diocese. Cyriacus wrote them a disciplinary letter, reminding them that they should fear God and accept the one he sends. However, they boldly answered: “The villagers are satisfied with bread, so we will never accept this, unless Akhsnoyo is to be ordained, and if not, then we do not wish to have a bishop.”57 Cyriacus wanted to assert his will, and he was encouraged by John of Aleppo, and Theodosius of Seleucia to stick to his word and to ordain a bishop for them as soon as possible. Cyriacus rapidly ordained the monk Salomon from the monastery of St Jacob58 of Cyrrhus. Bar Hebraeus says that it was 55

time.

This seems to have been a habit in the Church during Cyriacus’

56 Michael the Great, Chronique, v. IV, pp. 486-7; Bar Hebraeus, Chronicon Ecclesiasticum, v. I, p. 337; Chronicle to the Year 813, p. 255. 57 Michael the Great, Chronique, v. IV, p. 488; Bar Hebraeus, Chronicon Ecclesiasticum, v. I, p. 337. 58 Jacob, the Doctor of the Church, Monastery: also called the Nwawīs Monastery, in the mount of Edessa, an hour and a half south of the city. It was built in the fifth century and was mentioned by John of Ephesus in his history in 519. It was renovated by its abbot, John of Serugh, who was elevated to the office of Maphryono of the East in 1164. It remained inhabited until 1223. Its ruins are still visible. See Barsaum, Scattered Pearls, p. 565.

CYRIACUS’ LIFE

49

‫ܐܠ ܦܐܝܐܝܬ‬,59 that is to say, ‘not appropriate’, for the bishops to

advise Cyriacus to ordain such a bishop.60 It looks here that if Cyriacus had not been influenced by these bishops, then he may have done the right thing. Nevertheless, the evil grew, and not only did the Cyrrhestians not accept Salomon, but they also refused to recite the name of Cyriacus in their prayers,61 and they took themselves off to the Caliph, Harun al-Rashid,62 at Marga d-Dabea63 (Adiabene).64 The Gubites wrote a letter of accusation about Cyriacus saying; We let the Commander (of the Faithful) know that Cyriacus who calls himself patriarch, and was made our leader against our will, possesses a document by which he forces heavy burdens on us, and that he is the enemy of the king and of all the Muslims.65 He has built churches on the Roman border, and he passes letters containing news to the Romans. He does not wish to be in the same territory as you, but when you come to the East he goes to the West.66

The Caliph is said to have been enraged when the letter was read to him, and he commanded that all new church buildings should be destroyed, and so the Muslims destroyed the churches and made terrible events, not only the new church in Tagra,67 but also in the Bar Hebraeus, Chronicon Ecclesiasticum, v. I, p. 337. Michael the Great, Chronique, v. IV, p. 488; Bar Hebraeus, Chronicon Ecclesiasticum, v. I, p. 337. 61 Chronicle to the Year 813, p. 256. 62 A famous and beloved Caliph in the history of Islam during A.D. 786-809, who won many great victories for the Mohammedans. He became Caliph when he was only twenty-two years of age. 63 A former word for the metropolitan in Adiabene. See footn. Bar Hebraeus, Chronicon Ecclesiasticum, v. I, p. 339. 64 Michael the Great, Chronique, v. IV, p. 488; Bar Hebraeus, Chronicon Ecclesiasticum, v. I, p. 339. ̈ in Michael the Great’s 65 The Syriac word for Muslims here is ‫ܡܫܠܡܢܐ‬ Chronicle. 66 The letter exists in Michael the Great, Chronique, v. IV, pp. 488-9. I have edited this letter and provided an English translation of it. See chapter 6.3. The Report of Accusations. ܳ ܰ 67 ‫ܓܪܐ‬ ‫ܬ‬. 59 60

50

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

land of Antioch and Jerusalem. They uprooted the ancient churches, and great sadness overcame the Christians. The Caliph sent his men to arrest the patriarch with insults. When Theodosius of Seleucia heard about this, he took his quickest animals and went ahead to Callinicum. He took Cyriacus and the bishops and brought them by a different route to Gobrin. When the Caliph went out to Gobrin he met Cyriacus on the road. Cyriacus begged mercy from him, and he was forgiven and his judgement was handed over to Ismail ibn-Saleh, his secretary, who is said to have been a supporter of the patriarch. When Ismail examined the accusations of the monks and the bishops, they also claimed that Cyriacus had killed their bishop. They said that when Simon of GuboBaroyo, who became bishop of the Arabs, was walking on the road with two of his disciples, Tayōyē68 robbers attacked them and killed them. They claimed that Cyriacus had hired the robbers to kill them.69 Cyriacus subsequently managed to justify himself and “everyone cursed the Gubites who had caused the disaster”.70 When Ismail realised that the accusations were false he drove away all Cyriacus’ accusers, and sent the patriarch to his monastery in Callinicum. These events took place in A.D. 807.71 Only a few years later the monastery of Qenneshrin was itself destroyed by fire, apparently burned down by some dissenters; what was left of it was removed afterwards by partisans of the Gubites.72 This monastery was restored in A.D. 822 by Dionysius, the next patriarch. Cyriacus realized that Salomon from the monastery of St Jacob was not being accepted as a bishop of the Cyrrhestians. He gathered thirty bishops and went to Gobrin, and he wrote letters inviting peace. He sent four bishops to Kafro of Halif73 where the monks of Gubo-Baroyo were gathered, but they attacked the bisḧ , “Arabs” which later meant “Muslims”. ‫ܛܝܝܐ‬ Chronicle to the Year 813, p. 256. 70 Michael the Great, Chronique, v. IV, p. 490. 71 Michael the Great, Chronique, v. IV, p. 489; Bar Hebraeus, Chronicon Ecclesiasticum, v. I, p. 339. 72 Michael the Great, Chronique, v. IV, p. 492. 73 This is probably the same place as Calaz. 68 69

CYRIACUS’ LIFE

51

ops stoning them. When Cyriacus saw their boldness he went to the commander of the territory and he sent officers to capture the trouble-makers. Cyriacus kept forty of these men imprisoned in the monastery. Then the leaders of the Cyrrhestians came to Cyriacus and promised that the monks would come and make peace if he would let the prisoners go. Cyriacus decided to let them go, but the Cyrrhestians changed their mind and listened to Mattai of KepharTuta, Job of Mopsuestia,74 and John of Kokta. The Gubite monks, with the bishops opposed to the patriarch, gathered in the village of Calaz75 and consecrated two bishops. One, Gabriel from GuboBaroyo, for Gulia, and the other, Theophanes from the monastery of Eusibona,76 for Komit, the village of the Tanakeans. When the bishops who were in Gobrin heard about this, they asked the commander to go and arrest anyone who was in that assembly. John of Kokta and some of the followers of Akhsnoyo were caught.77 In A.D. 808, a synod was gathered in Gobrin regarding these problems and excommunicated78 Job, John, Gabriel, Theodoto,79 Akhsnoyo, Mattai, Simon and Theophanes. Just after this synod we meet for the first time the schismatic monk Abraham of the Qartmin Monastery, also nicknamed Abiram after the rebel Abiram who is mentioned in Numbers, chapter 16.80 He is also related to the conflict over the ‘Heavenly Bread’ .‫ܐܝܘܒ܆ ܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ ܕܡܨܝܨܬܐ‬ ‫ܟܠܙ‬.. See footnote in Bar Hebraeus, Chronicon Ecclesiasticum, v. I, p. 342. This could be Killiz. 76 ‫ܐܘܣܒܘܢܐ‬/‫ܕܝܪܐ ܕܐܘܣܝܒܝܢܐ‬: Near the village of Tal’ada, in the vicinity of Antioch. It was built by the noble monk Eusebius the Great and Amian, who established a school for the teaching of philosophy about 340. St. Simon the Stylite entered this monastery at the beginning of his monastic vocation. In 409 it had 120 monks. It produced one patriarch, John III, and two bishops, in the ninth century. See Barsaum, Scattered Pearls, p. 563. 77 Michael the Great, Chronique, v. IV, pp. 490-1; Bar Hebraeus, Chronicon Ecclesiasticum, v. I, pp. 339-341. 78 The letter is preserved in Michael the Great, Chronique, v. IV, pp. 491-2. I have edited this letter and provided an English translation of it. See chapter 6.4. The Letter written at the Synod of Beth Gobrin in A.D. 817. 79 His identity is uncertain. 80 Michael the Great, Chronique, v. III, p. 32. 74 75

52

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

formula. He went to the monastery of the Pillar and asked Cyriacus pardon on behalf of Simon from the Gubo-Baroyo Monastery, which the patriarch granted. But afterwards he listened to Mattai of Kephar-Tuta and fought on the side of the schismatic and became from now on one of the testiest rivals of the patriarchs. The schismatic bishops came together for a second time and made Abraham their patriarch. This new schismatic group within the Syrian Orthodox Church, the Abrahamites, lasted until the death of Abraham. The party of the Abrahamites was formed from the monks of Gubo-Baroyo monastery, from the Cyrrhestians and from the bishops Gabriel of Guba, Theodotus, Akhsnoyo, Mattai, Simon and Theophanes.81 Abraham immediately began to ordain archbishops and bishops without provinces. The members of the sect of Abraham were strong supporters of the Heavenly Bread formula and called Cyriacus a heretic who had united himself with the Julianist heretics. The justification for this was the attempted union proposed by patriarch Cyriacus and Gabriel, his Julianist counterpart, in A.D. 797 (which will be discussed in detail below). They also said that he denied the Trinity, because he did not allow it to be proclaimed during the breaking of the Eucharistic bread. However, the use of the ‘Heavenly Bread’ formula became the main weapon in the battle against the patriarch Cyriacus. The formula was already established in many areas of Syria and Mesopotamia, and even in Egypt the Abrahamites tried to spread their teaching and attempted to gain the support of the contemporary Egyptian patriarch, Mark, so that he would turn against Cyriacus. Only the clarification of the situation by a letter82 from Cyriacus to Mark brought about the change of Mark’s opinion.83 Mark replied in his letter as follows:

81

60.

Krüger, Das syrisch-monophysitische Mönchtum im Tur-Ab(h)din, pp. 59-

82 This letter has not been preserved, only the response. Severus, History of the Patriarchs of the Coptic church of Alexandria, pp, 417-8. 83 There was regular correspondence between the non-Chalcedonian patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria, some of which is preserved in, Severus, History of the Patriarchs of the Coptic church of Alexandria, pp. 359-551.

CYRIACUS’ LIFE

53

A report has reached us of the seed that Satan has sown in your holy church in the error of Abraham. Therefore our church mourned; and we assembled together on that account, because we never heard before these days of anything out of harmony with our union in the orthodox Faith, and with that which the Lord joined together, when he brought us all into the true light. And now we have become like those who have taken a prisoner, and offered him as a gift to the king; but while he is making provision for him, he is attacked by a strange nation, which takes possession of the captive. But I trust in that king, with whose weapons we are armed to fight his enemies, that he will speedily put his enemies to shame, and deliver the captive from their hands. Therefore, O blessed father, neglect not to seek out the erring one, and feed him with the food with which the sick ought to be fed, namely the word of God. As the teacher Paul wrote to us, saying: “Welcome those who are weak in faith, but do not argue with them about their personal opinions.”84 Human bodies are cured by those who understand their sickness. Through proper treatment of the sick, they are restored to health and grow strong. You are now a physician of souls, and, by the power of the doctrine of our Lord Christ, you will remove the disease implanted by the enemy. Salutation to our holy and blessed Father! Amen.85

When this letter reached Cyriacus, patriarch of Antioch, he admired the solicitude shown by Mark, and strove with all his might to bring back that sinner, but had no power over him. However, the sect of Abraham was driven out from lower Egyptian by the command of Mark.86 In the broader context of Cyriacus’ patriarchate, the sect of the Abrahamites became a real problem to Cyriacus. They were accepting all the members of the church who were not 84 85

417-8.

Rom 14:1. Severus, History of the Patriarchs of the Coptic church of Alexandria, pp,

Michael the Great, Chronique, v. IV, pp. 491-2; Bar Hebraeus, Chronicon Ecclesiasticum, v. I, pp. 339-341; Krüger, Das syrisch-monophysitische Mönchtum im Tur-Ab(h)din, p. 60. 86

54

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

welcome to Cyriacus’ church. Amongst them, people who were in their second marriage were allowed to become clergy, and they allowed priests and deacons to have a second marriage. So, they grew quickly by their effective propaganda.87 The schism continued for some years after Cyriacus’ death. Then the Gubites got together with the Cyrrhestians and went to Abiram and said: How long are we going to stay under curses, and be separated from the church. We supported you in the issue of the ‘Heavenly Bread’ formula, but since the patriarch who wanted to abolish it has passed away, we want to return to the church and to remove the curses placed upon us from Syria and Egypt.88

Abiram and his followers suggested they should wait until a new patriarch had been elected before reuniting with the church, although it seems likely that Abraham believed, or hoped, that he would be elected as the supreme patriarch. In 808 a synod was gathered in Callinicum regarding the formula and it was decided to leave its usage to the discretion of each individual. Dionysius was also elected at this synod to become patriarch. With his election, he also accepted the resolution of the dispute over the formula, and attempted to resolve the dispute Cyriacus had had with the Gubites. He invited the Gubites to make peace, but they said that unless you confirm that the formula may always be used then we will not come. Dionysius went on to the Cyrrhestians and asked them to make peace, explaining that he was not against them saying the formula, and so they made peace. When the Abrahamites learned about the decision of the Cyrrhestians, they got angry and anathematized them.89 Akhsnoyo, who had received his ordination from Abiram, also realized with time that he had made a mistake, so he apologized and was accepted back into the church. Abiram went to Callinicum Michael the Great, Chronique, v. IV, pp. 495-8. Michael the Great, Chronique, v. IV, p. 498. 89 Michael the Great, Chronique, v. IV, pp. 498-502; Bar Hebraeus, Chronicon Ecclesiasticum, v. I, pp. 343-8. 87 88

CYRIACUS’ LIFE

55

and tried to gain documents from the Caliph Abdullah90 recognising him as the acknowledged patriarch, but Dionysius had arrived there before Abiram, and when the Caliph asked him about Abiram and his sect Dionysius had explained the origins of the dispute which Abiram had with Cyriacus concerning the formula. Abdullah then asked the crowd who the authentic patriarch was, and they all shouted ‘Dionysius!’ So, he gave the documents to Dionysius and told Abiram not to call himself patriarch anymore and not to keep monks around him, on the pain of death.91 Finally, Abdullah gave Dionysius authority over Abiram, and Dionysius went to Gobrin and ordered them to bring Abiram and his bishops, Saliba and Noah, bound before him, and they were then mocked and insulted in front of the villagers so that they would see that Abiram was not the authentic patriarch. In A.D. 837 Abiram passed away and Simon, his brother, was elected as anti-patriarch in his place. However with the death of Abiram many members of his sect came back to the church, and so effectively the sect of Abiram came to an end.92

2.1.3. THE JULIANISTS Another major theological dispute which Cyriacus had during his reign was a consequence of his attempts to reunite the church with the Syrian Julianists, who remained strong in many regions of the middle east in the eighth and the ninth century,93 an initiative which failed because of the presence of several enemies among his own bishops. ̈ , ‘the The Julianists or ‘Phantasiasts’ (in Syriac ‫ܒܢܝ ܗܓܓܘܬܐ‬ children of fantasy’) were the followers of the sixth-century theolo90 Abdullah ibn Tahir (798–844) was the Tahirid governor of Khurasan from 828 until his death. He is perhaps the most famous of the Tahirids. 91 Michael the Great, Chronique, v. IV, pp. 507-11; Bar Hebraeus, Chronicon Ecclesiasticum, v. I, pp. 355-7. 92 Michael the Great, Chronique, v. IV, pp. 512-4; Bar Hebraeus, Chronicon Ecclesiasticum, v. I, pp. 357-8. 93 Draguet, Julien d’Halicarnasse et sa controverse avec Sévère d’Antioche sur l’incorruptibilité du corps du Christ, p. 260.

56

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

gian Julian of Halicarnassus, the bishop of Halicarnassus in Caria, who became involved in a dispute with his former friend Severus of Antioch, while both were in exile in Alexandria, over the question of whether Christ's body during his life on earth was incorruptible or corruptible, and whether he was subject to human pas̈ ‫ܚܫܐ ܐܠ‬ ̈ , namely hunger, sions, even the blameless ones ‫ܥܕܝܐܠ‬ thirst and tiredness. Severus and the Syrian Orthodox say that before the resurrection Christ’s body and His needs were like any human being. They say he did not just allow himself to be hungry, but he was hungry and he could have been tempted to sin, but did not sin. They emphasised the reality of Christ’s humanity, without which the reality of the incarnation would have been threatened. They further argue that only at the resurrection was Christ’s body transformed from being corruptible to being incorruptible. This dispute over the reality of Christ’s humanity led to a division of the non-Chalcedonian Syrians which lasted for many centuries, and also caused division in the Armenian Church.94 In an attempt to heal this damaging split within the antiChalcedonian Syrians, Cyriacus held a synod to which patriarch Gabriel of the Julianists was invited, and as part of their formula of reunion they drew up a creed called “The Creed of our Lord’s brother”. Presumably it was named after James/Jacob because the main Eucharistic liturgy, which both groups used, was already named after him, and so represented a common theological foundation for both groups, reaching back before the division of the church. (It is also conceivable that they were reinterpreting the common name given to the anti-Chalcedonian Syrians, ‘Jacobites’, as deriving from James the brother of the Lord, rather than from Jacob Baradaeus.) The formula of the union is dated exactly as Wednesday the 7th of September of the year A.D. 797.95

Draguet, Julien d’Halicarnasse et sa controverse avec Sévère d’Antioche sur l’incorruptibilité du corps du Christ, p. 260; cf. Taylor, ‘The Christology of the Syriac Psalm Commentary (AD 541/2) of Daniel of Salah and the Phantasiast Controversy’, in M.F. Wiles & E.J. Yarnold, (eds), Studia Patristica XXXV (Leuven, 2001), pp. 508-15. 95 See chapter 6.2. The Creed Drawn up at Qenneshrin in A.D. 797. 94

CYRIACUS’ LIFE

57

The union between their churches was built upon two conditions, which were required by Gabriel. First, that the Syrian Orthodox should cease to preach the teachings of Severus of Antioch and should no longer anathematize Julian, and second, that both patriarchs should be mentioned in the liturgy in both churches, and that whichever of the two patriarchs outlived the other would become the sole leader of the newly-united church.96 Cyriacus appears to have reacted very positively towards this attempt to unite the churches, but there was fierce opposition from some of his bishops, including some who have already been mentioned, namely Bacchus of the Cyrrhestians, Zechariah of Edessa, and Severus of Samosata, and also some who had been ordained by Cyriacus, Theodosius of Callinicum, and Philoxenus of Nisibis.97 Cyriacus was therefore forced to call another synod to which Gabriel again came. The bishops requested Cyriacus to ask Gabriel to anathematize Julian openly. Cyriacus refused and said that there was no need for such a thing since they had the teachings of their fathers on the subject. The bishops were not happy with Cyriacus’ answer so they went to Gabriel and asked him to anathematize Julian openly. Gabriel said that he would be happy to anathematize Julian and accept Severus, but that it would be a problem if he did that openly, because the members of his church had been loyal to Julian for centuries and would need time to adjust to the new teaching. In Michael the Great’s account and in Bar Hebraeus’ chronicle we learn that Cyriacus’ bishops conspired together and declared; “we will never agree not to anathematize Julian openly!”98 Gabriel’s attempts to convince these bishops of his sincerity did not succeed. Finally he is said to have declared; “I have now understood that it is not because of God that you reject the proposed reunion, but because of your envy against your leader”.99 In the end, however, 96 Michael the Great, Chronique, v. IV, p. 485; Bar Hebraeus, Chronicon Ecclesiasticum, v. I, p. 335. 97 Chronicle to the Year 813, p. 252. 98 Michael the Great, Chronique, v. IV, p. 486; Bar Hebraeus, Chronicon Ecclesiasticum, v. I, p. 335. 99 Michael the Great, Chronique, v. IV, p. 486; Bar Hebraeus, Chronicon Ecclesiasticum, v. I, p. 335.

58

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

the attempt to reunite the churches failed, and Cyriacus was labelled by his opponents as a heretic, or at best a sympathiser with the heretics.

2.1.4. PROBLEMS IN TAGRIT While Cyriacus was still entangled in these battles, another issue was born. The inhabitants of Tagrit, his home town, were constantly complaining about Simon, the metropolitan, who was ordained by Cyriacus, and replaced by Sharbel who resigned from his duty.100 However, Cyriacus favoured Simon, his disciple, and so at first he rejected the complaints of the laymen, which led to much bitterness. Cyriacus was put under great pressure, however, and so asked Simon to resign, but he refused, and so Cyriacus had to threaten to excommunicate him, which made Simon decide simply to leave. Those people in Tagrit who supported Simon started cursing Cyriacus for removing Simon, and Simon’s enemies were also cursing him, as well as his master, the patriarch, who had originally supported him, and so Cyriacus found himself attacked from several sides.101 When this problem was growing, five bishops came to Cyriacus in order to gather a synod to analyse the problem. The synod took place in Harran in A.D. 813. The inhabitants of Tagrit came to this synod, both those who favoured Simon and those who disliked him. Michael the Great does not reveal what the accusations were, though he calls them abominable accusations. Nevertheless, when proof of the accusations was provided, the bishops started to doubt Simon. On their advice Simon retired to his monastery and wrote a letter of resignation. However, Cyriacus did not allow Simon to be excommunicated. At the same time there was a complaint about Philoxenus of Nisibis who was for the excommunication of Simon, and so at the same synod it was decided that he was not allowed to go back to Nisibis.102 Twenty-six canons103 were issued at this synod, mostly dealing with the priesthood. One can Bar Hebraeus, Chronicon Ecclesiasticum, v. III, p. 177 Michael the Great, Chronique, v. IV, pp. 492-3; Bar Hebraeus, Chronicon Ecclesiasticum, v. I, p. 341. 102 Michael the Great, Chronique, v. IV, p. 493. 103 Vööbus, The Synodicon in the West Syrian Tradition II, pp. 22-35. 100 101

CYRIACUS’ LIFE

59

suggest that the reason for this is that church discipline among the congregations had grown very weak, as witnessed by the clergy who were attracted to the sect of Abraham. After the synod Cyriacus took Theodosius104, who had been consecrated bishop for Edessa but had resigned, and went to Edessa in order to make peace between him and the Edessans, which appears to have been successful. Cyriacus also wanted to make peace between the Easterners and Simon, so he asked Simon to go to the bishops to make peace with them so that they would not be a problem when Cyriacus himself attempted to make peace with them. When Simon succeeded in this, Cyriacus planned to install him on his see again, but whilst he was at Circesium, on his way to do this, a messenger came to Cyriacus and told him that Simon had passed away. Cyriacus went on to Tagrit and ordained Basilius, who was from the town Balad, in Simon’s place. Basilius had been busy there with secular judgements, and was active in the law court, and involved with the tax collection. Cyriacus thought that such an experienced man could deal with the actions of the Easterners.105 However, conflict arose because of an old rivalry between the antiChalcedonian stronghold of the monastery of Mar Mattai, supported by the citizens of nearby Mosul, and the new ecclesiastical upstart which was Tagrit. According to a slightly confused account by Michael the Great, after the see of the Orient (the church in the Persian Empire) was separated from Antioch by the supposed assassination of Babai in 458,106 it remained for some time without leadership until Christophoros, patriarch of the Armenians, ordained Garmai107 of Mar Mattai as the metropolitan for Mosul and Nineveh. Whatever 104 Theodosius, metropolitan of Edessa (d. 832), was the brother of patriarch Dionysius of Tellmahre. He was consecrated bishop of Edessa around 813. see Barsaum, Scattered Pearls, p. 381. 105 Michael the Great, Chronique, v. IV, pp. 494-5; Bar Hebraeus, Chronicon Ecclesiasticum, v. I, p. 343. 106 See Michael the Great, Chronique, v. IV, p. 239. Babai could not have been murdered; he was Catholicos during 457-483. So this story must have been made up to account for the division. 107 See Michael the Great, Chronique, v. II, p. 417.

60

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

the historical value of these traditions, it seems that the antiChalcedonian metropolitans of Mar Mattai were, whether by choice or by simple political and geographical separation from their coreligionists in the Roman Empire, long independent of the Syrian Orthodox patriarchs of Antioch. Each metropolitan of Mar Mattai would consecrate his own successor. When they were re-united with Antioch in the days of Athanasius the patriarch of the Syrian Orthodox (595-631),108 and Christophoros the metropolitan of Assur, the patriarch sent the metropolitan a letter, and not only ordained Marutha109 as metropolitan for Tagrit, but also gave him and Tagrit primary regional authority, that is to say, higher authority than the metropolitans of Assur based in Mar Mattai. Effectively all the power over the local bishops and churches was transferred to Tagrit and the title of metropolitan left to the bishop of Mosul was a mere courtesy title.110 Basilius, the new metropolitan of Tagrit, was not satisfied with this, however, and he was annoyed by the fact that the bishop of Mosul, Daniel, was also called metropolitan. He therefore provoked all sorts of local disputes. The monks of Mar Mattai, and all the bishops who had trained there, were now against Basilius and also against Cyriacus who was supporting him. Mosul itself was divided, one part supporting Daniel and the Matthaeans and the other Basilius. The latter brought terrible accusations against Daniel, and wanted to put him on trial. Cyriacus anathematized the Matthaeans and their bishops, and the Matthaeans and their bishops anathematized Cyriacus and Basilius.111

108 ‫ܐܬܐܢܢܣܝܘܣ ܕܐܬܩܪܝ ܓܡܐܠ‬, Athanasius I, who was also called Camel Rider (595-631). The word Baladensis comes from the town Balad. The account of his life can be found in Bar Hebraeus, Chronicon Ecclesiasticum, v. I, pp. 261-275; Michael the Great, Chronique, v. IV, pp. 387-414. 109 Marutha was one of the three monks whom the patriarch brought to Antioch when he visited the monastery of Mar Mattai. 110 Michael the Great, Chronique, v. IV, p. 495. 111 Michael the Great, Chronique, v. IV, p. 495.

CYRIACUS’ LIFE

61

In A.D. 817 Cyriacus gathered a synod in Mosul and wrote a letter112 to Daniel, in which he declared that due to the controversy and the opposition to him, the bishopric of Mosul would have no further authority within the East, outside its own diocese. The metropolitan of Tagrit, however, would not be allowed to ordain any bishop to any see under his authority who did not come from the monastery of Mar Mattai. But the bishops belonging to the Mar Mattai monastery rebelled and they excommunicated Cyriacus and Basilius, and he excommunicated them. As a compromise the patriarch was constrained to confirm the metropolicy to Daniel of Mosul, but insisting that he be subject to Tagrit. In the middle of these exhausting struggles the patriarch’s health failed, and he passed away in Mosul on the sixteenth of August 817.113 His body was taken on a light boat to Tagrit, the city of his parents, for burial. He was buried in the big church of the castle.114 Cyriacus had served as a patriarch for twenty-four years, and had consecrated eighty-six bishops.115 We can see that many bishops consecrated by This letter is preserved in Michael the Great, Chronique, v. IV, pp. 495-7. It has been transcribed and translated into English in chapter 6.5. The Letter written at the Synod of Mosul in A.D. 817. 113 The chronicles do not agree on the date of his death. Michael the Great, Chronique, v. IV, p. 498, states that it was on 19th August; Barhebraeus, 16th August; and the chronicle of 846, 16th June. The latter also reports that he died on a Sunday, at the time of the divine sacrifice. If there is any truth to this recollection, then this favours the date given by Barhebraeus, 16th August. 114 Chabot, Chronicle to the Year 813, p. 238. In Syriac ‫ܒܥܕܬܐ ܪܒܬܐ‬ ‫ܕܚܣܢܐ‬. 115 Michael the Great, Chronique, v. IV, pp. 753-4. List of bishops consecrated by Cyriacus: .‫ܐܦܝܣ ܠܓܘܪܓܢ‬ ̄ ‫ ܦܝܠܘܟܣܢܝܘܤ‬-‫ ܒ‬.‫ ܐܦܝܬܪܘܢܝܤܐ ܗܘܐ ܫܪܒܝܠ ܠܬܓܪܝܬ‬-‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐܦܝܤ ܠܕܠܝܟ ܒܬܠܥܕܐ‬ ̄ ‫ ܩܘܤܛܢܛܝܢܐ‬-‫ ܕ‬.‫ܐܦܝܤ ܠܪܨܦܐ ܒܚܙܝܘ ܩܪܝܬܐ‬ ̄ ‫ ܡܠܟܝܙܕܩ‬-‫ܓ‬ ̄‫ ܚܢܢܝܐ ܐܦܝܤ‬-‫ ܘ‬.‫ ܡܢ ܕܝܪܐ ܕܩܘܒܐ ܐܬܩܪܝ‬.‫ܡܝܛܪܘ ܠܕܪܐ‬ ̄ ‫ ܬܐܘܡܐ‬-‫ ܗ‬.‫ܩܪ ܼܝܬܐ‬ ‫ ܡܢ‬.‫ܐܦܝܤ ܕܠܛܘܪܥܒܕܝܢ‬ ̄ ‫ ܬܐܘܡܐ‬-‫ ܙ‬.‫ ܡܢ ܕܝܪܐ ܕܩܐܠܝܢܝܩܘܤ‬.‫ܠܡܪܕܐ ܘܠܟܦܪܬܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܐܦܝܤ ܠܡܝܦܪܩܛ ܒܣܚܪܬܐ‬ ̄ ‫ ܝܘܚܢܢ‬-‫ ܚ‬.‫ܒܗ ܒܕܝܪܐ ܕܐܤܛܘܢܐ‬ ̇ ‫ܥܘܡܪ]ܐ[ ܕܩܪܬܡܝܢ‬ ̈ ‫ܐܦܝܤ ܠܡܕܝܢܬܐ ܕ‬ -‫ ܝ‬.‫ܥܡܡܐ ܒܕܝܪܐ ܕܐܤܛܘܢܐ‬ ̄ ‫ ܝܘܚܢܢ‬-‫ ܛ‬.‫ܩܪܝܬܐ ܕܒܐܬܪܐ ܕܝܕܥ‬ -‫ ܝܐ‬.‫ܐܦܝܤ ܐܠܦܪܗ ܡܕܝܢܬܐ ܕܟܘܪܤܢ ܒܟܕܝܐ ܩܪܝܬܐ ܕܒܐܬܪܐ ܕܚܪܢ‬ ̄ ‫ܦܘܠܘܤ‬ ̈ ‫ܐܦܝܤ ܠܢܨܝܒܝܢ ܡܢ‬ ̄ ‫ ܕܘܝܕ‬-‫ ܝܒ‬.‫ܡܕܝܢـ‬ ̄ ‫ܕܩܕܡܢܝܐ ܒܐܘܪܗܝ‬ ‫ܩܘܪܝܩܘܤ ܐܦܝܤ̄ ܠܥܡܐ‬ -‫ ܝܕ‬.‫ ܒܤܝܠܝܘܤ ܐܠܘܪܗܝ ܒܥܘܡܪܐ ܕܝܘܚܢܢ ܕܦܬܘܢܝܐ‬-‫ ܝܓ‬.‫ܥܘܡܪܐ ܕܩܪܬܡܝܢ ܒܐܘܪܗܝ‬ 112

‫‪CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP‬‬

‫‪62‬‬

‫ܐܦܝܤ ܠܬܐܠ ܕܡܘܙܠܬܐ‬ ‫̄‬ ‫ܡܝܛܪܘ ܐܠܘܦܝܡܝܐ ܒܕܪܡܣܘܩ ܡܕܝܢܬܐ‪ .‬ܝܗ‪ -‬ܐܢܤܛܤ‬ ‫̄‬ ‫ܚܒ ܼܝܒ‬ ‫ܒܗ ܒܡܕܝܢܬܐ‪ .‬ܝܙ‪-‬‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܒܕܐܪܐ ܕܒܐܬܪܐ ܕܫܐܡ‪ .‬ܝܘ‪ -‬ܒܤܝܠܝܘܤ ܐܦܝܤ̄ ܠܩܐܠܝܢܝܩܘܤ‬ ‫ܡܝܛܪܘ ܠܛܪܣܘܤ‬ ‫̄‬ ‫ܐܦܝܤ ܠܩܪܩܝܣܘܤ ܡܕܝܢܬܐ‪ .‬ܒܕܝܪܐ ܕܙܟܝ‪ .‬ܝܚ‪ -‬ܐܬܢܐܤܝܘܤ‬ ‫̄‬ ‫ܝܥܩܘܒ‬ ‫ܐܦܝܤ ܠܩܐܠܝܢܝܩܘܤ ܒܚܪܢ ܡܕܝܢܬܐ‪ .‬ܟܟ‪-‬‬ ‫̄‬ ‫ܒܚܪܢ ܡܕܝܢܬܐ‪ .‬ܝܛ‪ -‬ܬܐܘܕܘܣܝܘܤ‬ ‫ܐܦܝܤ ܠܥܡܐ‬ ‫̄‬ ‫ܓܒܪܐܝܠ ܐܦܝܤ̄ ܠܪܝܫܟܐܦܐ ܒܡܪܝܒܐ ܩܤܛܪܐ ܕܚܪܢ‪ .‬ܟܐ‪ -‬ܝܘܚܢܢ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܐܦܝܤ ܠܩܐܠܝܢܝܩܐܠ‬ ‫̄‬ ‫ܕܩܕܡܢܝܐ ܒܟܦܪܚܐܢ ܩܪܝܬܐ ܕܪܝܫܟܐܦܐ‪ .‬ܟܒ‪ -‬ܐܬܢܐܤܝܘܤ‬ ‫ܐܦܝܤ ܠܟܠܛ ܡܕܝܢܬܐ ܕܐ̈ܪܡܢܝܐ ܒܩܐܠܝܢܝܩܘܤ‪ .‬ܟܕ‪-‬‬ ‫̄‬ ‫ܡܕܝܢܬܐ ܕܐܪܡܢܝܐ‪ .‬ܟܓ‪ -‬ܝܘܚܢܢ‬ ‫̄‬ ‫ܐܦܝܤ‬ ‫ܐܦܝܤ ܐܠܪܙܘܢ ܡܕܝܢܬܐ ܒܕܝܪܐ ܕܐܤܛܘܢܐ ܒܚܙܝܪܢ‪ .‬ܟܗ‪ -‬ܠܥܙܪ‬ ‫̄‬ ‫ܣܒܐ‬ ‫ܐܦܝ ܠܬܕܡܪܘ‬ ‫̄‬ ‫ܠܢܨ ܼܝܒܝܢ ܡܢ ܥܘܡܪܐ ܕܩܪܬܡܝܢ ܒܕܝܪܐ ܕܐܤܛܘܢܐ‪ .‬ܟܘ‪ -‬ܫܡܥܘܢ‬ ‫ܐܦܝܤ ܠܡܡܦܣܘܤܛܝܐ ܡܕܝܢܬܐ‬ ‫̄‬ ‫ܡܢ ܥܘܡܪܐ ܕܡܪܝ ܝܥܩܘܒ‪ .‬ܟܙ‪ -‬ܐܝܘܒ‬ ‫ܡܕܝܢܬܐ‪̣ :‬‬ ‫ܡܝܛܪܘ ܐܠܘܪܫܠܡ‬ ‫̄‬ ‫ܕܩܘܪܘܤ ܒܫܒܛ‪ .‬ܘܗܘܬ݀ ܩܬܪܤܝܤ ܕܝܠܗ ܒܫܒܛ‪ .‬ܟܚ‪ -‬ܛܝܡܬܐܘܤ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܠܬܓܠܒܝܐ ܕܓܙܝܪܬܐ ܘܕܡܘܨܠ‬ ‫̄‬ ‫ܐܦܝܤ‬ ‫ܒܥܘܡܪܐ ܕܡܪܝ ܝܥܩܘܒ ܕܩܘܪܘܤ‪ .‬ܟܛ‪ -‬ܕܘܝܕ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܐܦܝ ܠܬܐܠ ܕܡܘܙܠܬ‪ .‬ܒܦܝܡܢ ܕܣܪܘܓ‪.‬‬ ‫̄‬ ‫ܕܬܓܠܒܝܐ‪ .‬ܠ‪ -‬ܡܬܝ‬ ‫ܒܕܩܐܠ ܩܤܛܪܐ ܟܘܪܣܝܐ‬ ‫̄‬ ‫ܐܦܝܤ‬ ‫ܐܦܝ ܠܣܪܘܓ ܒܡܫܪܐ ܩܪܝܬܐ ܕܒܗ ܒܐܬܪܐ‪ .‬ܠܒ‪ -‬ܦܝܠܘܟܣܝܢܘܤ‬ ‫̄‬ ‫ܐܠ‪ -‬ܕܘܡܝܢܐ‬ ‫̄‬ ‫ܡܝܛܪܘ‬ ‫ܐܦܝܤ ܠܫܡܝܫܛ ܡܕܝܢܬܐ ܒܚܪܢ ܡܕܝܢܬܐ‪ .‬ܠܕ‪ -‬ܝܘܚܢܢ‬ ‫̄‬ ‫ܠܢܨܝܒܝܢ‪ .‬ܠܓ‪ -‬ܕܢܝܐܝܠ‬ ‫ܐܦܝܤ ܐܠܬܪܐ ܕܕܝܪܝܓ‪ .‬ܠܘ‪ -‬ܩܘܪܝܠܠܘܤ‬ ‫̄‬ ‫ܠܚܡܨ ܡܢ ܥܘܡܪܐ ܕܒܝܪ ܩܘܡ‪ .‬ܠܗ‪ -‬ܝܥܩܘܒ‬ ‫ܡܝܛܪܘ ܠܛܪܣܘܤ ܡܢ ܕܝܪܐ ܕܡܪܝ‬ ‫̄‬ ‫ܐܦܝܤ ܐܠܪܫܡܫܛ ܡܕܝܢܬܐ ܒܟܦܪܐ‪ .‬ܠܙ‪ -‬ܓܒܪܐܝܠ‬ ‫̄‬ ‫̄‬ ‫ܐܦܝܤ‬ ‫ܐܦܝܤ ܠܪܝܫ ܟܐܦܐ ܡܢ ܕܝܪܐ ܕܡܪܝ ܫܝܐܠ‪ .‬ܠܛ‪ -‬ܐܠܝܐ‬ ‫̄‬ ‫ܫܠܡܘܢ‪ .‬ܠܚ‪ -‬ܐܢܤܛܤ‬ ‫ܐܦܝܤ ܠܟܪܡܐ‬ ‫̄‬ ‫ܠܚܕܬ ܡܕܝܢܬܐ ܒܕܝܪܐ ܕܐܤܛܘܢܐ ܕܩܐܠܝܢܝܩܘܤ‪ .‬ܡ‪ -‬ܐܠܝܫܥ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܒܗ ܒܬܓܪܝܬ‪ .‬ܡܒ‪-‬‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܐܦܝܤ ܠܫܪܙܘܠ‬ ‫̄‬ ‫ܘܠܚܨܝܨܢܝܬܐ ܒܬܓܪܝܬ‪ .‬ܡܐ‪ -‬ܐܝܘܢܢܝܤ‬ ‫ܐܦܝܤ ܐܠܕܪܥܬ ܡܕܝܢܬܐ ܡܢ ܕܝܪܐ‬ ‫̄‬ ‫ܡܝܛܪܘ ܠܬܓܪܝܬ‪ .‬ܡܓ‪ -‬ܓܐܘܪܓܝ‬ ‫̄‬ ‫ܫܡܥܘܢ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̄‬ ‫ܐܦܝܤ‬ ‫ܐܦܝܤ ܠܛܘܪܥܒܕܝܢ ܡܢ ܥܘܡܪܐ ܕܩܪܬܡܝܢ‪ .‬ܡܗ‪ -‬ܥܘܬܡܢ‬ ‫̄‬ ‫ܕܛܝܝܐ‪ .‬ܡܕ‪ -‬ܤܪܓܝܤ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܐܦܝ ܐܠܢܐܙܪܒܘܢ ܡܢ ܕܝܪܐ‬ ‫̄‬ ‫ܕܬܓܠܒܝܐ ܕܒܓܙܝܪܬܐ‪ .‬ܡܘ‪ -‬ܐܝܓܢܐܛܝܘܤ‬ ‫ܠܥܡܐ‬ ‫̄‬ ‫ܐܦܝ‬ ‫ܡܝܛܪܘ ܠܚܡܨ ܡܢ ܕܝܪܐ ܕܒܝܪ ܩܘܡ‪ .‬ܡܚ‪ -‬ܐܪܐܒܝ‬ ‫̄‬ ‫ܕܢܛܦܐ‪ .‬ܡܙ‪ -‬ܝܘܚܢܢ‬ ‫ܡܝܛܪܘ ܠܩܘܪܘܤ ܡܢ‬ ‫̄‬ ‫ܠܬܐܘܕܘܣܝܘܦܘܠܝܤ ܪܝܫ ܥܝܢܐ ܡܢ ܕܝܪܐ ܕܫܢܐ‪ .‬ܡܛ‪ -‬ܫܠܡܘܢ‬ ‫ܐܦܝܤ ܠܩܪܩܝܣܝܘܢ ܡܢ ܕܝܪܐ ܕܬܐܠܠ‪ .‬ܢܐ‪ -‬ܚܒܝܒ‬ ‫̄‬ ‫ܕܝܪܐ ܕܡܪܝ ܝܥܩܘܒ‪ .‬ܢܢ‪ -‬ܡܐܩܝܡ‬ ‫ܐܦܝܤ ܠܬܐܠ‪ .‬ܡܢ‬ ‫̄‬ ‫ܐܦܝܤ ܐܠܬܪܐ ܐܪܓܘܠܢܐ ܡܢ ܕܝܪܐ ܕܣܪܡܝܢ‪ .‬ܢܒ‪ -‬ܕܝܘܢܢܘܣܝܘܤ‬ ‫̄‬ ‫ܐܦܝܤ ܐܠܪܐܒܝܐ ܡܢ ܥܘܡܪܐ ܕܡܪܝ ܙܟܝ‪ .‬ܢܕ‪-‬‬ ‫̄‬ ‫ܒܝܬ ܡܪܝ ܬܐܘܡܐ‪ .‬ܢܓ‪ -‬ܫܡܥܘܢ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܐܦܝܤ ܠܟܝܫܘܡ‬ ‫̄‬ ‫ܕܡܕܢܚܝܐ‪ .‬ܢܗ‪ -‬ܬܐܘܕܘܪܐ‬ ‫ܐܦܝ ܠܫܡܝܫܛ ܡܢ ܥܘܡܪܐ‬ ‫̄‬ ‫ܬܐܘܕܘܣܝܘܤ‬ ‫ܐܦܝ ܠܓܝܫܪܐ ܡܢ ܥܘܡܪܐ ܕܡܪܝ ܒܝܝ‪ .‬ܢܙ‪-‬‬ ‫̄‬ ‫ܡܢ ܥܘܡܪܐ ܕܡܪܝ ܝܥܩܘܒ ܕܟܝܫܘܡ‪ .‬ܢܘ‪ -‬ܠܥܙܪ‬ ‫ܡܝܛܪܘ ܠܪܨܦܐ ܡܢ‬ ‫̄‬ ‫ܡܝܛܪܘ ܐܠܡܝܕ ܡܢ ܕܝܪܐ ܕܡܪܝ ܐܬܘܢܘܤ‪ .‬ܢܚ‪ -‬ܫܡܥܘܢ‬ ‫̄‬ ‫ܐܝܘܢܢܝܤ‬ ‫ܡܝܛܪܘ ܐܠܘܪܗܝ ܡܢ ܥܘܡܪܐ ܕܩܢܫܪܐ‪ .‬ܤ‪ -‬ܦܛܪܘܤ‬ ‫̄‬ ‫ܥܘܡܪܐ ܕܐܒܝܢ‪ .‬ܢܛ‪ -‬ܬܐܘܕܘܣܝܘܤ‬ ‫ܐܦܝ ܠܒܥܠܒܟ ܡܢ ܕܝܪܐ‬ ‫̄‬ ‫ܐܦܝ ܐܠܪܙܘܢ ܡܢ ܥܘܡܪܐ ܕܡܪܝ ܝܘܚܢܢ ܕܕܪܐ‪ .‬ܤܐ‪ -‬ܤܪܓܝܤ‬ ‫̄‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܐܦܝ ܐܠܘܪܡ‬ ‫̄‬ ‫ܕܛܝܝܐ‪ .‬ܤܓ‪ -‬ܝܥܩܘܒ‬ ‫ܐܦܝܤ ܠܚܠܒ ܡܢ ܕܝܪܐ‬ ‫̄‬ ‫ܕܦܣܝܠܬܐ‪ .‬ܤܒ‪ -‬ܕܢܝܐܝܠ‬ ‫ܐܦܝܤ ܐܠܪܫܝܡܫܛ ܡܕܝܢܬܐ‪ .‬ܣܗ‪-‬‬ ‫̄‬ ‫ܩܤܛܪܐ ܡܢ ܕܝܪܐ ܕܡܪܝ ܝܘܣܦ‪ .‬ܤܕ‪ -‬ܓܐܘܪܓܝ‬ ‫ܡܝܛܪܘ ܠܡܝܦܪܩܛ‬ ‫̄‬ ‫ܐܦܝ ܐܠܦܪܗ ܕܒܟܘܪܣܢ ܡܢ ܕܝܪܐ ܕܨܠܝܒܐ‪ .‬ܣܘ‪ -‬ܒܤܝܠܝܘܤ‬ ‫̄‬ ‫ܛܝܒܪܝ‬ ‫ܐܦܝܤ ܠܩܪܕܘ ܡܕܝܢܬܐ ܡܢ ܕܝܪܐ ܕܒܬܐ ܕܚܣܡܝ‪ .‬ܣܚ‪-‬‬ ‫̄‬ ‫ܡܢ ܕܝܪܐ ܕܦܢܚܤ‪ .‬ܣܙ‪ -‬ܝܘܚܢܢ‬ ‫ܐܦܝܤ ܐܠܪܡܢܝܐ ܪܒܬܐ‬ ‫̄‬ ‫ܐܦܝ ܠܚܪܢ ܿܗܘ ܕܒܬܪܟܢ ܐܫܬܐܠ‪ .‬ܤܛ‪ -‬ܓܒܪܐܝܠ‬ ‫̄‬ ‫ܓܐܘܪܝ‬ ‫ܡܝܛܪܘ ܠܛܪܣܘܤ ܡܕܝܢܬܐ‪ .‬ܥܐ‪ -‬ܐܘܓܪܝܤ ܐܟܣܢܝܐ‬ ‫̄‬ ‫ܡܢ ܕܝܪܐ ܕܡܪܝ ܫܝܐܠ‪ .‬ܥ‪ -‬ܚܒܝܒ‬ ‫ܐܦܝ ܠܛܝܒܪܝܐ ܡܕܝܢܬܐ ܘܐܠ ܕܓܘܡܝܐ‪.‬‬ ‫̄‬ ‫ܐܦܝ ܐܠܪܕܥܬ ܕܒܝܬܘܢܝܐ‪ .‬ܥܒ‪ -‬ܐܝܣܚܩ‬ ‫̄‬ ‫ܐܦܝ ܠܬܠܒܫܡܝ‬ ‫̄‬ ‫ܐܦܝܤ ܠܬܐܠ ܡܕܝܢܬܐ ܡܢ ܕܝܪܐ ܕܩܪܩܦܬܐ‪ .‬ܥܕ‪ -‬ܡܬܘܕܘܤ‬ ‫̄‬ ‫ܥܓ‪ -‬ܝܘܚܢܢ‬ ‫ܡܝܛܪܘ ܠܡܝܦܪܩܛ ܡܢ ܕܝܪܐ ܕܡܪܝ ܦܢܚܤ‪.‬‬ ‫̄‬ ‫ܡܢ ܕܝܪܐ ܕܡܪܝ ܐܬܘܢܘܤ‪ .‬ܥܗ‪ -‬ܓܐܘܪܓܝ‬

CYRIACUS’ LIFE

63

Cyriacus were from the monastery of Qartmin. This could indicate that Cyriacus favoured the monks from that monastery, and/or was supported by them. I conclude this account of Cyriacus’ life by quoting Michael the Great, ‘because he was zealous and strict with transgressors of the law he passed his days in bitterness’.116 It is also known that Cyriacus was aware of theological debates outside his own church. Although there is no evidence that he attended any of those personally, Michael the Great’s chronicle informs us that Cyriacus sent his archdeacon Nonnus117 of Nisibis to attend a Christological debate with the Chalcedonian Theodore Abū Qurrah of Edessa, also called Pygla, who had been the bishop of Harran for a short time, and who had been deposed by their patriarch Theodoret (c. 785-799) because of charges brought against him.118 Abū Qurrah was travelling and spreading the doctrine of Maximus and ‘even added to the impiety of that man’, among the Chalcedonians and the Orthodox. He went to Alexandria to participate in disputes against Muslims, but he was not successful in Alexandria, so he continued his journey to Armenia, and went to Patricios Ašot119 whom he at first convinced. Thus Nonnus was sent to expose his heretical ideas so that he would not deceive the Armenians. Nonnus delivered Ašot from both Dyophysi-

‫ܐܦܝ ܠܟܪܡܐ ܡܢ ܕܝܪܐ‬ ̄ ‫ ܐܕܝ‬-‫ ܥܙ‬.‫ܡܝܛܪܘ ܠܬܓܪܝܬ ܡܢ ܕܝܪܐ ܕܤܪܓܝܤ‬ ̄ ‫ ܒܤܝܠܝܘܤ‬-‫ܥܘ‬ -‫ ܥܛ‬.‫ܐܦܝ ܠܛܘܪܥܒܕܝܢ ܡܢ ܕܝܪܐ ܕܩܪܬܡܝܢ‬ ̄ ‫ ܚܙܩܝܐܝܠ‬-‫ ܥܚ‬.‫ܕܡܪܝ ܙܥܘܪܐ ܕܣܪܘܓ‬ ‫ܐܦܝ ܠܡܪܕܐ‬ ̄ ‫ ܐܝܓܢܐܛܝܘܤ‬-‫ ܦ‬.‫ܓܒܪܐܝܠ ܐܦܝܤ̄ ܐܠܪܡܢܝܐ ܡܢ ܥܘܡܪܐ ܕܩܪܬܡܝܢ‬ .‫ܐܦܝ ܠܚܪܢ ܡܢ ܕܝܪܐ ܕܩܪܬܡܝܢ‬ ̄ ‫ ܓܐܘܪܓܝ‬-‫ ܦܐ‬.‫ܘܠܟܦܪܬܘܬܐ ܡܢ ܕܝܪܐ ܕܡܪܝ ܚܢܢܝܐ‬ ̄ ‫ܐܦܝܤ‬ ‫ ܐܝܘܢܢܝܤ‬-‫ ܦܓ‬.‫ܐܦܝ ܠܪܝܫ ܟܐܦܐ ܡܢ ܥܘܡܪܐ ܕܡܪܝ ܝܥܩܘܒ‬ ̄ ‫ ܬܐܘܡܐ‬-‫ܦܒ‬ ̄ ‫ܐܦܝܤ‬ ‫ ܕܘܝܕ‬-‫ ܦܗ‬.‫ ܪܨܦܐ ܡܢ ܥܘܡܪܐ ܕܚܢܢܝܐ ܕܒܗ ܒܐܬܪܐ‬-‫ ܦܕ‬.‫ܠܟܠܢܫ ܡܢ ][ ܕܟܝܫܘܡ‬ .‫ܐܦܝܤ ܠܙܘܦܛܪܐ ܡܢ ܕܝܪܐ ܕܐܠܝܫܥ‬ ̄ ‫ ܬܐܘܦܝܐܠ‬-‫ ܦܘ‬.‫ܠܓܪܘܦܘܤ ܡܢ ܕܝܪܐ ܕܡܪܝ ܝܘܣܦ‬ 116 Michael the Great, Chronique, v. IV, pp. 495-8; Bar Hebraeus, Chronicon Ecclesiasticum, v. I, pp. 343-4. 117 Cf. Van Roey, Nonnus de Nisibe; traité apologétique (Bibliothèque du Muséon, 21; Louvain, 1948). 118 Michael the Great, Chronique, v. IV, p. 495. 119 Ašot, who chronologically must have been the Bagratid Armenian prince Ašot Msaker, who died in the year 826, See Griffith, ‘Reflections on the Biography of Theodore Abū Qurrah’, p. 146; Dick, Continuater, p. 116; Van Roey, p. 18.

64

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

tism and Julianism.120 The deacon Nonnus of Nisibis did in fact go to Armenia, as we have seen, and according to reports preserved in Armenian sources Nonnus was successful in countering Abū Qurrah’s influence.121

2.1.5. CYRIACUS AS ECCLESIASTICAL LEADER A full analysis of Cyriacus’ skills as an ecclesiastical leader must await a more complete understanding of his personality, which, it is to be hoped, will emerge once his writings have been fully studied. As has been seen, a number of historians have been happy to explain his turbulent reign as patriarch by pointing to his disciplinary and dogmatic zeal, and by suggesting that his hot temper led him to make too many hasty and ill-considered decisions. However, the detailed account of his reign given above suggests that this explanation is far from adequate, and that scholars may have been misled by not taking into consideration the fact that Michael the Great’s chronicle was heavily dependent in these sections on the now lost chronicle of Dionysius of Tellmahre. Dionysius was Cyriacus’ successor, and may have had all sorts of political reasons for distancing himself from him. Furthermore, although he began life as a monk in the monastery of John bar Aphtonia (monastery of Qenneshrin), which was one of the great centres of resistance to Cyriacus’ rule, and so his election represents a victory for Cyriacus’ opponents, and the restoration of the previous political status quo. It also suggests that Dionysius himself may not have been well disposed towards Cyriacus - although, as has been noted above, Cyriacus had reconciled the Edessans to the episcopal rule of Dionysius’ brother Theodosius, which may have had some positive influence on Dionysius. Overall, this suggests that Dionysius’ claim that Cyriacus was hot-headed, a claim taken up from his chronicle and repeated by Michael the Great, and subMichael the Great, Chronique, v. IV, p. 496; Van Roey, ‘Nonnus de Nisibe’, pp. 13-15; Griffith, ‘Reflections on the Biography of Theodore Abū Qurrah, pp. 145-6. 121 Griffith, ‘Reflections on the Biography of Theodore Abū Qurrah, p. 154; The event is reported in a passage in Vardan’s universal history. See Muyldermans, La domination arabe en Arménie, p. 115. 120

CYRIACUS’ LIFE

65

sequently from Michael by modern scholars, should be treated with some caution. Again, even a quick consideration of Dionysius’ public humiliation of Abraham/Abiram and his allies, which is quite shocking in a middle-eastern social context, indicates that strongarm tactics were seen by contemporary church leaders to have had an essential role in enforcing church discipline, and in emphasising the authority of the patriarchs. It seems possible, therefore, that Dionysius emphasised Cyriacus’ temper as a means of distancing himself from his predecessor and his actions as a preliminary move before attempting to engage Cyriacus’ opponents in further discussions and negotiations. It is also important to realise that Cyriacus inherited many church divisions and controversies from his predecessors in the patriarchate. The Julianist schism had already been running for over 150 years, and the controversy over the ‘Heavenly bread’ formula had also raged for some time, and had been used as a casus belli by various factions opposed to patriarchal rule. On top of this, Cyriacus seems to have faced major personal opposition from the very beginning of his patriarchal reign - as for example from Bacchus, the bishop of the Cyrrhestians. Since Cyriacus had not previously held any important office, it must be presumed that this opposition was simply due to his origins in the Monastery of the Pillar, from which he was the only patriarch, after a succession of patriarchs from two rival monasteries. It is also possible that this opposition reflects hostility to the growing importance and influence of the Syrian Orthodox of Tagrit—a rich urban, merchant, powerbase, rather than the traditional monastic support—with whom Cyriacus was clearly identified, and who appear to have venerated him as ‘their patriarch’ long after his death (as witnessed by the evidence from Deir al-Surian, a Tagriti financed stronghold). Some of Cyriacus’ actions and initiatives can seem confused at first glance. How is it possible that someone could take such dogmatic exception to the ‘Heavenly Bread’ formula, which seems so strange and perhaps unimportant to our eyes, and yet at almost exactly the same time sit down and agree a common creed with the anti-patriarch Gabriel of the Julianists, a sect which had anathematized Severus of Antioch, the foundation stone of Syrian Orthodox theology? The answer must be that at the beginning of his patriarchate Cyriacus’ primary mission was to reunite the Syrian Orthodox church, to bring all the various sects and factions back within

66

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

the fold. Although this was his priority, and he was ready to take bold steps to bring it about, he was not prepared to compromise theological dogma, as is clear if one reads the creed which was produced at the synod with Gabriel. There is nothing here which could not be accepted by all the Syrian Orthodox. Since Cyriacus was elected patriarch from being a monk, he had had no prior leadership experience, and this is sometimes evident from the naivety of some of his actions. He may well have had the political judgement to recognise that the Julianist sect was growing weak in his age, and that it was a good moment to try and negotiate a peace settlement, but on the other hand he seems to have done very little to prepare the ground for such a radical agreement in his own church. Perhaps he presumed that the bishops would simply accept his authority and follow his lead, or perhaps he underestimated the antagonism generated by his election. The former would certainly explain why for so much of his subsequent career he seems to have been obsessed with writing canons which would reinforce the authority of the patriarch and require the loyalty of his bishops and clergy. It is also possible that he underestimated the antagonism towards him, and overestimated his own authority, because of his early success resolving the controversy between the Edessans and their bishop, Zechariah, a problem that had surpassed his predecessors, Joseph and George. Similar factors may also explain why he miscalculated the degree of resistance that there would be to his attempt to abolish the ‘Heavenly Bread’ formula, although it is clear that this became a convenient rallying cry for all disaffected elements within the church who wished to oppose the new patriarch and presumably so prepare the ground for their own candidature for the patriarchate when, in due course, Cyriacus passed away. It should also be noted that Cyriacus was strict in his interpretation of canon law and that as with other rigorists before him, such as Jacob of Edessa, this inevitably alienated many of the married clergy, and others within the church who favoured a freer interpretation of such ecclesiastical regulations. Many bishops also, for obvious reasons, wanted greater independence of action than Cyriacus was prepared to grant them, and there was also always pressure for certain local elites (usually associated with particular monasteries, such as Gubo-Baroyo or Mar Mattai) to maintain a stranglehold over appointments to certain key bishoprics. Again, it

CYRIACUS’ LIFE

67

would be surprising if any strong patriarch would be prepared to tolerate such demands. On occasion it is clear that Cyriacus received bad advice from the bishops who were advising him. An obvious example is his decision to consecrate Solomon in place of Bacchus of GuboBaroyo, instead of Akhsnoyo, on the advice of the bishops John of Aleppo, and Theodosius of Seleucia, since Salomon was never accepted as their bishop. This is a clear political misjudgement. Finally, we should not underestimate the importance of Cyriacus’ Tagriti origins. Not only was this the source of great support to him from the merchants and other citizens of this town, and a cause for opposition from Syrian Orthodox from other cities and regions, but it may also have influenced his own decision-making. Certainly this seems to lie behind his support for Basilius and the metropolitanate of Tagrit in the dispute with the clergy of Mosul and Mar Mattai. Politically this may have been necessary for Cyriacus, but it was another cause of rivalry and in-fighting within his church. This remains a preliminary overview of the political leadership of patriarch Cyriacus, but from this I hope that it is clear that earlier assessments of his reign were far too superficial, and failed to look beyond the politically charged judgment of his successor.

3.1.

DIVINE PROVIDENCE

Although scholars have produced articles on the subject of Divine Providence within the works of individual authors of the Syriac tradition, there have been no large-scale studies of the topic, nor editions of the key Syriac texts, most of which remain in manuscript form. Cyriacus is, as far as is known, the first representative of the genre of Divine Providence within the Syriac tradition, although he has often been overlooked by earlier scholars. For instance, Drijvers suggested that Anton of Tagrit was the earliest writer who wrote a book On God’s Good Providence,1 and that Moshe bar Kipho may have consulted his book when he wrote his own book on Freedom and God’s Providence.2 This misapprehension can now be corrected. It is difficult to establish for certain in which year Cyriacus wrote his BDP, though there are hints which suggest an approximate year. We are informed by many chronicles that Cyriacus ruled as patriarch of the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch between A.D. 793 and 817,3 and we are also informed that Cyriacus was elected patriarch as a monk at the monastery of the Pillar. With this in mind, an analysis of Cyriacus’ BDP has provided a few hints

1 Drijvers, Antony of Tagrit’s Book on the Good Providence of God, p. 164. The work is preserved in B.L. Add. 14726, fol. 87b-125a. See Wright, Catalogue, v. II, p. 617. 2 The work is preserved in B.L. Add. 14731, fol. 1a-105a. See Wright, Catalogue, v. II, p. 853. 3 Michael the Great, Chronique, v. IV, p. 484, 498; Bar Hebraeus, Chronicon Ecclesiasticum, v. I, p. 329, 343; Baumstark, Geschichte, p. 270; Barsaum, Scattered Pearls, p. 377; Palmer, Monk and mason, p. 179; Kaiser, Die syrische Liturgie des Kyriakos, p. 174.

71

72

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

about its date. Treatise twenty,4 which covers chapter 3.4. Eschatology: The Middle State of Souls, is said to have been written at the request of Cyriacus’ secretary. Cyriacus never ruled as a bishop, and it seems very unlikely that he had a secretary as a monk. Again, treatise twenty-five was written at the request of Theodosius, bishop of Seleucia/Ctesiphon.5 Given the strong awareness of, and respect for, ecclesiastical hierarchy in Cyriacus’ age (as in the present age), it again seems very unlikely that a bishop would seek theological guidance from a monk. This suggests that this treatise must have been produced when Cyriacus ruled as patriarch, and that the same is true of his BDP as whole. Another piece of evidence which narrows down the years for the production of this work is the fact that the manuscript copy which has been consulted for this study, which is now preserved in the Syrian Orthodox monastery of St. Mark in Jerusalem.6 It was copied in 806 by a certain Theodosius in the Pillar Monastery near Callinicum from the autograph manuscript of the still-living author himself, and then compared with the manuscript belonging to Theodoros, the Tagritan priest from the monastery of the Pillar.7 This indicates that the original work was produced before A.D. 806. Together these clues suggest that Cyriacus wrote his BDP between A.D. 793 and 806. One would expect it to be written near the middle of the suggested dates for two reasons. First, it is unlikely that Cyriacus produced this work when he had just been elected patriarch due to the many problems the church faced at the time;8 and second, we are informed that this was not the first duplication of Cyriacus’ BDP.9 For this reason one would not expect the original work to have been produced the same year as this copy, produced by Theodosius. Cyriacus wrote his BDP with the intention to educate clerical members of his church, often in reply to their questions, and not as Cyriacus, BDP, XX, fol. 113i-131i. Cyriacus, BDP, XXV, fol. 166ii-171i. 6 Rücker, ‘Das dritte Buch der Mēmrē des Kyriakos von Antiochien’, p. 107. 7 Cyriacus, BDP, fol. 189i-189ii; Cf. Barsaum, Scattered Pearls, p. 370. 8 Cf. Part II, Historical Impact. 9 Cyriacus, BDP, fol. 189i-189ii. 4 5

DIVINE PROVIDENCE

73

a controversial text addressed to outsiders. This is apparent from the fact that Cyriacus wrote in Syriac and not in Arabic. However, one might ask why he would chose to write on Divine Providence. One possible answer would be, as a response to early Islamic influence among the Syriac Christians of his day. Although the controversial issues of Divine Providence, i.e. Free Will and Predestination, Eschatology, and Apocalypse, were not new to the church as topics for theological debate, though they did become highly controversial again with the arrival of Islam. Cyriacus makes no explicit reference, direct or indirect, to the Muslims, but from a study of Cyriacus’ BDP, it seems likely that he is writing for Syriac Christians who wanted to know the Christian answer to questions raised by Muslim theologians, which were being widely discussed in their age. Cyriacus’ preserved theological treatises are seventeen in total, out of which twelve are devoted to the Divine Providence (from an original fourteen).10 The twelve treatises which are devoted to the Divine Providence will be examined in this study according to the following subject themes: Treatises twelve to eighteen are examined in chapter 3.3. Free Will and Predestination; treatise twenty is analysed in chapter 3.4. Eschatology: The Middle State of Souls; and treatises nineteen, and twenty-one to twenty-three, are grouped under chapter 3.5. Apocalypse.

3.1.1. EARLIER WRITERS Amongst the key predecessors within Cyriacus’ tradition who wrote about similar topics, i.e. Free will, Death, and the Soul, are Ephrem the Syrian, Jacob of Serugh, and Jacob of Edessa. The impact of their ideas upon Cyriacus, as well as similarities and dissimilarities between their ideas and approaches will be discussed in the relevant sections below. For now I simply wish to draw attention to some of their writings which will be examined. Writings on Free Will and Predestination within the Syriac literature often go back to and can be identified in the works of 10 Chapter 3.2. A Bird’s Eye-View of Cyriacus’ BDP contains a summary of all the preserved chapters of Cyriacus’ theological treatises.

74

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

Ephrem the Syrian.11 For instance his affirmation of freedom in the human choice between good and evil became a standard item in the church’s refutation of dualism, particularly in relation to the Manichees.12 Moreover, as mentioned in chapter 4.1.1., both patristic citations of the third chapter of treatise fourteen are taken from Ephrem’s memre on Nicomedia, which are regrettably not preserved in Syriac, only in Armenian.13 However, by having these two citations available, we can confidently establish that these memre at least discussed the topics of Death and Fixed Term of Life. Jacob of Serugh is another important Syriac writer who has touched upon many topics which come under the genre of Divine Providence.14 Many themes Jacob discussed are also found in Ephrem the Syrian, deacon, poet and theologian, who lived during the fourth century in the region of Nisibis, where he spent most of his life. Ephrem moved to Edessa due to the peace treaty between the Roman and Persian Empires in 363, where he spent his last ten years, and died in 373. For a theological overview, cf. Brock, The Luminous Eye: The Spiritual World Vision of St Ephrem. 12 Griffith, ‘Free Will in Christian Kalām; Moshe bar Kepha, Against the teachings of the Muslims’, Le Muséon 100 (1987), pp. 143-159. For selected articles on Ephrem’s view on Freedom, Cf. Tanios Bou Mansour, ‘La défense éphrémienne de la liberté contre les doctrines marcionite, bardesanite et manichéenne’, in OrChrP 50 (1984), pp. 331-346; Idem, ‘La liberté chez saint Éphrem le Syrien’, in Parole de l’Orient 11 (1983) pp. 89156, 12 (1984-1985) pp. 3-89; Idem, ‘Aspects de la liberté humaine chez saint Éphrem le Syrien’, in Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 60 (1984), pp. 252-282; For earlier studies: T. Jansma, ‘Ephraem on Exodus 11,5: Reflections on the interplay of Human Free will and Divine Providence’, in OrChrP 39 (1973), pp. 5-28; N. El Khoury, ‘Willensfreiheit bei Ephraem der Syrer’, in Ostkirchliche Studien 25 (1976), pp. 60-66. 13 For the remaining Armenian text of Ephrem the Syrian’s Homilies on Nicomedia, and some other Syriac fragments, see C. Renoux, Éphrem de Nisibe: Memre sur Nicomédie; édition des fragments de l’original syriaque et de la version arménienne, traduction française, introduction et notes (PO 37.2-3; Turnhout, 1975). The edited Armenian text of these hymns also has gaps, and does not contain the text corresponding to these citations in Cyriacus. 14 Jacob was born in the middle of the fifth century in the village of Kurtam on the Euphrates, in the ancient region of Serugh, and died in 521. In 519, Jacob was elected bishop of the main city of the area, Batnan da-Serugh, and is considered to be the foremost Syriac poet-theologians 11

DIVINE PROVIDENCE

75

Cyriacus’ BDP. See for example his Homily on Children who die in their youth;15 Homilies on Eschatology;16 Homilies on the Apocalypse;17 Homily on Love of money;18 Homily on Vain Glory and Pride;19 Jacob has also, like Cyriacus, composed homilies on the Parable of the Vineyards.20 Jacob of Edessa is also an important Syriac writer who lived after the arrival of Islam,21 and composed letters related to topics found in the genre of Divine Providence. Amongst Jacob’s many writings is a letter called A twelfth letter on children who receive baptism, which according to Barsaum is preserved in Basibrina.22 This informs us that Cyriacus’ predecessors also wrote on the topic of children who receive baptism. Another letter Jacob wrote as a reply to John the Stylite23 concerns offerings on behalf of the dead,24 which is discussed further in chapter 3.4.2. Question II: Commemoration of the Dead. John the Stylite attained a great deal of knowledge from Jaafter Ephrem the Syrian. He is also referred to as the 'Flute of the Spirit'. He is best known for his collection of more than seven-hundred verse homilies. Cf. Baumstark, Geschichte, pp. 148-159; Barsaum, Scattered Pearls, pp. 255-261. 15 Bedjan, P., Homilies of Mar Jacob of Serugh, Paris 1905-1910, repr. NJ 2006, v. V. p. 804. 16 Bedjan, P., Homilies of Mar Jacob of Serugh, Paris 1905-1910, repr. NJ 2006, v. I, p. 535, v. II, p. 873, v. V, p. 641, 781, 796, 800, 817. 17 Bedjan, P., Homilies of Mar Jacob of Serugh, Paris 1905-1910, repr. NJ 2006, v. I, p. 698, 713, v. II, p. 836, 858, 873, v. V, p. 836, 856, 873, 886, 18 Bedjan, P., Homilies of Mar Jacob of Serugh, Paris 1905-1910, repr. NJ 2006, v. III, p. 842. 19 Bedjan, P., Homilies of Mar Jacob of Serugh, Paris 1905-1910, repr. NJ 2006, v. II, p.739 and 806. 20 Bedjan, P., Homilies of Mar Jacob of Serugh, Paris 1905-1910, repr. NJ 2006, v. I. p. 320, v. IV, p. 740. 21 Jacob was born at the village of ‘Ayndābā in the province of Antioch, most probably about 633, and died in 708. He became a monk at the monastery of Qenneshrin, where he acquired a great deal of his knowledge under Severus of Sabukht, and was elected as a bishop of Edessa in 684. Cf. Baumstark, Geschichte, pp. 248-256; Barsaum, Scattered Pearls, pp. 334-350. 22 Barsaum, Scattered Pearls, p. 337. 23 John the Stylite of Athrab (d. 738). Barsaum, Scattered Pearls, p. 361. 24 B.L. Add. 12172, fol. 97b-99a; See Wright, Catalogue, v. II, p. 599.

76

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

cob of Edessa, and himself wrote a Treatise on the Soul,25 which John of Dara26 included in his Book on the Soul.27 Jacob also wrote concerning fixed term of life in his tenth and eleventh epistles which were written as a reply to a question by John the Stylite.28 This is also discussed further in chapter 3.3.8. Fixed Term.

3.1.2. SUBSEQUENT WRITERS Amongst the subsequent outstanding Syriac writers discussing similar topics to Cyriacus can be mentioned Anton of Tagrit, Moshe Bar Kipho, and Bar Hebraeus. Anton29 was, like Cyriacus, a native of Tagrit, who is mostly known for his eloquent work entitled The Knowledge of Rhetoric.30 Less known is his unpublished work On God’s Good Providence,31 which is preserved in a sole manuscript, B.L. Add. 14726, fol. 87b125a.32 The work contains four treatises; Treatise one demonstrates that Divine Providence does not over-ride free will, but holds it Barsaum, Scattered Pearls, p. 361. John was consecrated metropolitan of Dara by Dionysius of Tellmahre around 825 (d. 850). Cf. Barsaum, Scattered Pearls, p. 391. 27 Barsaum, Scattered Pearls, pp. 361, 392. The work is preserved in Syr. 47 in the Houghton Library at Harvard University. 28 Cook, Early Muslim Dogma: A Source-Critical Study, p.145. B.L. Add. 12172, Epistle 10, fol. 99a-104a, Epistle 11, fol. 104a-110a; See Wright, Catalogue, v. II, pp. 599-600. 29 Anton of Tagrit, who is believed to have died around the mid ninth century (the date of his death is uncertain), was a leading philologist and one of the ablest writers and poets. He was a native of Tagrit, from the family of Georgin. He entered a monastery of the East and was ordained monk and priest. He knew Syriac as well as Greek. Cf. Barsaum. Scattered Pearls, pp. 383-5. 30 Preserved in three manuscripts; I, in the monastery of Mar Mattai, near Mosul. II, in Jerusalem MS. 231. III, in Midyat in Turkey. There is a critical edition of part of the work by J.W. Watt, The Fifth Book of the Rhetoric of Antony of Tagrit (CSCO 480-1 = SS 203-4; Leuven, 1986); a simple edition of the complete work was published in Stockholm in the year 2000 edited by G. Yalgin. See Baumstark, Geschichte, p. 278; Barsaum, Scattered Pearls, pp. 383-6. ̈ ‫ܥܠ ܒܛܝܠܘܬܐ ܿܣܥܪܬ‬. 31 In Syriac, ‫ܛܒܬܐ ܕܐܠܗܐ‬ 32 Wright, Catalogue, v. II, pp. 617-8. 25 26

DIVINE PROVIDENCE

77

back from error.33 Treatise two concerns the chastisements of God, and about whether the soul is separated from the body without God’s command, and about the varieties of death.34 Treatise three is concerning the question of whether there is a fixed limit for man’s life, and about his end.35 Treatise four is concerning chance and fate, as well as about the reasons for poverty and riches.36 This important text has been occasionally cited in the analysis below, although his approach is rather different from Cyriacus. Another important Syriac scholar is Moshe Bar Kipho,37 who wrote a treatise on the Soul, which contains sixty-five chapters. The Syriac text is preserved in the Vatican, VatSyr 147. The work was translated into German by O. Braun in his Moses Bar-Kepha und sein Buch von der Seele, Freiburg 1891, but has not been published in Syriac. He also wrote a treatise on Free Will and God’s Providence, which is preserved in a sole manuscript, B.L. Add. 14731, fol. 1a-96b,38 and is also unpublished. It seems useful to give here a detailed summary of its chapter headings, because of its comparative value with Cyriacus’ text. The treatise contains four discourses; Discourse I contains three chapters. Chapter one is almost entirely lost.39 33 Treatise I, B.L. Add. 14726, fol. 87b-99a. ‫ ܡܢ ܫܘܪܥܬܐ ܘܦܐ̈ܪܐ‬.‫ܕܡܚܘܐ ܘܡܒܕܩ ܕܐܝܟܢܐ ܟܕܐܠ ܿܥܨܝܐ ܠܚܐܪܘܬܐ‬ ܿ ‫ܡܥܘܟܐ ܠܗ܀‬ ‫ܕܚܛܝܬܐ‬ 34 Treatise II, B.L. Add. 14726, fol. 99a-105a. .‫ܕܐܠܗܐ‬ ‫ ܡܛܠ ܡܪܕܘܬܐ‬.‫ܐܚܪܢܐ ܕܬ̈ܪܝܢ ܕܝܠܗ ܟܕ ܕܝܠܗ܆ ܥܠܘܗܝ ܕܢܝܫܐ‬ ܼ ‫ ܘܡܛܠ ̈ܙܢܝܐ‬.‫ ܒܠܥܕ ܦܘܩܕܢܐ ܕܐܠܗܐ‬:‫ܘܡܚܘܝܢܘܬܐ ܕܐܢ ܦܪܝܫܐ ܢܦܫܐ ܡܢ ܦܓܪܐ‬ .‫ܕܡܘܬܐ‬ 35 Treatise III, B.L. Add. 14726, fol. 105a-114b. ̈ ܿ ‫ܐܢܫܝܐ‬ ̈ ‫ ܥܠܘܗܝ ܕܫܪܒܐ ܘܡܛܠ ܬܚܘܡܐ‬.‫ܕܬܠܬܐ‬ .‫ܘܕܡܢܘ ܩܨܐ‬ ‫ܕܚܝܐ‬ ‫ܡܐܡܪܐ‬ ܼ 36 Treatise IV, B.L. Add. 14726, fol. 114b-125a. .‫ ܘܡܛܠ ܫܓܡܐ ܘܚܠܩܐ‬.‫ܕܒܛܝܠܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܕܝܠܗ ܡܐܡܪܐ ܪܒܝܥܝܐ ܡܛܠܬܗ ܕܢܡܘܣܐ‬ ܼ ̈ .‫ܡܣܟܢܘܬܐ ܘܥܘܬ̈ܪܐ‬ ‫ܘܐܟܚܕ ܡܛܠ‬ 37 Moshe bar Kipho was born in the town of Kuhayl, served as a bishop in the Syrian Orthodox Church for forty years for beth Remman and Beth Kiyona, with the bishop name Severus. He died on the twelfth of February 903. See Baumstark, Geschichte, pp. 281-284; Barsaum, Scattered Pearls, pp. 398-404. 38 Wright, Catalogue, v. II, pp. 853-5. 39 Discourse I, Chapter I, B.L. Add. 14731, fol. 1a. This chapter is almost entirely lost.

78

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

Chapter two argues that we human beings possess autonomy (‫ )ܡܫܠܛܘܬ ܒܝܬܐ‬and freedom (‫)ܚܐܪܘܬܐ‬.40 Chapter three claims that man’s life is limited, and bound by a certain limited and measured term, and is fixed by the Lord of life.41 Discourse II contains ten chapters. Chapter one begins with praising earlier writers, and then demonstrates that God’s judgments are inscrutable.42 Chapter two is concerning violent deaths. It also contains the same argument, which is that life is limited, and that nobody dies without God’s awareness, and permission.43 Chapter three is concerning what freedom and will are.44 Chapter four is against the pagans who reject free will.45 Chapter five is against the followers of Mani and Marcion who deny free will.46 Chapter six is against the Muslims, who also believe in freedom, but say that good and evil is decreed for us by God.47 Chapter seven demonstrates which are the actions of free will, and which those of Providence.48 Chapter eight Discourse I, Chapter II, B.L. Add. 14731, fol. 1a-3b. ܿ ‫ܩܦܐܠܘܢ ܕܬ̈ܪܝܢ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܕܐܝܬ ܠܢ ܡܫܠܛܘܬ‬ .‫ܒܝܬܐ ܘܚܐܪܘܬܐ‬ 41 Discourse I, Chapter III, B.L. Add. 14731, fol. 3b-7a. ̈ ̈ ‫ܐܢܫܝܐ ܘܒܦܪܘܬܣܝܐ ܡܕܡ‬ ‫ܕܡܬܚܡܐ ܐܢܘܢ ̈ܚܝܐ‬ ‫ܩܦܐܠܘܢ ܕܬܠܬܐ ܕܡܚܘܐ܆‬ ̈ ‫ ܘܚܪܝܩܐ ܗܝ ܘܦܣܝܩܐ ܡܢ ܐܠܗܐ ܡܪܗܘܢ ܕܚܝܐ܇‬.‫ܡܬܚܡܬܐ ܘܡܡܫܚܬܐ ܐܣܝܪܝܢ‬ ̈ ‫ܕܟܡܐ ܢܕܝܪ ܒܪܢܫܐ‬ .‫ܒܚܝܐ‬ 42 Discourse II, Chapter I, B.L. Add. 14731, fol. 7a-7b. ̈ ‫ ܕܦܪܥ ܥܠ‬.‫ܩܦܐܠܘܢ ܩܕܡܝܐ‬ ‫ ܡܚܘܐ ܕܝܢ܆ ܕܐܠ ܡܬܕ̈ܪܟܢܐ ܐܢܘܢ‬.‫ܗܢܝܢ ܥܒ̈ܪܝܢ‬ ̈ ܿ .‫ܕܝܢܘܗܝ ܕܐܠܗܐ‬ ̈ .‫ܕܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܫܠܡܘ ܠܢ ܡܡܠܠܝܢܢ‬ ‫ܘܕܗܘ ܡܐ ܕܐܡܪܝܢܢ܆ ܿܗܘ ܡܐ‬ 43 Discourse II, Chapter II, B.L. Add. 14731, fol. 7b-8a. ̈ ‫ܓܢܝܚܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܩܦܐܠܘܢ ܬ̈ܪܝܢ ܡܛܠ‬ ̈ ̈ ̈ ‫ ܘܕܓ̈ܪܘܦܝܐ‬.‫ܘܕܝܩܕܢܐ‬ ‫ܘܕܚܢܘܩܝܐ‬ ‫ܕܩܛܐܠ‬ ‫ܡܘܬܐ‬ ̈ ̈ ̈ ̈ ̈ ̈ ‫ܗܘ ܟܕ‬ ‫ܕܝܢ‬ ‫ܐܚܝܕ‬ . ‫ܫܐ‬ ‫ܕܒܢܝܢ‬ ‫ܝܐ‬ ‫ܠܚ‬ ‫ܡܛܠܩܝܢ‬ ‫ܟܐ‬ ‫ܦܬܝ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܙܢܝ‬ ‫ܐܘܟܝܬ‬ ‫ܕܒܐܕܫܐ‬ .‫ܘܕܚܛܘܦܝܐ‬ ܼ ܿ ܿ ̈ ̈ ̈ .‫ܗܘ ܢܝܫܐ ܕܗܘ ܕܡܛܠ ܡܫܘܚܬܐ ܕܚܝܐ ܘܡܚܘܐ ܐܦ ܼܗܘ ܕܡܬܚܡܐ ܐܢܘܢ ܚܝܐ‬ ܼ .‫ܒܝܨܝܦܘܬܗ‬ ‫ ܒܪܡ ܐܘ‬.‫ܘܕܒܠܥܕ ܐܠܗܐ܆ ܘܐܠ ܚܕ ܡܐܬ‬ ܼ 44 Discourse II, Chapter III, B.L. Add. 14731, fol. 8a-9a. .‫ ܘܡܢܐ ܗܘ ܨܒܝܢܐ‬.‫ܩܦܐܠܘܢ ܕܬܠܬܐ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܕܡܢܐ ܗܝ ܚܐܪܘܬܐ‬ 45 Discourse II, Chapter IV, B.L. Add. 14731, fol. 9a-10a. ̈ ‫ܕܐܡܪ ܠܘܩܒܠ‬ ܿ ̈ .‫ܥܬܝܩܐ ܕܡܪܝܡܝܢ ܠܚܐܪܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܚܢܦܐ‬ ‫ܩܦܐܠܘܢ ܕܐܪܒܥܐ‬ 46 Discourse II, Chapter V, B.L. Add. 14731, fol. 10a-11a. ‫ܩܦܐܠܘܢ ܕܚܡܫܐ ܠܘܩܒܠ ܗܠܝܢ ܕܒܝܬ ܡܐܢܝ ܘܡܪܩܝܘܢ܇ ܕܥܛܝܢ ܠܚܐܪܘܬܐ‬ ܿ ̈ ‫ܕܐܝܬܝܐ ܐܬܝܗܒܢ‬ ̈ ‫ܛܒܬܐ‬ ̈ .‫ܘܒܝ ܼܫܬܐ‬ ‫ܘܐܡܪܝܢ܇ ܕܡܢ ܡܘܙܓܐ‬ 47 Discourse II, Chapter VI, B.L. Add. 14731, fol. 11a-13a. ܿ ‫ ܘܐܡܪܝܢ‬.‫ܠܚܐܪܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܩܦܐܠܘܢ ܕܫܬܐ ܠܘܩܒܠ ܡܗܓ̈ܪܝܐ ܕܡܗܝܡܢܝܢ ܐܦ ܗ ܼܢܘܢ‬ .‫ܒܝܫܬܐ‬ ܼ ‫ܕܡܢ ܐܠܗܐ ܟܬܝܒܐ ܥܠܝܢ ܛܒܬܐ ܐܘ‬ 48 Discourse II, Chapter VII, B.L. Add. 14731, fol. 13a-16b. 40

DIVINE PROVIDENCE

79

demonstrates that our deeds and actions are sometimes performed according to our own will, at other times according to Providence, and at other times according to both.49 Chapter nine demonstrates what evil is, and the nature of divine chastisements.50 Chapter ten demonstrates that God is not the cause of evil.51 Discourse III contains two chapters. Chapter one is concerning various deaths, at various ages, of various people.52 Chapter two demonstrates that each person has a fixed period of life known only to God.53 Discourse IV contains two chapters. Chapter one is concerning wars, and the defeats of nations and kingdoms.54 Chapter two is concerning natural disasters.55 Amongst later important Syriac scholars is Bar Hebraeus Abu al-Faraj,56 who wrote a philosophical work, called Mnorath Qudshe ܿ ‫ܩܦܐܠܘܢ ܕܫܒܥܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܕܡܚܘܐ ]ܕܐ[ܝܠܝܢ ܐܢܘܢ‬ .‫ܕܒܛܝܠܘ‬ ̄ ‫ ܘܐܝܠܝܢ‬.‫ܕܚܐܪܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܥܒܕܐ‬ ܼ 49 Discourse II, Chapter VIII, B.L. Add. 14731, fol. 16b-18a. ̈ ‫ܩܦܐܠܘܢ ܕܬܡܢܝܐ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܐܦ‬ ‫ܥܒܕܐ ܘܣܥܘ̈ܪܘܬܐ ܕܝܠܢ܆ ܒܙܒܢ ܿܡܢ ܠܦܘܬ ܿܗܝ‬ ̈ ‫ܕܒܢ‬ .‫ ܒܙܒܢ ܕܝܢ܆ ܠܦܘܬ ܬ̈ܪܬܝܗܝܢ‬.‫ ܒܙܒܢ ܕܝܢ܆ ܠܦܘܬ ܒܛܝܠܘܬܐ‬.‫ܢܦܩܢ‬ 50 Discourse II, Chapter IX, B.L. Add. 14731, fol. 18a-20a. ‫ ܡܛܠ ܕܡܣܬܒܪܐ‬.‫ܒܝܫܬܐ ܒܫܪܪܐ‬ ‫ܩܦܐܠܘܢ ܕܬܫܥܐ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܕܡܢܐ ܗܝ‬ ܼ ̈ ̈ ‫ܡܢܓܕܢܐ ܐܝܠܝܢ‬ ̈ ̈ ‫ܠܣܓܝܐܐ ܕܡ̈ܪܕܘܬܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܠܣܓܝܐܐ ܕܡ̈ܪܕܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܘܫܒܛܐ‬ ‫ܘܫܒܛܐ‬ ܿ ‫ܡܢܓܕܢܐ ܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܐܬܐܡܪܘ ܒܩܦܐܠܘܢ‬ ̈ ̈ ‫ܒܢܝܢܫܐ‬ ‫ܕܥܒܪ ܕܡܝܬܐ ܐܠܗܐ ܥܠ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܗ‬ ܼ ̈ .‫ܒܝ ܼܫܬܐ ܐܢܘܢ‬ 51 Discourse II, Chapter X, B.L. Add. 14731, fol. 20a-21b. ̈ ‫ܩܦܐܠܘܢ ܕܥܣܪܐ ܕܡܚܐܘ܆ ܕܠܝܬܘܗܝ ܐܠܗܐ ܥܠܬܐ‬ .‫ܕܒܝܫܬܐ ܡܒܚܢܢܐܝܬ‬ 52 Discourse III, Chapter I, B.L. Add. 14731, fol. 21b-22b. ̈ ̈ ̈ ̈ .‫ܘܩܘܡܬܐ‬ ‫ܡܫܚܠܦܐ‬ ‫ܓܢܣܐ‬ ‫ ܕܥܠ‬.‫ܡܫܚܠܦܐ‬ ‫ܩܦܐܠܘܢ ܩܕܡܝܐ ܡܛܠ ̈ܡܘܬܐ‬ 53 Discourse III, Chapter II, B.L. Add. 14731, fol. 22b-71b. ܿ ‫ܩܦܐܠܘܢ ܕܬ̈ܪܝܢ‬ ̈ ‫ ܕܠܟܠܚܕ ܡܢ‬.‫ܚܘܐ‬ .‫ ܩܨܐ ܝܕܝܥܐ ܕܝܠܢܐܝܬ ܡܬܚܡ‬.‫ܢܫܐ‬ ‫ܕܡ‬ ܼ ‫ܒܢܝ‬ ܼ ܿ ̈ :‫ ܠܢ ܕܝܢ‬.‫ܓܐܠ ܘܝܕܝܥ‬ ‫ ܐܠܠܗܐ ܡܢ‬.‫ܩܨܐ‬ ‫ܗܘ ܕܝܢ‬ ܼ ܼ ܼ .‫ܘܒܩܨܗ ܟܠܚܕ ܿܚܙܩ ܡܢ ܚܝܐ ܕܬܢܢ‬ ܿ ‫ܘܠܗܢܘܢ‬ ‫ ܡܟܣ ܕܝܢ܆‬.‫ ܒܪܡ ܕܝܢ ܚܪܝܩ܆ ܘܦܣܝܩ ܘܡܬܚܡ‬.‫ܥܒܕܗ ܐܠܗܐ‬ ܼ ‫ܐܠ ܝܕܝܥܐ‬ ̈ ̈ .‫ܕܒܢܝܢܫܐ‬ ‫ܡܬܚܡܐ ܐܢܘܢ ̈ܚܝܐ‬ ‫ܕܐܡܪܝܢ ܕܠܘ‬ 54 Discourse IV, Chapter I, B.L. Add. 14731, fol. 71b-91b. ̈ ̈ ̈ ‫ܕܥܡܡܐ‬ ‫ܘܡܙܕܟܝܢܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܥܘܬܕܐ ܕܩ̈ܪܒܐ ܘ̈ܪܒܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܩܦܐܠܘܢ ܩܕܡܝܐ ܡܛܠ‬ ̈ .‫ܘܕܡܠܟܘܬܐ‬ 55 Discourse IV, Chapter II, B.L. Add. 14731, fol. 91b-96b. ̈ ̈ ‫ܘܡܘܬܢܐ‬ ̈ .‫ܘܥܡܛܢܐ‬ ‫ܘܟܐܒܐ ܘܟܘ̈ܪܗܢܐ ܘܟܘ̈ܪܢܐ‬ ‫ܩܦܐܠܘܢ ܕܬܪܝܢ ܡܛܠ ̈ܟܦܢܐ‬ ̈ ̈ ‫ ܘܒܪܕܐ‬.‫ ܘܓܠܝܙܘܬ ܥܠܠܬܐ ܕܐܪܥܐ‬.‫ܬܟܝܒܐ‬ ‫ܘܫܓܝܫܘܬܐ ܕܐܐ̈ܪܣ ܘܡܛ̈ܪܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܘܢܘܕܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܘܙܘܥܐ‬ ̈ .‫ ܡܓܪܣܢܐ‬.‫ܘܩܡܨܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܘܙܘܢܙܐܠ ܕܐܪܥܐ ܘ̈ܪܥܐܠ ܘܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܠܗܠܝܢ‬ .‫ܕܡܝܢ‬ 56 Bar Hebraeus, Abu al-Faraj, who is also known as Jamāl al-Din, the son of deacon Taj al-Din Aaron the physician, was one of the great theo-

80

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

(Lamp of Sanctuaries). The work exists in ten old copies.57 The writing is divided into twelve parts as follows, of which those relevant to this study are; IV) Incarnation,58 VII) Demons,59 VIII) Rational Soul,60 IX) Free Will,61 X) Resurrection,62 and XI) Last Judgement.63

logians of the world. He was born in Melitene in 1226, and became a monk in 1244, and bishop for Jubas in 1246, and was elevated as the Maphrian of the East on January 19, 1264, and died on July 30, 1286. Barsaum, Scattered Pearls, pp. 463-481. 57 See Barsaum, Scattered Pearls, p. 466; Florence MS dated 1388, Vatican MS. 168 dated the fourteenth century, Beirut dated the fourteenth century, Paris MSS. 210 dated 1404 and 212 dated the sixteenth century, Hasaka (Jazira) MS. Dated 1405, Berlin MSS. 81 dated 1403 and 1579, Cambridge MS. 2068 dated the fifteenth century, Jerusalem MS. 135 dated 1590, Za’faran which is both Syriac and Garshuni MS. 4 dated 1674. 58 Base IV: Joseph Khoury, Le Candélabre … Quatrième base; de l’Incarnation (PO 31/1), Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1965, (pp. 1-268). - Mss. [VPFC]; Bar Hebraeus, Lamp of Sanctuaries, Holland 1997, IV, pp. 299-458. 59 Base VII: Micheline Albert, Le Candélabre … Septième base: des demons (PO 30/2), Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1961, (pp. 270-340 [1-70]). –Mss. [VBFC]; Bar Hebraeus, Lamp of Sanctuaries, Holland 1997, VII, pp. 557584. 60 Base VIII: Jan Bakoš, Psychologie de Grégorie Aboulfaradj dit Barhebraeus d’après la huitième base de l’ouvrage Candélabre des Sanctuaires, Leiden: Brill, 1948, xl + 74 + 148 p. – Mss. [VBP]; Bar Hebraeus, Lamp of Sanctuaries, Holland 1997, VIII, pp. 585-719. 61 Base IX: Paul-Hubert Poirier, Le Candélabre … Neuvième base: du libre arbitre (PO 43/2 = no. 194), Turnhout: Brepols, 1985 (pp. 161-317 [1157]). – Mss. [VBPFC]; Bar Hebraeus, Lamp of Sanctuaries, Holland 1997, IX, pp. 720-812. 62 Base X: Elise Zigmund-Cerbü, Le Candélabre … Dixième base: de la résurrection (PO 35/2 = no. 164), Turnhout: Brepols, 1969 (pp. 217-280 [164]). - Mss. [VBF]; Bar Hebraeus, Lamp of Sanctuaries, Holland 1997, X, pp. 813-843. 63 Base XI: Nicolas Séd, Le Candélabre … Onzième base: du Jugement dernier (PO 41/3 = no. 188), Turnhout: Brepols, 1983 (pp. 257-394 [1-128]). - Mss. [VBPFC]; Bar Hebraeus, Lamp of Sanctuaries, Holland 1997, XI, pp. 844-920.

3.2.

BDP

A BIRD’S-EYE VIEW OF CYRIACUS’

The BDP is just one part of the theological writings of Cyriacus collected together in the Jerusalem manuscript. The BDP originally ran from treatise ten until treatise twenty-three, so thirteen treatises, but now only treatises twelve to twenty-eight survive. There is no formal structure to Cyriacus’ BDP, nor any subdivisions, other than treatise and chapter divisions. However, it is possible to see changes of focus and interest in the BDP. Cyriacus begins with 1. Key theological Principles, where he discusses free will, and the incarnation in treatise ten until the first chapter of treatise twelve. He then explains the ‘unfairness’ in Human life, which I have called, 2. Human experience which covers chapter two of treatises twelve to fourteen, where he explains why Divine Providence allows poverty and wealth, disasters, wars, and early death. In stage 3. More Theory, which covers treatises fifteen to eighteen, Cyriacus brings in more theory concerning the fact that God does not force His will against human free will, and that He limits the life of humans for their own good. 4. Proof of this by examination of all Humanity, He then examines the entire history of humanity by consulting the Bible, and discussing the church and the holy teachers in treatise nineteen, to convince the reader that God is not the source of evil, but justifies His deeds by portraying them as ‘acts of discipline’; i.e. God disciplines humans for their own good. In the last stage, 5. This will continue in the future, Cyriacus devotes treatises twenty to twenty-three to Eschatology and Apocalypse, where he explains what will happen to the soul after death. The remaining treatises, which are not part of the BDP, which are treatises six and seven and twenty-four to twenty-eight, I have summarised separately as 6. Remaining Treatises, including the Ten Questions and a section of Homologia, which will be explained below.

81

82

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

3.2.1. KEY THEOLOGICAL PRINCIPLES Treatise X-XI: The two first treatises of BDP are lost. From the rest of the book, one can only assume that they discussed free will, and this seems to be supported by an examination of the writings of subsequent Syriac authors, which will be discussed in detail later on. Treatise XII.1: In the first chapter of treatise twelve, Cyriacus deals with the incarnation. He is not interested in technical details of Christological theory, but in the purpose of the incarnation. He demonstrates God’s care by explaining reasons for the incarnation, i.e. Christ was incarnated for the sake of humanity. The Creator of our nature needed to humble himself and be incarnated in order to kill death by His death, which was caused by Adam breaking the commandment. He killed death by his death, and gave hope of resurrection by His resurrection.

3.2.2. HUMAN EXPERIENCE Treatise XII.2: Cyriacus then goes on to discuss the ‘disciplines’ that are being brought by God, which are often termed ‘evils’ by humans who know no better. Despite all crimes, illnesses, and natural catastrophes, God provides care for all His creatures, good and evil. But why does evil exist when Divine Providence is the governor of all this? Cyriacus defends this and says that all ‘disciplines’ that come from God lead to advantages for mankind, and that there is no evil in them, but they are thought to be so because of human weakness. God has provided everything necessary for man to enjoy life, but if man abuses it by evil, then God turns the things that generate happiness into things that generate sadness, so that we will turn away from evil and flee from our sins, and learn to appreciate God for His blessings. Thus, if riches are not being handled properly, then they will be taken away from their inheritors, whether by robbers or by the drowning of merchants passing over oceans or rivers, or by some other way. Treatise XII.3: God never in any way yields to or agrees with the will of Satan and evil spirits. God is not the cause of evil, and is not tempted by evil. This is testified to by James 1:13-14; “God is not tempted by evil; neither does He tempt any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away by his own lust, and enticed.” God does not desire the death of the sinner. Cyriacus

CYRIACUS’ BDP

83

quotes Ezekiel 18:32 for this; “I have no pleasure in the death of him that has died, but that he should turn away from the path of evil and live.” However, the evil ones are different, since they have left the good and had no mercy on themselves, thus they desire that others should be placed in the same position. Treatise XII.4: Even if God often permits the influence of demons or evil persons upon humans for a long period of time – for reasons that are known only to Him – He has not in any way reduced His Protection and Care for them. E.g. if the people are children, this happens so that the parents can see and avoid the same mistakes, or repent. Treatise XII.5: Cyriacus shows that no man can comprehend the judgement of God, by quoting the Bible. He immediately starts with explaining a citation from Paul to the Romans 11:33: “Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! No one has touched His inscrutable judgments and ways.” Not even the angels know why they have been placed in different levels. The same applies to the appearance of human beings; they come in various states, shapes, and colours, though no one knows why. Treatise XIII.1: This chapter attempts to place the role of Divine Providence within the discussion of fate. Despite the catastrophic events that occur, Cyriacus addresses Divine Providence in order to argue against those who say that things happen due to fortunes, fates or astrology. Cyriacus emphasises God’s perfect, eternal knowledge: “For God is not like the craftsmen among us, because He did not acquire knowledge of His most wise craftsmanship from study, as craftsmen among us acquire it.” God is Omniscient by nature, and brings all He wants into being in all perfection with a quick and unspoken gesture; unlike man, God has no need of labour, but completes by a quick gesture. Treatise XIII.2: Are riches and poverty distributed by God, or by fate? Cyriacus divides human beings into two categories, rich and poor. He then divides the rich into two categories, and the poor into two categories. This is to say, the good rich and evil rich, and the good poor and evil poor. Cyriacus then explains each category, whether their riches or poverty is due to God or evil. Treatise XIV.1: God’s Care is equal in the case of calm and peaceful deaths, and in that of sudden, violent, early death. Nobody can separate the soul from the body by death except God, who

84

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

bound them together at the beginning. God in His Care brings about everybody’s death as it is appropriate to him. Treatise XIV.2: Why are some children snatched away when they have just received baptism, and others when they have not yet received it? On the other hand why are those who become evil often blessed to live until an old age? For those who have been worthy of baptism, Cyriacus cites John 3:5: “The teacher of the Jews said to Nicodemus; ‘No one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and the Spirit.’” They have been blessed for they kept the natural pureness, though not by their will because they have not reached the state to choose. God foresaw they would choose evil if they were to live a full state of life. For those who have not been worthy of baptism, Cyriacus says that they will not go to Gehenna, but neither to the kingdom of heaven, but they will be in an intermediate state. Next he considers those who have been blessed to live a long life, though they chose evil: why did God allow them to live such lives? Cyriacus says that we should not question the unfathomable judgments of God. He defends this in different ways, e.g. they were blessed to live, and become evil for the support of the good. The good will see them and chose not to become evil when they see others become evil. Treatise XIV.3: Cyriacus discusses various kinds of deaths, affecting various races and states, and whether every person separates from this life at his end or not, and if a particular end is determined by God for everyone, or for every individual particularly. This subject is discussed more profoundly in chapter one of treatise eighteen. Cyriacus quotes Ephrem’s hymns on Nicomedia to support his argument. Treatise XIV.4: God supports the victims in wars that are forced upon them by evil people with the support of Satan, as in the case of the Assyrians and Babylonians who attacked Israel. Cyriacus quotes the Psalms 46:9. “He stops wars from all over the world; He breaks bows, destroys spears, and sets chariots on fire.” God is not doing this to kill the nations but to destroy the evil which is inspired by Satan.

3.2.3. MORE THEORY Treatise XV.1: This chapter informs us that God does not instruct those things to happen which happen by free will, because He does

CYRIACUS’ BDP

85

not force and override free will, but He instructs them to happen because they have been chosen to happen by free will. Treatise XV.2: This chapter informs us that all things that God foresees happening are indeed performed by free will, and they don’t lose their ability to happen, because He does not override free will. Treatise XV.3: Some people may ask why does God let things that are evil happen? Cyriacus explains that although God does not take pleasure in all things that happen by free will, i.e. evil things, they happen anyway, and they don’t lose the ability to happen, because God does not override free will. Treatise XVI.1: Cyriacus explains that everything that happens by God’s Providence with respect to creatures, does not first come to His fore-knowledge and then happen, but the events are eternally known to Him, who is omniscient. Treatise XVI.2: This chapter informs us that God’s knowledge is eternal, and is not acquired, and that this includes eternal foreknowledge of beneficial acts that will come to pass, though these are in no way affected by His foreknowledge. Treatise XVI.3: Why does God’s knowledge ‫ ܝܕܥܬܐ‬differ from His will ‫ ܨܒܝܢܐ‬concerning those things which happen? God’s knowledge does not differ from His will with respect to things that occur though Him. However, God’s knowledge differs from His will in those things which happen due to human beings, which are dependent on evil. Treatise XVI.4: Why are God’s approving-permission ‘‫ ’ܡܦܣܢܘܬܐ‬and command ‘‫ ’ܦܘܩܕܢܐ‬different from His allowing ‘‫ ?’ܡܫܬܒܩܢܘܬܐ‬Cyriacus explains this by quoting the Bible for each feature. For His approving-permission he quotes Acts 16:7: “the Spirit of Jesus did not permit them.” For His command he quotes Mark 1:24: “‘I know who you are – you are God’s holy messenger!’ Jesus ordered the spirit, ‘Be quiet, and come out from the man!’”. And, for His allowing he quotes Jeremiah 21:7: “That I will deliver you into the hand of their enemies, and into the hand of those that seek his life.” Treatise XVII.1: God adorned the rational beings’ freedom with natural will at the beginning of their creation. Without this, our freedom would not have a free will. This is proven by the commandment God established for man by telling man from which trees he ought to eat, and from which he ought not to eat.

86

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

Cyriacus then explains why the natural will is different and not the same for all rational beings. Cyriacus quotes Gregory of Nyssa to support this argument. Treatise XVII.2: Does the will belong to us naturally or is it possessive? The will was given naturally to human nature by Divine Providence at the beginning of the creation. Cyriacus quotes Basil the Great and Cyril of Alexandria to support his argument. Treatise XVIII.1: God created man with free will and placed him in paradise, and He gave him the commandment. When man broke the command he was given death as a punishment, and he was driven out of paradise. God has not created man to remain in this world, but to progress by keeping the commandment. The material life has become like a pre-state for man to prepare himself for the paradise. God gave each individual a fixed term, and not a general one for everybody. The individual fixed term was given for man’s support. If the fixed term was given as general, then man would know when he would approach his end, and he would commit sins during his life-time with no hesitation, and he would be lost in sins and would never have considered repentance. God limited each individual’s end for his support, even though he only lives in this world for the blink of an eye. There are various types of deaths, and various lengths of life. God makes no mistakes. Cyriacus quotes many biblical citations to support his argument, amongst them are: Job 14:4-5: “Nobody can come clean from something unclean. The length of their lives is decided beforehand—the number of months they will live. You have settled it, and it can’t be changed.” And, from Psalm 39:4-5: “Lord, how long will I live? When will I die? Tell me how soon my life will end. How short you have made my life! In your sight my lifetime seems nothing.” Above all he uses the passage from the Gospel of Matthew 10:23-30: “For only a penny you can buy two sparrows, yet not one of them falls to the ground without your Father’s consent. As for you, even the hairs of your head are all numbered.” Cyriacus also quotes several church fathers to support his argument, who are Basil the Great, Ephrem, Gregory of Nyssa, Severus of Antioch, and Jacob of Serugh. Treatise XVIII.2: Cyriacus then devotes a whole chapter to explain problematic biblical citations which seem to question God’s goodness, human free will, and other key elements of his argument. He quotes the following citations: 2 Samuel 12:11; Ezekiel 14:7-10;

CYRIACUS’ BDP

87

Ezekiel 20:25-6; Acts 7; 2 Chronicles 18:19-22; 2 Chronicles 17:7; Romans 1:28; Romans 1:24; Romans 1:26.

3.2.4. PROOF OF THIS BY EXAMINATION OF ALL HUMAN HISTORY

Treatise XIX.1-8: Treatise nineteen is divided into eight chapters. In chapters one to seven, Cyriacus talks about the role of Divine Providence from the time of the beginning of our creation until the end of world. That is to say, He discusses the impact of the Divine Providence throughout human history by consulting the Bible, and discussing the church and the holy teachers. He makes significant use of extra-biblical, pseudepigraphical traditions. Cyriacus is concerned about three types of disciplines in treatise nineteen of BDP. The first type is that God puts an end to the wicked by His wise discipline, so that they will be cut off from their sins, and so as to fill the remaining wicked with fear. He also does this so that the sinners return from their sins, and take refuge in righteousness, and so that the righteous will be filled with hope and be confirmed in their righteousness. The second type of God’s disciplines is His discipline for the sinners to help them, i.e. by discipline, their sins are decreased, and their eternal tortures will grow smaller, and other sinners will learn penitence. The third type is the discipline of the righteous, which are the eleven causes of afflictions and tests that come upon saints. Treatise XIX.1: The first chapter covers the period of time from the beginning of our creation until the flood. Cyriacus informs us that the commandment was given to man for his support, but he transgressed against it by his will and subjected his freedom to the will of sin, and so righteously faced the consequence of being expelled from paradise, and being subjected to death. Cyriacus is positive about this, and says that death is a gift from God to the human race, since God made death for our support, because by it our sin will be cut short, unlike Satan whose immortality leads to endless wickedness. Most importantly, God gave us the sacrament of marriage, by which our nature will survive and not be ended by death. (This is explained further in chapter twenty-three, where Cyriacus suggests that Satan deceived Adam and Eve with the aim of completely annihilating the human race.). God then sent us constant watchers, such as Enoch who departed to be with God, as examples of immortal life. The aim was

88

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

to enhance the human desire for that immortality which was lost at the transgressing of the commandment, and that they would desire to depart to heaven when the Son of God was revealed for the general redemption. However, human beings became more evil, so God by his Providence thought that He would shorten their lives so that they would not cause as much evil. Cyriacus quotes Gen 6:3, “My spirit will not remain in those humans for ever, because they are flesh. Let their days be a hundred and twenty years.” However, this turned out to be an inadequate measure, since sin increased on earth, and so God had to act again. Thus He commanded Noah to preach repentance and to build the Ark, so that they would see he Ark and fear what was coming, and repent. Cyriacus suggests that this was a second chance given by Divine Providence to the human race—i.e. God caused the flood for the support of man, so that sin would come to an end in the coming generations. Universal death was applied to the human race throughout this period from the creation until the flood, but it is seen as a means of support. It is first initiated at the breaking of the commandment in paradise, and then accelerated by the shortening of the human life-span, and finally generally imposed by God at the flood. Nevertheless, Cyriacus emphasises the gift which God gave to the human race, which should be seen as a sign of God’s desire for the human nature to remain in existence, and not to be abolished, and Cyriacus therefore sees death as a positive thing which limits our life, and thereby gives less opportunity for sin to develop. Treatise XIX.2: The second chapter covers the period from the flood until the building of the tower of Babel. Cyriacus notes that at the exit of the survivors from the Ark “God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them, ‘Become great and numerous and fill the earth and rule over it,’” (Gen 9:1.), which is almost a repetition of God’s words to Adam, when he left paradise, ‘Be fruitful and multiply’ (Gen 1:28.). For Cyriacus this is further evidence of God’s concern for human beings, a God who never regrets, and yet said, ‘I have regretted that I brought a flood upon earth.’ Cyriacus suggests that the reason for the flood was so that human beings would learn fear and so would avoid sinful actions that might lead to them being killed by similar punishments in the future. Many people were retelling this story to each other as a reminder and a support for moral discipline, but the people in Babel

CYRIACUS’ BDP

89

lived in fear, and took refugee in the worship of evil idols. They planned, with Nimrod as their leader, to build a tower that would be higher than the clouds, so that they could climb it and so survive in the event that God sent another flood as a punishment. (Cf. Gen 11:1-9.) Treatise XIX.3: The third chapter covers the period of time from the division of languages and the fall of the tower until Abraham. Cyriacus highlights that the means of discipline, which was previously the flood, was now replaced by the division of languages, which prevented the tower from being completed. And the people of Babylon were tortured by this, since they knew that the division of languages was due to their rebellion against God, and they scattered over the surface of the earth. Cyriacus demonstrates that the disciplinary action of God, which previously was death, i.e. from the beginning until the flood, was now replaced by another form of discipline, i.e. the telling of the story of the flood and the telling of the story about the destruction of the tower of Babel. Cyriacus then explains that God wanted to steer the people away from the worship of the idols by raising Abraham, who would lead them to the true God. Abraham rejected Kinon and the worship of his parents and so set fire to the temple of idols, but Aran, his brother and Lot’s father, died whilst foolishly attempting to extinguish it. Cyriacus demonstrates that Divine Providence is now selecting ambassadors to deliver His message and bring about his acts of discipline, whereas previously God was acting directly himself. God is less keen to use death as a tool of discipline, but instead He seeks to guide human beings by sending messengers like Abraham. Treatise XIX.4: The fourth chapter covers the period of time from Abraham until the Law of Moses. Cyriacus stresses that before the written law, which was for the discipline of humans, God continued to raise individuals like Abraham, namely Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and the leaders of the tribes, Judah and his brothers, and then, Moses, Aaron, the seventy elders of Israel, the holy nation of Israel itself, and Job. Cyriacus explains God’s educative purpose in sending the patriarchs upon their long journeys among the nations. He begins with Abraham who moved to the land of the Chaldeans and was then instructed by God to go to the land of the Haranites, where he would lead them to God, and away from the worship of devils.

90

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

Abraham was then instructed by God, to move to the land of the Canaanites and the Philistines, where he lived with his children, Isaac and Jacob, so that the nations which lived there would know God. Abraham was then sent off to Egypt, to appear before the Pharaoh for a short period, to declare that he was the servant of the true God, and that they should not be occupied with vain idols. The journey to Egypt took place because God foresaw the hunger of Egypt, and that He was going to send Joseph to Egypt. However, when Abraham left the land of Harran and arrived in the land of the Canaanites, God, in His Care, prepared for Abraham and Lot to be separated, by a disagreement between the shepherds. This is because God wanted to send Lot to Sodom, and the neighbouring cities, for their redemption. Nevertheless, Lot was rejected, together with God, and their sins increased. God decides to give another disciplinary sign for the human race, and burned down the five cities. Cyriacus then returns to the discussion of Egypt, and suggests that when the hunger was expected, God sent Israel, with their father, Jacob, to Egypt for the redemption of the Egyptians, i.e. the Egyptians would see Israel worshipping the true God, and they would turn to Him. However, the Egyptians did not accept the true God, but enslaved the Israelites to have them make bricks. Moses was then raised by God to save his people, and summoned the ten plagues on the Egyptians, which did not persuade the Egyptians to believe in the true God. Nevertheless, the last plague, which was the death of the first born, persuaded the Pharaoh to release the Israelites. This again, according to Cyriacus, was another discipline for the human race. Cyriacus then explains that Moses moved his staff over the sea in the type of the Cross,1 by which the sea was separated into twelve paths,2 so that the tribes would not pass the sea in difficulty The tradition of making Moses making the sign of the Cross over the Red sea is also found in Ephrem the Syrian’s commentary on Exodus. See Edward Mathews and Joseph Amar, St. Ephrem the Syrian, Selected Prose Works, p. 249. 2 This tradition of the twelve paths across the Red Sea is of Jewish origin and is found in the Palestinian Targum fragments from the Cairo 1

CYRIACUS’ BDP

91

on one path. This too was done to make the Egyptians return to the true God. When the Egyptians saw this, they became bolder and chased Israel. God then commanded Moses to move his staff in the type of the Cross to return the sea as it was naturally, and the troops of the Egyptians drowned in the Red Sea. It seems from Cyriacus’ writing that God is acting differently from the time of Abraham until the time of Moses. God raises leaders who warn of the danger of the increase of sins, and attempt to lead humans away from evil, before God acts. Cyriacus has a very positive view of the actions of God, and suggests that they all are done for the good discipline of the entire human race. Treatise XIX.5: The fifth chapter covers the period of time from the Law of Moses until the coming of Christ. This summarises a large part of the Old Testament in the space of one short chapter, and so Cyriacus touches upon many events rather superficially. He reflects on the Divine Providence which led Israel out of Egypt. However, a few key things are mentioned in this chapter with a short explanation of them. Cyriacus points out the various ways Divine Providence being affective from the time of Moses until the arrival of Christ. I.e. the passing of Israel through the Red Sea and gave Moses the law on Mount Sinai, so that Israel would be distinguished from the other nations. God also exercised His Divine Providence towards Israel by destroying the Amorites and the Canaanites during the conquest of the land, because their sins had reached the maximum limit allowed, and hence they had no futher right to God’s mercy. Cyriacus then turns to the teachings of the literary prophets (who prophesied the coming of the Redeemer of Israel and the nations, the expulsion of Israel from the Divine Household, and Genizah (cf. M.L. Klein, Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch [Cincinnati, 1986], I. 230f, 232f, 278f, 330f), and the later Pirqe dRabbi Eliezer 42, as reported by S.P. Brock, ‘Two editions of a new Syriac Apocalypse of Daniel’, Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 48/49 (2005/2006), [pp. 7-18] p. 18, whilst drawing attention to the same motif, but applied to the Euphrates and Tigris, in this early-seventh-century Syriac apocalypse. This passage in Cyriacus thus appears to be the first complete parallel to the Jewish exegetical tradition yet discovered in Syriac texts.

92

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

their replacement by the nations), though he seems more interested in prophets such as Elijah and Elisha who engaged in more direct prophetic action, influencing the weather and elements, raising the dead, and killing the false prophets of Baal, all of which demonstrated to the nations the military power of God. Cyriacus also emphasises the Care of God for the Ninevites, who listened to the voice of Jonah. Here again Cyriacus is showing how the Dvine Providence changed from age to age, and in this age the shift was from national leaders to prophets and men of God. Treatise XIX.6: In the sixth chapter Cyriacus covers the period of time from the coming of Christ until the holy teachers of the Church. For Cyriacus, obviously, the incarnation of the second person of the Trinity is the ultimate proof of God’s providentialcare for humanity. Christ is God the unfathomable, impassible, and immortal, who became flesh for our sake, which is passible, fathomable, and mortal. He became human, by an unspeakable wonder, from the Virgin, in a unique event, during which she suffered no pains. Here again, Cyriacus involves the nations in the Divine Providence. When Christ was born, God signalled to the Magi to bring Him gifts, so that this would be a victorious proof to all nations beneath heaven. Moreover, He called the shepherds to bring Him gifts too, so that everyone would know that He is the Redeemer, who was expected in the revelation of the fathers, in the Mosaic Law, and in the prophesies of the prophets. He also moved/affected the heavenly troops to praise Him at his birth in flesh, so that all nations would learn that He is the Lord of the heavenly hosts. Christ then set off for Egypt, with Mary and Joseph, so that He would fulfil the prophecy, and destroy the Egyptian idols. This is the fourth time Cyriacus mentions Egypt in regards to God’s Providence. Firstly Abraham was sent there to discontinue the Egyptians’ belief in the idols, and then Joseph, and after him, Moses, and finally Jesus, God himself. Cyriacus then mentions the wonders performed by Christ; that He was teaching in the temple and amazed everyone, He raised the dead by His lordly command, and He healed all kind of illness, He satiated the thousands in the desert, and He changed the water into wine at the wedding at Cana in Galilee. This all happened so that He would turn the deceivers to the true knowledge. However, most importantly for Cyriacus, is the fact that He submitted himself to the passions of insult, and to the death on the cross for our

CYRIACUS’ BDP

93

sake, which is the most despised type of death for humans. And by His incorruptible burial of three days, He released the corruption of our bodies. He gave us a pledge of resurrection by His lifegiving resurrection, and ascended in flesh to heaven, and by this, He prepared a path of ascension thither for us. He also opened doors for us, by which we can enter when we desire. And, He sent the Holy Spirit to His disciples, who preached the Gospel to all nations. The Divine Providence is now active in the spreading of the Gospel by the disciples, who were preaching and performing miracles, which were no less than those which Jesus himself performed. Treatise XIX.7: The seventh chapter covers the period of time from the holy teachers, who protected the church from heresies, until the end of the world. In this section, Cyriacus explains that many leaders of the church turned out to be destroying wolves who falsified orthodox theology and the truth about the incarnation, like deniers of God’s redemption. However, God raised holy teachers for the church, who were protecting its orthodoxy through the ecumenical councils and synods. Treatise XIX.8: Cyriacus concludes treatise nineteen by devoting the last chapter, chapter eight, to a study of the reasons (which he says are eleven in number) for the afflictions and sufferings that befall the saints. His over-arching principle is that by the disciplining of the few (i.e. the saints), the majority of the population are instructed how to behave. Although apparently focussed on the Christian martyrs of the church, this section flows naturally from Cyriacus’ preceding account of the action of Divine Providence throughout history, and there are many parallels with his explanations of God’s sometimes apparently violent and harshseeming actions there. There are no obvious hints that this section was written as a reaction to contemporary or recent persecution of Christians, but it is impossible to exclude this entirely. Instead, it seems more likely that it is part of Cyriacus’ larger theodicy, and that it is addressed to a church community which was intimately familiar with the sometimes gruesome sufferings and deaths of the saints of the past portrayed in detail in the widely recited hagiography of their church. The specific reasons for the sufferings of the saints are given as follows: 1. To subdue their pride. 2. To demonstrate that the saints are merely human, and subject to God. 3. To reveal God’s

94

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

power in the sick. 4. To demonstrate that they do not labour in the expectation of reward, but through their love for God. 5. To demonstrate the truth of the resurrection of the dead, and strengthen our hope in it. 6. To encourage all who are not saints when they too are caught up in trials and afflictions. 7. To demonstrate that the saints are not super-human, and thus to encourage ordinary believers to imitate them. 8. To distinguish the true saints worthy of emulation from those who are often admired simply because they prosper in this world, since “The Lord disciplines the one He loves.”(Heb 12:6, citing Prov. 3:12). 9. To prove that the saints are experienced, “For suffering perfects endurance in us, and endurance experience, and experience hope.”(Rom 5:3-4). 10. To purify the saints of any spots or blemishes they should happen to possess. 11. To increase the future rewards and glory of the saints.

3.2.5. THIS WILL CONTINUE IN THE FUTURE Treatise XX.1: Treatise twenty is an answer to the three questions put to him by Habib, his secretary. The first question is ‘Concerning whether the souls have knowledge after being separated from the bodies.’ Cyriacus argues that the soul does indeed have knowledge after its separation from the body. For this he quotes David in Psalm 142:7 ‘Set my soul free from prison, so that I may praise your name.’ Cyriacus also quotes Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, the Doctrina Addai, and John Chrysostom to support his argument. Treatise XX.2: The second question is ‘whether offerings that are offered on behalf of the dead serve a purpose.’ Since, as argued earlier, the soul has knowledge after its separation from the body, offerings can, in this sense be made on its behalf. Cyriacus quotes Palladius of Hellenopolis, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, and Severus of Antioch to support his argument. Treatise XX.3: The third question is ‘concerning the passage of the souls after their separation from the body, and concerning what they encounter and where they arrive and remain before the resurrection.’ When the souls leave the bodies at death, they are raised up and head towards the place appropriate for each one of them, where they stay until the day of Judgement. The soul is escorted by the holy angels to protect it from the wicked demons who remind it of its sins, and try to snatch it. This happens even to the souls of the saints. The angels wait for a sign from God to in-

CYRIACUS’ BDP

95

struct them which souls they should protect. If the soul is good, then it will be escorted by the holy angels in peace. If the soul is evil, then it will be snatched away by force by the demons who delight in its corruption. It stays in their hands in Sheol, which is the prison for wicked souls, and is tortured until the resurrection of its body. It will then be tortured together with its body in Sheol. Cyriacus quotes Athanasius, Abba Isaiah, Severus of Antioch, Theophilus of Alexandria, and Severus of Antioch to support his argument. Treatise XXI.1: Cyriacus explains how the Accuser and his angels were created as angels and that Gehenna was prepared for them as a support for the Kingdom. That is to say, so that man would fear Gehenna and humble himself in repentance so as to be worthy of the Kingdom. He thus claims that Gehenna is there for the benefit of man, and not for the benefit of the Accuser and his angels. The Accuser and his angels were given the chance to repent from the time of their fall until the crucifixion of Christ. At the crucifixion they too died and became the heirs of Gehenna, since they had not repented. Cyriacus then explains metaphorically what the substance and the purpose of Gehenna is. Treatise XXI.2: Cyriacus then argues against those who say that God made two kinds of beings or creatures, those destined for the Kingdom and those destined for Gehenna. He compares this with terrestrial and aquatic creatures, noting that fish which live in the seas swim and delight in the streams which protect and sustain them, and terrestrial creatures of land and air flourish on the earth but drown and die if they should be held in the water and should be prevented from breathing air, and, of course, vice versa. Thus God created ideal habitats for every creature, giving to each only that which was to the benefit of its life. He does not condemn any creature to suffering as a natural part of its being. God also prepared the Kingdom of Heaven, which is full of delights, for rational beings, for which they must prepare themselves through the virtues which resemble those found in it. He also prepared Gehenna for the support of the Kingdom, so that through fear and terror of it they would long for the Kingdom, which they were created to inherit. But some beings, though created for the delights of the Kingdom, reject it in anger and pride and instead in their corruption yearn for Gehenna which can only, like the sea for a land animal, be a place of torment for them. This

96

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

choice is one made by their own free will, not by God’s predestination or creation of them. Treatise XXII: Cyriacus interprets parables from the Gospel of Mathew that provide the signs of the end of time that indicate the arrival of the Antichrist, as well as the second coming of the Lord. Cyriacus warns the reader about the deceivers and the false messiahs who will come in the name of Christ. He also quotes a citation from The Testament of our Lord where he gives a physical description of Antichrist. He says “His head is red, and his right eye is shot with blood, and his left (eye) is steel gray, and has two pupils, and he has other such things resembling these in the rest of his limbs.”3 Treatise XXIII: This treatise is against those who say it is inappropriate for the Antichrist to be allowed to come, given all the destruction that will take place on his arrival. Cyriacus brings up the fact that Antichrist also has free will, and that God does not override free will. However, Cyriacus argues that the Antichrist’s arrival is a good thing, since this is when the good and the evil will finally be separated, and each will be rewarded according to his deeds. He also says that the purpose of the Antichrist’s coming is beyond man’s understanding, and that man should not attempt to challenge God’s unfathomable righteous judgements.

3.2.6. REMAINING TREATISES Treatise VI.3-5: This treatise discusses that the incarnation of the God the word is also appropriate of God and that it was a necessity. It also explains why the Lord was incarnated at the end of ages, rather than the beginning of ages, and why he came for the testing of death on the Cross. Treatise VII.1: Treatise seven informs us about the goodness and righteousness of God in nature, knowledge, will, and power. Treatise XXIV: Treatise twenty-four is dedicated to an interpretation of Matthew’s parable of the net which was thrown out in the sea (Mt 13:47). He explains that the net is the Gospel, which Cyriacus, BDP, fol. 154ii. For citation see Cooper J., Maclean A. J., The Testament of Our Lord (Edinburgh, 1902), p. 57; Syr ed. Rahmani I. E., Testamentum domini nostri Jesu Christi (Mainz, 1899) p. 14. 3

CYRIACUS’ BDP

97

has caught everyone, good and evil, believers and non-believers. And it will not be removed until the end of the world, when the righteous will be separated from the wicked, because He wants everyone to repent. Treatise XXV: Cyriacus believes that the soul and the body came into being at the exact same time, and that neither was created before the other. When God wanted to bring the first human into being He took soil from the ground, and the soul was already there. This is to say, the taking of the soil is not prior to the coming of the soul, which was created from nothing, by his ineffable gesture, at the same moment that he gathered up the soil. Hence he claims they are equal, and they were both created for the completion of the nature and personality of a human being. Cyriacus then goes into details and explains that this instant union of the soul and the body also applies in the case of infants (in contradiction to those who argue that a male foetus only receives a soul after forty days, and a female foetus after eighty days), for he says that if there is even one split-second of difference between the moment of creation of the soul and the body, then that human being can not have one nature and one personality, but two. Cyriacus explains the procedure as follows: the man’s seed is introduced, and then God gives a sign and the womb opens and receives the seed, and simultaneously the soul is created and blood shed by the woman is joined with the seed. These three (the man’s seed, woman’s blood, and the soul) receive one entrance, natural union, and personality in the womb. In this interpretation Cyriacus is going against much traditional medicinal wisdom, including that of most Greek, Jewish, and Arabic schools of medicine, which allowed some period of time before the foetus in the womb received a soul. To support this argument he has to advance a rather unconvincing interpretation of the events in the Genesis account of the creation of Adam. It is unclear whether he was motivated in this by purely philosophical or theological reasoning (such as the equality of body and soul), or whether pragmatic issues such as abortion or the appropriate treatment of miscarried foetuses lay behind it. Treatise XXVI: Treatise twenty-six is a reply to various liturgical questions asked by Walid and Yeshu′ from the village of Tirminaz. The questions are concerning the authenticity of the (recently translated into Syriac) Testament of Our Lord and its liturgi-

98

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

cal prescriptions; the prayer prior to the Our Father in the anaphora of St James (now no longer used); the triple signing of the cross made by the priest at the fraction of the bread; which prayers can be omitted from the baptismal service, and whether chrism must always be used; whether a sub-deacon is allowed to touch the altar. Treatise XXVII: Treatise twenty-seven concerns the love of money and adultery. Cyriacus explains that the love of money, which is the root of all evil, was not planted in the human nature from the beginning, since it is not of benefit to man, but only acts for his harm and corruption. The passion of adultery is also alien to our nature, and is rejected by God. The love of lawful reproduction was planted in our nature at the beginning, but not adultery. Treatise XXVIII: Cyriacus then writes concerning the vain and obsessive longing for leadership. Whilst objection to such vanity and the obsessive desire for power is something of a commonplace among many ancient writers, Cyriacus writes with a real passion on the subject, and provides a vivid picture of the toadying and bribery to which people are prepared to resort in order to gain high position, and their subsequent vile behaviour once they receive it, and their abandoning of former friends. It is hard not to read this in the light of his endless struggles with his own clergy and bishops who went to great lengths to gain promotion and power, resorting to unscrupulous methods and even appeal to nonChristian rulers. Ten Questions: Cyriacus then answers ten general questions (of exegetical and liturgical character), which the deacon Yeshu from the village of Tirminaz posed. Homologia4 Cyriacus instituted a pledge of allegiance and a theological creed to be recited by metropolitans, bishops and other highranking clergy before their ordination and contains their promise to uphold the orthodox faith, the laws of the church, its sacraments and the ecclesiastical councils which it recognizes. This is a highly technical theological document which is far removed from the

4 A loanword from Greek (ὁμολογία), but in Syriac always pronounced as Omologia or Amologia.

CYRIACUS’ BDP

99

more succint confessions of faith familiar from many of the church councils.

3.3. FREE WILL AND PREDESTINATION This chapter has been called Free Will and Predestination for the majority of the arguments found in treatises twelve to eighteen of Cyriacus’ BDP1 fall into this subject. It will begin with providing some background to the topic during Cyriacus’ period of time, and then analyse Cyriacus’ treatises, to discover his point of view, and whenever suitable, bring in contemporary writings for the sake of comparison. Cyriacus lived in the era of the early Abbasid caliphate, when the Muslim Mutakallimūn were at their peak. At that time Muslim theologians in Iraq, in particular the Mu’tazilites, combined Islamic dogma with Greek philosophical concepts and laid great emphasis on God’s unity, His justice, and human free will.2 This had a profound impact on contemporary Christian theologians and church leaders who had to respond to the questions being raised as a consequence by ordinary church members, and on occasion, directly to the Muslim theologians. Among Cyriacus’ contemporaries mention should be made here of the Melkite Theodore Abū-Qurrah, who wrote on the subject of freedom in Arabic (he follows a Syriac doctrinal tradition, which goes back to Ephrem the Syrian,3 emphasising human freedom);4 the patriarch of the Church

Cyriacus, BDP, XII-XVII, fol. 8i-68i. W. M. Watt, Islamic Surveys I, Islamic Philosophy and Theology, Edingburgh 1962, pp. 58-71, idem, The Formative Period of Islamic Thought, Edinburgh 1973; idem, Free Will and Pre-destination in Early Islam, London 1948; M. Cook, Early Muslim dogma: a source-critical study, Cambridge 1981. 3 Cf. Bou Mansour, T., La liberté chez saint Ephrem le syrien, ParOr 11 (1983), pp. 89-156. 1 2

101

102

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

of the East, Timothy I, who in one of his Syriac letters addressed to Bokt-Isho discusses whether the separation of the soul from the body is by the commandment of God, or by chance or illness;5 and the Syrian Orthodox, Nonnus of Nisibis,6 who defended their theology against other Christian denominations. Michael the Great’s chronicle informs us about one occasion when Nonnus was sent by Cyriacus to Armenia in A.D. 815, to debate with Abū-Qurrah.7 All of these writers, in one way or another, responded to this contemporary fascination with the question of human free will, divine control, and fate and destiny. It is appropriate to summarize the main views of early Islam concerning fate and providence. The two main early views, which emerged in early Islam are held by the Predestinarians (Jabarites), who believed in predestination, and the Libertarians (Qadarites/Mu‘tazilites), who held the libertarian view. A third view which later sprung up was a compromise of the Predestination view and Qadarism, which was represented by the Ash‘arites.8 During the Ummayad period, the basic Sunnite doctrine was that God by his Qadar (the power to determine events, including human acts) determined everything. The opponents to this concept were labelled—counter-intuitively—‘Qadarites’. The Qadarites were mostly associated with the opposition to the Ummayad rule, Griffith, “Free Will in Christian Kalām: the Doctrine of Theodore Abū Qurrah,” pp. 91-92; for his work see Lamoreaux, J. C., Theodore Abū Qurrah, Utah 2005. 5 Braun, Timothei Patriarchae I epistulae, letter 2.7, (CSCO 74; 1914/1953). 6 Amongst Nonnus’ works, he composed an apologetic treatise in Syriac, in which he discusses three topics: the existence of God; God in three Qnome; and the incarnation of the Word God, which reflects the early period of Christian and Muslim Kalam, in the first Abbasid century, where he calls the Muslims the ‘new pagans’ ‘‫’ ̈ܚܢܦܐ ̈ܚܕܬܐ‬. Cf. Griffith, "The Apologetic Treatise of Nonnus of Nisibis," ARAM 3 (1991), pp. 115-138; Cf. Van Roey, Nonnus de Nisibe; traité apologétique (Bibliothèque du Muséon, 21; Louvain, 1948); Lamoreaux, J. C., Theodore Abū Qurrah, (Provo, 2005). 7 Michael the Great, Chronique, v. IV, pp. 495-496. 8 Watt, The Formative Period of Islamic Thought, pp. 82-9. 4

FREE WILL AND PREDESTINATION

103

but this changed during the Abbasid dynasty, by approximately 750, when the term Qadarite became synonymous with Mu’tazilite.9 An early variety of the predestinarian belief was inspired by Qur’anic verses that stressed God’s absolute power over all human actions. Their concept is that “there is no distinction between the actions that occur in the world, including the actions which occur to man, and the action which are performed by man. All of them are directly created by God”.10 Information about early Arabic fatalism comes largely from the numerous poems by pre-Islamic Arabs which still survive and also from the few Qur’ānic statements about their belief, such as “No misfortune has happened in respect either of the land or of yourselves but it was in a book before we (God) brought it about.”11 Another example is “nothing will befall us except what God has written for us.”12 This is said to mean that God plans man’s term of life.13 Wolfson suggests that this early doctrine can be found in three main sources dated before the middle of eight century;14 1: A group of traditions transmitted by a succession of individuals in the name of Muhammad; 2: A statement by Jahm ibn Safwan who claimed that “there is no difference between things that happen in the world in general and the actions of human beings. All of them are continuously and directly created by God”;15 3: A disputation between a Christian and a Muslim by John of Damascus, where the question formulated by the Saracen was as follows: “Are you endowed with free will, and are you able to do whatever you wish?” “And the answer of the Christian was that he has been formed by God with free will, and that the free will with which he was formed enables him to do either good or evil, and

Watt, The Formative Period of Islamic Thought, p. 82. Wolfson, The Philosophy, p. 734. 11 Sura 57.22. 12 Sura 9.51. 13 Montgomery, Islamic Surveys I, Islamic Philosophy and Theology, p. 26. 14 Wolfson, The Philosophy, p. 602. 15 Wolfson, The Philosophy, p. 606. 9

10

104

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

that because of his freedom of will he is deserving reward for doing good and evil for doing evil.”16 There is evidence that there were Muslims who maintained the alternative belief, the libertarian, in human free will before the composition by John of Damascus in the early eighth century about the debate between a Christian and a Muslim. The earliest to discuss human free will is said to be Ma‘bad al-Juhanī (d. 699). His view on the subject is unknown.17 However, Ghaylān al-Dimashkī (d. 730) reports the views of those who believed in free will.18 The libertarian view held by the Qadarite/Mu‘tazilite, was that “there is a distinction between actions that occur in the world, including actions which occur to man, and actions performed by man.19 Many discussions such as on fixed term which were controversial in the Islamic milieu were also discussed amongst Christians. The concept of fixed term includes notions of deaths, an early punishment and the last judgement. It also indicates an individual’s lifespan, fixed term for nations and even the whole of the universe. It is a Divine act which sets the fate of man prior to creation, and thus becomes similar to the concept of Qadar.20 Abu’l Hudhayl (d. 850) was a significant thinker in early Islam and the founder of the Basran branch of the Mu‘tazilite school of thought. He thought it was possible to summarise the Mu‘tazilite belief in ‘five principles’. 1. Uniqueness of God. 2. Justice of God.

16 Wolfson, The Philosophy, p. 607; Cf. Edward E. Salisbury, “Materials for the History of the Muhammadan Doctrine of Predestination and Free Will,” AJOS 8 (1866), pp. 103-182; Wensinck, Muslim Creed, pp. 54-56; Watt, Free Will, pp. 17-19; Suermann, H., “Orientalische Christen und der Islam; christliche Texte aus der Zeit von 635-750”, Zeitschrift für Missionswissenschaft und Religionswissenschaft 67 (1983), pp. 122-128. 17 Watt, Free Will, pp. 48, 53-54. 18 Cf. Watt, Free Will, pp. 40-41, 54-55. 19 Wolfson, The Philosophy, p. 734. 20 Cf, Frolov, Dmitry V. ‘Freedom and Predestination’, Encyclopedia of the Qur’an, General editor: Jane Dammen McAuliffe, Georgetown University, Washington DC, Brill, 2009. Brill Online, Oxford University libraries, 26 May 2009, http://www.brillonline.nl/subscriber/entry?=q3_SIM00163.

FREE WILL AND PREDESTINATION

105

3. The promise and threat. 4. The theory of intermediate state. 5. Command the good and forbid the evil.21 Cyriacus seems to have been mostly concerned about the second principle, which is ‘Justice of God’, since it involves the characters of human free will. The Mu‘tazila say that God would be unjust to decide in advance the fate of every man and then judge that one will be saved and another damned. It is for humans to decide their future lot, according to whether they choose to believe or not, or to obey the Law or not. God would be unjust if He were to determine faith or disbelief, or obedience or disobedience and then judge people for it.22 As we shall see in the discussions below, the concept of God being Just is described by Cyriacus in many aspects such as human appearance and riches and poverty. Before beginning to examine the key themes discussed by Cyriacus it is necessary to say a few words about a chapter in which he discusses problematic biblical passages. As I have already described, Cyriacus argues that apparently harsh or cruel actions by God were in fact intended to educate and discipline humanity, and to strengthen the individual’s free will to choose good over evil, and as such reflected God’s loving care for his creation. However, a number of biblical passages23 state explicitly that God did evil, or that he acted against human free will, and so Cyriacus engages with all of these problematic passages in a single chapter,24 which is placed prior to his treatise on the actions of Divine Providence throughout sacred history, i.e. treatise nineteen,25 which draws heavily on the Bible. His discussion of these passages will be ad21 Cf. Gimaret, D. ‘Mu‘tazila’, Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition. Edited by: P. Bearman , Th. Bianquis , C.E. Bosworth , E. van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs. Brill, 2009. Brill Online. Oxford University libraries. 26 May 2009, www.brillonline.nl/subscriber/entry?entry=islam_COM-0822. 22 Cf. Gimaret, D. ‘Mu‘tazila’, Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition. Edited by: P. Bearman , Th. Bianquis , C.E. Bosworth , E. van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs. Brill, 2009. Brill Online. Oxford University libraries. 26 May 2009, www.brillonline.nl/subscriber/entry?entry=islam_COM-0822. 23 The passages he discusses are 2 Sam 12:11; Ezek 14:7, 20:25; 1 Kgs 22:20-23, 22:8; Rom 1:24-28. 24 Cyriacus, BDP, XVIII.2, fol. 79i-83i. 25 Cyriacus, BDP, XIX.1-8, fol. 83i-113i.

106

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

dressed on several occasions throughout this chapter, in the relevant sections. It should be noted that two of the passages he discusses, from the epistle to the Romans, are also quoted by Anton of Tagrit in his book on the Good Providence of God.26 This suggests that they may both have been making use of an already established list of problematic biblical passages, possibly in a florilegium or other textual compilation.

3.3.1. INCARNATION Treatise twelve27 is divided into five chapters, and the beginning of the first chapter is lost. Cyriacus begins with key theological principles concerning the Incarnation. Cyriacus emphasises the importance of the incarnation in regards to Divine Providence.28 This topic is of great importance in regards to the Divine Providence for two reasons: 1, the incarnation demonstrates God’s care for the human race, by sacrificing the Only Begotten, as described below; 2, this is a topic, discussed by many Christian authors of his day, such as Abū-Qurrah,29 and Nonnus of Nisibis.30 Although discussions of Christology often turn into a defence of the doctrines of a specific church, or a defence of the Trinity against Islamic objections, this is not the case here. Cyriacus is interested primarily in the purpose of the incarnation, and the means God uses. Cyriacus begins by pointing out that the purpose of the incarnation is as a restoration of our nature which was under the power of death. The Creator saw its weakness and knew that it could not be redeemed by itself, but only by our Redeemer, who is sinless, since wherever sin is not present, death is not active. If death attacks the sinless, then it will be killed and die. He was not ashamed 26 Anton of Tagrit, On the Good Providence of God, chapter 2, B.L. Add. 14726, fol. 100b-101a. 27 Treatise twelve is the third treatise on Divine Providence, which originally totalled fourteen treatises, i.e. treatises ten until twenty-three. 28 Cyriacus, BDP, XII.1, fol. 8i-9i. 29 Cf. Lamoreaux, Theodore Abū Qurrah, chapters 10-11, pp. 109-149. 30 Cf. Griffith, ‘The Apologetic Treatise of Nonnus of Nisibis’, pp. 128-134.

FREE WILL AND PREDESTINATION

107

to come for its redemption, and to assume flesh for its sake. He killed death by his death, and provided hope of the resurrection by His resurrection. This, to experience death by the Cross, is the sole purpose for our Lord and God’s visit upon earth.31 This demonstrates God’s care for humanity, who decided to take matters into his own hands, because He knew that that was the only way to conquer death. God never gave us up, but sacrificed Himself on the Cross in His providential-care for humanity.

3.3.2. THAT GOD IS NOT THE CAUSE OF EVIL Cyriacus informs us that God is not the cause of evil, but that humans rejected the good things they were granted, and accepted the evil things which were found in the will of the Accuser.32 But why does evil exist when Divine Providence governs creation? Cyriacus explains evil and the cause of it, in chapters two to four of treatise twelve.33 Cyriacus begins by explaining that the acts of discipline (‫ )ܡ̈ܪܕܘܬܐ‬which God brings upon us contain no evil. He defends God’s actions by suggesting that these ‘disciplines’ are in fact good and supportive. He claims that they are called evil only due to human weakness and ignorance, as attested by various biblical passages which Cyriacus mentions: “I am the Lord who makes peace and creates evil; I am the Lord who does all these things.”34 And again, “Is there an evil in the city that the Lord has not done?”35 The first problematic biblical citation of this kind which Cyriacus discusses in detail is 2 Samuel 12:11, where God speaks to David through Nathan the prophet, announcing the punishment that will be imposed on him for having taken to himself Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah, saying: “Behold, I will raise evil against you out of your house, and I will take your wives before your eyes, and give them to your neighbour.”36 Cyriacus argues that even though God Cyriacus, BDP, XII.1, fol. 8i-8ii. Cyriacus, BDP, XII.1, fol. 9i. 33 Cyriacus, BDP, XII.2-4, fol. 9i-20i. 34 Isa 45:7. 35 Cyriacus, BDP, XII.2, fol. 9ii; Amos 3:6. 36 2 Sam 12:11. 31 32

108

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

calls his disciplines evil here, they are not in fact evil, since God has no desire or will for evil.37 Instead, God allowed David’s son, Absalom, to carry out his own will and so usurp his father. This usurpation was not part of God’s plan, and Absalom’s actions were in no way influenced by God, since He is not the cause of evil, but they were through his own free will to which God gave free rein, although God did not allow him to carry out his other plan of killing his father David. This tells us that God did not intend evil for David, but this all happened so that he would be disciplined. Another example of the way in which Cyriacus tackles such citations can be seen in his exegesis of Ezekiel 20:25, which reads; “And I gave them commands that are not seemly and judgments through which they will not live, and I polluted them through their own gifts.”38 For Cyriacus it is axiomatic that God only decrees good commands and laws, and is both holy and a sanctifier through his gifts. Hence he argues that the true meaning of this verse is that he allows human rulers to issue destructive commands and laws—because to do otherwise would be to infringe their free will—and through this they are polluted, as their wilful actions merited.39 He also points to a passage in the Didascalia Apostolorum40 which provides a second interpretation, namely that in the wilderness God gave His people a Law of Life, but because they sinned and did not keep this law, but worshipped idols, He gave them a second law which was fitting for those in bondage, a Law of Death, and it is this which He is describing in this passage of Ezekiel (which is also cited in the Didascalia). Harder to explain away was the graphic account of the lying spirit sent to deceive Ahab, “The Lord said, ‘Who will deceive Cyriacus, BDP, XVIII.2, fol. 79i. Ezek 20:25. 39 Cyriacus, BDP, XVIII.2, fol. 80ii. 40 Arthur Vööbus, Didascalia Apostolorum in Syriac, (Syriac text) CSCO 407 chapter 26, p. 250, line 1, (English translation) CSCO 408, p. 231 line 31. The Didascalia Apostolorum is a treatise attributed to the Apostles, which was purportedly written at the Council of Jerusalem (cf. Acts 15), but was in fact composed in the third century. It was originally written in Greek, which has only been preserved in fragments, and was translated into Syriac version in the fourth century. 37 38

FREE WILL AND PREDESTINATION

109

Ahab, the king of Israel, so that he will go up and fall at Ramath Gilead?’... Then there came out a spirit, and stood before the Lord, and said, ‘I will deceive him’. And the Lord said to him, ‘How?’ And he said, ‘I will go out, and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ And the Lord said, ‘Go and deceive him. You will succeed.’ Now therefore, behold, the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all your prophets, and the Lord has spoken evil against you.”41 Here Cyriacus identifies the lying spirit as the Accuser, Satan, and argues that Ahab chose to listen only to the false prophets inspired by the Accuser, and refused to listen to the true prophet, Micaiah, inspired by the Holy Spirit.42 Once again, therefore, God did not initiate the evil, or command the deception, but allowed the Accuser and Ahab to carry out their own will and to bear the consequences.43 Turning to the New Testament, Cyriacus addresses several worrying verses from the first chapter of the letter of Paul to the Romans,44 in which God is said to have handed over those who did not acknowledge Him ‘to do those things which are inappropriate’,45 and ‘to the impure desires of their hearts’,46 and ‘to shameful passions’.47 Here again, Cyriacus argues that God does not force them to engage in impure acts and thoughts, but that he allows them to receive the consequences of their own actions. Cyriacus then continues this discussion by explaining what the divine disciplines are and why they are brought upon us. When God brought us into the world, and we were pure and without stain, He gave us the four elements to help and support us; the earth produced plants and fruits to nourish us, and trees for our use; he gave us fire for our use; and the air so that we could breathe and be refreshed; and water for us to drink, and so that we could benefit from the fish and creatures that live in it. And so it would 1 Kgs 22:20-23. Cf. 1 Kgs 22:8. 43 Cf. 2 Chr 18:33-34. 44 Rom 1:28; 1:24; 1:26. 45 Rom 1:28. 46 Rom 1:24. 47 Rom 1:26. 41 42

110

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

have continued, but humans sinned, and corrupted all that had been given for their benefit, and misused their bodies. So God uses the elements to discipline us; the earth is sometimes caused to quake, or it yields poor crops, and the wild animals are no longer obedient but attack and savage us, unless God restrains them; fire burns us, both externally and internally, in the form of fevers; the air exhales sicknesses and diseases upon us, or sends down hailstones to destroy our crops; floods and waves destroy crops and cities, and sink the ships carrying the wealth of merchants. By these disciplines Cyriacus explains that God seeks not to drive us away, but to draw us nearer to Him, in repentance.48 He wants us to recognise our inability to survive these disciplines alone, but to call on Him, who is more powerful than humanity, for His protection.49 Cyriacus informs us that when human beings see these disciplines they call them evil due to the weakness of the human mind, and so in order to communicate with humans God uses the same words that they use. And, hence He says: “Is there an evil in the city that the Lord has not done?”50 By ‘evil’ here He means act of discipline, in which there is no real evil, as also in the passage:51 “I am the Lord who makes peace and creates evil; I am the Lord who does all these things.”52 In chapter three of treatise twelve Cyriacus goes on to argue that God can not be the cause of evil because He is not tempted by evil, as is made clear in the epistle of James: “God cannot be tempted with evil; neither does He tempt any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away by his own lust, and enticed.”53 Cyriacus explains that God always calls our nature towards the good, and He never tempts or calls anyone to be tested by evil. God is good by nature, and the cause of good things, and for this reason, evil is not to be found in the originality of our nature, but

Cyriacus, BDP, XII.2, fol. 11i-11ii. Cyriacus, BDP, XII.2, fol. 11ii-12ii. 50 Amos 3:6. 51 Cyriacus, BDP, XII.2, fol, p. 12ii-13i. 52 Is 45:7. 53 Cyriacus, BDP, XII.3, fol. 13ii; Jas 1:13-14. 48 49

FREE WILL AND PREDESTINATION

111

this is to be found outside our nature, i.e. in the will of Satan.54 God is not the cause of evil. God does not want anyone to die with his sins, on account of which he will face eternal tortures. He would prefer humans not to sin, and to remain in a state of purity, but if they sin, he wants them to take refuge in repentance. God kills, therefore, not in order to destroy and corrupt, but to discipline humanity, to teach them, and so to give life. In support of this Cyriacus cites a passage of Deuteronomy that had long been popular with Syriac writers: “I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any one who can deliver out of my hand.”55 As in Aphrahat many centuries earlier (who used this passage as a testimony to the resurrection of the dead), it is the order of the verbs here that is important: first ‘I kill’ and then ‘I make alive’. For Aphrahat this order indicated a sequence of events (life after death), but for Cyriacus it indicates purpose (God kills in order to give life).

3.3.3. GOD’S INSCRUTABLE JUDGEMENTS If God is good, and not the cause of evil, why does He allow demons or evil humans to rule over people for extended periods of time? If He is not evil, is this rule by demons just a sign of His weakness, and of His inability to prevent them from acting wickedly? Cyriacus begins by emphasising that demons and wicked people are only allowed to act by the permission of God. After all, in the Gospel account of the healing of the demoniac at Gadara, the legion of demons was not even able to enter the herd of pigs without Christ’s permission.56 All such afflictions are thus according to God’s providential-care. He wants people to turn away from wickedness to righteousness. And in the case of children who are afflicted, either it is in order that their parents and other adults should see and be afraid that if such afflictions can be allowed to happen to sinless children, what discipline and punishments are reserved for them if they do not reprent? Or, Cyriacus suggests, it is because the omniscient God knows that the Cyriacus, BDP, XII.3, fol. 14i-14ii. Cyriacus, BDP, XII.3, fol. 15i-16ii; Deut 32:39. 56 Cf. Mk 5:1-13, and parallels. 54 55

112

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

children would go on to act wickedly in the future if they hadn’t already undergone a period of discipline in their infancy. Or—in a typical aside by Cyriacus—it is for some other reason known only to God.57 In all such cases, however, as with the righteous Job, the wild and blood-thirsty demons are not allowed to overstep certain boundaries, and are not allowed to kill their victims. Cyriacus makes great use of a refrain repeated by all the prophets and apostles, namely that no man can comprehend God’s judgements, and to this end he spends a whole chapter expanding on a passage in Paul’s letter to the Romans: ‘Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and power of God! No one has searched out His inscrutable judgments and ways.”58 No one knows why some people are born beautiful, others ugly; some tall, others short; some straight, others crooked; some with perfect health, others afflicted with numerous illnesses.59 Even the angels and cherubs don’t know why they were each allotted their particular status in the angelic hierarchy.60 No creature can ever understand the reasons for the Creator’s judgements, and at a certain point it is right simply to have confidence in Him.

3.3.4. DIVINE PROVIDENCE OR FATE? In treatise thirteen, which contains two chapters, Cyriacus mounts a concerted attack on the popular contemporary belief that human appearance, prosperity, and lifespan, as well as larger historical events, were all governed by the stars, the fates, or more specifically by the influence of the alignment of various stars at the time of an individual’s birth, as determined by astrologers, rather than by the true governor of all, God and his Divine Providence. From Cyriacus’ arguments it would appear that some people ̈ ’, he mentions, atknown to him, perhaps the deceivers, ‘‫ܛܥܝܐ‬ tempted to reconcile belief in God and in astrology (a combination of beliefs that is likely to have been at least as widespread in his age among Christian and Muslim believers, as it is today) by arguing Cyriacus, BDP, XII.4, fol. 18ii. Rom 11:33. 59 Cyriacus, BDP, XII.5, fol. 21ii-22i. 60 Cyriacus, BDP, XII.5, fol. 21i-21ii. 57 58

FREE WILL AND PREDESTINATION

113

that God was in supreme control, but allowed the details of the fate of individuals to be determined by the stars, so that in effect God was working in partnership with the stars and fates, and would only know the destiny of an individual once he was born (as though He were Himself some infallible astrologer). Cyriacus attacks this attempt at combining Christian and non-Christian belief at several levels and in various ways. Since God is eternally omniscient, and thus never acquires new knowledge, or forgets what He has always known, it is clear that He cannot be dependent upon the stars or fates for His knowledge of human destiny. “For God is not like the craftsmen among us, because he did not acquire knowledge of his most wise craftsmanship from study, as craftsmen among us acquire it.” He brings all He wants into being in all perfection with a quick and unspoken gesture, because unlike man, God has no need of labour, but completes by a quick gesture.61 Since God has always known what will come to pass for each individual, it can be seen that this does not depend upon astrological birth signs. Furthermore, since God, unlike human craftsmen, works alone, and is not dependent upon the instruction or aid of others, then clearly He cannot depend upon the stars or fates. In fact, according to Cyriacus, the stars are irrational and lifeless, and are thus incapable of exercising any influence on anyone. The belief of astrologers that they can have an influence is entirely due to the influence of the Accuser and his demons, and the beings known as fates and fortunes are also demons. All their instincts and nature is to destroy and corrupt. God sometimes makes use of these demons to prepare the destruction of sinful cities (as in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah62), or to destroy crops and to spread diseases, but He is not dependent upon them to determine the positive and negative aspects of human life. He sometimes gives them free rein, but they are always subject to His control, and His purpose, unlike theirs, is to save humanity and heal it, and not destruction for destruction’s sake.

61 62

Cyriacus, BDP, XIII.1, fol. 23ii-24i. Cf. Gen 18-21.

114

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

When God kills people and destroys cities, even when the righteous die along with the wicked, it is so that even greater numbers of people will be saved. To explain this further Cyriacus uses a well-known medical image: “[God] is like the wise doctor, ‫ܐܣܝܐ‬ ‫ܚܟܝܡܐ‬, who cuts off from the body a limb which has already become corrupted and has putrefied, so that it alone will be lost through amputation, lest by remaining it should become the cause of the loss of the entire body, its infection little by little taking control of it, until the whole of it is destroyed by its corruption. So when He brings about those punishments and destroys men, He redeems the majority through the fear of those who were lost.”63 God’s discipline can often seem very harsh, but it is always for the greater good. Cyriacus then turns to ridicule the belief that human circumstances and life are determined by the stars. He begins by considering the physical characteristics of the different races and nations known to him, and although he make a number of value judgements about these physical characteristics which would be unacceptable to a modern readership, his basic argument is clear. The physical appearance of different nations varies considerably; some have black skin, others are of reddish colour, yet others are white; some have luxuriant beards, others do not; some have resplendent curls, but others lack such adornment. From where do those characteristics come? From fates that are determined by astrological star signs? But how is this possible? Were all Cushites64 subject to a single astral movement?65 Cyriacus continues asking rhetorical questions; what about the thousands of people who can be wiped out in a few short moments of a battle, or in an earthquake that destroys a city? Is it conceivable that at their births they were all subject to the same astral alignments, and thus to the same astrologically determined fate? Only someone who is crazy could assert such a thing! Further proof can be gained from the Bible, where in several passages it is asserted Cyriacus, BDP, XIII.1, fol. 25i-25ii. ‫ܟܘܫܝܐ‬, from Cush, the son of Ham, and in Syriac usually used with reference to Ethiopians or black Africans more generally. 65 Cyriacus, BDP, XIII, I, fol. 25ii-26ii. 63 64

FREE WILL AND PREDESTINATION

115

that the sun was made to stand still or to move backwards, or that the moon was made to rush forward and conceal the sun. Where all the Hebrews born at such times subject to the same fate? Was there a sudden deluge of kings, or slaves thereafter, all sharing the same destiny because for several hours the astrological conditions remained identical? Clearly not. The only possible explanation for the physical variety of the nations and races, and for natural and human disasters, and for all other events that take place, and for the variety of human experiences, is that these are due to God’s Divine Providence, who orders all things for the greater good of humanity. Through this variety humans should recognize the handiwork end existence of the wise Creator, and through His acts of discipline and punishment He wills that they repent and be saved.

3.3.5. RICHES AND POVERTY In chapter two of treatise thirteen this debate continues, but is now focussed on riches and poverty, and the universal human awareness of the disparity in wealth of different members of every society, regardless of their personal moral virtues.66 Are these riches and poverty allocated by God, or by fate? Cyriacus, the patriarch of a church whose members included both the very rich and the very poor, and who was personally supported by the wealthy merchants of Tagrit—who endowed the monastery and library of the Deir alSurian at least in part in his honour, and whose funeral eulogies for him reflect in part their own code of values by commenting on his astute management of spiritual finances,67 his immunity to brib-

Cyriacus, BDP, XIII.2, fol. 28ii-31ii. ‘The High Priest made him a treasurer, and he multiplied his talents by thousands and tens of thousands. He abandoned family, and nation, and possessions and he gained heavenly riches.’ (Madrosho 1, stanza 5). ‘May the heavenly Bridegroom meet you, and receive you with a happy face / and say to you, ‘O good servant, you who were entrusted with little, / henceforth you will be entrusted with much’’. (Madrosho 3, stanzas 1921). 66 67

116

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

ery,68 and the fact that he was a good investment for Tagrit69—such a man unsurprisingly treads a careful path when answering this highly sensitive question, and avoids any reference to Christ’s troubling command to the rich young man, or His saying about the rich man and the eye of a needle. Following on from his arguments in the previous chapter, here too he rules out any possibility that human wealth is determined by astrology, or by fates and fortunes, because otherwise those born during the celestial anomalies described in the Bible would all have possessed identical wealth, which was not the case.70 Cyriacus was still faced by the problem that amongst both the rich and the poor there were clearly some individuals of the highest morality and faith, and others who were greedy and violent. Cyriacus uses this to divide all people into two main moral categories, the righteous rich and righteous poor, and the wicked rich and wicked poor. He then argues that the former are those upon whom God has bestowed their riches or their poverty for their support and salvation, whereas the latter are those who have achieved their financial status by their own selfish efforts, or lack of effort, and whose continuation in this wealth or poverty is simply permitted by God. The righteous rich man is the one who has acquired his wealth by moral means, and is not tainted by greed, but uses his money to look after prisoners, widows and orphans, and others in need, and as such is like the wealthy patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Job, manifold in virtues.71 The righteous poor man thanks God for his poverty, and never grows angry or blasphemes on account of it, but offers prayers to God on behalf of the rich man through whom 68 ‘Blessed are you our holy father, for bribery did not blind your mind! Blessed are you our holy father, for money did not cloud your thinking!’ (Madrosho 2, stanza 3.) 69 ‘Blessed are you Tagrit of Mesopotamia, behold a treasure of life is hidden in you! Blessed are you city of Cyriacus, ... the money which you lent to Syria, behold she has repaid it in thousands and tens of thousands’. (Madrosho 2, stanza 15). 70 Cyriacus, BDP, XIII.2, fol. 30ii-31i. 71 Cyriacus, BDP, XIII.2, fol. 29i.

FREE WILL AND PREDESTINATION

117

God provides for him. He is like Lazarus in the Gospels, and can (presumably) expect the same reward.72 The wicked rich are those who have acquired their wealth through greed, and plunder, and bloodshed, under the influence of demons. They often took what they possess from the poor, and show no compassion or generosity towards the needy. They are mostly accursed, and are simply tolerated by God who does not wish to interfere in the outcomes of human free will.73 The wicked poor are those who are not thankful, but rage and blaspheme against God, and curse their fellow humans. Their poverty is not due to God, but is usually because of their own laziness, or their lack of appropriate direction and care.74 Sometimes, however, God allows the virtuous rich to lose their wealth, and this is because He knows that they can bear it, and because He wants them to become as righteous in their poverty as they were previously in their wealth. Job was so tested, and because he never abandoned his love for God even in the depths of his misery and poverty, he was all the more glorified. Cyriacus was far from the first Christian theologian to address the problem of disparate personal wealth among church members and those in the wider society, and the question of whether wealth should be taken as a sign of divine blessing, but nevertheless he tackles the issue with a certain political and theological dexterity that also enables him to reinforce his larger argument that the world is guided by God’s Divine Providence and His respect for human autonomy and free will. His argument that both poverty and the loss of wealth can also be divine gifts intended for the aid and increased spiritual glory of individuals does seem, however, to be new in Syriac literature, as far as I have so far been able to determine.

3.3.6. VARIOUS KINDS OF DEATHS In chapter one of treatise fourteen, Cyriacus discusses the different types of death experienced by human beings. He believes that no Cyriacus, BDP, XIII.2, fol. 28ii-29i; Cf. Lk 16:19-31. Cyriacus, BDP, XIII.2, fol. 29ii. 74 Cyriacus, BDP, XIII.2, fol. 29ii. 72 73

118

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

one is capable of separating the soul from the body by death except God himself, who bound them in a natural and personal union from the beginning. It is thus God, rather than chance or fate, that determines the death of every individual. Cyriacus says that God’s Care is exactly the same in every kind of death, in calm and peaceful deaths, or in sudden, violent, or painful deaths, or in killings, or in deaths in the mines, or in other accidents, whether after many years of life or at some early, apparently premature stage. Each individual’s death is determined as it is appropriate for him. For those who are righteous He may grant a sudden death, so that they do not have time to worry or grow concerned before finding themselves before Him in judgement, whereas He may grant sinners a long illness so that they have time to reflect upon their life and repent. Or knowing that they will never repent He may cut their lives short before they sin further.75 Particularly painful for families and communities, of course, are the deaths of children, and these also pose awkward theological questions for pastors and especially for those, such as Cyriacus, who wish to argue that all deaths are due to Divine Providence. How could a good and just God decree that sinless babes and infants should die? And if such infants die, before they can distinguish between good and evil, and without wilfully engaging in good or wicked acts, where do they go to? And how does this destination differ for those pure babes who have been baptised and those who have not? After having laid out the conditions for entry to the kingdom of heaven, and the role played by baptism in cleansing people of their sins, Cyriacus emphasises, by citing Jesus’ saying to Nicodemus in John 3:5 (‘No one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and the Spirit’76), that this applies to everyone, including children. Unbaptised infants will be completely outside the kingdom of heaven. He then tries to soften the blow by adding that they will not go to Sheol either, and so will neither be tortured

75 76

Cyriacus, BDP, XIV.1, fol. 32i-32ii. Cyriacus, BDP, XIV.2, fol. 36ii-38i.

FREE WILL AND PREDESTINATION

119

there nor delight in bliss, but will be in some intermediate place, which he leaves unspecified.77 He then states that those children who are snatched away just after they have received baptism, but without having voluntarily engaged in good or virtuous acts, nevertheless since they have become children of God through baptism, they receive the Kingdom of heaven through God’s grace, rather than through any merit of their own. But why does God determine that some children should die so young, and some without even the salvific aid of baptism? For a modern audience—and perhaps for his contemporary audience too—Cyriacus’s response is shockingly direct. This is a sign of His wondrous Divine Providence, he says, and of His care for children, because God, who knows everything before it even comes to pass, knows that if these children were allowed to reach maturity they would choose to act wickedly, and thus would make themselves liable to eternal torments at the hands of the Accuser and his evil spirits. And thus by ordaining their deaths He spares them this. What is more, Cyriacus adds, ‘And as for those whom He did not allow to come to baptism, it is because He knew that they would be more bitter in their evil than those who were deemed worthy of baptism [and then died], just as those who do not make it to birth but receive death through miscarriage would have been even worse than them.’78 77 Cyriacus, BDP, XIV.2, fol. 37i-37ii. Cyriacus seems to imply that unbaptised children go to a region between heaven and hell, a dwelling place of souls, where they are not tortured with the sinners, nor in bliss with the saints. Two distinct kinds of limbo were proposed in the Latin church in the middle ages: the ‘limbus patrum’ which is ‘the limbo of the fathers’, where Old Testament saints were confined until saved by Christ in his descent to Sheol; and the ‘limbus infantum’ which is ‘the limbo of the children’, the territory of the unbaptised who died with the original sin of Adam. Cf. J. Le Goff, The Birth of Purgatory (Chicago, 1984). The Syrian Orthodox church has never formally accepted any doctrine of purgatory, and downplays the concept of limbo, but similar compromise solutions are sometimes found in old Syriac texts, presumably for the comfort of grieving parents. 78 Cyriacus, BDP, XIV.2, fol. 37ii-38ii.

120

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

Cyriacus was clearly aware that this line of argument was not without its critics. As he says, ‘But some people impudently dare to say’ that if indeed infants are taken away from life in their youth because of those things that God knows they would have done if they were to attain the age of their maturity, then why are others left alive who do indeed go on to engage in great wickedness? 79 Cyriacus tackles this (not unreasonable) question in different ways. First he says that we should not question the unfathomable judgments of God, for to do so is to prepare eternal torments for ourselves. He then says that by letting them live, He removes any opportunity for criticism from those who say that there is no proof that they would indeed have sinned, rather than acting virtuously. His loving care will also become clear at the last judgement, when comparison is made between the eternal fate of those who died young, and those allowed to live and act wickedly. Finally, he argues that some of the wicked are allowed to live in order to benefit the good, that is, when the good see them they will chose not to become evil because they will consider the tortures which await them if they do.80 This is a similar argument to that used by Cyriacus to argue that Gehenna is a support for the kingdom, as discussed in chapter 3.5.1. The purpose of Gehenna. Another aspect of death and killing which Cyriacus addresses is the problem of wars between nations and peoples. How are these compatible with Divine Providence? How can He allow such large-scale death to occur? Cyriacus argues that it is the Accuser and his demons who stir up jealousies and greed and anger among humans and drive them on to fight, whereas God wants all nations to live in peace and harmony with each other, and is totally opposed to wars, as is shown by Psalm 46:9; “He stops wars from all over the world; He breaks bows, destroys spears, and sets chariots on fire.” However, when humans become corrupt and proud and turn against God and his authority, then God in his love for humanity, and for their good and the general good, encourages their desire for war so that ‘the horns of their pride will be broken’, and so that in the face of the horrors of war they will repent of their 79 80

Cyriacus, BDP, XIV.2, fol. 39i. Cyriacus, BDP, XIV.2, fol. 39ii-40ii.

FREE WILL AND PREDESTINATION

121

evil ways and seek refuge with God—such was the case, for example, of the wars of the Assyrians and the Babylonians against Israel, which led Israel back to God. Like a good doctor, God wishes to destroy the disease, but cure the patient.81 It is the Accuser, therefore, who prepares wars, but God may choose to manage them for the greater good.82

3.3.7. FREE WILL AND PREDESTINATION Cyriacus believes that nothing comes to happen without it being known by God, who also knows all those things that will happen or would happen if circumstances do not change. All things that happen also happen by the will or permission of God.83 However, God endowed rational beings with free will at the beginning of their creation,84 not only humans, but also angels and demons. God does not wish to override the free will of His creatures, and so does not interfere in the actions and consequences brought about by this free will, whether they are things in which He takes pleasure or not (although Cyriacus in some particular arguments gets very close to suggesting just this, as when he says that God cuts short the life of those who would otherwise have gone on to sin). Even those things which are according to Satan’s will He allows to happen, though He does not approve of them or in any sense share responsibility for them, since God has no involvement with evil.85 In order to minimise the impact of Satan’s actions God also watches over humans and provides them with all the protection possible, though people must want His protection and seek it. Cyriacus thus goes on to make an important philosophical distinction between those events or actions which are due to God’s Cyriacus, BDP, XIV.4, fol. 44i-46i. Cyriacus, BDP, XIV.4, fol. 46i, ̈ ‫ܗܠܝܢ ]ܩ̈ܪܒܐ‬ ̈ ‫ ܡܢ ܐܠܗܐ‬:‫ܐܬܥܬܕܝܢ‬ ‫ ܡܢ ܐܟܠ ܩܪܨܐ ܐܠܒܕܢܗܘܢ‬... [‫ܘܩܛܐܠ‬ ̈ ̈ .‫ܘܕܥܡܡܐ ܣܓܝܐܐ ܐܬܦ̈ܪܢܣܝܢ‬ ‫ܠܦܘܪܩܢܗܘܢ‬ 83 Cyriacus, BDP, XV.1, fol. 46ii. 84 As shown by human disobedience to His command not to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Cyriacus, BDP, XVII.1, fol. 61i-61ii, 63ii. 85 Cyriacus, BDP, XV.1, fol. 47i-48i. 81 82

122

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

command ‘‫’ܦܘܩܕܢܐ‬, those which meet with His approval ‘‫’ܡܦܣܢܘܬܐ‬, and those others which simply receive His permission ‘‫’ܡܫܬܒܩܢܘܬܐ‬.86 These distinctions underpin much of Cyriacus’s argumentation elsewhere in his BDP, although they are not always explicitly mentioned. Cyriacus provides Biblical examples for each category. For command, he cites: ‘Jesus ordered the spirit, “Be quiet, and come out from the man!”’.87 For His approval he quotes; ‘The Spirit of Jesus did not approve of them.’88 And for His permission he quotes; ‘I shall leave you in the hand of your enemies, and in the hand of those that seek his life’89—although this in fact seems just to be a paraphrase of the verse in Jeremiah, and the key verb linking it with ‘permission’ is not found in the Peshitta text. A particularly interesting problem for the question of God’s non-intervention or otherwise in human actions is raised by Cyriacus in his chapter on problematic biblical passages. Here he cites Ezekiel 14:7-10, although it must be said that he, or the source from which he has taken these citations, has made major alterations to the biblical text. The passage as he gives it, reads; “If anyone fixes his mind on a false thought,90 of whatever kind, desiring to carry it out, and raises up his reverence in his mind, and sets the stumbling-block of his iniquity before his face, and goes and asks a prophet about it, in order that he should confirm it for himself; I, the Lord, will deceive that prophet, and he will instruct him according to his will, so that he will be confirmed in that error which he loved, and I will destroy that man from the midst of his people, and also that prophet.”91 The original biblical passage is concerned Cyriacus, BDP, XVI.4, fol. 56ii-59ii. Mk 1:24. 88 Acts 16:7. 89 Cyriacus, BDP, XVI.4, fol. 58i; Jer 21:7. 90 Or ‘idolatrous thought’, ‫ܬܪܥܝܬܐ ܕܛܥܝܘܬܗ‬. 91 Cf. Ezek 14:7-10; the actual Peshitta text of Ezek 14:6-11, which is not very different from the Septuagint, reads: ܿ ‫ܡܟܝܠ ܐܡܪ ܠܕܒܝܬ ܐܝܣܪܝܠ܂ ܗܟܢܐ‬ ‫ܐܡܪ ܡܪܐ ܡ̈ܪܘܬܐ܂ ܬܘܒܘ ܘܐܬܦܢܘ ܡܢ‬ ̈ ‫ܟܘܠܗ ܛܢܦܘܬܟܘܢ ܐܦܢܘ‬ ܿ ̈ ‫ܟܠܗܝܢ‬ ‫ܐܦܝܟܘܢ܂ ܡܛܠ ܕܓܒܪܐ ܡܢ‬ ‫ܕܚܠܬܟܘܢ܂ ܘܡܢ‬ ܿ ‫ܐܝܣܪܝܠ܂ ܘܡܢ ܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܡܬܦܢܝܢ ܠܘܬܝ ܕܥܡܪܝܢ ܒܐܝܣܪܝܠ ܕܢܗܦܘܟ ܡܢܝ܂ ܘܢܣܩ ܕܚܠܬܗ‬ ̈ ‫ܥܠ ܠܒܗ܂ ܘܬܘܩܠܬܐ ܕܥܘܠܗ ܢܣܝܡ ܠܘܩܒܠ‬ ‫ܐܦܘܗܝ܂ ܘܢܐܬܐ ܠܘܬ ܢܒܝܐ ܠܡܫܐܠܘܬܗ܂‬ ܼ ‫ܐܢܐ ܡܪܝܐ ܐܗܘܐ ܠܗ ܣܗܕܐ܂ ܘܐܬܠ ܪܘܓܙܝ ܥܠ ܓܒܪܐ ܿܗܘ܂ ܘܐܥܒܕܝܘܗܝ‬ 86 87

FREE WILL AND PREDESTINATION

123

with those of the house of Israel who turn away from God and take up the worship of idols, and want a prophet to confirm the reality of that which they are now worshipping. God says that it is He who led the prophet astray, and that He will destroy both the Israelite and the lying prophet so that his people Israel will no longer turn away from Him. In the paraphrased text there is a much greater emphasis placed on the false teaching of the prophet, rather than on a more general ‘being led astray’, and on the fact that God is responsible. Presumably this ‘citation’ was originally included in this collection of problematic passages—if it predates Cyriacus, as seems likely—because it says that God actively misled the prophet and the man, and so confirmed them in their idolatry/error. Cyriacus is keen to state that God never leads anyone astray or deceives them, but He does allow them to follow their own free will—whether to deceive others, like the false prophet, or to allow themselves to be deceived, like the idolator. Given the age and the world in which Cyriacus lived, it may be worth posing the question whether this exegesis did not also have in mind Mohammed, the prophet of Islam, who of course claimed to be directly inspired by God, and whose teachings had become widely accepted, though utterly rejected by the church. It is impossible to prove this suggestion, but Cyriacus’ general exegesis of the Ezekiel passage would very neatly tackle this great contemporary question. The prophet believed he was inspired by God, but in fact this was not the case, and God’s respect for free will would not allow Him to intervene either with the prophet or with his followers, although in due course both would receive the just judgement that they deserved.92

‫ܐܠܬܐ ܘܠܡܬܐܠ܂ ܘܐܘܒܕܝܘܗܝ ܡܢ ܓܘ ܥܡܝ܂ ܘܬܕܥܘܢ ܕܐܢܐ ܐܢܐ ܡܪܝܐ܂ ܘܢܒܝܐ‬ ܿ ‫ܐܛܥܝܬܗ ܠܢܒܝܐ ܿܗܘ܂ ܘܐܪܝܡ ܐܝܕܝ ܥܠܘܗܝ܂‬ ‫ܟܕ ܢܛܥܐ ܘܢܡܠܠ ܡܠܬܐ܂ ܐܢܐ ܡܪܝܐ‬ ܿ ‫ܥܘܠܗ ܕܗܘ ܕܡܫܐܠ܂ ܐܝܟ‬ ܼ ‫ܥܘܠܗܘܢ܂‬ ܼ ‫ܘܐܘܒܕܝܘܗܝ ܡܢ ܓܘ ܥܡܝ ܐܝܣܪܝܠ܂ ܘܢܫܩܠܘܢ‬ ܿ ‫ܥܘܠܗ ܕܢܒܝܐ ܢܗܘܐ܂ ܘܬܘܒ ܐܠ ܢܛܥܘܢ ܕܒܝܬ ܐܝܣܪܝܠ ܡܢܝ܂ ܘܬܘܒ ܐܠ ܢܬܛܢܦܘܢ‬ ܿ ‫ܥܘܠܗܘܢ܂ ܐܐܠ ܢܗܘܘܢ ܠܝ ܥܡܐ܂ ܘܐܢܐ ܐܗܘܐ ܠܗܘܢ ܐܠܗܐ܂ ܐܡܪ ܡܪܐ‬ ܼ ‫ܒܟܠܗ‬ ‫ܡ̈ܪܘܬܐ ܀‬ 92 Cyriacus, BDP, XVIII, fol. 80i-80ii.

124

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

Timothy also discusses free will and Divine Providence too. He uses Hosea93 and David94 as an example, both of whom committed fornication. The fact of their fornication is clear, but it was not done by each of them with the same purpose—David was simply filled with lust when he saw Bathsheba, whereas Hosea was ordered by God to marry a prostitute as a means of instructing his people about their own infidelity to God. Therefore, one was punished, and the other not. Thus, the Divine Providence does not remove or override free will, and neither does free will nullify Divine Providence.95

3.3.8. FIXED TERM In Chapter one of treatise eighteen,96 and in chapter three of treatise fourteen,97 Cyriacus discusses ‫ܩܨܐ ܡܬܚܡܐ‬, which means ‘fixed term’, the date assigned by God for the death of each individual. Although this topic was already discussed by the early church fathers in passing, it only really became a controversial subject of great importance for Christian writers after the arrival of Islam, because of the widespread Islamic belief that God predestined the date of every individual’s death. Bar Hebraeus summarises the different views known to him on this topic in his book the Lamp of the Sanctuaries. He says that there are two main opinions about the fixed term: one which claims that man’s term is fixed, and the other which denies it. The first opinion, which claims that man’s term is fixed, has developed into two sub-varieties: one that claims that the term of man’s life is fixed by God, and is not changeable, which is the belief of the ̈ ). And the other claims that man’s term is fixed Muslims (‫ܡܫܠܡܢܐ‬ by his horoscope and by astrological fortune, that is to say fate, which is the belief of Astrologers.98 The second opinion, which Cf. Hos 1-2. Cf. Ps 51:1. 95 Braun, Timothei Patriarchae I epistulae, letter 2.7, pp. 69-70. 96 Cyriacus, BDP, XVIII.1, fol. 68ii-78ii. 97 Cyriacus, BDP, XIV.3, fol. 41ii-43ii. 98 For fate see chapter 3.3.4. Divine Providence or Fate and 3.3.5. Riches and Poverty. 93 94

FREE WILL AND PREDESTINATION

125

denies that man’s term is fixed, is also divided in two; the first of which is heretical and claims that human beings die according to chance and luck, and not by a predetermined fate. The second opinion is ‘orthodox’ and claims that: ‘even though the life of man is not fixed, however, man does not die before or after his time without God’s command and knowledge. This is the view held by the learned fathers of the holy church. We ought to know that when we say that everyone dies at his appropriate time, we do not mean it in the same way as the Muslims and the Astrologers do. This is to say, that nobody is capable of dying outside his fixed term, but at the right time (‫)ܒܥܕܢܗ‬, when God knows it is appropriate for the man to die, God sends His angel of death to separate the soul from the body.’99 In other words, according to Bar Hebraeus, it appears that God does not pre-determine when each individual must die—which is the Muslim belief—but He does know when an individual will die, due to health, accident, or violence, and so sends His angel of death to oversee the process. The earliest Syriac author known to have discussed the concept of fixed term, Jacob of Edessa, rejects the Muslim belief that God pre-determines the duration of every individual’s life. He argues about this in his tenth and eleventh epistles,100 which were written as a reply to the following question of John the Stylite of Litarba:101 ‘Do the authorities of the church hold the widespread opinion that to each man there is appointed a fixed term of life from birth, as by a decree by God?’102 Jacob of Edessa’s view on fixed term is different to that of Cyriacus, as we shall see below. Jacob completely rejects the whole idea of fixed term. Like Cyriacus later, he brings in the death of Adam and Abel as examples. They both argue about the death of Adam that if his mortality was the consequence of his sin, as the authorities of the church agreed, then to claim that his term was predetermined is to deny his free will in sinning. Concerning the death of Abel, he states that if BHLS, pp. 798-799. Jacob of Edessa, B.L. Add. 12172, fol. Epistle 10, fol. 99a-104a, Epistle 11, fol. 104a-110a. 101 Cook, Early Muslim dogma: a source-critical study, p. 145. 102 Jacob of Edessa, B.L. Add. 12172, fol. 99b. 99

100

126

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

his death was predetermined, then why was Cain blamed for it? He would have died on that day anyway!103 Similarly, Moshe bar Kipho also rejects the concept of God pre-determining or fixing the date of an individual’s death, but instead emphasises God’s omniscience. Moshe states that God knew how many angels He should create, since He knew how many of them would remain loyal and how many would fall. Similarly, He knows when, where and how human beings are going to be, and also what their mind will be towards Him, not only through the centuries, but also the mind of each individual. If God has such a knowledge of events, then the extent of each person’s life is also known to Him.104 Jacob of Edessa and Moshe bar Kipho provide the obvious Syriac theological background for Bar Hebraeus’ arguments in his Lamp of the Sanctuaries. Cyriacus, however, seems to take a very different approach to this topic, and one which is much closer to that of the Muslim theologians. He provides some background to the topic, and explains where this end/death comes from: God who created man with freedom (‫ )ܚܐܪܘܬܐ‬and autonomy (‫)ܡܫܠܛܘܬ ܒܝܬܐ‬, initially also honoured him with immortality when He placed him in paradise. Simultaneously He gave man a commandment not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and said ‘on the day that you eat from it you shall surely die’.105 This threat of death was not vindictive, or vicious, but was intended to be of support and benefit for humans, and this for several reasons. In the first place, God intended that this would encourage humans to keep the commandment, and thus to remain immortal. It was a necessary encouragement. However, God is omniscient, and so knew that in fact man would not keep the commandment, but would break it and eat from the tree through his own free will, even though tempted by the serpent. (This omniscience, was perhaps recognised Jacob of Edessa, B.L. Add. 12172, fol. 100b. MBKDP, B.L. Add. 14731, I.3, fol. 3b-7a; For a more detailed discussion Cf. Idem, III.2, fol. 22b-71b. 105 Gen 2:17; ‫ܘܡܢ ܐܝܠܢܐ ܕܝܕܥܬܐ ܕܛܒܬܐ ܘܕܒܝܫܬܐ ܐܠ ܬܐܟܘܠ ܡܢܗ܂‬ ‫ܡܛܠ ܕܒܝܘܡܐ ܕܬܐܟܘܠ ܡܢܗ ܡܘܬܐ ܬܡܘܬ܂‬. 103 104

FREE WILL AND PREDESTINATION

127

by Syriac readers in the actual wording of the threat, ‘on the day that you eat from it’, which does not suggest any uncertainty about the transgression.) Because God knew that Adam would eat from the fruit, and that humanity would thus fall under the constraints of death, He decreed that there would be a particular end, ‫ܩܨܐ‬ ‫ܝܕܝܥܐ‬, for each individual’s support. Since no one knows when they will die, they can never become complacent or lazy, but must always try and live as though at any moment they could drop dead and be judged, and thus the particular end, or fixed term, keeps them walking on the path of righteousness.106 In treatise nineteen, Cyriacus adds that God’s imposition of mortality was also a benefit to humans because it provided a limited period of time in which they could sin—unlike the demons.107 God’s knowledge that humans would sin and become subject to death does not mean that the stay in paradise was purposeless. Rather it filled us with a longing and desire for the delights of the next world, and thus was yet a further motivation towards righteous living. Indeed Cyriacus argues that God did not create man to remain in this material world, but wished him to use it as a preparatory period and place for the next world, his true home.108 Hence the Psalmist refers to life in this world as ‘a sojourning’, saying, ‘Woe to me that my sojourning has been prolonged, and I have dwelled in the tent of Kedar’,109 and asks to be removed from the prison of his physical body, ‘Take my soul out of prison, that I may praise your name’.110 Cyriacus emphasises that God determines a specific fixed term (‫ )ܩܨܐ ܡܬܚܡܐ‬to every individual, and not a general term for everybody, and this he argues is immediately observable, because we all know that people die at different stages of their life. God fixes the extent of each person’s life so that it is of the greatest advantage to that person—taking into consideration what He knows about that person’s past and future—which means offering Cyriacus, BDP, XVIII.1, fol. 68ii-69i. Cyriacus, BDP, XIX.1, fol. 84ii. 108 Cyriacus, BDP, XVIII.1, fol. 69ii-70i. 109 Ps 120:5. 110 Ps 142:7. 106 107

128

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

the possibility of repentance and return to God, and eternal life in bliss. We also observe that people die through a great variety of deaths, in peaceful and silent deaths in bed, or in sudden deaths, or killings, or deaths by falling from crags and roofs, or into chasms and wells.111 Cyriacus argues that it is always God that fixes the exact extent of each individual’s life, but that the nature of the death is dependent upon our own actions, and sinning, and human anger more generally. Cyriacus clearly anticipates objections to his argument about fixed term—or alternatively he simply has access to a florilegium containing relevant citations—because he provides a number of biblical and patristic citations which provide authoritative support for his arguments. The patristic authors he cites are Basil the Great,112 Gregory of Nyssa,113 Severus of Antioch,114 and 115 Ephrem. Interestingly, a later hand has added in the margins of the manuscript at this point three further patristic citations, two of which are identifiable as being from Jacob of Serugh116 and Severus of Antioch.117 It is to be presumed that these were also taken from a florilegium containing citations relevant to fixed term—and this Cyriacus, BDP, XVIII.1, fol. 70i-71ii. Cyriacus, BDP, XVIII.1, fol. 76i; Basil the Great, Homily on Julita, the martyr. (CPG 2849; PG 31,248D); Cyriacus, BDP, XVIII.1, fol. 75ii-76i; Basil the Great, That God is not the Cause of Evil. (CPG 2853; PG 31,333B). 113 Cyriacus, BDP, XVIII.1, fol. 77ii-78i; Gregory of Nyssa, Homily I on the Beatitudes. (CPG 3161; PG 44,1205C). 114 Cyriacus, BDP, XVIII.1, fol. 78i-78ii; Severus of Antioch, Songs of Admonition. (CPG 7072; ed. E. W. Brooks, PO 7, p.727, line 1-3); Cyriacus, BDP, XVIII.1, fol. 78ii; Severus of Antioch, Songs of Burial. (CPG 7072; ed. E. W. Brooks, PO 7, p.784, line 5-7). 115 Cyriacus, BDP, XIV.3, fol. 43i; Ephrem the Syrian, First Homily on Nicomedia; Cyriacus, BDP, XIV.3, fol. 43ii, XVIII.1, fol. 77ii; Ephrem the Syrian, First Homily on Nicomedia. 116 Cyriacus, BDP, XVIII.1, fol. 78ii; The citation is said to be taken from Jacob of Serugh, Memre of Admonishment following the measure of Mar Ephrem, although I have not been able to locate this passage in Jacob’s ̈ ‫ܕܬܚܘܡܐ‬ published works. The text is as follows: ‫ܠܚܝܐ ܐܝܬ ܼܗܘ܆ ܘܬܚܘܡܐ‬ ‫ܠ̈ܪܚܡܐ ܐܠ ܐܝܬ܀‬ 117 Cyriacus, BDP, XVIII.1, fol. 78ii; Severus of Antioch, Homily 76. (CPG 7035; PO 12, p. 142, line 9-10). 111 112

FREE WILL AND PREDESTINATION

129

would be a further proof of the continuing interest in this subject among Syrian Christians—although it is just conceivable (if unlikely) that they were accidentally omitted from Cyriacus’ text by the scribe and added by a later corrector. The citations from Ephrem are particularly interesting, as they come from his hymns on Nicomedia. These, of course, are lost in Syriac, apart from a few citations, and only partially survive in Armenian. These particular citations do not correspond with either the surviving Syriac fragments, or the Armenian texts. Ephrem was writing after a particularly disastrous earthquake in Nicomedia during which large numbers of people were killed. This naturally raised questions about the role God played in this, and why the same death was determined for so many people, irrespective (apparently) of their individual righteousness or sinfulness. Ephrem states ‘You would not assign us one [identical] term, Lord, but let every man go forth at his own [individually determined] term’.118 Ephrem also provided a theological explanation for the mass deaths: ‘Although they had not sinned more than their companions, He struck them so that he might frighten all, He struck a few that through them He 119 might frighten and so give life to many’. By using the citations of Ephrem and the other fathers (as well as the biblical passages he cites), Cyriacus was able to show that the concept of fixed term was not an innovation due to the influence of Muslim theologians, but long predated it. More importantly, Ephrem’s text also helped him to tackle one of the key objections to the concept of fixed term: if God determines a fixed limit for every individual, how can one explain the fact that from time to time large numbers of people die almost simultaneously? Ephrem’s answer (as far as can be determined from the short surviving citation) was that it served as a form of discipline and education for the larger human population. They saw what had befallen Nicomedia and so presumably would be encouraged to live righteous lives in case such a disaster, or even sudden death more generally, should happen to them also. This is 118 Cyriacus, BDP, XIV.3, fol. 41ii-43ii; Ephrem the Syrian, First Homily on Nicomedia. 119 Cyriacus, BDP, XIV.3, fol. 43i; Ephrem the Syrian, First Homily on Nicomedia.

130

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

very much in line with Cyriacus’ whole theological approach in treatise twenty, where he retells the working of Divine Providence throughout human history. That this was a concern of Cyriacus can also be seen from a passage some lines earlier120 where he lists a number of occasions within the biblical account of history where thousands of people died in divine punishments such as the flood or the destruction of Sodom, or at the hands of God’s angels, such as those with Sennacherib or the seventy thousand in the days of David, or in natural disasters of other sorts. In all of these occasions, Cyriacus asserts, each individual involved left this world at the end of his own personal and previously determined fixed term. Another problem raised by this concept of fixed term is whether or not a murderer could potentially use it as a legal defence—since it is impossible to kill anyone other than at a time previously fixed by God for the end of that person’s life, how could one be held responsible for bringing about God’s will? Not surprisingly, then, Cyriacus, like Jacob of Edessa before him, provides the biblical example of the death of Abel, and once again Cyriacus makes good use of Ephrem who expounds this very issue at length in his discourse against Bardaisan.121 Ephrem compares the deaths of Adam and Abel, the first sentenced to death by God and the second murdered by Cain. He argues that Adam’s death was not a death of wickedness, but that it was a requirement of justice, and that it was a natural and peaceful death. By contrast Abel’s was a violent death, brought about through the free will of another human being acting for bad motives. God fixes the time of a person’s death, but he does not kill him, and neither does He determine the nature of his death. So God fixed the time of Abel’s death, but it was Cain who murdered him, and thus Cain alone who was guilty of his murder. Cyriacus thus follows Ephrem, and uses the example of Abel’s death to argue the exact opposite of Jacob of Edessa, namely that there is in fact a fixed term applied to each individual human’s life.

Cyriacus, BDP, XVIII.1, fol. 73i-73ii. Cyriacus, BDP, XVIII.1, fol. 76i-77ii; Ephrem the Syrian, Against Bardaisan. (ed. J. Joseph. Overbeck, Ephraemi Syri.). 120 121

FREE WILL AND PREDESTINATION

131

Although, as we have seen, Cyriacus was not in agreement with Jacob of Edessa, Moshe bar Kipho, and Bar Hebraeus on the issue of fixed term, he was by no means isolated among Christian theologians. There are strinking parallels to his arguments in the thought of Anton of Tagrit and also in that of his contemporary, patriarch Timothy of the Church of the East, who discusses the topic of fixed term in his letter concerning the soul.122 Timothy also focuses his argument on the biblical account of the murder of Abel by Cain, which was clearly the classic example in discussions of this topic. He states: if God determined Abel’s fixed term, and if God also determined that Cain should kill Abel, then the judgement of Cain is unjust, and Abel’s blood should not cry out from the earth. If God, however, only determined Abel’s fixed term, then his blood rightly cried out from the earth. But in this case, since Cain supported the fixed term which was determined by God’s command, does he not deserve a crown, like all who serve God’s will?123 Timothy’s response is, like Cyriacus, that although God determines the fixed term of every individual, He does not decree the type of death by which they will die. Thus some people die in ways that are acceptable to God’s will and others in ways that are not. If the death happens according to the law, then we say that it happens by God’s command, if it is not according to the law, then we say that it happens outside God’s command.124 Timothy takes sexual intercourse as another example of something which, like death, is natural and good when it is in accordance with the divine will—that is, when a married couple engage in it for the purpose of creating a child through the composition of soul with body—but is the product of evil human will, against God’s command, where it constitutes adultery. Humans are not condemned for sexual intercourse, but only for adultery.125

122 Braun, Timothei Patriarchae I epistulae, letter 2.7, (CSCO 74; 1914/1953). 123 Braun, Timothei Patriarchae I epistulae, letter 2.7, pp. 59-60. 124 Braun, Timothei Patriarchae I epistulae, letter 2.7, p. 66. 125 Braun, Timothei Patriarchae I epistulae, letter 2.7, p. 64.

132

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

Anton of Tagrit also discusses the fixed limit of human life in his book on the Good Providence of God.126 Anton believes that God determines the beginning and the end of man’s life.127 In his discussion of the subject he asks a rhetorical question: if someone had stayed at home at a certain time, and did not go out, would he have escaped from death, since he would not have crossed, for example, the river in which he was in fact drowned? He answers the question by telling a story: A young man crossed the bridge over the Tigris to the city of the Assyrians, and in front of him was a slave leading a horse. At a certain moment the horse made a sudden movement and the slave accidentally pushed the young man into the river. Fortunately, he was seen by people standing on the riverbank, who saved his life. A while later he arrived home, and he celebrated his having been saved. When the evening approached, he got drunk with wine and was overcome by sleep, whereupon he fell from the roof of his house and ended up in Sheol!128 From this it was clear to everybody that this was the day determined by God for the end of his life. In this approach to fixed term Anton of Tagrit is much closer to the views of Cyriacus (and Catholicos Timothy) than he is to Jacob of Edessa, Moshe bar Kipho, and Bar Hebraeus.

3.3.9. CONCLUSION Cyriacus’ BDP, and his interpretations of the core questions raised, were influenced by the impact of the arrival of Islam, and the issues discussed by contemporary Muslim theologians. These topics, however, date back to early- and even pre-Christianity, and were therefore just re-introduced, albeit with new energy and often with new perspectives, within Christianity in Cyriacus’ era.

Anton of Tagrit, On the Good Providence of God, treatise 3, B.L. Add. 14726, fol. 105a-114b. 127 Anton of Tagrit, On the Good Providence of God, treatise 3, B.L. Add. 14726, fol. 105a-b. 128 Anton of Tagrit, On the Good Providence of God, treatise 3, B.L. Add. 14726, fol. 105b-106a. 126

FREE WILL AND PREDESTINATION

133

A consideration of Cyriacus’ theological interpretation of the topic of free will and predestination, and particularly the issue of fixed term, shows that he gave it a far more detailed examination and investigation than many of his predecessors, as well as many of his successors. No doubt the influence of contemporary debates played a role in this, but Cyriacus elaborates a theology that is different in many respects from that proclaimed by Islamic thinkers in his day. He made good use of earlier Christian thinkers available to him—from both the Syriac tradition, and those Greek thinkers translated into Syriac—but also develops his own distinctive ideas that would have been of great interest and value to his Syrian Orthodox readers who wanted to know the teachings of their church on issues of general interest in their society. As we shall see in the next chapter, Cyriacus was also concerned on occasion to develop teachings that not only distinguished the teachings of his church from those of Islam, but also from those of the locally dominant Church of the East.

3.4. ESCHATOLOGY: THE MIDDLE STATE OF SOULS Treatise twenty, which is on Eschatology, deals with the soul after its separation from the body, and is structured on the basis of the three questions addressed to Cyriacus by Habib, his secretary, which are as following, I: Whether souls have knowledge after being separated from bodies?1 II: Whether offerings that are made on behalf of the dead serve a purpose?2 III: Concerning the passage of the souls after their separation from the body, and concerning what they encounter and where they arrive and remain before the resurrection?3 It should be noted that treatise twenty-five, the question addressed by Theodosius, the bishop of Seleucia,4 discusses whether souls are prior to bodies.5 This has however not been discussed here, since it does not belong to the treatises on BDP, but to the 3.2.6. Remaining treatises.6 The questions asked by Habib have been carefully ordered so that the answer to one forms the basis for the answer to the following questions. Thus when Cyriacus writes about question two, ‘whether the offerings made on behalf of the dead serve a purpose’,7 he is able to refer back to question one, ‘Whether souls have Cyriacus, BDP, XX.1, fol. 113i-120ii. Cyriacus, BDP, XX.2, fol. 120i-120ii. 3 Cyriacus, BDP, XX.3, fol. 125i. 4 Seleucia/Ctesiphon: two connected cities. They were the capital of the Sasanids, situated in the south of Baghdad. Both these cities were destroyed at the beginning of the Arab conquest. Near their site is the present village of Salman Pak. Barsaum, Scattered Pearls, p. 558. 5 Cyriacus, BDP, XXV, fol. 166ii-171i. 6 See chapter 3.2.6. Remaining Treatises. 7 Cyriacus, BDP, XX.2, fol. 120i-125i. 1 2

135

136

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

knowledge after being separated from bodies?’,8 in order to develop his argument. The central issue in Cyriacus’ chapters on Eschatology is the “intermediate state of the soul”, that is, the fate of the human soul after death and before the general resurrection at the end of time. This has constantly been a controversial subject of debate in Christian theology, and is a subject about which different church fathers have written whole treatises. In order to place Cyriacus’ theology in the wider discussions of the topic, and to understand his concerns, it will thus be necessary to provide some background to the issues he deals with, and then to compare his ideas with contemporary Syriac writers. Both within early Christianity in general and within Syrian Orthodox theology in particular, there have been major shifts of official doctrine and teaching relating to these issues. One of the questions raised was the location of the soul after death. Although a few minority voices suggested that it stayed with the remains of the body, the majority of eastern Christians believed that it departed to a specific spiritual location, i.e. paradise, or the kingdom of heaven, or with the angels, or Abraham’s bosom, or Sheol etc. The main division of opinion, however, was between those who believed that the soul in some sense sleeps, or hibernates, before the general resurrection, and those who did not. Furthermore, if the soul is in a conscious state, does it undergo some immediate judgement after death, entailing punishment or reward, or some process of purification, separate from and prior to the final judgement at the end of time? Amongst those who think that the post-death soul is conscious and leaves the body, there is also much debate about what spiritual beings, if any, the soul will encounter after death. In his eschatological treatises Cyriacus never identifies the theological opponents against whom he is arguing. However, their identity is plausibly suggested by Moshe bar Kipho in his own Book on the Soul. Moshe writes, “We ought to address those who claim that the soul has no knowledge after its separation from the body, and then defend our opinion. The Nestorians are those who say that the soul has no knowledge after its separation from the 8

Cyriacus, BDP, XX.1, fol. 113i-120i.

ESCHATOLOGY

137

body.”9 Moshe then addresses the Nestorians’ view; The Nestorians believe that since the soul sins with the body, it is unfair for the soul to be punished without the body, if it has knowledge.10 Moshe argues against this at great length, and says that if the soul has no knowledge, then it is inappropriate to commemorate the dead, which Paul (in the apostolic constitutions included in the Clementine Octateuch)11 commands us to do.12 As we will see, it is very likely that Cyriacus had the same opponents in mind when he was responding to this question. The reasons for Habib’s questions and Cyriacus’ answers become much clearer when they are compared with the writings of their contemporary, the East Syriac patriarch, Timothy I, whose patriarchal rule covers the period of Cyriacus’ patriarchal rule.13 Particularly important is his long second letter on the soul. Bidawid14 suggests that Timothy wrote this letter around year 780/1, which is before Cyriacus began to rule as patriarch, and most probably before the time that Cyriacus wrote his treatise on Eschatology.15 This raises the question of the exact relationship between Cyriacus’ work and that of Timothy. It is possible that Timothy was repeating the well-known positions of his church, and that Cyriacus was attacking the same position. However, it is likely that Timothy’s letters were widely circulated and so actively spread his ideas among his faithful. Given the close contact between the East and the West Syriac churches in Iraq, it would be surprising if the Syrian Orthodox faithful did not become aware of these ideas and wonder about their truth. This was also a time when some mem-

MBKS, VatSyr 147, fol. 67b-68a. MBKS, VatSyr 147, fol. 68a. 11 Cf. Lagarde, Reliquiae iuris ecclesiastici antiquissimae, p. 28. 12 MBKS, VatSyr, fol. 72a. 13 Timothy ruled as a patriarch for the Nestorian Church between 780 and 823, See Baumstark, Geschichte, p. 217. 14 Bidawid, Les lettres du patriarche nestorien Timothée I, pp. 64, 73. 15 For the date at which Cyriacus wrote his treatises, see chapter 3.1. Divine Providence. 9

10

138

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

bers of each church were converting to the other.16 This could clearly have caused problems for both churches, for the Syrian Orthodox, losing its members, and for the Nestorians, not knowing how to receive them.17 Such individuals may well have brought earlier beliefs with them.18

3.4.1. QUESTION I: KNOWLEDGE OF SOULS The first question asked by Habib concerns ‘Whether souls have knowledge after being separated from bodies?’19 Cyriacus states that this question was asked because some claim that souls have no knowledge after their separation from the body, until they are clothed by their bodies again at the resurrection.20 In other words, does the soul sleep after death, and so await the final judgement, or does it continue to be conscious and remain in some temporary place of punishment/reward before the judgement? The sleep of the soul within the Syriac tradition has been usefully discussed by Gavin in his article on ‘The Sleep of the Soul in

16 For the letter addressed to Salomon, the bishop of Hadta, which is concerning whether it is appropriate to re-baptise the Jacobites. See Braun, Timothei Patriarchae I Epistulae, Letter I, pp. 3-34. 17 The conversion must have been problematic, not only for Cyriacus, but also for the bishops of the Church of the East, since some of them did not know how to receive the Syrian Orthodox. Cf. Braun, Timothei Patriarchae I epistulae, letter I, pp. 3-34. 18 NB. There is also some evidence of Timothy dealing with internal opponents to the doctrine of the sleep of the soul. Cf. Braun, ‘Zwei Synoden des Katholikos Timotheos I. Veröffentlich’, pp. 302-311. ̈ 19 Cyriacus, BDP, XX.1, fol. 113i, ‘ ‫ܠܢܦܫܬܐ܇ ܡܢ‬ ‫ܥܠ ܗ݀ܝ ܕܐܢ ܐܝܬ ܝܕܥܬܐ‬ .‫’ܒܬܪ ܦܘ̈ܪܫܢܝܗܝܢ ܕܡܢ ܦܓ̈ܪܐ‬. The rubric Cyriacus consults for the first question is also found in florilegium B.L. Add. 12155, which is very close to the one he consulted. Florilegium B.L. Add. 12155, fol. 53b-54a, the title ܿ in Syriac, ‘.‫ܦܘܪܫܢܗ ܕܡܢ ܦܓܪܐ‬ ‫’ܡܛܠ ܝܕܥܬܐ ܕܢܦܫܐ ܕܒܬܪ‬. The only difference between the rubrics is the fact that Cyriacus’ preference is to employ the rubric in the plural rather than in the singular. A similar rubric is also ܿ ܿ found in BHLS, pp. 692-708, ‘ ‫ܕܡܢ‬ ‫ܕܥܬܗ ܕܢܦܫܐ ܼܡܢ ܒܬܪ‬ ‫ܡܛܠ ܼܝ‬ ܼ ‫ܦܘܪܫܢܗ‬ .‫’ܦܓܪܐ‬. 20 Cyriacus, BDP, XX.1, fol. 113ii-114i.

ESCHATOLOGY

139

the early Syriac Church’,21 which is heavily reliant on Braun’s earlier discussions of the soul.22 Gavin informs us that one of the earliest discussions of this topic in Syriac literature is to be found in the Demonstrations of Aphrahat. In relation to the metaphor of death in the baptism he writes: ‘‫’ܡܬܛܡܪ ܦܓܪܐ ܢܦܫܢܐܝܬ ܘܩܐܡ ܪܘܚܢܐܝܬ‬, (the body is buried physically and rises spiritually).23 He then goes ܿ on to teach that the soul may be ‘‫ܡܢܗ‬ ‫( ’ܪܓܫܬܐ ܡܫܬܩܐܠ‬deprived ̈ ‫ܕܫܟܒܝܢ‬ of sensation),24 and in another place he explains, ‘ ‫ܐܢܫܐ‬ ̱ ‫ܒܢܝ‬ .‫( ’ܗܕܐ ܫܢܬܐ ܕܡܟܝܢ ܠܗܘܢ ܘܐܠ ܝܕܥܝܢ ܛܒ ܡܢ ܒܝܫ‬that in this sleep men do not know good from evil).25 Aphrahat uses three words referring to ‘sleep’ in the latter passage, and illustrates this sleep by the story of two servants, one who is righteous and awaits rewards from his Lord ‘‫( ’ܚܕܐ ܒܚܠܡܗ ܘܪܘܙ ܘܦܨܝܚ‬he rejoices in his dream),26 and the other who is wicked, ‘ ‫ܘܥܘܐܠ ܫܢܬܗ ܐܠ ܒܣܡܐ‬ .‫ ܘܬܒܝܪ ܠܒܗ ܒܚܠܡܗ‬:‫ ܕܪܢܐ ܕܗܐ ܡܛܝ ܠܗ ܨܦܪܐ‬:‫’ܠܗ‬, (the wicked does not enjoy his sleep, because he thinks that the morning is near, and he is broken-hearted in his dream).27 Ephrem the Syrian, who is a later contemporary of Aphrahat, held a similar concept of the sleep of the soul, which is that the soul has a semiconscious knowledge of what is passing, and Gavin suggests that this is the equivalent of the ‘light sleeper’.28 The belief in the sleep of the soul became the dominant teaching in the church of the East. It is clearly expounded in the writings 21 Gavin in his article on ‘The Sleep of the Soul in the Early Syriac Church’, p. 104, notes that the Greek word for ‫ ܡܬܛܡܪ‬is the Syriac equivalent of ‫ܡܙܕܪܥ‬, which means sown. 22 Cf. Braun, Das Buch von der Seele, Freiburg 1891. 23 Parisot, Aphraatis Sapientis Persae Demonstrationes, in Patrologia Syriaca, v. I, Demonstration VI, On Monks, p. 293, line 17-18. 24 Parisot, Aphraatis Sapientis Persae Demonstrationes, in Patrologia Syriaca, v. I, Demonstration VI, On Monks, p. 293, line 24. 25 Parisot, Aphraatis Sapientis Persae Demonstrationes, in Patrologia Syriaca, v. I, Demonstration VIII, On Resurrection, p. 397, line 16-17. 26 Parisot, Aphraatis Sapientis Persae Demonstrationes, in Patrologia Syriaca, v. I, Demonstration VIII, On Resurrection, p. 396 line 25, p. 397, line 1. 27 Parisot, Aphraatis Sapientis Persae Demonstrationes, in Patrologia Syriaca, v. I, Demonstration VIII, On the Resurrection, p. 397, line 1-3. 28 Cf., e.g., St. Ephrem, Sermo de Domino Nostro; Hom. XXIII.

140

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

of Narsai,29 and Theodore of Mopsuestia,30 and it is also found in the works of Isaac the Great, Babai, and Timothy I, who are opposed to the belief in souls being conscious after being separated from the bodies. According to Gavin, Isaac the Great’s31 concept is; “(A) both body and soul lose the power of thought and feeling after death; (B) while the body cannot even live without the soul, the soul, though it cannot see or hear without the body, is yet able to live (he illustrates this statement by the figure of the unborn child in its mother’s womb); (C) the soul has no consciousness after death.” Babai,32 in his commentary on the ‘Centuries of Evagrius’,33 says: ‘the soul cannot be active without the body, hence one must say that after death it is in a kind of sleep. The Holy Scriptures call death sleep; thus, too, the “Seven Sleepers” of Ephesus. As light cannot burn without fuel, so the soul in Abraham’s bosom possesses only its unchangeable faculties,—i.e., the life from God, and (its) memory. . . . Man is bodily existence endowed with reason. The soul is not a “complete nature” (yet) it cannot be said that after death it is as if it were not . . .’ Timothy I, who is a contemporary of Cyriacus, will be discussed and compared with Cyriacus’ text below. Cyriacus’ argument for the continued knowledge of the soul after death is based upon his analysis of its nature and origins, and more generally in his anthropology. He argues that God created human nature from a sensible or physical (‫ )ܡܬܪܓܫܢܐ‬part, the body, and a spiritual or noetic (‫ )ܡܬܝܕܥܢܐ‬part, the soul. (‫ܡܬܝܕܥܢܐ‬ is a particularly difficult word to translate into English, and is often rendered as ‘spiritual’, but for Cyriacus the fact that this word is derived from the root ‫ܝܕܥ‬, ‘to know’, is of great importance here, as it indicates something essential about the soul. Here then, I have 29 Cf. Krüger, P., ’Le sommeil des âmes dans l’oeuvre de Narsai’, OrSyr 4 (1959), pp. 193-210. 30 Cf. Daley, The Hope of Early the Church, pp. 173-4. 31 Braun doubts the attribution of this book, Cf. Braun, Das Buch von der Seele, pp. 144-5; Wright claims it belongs to Isaac, Cf. Wright, Catalogue, v. II, p. 917; Isaac the Great/of Antioch, Baumstark, Geschichte, p. 63. 32 Babai the Great ruled as a patriarch for the Nestorian Church between 569 and 627/8, Baumstark, Geschichte, p. 147. 33 Duval, La Littérature syriaque, p. 212.

ESCHATOLOGY

141

translated it as ‘noetic’.) These were created simultaneously at the beginning, although the body was taken from the earth and the soul brought forth from nothing, and yoked together. Thus the body has no priority over the soul (though this would, perhaps, be the most obvious way of reading the Genesis account.) All rightthinking people acknowledge that the noetic soul is the image (‫ )ܨܠܡܐ‬of God in this union. This composite nature of body and soul was endowed with glorious knowledge and wisdom by God, although its knowledge is often clouded and darkened by its entanglement with materiality. The cause of the knowledge is the soul, and the cause of the entanglements with material concerns is the body. They were yoked together so that the body could delight in the glories of the soul and be elevated, and so that the soul would not become arrogant and proud. Given this anthropological understanding, and this interpretation of the nature and primary characteristics of the soul, Cyriacus asks: How can these ignorant people claim then, that the soul, ‘the cause of knowledge of the composite nature, is not ‘knowing’ after its separation from the body, which is the cause of the hindering of the knowledge of the [composite] nature?’ In fact, after its separation from the material body the soul will become more knowing, rather than less. If it is righteous it will contemplate the good things awaiting it, though without forgetting those things that would be beneficial to those of us remaining in this world, and thus intercedes with God on our half, and acts as a mediator.34 The soul that was sinful, however, is incapacitated by its contemplation of the punishments reserved for it. For these opinions and arguments Cyriacus introduces a number of witnesses from patristic sources. He cites three passages from Gregory Nazianzen35 which refer to the continued knowledge of the soul after death, and its drawing near to God, the first mind, Cyriacus, BDP, XX.1, fol. 116i. Gregory of Nazianzus, On his Brother, St. Caesarius, (CPG 3010; PG 35, 781B); Cyriacus, BDP, XX.1, fol. 117ii-118i; Treatise on the funeral of his father, towards those of Basil, (CPG 3010; PG 35, 989A); Cyriacus, BDP, XX.1, fol. 118ii-119i; Treatise on the funeral of his sister, Gorgoina, (CPG 3010; PG 35,816C); Cyriacus, BDP, XX.1, fol. 118i-118ii. 34 35

142

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

after its throwing off of the filth of materiality. He also cites Gregory of Nyssa36 and John Chrysostom37 who refer to the presence of the fathers with God, and the intercession of the saints for us with Him, which demonstrate the consciousness and continued knowledge of souls after death. Interestingly, in this collection of Greek fathers, Cyriacus also includes a lengthy citation from the Doctrina Addai which very closely relates to the arguments that Cyriacus himself has advanced: For you know that which I have said to you: That all souls, which depart from human-bodies, do not die; but they live and rise, and have mansions, and a dwelling-place of rest, for the understanding and the intelligence of the soul do not cease, because the image of God is represented in it, which does not die. For it is not as the body without feeling which perceives not the odious corruption which has come upon it. Reward and recompense it is not able to receive without its body; because that labour was not its only, but also of the body in which it dwelt. But the rebellious who know not God, they become penitent then to no purpose.38 This passage is interesting both for what it suggests about how Cyriacus in some respects represents a continuity with earlier Syriac theology, and also because it draws attention to the fact that this passage appears to be out of step with the doctrine of the soul found in Ephrem and Aphrahat and other early Syriac writers, and the main East Syriac tradition, which raises interesting questions about the theological influences on the Doctrina Addai, and the dating of this passage. Within the Syriac tradition the body/soul requires salvation along with that of the soul/spirit because when the soul is separated from the body in Syriac eschatology, the soul requires the con-

Gregory of Nyssa, Treatise on Virginity, (CPG 3165; PG 46,317-416); Cyriacus, BDP, XX.1, fol. 119i-119i. 37 John Chrysostom, Encomium on Meletius of Antioch, (CPG 4345; PG 50, 520b, Line.17, 22); Cyriacus, BDP, XX.1, fol. 120i. 38 Doctrina Addai, (ed. G. Phillips, London 1876, p. 46 last line, to p. 47 line 12) ; Cyriacus, BDP, XX.1, fol. 119ii-120i. 36

ESCHATOLOGY

143

cept of the senses for its power of discernment.39 This is established by near contemporary writers of Cyriacus: Moshe bar Kipho devotes an entire book to the soul, which is more analytical than Cyriacus’ treatises on the soul.40 This also suggests that Moshe’s intended audience was not popular, but that it was more educated, which shows that he was engaged with more general Christian debates. Moshe supports Cyriacus’ opinion in regards to the knowledge of the soul, saying, “It is acknowledged and apparent that after the release of the soul from the body when it dies, the soul understands, comprehends, and has memories from the time when it was in the body.”41 Moreover, he provides a list of ways in which the soul has knowledge after its separation from the body, which are as follows:42 The soul knows that it is a creation. It knows that it has a creator. It knows that it used to be in a body. It knows that it has been separated from the body. It knows that it will reunite with the body on the day of the resurrection. It knows the angels and the demons, when they meet it at its separation from the body. It knows the souls which it will accompany until the resurrection. It knows its deeds were good or evil in the world. It knows what is expected for it, whether delight or torture. It is aware of benefits from the offerings which are made on its behalf.

Bar Hebraeus agrees with Moshe claiming that before death the soul is forced to know and to consult the eye of the body to see, or the ear of the body to hear, but when it is separated, it will be Buck, Paradise and Paradigm: Key Symbols in Persian Christianity and the Bahai Faith, p. 233. 40 MBKS, VatSyr 147 consists of ninety-two folios. Translated into German by Braun, “Das Buch von der Seele”, Freiburg 1891. 41 MBKS, VatSyr 147, fol. 73b. 42 MBKS, VatSyr 147, fol. 75a-75b. 39

144

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

forced to acknowledge its own senses.43 For this Bar Hebraeus cites Luke’s Gospel “The rich man died and was buried, and in Hades, where he was in great pain, he looked up and saw Abraham, far away, with Lazarus at his side”.44 This indicates that he could see with the eyes of the soul.45 Cyriacus does not discuss the soul’s capacity, this could, nevertheless, be understood as Cyriacus not defining the abilities of the soul saying that the souls have knowledge ‘‫ ’ܝܕܥܬܐ‬after being separated from the bodies. Cyriacus does not state whether this knowledge is limited. Timothy has also dedicated a chapter to the subject of whether the soul knows anything of its good/evil deeds in the body, when it is separated from it.46 Timothy claims that when the soul is separated from the body, it contains the knowledge it had with the body, but has no power of sensation, nor the use of memory, else it would suffer or rejoice, experiences which do not begin until the judgement, and which belong to the whole man. It becomes like an infant in the womb. It is as if it is asleep in the body, which is actively alive, and has got freedom, senses, and knowledge but are inactive.47 Timothy says that if the soul had an active knowledge after its separation from the body, how would it be fair that the body of Abel only lived thirty years more or less, of a virtuous life, but his soul lived for seven thousand years, or again that Cain’s body was punished for one thousand years, but his soul seven thousand years.48 Concerning the knowledge of souls Timothy held a synod in 790 where he condemned the errors of a certain ‘Joseph the Seer,

43 BHLS, ‘Concerning the Soul’s knowledge, after its Separation from the Body,’ pp. 692-4; MBKS, VatSyr 147, fol. 73b-74b. 44 Lk 16:23. 45 BHLS, ‘Concerning the Soul’s knowledge, after its Separation from the Body,’ pp. 692-5. 46 Braun, Timothei Patriarchae I epistulae, pp. 52-56. 47 Braun, Timothei Patriarchae I epistulae, p. 52. 48 Braun, Timothei Patriarchae I epistulae, p. 55. Concerning the counting of seven thousand years from Abel up to Timothy’s time, it is a traditional reckoning within the Syriac tradition, as in, e.g., the Cave of Treasures.

ESCHATOLOGY

145

(Hazzaya), by accusing him of Messalianism49 and Origenism (preexistence of souls).’ According to the canons issued in that synod, they anathematized firstly those who teach that Christ’s Divinity could be seen by His Humanity, or by any other created things; and secondly “they decreed that souls after the separation are destitute of sense until they re-enter their bodies, and that none save Christ’s humanity has ever attained perfection in this world.”50 At another synod a bishop was forced to publicly repent of his errors, including a pledge where he denies that the soul possesses knowledge, or can sense, work, glorify or become more virtuous, after the separation from the body.51 Timothy begins his letter concerning the soul by reminding the reader that knowledge is created, and that everything that is created has an ending.52 It is interesting to contrast this with Cyriacus’ argument that the soul was created in the image of God, and thus is essentially capable of knowing, and is the source of human knowledge, which is only limited by its entanglement with materiality.53 Here too, Cyriacus and the Syrian Orthodox tradition are much more in line with the great Greek-speaking theologians of the fourth century than their contemporaries in the Church of the East.

3.4.2. QUESTION II: COMMEMORATION OF THE DEAD The second question asked by Habib concerns “Whether offerings that are made on behalf of the dead serve a purpose?”54 It is clear 49

423-4.

For Messalianism cf. Morony, Iraq After The Muslim Conquest, pp.

50 Gavin, ‘The Sleep of the Soul in the Early Syriac Church’, p. 108; The canons of the council are preserved in Arabic, and can be found in the Bibliotheca Orientalis, v. 3. pp. 100-1. 51 Braun, ‘Zwei Synoden des Katholikos Timotheos I. Veröffentlich’, p. 308. 52 Braun, Timothei Patriarchae I epistulae, p. 35. Timothy then goes into details and explains that the human mind is not capable of comprehending God. This concept can be traced back to Ephrem’s theology and beyond, Cf. Brock, Luminous Eye, Section on Creator Creation. 53 Cyriacus, BDP, XX.1, fol. 114i. 54 Cyriacus, BDP, XX.2, fol. 120i-120ii.

146

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

from the rubric of this chapter that this question was asked because there were those who denied that offerings on behalf of the dead were of any value.55 However, the opponents Habib has in mind are again unidentified. In the reply to this question, Cyriacus relies on his arguments of the previous chapter. Thus he argues that since the soul has knowledge after its separation from the body it can sense the offerings made on its behalf. Christians celebrated mass, or qurbono, on behalf of the dead from the early centuries of Christianity.56 But this widespread practice raised many important theological questions. For example, was an offering made on behalf of a dead person an attempt to influence God’s judgement? Should a person not simply be judged on the basis of their deeds, good or bad, during their lifetime? Was it fair that rich people would be more likely to have masses paid for them rather than poor people? How did souls benefit from the offering? These topics were discussed by many of Cyriacus’ Syriac predecessors, and it is interesting to examine their responses to such questions. One such predecessor to Cyriacus in the West Syrian tradition is Jacob of Serugh (d. 521), who is the second foremost Syrian Orthodox poet after Ephrem the Syrian. Jacob served a community where the women had a tradition of going to the cemeteries and crying at the graves of their dead, and so he tried to convince them that it was more appropriate to commemorate their dead in the church. Jacob believed that when the dead are commemorated at the altar, they are able to come to the altar which is a relief for the spirits.57

ܵ ܵ ‫ܿܒܦܪܝ‬ ܿ ܿ :‫ܼܿܘ ܼܕ ܼܿܥܢ ܼܝ ܼܿܕ ̈ܝܟ‬ ‫ܟ‬ ‫ܕܘ ܼܟܪ ܵܢ‬ ‫ܣܬܐ‬ ‫ܘܐܢ ̱ ܿܬ‬ ܼ ܵ ‫ܪܫܘܡ‬ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܿ ‫ܼܐܠܗܐ܀‬ ‫ܩܕܡ‬ ‫ܡܩܪ ܼܒ ܼܘ‬ ‫ܼܠ‬ ‫ܠܟܗܢܐ‬ ‫ܠܗ‬ ‫ܘܗ ܼܒ‬ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܵ ̈ :‫ܐܢܘܢ‬ ‫ܼܘܩܪ ܼܝ ܠܡ ܼܝ ܼܬܝܟ ܐܬܝܢ‬ ‫ܪܘ ܼܬܐ‬ ܼ ‫ܥ ܸܒ ܼܕ ܫ‬ ܸ ܵ ‫ܕܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܠܡ‬ ܵ ‫ܐܢܐ ܘ ܼܿܢ‬ ܵ ‫ܠܡ ܼܕ‬ ‫ܕܟܠ ̈ܪ ܼܘ ܵܚ ܵ ܼܬܐ܀‬ ‫ܘܚܐ‬ ‫ܒܚܐ‬ ܼܿ ܵ ܹ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܿ ‫ܟ‬ :‫ܨܐܕܘܗܝ‬ ܼ ܵ ‫ܚܡܗ ܕܡ ܼܝ ܼܬܐ ܒܗ ܵ ܹܕܐ ܿ ܼܚܘܐ‬ ܹ ‫ܵܪ‬ ܼ ‫ܚܘܒ‬ ܼ ܿ ‫ܘܬܪ ܠܗ܀‬ ‫ܠܘ ܼܿܟ ܼܕ ܸܬܥ ܸܒ ܼܕ‬ ܼ ‫ܐ ܼܒܐܠ ܼܪ ܵܒܐ ܕܐܠ ܿ ܼܡ‬ ܸ

Cyriacus, BDP, XX.2, fol. 120ii. For some background to this topic cf. H. B. Swete, ‘Prayer for the Departed in the First Four Centuries,’ JThS 8 (1907), pp. 500-514. 57 Bedjan, Homilies of Mar Jacob of Serugh, v. I, p. 539. 55 56

ESCHATOLOGY

ܵܿ :‫ܐܠܠ ܵܗܐ‬ ‫ܼܿܗ ܼܒ‬ ܼ ܵ ‫ܐܢܘ ܼܬܐ܀‬ ‫ܼܡܢ‬ ܼ ‫ܹܟ‬ :‫ܚܘ ܵܣ ܵܝܐ‬ ‫ܝܬ‬ ‫ܕܒ‬ ܼ ܼܵ ܹ ܿ ‫ܓܪܐ ܼܿܘ ܼܕ ܵܡـــܐ܀‬ ܼ ܼ ‫ܕܦ‬

147

ܵ ܵ ܵ ‫ܿܥܡ ܩܘ‬ ‫ܟ‬ ‫ܘܕܘ ܼܟܪ ܸܢܗ‬ ܼ ܿ ܼ ܵ ‫ܫܡܗ‬ ܸ ܼ ܼ ‫ܪܒܢ‬ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܵ ‫ܘܗ‬ ‫ܛܠܡ ܵܐ‬ ̇ ‫ܬ‬ ‫ܡ‬ ‫ܐܠ‬ ‫ܢܘ ܼܬ‬ ‫ܝܡ‬ ‫ܟ‬ ܸ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܿ ‫ܼܥܠ ܦ ܼܬܘ ܵܪܐ‬ ‫ܥܘܗܕ ܹܢܗ‬ ‫ܣ ܼܝܡ‬ ܵ ܼܿ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܵ ‫ܐܪܙܐ‬ ̱ ‫ܘܚܡܪܐ ܕܐ ܼܝ ܼܬܘܗܝ‬ ܼ ‫ܒ ܼܠܚܡܐ‬

Jacob then goes on to talk about the women who go and lament in front of the graves, and says that it is of no purpose since the spirits of the dead are not there, but in the hands of God. These souls all face towards the altar, and their names are all recorded in the ܿ ̈ divine book of life, ‫ܒܣܦܪܗ ܪܒܐ‬ :‫ܥܘܗܕܢܝܗܘܢ‬ ‫ܗܪܟܐ ܣ ܼܝܡ ܼܝܢ‬ . The dead do not benefit from ‫ܕܐܠܗܘܬܐ ܕܟܠ ܒܗ ܐ ܼܝܬܘܗܝ܀‬ ܼ mourning at the graves, but only from the offering made in church.58 Jacob also draws a parallel between the offerings made on behalf of the dead and parents who bring their children to be baptized in their childhood. He says that God sees the faith of the parents and thus blesses the child. The same is true for the dead; when a person makes a remembrance of his dead with faith, God will forgive his dead. If the offerings which are made on behalf of the dead are not accepted by God, neither is the child who is brought forward to be baptised.59 Cyriacus also develops this idea by drawing an interesting parallel between the dead and infants who are prepared for baptism. The dead and the infants have no active role to decide whether they want to be commemorated or baptized, or not, but the parents or in the case of the dead, the relatives, make this decision on their behalf. Jacob of Edessa (d. 708) addresses a similar question to Cyriacus, which was put to him by John the Stylite. Jacob, however, introduces a distinction between wicked people and sinners.60 He Bedjan, Homilies of Mar Jacob of Serugh, v. I, pp. 540-1. Bedjan, Homilies of Mar Jacob of Serugh, v. I, p. 547. 60 Daniel of Salah, who lived in the sixth century, agrees with the concept of the difference between the sinners and the wicked. In his interpretation of the Psalm 1:5 he states: ‘[The wicked] shall not obtain a place to stand before that fearful throne of the Judge, and they shall not be invited to come to the congregation of the righteous, but at a distance, being at a far remove from life, punishment will go forth against them for righteousness’ sake. They shall not then be delivered from judgement, and 58 59

148

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

argues that offerings ought to be made on behalf of those dead who are humble and fear God, even though they have sinned. By contrast, he believes that prayers, offerings, and alms made on behalf of the souls of the wicked after their death are of no avail. The sinners differ from the wicked both in name and in practice. Sinners are not like the wicked, who are ‘opponents to God, those who are either Pagans or Jews, or heretics who are counted with the deniers, or believe that they are Orthodox when they are not, or those who were counted as Christians, but were deniers and pagans, like sorcerers and worshippers of evil, or assassins, or those who completed their lives in impure habits and did not repent.’ Jacob explains that offerings should be made on behalf of the sinners because they are still in need of prayers and mercy from God.61 Later writers such as Moshe bar Kipho and Bar Hebraeus discuss the same topics. Moshe argues that ‘since we have been instructed to pray on behalf of all the living, this includes the evil, such as robbers, thieves, and those who commit ten thousands of sins. We pray on behalf of all of them so that they may return, and repent. The same applies to the dead.’62 And, Bar Hebraeus holds the view that all souls are in need of offerings and prayers, because nobody is sinless but Jesus Christ. However, each soul senses the prayers according to its deeds.63 As mentioned above, Cyriacus begins this chapter by referring to his argument in the previous chapter, where he argues that the soul has knowledge after its separation from the body, and for this neither has this saying (therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgement) freed them from judgement, rather this makes it clear that since they have acted very wickedly they shall not be called to judgement but shall be condemned without hope because they were perfect in wickedness. The following verse shows that for this reason there shall be judgement, that if there also be some who have sinned, but have not sinned to the point of second death, they shall be delivered through judgement.’ (Translation by Taylor, in forthcoming edition.) 61 Jacob of Edessa, Letter to John the Stylite, B.L. Add. 17187, fol. 97b98a. 62 MBKS, VatSyr 147, fol. 91a-b. 63 BHLS, pp. 553-4.

ESCHATOLOGY

149

reason, it can sense and receive benefit from the offerings made on its behalf. Cyriacus presents two major pieces of evidence for the efficacy of offerings made by the living as a means of reducing the sinful status of the dead, before citing a number of patristic texts to which he makes minimal annotation. The first is the passage in 2 Maccabees 12:39-45, which was well known to early Christian authors, in which Judas Maccabaeus examined the bodies of those of his army who had died in battle and discovered that they were all wearing pagan amulets around their necks, and so he made a sinoffering on their behalf which was accepted by God. The second example is no less than Christ’s self-sacrifice on the cross, which He endured on behalf of the living and the dead, and by means of which the priestly offering on the altar of the church was made possible, which is also offered for the sake of the living and dead.64 In the remainder of the chapter Cyriacus cites passages from the church fathers to prove his orthodoxy, and to declare his belief in the commemoration of the dead, and these were most likely taken from a florilegium, as established in chapter 4.1.4. Treatise Twenty, Chapter One, Two & Three. The citations of this chapter are clustered together at the end of the question. The rubric of this question65 is most likely borrowed from the florilegium, and is also to be found in florilegium B.L. Add. 12155, which in a slightly different form.66 A similar section heading is also found in MBKS.67 This again proves that this was a widely discussed topic within the Syriac tradi-

Cyriacus, BDP, XX.2, fol. 120ii-121ii. Cyriacus, BDP, XX.2, fol. 120i. ̈ ‫ܥܠ ܿܗܝ ܕܝܬ̈ܪܝܢ‬ .‫ܥܢܝܕܐ܇ ܡܢ ܩܘ̈ܪܒܢܐ ܕܚܠܦܝܗܘܢ ܡܬܩ̈ܪܒܝܢ‬ 66 Florilegium B.L. Add. 12155, fol. 56b, ̈ .‫ܠܥܢܝܕܐ‬ ‫ܡܛܠ ܩܘ̈ܪܒܢܐ ܕܗܘܝܢ‬ 67 MBKS, VatSyr 147, fol. 89b, ܿ ܿ ̈ ‫ܕܡܚܘܐ ܕܝ݀ܬܪܝܢ‬ .‫ܡܬܩܪܒܝܢ‬ ‫ܥܢܝܕܐ ܼܡܢ ܩܘ̈ܪܒܢܐ ܕܚܠܝܗܘܢ‬ ‫ܩܦܐܠܘܢ‬ 64 65

150

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

tion. The fathers cited are Palladius,68 John Chrysostom,69 Cyril of Alexandria,70 and Severus.71 Of these patristic citations, two seem to merit further comment. The first is the passage from John Chrysostom’s ‘Homily no. 41, on I Corinthians 46:8’. Here John argues that one ought to be glad about a sinner who dies, because his sins will not increase, and the way to help him is by prayers and supplications, and alms and offerings. The idea that death is positive because it cuts short the human ability to sin is, as has been seen, a popular theme in Cyriacus’ BDP. The second noteworthy passage is taken from Palladius, and it is interesting because it is far more popular in style than the learned theology usually cited, and indeed is of rather dubious orthodoxy. Palladius recounts a tale about a man whose un-baptized daughter dies, and so is buried at a distance from the graves of the faithful.72 He sells all his possessions and gives to the poor, and constantly prays on his daughter’s behalf. He then heard a voice which said to him, ‘Your daughter has been baptised, do not be sad’. He cannot believe that this is possible, so the voice tells him to dig open the grave, and when he does so he finds that her body has been miraculously moved to the part of the cemetery reserved for Christian believers. This passage is very dramatic, and popular in tone, but if pursued to its logical conclusions would cause all sorts of theological difficulties. To name but one, it would contradict Cyriacus’ own teaching in relation to un-baptized infants.73

68 Palladius of Hellenopolis, The Book of Paradise, (ROC 12, p. 52; ed. E. A. Wallis Budge, p. 662). 69 John Chrysostom, Homily no. 41, on I Corinthians 46:8. (CPG 4428; PG 61, 361a, line 6-27); John Chrysostom, Homily no. 3, on I Philippians. (CPG 4432; PG 62,204b, line 16-24). 70 Cyril of Alexandria, Against Diodore and Theodore, (CPG 5229; P.E. Pusey, [Works of St Cyril] Oxford 1868-1877; v. 5, pp. 492-537). 71 Severus of Antioch, Letter to Caesaria the Patrician, (CPG 7070; PO 14, p. 284, line 8 to p. 285, line 9). 72 This practice of burying the unbaptised within the cemetery, but separate from the baptised, was also usual in Tur Abdin. 73 See Chapter 3.3.6. Various kinds of Deaths.

ESCHATOLOGY

151

When a comparison is made of the replies of Cyriacus and Timothy to the question concerning the commemoration of the dead, it is to be noticed that Timothy’s answer is of similar length to that of Cyriacus’,74 and both quote 2 Maccabees 12:39-45. This was probably a well known proof text, but since Timothy unlike Cyriacus believes in the sleep of the soul, he has to explain the efficacy of making offerings in a different way. Cyriacus claims that souls can feel and receive advantage from the offerings when they are offered, and states that the priesthood employed at the altar is serving on behalf of the dead as well as the living, ‘like the death of Christ on the Cross, which He endured for the sake of the dead as well as the living’. Timothy explains the eucharist saying that it is a commemoration of Christ’s crucifixion, when Christ became an offering for the sake of the dead, not only for the dead in the past, but also in the present and in the future. It is therefore useful: the souls cannot sense/feel it now, but they will sense it and receive advantage from it after the resurrection. These factors may arguably suggest that Cyriacus had Timothy’s letter in his posession when he was writing his treatise on this subject. Whether it is a direct response to Timothy’s letter or indirect, through the debate within the community, is difficult to prove.

3.4.3. QUESTION III: PASSAGE OF SOULS The third question put by Habib is, “Concerning the passage of souls after their separation from the body, and concerning what they encounter and where they arrive and remain before the resurrection?”75 In other words, what happens to the soul at death, and This is when excluding the patristic citations Cyriacus quotes. Cyriacus, BDP, XX.3, fol. 125i, the rubric in Syriac is, ‘ ‫ܡܛܠ‬ ̈ ̈ ‫ܡܥܒܪܬܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܕܢܦܫܬܐ ܒܬܪ ܚܙܘܩܝܗܝܢ ܕܡܢ ܦܓ̈ܪܐ܇ ܘܕܒܡܢܐ‬ ‫ܡܡܢܥܢ‬ ‫ܦܓܥܢ܇ ܘܕܐܠܝܟܐ‬ ̈ ’. Cyriacus cites five fathers of the church to support his .‫ܘܩܝܡܢ ܩܕܡ ܩܝܡܬܐ‬ arguments, which are clustered together at the end of the chapter. The citations of this chapter are taken from a florilegium similar to B.L. Add. 12155, as has been established in chapter 4.1.4. Treatise Twenty, Chapter One, Two & Three of this thesis. The section heading employed for this chapter is also found in a similar form in florilegium B.L. Add. 12155, fol. 58a, ܿ ‘.‫ܡܦܩܢܗ ܕܡܢ ܦܓܪܐ‬ ‫’ܕܒܐܝܠܝܢ ܦܓܥܐ ܢܦܫܐ ܒܬܪ‬, and in MBKS, VatSyr 147, fol. ܿ 76a. ‘.‫ܠܘܬܗ ܕܢܦܫܐ ܟܕ ܡܫܬܪܝܐ ܡܢ ܦܓܪܐ‬ ‫’ܕܥܠ ܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܡܬܘܥܕܝܢ ܘܡܬܟܢܫܝܢ‬. 74 75

152

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

where is its location? This is a question which has generated many debates and interpretations within Christianity. If one believes that a soul has an afterlife and does not sleep, then the following questions arise: Does the soul immediately go to heaven/paradise/the kingdom, or does it undergo two judgements, one at death, and the other at the resurrection, as Timothy suggests must be the case if the soul does not sleep? A classic proof text quoted by most church fathers in relation to this is the parable of the rich man (Dives) and Lazarus,76 which suggests that appropriate rewards are granted to both the righteous and sinners instantly after death. According to such teachers, the souls of sinners are usually said to go to Sheol where they are tortured until the resurrection, but there is less agreement about the resting place of the good souls, for whom multiple places have been suggested, i.e. they rest in Abraham’s bosom, or in paradise, or sometimes they just stay with the angels, or go to an unnamed place. According to John Chrysostom, “A Christian end to our lives is painless, without shame, and peaceful,” but, many Christians saw things differently. Many patristic accounts describe a struggle between angels and demons over the soul. This is often seen in the lives of saints, written by monastic writers, who saw themselves as earthly angels, in constant battle with demons, who struggle to claim the soul when it separates from the body. 77 This is particularly common in Egyptian sources, and texts influenced by them. Athanasius of Alexandria (d. 373) is one of the earliest Christian writers making use of this type of Eschatology. A scene from Athanasius’ Life of Antony78 is cited by Cyriacus, where Antony stands up to pray and he miraculously sees himself outside his body, and has a vision of the struggle between angels and demons over his

Cf. Lk 16:19-31. Cyriacus, BDP, XX.3, fol. 127ii-128i; Liturgy of John Chrysostom. Cf. Constas, ‘To Sleep, Perchance to Dream’, pp. 105-6. 78 Cyriacus, BDP, XX.3, fol. 127ii-128i; Athanasius of Alexandria, The Life of Antony, (CPG 2101; PG 26, 933C). 76 77

ESCHATOLOGY

153

soul.79 But other fathers, especially from Syria, rejected these concepts. Cyriacus’ view on the passage of the Soul is similar to the one demonstrated in the Life of Antony. Cyriacus claims that when a soul leaves its body at death, God sends his angels to comfort it, so that it will not fear the wicked demons. When souls depart from their bodies through death, they are lifted into the air and head towards a place appropriate for each one of them, where they stay until the day of rewards. Each soul is escorted by the holy angels and the wicked demons meet it to remind it of its sins, and attempt to snatch it away. Thus the wicked demons argue with the angels and say that it belongs to them, because it has worked for them and not for God. This even happens to the souls of the saints.80 Cyriacus also cites Theophilus who provides a more detailed explanation of the fear a soul experiences when it has separated from the body and the angels and demons gather around it for the struggle over it.81 Theophilus holds the same view as Cyriacus in this matter. However, Cyriacus also cites Abba Isaiah, who represents a slightly different version of the struggle between angels and demons over the soul, which is more theoretical. He claims that the struggle is not actually between angels and demons, but between the deeds of the soul and the demons, and the angels are there to make sure that the struggle is fair and that the demons do not approach it if it belongs to the angels.82 Cyriacus then explains that the holy angels wait for a sign from God to instruct them which souls they should protect. If the soul is good, then it will be escorted in honour and peace by the holy angels to arrive safely in the hands of God, where it stays until the day of the righteous reward, when it will receive its body, and

79 For more background cf. Constas, ‘To Sleep, Perchance to Dream’, pp. 91-124. 80 Cyriacus, BDP, XX.3, fol. 125ii-126i. 81 Cyriacus, BDP, XX.3, fol. 129i-130i; Theophilus of Alexandria, Homily of exhortation, (CPG 2618; ROC 18, pp. 80-1; PG 65, 200). 82 Cyriacus, BDP, XX.3, fol. 128ii; Abba Isaiah, On the happiness of the soul which wishes to serve God, (CPG 5555; CSCO 290, p. 228).

154

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

together they will stay and be delighted in eternal blessing.83 If the soul is evil, then it will be snatched away by force by the demons, who will rejoice at its corruption. It stays in their hands in Sheol, which is the prison for wicked souls. It stays there in torture until the resurrection of its body. It will then be tortured eternally with its body in Sheol. Cyriacus brings in Biblical evidence for this argument, “The souls of the righteous are in the hand of God, and no torment will ever touch them,”84 and “The wicked shall be returned to Sheol and all the nations that forget God.”85 Cyriacus also cites Severus of Antioch, where he discusses the classic example of the parable of Lazarus,86 and demonstrates that the angels carried Lazarus to Abraham’s bosom. Severus then says that the wicked who did not keep the commandments are carried off by demons.87 Severus also explains the location of the soul in a different way, he says that whether the soul is evil or good, it will go to the regions which are appropriate for it and it will be kept there until the last day.88 Later Syrian Orthodox writers such as Moshe bar Kipho and Bar Hebraeus discuss the same topics. Moshe Bar Kipho mentions that there are those who believe that the soul is striving in the air after its separation from the body, which he rejects. Where do souls stay until the resurrection? He claims that they are gathered in a place “‫ ”ܐܬܪܐ‬for which he provides a definition. This place does not require measure or location as is needed for a physical body. He also explains that the souls of the good are with the angels in a place above heaven or in the paradise, because there are angels in the paradise, and evil souls are with the demons in dark places in Sheol, which is underneath earth, until the resurrection.89 Cyriacus, BDP, XX.3, fol. 126i-126ii. Wisdom of Solomon 3:1. 85 Cyriacus, BDP, XX.3, fol. 126ii-127i; Ps 9:17. 86 See Lk 16:22. 87 Mt 25:41; Cyriacus, BDP, XX.3, fol. 128ii-129i; Severus of Antioch, Homily no. 8887 of Cathedral Homilies, (CPG 7035; PO 23, p. 63, line 2-13). 88 Cyriacus, BDP, XX.3, fol. 130i-130ii; Severus of Antioch, a letter to Bishop Thomas of Germanicia. (CPG 7070; PO 14, p. 261, line 8-13). 89 MBKS, VatSyr 147, fol. 82a-87a. 83 84

ESCHATOLOGY

155

Bar Hebraeus agrees with Cyriacus that angels and demons go to meet the soul when it is separated from the body, and that it stays with one or other of them until the resurrection, receiving a foretaste of its eternal reward or punishment depending on its deeds. He says that it would not be surprising if the righteous souls would stay with the angels in Paradise, where Adam once lived, and the sinners go to Sheol.90 However, it is interesting to see what Cyriacus’ contemporary, Timothy, informs us concerning this topic. Since Timothy believes that the soul falls asleep, he does not believe that there is any struggle or punishment for the soul at death, and does not discuss it. However he has written a chapter on where the soul departs after its separation from the body, i.e. the location, which Cyriacus does not in his own writing, but only in his citations.91 Timothy believes that when the soul separates from the body, if it has performed deeds of virtue, it goes to paradise, if it has loved evil deeds, it will dwell in places outside paradise. The case is not that the righteous will be delighted in paradise, and the wicked will be tortured in a place outside paradise, since souls have no physical delight without the body. The separation of the places, inside- and outside paradise, is a metaphor about what is going to happen at the resurrection. This is to say, the souls of the good and the evil do not have one and the same location, and thus they will have different places after the resurrection, i.e. for the good, the kingdom of heaven, and for the evil, Gehenna. The same principle applied to the trees in paradise, one represents the world of life, which is to come, and the other the knowledge of good and evil, which is assigned to this world. Thus in paradise and in the place raised above it, the kingdom of heaven and Gehenna are visualized.’92

BHLS, ‘Concerning where and what the rational souls become after their release from the bodies’, pp. 698-701. 91 Braun, Timothei Patriarchae I epistulae, Letter II, Chapter three, pp. 49-50. 92 Braun, Timothei Patriarchae I epistulae, Letter II, Chapter two, pp. 489. 90

156

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

Timothy then says what he believes himself. He begins as follows: ‘Some people believe that the soul stays with the elements of the body, even after its separation, because it grew and learned with the body. The body returns to its elements at its death. Concerning this they say that so does the soul (i.e. it returns to the elements of the body), until the day the soul will be re-clothed with the body. And there are other interpretations… I, however, believe that the most accurate is that true saying, said to the thief “Today, you will be with me in paradise”. God created Adam and placed him in paradise, which is the icon of the kingdom of heaven. However, due to sin, Adam was driven out from paradise, and Christ gave us hope by re-entering it, with the thief, Elijah the prophet, and Enoch, and all the souls of the righteous. Thus we ought to believe that when the soul separates from the body, if it is good, it goes to paradise, and if it is evil, it stays outside paradise.’93

3.4.4. CONCLUSION Cyriacus overlooks the early Syriac belief of Ephrem and Aphrahat, who teach the sleep of the soul, and as a patriarch, follows the later stream of the Syrian Orthodox by quoting the ocrthodox church fathers from the wider church, who believe that the soul has an active knowledge after its separation from the body. By this, he seeks to conquer any doubts the members of his church may have had in relation to the debates with other Syriac communities of his era. He continues his argument claiming that since souls have knowledge, they can also sense the offerings made on their behalf, which are therefore necessary. This is most likely to have been addressed to those who knew about, or had been influenced by, the beliefs of the Christians of the Church of the East, as discussed in the introductions of Cyriacus’ and Timothy’s treatises concerning this topic. Concerning what souls encounter after the separation from the body, Cyriacus follows the more ascetical view, which is well 93

49-50.

Braun, Timothei Patriarchae I epistulae, Letter II, Chapter three, pp.

ESCHATOLOGY

157

presented in the account of Antony. This is not discussed by Timothy since he believes that souls have no knowledge, and therefore logically immediately discusses the location of the souls. Even if one includes all his patristic citations, Cyriacus never mentions whether paradise is the location of the souls, which Timothy believes, and claims that the good souls are inside paradise, and the evil outside. However, various locations are suggested by Cyriacus and his patristic citations.

3.5. APOCALYPSE Apocalyptic writings have a long history within the Syriac Churches.1 Not only were Biblical texts such as Daniel and the eschatological sections of the Gospels widely read and meditated on, but other texts such as the Apocalypse of (2) Baruch were also widely circulated. Moreover, in the sixth/seventh century the Revelation of St. John was twice translated into Syriac by Syrian Orthodox scholars,2 although it never formally achieved canonical status, and was cited only rarely.3 The arrival of Islam, however, and its later imposition of new taxes, stimulated a revival of the apocalyptic genre throughout the Middle East, and notably in the Syriac-speaking world. Of these, by far the best known and the most influential is the Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius of Olympus. Although it is attributed to bishop Methodius of Olympus (martyred 312), Brock4 shows that the author of Apocalyptic writings within the earliest Syriac community have been discussed by Possekel in her article titled, ‘Expectations of the End in Early Christianity’, Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies, v. 11 (Winter, 2008). She is looking at Bardaisan (d. 222), and his community, and compares this with the Odes of Solomon and the Acts of Thomas. Furthermore, in the article, ‘Apocalypticism in Early Christian Theology’, Daley also notes that Narsai (399-503) strongly emphasized traditional apocalyptic themes in his eighty-one surviving metrical homilies. 2 Cf. Metzger, B.M., The Early Versions of the New Testament. Their Origin, Transmission, and Limitations (Oxford, 1977); Gwynn, J., The Apocalypse of St. John, in a Syriac version hitherto unknown ... to which is prefixed an introductory dissertation on the Syriac versions of the Apocalypse (Dublin, 1897). 3 Daniel of Salah already quotes it in 542; cf. Taylor, Daniel of Salah: Commentary on the Psalms, Ps 9.15. It is cited just once by Cyriacus, BDP, XX.2, fol. 120ii. 4 Brock, Two Apocalyptic Texts of A.D. 691+, p. 222. 1

159

160

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

this work was probably writing in 685-692. This piece was originally written in Syriac, and is today preserved in manuscript VatSyr. 58,5 which dates to A.D. 1584. It was translated into Greek, which was then translated into Latin,6 and also later into Slavonic.7 This is one of the very few writings translated into Greek during the Arab period. The Syriac rubric is as followed: ‘A discourse composed by Methodius, bishop and martyr, concerning the succession of kings and the end of times.’ The discourse begins with the fall of Adam, and continues up to the time of its composition, the late seventh century. The author makes use of various non-biblical sources, including the Syriac Cave of Treasures,8 plus discussions of the end times. The Cave of Treasures emphasises a historical schema of six millennia, which is extended by Pseudo-Methodius to seven millennia. Several other Syriac apocalyptic works are either dependent on Pseudo-Methodius or share his world view, for example the book of Pseudo-Ephrem, On the last judgement, which introduces predictions concerning Gog and Magog,9 and the Apocalypse of Esdras.10 Another similar apocalyptic text is the Poem on Alexander the Great, which is mistakenly attributed to Jacob of Serugh (d. 521), but according to Hunnius it must have been written between 628 and 637. The text is very local in outlook, since it tells us about Alexander’s future deeds in Edessa.11 Also to be mentioned is the Apocalypse of John the Less, which is a short apocalypse dating from the end of the seventh or early eighth century, which is preserved in an

5 Reinink, G. J., Die syrische Apokalypse des Pseudo-Methodius (CSCO 540-1, SS 220-1, 1993). 6 Translated into Latin by Sackur, E., Sibyllinische Texte und Forschungen, Halle 1898. 7 Brock, Two Apocalyptic Texts of A.D. 691+, p. 222; Idem, pp. 34-35. 8 English translation by Budge, E. A. W., The book of the Cave of Treasures, London 1927. 9 Brock, ‘Syriac Sources for Seventh-Century History’, p. 35; T. J. Lamy, S. Ephraemi Hymni et Sermones, III, Malines 1889. 10 Brock, ‘Syriac Sources for Seventh-Century History’, p. 35; Chabot, J. B., “L'Apocalypse d'Esdras," Revue semitique II 1894. 11 Brock, ‘Syriac Sources for Seventh-Century History’, p. 35; Budge, E. A. W., The History of Alexander the Great, Cambridge 1899.

APOCALYPSE

161

eighth century manuscript in Harvard, Harvard Syr. 93.12 In this type of Syriac Apocalypse, the authors are clearly dependent on material of at least one form of historiography, or pseudohistoriography like the Cave of Treasures,13 which is then linked to episodes in the Bible. However, as we will see below, Cyriacus does not consult historiography to write his treatises, but is solely reliant on the Bible. Scholars have mostly treated Syriac apocalyptic writings as though they were of only one genre. However, I wish to suggest that Apocalypses in the Syriac tradition can be divided into at least two strands. The first and best known strand I will call the ‘Historical Apocalypse’. The key example is the Apocalypse of PseudoMethodius, and those later apocalypses which are dependent on it. The second category of Syriac Apocalypse I will call ‘Biblical Apocalypse’. This strand has only minimal, or no, influence from the Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius, and is less interested in historical schema, but instead is heavily dependent upon Biblical and especially Gospel eschatology. A good example of this is the Testament of our Lord, which discusses the signs of the end, and is reliant on chapter 24 of Matthew’s Gospel. There is at least one text that shares features of both strands, which is the Gospel of the Twelve Apostles, which Harris suggests dates back to the eighth century.14 This writing is said to be Monophysite because it is found in a manuscript accompanying extracts from the Doctrina Addai, and from the 38th discourse of Severus of Antioch against John Grammaticus, plus various canons.15 There are several sources for the Gospel of the Twelve Apostles. There is a clear influence from the Testament of our Lord. Both writings claim that only the believers who keep the commandments of 12 Brock, ‘Syriac Sources for Seventh-Century History’, pp. 35-6; Harris, J. R., The Gospel of the XII Apostles together with the Apocalypses of each one of them, Cambridge 1900. 13 Van Ginkel, Then End is Near, p. 214. A more detailed study of the sources of Pseudo-Methodius can be found in Reinink, Syrische Apokalypse. 14 Cf. Harris, J. R., The Gospel of the XII Apostles together with the Apocalypses of each one of them, Cambridge 1900. 15 Drijvers, The Gospel of the Twelve Apostles, p. 190.

162

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

God and the church will be redeemed at the end, when Antichrist will appear. Jesus informs his disciples about the signs of the end. The Gospel of the Twelve Apostles encourages a return to the church, and the Testament of our Lord encourages a return to the true belief.16 Another source of the Gospel of the Twelve Apostles is the Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius. They give a similar response to the new taxes gathered in the reign of ‘Abd Al-Malik (685-705) and to conversions to Islam, and they know about the same period of history. The only major difference is concerning the last empire, i.e. Pseudo-Methodius sees the Byzantine empire as the last empire, whereas, the Gospel of the Twelve Apostles reckons the Umayyad Caliphate as the last empire. Drijvers suggests that the Gospel of the Twelve Apostles must have been written between 692, when Pseudo-Methodius wrote, and 705, when ‘Abd Al-Malik’s reign ended, because he believes that the author lived at a time when the Umayyad Empire was at its most powerful.17 The Testament of our Lord, which I have also classified as a second category ‘Biblical Apocalypse’, was translated from Greek into Syriac by a Jacob ‘meskino’ in the year of the Greeks 998, i.e. A.D. 687.18 The Testament of our Lord is book 1-2 of the Syriac canonical collection, included in the later Syrian Orthodox Biblical canon, which is known as the ‘Clementine Octateuch’,19 i.e. the eight books, which it is claimed were gathered and organised by Clement of Rome.20 It is said that the apocalyptic section was addHarris, Gospel of the Twelve Apostles, pp. 16-17. Drijvers, The Gospel of the Twelve Apostles, pp. 210-213. 18 Rahmani, Testamentum, 148, ‫ ܠܝܥܩܘܒ ܡܣܟܢܐ‬.‫ܝܘܢܝܐ ܠܣܘܪܝܝܐ‬. ‫ܕܒ ܕܩܠ ܼܝܡܝܣ ܡܦܫܩ ܡܢ ܠܫܢܐ‬ ̄ ‫ܫܠܡ ܟܬܒܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܕܝܘܢܝܐ‬ ̄ ‫ܨܘܨܚ‬ ‫ܒܫܢܬ‬ 19 The Syriac Octateuch is composed of the following books. Books 1-2, the Testament of Our Lord; book 3, the Apostolic Church Order; book 4, the eighth book of the Apostolic Constitutions; books 5-8, the Apostolic Canons. Cf. H. Kaufhold, ‘La litterature pseudo-canonique syriaque’, in M. Debié et al. (eds.), Les Apocryphes syriaques (Paris, 2005), pp. 147-167. The whole of the Syriac Octateuch was translated into French by F. Nau, La version syriaque de l’Octateuque de Clément (Ancienne littérature canonique syriaque 4; Paris, 1913; reprint 1967). 20 Clement of Rome (about 30-96 A.D.). 16 17

APOCALYPSE

163

ed at the time of the translation of the rest of the Testament of our Lord into Syriac. Scholars who have dealt with the Testament of our Lord have mostly dated it very early. Rahmani dates it before the time of St. Irenaeus, 180 C.E.;21 Lagarde dates it to the middle of the third century; Nau dates it to the fourth century,22 and Arendzen to the early fifth century, though he notes that some elements in the apocalypse do not fit that dating.23 Cyriacus, as we shall see below, believes that it genuinely belongs to our Lord, but suggests that it was gathered by Clement of Rome. However, Drijvers argues that the translator Jacob is the famous Jacob of Edessa, and he also argues that Jacob of Edessa was the author of the Apocalypse in the introduction to the Testament of our Lord, and that Jacob is responsible for the compilation of the Clementine Octateuch in its Syriac form, as this was not known to Syriac scholars before Jacob’s time, not even to Severus of Antioch. Drijvers claims that Severus, who appears to cite it, in fact only knew the Apostolic Constitutions under the name of Clement bishop of Rome.24 I am not convinced, however, by Drijvers that we should identify the translator Jacob with Jacob of Edessa. The main problem with Drijvers’ argument is that he calls the author ‘monk Jacob’, when this never appears in the actual colophon of the manuscript. The title in the colophon is ‘Jacob Meskino’. Drijvers seems to take it for granted that the author is the monk Jacob of Edessa. However, this is historically problematic, since the year of the composition is 998 of the Greeks, i.e. 687,25 and the year in which Jacob was appointed bishop, was 684.26 One 21 Ignatius Ephraem II Rahmani, Testamentum domini nostri Jesu Christi, (Mainz, 1899, reprint Hildesheim, 1968). 22 Funk, F. X., Das Testament unseres Herrn und die verwandten Schriften, (Mainz 1901). 23 Arendzen, J. P., “A New Syriac Text of the Apocalyptic Part of the ‘Testament of the Lord’,” JTS 2 (1901), pp. 401-16. 24 Drijvers, ‘The Testament of the Lord: Jacob of Edessa's Response to Islam’, pp. 104, 107. 25 Rahmani, Testamentum, p. 148. 26 Drijvers, "The Testament of the Lord: Jacob of Edessa's Response to Islam," p. 107.

164

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

would therefore expect the scribe to call him ‘bishop Jacob’, and not ‘monk Jacob’. Secondly, why would Jacob compose the apocalypse section, and also compile the Clementine Octateuch, and no scribes admit to it? Also, considering the other writings of Jacob of Edessa, it seems highly unlikely to me that Jacob would be interested in compiling an apocalypse. Given that the Testament of our Lord was only translated into Syriac in 687, it is perhaps to be expected that some Syrian Orthodox Christians would question its authenticity and canonical status. It is pleasing, then, to find that just such questions have been preserved in treatise twenty-six, where they are put to Cyriacus by Walid and Yeshu'.27 Cyriacus summarises their question, and answers it, as follows: Your first request is; If the Testament of our Lord and God, and the order within it, are genuine, then why was the Eucharistic offering and the [rite of] holy baptism within it abandoned, and [why] did the teachers [of the church] write differently? Regarding this we say thus; before the ascension of our Lord and God in the flesh to heaven – to there where He who fills all [the universe] like the Father was existing in divine fashion, [a place] known as the paternal womb – he entrusted this Testament to his holy disciples,28 and through them to the universal glorified church, until His second coming, in which everyone will be rewarded according to his practices, in a righteous and unswerving judgement. In this [Testament] He instructed them about the setting up of altars and the ordering of churches,29 and He entrusted them with the Eucharistic offering30 and the consecration of myrrh31 and of holy baptism,32 with the necessary prayers.

Cyriacus, BDP, fol. 171ii-177ii. Cf. Testament of Our Lord, I.1. 29 Cf. Testament of Our Lord, I.19. 30 Cf. Testament of Our Lord, I.23-27. 31 Cf. Testament of Our Lord, I.24. 32 Cf. Testament of Our Lord, II.8-9. 27 28

APOCALYPSE

165

He also granted them [the apostles] in this [Testament] the prayers of ordination,33 and those others which are for the ordering of the children of the holy church, which are most useful – that is to say, necessary – to pronounce. This book of the Testament is called, ‘that of Eight Books’, [the Octateuch], through the division of its orders. In this numbering is included that [book] of the Apostolic Canons.34 It was gathered together by he of pious memory, Clement of Rome, and has come into the hands of us children of the church. I do not believe that anyone of those who think well could ever doubt that the Testament is genuine, that it is of our Lord.”35

Cyriacus, therefore, accepted that the Testament was genuinely composed by Christ, and had been preserved by the earliest apostles, and to the best of my knowledge he is the earliest known Syrian Orthodox writer to declare this explicitly. He is thus able to use it, as we shall see, as a canonical biblical source, alongside the Gospel of Matthew, in his apocalyptic treatises. In this he anticipates the inclusion of the Testament in the Syrian Orthodox biblical canon by Bar Hebraeus in the thirteenth century,36 and again he may be the earliest attested Syrian theologian to do this. Cyriacus wrote three treatises on the Apocalypse, which are found in Cyriacus’ BDP, treatises twenty-one,37 twenty-two,38 and 33 Cf. Testament of Our Lord, I.21 (bishops); 30 (priests); 38 (deacons); 41 (widows); 44 (subdeacons); 45 (readers). 34 The Apostolic Canons constitute books 5-8. 35 Cyriacus, BDP, XXVI, fol. 172i-172ii. 36 Bar Hebraeus lists the Syrian Orthodox New Testament canon as follows: The four Gospels; Fourteen letters of Paul; two letters of Peter; Three letters of John; One letter of James; One letter of Jude; Two letters of Clement; Eight books of the Mysteries of Clement; and the Acts of the Apostles, See Bedjan, Nomocanon Gregorii Barhebraei, pp. 105-106; Çiçek, Nomocanon of Bar-Hebraeus, p. 62. 37 Cyriacus, BDP, XXI.1, fol. 131i-135i, ̈ ‫ܥܠ ܐܟܠ ܩܪܨܐ ܘܡ‬ ‫ܐܬܛܝܒܬ܆‬ ̇ ‫ܓܗܢܐ ܘܕܡܛܠܬܗܘܢ‬ ‫ܐܠܟܘܗܝ܆ ܘܕܡܢܐ ܗܝ‬ ܼ .̇‫ܘܕܠܥܘܕܪܢܐ ܕܡܠܟܘܬܐ ܐܬܛ ܼܝܒܬ‬

166

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

twenty-three.39 Cyriacus’ listed sources for the apocalyptic treatises are the Bible, mainly chapter twenty-four of Matthew’s Gospel, and the Testament of our Lord, which suggests that Cyriacus fits into the second strand of Syriac Apocalypse, mentioned above. He does not make use of any secular history; instead he dedicates almost the whole of treatise nineteen40 to the Bible, as a source of historiography, which is divided into eight treatises, and seven periods, which makes this the longest treatise of his preserved theological treatises. Regarding the division of millennia, Cyriacus is aware of the early Syriac tradition found in the Cave of Treasures. (Cyriacus cites pseudepigraphical traditions which are also reflected in the Cave of Treasures). However, Cyriacus does not use millennia (i.e. 1000 yrs), but instead he uses the Syriac words ‫ܡܢܬܐ ܕܙܒܢܐ‬, which means ‘period of time’. Treatise nineteen, which is divided into eight chapters, discusses the role of Divine Providence from the time of the beginning of our creation until the end of the world. Chapters one to five cover the period from the beginning of our creation until Christ, as in the Cave of Treasures. Chapter six is an account of Christ, i.e. the New Testament, and chapter seven covers the peri“Concerning the Accuser and his angels, and what Gehenna is, and that it was prepared for them, and was prepared for the benefit of the Kingdom;” Cyriacus, BDP, XXI.2, fol. 135i-139i, ̈ ܿ ‫ܥܒܕ ܐܠܗܐ܇ ܚܕܐ ܟܝܬ‬ ܼ ‫ܠܘܩܒܠ ܗܢܘܢ ܕܐܡ̈ܪܝܢ ܕܬ̈ܪܝܢ ܗܘܝܐ ܐܘܟܝܬ ܒ̈ܪܝܬܐ‬ :‫ܠܡܠܟܘܬܐ ܘܐܚܪܬܐ ܠܓܗܢܐ‬ “Against those who say that God made two [kinds of] beings or creatures, one [destined] for the Kingdom and the other for Gehenna.” 38 Cyriacus, BDP, XXII, fol. 139i-155i, .‫ ܒܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܡܛܠ ܐܢܛܝܟܪܝܣܛܘܣ ܘܡܐܬܝܬܗ ܕܡܪܝܐ‬.‫ܡܢ ܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ ܕܡܬܝ‬ “From Mathew's gospel, those matters concerning the Antichrist, and the Lords' coming.” 39 Cyriacus, BDP, XXIII, fol. 155i-162i, ‫ܕܢܫܬܒܩ ܐܢܛܝܟܪܝܣܛܘܣ ܕܢܐܬܐ܇ ܟܕ ܟܠܗ‬ ‫ܠܘܩܒܠ ܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܐܡ̈ܪܝܢ ܕܐܠ ܘ݀ܐܠ‬ ܼ .‫ܗܢܐ ܐܒܕܢܐ ܕܡܬܐܡܪ ܗ݀ܘܐ ܒܡܐܬܝܬܗ‬ “Against those who say it is inappropriate for the Antichrist to be allowed to come given that all this destruction that is mentioned will come to pass on his arrival.” 40 Cyriacus, BDP, XIX, fol. 83i-113i.

APOCALYPSE

167

od of the holy teachers, i.e. the Church until the end. Chapter eight contains eleven reasons for the testing and suffering of the saints. A more detailed overview of treatise nineteen is provided in chapter 3.2.4. Proof of this by examination of all human history. Treatise twenty, which intervenes between this and the apocalyptic treatises, contains discussions on Eschatology, which has been discussed above in chapter 3.4. Eschatology: The Middle State of Souls, since it is in the form of three questions asked by Cyriacus’ secretary, Habib, and deals with the individual soul and not the end of the world in general.

3.5.1. THE PURPOSE OF GEHENNA In the first chapter of treatise twenty-one Cyriacus explains the origins of the fall of the Accuser and his angels, and of Gehenna (‫ )ܓܗܢܐ‬itself, and his main purpose appears to be to deny that there was an eternal dualism in creation, that good and evil were there from the start, and that all creatures were eternally assigned to one or the other. He also wants to demonstrate that the good God did not condemn the evil spirits to Gehenna from the beginning, but that they were originally part of his good creation, shining with light and other blessings, and fell away from this through their own will. His love of creation, and His desire that all return to Him, was extended to them also. He begins by stating that when God brought the angels into being, He positioned the Accuser (‫ )ܐܟܠܩܪܨܐ‬among the Cherubim,41 and the other angels who eventually fell in a variety of ranks in the celestial hierarchy. In these positions they shared all the same blessings as the other spiritual beings, even though God knew that they would eventually rebel. The Accuser and his angels refused to acknowledge that God was the origin of their splendour, and so 41 Cyriacus employs the Syriac term ‫ ܐܟܠ ܩܪܨܐ‬, literally ‘the eater of the morsel’, for Satan, which can be translated as ‘accuser’, ‘slanderer’, and ‘adversary’. Hereafter, I will be using the word ‘Accuser’ for Satan. See Payne Smith, J., A Compendious Syriac Dictionary, pp. 16, 521; Bar Hebraeus has a further explanation of why Satan is called the Accuser, ‘the eater of the morsel’, saying “God knows that, because he knows that when you eat it you will be like gods.” See BHLS, p. 557; Gen 3:05.

168

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

became arrogant and cruel, creatures of darkness rather than light. They fell away from God through their own will, and were bound by chains of darkness. It was at this point only that Gehenna was prepared for them, not simply as a punishment, but as a contrast with heaven, and in order to encourage them to repent and to return to God, asking for His forgiveness.42 Gehenna was thus intended to be for the benefit of the fallen angels, and was not present as an eternal part of creation, and neither was it prepared in the beginning for humans. Cyriacus explains that the Accuser and his angels were granted an extensive, but limited, time for repentance for the re-attainment of their former state, namely, from the beginning of their fall away from the divine household until the time of the salvific cross on which Christ, the Son of God, was sacrificed. But since the Accuser and his angels did not repent during this time, they too were justly killed and died on the Cross of our Lord, and hence they became the heirs of Gehenna. Cyriacus then explains that since the Accuser and his angels did not repent during all this time, they cannot now repent, or re-attain their original place, since there is no repentance after death, and this also applies to us human beings.43 This idea that the Accuser and the demons had a limited period only in which they could repent, i.e. from their fall to the crucifixion of Christ, is not known to me from any other Syriac source. It is, however, entirely in line with Cyriacus’ larger theology, namely that all evil and suffering in the world is due to creatures exercising their free will, and that God chooses not to intervene in this, but gives them every opportunity to repent, up to the moment of their death. In so arguing Cyriacus underlines the role of Divine Providence in creation, and avoids both the argument that God condemns part of creation, from the beginning, to evil and punishment, and also the argument advanced by Origenists that finally all would be saved, including wicked humans and demons. Bar 42 The avoidance of punishment as an incentive for doing good is also discussed by Bar Hebraeus, in his Book of the Dove, (p. 5), where he discusses the reasons for Asceticism, of which the lowest is the fear of tortures. 43 Cyriacus, BDP, XXI.1, fol. 132i-133ii.

APOCALYPSE

169

Hebraeus approaches the problem in a slightly different way. He states that “no one, who comprehends the righteousness of God, mercy upon His grace, can deny that the demons would not obtain mercy if they would repent.”44 Later on, Bar Hebraeus adds; “when we thus read the holy books, we continue saying, demons, according to their nature are not uninfluenced by the good, which is the returning to God, since they have freedom. As they are capable of returning, they are also capable of not returning, nevertheless, they are not evil and not returning by nature,”45 but “like someone who has been raised up and lived in darkness for a long period, if it happens that he is caught by the sun, suddenly his sight will be afflicted, and he will immediately run away and crawl into the dark depths and be delighted, so also the same principle applies to the demons, who do not endure the light of the Divine rays, but live in unmitigated darkness and will therefore remain forever without repenting. Even though the not returning is unnatural to them, it is said, that an old habit is the second nature.”46 So Bar Hebraeus accepts that God would have had mercy on the demons if they had repented, although he does not fix a limited period for this as Cyriacus does, but he does not believe that demons will ever choose to repent, as they have truly transformed themselves into creatures of darkness. Cyriacus then visualises Gehenna, saying: Now Gehenna is a torturing fire which is self-igniting and self-fanning in order to torture the wicked, having no need at all of wood or of kindling with which to catch fire, [and] it is a dark [fire] without flashing [flames], and it brings in itself all the torments which have been previously decreed. But it was prepared for the Accuser and for his angels for [their] aid, even though they have made it a thing of torment for themselves, in that they desired by their own will to become its heirs and not [heirs] of the blessed delights [of heaven].47

BHLS, p. 571. BHLS, p. 572. 46 BHLS, pp. 572-3. 47 Cyriacus, BDP, XXI.1, fol. 133ii-134i. 44 45

170

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

Cyriacus bases this, in part, on Matthew 25:41, “Go away from me, you cursed, to the eternal fire, which is prepared for the Accuser and for his angels!”, and this is also his proof that Gehenna was not originally prepared for human beings, but for the Accuser and his angels.

3.5.2. AGAINST PREDESTINATION In the second chapter of treatise twenty-one, Cyriacus argues against those who say that God made two kinds of creatures, those destined for the Kingdom and those for Gehenna. I have not been able to identify the specific opponents Cyriacus was targetting, although he may have had in mind either dualistic religions and sects (whether Manichees or Zoroastrians), or contemporary Islamic groups who believed in predestination, and argued that the good or evil destiny of humans was decided before their birth. Cyriacus claims that God, in His Divine Providence, created each creature, both rational and irrational, to be delighted in its existence, which is the most appropriate for it, and He did not bring anything into being to be tortured. This can be seen in human beings, terrestrial animals, and birds. They are all provided life-giving air to breathe. Also the fishes in the sea live a good life in the water, though they can not survive on land, and vice versa for humans and animals in the sea. Thus, the place which is a delight for some is torture for others. God invited rational beings to the Kingdom of Heaven, which is filled with blessings and delights. Thus they prepare themselves for this by living virtuously. Gehenna was prepared for its support, so that they would fear it and long for the Kingdom, which they were created to inherit.48 However, some people become so twisted by their evil desires and practices that they long for Gehenna, although they were not created for it, and seek out the torments that inevitably await those who are not created for such an environment. Cyriacus then turns on his anonymous opponents: It was not for [Gehenna] that they were created, as some people have said, as though [living] beings, or rather creatures, 48

Cyriacus, BDP, XXI.2, fol. 134ii-138i.

APOCALYPSE

171

were divided up and assigned to the Kingdom or to Gehenna from their creation. And they are so presumptuous as to say that those who were created for Gehenna are not able to become heirs of the Kingdom, however much they rise in virtues, and neither can those who were created for the Kingdom become heirs of Gehenna, even if they are captivated by a myriad of foulnesses, and by so doing [such people] remove [our] natural free will, and enslave the nature of free beings to the compulsions of slavery.49

Such a position is, of course, totally incompatible with Cyriacus’ whole theology of Divine Providence, and he rejects it totally.

3.5.3. CONCERNING THE ANTICHRIST Cyriacus devotes the whole of treatise twenty-two to an interpretation of the signs of the coming of the Antichrist and of Christ himself. This follows quite naturally from his historical overview of Divine Providence from the moment of the creation through to the end of the world, and then his series of reflections on the last things, whether the fate of the soul after death and the nature and purpose of Gehenna, or, as here, the eschaton and last days. As has already been mentioned, the New Testament Book of Revelation, although translated twice into Syriac by Syrian Orthodox writers, was not included among the canonical or authorative books of the Syriac-speaking churches. Cyriacus’ main source for his account of the eschaton is thus the Gospel of Matthew (supplemented by the Testament of Our Lord), and in particular chapter twenty-four, and in this section he effectively provides a commentary on this chapter, citing and explaining each verse in order. Matthew was a Gospel that clearly attracted Cyriacus’ particular attention, because in his extant writings we see that he also provided commentaries or homilies on Mt 13:47-52, the parable of the net that was cast into the sea, expounded in treatise twenty-four, and Mt 21:33-46, the parable of the vineyard of the beloved, expounded in a homily that is included in the appendix to this study. The sources of his exegesis are not yet known, although his allegor49

Cyriacus, BDP, XXI.2, fol. 138i-138ii.

172

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

ical interpretation of Christ’s saying ‘Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are breast-feeding in those days’50 appears to derive from Cyril of Alexandria’s commentary on Matthew, which now survives only in Greek fragments,51 and this suggests that other allegorical interpretations in Cyriacus’ text may also have originated in passages of Cyril’s commentary which are now lost, although quite possibly received indirectly, through the Syriac exegetical tradition,52 since the same exegesis is also to be found in the later commentary on Matthew of Dionysius bar Salibi. Another tradition found in Cyriacus, that the Antichrist would reign for three and a half years, is said by Bar Salibi to have come from John Chrysostom. Cyriacus’ purpose in writing this treatise, as becomes clear from the final pages, is to rouse his hearers from ‘the sleep of negligence’, and to encourage them to engage in good works in anticipation of the coming of Christ. He addresses all Christian believers, and yet it is clear that he is particularly concerned about the clergy and the senior leaders of the church: So then, let us watch, according to the Lord’s command, and let us await that hour of His coming with unending good deeds. Even more, then, those who have been entrusted with the stewardship of the holy people by their Lord.53 This is a common theme in Cyriacus’ writings and indeed his life, seen both in his theological dissertations and in his attempts to impose discipline on the church in his numerous canonical edicts. In the following treatise, twenty-three, he writes: Consider, you who are discerning and not unjust, the familiar multitudes of the holy church, and the different ranks among Mt 24:19. Cf. PG 72:365-474, and J. Reuss, Matthäus-Kommentare aus der griechischen Kirche (Texte und Untersuchungen 61; Berlin, 1957), pp. 153269. 52 Cf. A. Baumstark, ‘Die Evangelienexegese der syrischen Monophysiten’, Oriens Christianus 2 (1902), pp. 151-69, and J.C. McCullough, ‘Early Syriac Commentaries on the New Testament’, NESTTR 5 (1982) 14-33, 79-126. 53 Cyriacus, BDP, XXII, fol. 152ii. 50 51

APOCALYPSE

173

them, those who have been called by our Saviour to the angelic leadership. Consider, then, and see if there is anyone—apart from a [very] few—who has preserved the order and rank which were set aside for him, but has [not instead] angered God through this, and has grieved His elect angels and the spirits of the just.54

If such a call to penitence and a change of behaviour is to be effective then the speaker must persuade his hearers that the eschaton is indeed a reality that will soon come to pass, and so Cyriacus writes: However, let them not say in their heart like that evil servant, or, to speak more exactly, let us [not] say in our heart, that our Lord is delayed in coming, ... never supposing that our leadership is under judgement, but [presuming] that it is exempt and without judgement, like those who do not believe in the coming of their Lord, or in the retributions that are promised for everyone, lest our Lord come at an hour or on a day that we do not expect, and should apprehend us in such things...55

But this still leaves open the possibility that Cyriacus, like his successor Dionysios of Tellmahre,56 really did believe that the end was near, and from his words this seems quite likely. He writes: For truly false Messiahs have come, and they have deceived many... wars have indeed been heard from every place, and the rumour of battles, in which mighty warriors have been destroyed, and even now they are heard with horror. For people has risen against people, and also kingdom against kingdom, from the moment of the utterance of the saying until now, without abating. And there have also been unspeakable famines and plagues, and earthquakes in various places, both in this contemporary time and in previous times. But he said, ‘Do not be troubled when you see things such as these. For all the-

Cyriacus, BDP, XXIII, fol. 160ii. Cyriacus, BDP, XXII, fol. 153i-153ii. 56 Cf. Palmer, The Seventh century in the West-Syrian Chronicles, pp. 11154 55

221.

174

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP se things must happen, but the end is not yet.’57 Now all these things, then, are ‘the beginning of the birth-pangs of the end’.58

But Cyriacus then goes further: The remainder of its birth-pangs are those which are mentioned subsequently in the order of the discourse,59 up to the epiphany and revelation of the coming of the Teacher of Truth, those which have already been fulfilled and led to the abominable sign of desolation.60 .... And behold, henceforth the end has drawn near, and the abominable sign has already risen up at the gate to be revealed, and it hastens the end through the might of its wickedness. ‘When, then, you have seen the abominable sign of desolation, which was mentioned in the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place, may the one who reads understand.’61 Now the abominable sign of desolation of the whole world is in truth the Antichrist, who carefully [and] deceitfully runs to the house of God, and there he will sit just like God, desiring to make everyone a part of his destruction. Here, O discerning ones, consider the matter twice!62

So here then Cyriacus is clear that the Antichrist is close at hand, and that all the conditions necessary for his coming have been fulfilled. But how is the reference to the Antichrist running and sitting in the house of God to be understood? Is this just a straightforward repetition of the Gospel passages, or is there some reference here to the contemporary world, and perhaps even to continued reaction in his own day to the building of the Dome of the Rock by the Umayyad caliph ‘Abd al-Malik in 691/2 which provoked such strong theological reactions from contemporary Syriac Christian

Mt 24:6. Cyriacus, BDP, XXII, fol. 141i-142i; Cf. Mt 24:8. 59 i.e. Mt 24:9-14 (which states, ‘and then the end will come’), or 15, which refers to the abominable sign of desolation. 60 Cf. Mt 24:15; Dan 11.31. As will become clear below, Cyriacus identifies the abominable sign of desolation with the Antichrist. 61 Mt 24:15. 62 Cyriacus, BDP, XXII, fol. 142i-143i. 57 58

APOCALYPSE

175

writers?63 Unfortunately Cyriacus is so cautious in his writing,—and of course with good reason—that it is not even clear whether he alludes to the arrival and spread of Islam in this treatise, although some passages might suggest that he does have Islam in mind, but if so, perhaps as only one threat to be considered, along with rival Christian groups: For truly false messiahs have come, and they have deceived many. Not only those from outside and strangers, but also those leaders of heresies who have come out from the church. And many messiahs have preached to many, and they have deceived many peoples with their lies. Some of these have passed away and have come to an end, but some have been inspirational among many [people] and they have been carried away by their error, and they make this grow through [further] additions, whilst they await him [i.e. the Accuser] who works corruption within them through things such as these, that he might be revealed in order to perfect their whole error, with more blatant and impudent blasphemies, and with the limitless destruction of the peoples, through his incomparable error.64

And a little later he adds the rather vague comment: ‘False prophets have also arisen, and have deceived many.’65 Islam may have been a real challenge to his community, and may have been understood as one of the signs of the eschaton and the coming of the Antichrist, but Cyriacus was not going to discuss this openly, though he was clearly aware that he and his fellow priests might have to defend their beliefs with their own lives: And let us be diligent about the flock which has been entrusted into our hands, with every kind of beneficial piloting, and if

63 Cf. G.J. Reinink, ‘Early Christian Reactions to the Building of the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem’', Christianskij Vostok II (VIII) (2001), pp.227-241. 64 Cyriacus, BDP, XXII, fol. 141i-141ii. 65 Cyriacus, BDP, XXII, fol. 142ii.

176

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP this also be required, that we shed even our very blood on behalf of [the flock], let us give this cheerfully and unresistingly.66

And what of the Antichrist himself? Many Christian writers argue about whether he will be a human agent of Satan, or Satan himself. Cyriacus seems to incline towards the first option. He begins his treatise by citing New Testament references to the Antichrist where he is called ‘the man of sin’,67 and ‘the son of perdition’,68 as well as ‘Antichrist’.69 These all suggest that the Antichrist is human, although unlike other Syriac authors such as Moshe bar Kipho and Dionysius bar Salibi he does not discuss traditions that he would come from certain of the tribes of Israel, or that he would have a Roman father and a Jewish mother. He is clear however that Satan will be working through the Antichrist: Oh the heroism of the soul of the martyrs at that time, which surpasses all the heroism and valour of earlier martyrs, since they were not fighting as the earlier martyrs with kings such as those persecutors who were themselves enslaved by the Accuser, but with Satan himself, the dragon, the prince of evil, he who is seen perfectly in the person [qnoma] of the Antichrist, with all his different kinds of evils!70

The Antichrist’s powers will be distinctly limited, despite Satan’s guidance: Those who are going to appear together with the Antichrist as his servants at that time ... will attempt to destroy all beneath heaven, with destructive signs and portents, like those which he [the Antichrist] manifests through his sorcery and his magery,71—by illusion [only] I say, and by entrancing the misleading eyes.72

Cyriacus, BDP, XXII, fol. 154i. 2 Thess 2:3 68 2 Thess 2:3, Jn 17:12 69 1 Jn 2:18 (‫ܕܓܐܠ‬ ̇ ‫ ;)ܡܫܝܚܐ‬2 Jn 7 (‫)ܐܢܛܝܟܪܝܣܛܘܣ‬ 70 Cyriacus, BDP, XXII, fol. 146ii. 71 Literally, ‘his Chaldaeanism’. 72 Cyriacus, BDP, XXII, fol. 148i-148ii. 66 67

APOCALYPSE

177

Cyriacus wanted to be able to use the dramatic description of the Antichrist provided in the Testament of Our Lord, but he had a problem in doing this because there the Antichrist and Satan are identified, and so Cyriacus suggests that Christ (the supposed author of the Testament) called him Satan just to increase the terror of His words: However, because the exhortations and warnings about the Antichrist in the Gospel were not sufficient for that Caring One, He brings him into His Testament, and also depicts and displays his likenesses to everyone. ... For in His Testament He calls this one [i.e. the Antichrist] Satan, so that everybody will be afraid of him, whilst declaring that he is the Enemy and the Destroyer.73

By this simple device Cyriacus is able to harmonise two rival traditions about the identity of the Antichrist, keeping Satan and Antichrist separate, but closely linked.

3.5.4. WHY GOD PERMITS THE ANTICHRIST TO COME In treatise twenty-three, Cyriacus argues against those who say it is incompatible with Divine Providence for the Antichrist to be allowed to come given all the horrors and destruction that have been foretold to occur on his arrival.74 Cyriacus begins by reminding the reader that God has always protected humanity, which was created in His divine image, against the jealous and violent desires of Satan who longed to annihilate these new creatures which had been given such favour before God. From the time of Adam and Eve on he has sought ways to have humanity punished and destroyed, but God has always denied Satan authority over any except those who of their own free will subject themselves to him. And although bound to punish humanity for their sins, God has always used these punishments as a form of medicine that would in fact restore the sick creation to health. Cyriacus notes that God brought the flood against human nature due to the excess of their sinning, and through it put an end to 73 74

Cyriacus, BDP, XXII, fol. 154i. Cyriacus, BDP, XXIII, fol. 155i-162i.

178

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

the wicked ones of that time,75 which acted as a cure for the survivors, Noah and his family, who could make a new beginning. Afterwards God made use of teachers and prophets to educate and lead the people, and eventually, ‘when the horn of the wicked one grew very strong’,76 God the Word was revealed ‘so that He might save His creation from destruction and renew [it], and might give it the hope of the resurrection and of incorruption.’ For Cyriacus all of these actions reveal God’s loving care for humanity, and his total respect for human free will. It also explains why God has permitted the Antichrist to come and rule over humanity at the end of time, and why God will allow those who have chosen to subject themselves to Satan by their own free will to be subject to the Antichrist and to perish with him. The righteous too will suffer, but this will be a purification through which they will be proved worthy of eternal life and bliss: Antichrist is also justly allowed to come in anger, so that through him,—as though through a destructive earthquake that [strikes] cities and their inhabitants,—all the wicked and the unrepentant sinners, those who dare to go to the depths of evil actions, should perish, and should receive total annihilation from this life here, and should be deemed worthy of eternal torments together with the Antichrist, and through this the earth may be delivered and rested from the wickednesses and evils which are worked upon it. But the righteous will be tried by him like gold in a furnace, and will receive rewards for their tribulations and labours in the eternal light, where there are endless joys and noetic and ineffable delights.77

Cyriacus then goes further, and after discussing the ways in which even within the Christian community there were many clergy and laypeople who had angered God through their corruption and rebellion, he adds:

Cyriacus, BDP, XXIII, fol. 156ii. Cf. Dan 7:8, 21? 77 Cyriacus, BDP, XXIII, fol. 159ii-160i. 75 76

APOCALYPSE

179

So do these things not justly lead the Antichrist to come in anger? Do these things not justly release him who has long been bound so that he might carry out his anger by his free will?78

The coming of the Antichrist and his accompanying horrors is thus not a proof of God’s abandonment of his people, but, on the contrary, evidence of his continued love and justice. It is a necessary step for the purification of humanity, and the reward of all those who have remain faithful and righteous.

3.5.5. CONCLUSION Cyriacus’ apocalyptic treatises show remarkably little influence from earlier Syriac apocalypses of the historical type, such as Pseudo-Methodius, but are instead heavily dependent upon the Gospel apocalypses and related biblical texts, such as the Testament of Our Lord which had achieved authorative canonical status within the Syrian Orthodox church a few years earlier. Cyriacus thus makes no references and very few allusions to the contemporary political or societal context in which he was living. If the expansion of Islam is referred to, it is in a most oblique and subtle fashion. This parallels his discussion of theological ideas elsewhere in the BDP, where there is no evidence of direct engagement with contemporary Islamic schools of thought, but only traces of more subtle influences from contemporary modes of thought. In his apocalyptic treatises, therefore, despite his apparent belief that the end time had begun, and that the Antichrist was on the point of arriving, there is no hint that he was anticipating the overthrow of Islamic rule, or the arrival of a new Christian king. Instead his focus is largely on the traditional biblical and ecclesiastical categories of sinners and the righteous, with the former being vindicated and rewarded after a period of suffering, and the latter being annihilated. The only category of people picked out for particularly fierce criticism is his fellow Christian clergy, both priests and bishops, and this in several treatises. This does not necessarily imply that Cyriacus was entirely inward-looking, with no great interest in non-ecclesiastical affairs, but it certainly suggests that he was not prepared to address such issues 78

Cyriacus, BDP, XXIII, fol. 161ii.

180

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

in public discourses, and it also ties in with his energetic attempts to reform the church of his day. It could be argued, then, that canon law and apocalyptic are both just tools used by Cyriacus to pursue his reforming agenda, although this would perhaps be unfair to his genuine theological concern, evident throughout theses treatises, to defend God and his providential care for humanity at all stages of history, from creation to the eschaton and beyond.

4.1.

PATRISTIC CITATIONS IN THE BDP

As part of an investigation into Cyriacus’ theological formation and the writers who influenced him, it is essential to examine the authors who are explicitly named or cited in his BDP. The purpose of this examination is to extract various types of data from the named citations. Firstly, to determine whether Cyriacus consulted extant Syriac translations, or whether he consulted the Greek versions directly. Secondly, to determine whether Cyriacus gathered his own citations, or exploited pre-existing collections of citations, commonly referred to as florilegia. Using this method, I hope to shed some light on Cyriacus’ language skills; his theological methodology, in comparison with his contemporaries; his knowledge of earlier writings on related subjects and the texts available to a senior Syrian Orthodox theologian in the late eighth/early ninth century. Note will also be taken of significant textual variants within these citations, but because this is of limited value for a study of Cyriacus, this will take secondary importance in this analysis. Individual citations from the fathers within the treatises are not frequent. However some citations are found within treatises fourteen, seventeen, eighteen and twenty. The question that strikes the reader is why did Cyriacus only provide patristic citations within the mentioned treatises? These treatises deal with the following topics: Various Deaths; Free Will; Pre-determined time of Death; and Eschatology. One possible answer is that these subjects were traditional topics of Syriac theological debate, and so collections of appropriate citations were easily available – unlike the situation with contemporary theological debates dealing with fate, etc. Note that the citations will be examined in the order in which they are found in the treatises of Cyriacus’ BDP. I have compared these citations with florilegium B.L. Add. 12155, which is called: A Volume of Demonstrations from the holy Fa183

184

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

thers against Various Heresies.1 This is one of the largest available Syrian Orthodox florilegia, and therefore a good choice for comparison. I have also compared Cyriacus’ citations with those found in other Syrian Orthodox writers, namely: Moshe bar Kipho, Book of the Soul (hence forward MBKS),2 and his book on Free Will and God’s Providence (hence forward MBKDP),3 Anton of Tagrit, On God’s Good Providence,4 and Bar Hebraeus, The Lamp of Sanctuaries (hence forward BHLS).5 This is to establish whether later authors have consulted Cyriacus’ BDP or whether they have all consulted different florilegia which go back to a common source. Before beginning, it is perhaps worth repeating here that, as we have seen in the previous section, Cyriacus appears to have had direct access to the Syriac text of the Testament of Our Lord which, although often considered by scholars as a patristic composition, he regarded as having been genuinely entrusted by Christ to his apostles, and thus to be part of the New Testament canon. (His biblical citations all seem to be based on the Peshitta, rather than the Syro-Hexaplaric and Harklean versions, with the exception of the biblical citations of the Old Testament in chapter one of treatise eighteen where Cyriacus quotes a series of passages from the Syro-Hexaplar, which is probably a good sign that they have been taken from an extant florilegium, and one which postdates the midseventh century.) 1 B.L. Add. 12155, Wright, Catalogue, v. II, pp. 921-955, Wright dates this manuscript of the 7th/8th century, the title in Syriac is as follows, ̈ ̈ ̈ ‫ ;ܦܢܩܝܬܐ‬Other Syri.[‫ܡܫܚـ]ـܠܦܬܐ‬ ‫ܕܐܒܗܬܐ ̈ܩܕܝܫܐ܆ ܕܠܘܩܒܠ ܗ̈ܪܣܝܣ‬ ‫ܕܬܚܘܝܬܐ‬ ac florilegia preserved in manuscripts which are similar to this, but in different sizes are, B.L. Add. 14532, Wright, Catalogue, v. II, p. 955; B.L. Add. 14533, Wright, Catalogue, v. II, p. 967; B.L. Add. 12154, Wright, Catalogue, v. II, p. 976; B.L. Add. 17193, Wright, Catalogue, v. II, p. 989; B.L. Add. 17194, Wright, Catalogue, v. II, p. 1002; B.L. Add. 14538, Wright, Catalogue, v. II, p. 1003; B.L. Add. 17191, Wright, Catalogue, v. II. p. 1008. 2 MBKS, VatSyr 147, fol. 1b-90a. 3 MBKDP, B.L. Add. 14,731, fol. 1a-96b; Wright, Catalogue, v. II, pp. 853-5. 4 Anton of Tagrit, On God’s Good Providence, B.L. Add. 14726, fol. 87b125a; Wright, Catalogue, v. II, p. 617-8. 5 Bar Hebraeus, ed. Çiçek, Y. Y., Lamp of Sanctuaries, Holland 1997.

PATRISTIC CITATIONS IN THE BDP

185

4.1.1. TREATISE FOURTEEN, CHAPTER THREE There are only two citations found in chapter three of treatise fourteen, which discusses the influence of Divine Providence upon various kinds of death. The rubric Cyriacus employs is, Concerning the various plagues which affect various kinds and age-groups [of people], and whether each person departs from life in this world at his own [determined] end or not, and whether a fixed end is determined by God [for people] in general, or for each person individually.6 Both citations are homilies on Nicomedia, belonging to Ephrem the Syrian. Significantly, neither of them has been preserved in Syriac or Armenian.7 Identical citations are found in MBKDP (as illustrated in Table A), in discourse III, chapter two.8 Comparing these citations of Cyriacus’ BDP with MBKDP, they are of exactly the same length, as illustrated in Table B. The citations are also clustered together in both cases. For this reason it can confidently be established that they were both using florilegia which were either identical, or go back to an identical source. These passages are not found, however, in B.L. Add. 12155. Citations 1. Ephrem the Syrian, First Homily on Nicomedia. 2. Ephrem the Syrian, First Homily on Nicomedia.

6 Cyriacus, BDP, XIV.2, fol. 41ii, ̈ ̈ ‫ܡܛܠ‬ ̈ ‫ܘܩܘܡܬܐ܆ ܘܕܐܢ ܟܠ ܐܢܫ‬ ‫ܓܢܣܐ ̈ܡܫܚܠܦܐ‬ ‫ܡܘܬܢܐ ̈ܡܫܚܠܦܐ ܕܥܠ‬ ܿ ‫ܒܩܨܗ‬ ‫ܡܫܢܐ ܡܢ ̈ܚܝܐ ܕܬܢܢ ܐܘ ܐܠ܇ ܘܕܐܢ ܩܨܐ ܝܕܝܥܐ ܥܠ ܓܘܐ ܼܚܪܝܩ ܡܢ‬ ‫܀‬.‫ܐܠܗܐ܇ ܐܘ ܠܟܠܚܕ ܕܝܠܢܐܝܬ‬ 7 For the remaining Armenian text of Ephrem the Syrian’s Homilies on Nicomedia, See ed. in Armenian, Charles Renoux, PO 37, parts 2 and 3, 1975. There are other Syriac fragments & citations cited in the introduction of Renoux, but these do not include these citations. 8 MBKDP, B.L. Add. 14731, III.2, fol. 22b-71b, The Syriac title, ܿ ‫ܩܦܐܠܘܢ ܕܬ̈ܪܝܢ‬ ̈ ‫ ܕܠܟܠܚܕ ܡܢ‬.‫ܚܘܐ‬ .‫ ܩܨܐ ܝܕܝܥܐ ܕܝܠܢܐܝܬ ܡܬܚܡ‬.‫ܢܫܐ‬ ‫ܕܡ‬ ܼ ‫ܒܢܝ‬ ܼ ܿ ‫ ܐܠ‬:‫ ܠܢ ܕܝܢ‬.‫ܓܐܠ ܘܝܕܝܥ‬ ‫ܗܘ ܕܝܢ‬ ܼ ‫ ܐܠܠܗܐ ܡܢ‬.‫ܩܨܐ‬ ܼ ܼ .‫ܘܒܩܨܗ ܟܠܚܕ ܿܚܙܩ ܡܢ ̈ܚܝܐ ܕܬܢܢ‬ ܿ ‫ ܡܟܣ ܕܝܢ܆ ܘܠܗܢܘܢ ܕܐܡܪܝܢ‬.‫ ܒܪܡ ܕܝܢ ܚܪܝܩ܆ ܘܦܣܝܩ ܘܡܬܚܡ‬.‫ܥܒܕܗ ܐܠܗܐ‬ ܼ ‫ܝܕܝܥܐ‬ ̈ ̈ .‫ܕܒܢܝܢܫܐ‬ ‫ܡܬܚܡܐ ܐܢܘܢ ̈ܚܝܐ‬ ‫ܕܠܘ‬

186

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

Table A Citations 1. Ephrem 2. Ephrem

BDP 43i 43ii

Add. 12155 -----

MBKS -----

BHLS -----

MBKDP 22b 22b

Table B 1. Ephrem the Syrian, First Homily on Nicomedia. BDP ‫ܘܩܕܝܫܐ ܡܪܝ ܐܦܪܝܡ܇ ܒܡܐܡܪܐ ܩܕܡܝܐ ܕܥܠ‬ ܿ ‫ܢܝܩܘܡܘܕܝܐ܆ ܟܕ‬ .‫ܐܡܪ ܗܟܢܐ‬ ‫ܬܥܒܕ ܠܢ ܚܕ ܩܨܐ܆ ܒܩܨܗ ܡܪܝ ܢܐܙܠ ܟܠ‬ ܼ ‫ܕܐܠ ܠܡ‬ ‫ܐܢܫ܀‬

MBKDP

ܿ ‫ ܕܥܠ ܢܩܡܘܕܝܐ ܟܕ‬.‫ܩܕ‬ ‫ܐܡܪ‬ ̄ ‫ܒܡܐ‬ ̄ ‫ܘܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܦܪܝܡ‬ .‫ܗܟܢܐ‬ ‫ܬܥܒܕ ܠܢ ܚܕ ܩܨܐ܆ ܒܩܨܗ ܡܪܝ ܢܐܙܠ ܟܠ ܐܢܫ܀‬ ܼ ‫ܕܐܠ‬

The only difference in the first citation is that Cyriacus has added the word ‫ܠܡ‬. This is commonly added by authors when they cite other works. This citation is not preserved in florilegium B.L. Add. 12155. However, looking at MBKDP, we can see that Cyriacus and Moshe bar Kipho had either a common source, or that their florilegia went back to a common source.

2. Ephrem the Syrian, First Homily on Nicomedia. BDP

MBKDP

‫ ܡܛܠ ܐܝܠܝܢ‬:‫ܩܕܡ ܗܠܝܢ ܕܝܢ ܒܗ ܒܡܐܡܪܐ‬ .‫ܕܐܟܚܕܐ ܡܬܓܪܦܝܢ ܐ݀ܡܪ ܗܟܢܐ‬ ‫ܡܚܐ ܐܢܘܢ ܕܠܟܠ‬ ܼ ‫ܛܘ ܡܢ ܚܒ̈ܪܝܗܘܢ܆‬ ܼ ‫ܟܕ ܐܠ ܚ‬ ܿ ‫ ܡܚܐ‬.‫ܢܕܚܠ‬ ܿ ‫ܠܝܐܠ ܐܝܟ ܕܒܗܘܢ܆ ܢܕܚܠ‬ ̈ ‫ܠܕ‬ ‫ܢܚܐ‬ ܼ ܼ ‫ܠܣ ̈ܓܝܐܐ܀‬

‫ ܡܛܠ ܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܐܟܚܕܐ‬:‫ܩܕܡ ܗܠܝܢ ܕܝܢ ܒܗ ܒܡܐܡܪܐ‬ .‫ܡܬܓܪܦܝܢ ܐ݀ܡܪ ܗܟܢܐ‬ .‫ܢܕܚܠ‬ ܼ ‫ܡܚܐ ܐܢܘܢ ܕܠܟܠ‬ ܼ ‫ܛܘ ܡܢ ܚܒ̈ܪܝܗܘܢ܆‬ ܼ ‫ܟܕ ܐܠ ܚ‬ ̈ ‫ܢܚܐ‬ ܿ ‫ ܢܕܚܠ‬.‫ܿܡܚܐ ܕܕܝܠܗ ܐܝܟ ܕܝܠܗܘܢ‬ ‫ܣܓܝܐܐ܀‬

The second citation contains some minor variants in the last line, but these could be due to scribal change when one of them was cited. The text difference is that the word ‫ ܡܚܐ‬is employed in a different tense, although this could easily be due to a confusion about the correct placing of the dot. The other difference is that Moshe bar Kipho employs the word ‫ ܕܕܝܠܗ‬instead of the word ܿ , which is employed by Cyriacus. This could also be a scribal ̈ ‫ܠܕ‬ ‫ܠܝܐܠ‬ error due to the quality of the mss consulted. Again, this citation, like the previous one, is not preserved in florilegium B.L. Add. 12155. However, looking at MBKDP, we know that Cyriacus and Moshe bar Kipho either had a common source, or their florilegia went back to the same source.

PATRISTIC CITATIONS IN THE BDP

187

4.1.2. TREATISE SEVENTEEN, CHAPTER ONE & TWO Only three citations are found in treatise seventeen which has the rubric, ‘Concerning the will and the implanted impulse within us.’9 One citation is found in chapter one10 and two citations are found in chapter two. The three citations that are listed in this chapter have not been found in the other authors mentioned in table A. However, one citation is preserved in florilegium B.L. Add. 12155, which is the first citation found in chapter two. This citation has been compared with the identical citation found in the florilegium B.L. Add. 12155, as illustrated in Table B. The minor differences consist of added text in the florilegium version. The added text strongly indicates that this specific citation was adapted for use against the Julianists. Cyriacus must have used a different florilegium (in an earlier form) for this treatise. Normally, citations are given at the end of the chapter, but the citation in chapter one is listed in the third paragraph from the end of the chapter. The citations of chapter two11 are found in the fourth and fifth paragraphs from the end of the chapter. The first citation is to be found in florilegium B.L. Add. 12155, under the rubric: Against the Julianists. The second citation is not to be found in any of the books mentioned in table A. Chapter One This citation is not found in any of the sources listed in Table A apart from Cyriacus’ BDP. Citations: 1. Gregory of Nyssa, On Infants’ Early Death. (CPG 3145; PG 46,185C).

9

Cyriacus, BDP, XVII.1, fol. 59ii,

.‫ܥܠ ܨܒܝܢܐ ܘܙܘܥܐ ܢܨ ܼܝܒܐ ܕܒܢ‬ Cyriacus, BDP, XVII.1, fol. 59ii, ̈ ‫ܕܥܠ ܗ݀ܝ ܕܨܒܝܢܐ‬ .‫ܕܡܠܝܐܠ܇ ܕܐܢ ܟܝܢܐܝܬ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܠܗܘܢ ܐܘ ܐܠ‬ 11 Cyriacus, BDP, XVII.2, fol. 68ii, .‫ܥܠ ܙܘܥܐ ܢܨܒܝܐ ܕܒܢ ܕܟܝܢܐܝܬ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܠܢ܆ ܘܠܘ ܡܢ ܠܒܪ‬ 10

188

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

Table A Citations 1. G. of Nyssa

BDP 63ii-64i

Add. 12155 ---

MBKS ---

BHLS ---

MBKDP ---

This citation is not found anywhere else. It seems likely that Cyriacus probably consulted a florilegium which is not now preserved, even though many of Gregory’s homilies circulated in Syriac translations among the Syrian Orthodox.12 Chapter Two Two citations are found in Cyriacus’ BDP, of which only one is found in florilegium B.L. Add. 12155. Citations: 1. St. Basil, Letter 261, to the inhabitants of Sozopolis. (CPG 2900; PG 32,972B). 2. St. Cyril of Alexandria, First letter to Succensus. (CPG 5345; PG 77,233C). Table A Citations 1. Basil 2. Cyril

BDP 67ii-68i 68i

Add. 12155 117a ---

MBKS -----

BHLS -----

MBKDP -----

The first citation is found in florilegium B.L. Add. 12155 (See Table B). The second citation is not found anywhere. Cyriacus probably consulted a florilegium which is now lost or unstudied. Table B 1. St. Basil, Letter 261, to the inhabitants of Sozopolis. (CPG 2900; PG 32,972B). BDP

̈ ‫ܗܘ ܡܪܝܐ܆ ܕܠ ̈ܚܫܐ ܿܡܢ‬ ‫ܟܝܢܝܐ‬ ܼ ‫ܒܕܓܘܢ ܡܬܚܙܐ‬ ‫ܿܩ ܼܒܠ܇ ܠܫܘܪܪܐ ܕܡܬܒܪܢܫܢܘܬܗ ܫܪܝܪܬܐ ܘܕܐܠ‬ ̈ .‫ܦܢܛܐܣܝܐ‬ ‫ ܗܠܝܢ‬:‫ܒܝܫܘܬܐ ܟܠܗܘܢ‬ ܼ ‫ܠܚܫܐ ܕܝܢ ܕܡܢ‬ ̈ ‫ܕܡܨܐܝܢ ܠܕܟܝܘܬܐ‬ ‫ ܠܗܠܝܢ ܐܝܟ ܕܐܠܝܠܝܢ‬:‫ܕܚܝܝܢ‬ ‫ ܡܛܠ‬.‫ܕܚܩ‬ ܼ ‫ܕܐܠ ܿܫܘܝܢ܇ ܐܠܠܗܘܬܐ ܐܠ ܡܟܬܡܢܝܬܐ‬ ‫ܗܕܐ ܐܡܝܪܐ܆ ܕܒܕܡܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܕܒܣܪܐ ܕܚܛ ܼܝܬܐ‬ ܼ 12

43-61.

Add. 12155

̈ ̈ ‫ܕܠܚܫܐ ܿܡܢ‬ ‫ܟܝܢܝܐ‬ ‫ܗܘ ܡܪܝܐ܆‬ ܼ ‫ܒܕܓܘܢ ܡܬܚܙܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܘܐܠ‬ ‫ܥܕܝܐܠ ܕܒܣܪܐ ܿܩ ܼܒܠ܇ ܠܫܘܪܪܐ ܕܡܬܒܪܢܫܢܘܬܗ‬ ̈ ‫ܠܚܫܐ ܕܝܢ ܕܡܢ‬ .‫ܫܪܝܪܬܐ ܘܕܠܘ ܒܦܢܛܐܣܝܐ‬ ̈ ‫ ܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܡܨܐܝܢ ܠܕܟܝܘܬܐ‬:‫ܒܝܫܘܬܐ ܟܠܗܘܢ‬ :‫ܕܚܝܝܢ‬ ܼ ‫ܠܗܠܝܢ ܐܝܟ ܕܐܠܝܠܝܢ ܕܐܠ ܿܫܘܝܢ܇ ܐܠܠܗܘܬܐ ܐܠ‬ ‫ ܡܛܠ ܗܕܐ ܐܡܝܪܐ܆ ܕܒܕܡܘܬܐ‬.‫ܕܚܩ‬ ܼ ‫ܡܟܬܡܢܝܬܐ‬

Taylor, “Les pères cappadociens dans la tradition syriaque”, pp.

PATRISTIC CITATIONS IN THE BDP ‫ܫܩܠ܆ ܥܡ ܚ ̈ܫܘܗܝ‬ ܼ ‫ܒܣܪܐ ܿܗܘ ܕܝܠܢ‬ ܼ ‫ ܡܕܝܢ‬.‫ܗܘܐ‬ ܼ .‫ܥܒܕ‬ ܼ ‫ ܚܛ ܼܝܬܐ ܕܝܢ ܐܠ‬.‫ܟ ̈ܝܢܝܐ‬

189

‫ܒܣܪܐ ܡܢ ܕܫܩܠ ܿܗܘ‬ ܼ ‫ ܡܕܝܢ‬.‫ܗܘܐ‬ ܼ ‫ܕܒܣܪܐ ܕܚܛ ܼܝܬܐ‬ ܼ ̈ ‫ܕܝܠܢ܆ ܥܡ‬ ̈ ‫ܚܫܘܗܝ‬ .‫ܥܒܕ‬ ܼ ‫ ܚܛ ܼܝܬܐ ܕܝܢ ܐܠ‬.‫ܟܝܢܝܐ‬

This citation is found in florilegium B.L. Add. 12155 under the section rubric Against the Julianists. The highlighted words were added in this edition. Cyriacus must have used an earlier version of the florilegium. The Julianists or ‘Phantasiasts’, the followers of the sixth-century theologian Julian of Halicarnassus became involved in a dispute with his former friend Severus of Antioch, while both were in exile in Alexandria, over the question of whether Christ's body during his life on earth was incorruptible or corruptible, and whether he was subject to human passions, even the blameless ̈ ‫ܚܫܐ ܐܠ‬ ̈ (namely hunger, thirst and tiredness), referones ‫ܥܕܝܐܠ‬ ence to which has been added to this citation.

4.1.3. TREATISE EIGHTEEN, CHAPTER ONE The topic of chapter one of treatise eighteen was a controversial issue during Cyriacus’ time, as we know from the citations found in MBKDP (see Table A). Cyriacus’ rubric is: Concerning that everyone departs from this life at his own particular [determined] end, and not by chance.13 As illustrated in Table A, nine citations are found in chapter one of treatise eighteen of Cyriacus’ BDP. All the citations are clustered together at the end of the chapter. Two of these citations are also found in florilegium B.L. Add. 12155, under the rubric, Concerning Golgotha, and concerning the Cross, and that everybody leaves at the end of his life.14 Also, demonstrated in table A, is the fact that seven citations out of the nine are found in a different order in treatise three of MBKDP, under the rubric, Chapter two which demonstrates that each individual has a particular determined end, and that each one leaves this life at his end. And, the end is known to God, and God made it unknown to us. However, it is decided and determined. It disciplines those who say that humans’ life is not determined.15 Cyriacus, BDP, XVIII.1, fol. 68ii, .‫ܥܠ ܗ݀ܝ ܕܟܠ ܐܢܫ ܕܝܠܢܐܝܬ ܒܩܨܗ ܿܚܙܩ ܡܢ ̈ܚܝܐ ܕܬ ܼܢܢ܆ ܘܠܘ ܒܫܓܡܐ‬ 14 Florilegium B.L. Add. 12155, fol. 91b, .‫ܥܠ ܗ݀ܝ ܕܡܢܐ ܗܝ ܓܓܘܠܬܐ܆ ܘܡܛܠ ܨܠܝܒܐ܆ ܘܕܟܠܢܫ ܒܩܨܗ ܐ݀ܙܠ‬ 15 MBKDP, B.L. Add. 14731, III.2, fol. 22b-71b, 13

190

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

It can be concluded from Table A that Cyriacus did not consult a florilegium of the same format as florilegium B.L. Add. 12155 for this chapter. However, comparing the citations in Cyriacus’ BDP, with the citations in MBKDP, it can be concluded that Cyriacus and Moshe bar Kipho consulted florilegia, which have the same, or a similar source, which is most likely to have been a florilegium that has not been preserved in the B.L. The two citations which are found in florilegium B.L. Add. 12155 have been compared with Cyriacus’ BDP, and the same citations found in MBKDP have also been compared with Cyriacus’ BDP, and only minor differences have been discovered in the majority of the texts, as can be seen from the two examples given in Table B from Ephrem the Syrian and Gregory of Nyssa. This again illustrates that they consulted florilegia which go back to a common source. There are 3 marginal notes written in later hands in the upper, outer, and lower margins of fol. 78, which are citations 8, 9, and 10. The citation in the upper margin is much faded and damaged, and cannot easily be read from the microfilm. Although these citations have been added here for the sake of completeness, they are most certainly not by Cyriacus, but they have clearly been added by later hands. Citations 8 is also found in MBKDP, so they are very likely to have come from an unidentified florilegium. Citations: 1. Basil the Great, That God is not the Cause of Evil. (CPG 2853; PG 31,333B). 2. Basil the Great, Homily on Julita, the martyr. (CPG 2849; PG 31,248D).

ܿ ‫ܩܦܐܠܘܢ ܕܬ̈ܪܝܢ‬ ̈ ‫ ܕܠܟܠܚܕ ܡܢ‬.‫ܚܘܐ‬ .‫ ܩܨܐ ܝܕܝܥܐ ܕܝܠܢܐܝܬ ܡܬܚܡ‬.‫ܢܫܐ‬ ‫ܕܡ‬ ܼ ‫ܒܢܝ‬ ܼ ܿ ‫ ܐܠ‬:‫ ܠܢ ܕܝܢ‬.‫ܓܐܠ ܘܝܕܝܥ‬ ‫ܗܘ ܕܝܢ‬ ܼ ‫ ܐܠܠܗܐ ܡܢ‬.‫ܩܨܐ‬ ܼ ܼ .‫ܘܒܩܨܗ ܟܠܚܕ ܿܚܙܩ ܡܢ ̈ܚܝܐ ܕܬܢܢ‬ ܿ ‫ ܡܟܣ ܕܝܢ܆ ܘܠܗܢܘܢ ܕܐܡܪܝܢ‬.‫ ܒܪܡ ܕܝܢ ܚܪܝܩ܆ ܘܦܣܝܩ ܘܡܬܚܡ‬.‫ܥܒܕܗ ܐܠܗܐ‬ ܼ ‫ܝܕܝܥܐ‬ ̈ ̈ .‫ܕܒܢܝܢܫܐ‬ ‫ܡܬܚܡܐ ܐܢܘܢ ̈ܚܝܐ‬ ‫ܕܠܘ‬

PATRISTIC CITATIONS IN THE BDP

191

3. Ephrem the Syrian, Against Bardaisan. (ed. C. W. Mitchell, S. Ephraim’s Prose Refutations of Mani, Marcion, and Bardaisan, and J. Overbeck, Ephraemi Syri.)16 4. Ephrem the Syrian, Homily on Nicomedia.17 5. Gregory of Nyssa, Homily I on the Beatitudes. (CPG 3161; PG 44,1205C). 6. Severus of Antioch, Songs of Admonition. (CPG7072; ed. E. W. Brooks, PO 7, p.727, line 1-3). 7. Severus of Antioch, Songs of Burial. (CPG 7072; ed. E. W. Brooks, PO 7, p.784, line 5-7). Citations added by later hands in margins: 8. Severus of Antioch, Homily 76. (CPG 7035; PO 12, p. 142, line 910). 9. Jacob of Serugh, Memre of Admonishment following the measure of Mar Ephrem.18 10. Damaged, and unidentified.

Ephrem, Against Bardaisan, ed. C. W. Mitchell, S. Ephraim’s Prose Refutations of Mani, Marcion, and Bardaisan, Volume II: The Discourse called ‘Of Domnus’ and six other writings, (London, 1921); Syr. p.143-169, ET p. lxvilxxix. The extract here contains stanzas 33-42, omitting stanza 40 (Mitchell, Syr. p. 151-154, ET p. lxx-lxxi). B.L. Add. 12155 contains the same extract, and BL Add. 17193 contains stanzas 33-42, and BL Add. 14731 contains stanzas 33-36, 41-42. (Cf. Overbeck, Ephraemi Syri, Rabulae Episcopi Edesseni, Balaei, Aliorumque Opera Selecta, pp. 132-4; B.L. Add. 14623.) 17 For the remaining Armenian text of Ephrem the Syrian’s Homilies on Nicomedia, See ed. in Armenian, Charles Renoux, PO 37, parts 2 and 3, 1975. There are other Syriac fragments & citations cited in the introduction of Renoux, but these do not include these citations. 18 This reference could not be found, the text is as followed: ̈ ‫ܕܬܚܘܡܐ‬, Life has its boundaries, ‫ܠܚܝܐ ܐܝܬ ܼܗܘ܆ ܘܬܚܘܡܐ ܠ̈ܪܚܡܐ ܐܠ ܐܝܬ܀‬ but mercy has no boundaries. 16

‫‪192‬‬

‫‪CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP‬‬

‫‪Table A‬‬ ‫‪MBKDP‬‬ ‫‪--‬‬‫‪31b‬‬ ‫‪66a,b‬‬ ‫‪30b‬‬ ‫‪30a‬‬ ‫‪30b‬‬ ‫‪30b‬‬

‫‪BHLS‬‬ ‫‪--‬‬‫‪--‬‬‫‪--‬‬‫‪--‬‬‫‪--‬‬‫‪--‬‬‫‪---‬‬

‫‪30b‬‬ ‫‪--‬‬‫‪---‬‬

‫‪--‬‬‫‪--‬‬‫‪---‬‬

‫‪Add. 12155 MBKS‬‬ ‫‪--‬‬‫‪--‬‬‫‪--‬‬‫‪--‬‬‫‪91B‬‬ ‫‪--‬‬‫‪--‬‬‫‪--‬‬‫‪91B‬‬ ‫‪--‬‬‫‪--‬‬‫‪--‬‬‫‪--‬‬‫‪--‬‬‫‪Later additions:‬‬ ‫‪--‬‬‫‪--‬‬‫‪--‬‬‫‪--‬‬‫‪--‬‬‫‪---‬‬

‫‪BDP‬‬ ‫‪75ii-76i‬‬ ‫‪76i‬‬ ‫‪76i-77ii‬‬ ‫‪77ii‬‬ ‫‪77ii-78i‬‬ ‫‪78i-78ii‬‬ ‫‪78ii‬‬ ‫‪78ii‬‬ ‫‪78ii‬‬ ‫‪78ii‬‬

‫‪Citations‬‬ ‫‪1. Basil‬‬ ‫‪2. Basil‬‬ ‫‪3. Ephrem‬‬ ‫‪4. Ephrem‬‬ ‫‪5. G. of Nyssa‬‬ ‫‪6. Severus‬‬ ‫‪7. Severus‬‬ ‫‪8. Severus‬‬ ‫‪9. J. of Serugh‬‬ ‫‪10. Unidentified‬‬

‫‪Table B‬‬ ‫‪3. Ephrem, Against Bardaisan. (ed. C. W. Mitchell, S. Ephraim’s Prose‬‬ ‫‪Refutations of Mani, Marcion, and Bardaisan, and J. Overbeck, Ephraemi‬‬ ‫‪Syri).19‬‬ ‫‪MBKDP‬‬

‫‪Add. 12155‬‬

‫‪BDP‬‬

‫ܡܘܬܐ ܕܓܙܪ ܐܠܗܐ‪ .‬ܥܠ ܐܕܡ‬ ‫ܕܚܛܐ‪ .‬ܠܘ ܗܢܘ ܩܛܐܠ‬ ‫ܒܬܪ ܼ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܐܢܫܐ‬ ‫ܕܩܛܠܝܢ‬ ‫ܕܥܘܐܠ‪.‬‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܚܒ̈ܪܝܗܘܢ‪ .‬ܘܩܛܠܗ ܕܗܒܝܠ‬ ‫ܙܕܝܩܐ‪ .‬ܡܢ ܚܐܘܬܐ ܕܛܠܡܬܗ‪.‬‬ ‫ܘܡܘܬܗ ܕܐܕܡ ܚܝܒܐ ܡܢ‬ ‫ܟܐܢܘܬܐ ܕܬܒܥܬܗ‪.‬‬

‫ܕܡܪܝ ܐܦܪܝܡ܆ ܡܢ ܡܐܡܪܐ‬ ‫ܕܠܘܩܒܠ ܒܪ ܕܝܨܢ ܕܐܝܬܘܗܝ‬ ‫ܪܝܫܗ܆ ܒܪܕܝܨܢ ܗܐ ܿ‬ ‫ܡܫܬܢܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܕܓܙܪ ܐܠܗܐ ܥܠ ܐܕܡ‬ ‫ܡܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܕܚܛܐ܆ ܠܘ ܿܗܢܘ ܩܛܐܠ‬ ‫ܒܬܪ ܼ‬ ‫ܕܥܘܐܠ ܿ‬ ‫ܕܩܛܠܝܢ ܐܢܫܐ ܚܒ̈ܪܝܗܘܢ‪.‬‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܛܠܗ ܕܗܒܝܠ ܙܕܝܩܐ܆ ܡܢ‬ ‫ܩ ܼ‬ ‫ܚܐܪܘܬܐ ܕܛܠܡܬܗ‪ .‬ܘܡܘܬܗ‬ ‫ܕܐܕܡ ܚܛܝܐ܆ ܡܢ ܟܐܢܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܕܬܒܥܬܗ‪.‬‬

‫ܐܠ ܗܘܐ ܟܝܬ ܡܛܠ ܕܩܕܝܡ‪.‬‬ ‫ܩܛܠܗ ܕܗܒܝܠ ܙܕܝܩܐ‪ .‬ܠܡܘܬܗ‬ ‫ܗܘ ܡܝܬ‬ ‫ܕܐܕܡ ܚܝܒܐ‪ .‬ܗܒܝܠ ܼ‬ ‫ܩܕܡܝܐ‪ .‬ܒܗ݀ܘ ܡܘܬܐ ܕܡܢ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܒܡܪܚܘܬܗ‬ ‫ܐܠܗܐ‪ .‬ܚܐܪܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܒܚܣܡܗ‪.‬‬ ‫ܣܥܬ ܥܠ ܗܒܝܠ‬ ‫ܘܐܥܠܬ ܩܛܐܠ ܩܕܡ ܡܘܬܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫݀‬ ‫ܗܘ‬ ‫ܒܗܘ ܩܨܐ ܕܡܢ ܕܝܢܐ‪ .‬ܐܕܡ ܼ‬ ‫ܡܝܬ ܩܕܡܝܐ‪ .‬ܒܗ݀ܘ ܩܛܐܠ ܕܡܢ‬

‫ܐܠ ܗܘܐ ܟܝܬ ܡܛܠ ܿ‬ ‫ܕܩܕܝܡ ܩܛܠܗ‬ ‫ܐܕܡ‬ ‫ܕܗܒܝܠ ܙܕܝܩܐ ܠܡܘܬܗ ܕ ܼ‬ ‫ܚܛܝܐ܇ ܗܒܝܠ ܗ݀ܘ ܼܡܝܬ ܩܕܡܝܐ܇‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܒܗܘ ܡܘܬܐ ܕܡܢ ܐܠܗܐ܇‬ ‫ܣܥܬ ܥܠ‬ ‫ܚܐܪܘܬܐ ܒܡܪܚܘܬܗ܇ ܼ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܒܚܣܡܗ܆ ܘܐܥ ܼܠܬ݀ ܼܩܛܐܠ‬ ‫ܗܒܝܠ‬ ‫ܩܕܡ ܡܘܬܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܒܗܘ ܩܨܐ ܕܡܢ ܿܕܝܢܐ܆ ܕܐܕܡ ܗܘ‬ ‫ܡܝܬ ܩܕܡܝܐ‪ܿ .‬‬ ‫ܒܗܘ ܼܩܛܐܠ ܕܡܢ‬

‫ܬܘܒ ܩܕܝܫܐ ܡܪܝ ܐܦܪܝܡ܆ ܡܢ‬ ‫ܡܐܡܪܐ ܕܠܘܩܒܠ ܒܪ ܕܝܨܢ܀‬ ‫ܕܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܪܝܫܗ܆ ܒܪܕܝܨܢ ܗܐ‬ ‫ܡܫܬܢܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܡܘܬܐ ܿܕܓܙܪ ܐܠܗܐ ܥܠ ܐܕܡ‬ ‫ܛܐܠ‬ ‫ܛܐ܆ ܠܘ ܗܢܘ ܩ ܼ‬ ‫ܒܬܪ ܕܚ ܼ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܐܢܫܐ‬ ‫ܕܩܛܠܝܢ‬ ‫ܕܥܘܐܠ܇‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܚܒ̈ܪܝܗܘܢ‪ .‬ܩܛ ܼܠܗ ܕܗܒܝܠ‬ ‫ܙܕܝܩܐ܆ ܡܢ ܚܐܪܘܬܐ ܕܛܠܡܬܗ‪.‬‬ ‫ܘܡܘܬܗ ܕܐܕܡ ܚܛܝܐ܆ ܡܢ‬ ‫ܟܐܢܘܬܐ ܕܬܒܥܬܗ‪.‬‬ ‫ܐܠ‬ ‫ܗܘܐ ܟܝܬ ܡܛܠ ܕܩܕܝܡ܇‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܩܛ ܼܠܗ ܕܗܒܝܠ ܙܕܝܩܐ܇ ܠܡܘܬܗ‬ ‫ܗܘ ܡܝܬ‬ ‫ܕܐܕܡ ܚܛܝܐ܇ ܗܒܝܠ ܼ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܒܗܘ ܡܘܬܐ ܕܡܢ‬ ‫ܩܕܡܝܐ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܒܡܪܚܘܬܗ‪:‬‬ ‫ܐܠܗܐ‪ .‬ܚܐܪܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܣܥܬ̇ ܥܠ ܗܒܝܠ ܒܚܣܡܗ܇‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܩܛܐܠ ܩܕܡ ܡܘܬܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܘܐܠܥܠܬ̇‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܒܗܘ ܩܨܐ ܕܡܢ ܿܕܝܢܐ܆ ܐܕܡ ܗܘ‬ ‫ܡܝܬ ܩܕܡܝܐ‪ܿ .‬‬ ‫ܒܗܘ ܩܛ ܼܐܠ ܕܡܢ‬

‫‪Cf. footnote 631.‬‬

‫‪19‬‬

‫‪193‬‬

‫‪PATRISTIC CITATIONS IN THE BDP‬‬

‫ܗܘ ܩܛܝܠ ܩܕܡܝܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܒܪܢܫܐ‪ .‬ܗܒܝܠ ܼ‬ ‫ܒܫܘܠܛܢܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܐܢܘܢ‬ ‫ܩܝܡܝܢ‬ ‫ܕܟܐܢܘܬܐ ܘܕܚܐܪܘܬܐ‪ .‬ܐܠ‬ ‫ܟܐܢܘܬܐ ܐܬܛܠܡܬ݀ ܘܐܠ‬ ‫ܚܐܪܘܬܐ ܐܬܥܨܝܬ‪.‬‬ ‫ܘܗܐ ܪܕܝܢ ܡܢ ܫܘܪܝܐ‪ .‬ܐܘ̈ܪܚܬܐ‬ ‫ܕܡܘܬܐ ܬ̈ܪܬܝܢ‪ .‬ܚܕܐ ܕܩܨܐ‬ ‫ܘܚܕܐ ܕܩܛܐܠ‪ .‬ܐܝܟ ܕܐܥܠܬ‬ ‫ܓܝܪ ܚܐܪܘܬܐ‪ .‬ܒܪܫܝܬ ܩܛܐܠ‬ ‫ܩܕܡ ܡܘܬܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܗܟܢ ܐܥܠܬ ܟܐܢܘܬܐ‪ .‬ܡܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܒܬܪ ܣܟܠܘܬܐ‪.‬‬

‫ܐܢܗܘ ܗܟܝܠ ܕܩܛܝܐܠ‪ .‬ܕܐܠ‬ ‫ܐܙܠ ܫܓܡܐ ܗܘ‪ .‬ܘܐܢ‬ ‫ܒܩܨܗ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܒܩܨܗ ܐܙܠ ܟܫܐܠ ܗܘ‪ .‬ܥܠܝ ܗܘ‬ ‫ܕܝܢ ܐܠܗܐ‪ .‬ܡܢ ܫܓܡܐ ܐܦ ܡܢ‬ ‫ܟܫܐܠ‪ .‬ܠܘ ܫܓܡܐ ܗܘ ܕܩܪܒ‬ ‫ܩܨܗ ܕܩܛܝܐܠ ܘܐܙܠ ܒܝܘܡܗ‪.‬‬ ‫ܘܠܘ ܟܫܐܠ ܗܘ ܕܥܬܝܕ ܕܝܢܐ‪.‬‬

‫ܒܪܢܫܐ܆ ܗܒܝܠ ܗܘ ܩܛܝܠ ܩܕܡܝܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܒܫܘܠܛܢܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܐܢܘܢ‬ ‫ܩܝܡܝܢ‬ ‫ܕܟܐܢܘܬܐ ܘܕܚܐܪܘܬܐ‪ .‬ܐܠ‬ ‫ܟܐܢܘܬܐ ܐܬܛ ܼܠܡܬ܆ ܘܐܠ‬ ‫ܐܬܥܨܝܬ‪.‬‬ ‫ܚܐܪܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܘܗܐ ܿ‬ ‫̈ܪܕܝܢ ܡܢ ܫܘܪܝܐ܆ ܐܘ̈ܪܚܬܐ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܨܐ‬ ‫ܕܡ‬ ‫ܕܩ ܼ‬ ‫ܘܬܐ ܬ̈ܪܬܝܢ‪ .‬ܚܕܐ ܼ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܕܩܛܐܠ‪ .‬ܐܝܟ ܕܐܥ ܼܠܬ‬ ‫ܘܚܕܐ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܓܝܪ ܚܐܪܘܬܐ‪ :‬ܒܪܫܝܬ ܼܩܛܐܠ‬ ‫ܘܬܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܩܕܡ ܿܡ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܗܟܢ ܐܥ ܼܠܬ ܟܐܢܘܬܐ܇ ܿܡܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܝܕܥ‬ ‫ܕܩܕܡ‬ ‫ܒܬܪ ܣܟܠܘܬܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܕܩܛܝܐܠ ܿ‬ ‫ܐܠܗܐ‪̈ :‬‬ ‫ܡܬܩܛܠܝܢ ܡܢ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܒܩܛܐܠ ܬܚܡ ܚܝܝܗܘܢ‪.‬‬ ‫ܐܠ‪ܼ .‬‬ ‫ܩܛܘ ܼ‬ ‫ܟܕ ܪܚܝܩ ܡܢ ܪܫܝܢܐ܇ ̈‬ ‫ܕܩܛܠܘܐ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܘܩܛܠܘ܆ ܘܪܚܝܩ ܬܘܒ‬ ‫ܕܐܡܪܚܘ ܼ‬ ‫ܐܦ ܡܢ ܫܓܡܐ܇ ܕܩܛܝܐܠ ܕܩܛܝܠ‬ ‫ܡܢ ܫܠܝ‪.‬‬ ‫ܐܢܗܘ ܗܟܝܠ ܕܩܛܝܐܠ‪ :‬ܕܐܠ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܐܙܠ܆ ܫܓܡܐ ܗܘ‪ .‬ܘܐܢ‬ ‫ܒܩܨܗ ܼ‬ ‫ܒܩܨܗ ܐܙܠ ܟܫܐܠ ܗܘ‪ܿ .‬‬ ‫ܙܟܝ ܗܘ‬ ‫ܼ ܼ‬ ‫ܓܝܪ ܩܛܘܠܗ‪ܿ .‬ܥܠܝ ܗܘ ܕܝܢ‬ ‫ܫܓܡܐ ܐܦ ܡܢ‬ ‫ܐܠܗܐ܆ ܡܢ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܒܕܩܪܒ‬ ‫ܼܟܫܐܠ‪ .‬ܠܘ ܫܓܡܐ ܗܘ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܟܫܐܠ ܗܘ ܕܥܬܝܕ‬ ‫ܼܩܨܐ‪ .‬ܘܠܘ ܼ‬ ‫ܕܝ ܼܢܐ‪ .‬ܟܕ ܛــܒ ܕܝـܢ ܗܐ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܐܢܝܢ ܥܠ‬ ‫ܣܢܝܩܢ‬ ‫ܐܬܦܫܩܘ܆‬ ‫ܦܘܫܩܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܥܛܠ ܗܘ ܓܝܪ ܕܐܝܟܢــܐ܇‬ ‫ܐܣـــܬܩـܒܠܘ ܒܚܕܐ ܫܥܐ܇‬ ‫ܩܨܗ ܟܣܝܐ ܕܩܛܝܐܠ܇ ܐܦ‬ ‫ܨܒܝܢܗ ܕܩܛܘܐܠ‪ .‬ܕܩܛܝܐܠ‬ ‫ܒܩــܨܗ ܼܢܐܙܠ܆ ܘܩܛܘܐܠ ܒܕ ܼܝܢܐ‬

‫ܒܪܢܫܐ܆ ܗܒܝܠ ܗܘ ܩܛ ܼܝܠ‬ ‫ܐܢܘܢ‬ ‫ܿܩܝܡܝܢ‬ ‫ܩܕܡܝܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܕܟܐܢܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܒܫܘܠܛܢܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܘܕܚܐܪܘܬܐ‪ .‬ܐܠ ܟܐܢܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܐܬܛ ܼܠܡܬ̇܆ ܘܐܠ ܚܐܪܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܨܝܬ‪.‬‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܐܬܥ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܘܗܐ ̈ܪ ܿܕܝܢ ܡܢ ܫܘܪܝܐ܆‬ ‫ܐܘ̈ܪܚܬܐ ܿ‬ ‫ܘܬܐ ܬ̈ܪܬܝܢ‪ .‬ܚܕܐ‬ ‫ܕܡ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܕܩܛܐܠ‪ .‬ܐܝܟ‬ ‫ܘܚܕܐ‬ ‫ܕܩܨܐ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܕܐܥܠܬ̇ ܓܝܪ ܚܐܪܘܬܐ‪ :‬ܒܪܝܫܝܬ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܩܛܐܠ ܩܕܡ ܡܘܬܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܗܟܢ‬ ‫ܐܥܠܬ̇ ܟܐܢܘܬܐ܇ ܡܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܼܿ‬ ‫ܒܬܪ ܣܟܠܘܬܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܕܩܕܡ ܝܕ݀ܥ‬ ‫ܐܠܗܐ܆‪̈ 20‬‬ ‫ܕܩܛܝܐܠ ܡܬܩܛܠܝܢ‬ ‫ܡܢ ̈ܩܛܘܐܠ܆ ܒܩܛܐܠ ܬܚܡ‬ ‫̈ܚܝܝܗܘܢ܇ ܟܕ ܪܚܝܩ ܡܢ ܪܫܝܢܐ܇‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܘܩܛܠܘ܇‬ ‫ܕܐܡܪܚܘ‬ ‫ܕܩܛܘܐܠ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܘܪܚܝܩ ܬܘܒ ܐܦ ܡܢ ܫܓܡܐ܇‬ ‫ܕܩܛܝܐܠ ܕܩܠܝܠ ܡܢ ܫܠܝ‪.‬‬ ‫ܐܢܗܘ ܗܟܝܠ ܕܩܛܝܐܠ‪ :‬ܕܐܠ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܐܙ ܼܠ ܫܓܡܐ ܗܘ‪ .‬ܘܐܢ‬ ‫ܒܩܨܗ ܼ‬ ‫ܒܩܨܗ ܐܙܠ ܟܫܐܠ ܗܘ‪ܿ .‬‬ ‫ܙܟܝ ܗܘ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܓܝܪ ܩܛܘܠܗ‪ܼܿ .‬ܥܠܝ ܗܘ ܕܝܢ‬ ‫ܐܠܗܐ܇ ܡܢ ܫܓܡܐ ܐܦ ܡܢ‬ ‫ܒܕܩܪܒ‬ ‫ܟܫܐܠ‪ .‬ܠܘ ܫܓܡܐ ܗܘ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫‪21‬‬ ‫ܩܨܐ‪ .‬ܘܠܘ ܟܫܐܠ ܗܘ ܒܕܥܬܝܕ‬ ‫ܕܝ ܼܢܐ‪ .‬ܟܕ ܛܒ ܕܝܢ ܗܐ ܐܬܦܫܩܝ܆‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܣܢܝܩܢ ̈‬ ‫ܐܢܝܢ ܥܠ ܦܘܫܩܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܥܛܠ‪ 22‬ܗܘ ܓܝܪ‪ 23‬ܕܐܝܟܢܐ܇‬ ‫ܐܣܬܩܒܠܘ ܒܚܕܐ ܫܥܐ܇ ܩܨܗ‬ ‫ܟܣܝܐ ܕܩܛܝܐܠ܇ ܐܦ ܨܒܝܢܗ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܕܩܛܘܐܠ‪ .‬ܕܩܛܝܐܠ ܒܩܨܗ‬ ‫‪24‬‬ ‫ܢܚܘܒ‪.‬‬ ‫ܘܐܠ ܒܕܝ ܼܢܐ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܢܐܙܠ܆ ܘܩܛ ܼ‬

‫‪ does not exist in B.L. Add. 14623. See Overbeck,‬ܐܠܗܐ ‪20 The term‬‬ ‫‪S. Ephraemi., p. 133.‬‬ ‫‪’ in B.L. Add.‬ܒ‘ ‪ is written without the prefix‬ܒܕܥܬܝܕ ‪21 The term‬‬ ‫‪14623. See Overbeck, S. Ephraemi., p. 133.‬‬ ‫‪,‬ܥܛܐܠ ‪’ at the end. -This is to say-‬ܐ’ ‪ is written with‬ܥܛܠ ‪22 The term‬‬ ‫‪in B.L. Add. 14623. See Overbeck, S. Ephraemi., p. 133.‬‬ ‫‪ here. See‬ܓܝܪ ‪ instead of‬ܕܝܢ ‪23 B.L. Add. 14623 employs the term‬‬ ‫‪Overbeck, S. Ephraemi., p. 133.‬‬ ‫‪ here. See‬ܒܕܝܢܐ ‪ instead of‬ܒܙܝܢܗ ‪24 B.L. Add. 14623 employs the term‬‬ ‫‪Overbeck, S. Ephraemi., p. 133.‬‬

‫‪CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP‬‬

‫̈‬ ‫ܛܥܝܐ‪ .‬ܕܗܒܝܠ‬ ‫ܘܕܐܠ ܢܗܦܟܘܢ‬ ‫ܗܘ ܡܝܬ ܩܕܡܝܐ‪ .‬ܘܢܕܘܕܘܢܝܗܝ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܦܘܚܡܐ‪ .‬ܕܡܬܝܚ ܒܝܬ ܡܪܢ‬ ‫ܐܠܕܢ‪ .‬ܢܕܥܘܢ ܕܩܛܐܠ ܕܒܪܢܫܐ‬ ‫ܗܘ‪ .‬ܩܨܐ ܕܝܢ ܡܢ ܐܠܗܐ ܗܘ‪.‬‬ ‫ܥܘܐܠ ܩܛܠܗ‪.‬‬ ‫ܠܗܒܝܠ ܓܝܪ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܐܠܕܡ ܕܝܢ ܟܐܢܐ ܐܡܝܬܗ‪.‬‬ ‫ܐܦܐܠ ܕܝܢ ܠܗܐ ܢܗܘܐ‪ .‬ܐܬܪܐ‬ ‫ܕܬܥܟܪ ܫ̈ܪܒܐ‪ .‬ܕܠܡܪܢ ܐܢܫܐ ܗܘ‬ ‫ܟܐܢܐ‬ ‫ܘܐܠܕܡ‬ ‫ܩܛܘܠܗܝ‪.‬‬ ‫ܕܚܛܐ‬ ‫ܐܕܡ‬ ‫ܐܡܝܬܗ‪.‬‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܠܟܐܢܘܬܐ ܐܠܗܐ ܒܩܨܐ‬ ‫ܐܡܝܬܗ‪ .‬ܡܪܢ ܕܝܢ ܕܩܛܠܗ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܗܘܐ ܩܛܠܗ‪.‬‬ ‫ܠܥܘܐܠ ܡܢ ܥܘܐܠ ܼ‬ ‫ܼ‬

‫ܢܚܘܒ‪.‬‬ ‫ܘܐܠ ܢܗܦܟܘܢ ̈ܗܕܝܘܛܐ‪ :‬ܕܗܒܝܠ‬ ‫ܗܘ ܡܝܬ ܩܕܡــܝܐ‪ :‬ܘܢــܕܘܕܘܢـــܝܗܝ‬ ‫ܕܡܬܝܚ ܒܝܬ ܡܪܢ‬ ‫ܦܘܚܡـــܐ‪ܼ :‬‬ ‫ܕܩܛܐܠ ܕܒܪܢܫܐ‬ ‫ܐܠܕܡ܆ ܢܕܥܘܢ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܗܘ‪ .‬ܩܨܐ ܕܝܢ ܼܡܢ ܐܠܗܐ ܗܘ‪.‬‬ ‫ܠܗܒܝܠ ܓܝܪ ܼܥܘܐܠ ܗܘ ܿܩܛܠܗ‪.‬‬ ‫ܐܠܕܡ ܕ ܼܝܢ ܟܐܢܐ ܐܡܝܬܗ‪.‬‬ ‫ܐܦܐܠ ܕܝܢ ܠܗܕܐ ܢܗܘܐ ܐܬܪܐ܇‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܕܬܥܟܪ ܫ̈ܪܒܐ‪ .‬ܕܠܡܪܢ ܐܢܫܐ ܗܘ‬ ‫ܟܐܢܐ‬ ‫ܘܐܠܕܡ‬ ‫ܩܛܠܘܗܝ‪.‬‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܕܚܛܐ‬ ‫ܐܕܡ‬ ‫ܐܡܝܬܗ‪.‬‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܒܩܨܐ‬ ‫ܠܟܐܢܘܬܐ‪ .‬ܐܠܗܐ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܐܡܝܬܗ‪ .‬ܡܪܢ ܕܝܢ ܕܩܛܠܗ‬ ‫ܗܘܐ ܩܛܠܗ܀‬ ‫ܠܥܘܐܠ‪ .‬ܡܢ ̈ܥܘܐܠ ܼ‬ ‫ܡܪܢ ܕܝܢ ܕܩܛܠܗ ܠܥܘܐܠ‪ .‬ܡܢ‬ ‫ܗܘܐ ܩܛܠܗ܀‬ ‫̈ܥܘܐܠ ܼ‬

‫‪194‬‬

‫̈‬ ‫‪25‬‬ ‫ܘܕܐܠ ܿܢܗܦܟܘܢ‬ ‫ܗܕܝܘܛܐ܆‬ ‫ܕܗܒܝܠ ܗܘ ܡܝܬ ܩܕܡܝܐ‪:‬‬ ‫ܕܡܬܝܚ‬ ‫ܘܢܕܘܕܘܢܝܗܝ‪ 26‬ܦܘܚܡܐ‪:‬‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫݀‬ ‫ܒܝܬ ܡܪܢ ܐܠܕܡ܆ ܢܕܥܘܢ‬ ‫ܕܩܛܐܠ ܕܒܪܢܫܐ ܗܘ‪ .‬ܩܨܐ ܕܝܢ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܡܢ ܐܠܗܐ ܗܘ‪ .‬ܠܗܒܝܠ ܓ ܼܝܪ‬ ‫ܥܘܐܠ ܗܘ ܩܛܠܗ‪ .‬ܐܠܕܡ ܕܝܢ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܟܐܢܐ ܐܡܝܬܗ‪.‬‬ ‫ܐܦܐܠ ܕܝܢ ܠܗܕܐ ܢܗܘܐ܇‬ ‫ܐܬܪܐ ܕܬܥܟܪ ܫ̈ܪܒܐ‪ .‬ܕܠܡܪܢ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܐܢܫܐ ܗܘ ܩܛܠܘܗܝ‪ :‬ܘܐܠܕܡ‬ ‫ܕܚܛܐ‬ ‫ܟܐܢܐ ܐܡܝܬܗ‪ .‬ܐܕܡ ܼ‬ ‫ܠܟܐܢܘܬܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܐܠܗܐ ܒܩܨܐ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܐܡܝܬܗ‪ .‬ܡܪܢ ܕܝܢ ܿ‬ ‫ܕܩܛܠܗ‬ ‫ܿܥ ̈ܘܐܠ ܗܘܐ‬ ‫ܠܥܘܐܠ܆ ܡܢ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܩܛ ܼܠܗ܀‬

‫‪ in‬ܚܛܝܐ ‪ instead of‬ܚܝܒܐ ‪Moshe bar Kipho has employed the work‬‬ ‫‪two cases, when referring to Adam. Also another case is the third‬‬ ‫‪paragraph, were Moshe bar Kipho’s wording differs considerably.‬‬ ‫‪This strongly suggests that Moshe bar Kipho was consulting a dif‬‬‫‪ferent florilegium, because Cyriacus’ text corresponds very closely‬‬ ‫‪to florilegium B.L. Add. 12155.‬‬ ‫‪5. Gregory of Nyssa, Homily I on the Beatitudes. (CPG 3161; PG‬‬ ‫‪44,1205C).‬‬ ‫‪MBKDP‬‬

‫‪Add. 12155‬‬

‫‪BDP‬‬

‫ܕܩܕܝܫܐ ܓܪܝܓܪܝܣ ܕܢܘܣܐ ܡܢ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܕܛܘܒܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܦܘܫܩܐ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܘܡܬܕܡܝܢ ܒܗܠܝܢ‬ ‫ܠܚܝܘܬܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܘܒܬܚܘܡܐ ܐܢܫܝܐ ܡܟܝܠ ܐܠ‬ ‫ܦܝܫܝܢ‪ .‬ܐܐܠ ܘܠܫܘܠܛܢܐ ܐܠܗܝܐ‬ ‫ܢܦܫܗܘܢ ܡܕܡܝܢ‪ .‬ܡܗܝܡܢܝܢ ܓܝܪ‬ ‫ܕܡ̈ܪܝܐ‬ ‫ܒܬ̈ܪܥܝܬܗܢܘܢ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܘܕܚܝܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܐܝܬܝܗܘܢ ܕܡܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܒܗ݀ܝ ܕܠܗܠܝܢ ܕܩܕܡܝܗܘܢ ܡܬܕܢܝܢ‪.‬‬

‫ܕܩܕܝܫܐ ܓܝܪܓܪܓܪܝܣ ܕܢܘܣܐ܆‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܕܛܘܒܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܡܢ ܦܘܫܩܐ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܘܡܬܕܡܝܢ ܒܗܠܝܢ‬ ‫ܠܚܝܘܬܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܡܟܝܠ ܐܠ‬ ‫ܘܒܬܚܘܡܐ ܐܢܫܝܐ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܐܠܗܝܐ‬ ‫ܦܝܫܝܢ‪ .‬ܐܐܠ ܘܠܫܘܠܛܢܐ‬ ‫ܼܿ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܢܦܫܗܘܢ ܿܡܕܡܝܢ‪ .‬ܡܗܝܡܢܝܢ ܓܝܪ‬ ‫ܒܬ̈ܪܥܝܬܗܘܢ ܕܡ̈ܪܝܐ ܐܝܬܝܗܘܢ‬ ‫ܕܡܘܬܐ ̈‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܒܗܝ ܕܠܗܠܝܢ‬ ‫ܘܕܚܝܐ‪.‬‬

‫ܓܪܝܓܘܪܝܘܣ‬ ‫ܕܝܢ‬ ‫ܚܣܝܐ‬ ‫ܕܢܘܣܐ‪ :‬ܒܡܐܡܪܐ ܩܕܡܝܐ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܕܛܘܒܐ ܗܠܝܢ ܿ‬ ‫ܐܡܪ‪.‬‬ ‫ܒܦܘܫܩܐ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܘܡܬܕܡܝܢ ܠܡ ܒܗܠ ܼܝܢ ̈‬ ‫ܠܚܝܘܬܐ܆‬ ‫ܡܟܝܠ ܐܠ‬ ‫ܘܒܬܚܘܡܐ ܐܢܫܝܐ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܐܐܠ ܘܠܫܘܠܛܢܐ ܐܠܗܝܐ‬ ‫ܦܝܫܝܢ‪.‬‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܢܦܫܗܘܢ ܡܕܡܝܢ‪ .‬ܡܗܝܡܢܝܢ ܓܝܪ‬ ‫ܕܡ̈ܪܝܐ‬ ‫ܒܬ̈ܪܥܝܬܗܘܢ‪:‬‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܘܕܚܝܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܕܡܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܐܝܬܝܗܘܢ‬ ‫ܒܗ݀ܝ‬ ‫ܕܩܕܡܝܗܘܢ‬ ‫ܕܠܗܠܝܢ‬

‫ܕܩܕܡܝܗܘܢ‬

‫ܡܬܕܢܝܢ‪.‬‬

‫ܠܚܕ‬

‫‪ܿ here.‬ܢܗܦܟܘܢ ‪ instead of‬ܢܦܗܘܢ ‪B.L. Add. 14623 employs the term‬‬ ‫‪See Overbeck, S. Ephraemi., p. 133.‬‬ ‫‪’ at‬ܝ‘ ‪ without the letter‬ܘܢܕܘܕܘܢܝܗܝ ‪26 B.L. Add. 14623 employs the term‬‬ ‫‪the end. See Overbeck, S. Ephraemi., p. 134.‬‬ ‫‪25‬‬

PATRISTIC CITATIONS IN THE BDP ‫ ܠܚܕ ܒܦܘܩܕܢܗܘܢ ܡܢ‬.‫ܡܬܬܕܝܢ ܼܝܢ‬ ‫ܘܐܠܚܪܢܐ‬ ‫ܡܘܬܐ ܡܚܪܪܝܢ܆‬ ܼ ‫ ܘܐܠ‬.‫ܠܚܣܕܐ ܕܡܘܬܐ ܡܚܝܒܝܢ‬ ܿ ‫ܡܣܬܟܠܝܢ ܐܦܐܠ ܗܕܐ ܕܡ ܼܢܘ‬ ‫ܿܗܘ ܕܒܫܪܪܐ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܡܪܝܐ‬ ̈ ̈ ‫ܝܗܒ‬ ܼ ‫ܕܚܝܐ ܐܢܫܝܐ܇ ܿܗܘ ܕܫܘܪܝܐ‬ ‫ܘܫܘܠܡܐ ܼܚܪܩ܀‬

.‫ܒܦܘܩܕܢܗܘܢ ܡܢ ܿܡܘܬܐ ܡܚܪܪ ܼܝܢ‬ ܿ ‫ܕܡܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܘܐܠܚܪܢܐ ܠܚܣܕܐ‬ ܿ ܿ ‫ ܘܐܠ‬.‫ܡܚܝܒܝܢ‬ ‫ܡܣܬܟܠܝܢ ܐܦܐܠ‬ ‫ܗܕܐ ܕܡ ܼܢܘ ܗ݀ܘ ܕܒܫܪܪܐ‬ ̈ ̈ ‫ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܡܪܐ‬ ‫ܐܢܫܝܐ܇‬ ‫ܕܚܝܐ‬ ‫ܝܗܒ ܘܫܘܠܡܐ‬ ‫ܗ݀ܘ ܕܫܘܪܝܐ‬ ܼ .‫ܚܪܩ‬ ܼ

195

‫ܠܚܕ ܒܦܘܩܕܢܗܘܢ ܡܢ ܡܘܬܐ‬ ‫ ܘܐܠܚܪܢܐ ܠܚܣܕܐ‬.‫ܡܚܪܪܝܢ‬ ‫ܘܐܠ‬ .‫ܡܚܝܒܝܢ‬ ‫ܕܡܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܡܣܬܟܠܝܢ ܐܦܐܠ ܗܕܐ ܕܡܢܘ‬ ܿ ‫ܗܘ ܕܒܫܪܪܐ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܡܪܐ‬ ܿ ̈ ̈ ‫ܝܗܒ‬ ܼ ‫ ܗܘ ܕܫܘܪܝܐ‬.‫ܕܚܝܐ ܐܢܫܝܐ‬ .‫ܘܫܘܠܡܐ ܚܪܩ‬

The only difference in the first citation is that Cyriacus has added the word ‫ܠܡ‬. This is commonly added by authors when they cite other works. This also occurred in the first citation of treatise fourteen. In this case both Cyriacus and Moshe bar Kipho are consulting source texts identical to that found in florilegium B.L. Add. 12155.

4.1.4. TREATISE TWENTY, CHAPTER ONE, TWO & THREE Treatise twenty, which is divided into three chapters, is concerning the soul. This is a treatise which was requested by Habib, Cyriacus’ secretary.27 We know from the popularity of works compiled on the soul, and dealt with in this work, that it was a controversial issue within the Syrian Orthodox tradition around Cyriacus’ era. Interestingly, all the citations employed in this treatise are found in florilegium B.L. Add. 12155,28 and are all listed in the same order, and all citations Cyriacus cites are either the same size or shorter than the ones found in florilegium B.L. Add. 12155. The translations of the texts in Syriac are not always identical. This indicates yet again that a different florilegium was consulted, which probably goes back to a common source. Chapter One Not only are the citations of this chapter identical to the florilegium in question, but so also is the rubric which is found in florilegium B.L. Add. 12155, Concerning the soul’s knowledge, after its separation from the body.29 The only difference between the rubrics is the fact that Cyriacus, BDP, XX, fol. 113i-131i. Florilegium B.L. Add. 12155, fol. 53b-54a, 56b-57b, 58a-59a. 29 Wright, Catalogue, v. II, p. 928; Cureton, Ancient Syriac Documents, p 192; Florilegium B.L. Add. 12155, fol. 53b-54a, the title in Syriac, ܿ .‫ܦܘܪܫܢܗ ܕܡܢ ܦܓܪܐ‬ ‫ܡܛܠ ܝܕܥܬܐ ܕܢܦܫܐ ܕܒܬܪ‬ 27 28

196

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

Cyriacus’30 preference is to employ the rubric in the plural rather than in the singular. The majority of the citations are also found in BHLS, under the rubric, Concerning the soul’s knowledge, after its separation from the body,31 where the rubric again is similar, and indicates that Bar Hebraeus had access to a florilegium which had a common source with the one Cyriacus consulted. Two citations have been selected from Table A, for comparison with the citations Cyriacus has employed for his BDP (see Table B), in order to demonstrate the relationship between Cyriacus’ BDP, florilegium B.L. Add. 12155, and BHLS. Citations: 1. Gregory of Nazianzus, On his Brother, St. Caesarius. (CPG 3010; PG 35, 781B) 2. Gregory of Nazianzus, Treatise on the funeral of his sister, Gorgoina, (CPG 3010; PG 35,816C) 3. Gregory of Nazianzus, Treatise on the funeral of his father, towards those of Basil. (CPG 3010; PG 35, 989A) 4. Gregory of Nyssa, Treatise on Virginity (CPG 3165; PG 46,317416). 5. Doctrina Addai, (ed. G. Phillips, London 1876, p. 46 last line, to p. 47 line 12). 6. John Chrysostom, Encomium on Meletius of Antioch. (CPG 4345; PG 50, 520b, Line.17, 22). Table A Citations 1. G. Nazianzus 2. G. Nazianzus 3. G. Nazianzus 4. G. of Nyssa

BDP Add. 12155 117ii-118i 53b 118i-118ii 53b 118ii-119i 53b 119i-119ii 53b

MBKS BHLS MBKDP --694-5 ----856 ----695 ---------

Cyriacus, BDP, XX.1, fol. 113ii, ̈ .‫ܠܢܦܫܬܐ܇ ܡܢ ܒܬܪ ܦܘ̈ܪܫܢܝܗܝܢ ܕܡܢ ܦܓ̈ܪܐ‬ ‫ܥܠ ܗ݀ܝ ܕܐܢ ܐܝܬ ܝܕܥܬܐ‬ 31 BHLS, pp. 692-708, ܿ ‫ܕܥܬܗ ܕܢܦܫܐ ܼܡܢ ܒܬܪ ܦܘܪ‬ ܿ .‫ܕܡܢ ܦܓܪܐ‬ ‫ܡܛܠ ܼܝ‬ ܼ ‫ܫܢܗ‬ 30

‫‪197‬‬ ‫‪--‬‬‫‪---‬‬

‫‪PATRISTIC CITATIONS IN THE BDP‬‬ ‫‪694‬‬ ‫‪69532‬‬

‫‪--‬‬‫‪---‬‬

‫‪53b‬‬ ‫‪53b-54a‬‬

‫‪119ii-120i‬‬ ‫‪120i‬‬

‫‪5. Doct. Addai‬‬ ‫‪6. John‬‬

‫‪Table B‬‬ ‫;‪1. Gregory of Nazianzus, On his Brother, St. Caesarius. (CPG 3010‬‬ ‫)‪PG 35, 781B‬‬ ‫‪BHLS‬‬

‫‪Add. 12155‬‬

‫ܓܪܝܓܘܪܝܘܣ ܬܐܘܠܘܓܘܣ‪:‬‬ ‫ܒܡܐܡܪܐ ܕܥܠ ܩܒܘܪܬܐ‬ ‫ܕܩܣܪܝܘܣ ܐܚܘܗܝ‬ ‫ܐܠ ܥܕܟܝܠ ̈ܣܦܩܢ ܗܠܝܢ ܠܘܬ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܩܪܒ ܼܿܣܡܐ ܕܝܬܝܪ‬ ‫ܒܘܝܐܐ܆ ܐ ܼ‬ ‫ܪܒ‪ .‬ܡܬܛܦ ܼܝܣ ܼܐܢܐ ̈‬ ‫ܠܡܠܝܗܘܢ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܕܚܟܝܡܐ܆ ܕܟܠ ܢܦܫܐ ܛܒܬܐ‬ ‫ܘܪܚ݀ ̇‬ ‫ܡܬ ܐܠܗܐ܇ ܥܡ ܿܗ ܕܟܕ‬

‫ܕܩܕܝܫܐ ܓܪܝܓܘܪܝܘܣ ܡܦܫܩ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܐ ̈‬ ‫ܠܗܝܬܐ‪ .‬ܡܢ ܡܐܡܪܐ ܕܥܠ‬ ‫ܩܒܘܪܬܗ ܕܩܣܪܝܘܣ ܐܚܘܗܝ܀‬ ‫ܐܠ ܥܕܟܝܠ ̈ܣܦܩܢ ܗܠܝܢ ܠܘܬ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܩܪܒ ܥܩܪܐ ܪܒܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܒܘܝܐܐ܆ ܐ ܼ‬ ‫ܡܬܛܦܝܣ ܼܐܢܐ ̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܕܚܟܝܡܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܠܡܐܠ‬ ‫ܕܟܠ ܢܦܫܐ ܛܒܬܐ ܘܪܚ݀ܡ ̇ܬ‬ ‫ܐܠܗܐ܇ ܒܬܪ ܕܡܫܬܪܝܐ ܡܢ‬ ‫ܓܘܫܡܐ ܕܐܣܝܪܐ ܥܡܗ‬ ‫ܘܡܓܗܝܐ ܡܟܐ܇ ܼܡܚܕܐ ܿܡܢ ܟܕ‬ ‫ܘܒܡܪܓܫܢܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܒܬܐܪܝܐ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܕܛܒܬܐ ܕܡܩܘܝܐ ܿ‬ ‫ܗܘܝܐ܇‬ ‫ܠܗ‬ ‫ܒܗ݀ܝ ܿ‬ ‫ܕܗܘ ܿ‬ ‫ܕܡܚܫܟ ܐ݀ܬܕܟܝ ܐܘ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܝܕܥ ܼܐܢܐ‬ ‫ܐܬܬܣܝܡ܇ ܐܘ ܐܠ‬ ‫ܡܢܐ ܘ݀ܐܠ ܠܡܐܡܪ܇ ܗܢܝܐܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܬܡܝܗܬܐ ܡܬܗܢܝܐ ܘܪܘܙܐ܇‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܡܪܗ ܐܬܝܐ܇ ܟܕ‬ ‫ܘܒ̈ܪܚܡܐ ܨܝܕ‬ ‫ܐܝܟ ܕܡܢ ܒܝܬ ܐܣܝ̈ܪܐ ܡܕܡ‬ ‫ܥܪܩܐ܇‬ ‫ܩܫܝܐ ܡܢ ܥܠܡܐ ܕܗܪܟܐ ܼ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܡܢܦܨܐ܇‬ ‫ܥܠܝܗ‬ ‫ܘܩܘܕܐ ܕܣܝܡܝܢ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܓܦܐ ܕܬܪܥܝܬܐ‬ ‫ܕܡܢܗܘܢ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܡܬܢܬܥ ܗܘܐ܇ ܘܐܝܟ ܡܐ ܡܢ‬ ‫ܿܟܕܘ ܒܦܐܢܛܐܣܝܐ ܼܿܥܦܝܐ ܛܘܒܐ‬ ‫ܕܣ ܼܝܡ‪) .‬ܘܒܬܪ ܩܠܝܠ ܕܝܢ ܘܒܣܪܘܢܐ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܓܢܣܗ ܟܕ ܫ݀ܩܐܠ‪ :‬ܥܡ ܗ݀ܘ‬ ‫ܒܪ‬ ‫ܕܗܠܝܢ ܕܡܢ ܠܗܠ ܐܟܚܕܐ‬ ‫ܦܝܠܘܣܦܣܐ ܼܥܒܕܬ‪ :‬ܡܢ ܐܪܥܐ ܗ݀ܝ‬ ‫ܕܐܦ ܝܗܒܬ ܘܐܬܗ ܼܝܡܢܬ‪ :‬ܒܙܗܐ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܕܝܕܥ ܐܠܗܐ‪ :‬ܗ݀ܘ ܕܗܠܝܢ‬ ‫ܘܫܪܪܐ܆ ܐܝܟ‬ ‫ܐܣܪ‬ ‫ܕܐܟܚܕܐ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܕܒܥܣܩܬܗ‬ ‫ܬܡܢ‪ .‬ܘܐܝܟܢܐ‬ ‫ܫܘܬ]ܦـ[ـܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܐܫܬܘܬܦܬ‬ ‫ܦܐܝ ܿ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܬܗ‬ ‫ܕܐܟܚܕܐ܆ ܗܟܢܐ ܘܡܢ‬ ‫ܝܗܒܐ܇ ܟܕ ܠܟܠܗ ܒܗ ܡܢܕܪܝܫ‬ ‫ܡܥܡܪܐ ܘܗ݀ܘܝܐ ܥܡ ܗܢܐ ܚܕ܇‬

‫ܡܫܬܪܝܐ ܡܢ ܦܓܪܐ ܕܥܡܗ‬ ‫ܐܣܝܪܐ‪ .‬ܡܓܗܝܐ ܼܡܢ ܗܪܟܐ܇‬ ‫ܡܚܕܐ ܿܡܢ ܟܕ ܒܡܪܓܫܢܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܘܬܐܘܪܝܐ ܗ݀ܘܝܐ ܕܛܒܬܐ ܗ݀ܝ‬ ‫ܠܗ܇ ܒܗ݀ܝ ܿ‬ ‫ܕܡܩܘܝܐ ܿ‬ ‫ܕܗܘ ܿ‬ ‫ܕܡܚܫܟ‬ ‫ܗܘܐ ܐ݀ܬܕܘ ܼܝ ܘܐܬܬܣ ܼܝܡ܇ ܐܘ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܝܕܥ ܼܐܢܐ ܗ݀ܝ ܕܐܦ ܘ݀ܐܠ‬ ‫ܐܠ‬ ‫ܠܡܐܡܪ܇ ܗܢܝܐܘܬܐ ܡܕܡ‬ ‫ܬܡܝܗܬܐ ܡܬܗܢܝܐ ܘܪܘܙܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܼ‬

‫‪BDP‬‬

‫ܿܡܢ‪ :‬ܓܪܝܓܘܪܝܘܣ‬ ‫ܘܠܘܩܕܡ‬ ‫ܬܐܘܠܘܓܘܣ‪ :‬ܒܡܐܡܪܐ ܕܥܠ‬ ‫ܐܡܪ ܗܟܢܐ܆܀‬ ‫ܩܣܪܝܘܣ ܐܚܘܗܝ ܼ‬ ‫ܐܠ ܥܕܟܝܠ ̈ܣܦܩܢ ܗܠܝܢ ܠܘܬ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܩܪܒ ܼܿܣܡܐ ܕܝܬܝܪ‬ ‫ܒܘܝܐܐ܆ ܐ ܼ‬ ‫ܪܒ‪ .‬ܡܬܛܦܝܣ ܼܐܢܐ ̈‬ ‫ܠܡܠܝܗܘܢ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܕܚܟܝܡܐ܆ ܕܟܠ ܢܦܫܐ ܛܒܬܐ‬ ‫ܡܬ ܐܠܗܐ܇ ܥܡܗ ܕܟܕ‬ ‫ܘܪܚ݀ ̇‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܕܥܡܗ‬ ‫ܡܫܬܪܝܐ ܡܢ ܦܓܪܐ‬ ‫ܐܣܝܪ ܡܓܗܝܐ ܡܢ ܗܪܟܐ܇‬ ‫ܼܡܚܕܐ ܿܡܢ ܟܕ ܒܡ̈ܪܓܫܢܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܘܬܐܘܪܝܐ ܗ݀ܘܝܐ ܕܛܒܬܐ ܗ݀ܝ‬ ‫ܠܗ܇ ܒܗ݀ܝ ܿ‬ ‫ܕܡܩܘܝܐ ܿ‬ ‫ܕܗܘ ܿ‬ ‫ܕܡܚܫܟ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܐܘ‬ ‫ܐ݀ܬܕܟܝ‬ ‫ܠܗ‬ ‫ܗܘܐ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܝܕܥ ܼܐܢܐ‬ ‫ܐܬܬܣܝܡ܇ ܐܘ ܐܠ‬ ‫ܗ݀ܝ ܕܐܦ ܘ݀ܐܠ ܠܡܐܡܪ܇‬ ‫ܬܡܝܗܬܐ‬ ‫ܗܢܝܐܘܬܐ ܡܕܡ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܡܬܗܢܝܐ ܘܪܘܙܐ܇ ܘܡܫܝܢܐܝܬ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܡܪܗ‪ .‬ܟܕ ܐܝܟ ܕܡܢ‬ ‫ܐܬܝܐ ܠܘܬ‬ ‫ܒܝܬ ܐܣܝ̈ܪܐ ܡܕܡ ܩܫܝܐ ܡܢ‬ ‫ܥܪܩܬ̇܇ ̈‬ ‫ܘܩܘܕܐ‬ ‫ܕܘܒܪܐ ܕܗܪܟܐ ܼ‬ ‫ܢܦܨܬ̇܇‬ ‫ܕܡܦܟܪܐ ܗܘܬ ܒܗܘܢ ܼ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܕܬܪܥܝܬܗ‬ ‫ܓܦܐ‬ ‫ܕܡܢܗܘܢ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܡܬܢܬܥ ܗܘܐ܇ ܘܐܝܟ ܿܗܘ‬ ‫ܕܗܐ ܡܢ ܿܟܕܘ ܒܦܐܢܛܐܣܝܐ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܩܛܦܐ ܛܘܒܢܘܬܐ ܗ݀ܝ ܕܣ ܼܝܡܐ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܠܗ‪.‬‬

‫‪Bar Hebraeus attributes this text to Gregory of Nyssa. See BHLS,‬‬

‫‪32‬‬

‫‪p. 695.‬‬

‫‪198‬‬

‫‪CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP‬‬ ‫ܘܪܘܚܐ‪ :‬ܘܗܘܢܐ‪ :‬ܘܐܠܗܐ܇ ܟܕ‬ ‫ܡܬܒܠܥ ܡܢ ̈‬ ‫ܚܝܐ ܡܝܘܬܐ ܘܗ݀ܘ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܕ̈ܪܕܝܐ‪(.‬‬

‫‪In this case, comparing Cyriacus’ citation of Gregory of Nazianzus‬‬ ‫‪with florilegium B.L. Add. 12155, we see that florilegium B.L. Add.‬‬ ‫‪12155 has significantly different wording, and is also much longer‬‬ ‫‪in length (See the highlighted text within brackets). This indicates‬‬ ‫‪that Cyriacus must have consulted a different florilegium, probably‬‬ ‫‪a different translation too.‬‬ ‫‪Comparing BHLS with the BDP, we found that Bar Hebraeus‬‬ ‫‪is either quoting an even shorter version of this citation, or as else‬‬‫‪where, he is most likely cutting down the citation himself.33 This‬‬ ‫‪suggests again that Bar Hebraeus’ and Cyriacus’ citations go back‬‬ ‫‪to a common source.‬‬ ‫‪5. Doctrina Addai. (ed. G. Phillips, London 1876, p. 46 last line, to p.‬‬ ‫‪47 line 12).‬‬ ‫‪BHLS‬‬ ‫ܫܠܝܚܐ‬ ‫ܐܕܝ‬ ‫ܕܒܐܘܪܗܝ‪.‬‬

‫ܒܡܠܦܢܘܬܗ‬

‫ܼܡܫܪܝܐ ܿ‬ ‫ܕܢܝܚܐ‪ .‬ܐܠ ܓܝܪ ܒ݀ܛܐܠ‬ ‫ܘܐܠ‬ ‫ܕܢܦܫܐ܆‬ ‫ܡܚܫܒܬܐ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܐܝܬܝܗ‬ ‫ܝܕܥܬܐ‪ .‬ܡܛܠ ܕܨܠܡܐ‬ ‫ܕܐܠܗܐ ܐܠ ܡܝܘܬܐ‪.‬‬

‫‪Add. 12155‬‬

‫‪BDP‬‬

‫ܡܢ ܡܠܦܢܘܬܐ ܕܐܕܝ ܫܠܝܚܐ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܕܐܬܐܡܪܬ ܒܐܘܪܗܝ ܡܕܝܢܬܐ܀‬ ‫ܝܕܥܝܢ ܐܢܬܘܢ ܿ‬ ‫ܕܐܡܪܬ ܠܟܘܢ‪:‬‬ ‫ܢܦܫܬܐ ̈‬ ‫ܕܟܠܗܝܢ ̈‬ ‫ܕܢܦܩܢ ܡܢ ܦܓ̈ܪܐ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܡܘܬܐ ܐܠ ̈ܗܘܝܢ‪.‬‬ ‫ܕܒܢܝܢܫܐ܆ ܬܚܝܬ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܐܐܠ ̈ܚܝܢ ̈‬ ‫ܝܡܢ‪ .‬ܘܐܝܬ ܠܗܝܢ‬ ‫ܘܩ ܼ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܢܐ ܘܒܝܬ ܼܡܫܪܝܐ ܿ‬ ‫ܕܢܝܚܐ‪ .‬ܐܠ‬ ‫ܐܘ ܼ‬ ‫݀‬ ‫ܓܝܪ ܒܛܐܠ ܡܚܫܒܬܐ ܕܢܦܫܐ܆‬ ‫ܘܐܠ ܝܕܥܬܐ‪ .‬ܡܛܠ ܕܨܠܡܐ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܐܝܬܝܗ ܕܐܠܗܐ ܿܚ ܼܝܐ ܐܠ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܡܝܘܬܐ‪ .‬ܠܝܬܝܗ ܓܝܪ ܕܐܠ‬ ‫̈ܪܓܫܐ ܒܕܡܘܬܐ ܕܓܘܫܡܐ܇‬ ‫ܿܗܘ ܕܠܝܬ ܠܗ ܡܪܓܫܢܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܕܚ ܼܒܠܗ ܿܗܘ ܕܐܡܠܟ ܥܠܘܗܝ‪.‬‬ ‫ܦܘܪܥܢܐ ܕܝܢ ܘܐܓܪܐ܆ ܐܠ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܡܩܒܐܠ ܒܠܥܕ ܡܢ ܓܘܫܡܗ܇‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܗܘ‬ ‫ܕܝܠܗ‬ ‫ܠܘ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕܚܫ‬ ‫ܡܛܠ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܐܐܠ ܘܕܓܘܫܡܐ ܿܗܘ‬ ‫ܒܠܚܘܕܝܗ܆‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܕܥܡ ̇‬ ‫ܐܠ‬ ‫ܒܙܒܢ‪.‬‬ ‫ܒܗ‬ ‫ܪܬ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܡܬܛܦܝܣܢܐ ܕܝܢ ܕܐܠܠܗܐ ܐܠ‬ ‫ܝܕܥܘ܆ ܕܐܠ ܝܘܬܪܢ ܗܝܕܝܢ‬ ‫ܡܬܬܘܝܢ܀܀܀܀‬

‫ܬܘܒ ܡܢ ܡܠܦܢܘܬܐ ܕܐܕܝ ܫܠܝܚܐ‬ ‫ܕܐܬܐܡܪܬ ܒܐܘܪܗܝ ܡܕܝܢܬܐ܆‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܝܕܥܝܢ ܐܢܬܘܢ ܿ‬ ‫ܕܐܡܪܬ ܠܟܘܢ‪:‬‬ ‫ܢܦܫܬܐ ̈‬ ‫ܕܟܠܗܝܢ ̈‬ ‫ܕܢܦܩܢ ܡܢ ܦܓ̈ܪܐ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܡܘܬܐ ܐܠ‬ ‫ܕܒܢܝܢܫܐ܆ ܬܚܝܬ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫̈ܗܘܝܢ‪ .‬ܐܐܠ ̈ܚܝܢ ̈‬ ‫ܝܡܢ‪ .‬ܘܐܝܬ‬ ‫ܘܩ ܼ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܢܐ ܘܒܝܬ ܼܡܫܪܝܐ‬ ‫ܠܗܝܢ ܐܘ ܼ‬ ‫݀‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܕܢܝܚܐ‪ .‬ܐܠ ܓܝܪ ܒܛܐܠ‬ ‫ܡܚܫܒܬܐ ܕܢܦܫܐ܆ ܘܐܠ ܝܕܥܬܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܐܝܬܝܗ ܕܐܠܗܐ‬ ‫ܡܛܠ ܕܨܠܡܐ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܿܚ ܼܝܐ ܐܠ ܡܝܘܬܐ‪ .‬ܠܝܬܝܗ ܓܝܪ‬ ‫ܒܕܡܘܬܐ‬ ‫̈ܪܓܫܐ‬ ‫ܕܐܠ‬ ‫ܿܗܘ ܕܠܝܬ ܠܗ‬ ‫ܕܓܘܫܡܐ܇‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܿܗܘ‬ ‫ܕܚ ܼܒܠܗ‬ ‫ܡܪܓܫܢܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܕܐܡܠܟ ܥܠܘܗܝ‪ .‬ܦܘܪܥܢܐ ܕܝܢ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܘܐܓܪܐ܆ ܐܠ ܡܩܒܐܠ ܒܠܥܕ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܕܝܠܗ‬ ‫ܕܚܫܐ ܠܘ‬ ‫ܓܘܫܡܗ܇ ܡܛܠ ܼ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܐܐܠ‬ ‫ܒܠܚܘܕܝܗ܆‬ ‫ܗܘ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܕܥܡܪܬ̇ ܒܗ‬ ‫ܘܕܓܘܫܡܐ ܿܗܘ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܒܙܒܢ‪ .‬ܐܠ ܡܬܛܦܝܣܢܐ ܕܝܢ‬ ‫ܕܐܠܠܗܐ ܐܠ ܝܕܥܘ܆ ܕܐܠ ܝܘܬܪܢ‬ ‫ܗܝܕܝܢ ܡܬܬܘܝܢ܀܀܀܀‬

‫‪33 Cf. Taylor, “L’importance des Pères de l’Église dans l’oeuvre‬‬ ‫‪spéculative de Barhebraeus”, pp. 63-86.‬‬

PATRISTIC CITATIONS IN THE BDP

199

This citation corresponds very well with florilegium B.L. Add. 12155. The only difference is the word ‫ ܡܢ‬in the florilegium edition. This is most probably an addition by the scribe who copied it. Comparing the shorter version of this citation found in BHLS with the BDP. The word ‫ ܚܝܐ‬is missing after ‫ܐܠܗܐ‬. This could again be a scribal error. Chapter Two The second chapter of this treatise in Cyriacus’ BDP discusses the question of whether offerings for the dead serve any purpose.34 Five citations are found in this chapter all clustered together. The citations of this chapter are all found in the same sequence in florilegium B.L. Add. 12155, under the rubric: ‘Concerning offerings which are being offered for the sake of the dead’.35 Three out of five citations are also found in MBKS, under the rubric ‘the chapter which demonstrates that the dead receive advantage from the sacrifices made on their behalf.’36 MBKS ends with the third citation. Whether this indicates that the final two citations were not included in the florilegium available to him, or that he simply chose, not to cite them, can not be determined. This again indicates that Moshe bar Kipho consulted a florilegium which most likely goes back to the same source as Cyriacus’ florilegium. Citations one and three have been selected from Table A, to be compared and studied in Table B. Citations: 1. Palladius of Hellenopolis, The Book of Paradise. (ROC 12, p. 52; ed. E. A. Wallis Budge, p. 662). 2. John Chrysostom, Homily no. 41, on I Corinthians (1 Cor 15:46). (CPG 4428; PG 61, 361a, line 6-27). 34 Cyriacus, BDP, XX.2, fol. 120i-120ii, ̈ ‫ܥܠ ܿܗܝ ܕܝܬ̈ܪܝܢ‬ ‫ ܕܬ̈ܪܬܝܢ ܕܝܢ ܒܥܬܐ‬.‫ܥܢܝܕܐ܇ ܡܢ ܩܘ̈ܪܒܢܐ ܕܚܠܦܝܗܘܢ ܡܬܩ̈ܪܒܝܢ‬ ̈ ̈ ܿ ‫ܐܝܬܝܗ܆ ܕܐܢ ܐܪܐ ܟܝܬ ܘܝܬ̈ܪܝܢ ܥܢܝܕܐ ܡܢ ܩܘ̈ܪܒܢܐ܇ ܡܛܘܠ ܕܐܢܫܝܢ ܐܦ ܥܠ‬ ‫ܕܝܠܟ‬ ܿ ‫ܗܕܐ ܡܬܚܪܝܢ܇‬ .‫ܘܣܥܝܢ ܟܝܬ ܕܢܐܡܪܘܢ ܕܐܠ ܝܬ̈ܪܝܢ‬ 35 Florilegium B.L. Add. 12155, fol. 56b, ̈ .‫ܠܥܢܝܕܐ‬ ‫ܡܛܠ ܩܘ̈ܪܒܢܐ ܕܗܘܝܢ‬ 36 MBKS, VatSyr 147, fol. 89b.

‫‪200‬‬

‫‪CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP‬‬

‫‪3. John Chrysostom, Homily no. 3, on Philippians (Phil 1:24). (CPG‬‬ ‫‪4432; PG 62,204b, line 16-24).‬‬ ‫‪4. Cyril of Alexandria, Against those who reject the offering for the dead‬‬ ‫;‪(CPG 5234.2; ed. P.E. Pusey [Works of St Cyril] Oxford 1868-1877‬‬ ‫‪vol. 5, pp. 542 line 19 – 543 line 2; 543 line 9-14; 543 line 14-20; the‬‬ ‫‪last citation is not included in Pusey’s edition).‬‬ ‫‪5. Severus of Antioch, Letter to Caesaria the Patrician. (CPG 7070; PO‬‬ ‫‪14, p. 284, line 8 to p. 285, line 9).‬‬ ‫‪Table A‬‬ ‫‪MBKDP‬‬ ‫‪--‬‬‫‪--‬‬‫‪--‬‬‫‪--‬‬‫‪---‬‬

‫‪BHLS‬‬ ‫‪--‬‬‫‪--‬‬‫‪--‬‬‫‪--‬‬‫‪---‬‬

‫‪MBKS‬‬ ‫‪89b-90a‬‬ ‫‪90a-90b‬‬ ‫‪91a‬‬ ‫‪--‬‬‫‪---‬‬

‫‪Add. 12155‬‬ ‫‪56b-57a‬‬ ‫‪57a‬‬ ‫‪57a‬‬ ‫‪57a-b‬‬ ‫‪57b‬‬

‫‪BDP‬‬ ‫‪121ii-122i‬‬ ‫‪122i-122ii‬‬ ‫‪122ii-123i‬‬ ‫‪123i-124i‬‬ ‫‪124i-124ii‬‬

‫‪Citations‬‬ ‫‪1. Palladius‬‬ ‫‪2. John‬‬ ‫‪3. John‬‬ ‫‪4. Cyril‬‬ ‫‪5. Severus‬‬

‫‪Table B‬‬ ‫‪1. Palladius of Hellenopolis, The Book of Paradise. (ROC 12, p. 52; ed.‬‬ ‫)‪E. A. Wallis Budge, p. 662‬‬ ‫‪MBKS‬‬

‫̄‬ ‫ܕܦܠܕ‬ ‫ܕܗܠܝܦܝܘܣ܆‬ ‫ܐܦܝܣ‬ ‫ܬܫܥܝܬܐ ܕܐܟܬܒ ܥܠ ̈‬ ‫ܝܚܝܕܝܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܐܢܫ ܐܪܚܩ ܼܡܢ ܥܠܡܐ ܗܢܐ‬ ‫ܘܐܝܬ ܗܘܐ ܠܗ ܐܢܬܬܐ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܐܝܬܝܗ‬ ‫ܘܒܪܬܐ ܬܘܒ ܕܡ ܼܝܬܬ݀ ܟܕ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܫܡܘܥܐ‪ܿ .‬ܦܠܓ‬ ‫ܗܘܬ ܥܕܟܝܠ ܼܡܢ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܕܡܛܬܗ ̈‬ ‫ܙܕܩܬܐ‬ ‫ܐܒܘܗ ܡܢܬܐ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܘܐܡܗ ܬܘܒ ܐܦ‬ ‫ܠܡܣܟܢܐ܆‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܕܝܠܗ ܐܠ ܿܫܠܝܐ ܗܘܬ ܼܡܢ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܒܪܬܗ‬ ‫ܕܡܦ ܼܝܣܐ ܐܠܠܗܐ ܥܠ‬ ‫ܕܥ ܼܢܕܬ݀ ܼܡܢ ܥܠܡܐ ܟܕ ܐܠ‬ ‫ܐܫܬܡܥ ܠܗ ܕܝܢ ܩܐܠ‬ ‫ܥܡܝܕܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܕܥܡܕܬ݀ ܿ‬ ‫ܠܗ ܒܪܬܟ‬ ‫ܡܨܐܠ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܟܕ ܿ ܼ‬ ‫ܗܘ ܕܝܢ ܐܠ‬ ‫ܬܟܪܐ ܠܟ‪.‬‬ ‫ܐܠ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܐܡܪ ܗܟܝܠ ܬܘܒ ܩܐܠ‬ ‫ܿܗ ܼܝܡܢ‪.‬‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܩܒܪܗ‬ ‫ܡܬܚܙܝܢܐ ܚܦܘܪ‬ ‫ܿܗܘ ܐܠ‬ ‫ܼܿ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܐܫܟܚܗ‪ܼܿ :‬ܫܢܝܬ݀ ܓܝܪ‬ ‫ܘܚܦܪ ܘܐܠ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܡܗܝܡܢܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܘܐܬܬܣ ܼܝܡܬ݀ ܥܡ‬

‫‪Add. 12155‬‬

‫‪BDP‬‬

‫ܕܦܠܕ ܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ ܕܗܠܝܦܘܠܝܣ܆‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܕܐܟܬܒ ܥܠ‬ ‫ܡܢ ܬܫܥܝܬܐ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܐܝܚܝܕܝܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܐܬܪܚܩ ܡܢ ܥܠܡܐ܆ ܘܐܝܬ‬ ‫ܐܢܫ‬ ‫ܗܘܬ ܠܗ ܐܢܬܬܐ܆ ܘܒܪܬܐ ܬܘܒ‬ ‫ܕܡܝ ̇‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܐܬܝܗ ܗܘܬ ܥܕܟܝܠ‬ ‫ܬܬ܇ ܟܕ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܫܡܘܥܐ ܕܥܬܝܕܝܢ ܗܘܘ‬ ‫ܡܢ‬ ‫݀‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܐܒܘܗ ܿܡܢܬܐ‬ ‫ܠܓ‬ ‫ܠܡܥܡܕ‪ .‬ܘܦ ܼ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܘܐܡܗ ܬܘܒ‬ ‫ܠܡܣܟܢܐ܆‬ ‫ܕܡܛܬܗ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܕܝܠܗ‪ .‬ܐܠ ܕܝܢ ܿܫܐܠ ܗܘܐ‬ ‫ܐܦ ܗ ܼܝ‬ ‫ܡܢ ܕܡܦܝܣ ܐܠܠܗܐ ܚܠܦ ܒܪܬܗ܇‬ ‫ܗ݀ܝ ܕܥܢ ̇‬ ‫ܕܬ ܡܢ ܥܠܡܐ ܟܕ ܐܠ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܐܫܬܡܥ ܠܗ ܕܝܢ ܩܐܠ‬ ‫ܥܡܝܕܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܡܨܐܠ܆ ܕܥܡ ̇‬ ‫ܕܬ ܿ‬ ‫ܟܕ ܿ‬ ‫ܒܪܬܟ‬ ‫ܠܗ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܗܘ ܕܝܢ܆ ܐܠ‬ ‫ܐܠ ܼܬܟܪܐ ܠܟ‪.‬‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܐܡܪ ܗܟܝܠ ܬܘܒ ܩܐܠ ܿܗܘ‬ ‫ܗܝܡܢ‪ܼ .‬‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܒܩܒܪܗ ܘܚܙ ܼܝ‬ ‫ܐܠ ܡܬܚܙܝܢܐ܆ ܚܦܘܪ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܗܘ ܕܝܢ‬ ‫ܕܐܠ ܡܫܟܚ ܐܢܬ ܠܗ‪ܼ .‬‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܘܚܦܪ ܘܐܠ‬ ‫ܠܩܒܪܗ܆‬ ‫ܐܙܠ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܓܝܪ‬ ‫ܫ ܼܢܝܬ‬ ‫ܐܫܟܚܗ‪.‬‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܡܗܝܡܢܐ܀‬ ‫ܘܐܬܬܣ ܼܝ ܿܡ ̇ܬ܆ ܥܡ‬

‫ܕܦܠܕ ܐܦܝܣܩܦܐ ܕܗܠܝܐܦܘܠܝܣ܆‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܬܫܥܝܬܐ ܕܐܟܬܒ ܥܠ‬ ‫ܡܢ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܝܚܝܕܝܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܐܢܫ ܐܬܪܚܩ ܡܢ ܥܠܡܐ܆ ܘܐܝܬ‬ ‫ܗܘܐ ܠܗ ܐܢܬܬܐ܆ ܘܒܪܬܐ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܐܬܝܗ ܗܘܬ‬ ‫ܬܘܒ ܕܡ ܼܝܬܬ̇܇ ܟܕ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܕܥܬܝܕܝܢ‬ ‫ܫܡܘܥܐ‬ ‫ܥܕܟܝܠ‬ ‫݀‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܐܒܘܗ ܿܡܢܬܐ‬ ‫ܠܓ‬ ‫ܠܡܥܡܕ‪ .‬ܘܦ ܼ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܘܐܡܗ ܬܘܒ‬ ‫ܠܡܣܟܢܐ܆‬ ‫ܕܡܛܬܗ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܕܝܠܗ‪ .‬ܐܠ ܕܝܢ ܿܫܐܠ ܗܘܐ‬ ‫ܐܦ ܗ ܼܝ‬ ‫ܕܡܦܝܣ ܐܠܠܗܐ ܚܠܦ ܒܪܬܗ܇ ܗ݀ܝ‬ ‫ܕܥ ܼܢܕܬ̇ ܡܢ ܥܠܡܐ ܟܕ ܐܠ ܿ‬ ‫ܥܡܝܕܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܐܫܬܡܥ ܠܗ ܕܝܢ ܩܐܠ ܟܕ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܕܥܡܕܬ̇ ܿ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܒܪܬܟ ܐܠ‬ ‫ܠܗ‬ ‫ܡܨܐܠ܆‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܗܘ ܕܝܢ܆ ܐܠ ܗܝܡܢ‪.‬‬ ‫ܼܬܟܪܐ ܠܟ‪ܼ .‬‬ ‫ܐܡܪ ܗܟܝܠ ܬܘܒ ܩܐܠ ܿܗܘ ܐܠ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܡܬܚܙܝܢܐ܆ ܚܦܘܪ‬ ‫ܒܩܒܪܗ ܘܚܙ ܼܝ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܗܘ ܕܝܢ‬ ‫ܕܐܠ ܡܫܟܚ ܐܢܬ ܠܗ‪ܼ .‬‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܘܚܦܪ ܘܐܠ‬ ‫ܠܩܒܪܗ܆‬ ‫ܐܙܠ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܓܝܪ‬ ‫ܫ ܼܢܝܬ̇‬ ‫ܐܫܟܚܗ‪.‬‬ ‫ܘܐܬܬܣ ܼܝ ܿܡܬ̇܆ ܥܡ ܡܗ ̈ܝܡܢܐ܀܀‬

‫‪PATRISTIC CITATIONS IN THE BDP‬‬

‫‪201‬‬

‫‪Comparing florilegium B.L. Add. 12155 with Cyriacus’ BDP, minor‬‬ ‫‪scribal differences are found. On the other hand, looking at Moshe‬‬ ‫‪bar Kipho’s version of the florilegium it is clear that it is a little‬‬ ‫‪different in wording, but this does not exclude it from being a re‬‬‫‪lated florilegium.‬‬ ‫‪3. John Chrysostom, Homily no. 3, on Philippians (Phil 1:24). (CPG‬‬ ‫‪4432; PG 62,204b, line 16-24).‬‬ ‫‪MBKS‬‬

‫‪Add. 12155‬‬

‫‪BDP‬‬

‫ܕܝܠܗ ܡܢ ܡܐܡܪܐ ܕܬܠܬܐ‬ ‫ܕܦܘܫܩܐ ܕܐܓܪܬܐ ܕܠܘܬ‬ ‫ܦܝܠܝܦܝܣܝܐ܀‬ ‫ܐܬܬܣܝܡ‬ ‫ܣܪܝܩܐܝܬ‬ ‫ܠܘ‬ ‫ܒܢܡܘܣܐ ܡܢ ܫܠܝܚܐ܇ ܕܥܠ‬ ‫̈ܪܐܙܐ ̈‬ ‫ܕܚ ܼܝܐܠ ܥܘܗܕܢܐ ܕܗ݀ܢܘܢ‬ ‫ܕܥܢܕܘ ܢܗܘܐ‪ .‬ܝ݀ܕܥܝܢܢ ܓܝܪ‬ ‫ܕܝܘܬ̈ܪܢܐ ̈‬ ‫ܣܓܝܐܐ ܗ݀ܘܐ ܠܗܘܢ‪.‬‬ ‫ܘܝܘܬܪܢܐ ܕܐܠ ܙܥܘܪ‪ .‬ܐܡܬܝ ܓܝܪ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܘܡܬܝܚܢ‬ ‫ܕܥܡܐ ܟܠܗ ܩܐܡ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܘܡܘܠܝܐ ܟܗܢܝܐ܆‬ ‫ܐܝܕܘܗܝ‪:‬‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܕܒܚܬܐ‬ ‫ܣ ܼܝܡܐ‬ ‫ܘܩܕ ܼܝܡܐ‬ ‫ܐܠܗܝܬܐ ܕܚܝܠܬܐ܆ ܐܝܟܢܐ ܐܠ‬ ‫ܢܦܝܣ ܐܠܠܗܐ܇ ܟܕ ܚܠܦ ܗܠܝܢ‬ ‫ܡܬܟܫܦܝܢܢ‪ .‬ܐܐܠ ܗܕܐ ܿܡܢ ܡܛܠ‬ ‫ܗ݀ܢܘܢ ܕܥܢܕܘ‬ ‫ܒܗܝܡܢܘܬܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܼ‬

‫ܕܝܠܗ ܡܢ ܡܐܡܪܐ ܕܬܠܬܐ‬ ‫ܕܦܘܫܩܐ ܕܐܓܪܬܐ ܕܠܘܬ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܦܝܠܝܦܝܣܝܐ܀‬ ‫ܐܬܬܣܝܡ‬ ‫ܣܪܝܩܐܝܬ‬ ‫ܠܘ‬ ‫ܒܢܡܘܣܐ ܡܢ ̈ܫܠܝܚܐ܇ ܕܥܠ‬ ‫̈ܪܐܙܐ ̈‬ ‫ܕܚ ܼܝܐܠ ܥܘܗܕܢܐ ܕܗ݀ܢܘܢ‬ ‫ܕܥܢܕܘ ܢܗܘܐ‪ .‬ܝܕܥܝܢܢ ܓܝܪ‬ ‫ܗ݀ܘܐ‬ ‫ܣܓܝܐܐ‬ ‫ܕܝܘܬܪܢܐ‬ ‫ܠܗܘܢ‪ .‬ܘܝܘܬܪܢܐ ܕܐܠ ܙܥܘܪ‪.‬‬ ‫ܐܡܬܝ ܓܝܪ ܕܥܡܐ ܟܠܗ ܩܐܡ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܘܡܘܠܝܐ‬ ‫ܐܝܕܘܗܝ‪:‬‬ ‫ܘܡܬܝܚܢ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܣ ܼܝܡܐ‬ ‫ܘܩܕ ܼܝܡܐ‬ ‫ܟܗܢܝܐ܆‬ ‫ܕܒܚܬܐ ܕܚܝܠܬܐ܆ ܐܝܟܢܐ ܐܠ‬ ‫ܢܦܝܣ ܐܠܠܗܐ܇ ܟܕ ܚܠܦ ܗܠܝܢ‬ ‫ܡܬܟܫܦܝܢܢ‪ .‬ܐܐܠ ܗܕܐ ܿܡܢ ܡܛܠ‬ ‫ܒܗܝܡܢܘܬܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܗ݀ܢܘܢ ܕܥܢܕܘ‬ ‫ܼ‬

‫ܕܝܠܗ ܟܕ ܕܝܠܗ܆ ܡܢ ܡܐܡܪܐ‬ ‫ܕܬܠܬܐ ܕܦܘܫܩܐ ܕܐܓܪܬܐ‬ ‫ܕܠܘܬ ̈‬ ‫ܦܝܠܝܦܝܣܝܐ܀‬ ‫ܐܬܬܣܝܡ‬ ‫ܣܪܝܩܐܝܬ‬ ‫ܠܘ‬ ‫ܒܢܡܘܣܐ ܡܢ ̈ܫܠܝܚܐ܇ ܕܥܠ‬ ‫̈ܪܐܙܐ ̈‬ ‫ܕܚ ܼܝܐܠ ܥܘܗܕܢܐ ܕܗ݀ܢܘܢ‬ ‫ܕܥܢܕܘ ܢܗܘܐ‪ .‬ܝܕܥܝܢܢ ܓܝܪ‬ ‫ܗ݀ܘܐ‬ ‫ܣܓܝܐܐ‬ ‫ܕܝܘܬܪܢܐ‬ ‫ܠܗܘܢ‪ .‬ܘܝܘܬܪܢܐ ܕܐܠ ܙܥܘܪ‪.‬‬ ‫ܐܡܬܝ ܓܝܪ ܕܥܡܐ ܟܠܗ ܩܐܡ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܘܡܘܠܝܐ‬ ‫ܐܝܕܘܗܝ‪:‬‬ ‫ܘܡܬܝܚܢ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܣ ܼܝܡܐ‬ ‫ܘܩܕ ܼܝܡܐ‬ ‫ܟܗܢܝܐ܆‬ ‫ܕܒܚܬܐ ܕܚܝܠܬܐ܆ ܐܝܟܢܐ ܐܠ‬ ‫ܢܦܝܣ ܐܠܠܗܐ܇ ܟܕ ܚܠܦ ܗܠܝܢ‬ ‫ܡܬܟܫܦܝܢܢ‪ .‬ܐܐܠ ܗܕܐ ܿܡܢ ܡܛܠ‬ ‫ܒܗܝܡܢܘܬܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܗ݀ܢܘܢ ܕܥܢܕܘ‬ ‫ܼ‬

‫‪Cyriacus’ citation here is identical to the one found in florilegium‬‬ ‫‪B.L. Add. 12155, and the only difference to the citation Moshe bar‬‬ ‫‪. This was most likely added‬ܐܠܗܝܬܐ ‪Kipho employed is the word‬‬ ‫‪in a later version of the florilegium.‬‬ ‫‪Chapter Three‬‬ ‫‪The five citations Cyriacus employs for chapter three of treatise‬‬ ‫‪twenty are found in a section concerning the passage of souls after‬‬ ‫‪their departure from bodies.37‬‬

‫‪37 Cyriacus, BDP, XX.3, fol. 125i,‬‬ ‫ܡܛܠ ܡܥܒܪܬܐ ̈‬ ‫ܕܢܦܫܬܐ ܒܬܪ ܚܙܘܩܝܗܝܢ ܕܡܢ ܦܓ̈ܪܐ܇ ܘܕܒܡܢܐ ̈‬ ‫ܦܓܥܢ܇ ܘܕܐܠܝܟܐ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܡܡܢܥܢ ̈‬ ‫ܪܒܬ܆ ܠܘ‬ ‫ܘܩܝܡܢ ܩܕܡ ܩܝܡܬܐ‪ .‬ܒܥܬܐ ܕܝܢ ܕܝܠܟ ܕܬܠܬ‪ :‬ܗܝ ܕܠܒܨܝܘܬܐ ܕܝܠܝ ܩ ܼ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܒܨܝܪ ܡܠܝܐ ܥܘܕ̈ܪܢܐ܇ ܠܟ ܟܝܬ ܘܐܠܚ̈ܪܢܐ ܟܕ ܡܬܓܠܝܐ܇ ܘܠܒܛ ܼܝܠܘܬܗ ܕܐܠܗܐ ܕܥܠ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܕܒܗ ܡܫܘܥܐ‪.‬‬

202

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

The citations of this chapter are yet again found in the same sequence in florilegium B.L. Add. 12155, under the rubric: ‘Concerning what the soul encounters after its separation from the body’.38 Four out of five of the citations are found in MBKS, under the rubric ‘Concerning those things which meet and gather to the soul when it is being released from the body.’39 Two of the citations are found in the book of BHLS, under the rubric, ‘Concerning where and how rational souls are after their release from bodies’.40 As illustrated in Table A, the text in BDP is almost identical with the text in florilegium B.L. Add. 12155. In comparison with MBKS and BHLS, it is clear that Moshe bar Kipho and Bar Hebraeus did not consult the same florilegium, since there are major differences within the text. Nevertheless, it can still be concluded that they all used florilegia which go back to a common source, since the majority of the citations quoted are unanimous. Citations one and five have been selected from Table A, for comparison in Table B. Citations: 1. Athanasius of Alexandria, The Life of Antony. (CPG 2101; PG 26, 933C). 2. Abba Isaiah, On the happiness of the soul which wishes to serve God. (CPG 5555; CSCO 290, p. 228). 3. Severus of Antioch, Homily no. 8841 of Cathedral Homilies. (CPG 7035; PO 23, p. 63, line 2-13). 4. Theophilus of Alexandria, Homily of exhortation. (CPG 2618; ROC 18, p. 80-1; PG 65, 200). 5. Severus of Antioch, a letter to Bishop Thomas of Germanicia. (CPG 7070; PO 14, p. 261, line 8-13).

Florilegium B.L. Add. 12155, fol. 58a, ܿ .‫ܡܦܩܢܗ ܕܡܢ ܦܓܪܐ‬ ‫ܕܒܐܝܠܝܢ ܦܓܥܐ ܢܦܫܐ ܒܬܪ‬ 39 MBKS, VatSyr 147, fol. 76a, ܿ .‫ܠܘܬܗ ܕܢܦܫܐ ܟܕ ܡܫܬܪܝܐ ܡܢ ܦܓܪܐ‬ ‫ܕܥܠ ܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܡܬܘܥܕܝܢ ܘܡܬܟܢܫܝܢ‬ 40 BHLS, p. 698, ̈ ‫ܗܘܝܢ‬ ̈ ‫ܡܛܠ ܿܗܝ ܕܐܝܟܐ ܘܐܝܟܢܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܢܦܫܬܐ‬ .‫ܕܡܢ ܦܓ̈ܪܐ‬ ܼ ‫ܡܠܝܠܬܐ ܼܡܢ ܒܬܪ ܫܪܝܐ‬ 41 The no. is 86 according to PO. 38

‫‪PATRISTIC CITATIONS IN THE BDP‬‬

‫‪203‬‬

‫‪Table A‬‬ ‫‪BDP‬‬ ‫‪Add. 12155 MBKS BHLS‬‬ ‫‪127ii-128i‬‬ ‫‪58a‬‬ ‫‪76b-77b‬‬ ‫‪700‬‬ ‫‪128i-128ii‬‬ ‫‪58a-b‬‬ ‫‪80a‬‬ ‫‪--‬‬‫‪128ii-129i‬‬ ‫‪58b‬‬ ‫‪--‬‬‫‪--‬‬‫‪129i-130i‬‬ ‫‪58b‬‬ ‫‪79b‬‬ ‫‪--‬‬‫‪130i-130ii 58b-59a‬‬ ‫‪79b-80a‬‬ ‫‪701‬‬

‫‪MBKDP‬‬ ‫‪--‬‬‫‪--‬‬‫‪--‬‬‫‪--‬‬‫‪---‬‬

‫‪Citations‬‬ ‫‪1. Athanasius‬‬ ‫‪2. Abba Isaiah‬‬ ‫‪3. Severus‬‬ ‫‪4. Theophilus‬‬ ‫‪5. Severus‬‬ ‫‪Table B‬‬

‫)‪1. Athanasius, The Life of Antony. (CPG 2101; PG 26, 933C‬‬ ‫‪BHLS‬‬

‫‪MBKS‬‬

‫‪Add. 12155‬‬

‫‪BDP‬‬

‫ܐܬܐܢܝܘܣ‬ ‫ܩܕܝܫܐ‬ ‫ܒܬܫܥ ܼܝܬܐ ܕܥܠ ܐܒܐ‬ ‫ܐܢܛܘܢܝܘܣ‪.‬‬

‫ܬܘܒ ܼܡܢ ܬܫܥܝܬܐ ܕܥܠ‬ ‫ܝܚܝܕܝܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܐܢܛܘܢܝܘܣ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܠܗ‬ ‫ܕܡܬܢܐ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܐܬܐܢܐܣܝܘܣ ܐܦܝܣ‪.‬‬ ‫ܕܐܠܟܣܢܕܪܝܐ ܘܩܕܝܫܐ‬ ‫ܣܐܘܝܪܐ‬ ‫ܡܪܝ‬ ‫ܕܐܢܛܘܟܝܐ ܗܟܢܐ‪:‬‬ ‫ܟܕ ܥܬܝܕ ܗܘܐ ܗܟܝܠ ܠܡ‬ ‫ܐܢܛܘܢܝܘܣ‬ ‫ܒܙܒܢ‬ ‫ܠܡܐܟܠ ܠܚܡܐ‪ .‬ܩܡ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܕܢܨܐܠ ܒܥܕܢܐ ܕܬܫܥ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܐܪܓܫ ܗܘܐ‬ ‫ܫܥܝܢ ܘ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܕܐܬܥܠܝ ܡܕܥܗ‪ .‬ܘܣܒܪ‬ ‫ܼܿ‬

‫ܕܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܬܢܣܝܘܣ܆ ܡܢ‬ ‫ܬܫܥܝܬܐ ܕܥܠ ܕܘܒܪܗ‬ ‫ܕܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܢܛܘܢܝܣ܀‬

‫ܕܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܬܐܢܐܣܝܘܣ‬ ‫ܿܗܘ ܓܒܪܐ ܫܠܝܚܝܐ܆‬ ‫ܡܢ ܬܫܥܝܬܐ ܕܥܠ‬ ‫ܕܘܒܪܐ ܕܐܢܛܘܢܝܘܣ‪.‬‬

‫ܗܘܐ‬ ‫ܥܬܝܕ‬ ‫ܟܕ‬ ‫ܕܢܐܟܘܠ ܘܩܡ ܿ‬ ‫ܕܢܨܐܠ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܕܬܫܥ ܿܫ ̈ܥ ܼܝܢ‪.‬‬ ‫ܒܥܕܢܐ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܕܐܬܥܠܝ‬ ‫ܐܪܓܫ‬ ‫ܘܗ݀ܝ‬ ‫ܡܕܥܗ‪.‬‬ ‫ܕܬܕܡܘܪܬܐ܆ ܕܟܕ ܿܩܐܡ‬ ‫ܿܚܙܐ ܗܘܐ ܢܦܫܗ‪.‬‬ ‫ܐܝܟ ܗ݀ܘ ܕܠܒܪ ܡܢܗ‬ ‫ܗܘܐ‪ .‬ܘܐܝܟ ܗ݀ܘ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܡܬܗܕܐ ܡܢ‬ ‫ܕܒܐܐܪ‬ ‫ܐܢܫܝܢ‪ .‬ܘܒܬܪܟܢ ̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܐܢܫܝܢ‬ ‫ܘܩܫܝܐ ܿ‬ ‫ܡ̈ܪܝ̈ܪܐ ̈‬ ‫ܕܩܝܡ ܼܝܢ‬ ‫ܘܒ݀ܥܝܢ‬ ‫ܒܐܐܪ‬

‫ܟܕ ܥܬܝܕ ܗܘܐ ܕܢܐܟܘܠ‪:‬‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܕܢܨܐܠ ܒܥܕܢܐ‬ ‫ܘܩܡ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܐܪܓܫ‬ ‫ܫܥܝܢ܆‬ ‫ܕܬܫܥ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܕܐܬܥܠܝ ܡܕܥܗ‪ .‬ܘܗ݀ܝ‬ ‫ܕܬܕܡܘܪܬܐ܆ ܕܟܕ ܩܐܡ‬ ‫ܿܚܙܐ ܗܘܐ ܢܦܫܗ܆ ܐܝܟ‬ ‫ܿܗܘ ܕܠܒܪ ܡܢܗ ܗܘܐ܇‬ ‫ܿܗܘ ܕܒܐܐܪ‬ ‫ܘܐܝܟ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܐܢܫܝܢ‪.‬‬ ‫ܡܬܗܕܐ ܡܢ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܘܒܬܪܟܝܢ ܐܢܫܝܢ ܡܪܝ̈ܪܐ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܘܩܫܝܐ ܕܩܝܡܝܢ ܒܐܐܪ܇‬ ‫ܘܒ݀‬ ‫ܕܢܥܒܪ‪.‬‬ ‫ܢܝܗܝ‬ ‫ܕܢܟܠܘ‬ ‫ܥܝܢ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܟܕ ܕܝܢ ܗ݀ܢܘܢ ܕܡܗܕܝܢ‬ ‫ܿܩܝܡܝܢ ܗܘܘ ܣܩܘܒܐܠܝܬ܆‬

‫ܟܕ ܥܬܝܕ ܼܗܘܐ ܗܟܝܠ‬ ‫ܐܒܐ‬ ‫ܒܙܒܢ‬ ‫ܠܡ‬ ‫ܐܢܛܘܢܝܘܣ ܠܡܐܟܠ‬ ‫ܠܚܡܐ‪ .‬ܩܡ ܕܢܨܐܠ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܕܬܫܥܫܥܝܢ‪.‬‬ ‫ܒܥܕܢܐ‬ ‫ܼܗܘܐ‬ ‫ܘܐܪܓܫ‬ ‫ܕܐܬܥܠ ܼܝ ܡܕܥܗ ܘܣܒܪ‬ ‫ܼܡܢ ܦܓܪܗ‬ ‫ܕܠܒܪ‬ ‫ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܼܗܘܐ‪ .‬ܐܐܠ‬ ‫ܚܙܐ ܼܗܘܐ ܠܢܦܫܗ‬ ‫ܡܬܥܐܠ‬ ‫ܕܒܐܐܪ‬ ‫ܼܗܘܐ‪ .‬ܘܠܘܬ ܐܠܗܐ‬ ‫ܼܗܘܐ‪ .‬ܟܕ‬ ‫ܡܫܢܐ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܡܫܝܢܐ‬ ‫ܡܐܠܟܐ‬ ‫ܐܢܫܐ܆ ܐܙ ̱ܠܝܢ‬ ‫ܘ̈ܪܚܡܝ ̱‬ ‫ܼܗܘܘ ܩܕܡܘܗܝ ܘܡܠܘܝܢ‬ ‫ܠܗ‪ .‬ܘܟܕ ܡܢܬܐ ܡܢ‬ ‫ܡܪܕ ܼܝܬܗ ܪܕܐ‪ .‬ܚܙܐ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܫܓܝܫܐ‬ ‫ܐܚ̈ܪܢܐ‬ ‫̱‬ ‫ܘܚ̈ܪܡܐ ܘܒܥܪ ܼܝ̈ܪܝܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܕܚܪ ܼܝܦܐܝܬ ܘܕܚ ܼܝܐܠܝܬ‬ ‫ܘܩܡܘ‬ ‫ܚܙܝܢ‪ .‬ܕܐܬܘ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܒܐܐܪ‪.‬‬ ‫ܠܩܘܒܠܗ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܘܥܒܕ ܼܝܢ ܠܗ ܡܥܟ̈ܪܢܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܘܟܠܝܢ ܼܗܘܘ ܼܡܢ ܿܗܝ‬ ‫ܕܢܥܒܪ‪ .‬ܘܐܡܪܝܢ ܼܗܘܘ‬ ‫ܠܗ ܕܐܚܕ ܼܝܢܢ ܠܟ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܕܚܝܒܐ‬ ‫ܐܟܡܢ‬

‫ܦܓܪܗ‬ ‫ܡܢ‬ ‫ܕܠܒܪ‬ ‫ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܗܘܐ‪ .‬ܐܐܠ‬ ‫ܚܙܐ ܗܘܐ ܠܢܦܫܗ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܡܬܥܐܠ ܗܘܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܕܒܐܐܪ‬ ‫ܡܫܢܐ‬ ‫ܘܠܘܬ ܐܠܗܐ‬ ‫ܼܿ‬ ‫ܿܡ ̈‬ ‫ܐܠܟܐ‬ ‫ܗܘܐ ܟܕ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܐܢܫܐ‬ ‫ܡܫܝܢܐ ܘ̈ܪܚܡܝ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܐܙܠܝܢ ܗܘܘ ܩܕܡܘܗܝ‬ ‫ܘܡܠܘܝܢ ܗܘܘ ܠܗ‪ .‬ܘܟܕ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܡܪܕܝܬܗ‬ ‫ܡܢܬܐ ܼܡܢ‬ ‫ܪܕܐ‪ .‬ܚܙܐ ܐܚ̈ܪܢܐ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܘܡ̈ܪܝܪܝܐ‬ ‫ܙܥܝܦܐ‬ ‫ܕܚܪܝܦܐܝܬ ܘܕܚ ܼܝܐܠܝܬ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܚܝܪܝܢ‪ .‬ܕܐܬܘ ܘܩܡܘ‬ ‫ܠܩܘܒܠܗ ܿܒܐܐܪ ܿ‬ ‫ܘܥܒܕܝܢ‬ ‫ܗܘܘ ܠܗ ܡܥܒ̈ܪܢܐ ܘܟ݀ܠܝܢ‬ ‫ܕܠܡܥܒܪ‪.‬‬ ‫ܗܘܘ ܠܗ ܼܡܢ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܘܐܡܪܝܢ ܗܘܘ ܠܗ‬ ‫ܕܐܚ ܼܝܕܝܢܢ ܠܟ ܐܟܡܐ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܕܚܝܒܐ ܐܝܬܝܟ ܕܗܠܝܢ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܫܐܕܐ‬ ‫ܕܝܠܢ‪ .‬ܘܟܕ ܿܨܒܝܢ‬ ‫ܕܠܣܘܥ̈ܪܢܐ‬ ‫ܗ݀ܢܘܢ‬

‫ܕܢܥܒܪ‪ .‬ܟܕ‬ ‫ܕܢܟܠܘܢܝܗܝ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܕܡ ܿܗܕܝܢ‬ ‫ܕܝܢ ܿܗܢܘܢ‬ ‫ܗܘܘ‬ ‫ܿܩܝܡܝܢ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܣܩܘܒܐܠܝܬ܆ ܬܒܥܝܢ‬ ‫ܗܘܘ ܗܠܝܢ ܡܠܬܐ‬ ‫ܬܚܝܬ‬ ‫ܠܘ‬ ‫ܕܐܢ‬ ‫ܚܘܝܒܗܘܢ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ‪.‬‬ ‫ܟܕ ܒ݀ܥܝܢ ܗܘܘ ܼܗܟܝܠ‬ ‫ܕܢܥܒܕܘܢ ܡܠܬܐ ܡܢ‬ ‫ܐܝܠܝܕܘܬܗ܆ ܟ݀ܠܝܢ ܼܗܘܘ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܕܡܗܕܝܢ‬ ‫ܗܠܝܢ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܐܡܪܝܢ‬ ‫ܐܠܢܛܘܢܝܣ‪ .‬ܟܕ‬ ‫ܠܗܠ ܼܝܢ܆ ̈‬ ‫ܕܗ ܿܢܝܢ ܿܡܢ ܕܡܢ‬ ‫ܝܠܝܕܘܬܗ܆ ܠܚܐ ̈‬ ‫ܐܢܝܢ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܗܘܐ‬ ‫ܡܪܝܐ‪ .‬ܡܢ ܟܕ ܕܝܢ ܼ‬

‫ܬܒܥܝܢ ܗܘܘ ܗܠܝܢ‬ ‫ܡܠܬܐ ܕܐܢ ܠܘ ܬܚܝܬ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܚܘܝܒܗܘܢ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ‪ .‬ܟܕ‬ ‫ܗܟܝܠ‬ ‫ܗܘܘ‬ ‫ܒ݀ܥܝܢ‬ ‫ܕܢܥܒܕܘܢ ܡܠܬܐ ܡܢ‬ ‫ܝܠܝܕܘܬܗ܆ ܟ݀ܠܝܢ ܗܘܘ‬ ‫ܕܡܗܕܝܢ‬ ‫ܗܠܝܢ‬ ‫ܐܠܢܛܘܢܝܘܣ‪ .‬ܟܕ ܐܡܪܝܢ‬ ‫ܠܗܠܝܢ܆ ܕܗ݀ܢܝܢ ܿܡܢ ܕܡܢ‬ ‫ܝܠܝܕܘܬܗ܆ ܠܚܐ ̈‬ ‫ܐܢܝܢ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܗܘܐ‬ ‫ܡܪܝܐ‪ .‬ܡܢ ܟܕ ܕܝܢ ܼ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܘܐܫܬܘܕܝ‬ ‫ܕܝܪܝܐ‬ ‫] ܿܫܠܝܛ[‬ ‫ܐܠܠܗܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܠܡܥܩܒܘ‪ .‬ܗܝܕܝܢ ܟܕ‬

‫‪CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP‬‬ ‫ܐܝܬܝܟ ܕܗܠܝܢ ܕܝܠܢ‬ ‫ܘܟܕ ܠܣܘܥ̈ܪܢܘܗܝ ܕܩܕܡ‬ ‫ܡܒܣܝܢ‬ ‫ܕܝܪܝܘܬܗ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܡܐܠܟܐ ܐܡܪܝܢ‬ ‫ܼܗܘܘ‪.‬‬ ‫ܕܠܒܘܨ̈ܪܘܗܝ‬ ‫ܼܗܘܘ‬ ‫ܟܠܗܘܢ ̈‬ ‫ܩܕܡܝܐ‪ .‬ܥܛܐ‬ ‫ܡܪܝܐ‬ ‫ܐܢܘܢ‬ ‫ܒܛܝܒܘܬܗ ܒܝܕ ̈‬ ‫ܥܡܐܠ‬ ‫ܗܝܕܝܢ‬ ‫ܕܕܝܪܝܘܬܗ‪.‬‬ ‫ܥܪܩܘ ܿܗܢܘܢ ܘܐܝܟ‬ ‫ܬܢܢܐ ܐܬܛܠܩܘ‪.‬‬

‫ܕܡܢ ܝܠ ܼܝܕܘܬܗ‬ ‫ܗ݀ܢܘܢ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܡܐܠܟܐ ܗ݀ܢܘܢ‬ ‫ܢܬ ܼܢܘܢ‪.‬‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܕܡܠܘܝܢ ܗܘܘ ܿ‬ ‫ܠܗ ܟܐܝܢ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܘܐܡܪܝܢ‪.‬‬ ‫ܗܘܘ ܒܗܘܢ‬ ‫ܟܠܗܘܢ‬ ‫ܕܒܘܨ̈ܪܘܗܝ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܘܚܛܗܘܗܝ ܗܠܝܢ ܕܡܢ‬ ‫ܘܥܕܡܐ‬ ‫ܝܠܝܕܘܬܗ‬ ‫ܠܕܝܪܘܬܗ ܥܛܐ ܐܢܘܢ‬ ‫ܡܪܝܐ ܒܝܕ ܛܝܒܘܬܗ‪.‬‬ ‫ܒܕܘܒ̈ܪܘܗܝ‬ ‫ܐܒܐ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܘܒܢܨܚܢܘܗܝ ܗܠܝܢ ܕܡܢ‬ ‫ܗܘܐ ܕܝܪܝܐ‬ ‫ܒܬܪ ܕ ܼ‬ ‫ܐܠܠܗܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܘܐܫܬܘܕܝ‬ ‫ܒܣ ܼܝܪܝܢ ܐܢܬܘܢ ܡܟܝܠ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܠܡܩܪܒܘ‪ .‬ܘܐܠ ܐܝܬ‬ ‫ܠܟܘܢ ܥ ܼܠܬܐ ܡܕܡ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܘܗܝܕܝܢ‬ ‫ܕܩܘܛܪܓܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܘܐܬܦܠܗܕܘ‪.‬‬ ‫ܥܪܩܘ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܬܢܢܐ‬ ‫ܘܒܕܡܘܬ‬ ‫ܘܐܬܚܪܪܬ‬ ‫ܐܬܛܠܩܘ‬ ‫ܐܘܪܚܗ ܘܗܘܬ ܕܐܠ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܡܬܟܠܝܢܝܬܐ‪ .‬ܘܗܟܢܐ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܐܬܥܠܝܬ݀ ܢܦܫܗ ܥܕܡܐ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܕܐܬ ܿܡܢܥܬ݀‬ ‫ܐܠܝܟܐ‬ ‫ܘܡܢ ܒܬܪ ܗܠܝܢ‬ ‫ܕܡܛܬ݀ ܼ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܐܬܟܢܫܬ݀‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܥܠܘܗܝ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܿܡ ܼܚܫܒܬܗ‪ .‬ܘܐܬܕܡܝ ܠܗ‬ ‫ܕܗܦܟ ܠܘܬ ܦܓܪܗ‪.‬‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܘܗܘܐ ܟܠܗ ܒܩܠܝܬܗ‪.‬‬

‫ܿ‬ ‫ܘܐܫܬܘܕܝ‬ ‫ܕܝܪܝܐ‬ ‫ܫܠܝܛ‬ ‫ܐܠܠܗܐ܆‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܠܡܥܩܒܘ‪ .‬ܗܝܕܝܢ ܟܕ‬ ‫ܡܩܛܪܓ ܼܝܢ ܗܘܘ ܘܐܠ‬ ‫ܡܚܪܪܬܐ‬ ‫ܿܡܟܣܝܢ‪.‬‬ ‫ܐܘܪܚܐ ܘܐܠ‬ ‫ܼܗܘܬ ܠܗ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܡܬܟܠܝܢܝܬܐ‪ .‬ܘܡܚܕܐ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܕܩܐܡ܆‬ ‫ܼܚܙܐ ܢܦܫܗ‬ ‫ܕܐܬܐ ܠܘܬ‬ ‫ܐܝܟ ܗ݀ܘ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܢܦܫܗ܆ ܘܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܗܘܐ‬ ‫ܟܠܗ ܐܢܛܘܢܝܣ‪.‬‬

‫‪204‬‬ ‫ܡܩܛܪܓܝܢ ܗܘܘ ܘܐܠ‬ ‫ܡܟܣܝܢ܆ ܡܚܪܪܬܐ ܼܗܘܬ‬ ‫ܘܐܠ‬ ‫ܐܘܪܚܐ‬ ‫ܠܗ‬ ‫ܘܡܚܕܐ‬ ‫ܡܬܟܠܢܝܬܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܼܚܙܐ ܢܦܫܗ ܕܩܐܡ܆ ܐܝܟ‬ ‫ܕܐܬܐ ܠܘܬ ܢܦܫܗ‪.‬‬ ‫ܿܗܘ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܗܘܐ ܟܠܗ‬ ‫ܘܐܝܬܘܗܝ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܐܢܛܘܢܝܢܘܣ‪.‬‬

‫‪Minor differences, which are scribal, are found when comparing‬‬ ‫‪Cyriacus’ BDP with florilegium B.L. Add. 12155. This indicates the‬‬ ‫‪proximity of the florilegium Cyriacus consulted to the text of flori‬‬‫‪legium B.L. Add. 12155. On the other hand, looking at the citation‬‬ ‫‪employed by Moshe bar Kipho and Bar Hebraeus, major differ‬‬‫‪ences in wording are found. This indicates they were using a differ‬‬‫‪ent florilegium, since they are much closer to each other, but very‬‬ ‫‪different to florilegium B.L. Add. 12155. It seems likely that Bar‬‬ ‫‪Hebraeus copied this citation from Moshe bar Kipho, but follow‬‬‫‪ing his usual custom then abbreviated it.‬‬ ‫‪5. Severus of Antioch, a letter to Bishop Thomas of Germanicia. (CPG‬‬ ‫‪7070; PO 14, p. 261, line 8-13).‬‬

‫‪PATRISTIC CITATIONS IN THE BDP‬‬

‫‪205‬‬

‫‪MBKS‬‬

‫‪Add. 12155‬‬

‫‪BDP‬‬

‫ܣܐܘܪܐ‬ ‫ܕܠܘܬ‬

‫ܕܩܕܝܫܐ ܣܐܘܝܪܐ ܡܢ‬ ‫ܕܠܘܬ‬ ‫ܐܓܪܬܐ‬ ‫ܬܐܘܡܐ‬ ‫ܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ‬ ‫ܕܓܪܡܩܝܐ‪:‬‬

‫ܼܡܢ ܒܬܪ ܕܡܬܦܪܫܐ‬ ‫ܢܦܫܐ ܡܢ ܦܓܪܐ‪ :‬ܒܬܪ‬ ‫ܫܘܢܝܐ ܕܡܢ ܗܪܟܐ‪:‬‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܒܗ ̈ܚܝܠܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܦܓܥܝܢ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܘܛ ̈ܒܐ‪:‬‬ ‫ܡܐܠܟܝܐ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܕܫܐܕܐ‬ ‫ܘܣܝܥܬܐ‬ ‫ܒ ܼܝ ̈ܫܐ‪ :‬ܐܝܟܢܐ ܕܠܦܘܬ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܕܐ‬ ‫ܡܥܒܕܢܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܕܥ ̈ܒ ܼ‬ ‫ܗܠܝܢ ܕܣܥ ̇‬ ‫ܪܬ‪ :‬ܐܘ ܒ ܼܝ ̈ܫܐ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܠܦܘܬ‬ ‫ܿܛ ̈ܒܐ܆‬ ‫ܐܘ‬

‫ܡܐ ܓܝܪ ܕܡܬܦܪܫܐ‬ ‫ܢܦܫܐ ܼܡܢ ܦܓܪܐ‪ .‬ܒܬܪ‬ ‫ܫܘܢܝܐ ܕܡܢ ܦܓܪܐ‬ ‫ܦ݀ܓܥܝܢ ܿ‬ ‫ܒܗ ̈‬ ‫ܚܝܠܘܬܐ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܘܛܒܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܡܐܠܟܝܐ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܕܫܐܕܐ‬ ‫ܘܣܝܥܬܐ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܒܝܫܐ‪ .‬ܐܝܟܢܐ ܕܠܦܘܬ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܕܥܒܕܐ‬ ‫ܡܥܒܕܢܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܛܒܐ ܗܠܝܢ ܕܣܥܪܬ݀‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܐܘ ܛܒܐ ܐܘ ܒܝܫܐ‬

‫ܕܩܕܝܫܐ ܣܐܘܪܐ܆ ܡܢ‬ ‫ܕܠܘܬ‬ ‫ܐܓܪܬܐ‬ ‫ܬܐܘܡܐ ܐܦܝܣܩܦܐ‬ ‫ܕܓܪܡܐܢܝܩܝܐ܆ ܕܫܐܠܗ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܦܬܓܡܐ ܕܡܢ‬ ‫ܡܛܠ‬ ‫ܐܓܪܬܐ ܕܝܗܘܕܐ܀‬ ‫ܕܟܕ‬ ‫ܓܝܪ‬ ‫ܡܛܠ‬ ‫ܡܬܦܪܫܐ ܢܦܫܐ ܡܢ‬ ‫ܦܓܪܐ‪ :‬ܒܬܪ ܦܘܠܛܐ‬ ‫ܕܡܢ ܗܪܟܐ‪ :‬ܦܓܥܝܢ ܿ‬ ‫ܒܗ‬ ‫ܡܐܠܟܝܐ ܿ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܘܛ ̈ܒܐ‪:‬‬ ‫̈ܚܝܐܠ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܕܫܐܕܐ‬ ‫ܘܣܝܥܬܐ‬ ‫ܒ ܼܝ ̈ܫܐ‪ :‬ܐܝܟܢܐ ܕܠܦܘܬ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܕܐ‬ ‫ܡܥܒܕܢܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܕܥ ̈ܒ ܼ‬ ‫ܗܠܝܢ ܕܣܥ ̇‬ ‫ܪܬ‪ :‬ܒ ܼܝ ̈ܫܐ ܐܘ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܿܛ ̈ܒܐ܆ ܠܘܬ ܐܬ̈ܪܘܬܐ‬

‫ܬܘܒ ܕܩܕܝܫܐ ܣܐܘܪܐ܆‬ ‫ܡܢ ܐܓܪܬܐ ܕܠܘܬ‬ ‫ܬܐܘܡܐ ܐܦܝܣܩܦܐ‬ ‫ܕܓܪܡܐܢܝܩܝܐ‪:‬‬ ‫ܼ‬

‫‪BHLS‬‬

‫ܐܬ̈ܪܘܬܐ ܕܙܕܩܝܢ܇ ܐܘ‬ ‫ܗ݀ܢܘ ܿ‬ ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܐܘ‬ ‫ܗܠܝܢ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܕܬܬܢܛܪ‬ ‫ܢܩܘܒܠܘܢܗ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܐܚܪܝܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܥܕܡܐ ܠܝܘܡܐ‬ ‫ܿܗܘ ܕܒܗ ܩ݀ܝܡܝܢܢ ܟܠܢ ܐܘ‬ ‫ܠܕܝ ܼܢܐ ܐܘ ̈‬ ‫ܠܚܝܐ ܕܠܥ ܼܠܡ܇‬

‫ܐܬ̈ܪܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܠܘܬ‬ ‫ܐܘ ܗܠܝܢ ܿ‬ ‫ܕܙܕܩܝܢ‪ܿ .‬‬ ‫ܐܘ‬ ‫ܢܩܒܠܘ ܿ‬ ‫ܢܗ‬ ‫ܿܗܢܘܢ‬ ‫ܥܕܡܐ‬ ‫ܕܬܬܢܛܪܝ‬ ‫ܠܝܘܡܐ ܐܚܪܝܐ ܿܗܘ‬ ‫ܕܒܗ ܩܝܡܝܢܢ ܟܠܢ‪ .‬ܐܘ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܠܚܝܐ‬ ‫ܠܕܝܢܐ ܐܘ‬ ‫ܐܘ‬ ‫ܕܠܥܠܡ‪.‬‬ ‫ܠܫܠܗܒܝܬܐ ܕܢܘܪܐ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܕܥܟܐ‪ .‬ܐܘ‬ ‫ܕܐܠ‬ ‫ܠܡܠܟܘܬܐ ܕܫܡܝܐ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܠܗ ܫܘܠܡܐ‬ ‫ܕܠܝܬ‬ ‫ܡܬܬܘܒܠܝܢ‪.‬‬

‫ܩܕܝܫܐ‬ ‫ܒܐܓܪܬܐ‬ ‫ܬܐܘܡܐ‬ ‫ܕܓܪܡܐܢܝܩܝܐ‪:‬‬ ‫ܼ‬

‫ܐܘ ܠܫܠܗܒܝܬܐ ܕܢܘܪܐ‬ ‫ܕܐܠ ܕܥܟܐ‪.‬‬

‫ܕܙܕܩܝܢ܇ ܐܘ ܗܠܝܢ ܐܘ‬ ‫ܢܘܒܠܘ ܿ‬ ‫ܗ݀ܢܘ ܿ‬ ‫ܢܗ‬ ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܕܬܬܢܛܪ ܥܕܡܐ ܠܝܘܡܐ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܐܚܪܝܐ‪ .‬ܕܒܗ ܩ݀ܝܡܝܢܢ‬ ‫ܟܠܢ ܐܘ ܠܕܝ ܼܢܐ ܐܘ ̈‬ ‫ܠܚܝܐ‬ ‫ܕܠܥ ܼܠܡ܇ ܐܘ ܠܫܠܗܒܝܬܐ‬ ‫ܕܐܠ‬ ‫ܗ݀ܝ‬ ‫ܕܢܘܪܐ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܡܫܬܠܡܐ ܡܬܬܘܒܠܝܢ‬ ‫ܚܢܢ‪.‬‬

‫ܕܟܕ‬ ‫ܓܝܪ‬ ‫ܡܛܠ‬ ‫ܡܬܦܪܫܐ ܢܦܫܐ ܡܢ‬ ‫ܦܓܪܐ‪ :‬ܒܬܪ ܦܘܠܛܐ‬ ‫ܕܡܢ ܗܪܟܐ‪ :‬ܦܓܥܝܢ ܿ‬ ‫ܒܗ‬ ‫ܡܐܠܟܝܐ ܿ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܘܛ ̈ܒܐ‪:‬‬ ‫̈ܚܝܐܠ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܕܫܐܕܐ‬ ‫ܘܣܝܥܬܐ‬ ‫ܒ ܼܝ ̈ܫܐ‪ :‬ܐܝܟܢܐ ܕܠܦܘܬ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܕܐ‬ ‫ܡܥܒܕܢܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܕܥ ̈ܒ ܼ‬ ‫ܗܠܝܢ ܕܣܥ ̇‬ ‫ܪܬ‪ :‬ܒ ܼܝ ̈ܫܐ ܐܘ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫ܿܛ ̈ܒܐ܆ ܠܘܬ ܐܬ̈ܪܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܕܙܕܩܝܢ܇ ܐܘ ܗܠܝܢ ܐܘ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܗ݀ܢܘ ܿ‬ ‫ܢܘܒܠܘܢܝܗ‬ ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܕܬܬܢܛܪ ܥܕܡܐ ܠܝܘܡܐ‬ ‫ܿ‬ ‫ܐܚܪܝܐ‪ .‬ܕܒܗ ܩ݀ܝܡܝܢܢ‬ ‫ܟܠܢ ܐܘ ܠܕܝ ܼܢܐ ܐܘ ̈‬ ‫ܠܚܝܐ‬ ‫ܕܠܥ ܼܠܡ܇ ܐܘ ܠܫܠܗܒܝܬܐ‬ ‫ܕܢܘܪܐ ܗ݀ܝ ܕܐܠ ܿܫܠܡܐ‬ ‫ܡܬܬܘܒܠܝܢܢ‪.‬‬

‫‪The same comments as on the previous citation apply here.‬‬ ‫‪Cyriacus’ citation is much closer to the citation found in florilegium‬‬ ‫‪B.L. Add. 12155, and Moshe bar Kipho’s citation is very close to‬‬ ‫‪Bar Hebraeus’ citation. Bar Hebraeus is again abbreviating Moshe‬‬ ‫‪bar Kipho. This strongly suggests that Bar Hebraeus copied this‬‬ ‫‪citation from Moshe.‬‬

‫‪4.1.5. CONCLUSION‬‬ ‫‪This examination of the patristic citations in BDP strongly suggests‬‬ ‫‪that a florilegium similar to that found in B.L. Add. 12155 is the‬‬ ‫‪source of Cyriacus’ citations. It has been established that the major‬‬‫‪ity of Cyriacus’ patristic citations are listed in the florilegium, and‬‬ ‫‪when not, they have been found in other works, i.e. MBKS,‬‬ ‫‪MBKDP, and BHLS, which suggests that he had access to other‬‬ ‫‪florilegia, which have in all likelihood, not been preserved today.‬‬

206

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

The citation of Basil of Caesarea’s Letter 261 is particularly interesting, because it preserves a form of the citation that is earlier than that found in BL. Add. 12155, without the anti-Julianist additions. The presence of citations of church fathers who wrote in Syriac rather than in Greek also confirms that Cyriacus was using a florilegium produced within Syriac-speaking church circles, which is what would have been expected by his day. Cyriacus is likely not to have known the Greek fathers in Greek, since the citations from the Greek fathers are always to be found in other Syriac sources, and are from texts or in citations known to have been translated from Greek into Syriac. Still, Cyriacus did know Greek; since we know that he corresponded in Greek with the patriarchs of Alexandria.42 Although, this correspondence could have been written by a secretary. It seems that Cyriacus employed these citations, not because he was deriving his argument from these sources, but in order to support his arguments. Since the citations came from florilegia they tell us nothing about the authorship of the volumes contained in his library, nor about the texts which he personally had read. At the same time, it should also be emphasized that Cyriacus represented himself as an ‘orthodox’ theologian through his use of florilegia. We know for a fact that florilegia were already being widely used by Syriac writers in the sixth century, at the latest,43 and that subsequent writers continued to use and expand such texts, but there has been little written about this activity. Comparing the citations of Cyriacus’ BDP with the florilegia and the original texts of the citations, I have established that Cyriacus the parallels with florilegium B.L. Add. 12155, which indicates that he was most likely consulting a florilegium, rather than the original texts. This has also made me go further and see if there are any links between Cyriacus (BDP), Moshe bar Kipho (MBKS & MBKDP), Anton of Tagrit (the work on DP) and Bar Hebraeus (BHLS). Interestingly, 42 Personal communication with Herman Teule; For the letters, see chapter 1.2.1.4. Two Synodical Epistles. 43 Graffin. ‘Le Florilège Patristique de Philoxène de Mabboug’, pp. 267-290.

PATRISTIC CITATIONS IN THE BDP

207

they have all either consulted similar florilegia, or they have taken their citations from each other (which is certainly likely in the case of Bar Hebraeus, who made heavy use of Moshe bar Kipho)44 and so in many cases not only do they have the same citations, but also the same introductory rubrics. Thus, although it is possible to establish a list of the fathers he cites, as follows, this tells us more about the sources used by the compilers of the florilegia than it does about Cyriacus himself. Here is a table of frequency of the citations of the patristic fathers cited by Cyriacus: Author Abba Isaiah Athanasius Basil the Great Cyril of Alexandria Doctrina Addai Ephrem the Syrian Gregory of Nyssa

Gregory of Nazianzus Jacob of Serugh John Chrysostom Palladius of Hellenopolis Severus of Antioch Theophilus of Alexandria

Location Tr. XX, Ch. III. Tr. XX, Ch. III. Tr. XVII, Ch. II; Tr. XIIX, Ch. I. Tr. XVII, Ch. II; Tr. XX, Ch. II. Tr. XX, Ch. I. Tr. XIV, Ch. III; Tr. XIIX, Ch. I. Tr. XVII, Ch. I; Tr. XIIX, Ch. I; Tr. XX, Ch. I. Tr. XX, Ch. I. Tr. XIIX, Ch. I. Tr. XX, Ch. I; Tr. XX, Ch. II. Treat. XX, Ch. II. Tr. XIIX, Ch. I; Tr. XX, Ch. II, Ch. III. Tr. XX, Ch. III.

Freq. 1 1 3 2 1 4 3 3 1 3 1 6 1

In some cases, as with his citations of Ephrem’s memre on Nicomedia, the citations are also of some importance for the textual criticism of the original texts. I believe one can argue that Cyriacus’ use of florilegia of earlier patristic writings is essentially an assertion of Cyriacus’ orthodoxy and his connection to an unchanging canon of earlier theologians, even if his actual ideas are often very original and do not rely 44 Taylor, “L’importance des Pères de l’Église dans l’oeuvre spéculative de Barhebraeus”, pp. 63-86.

208

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

on his florilegium citations. This makes it very hard to identify Cyriacus’ actual sources, since some of his ideas are without parallels known to me.

5.1. CONCLUSION Very little scholarly attention has been paid to post-sixth-century Syrian Orthodox theological writers, and so not surprisingly Cyriacus of Tagrit has also been largely overlooked by modern scholars. Those who have paid some attention to him have often been overinfluenced by the account of his reign given in the Chronicle of Michael the Great, which in this section was heavily dependent on the Chronicle of Dionysius of Tellmahre. This has been shown to be problematic, because Dionysius of Tellmahre was a monk during Cyriacus’ rule, and then succeeded him as the next patriarch of the Syrian Orthodox Church. Whilst this means that he must have known more about him than any other chronicler to which we have access, it also means that he had more reason than most to present a partial and non-objective account of his reign. For instance, one negative description given of Cyriacus was that he was hot-headed, and this picture has simply been repeated by all subsequent writers, who deplore the lack of diplomacy with which Cyriacus treated his Gubite opponents and their eastern friends, apparently provoking instead of sidestepping confrontation. As we have seen in Part II, this interpretation is challenged by a detailed examination and comparison of the actions and decisions of Dionysius and Cyriacus. Whilst it is more than likely that Cyriacus was opposed by some within the church simply because he did not come from one of the dominant monastic centres of his day, but rather had the support of the merchants of Tagrit, a relatively new force in Syrian Orthodox ecclesiastical politics, it also seems clear that he was opposed for his uncompromising disciplinary and reforming agenda. He was determined to put an end to long-established abuses within the church, and to re-impose patriarchal authority, as the only means of aiding his church to survive the difficult age in which it found itself. This is evident not only from the Syriac chronicles, but 211

212

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

also from Cyriacus’ own canons, and from his treatises against those who sought ecclesiastical preferment for political or egotistical reasons. He is one of the few Syrian Orthodox patriarchs who regularly issued lists of canons. Cyriacus held five synods during his rule as a patriarch, in a number of which he sought to improve clerical discipline. This attests his character as a patriarch who constantly imposed discipline on his congregation, which seemed to have weakened in recent years, perhaps as a consequence of the absence of patriarch George, who was imprisoned during most of his patriarchal rule. It seems plausible to argue that the same overriding concern for the strengthening of the church, even at the cost of upsetting those of his colleagues with traditional theological outlooks, lay behind his attempts to reunite the main Syrian Orthodox Church with the schismatic Julianists. Cyriacus was himself someone with finely tuned theological sensibilities, and who was well trained in Syrian Orthodox theology, and yet in this case he was clearly prepared to make some compromises in order to strengthen and heal his church. Not only did the Julianists represent a possible source of new church members and church buildings and revenue, but they may also have been a place of refuge for those who opposed the disciplinary decisions of the Syrian Orthodox bishops, and so one consequence of reuniting with them would have been to deny this refuge to future troublemakers or dissidents. Unfortunately Cyriacus’ opponents, and no doubt many loyal and devout colleagues without his political pragmatism and vision, opposed this initiative, and so prolonged the schism within the church. It is interesting to note that some of the same themes and ideas run through Cyriacus’ most important theological work, the BDP. Cyriacus’ theology, like his ecclesiology, is highly monarchical and patriarchal, and he is determined to demonstrate that the whole of human history, from the creation to the apocalypse, has been governed by divine providence, and so is not just due to random chance and fate. In a world without such divine order and governance there would be no discipline or order, and so the strongest would always be able to seize what they wanted, and to afflict the humble and weak without any consequences. In Cyriacus’ world-view, however, God is indeed in absolute control, and if he refrains from intervening at every moment in human actions it

CONCLUSION

213

is only out of respect for their sovereign free-will and autonomy. He knows that ultimately they will have to pay a severe price, and an eternal one at that, for their flouting of the law and God’s will, and so he seeks to recall them to a disciplined way of life through the words of His scriptures and prophets, through the life and death and resurrection of Christ, but also through the natural calamities and disasters that affect all humans, whether in personal death or loss of loved ones, or through wars, plagues, and earthquakes. All of these, for Cyriacus, are educational and disciplinary events, even if they often seem severe and lacking in compassion to those who are undergoing them. Again, the overlap between this theology and Cyriacus’ own understanding of the role of the patriarch within the church seem self-evident. On several occasions in his treatises Cyriacus appears to be directly addressing members of the clergy—often to reprove them for their behaviour and actions—and on others he is explicitly replying to questions put to him by deacons and others. So it seems likely that the bulk of his theological writings were intended primarily for a clerical readership (which might also be suggested by the fact that they were written in Classical Syriac, not a language that is likely to have been accessible for the great majority of the lay members of the church in Tagrit or elsewhere). His style, therefore, whilst rigorously logical and rational, nevertheless keeps a rather popular tone, and is far from attaining the highly philosophical approach of some other theological authors. Cyriacus was not attempting to advance scholarly understanding of Divine Providence, but rather to educate the clergy under his care about topics that would have been of immediate practical concern; if God is good, why does he allow wicked people to flourish, but small babies to die? Why does he allow plagues to wipe out entire cities? What is the fate of souls after death, and can they benefit from our prayers and offerings? Although he draws many of his formal proof-texts from previously established Syrian Orthodox florilegia, it is unclear what were his main theological sources, and whether they were written texts, or the oral education that he received as a young monk. It appears that he was strongly aware of changing theological ideas, for in his arguments he often seems to be addressing contemporary issues and debates, such as the fate of the soul after death, or the question of whether God predetermines the moment and means of

214

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

death for each living person. He never formally names those against whom he is arguing, although it seems likely, as has been discussed above, that he was seeking to counter ideas which were in wide circulation in Abbasid Iraq, and which appear to have had their origin either in Church of the East circles (as with the belief in the sleep of the soul) or in Islamic debates (as concerning divine predetermination of death). It is to be hoped that future studies of his writings by scholars with training in Islamic philosophy will be able to throw more light on some of these topics than I have been able to do in the limited space available to me here. Whilst investigating near-contemporary Syrian Orthodox writings on Divine Providence it became evident that there is still much primary research needed in this field. Such key texts as the books on Divine Providence written by Moshe bar Kipho and Anton of Tagrit still need to be edited and studied, and there is still much research necessary to explain why authors from such similar periods and regions took such different approaches to their subjects. I hope that my work on Cyriacus’ BDP has shown how rich such literature can be, and also that it will enable the next person to tackle this subject to have at least one critical edition and translation at their disposal. These texts are not always straightforward to read and understand, and so editorial and translation work is an essential prerequisite for any future research into this topic. As my research into Cyriacus’ life and theology developed I gained a growing respect for this gifted man who had such a strong faith and such a clear vision for his church, but who often appeared isolated and under siege from powerful opponents in all the strongholds of the Syrian Orthodox. Even after his death this criticism and opposition still pursued him through the Syriac Chronicles, even though it was Cyriacus who resolved many of the crises that faced his church, or established guidelines for resolving them that were followed by his successors, although they did not acknowledge his role in this. The genuine affection that was felt for this saintly patriarch by ordinary members of the Syrian Orthodox Church, however, is reflected in the madrōshē dedicated to him by an anonymous poet, and it is with this that I wish to finish: Lord, arouse my sunken mind to tell the beauty of Cyriacus! He was perfect in deeds and in words,

CONCLUSION and excellent and diligent among the apostles. His practices attest and show us that the pride of high position never touched him. The evil one was afraid, for he saw his astuteness, and he was frightened of the true one. He was cheerful also in those things of virtue, and took no pleasure in things unseemly. He was zealous, astute, and very gentle. He was innocent, humble, and intelligent. He stretched out his right hand for almsgiving, and with his left he supported it so that it would not sink. The reproaches of the party of the left side did not silence him from exhorting the impudent. ... How shall I name you, blessed one? What is comparable to you, and how? Cyriacus, the light of the churches and the lamp of all the monasteries! Cyriacus, the beauty of Syria, and the adornment and splendour of Mesopotamia! Cyriacus, the wise shepherd, and the pastor of the heavenly Shepherd!

215

5.2.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

5.2.1. CYRIACUS 5.2.1.1. Manuscripts Consulted 1. St. Mark’s Monastery, Manuscript No. 129, Cyriacus of Tagrit. Divine Providence. 2. B.L. Add. 14694, [‫]ܐܢܢܦܘܪܐ ܕ[ܩܕ ܩܘܪܝܩܘܣ ܦܛܪܝܪ ]ܕܐܢܛܝܘܟܝܐ‬ 3. B.L. Add. 14690, ‫ܐܢܦܘܪܐ ܕܩܕܝܫܐ ܡܪܝ ܩܘܪܝܩܘܣ‬. 4. B.L. Add.14693, Canons of Cyriacus the patriarch and the bishops who were with him. 5. B.L. Add. 17145, The Creed, drawn up in the year 1109 A.D. 6. B.L. Add. 14727, The Parable on the Vineyard. 7. B.L. Add. 17141, Three Madroshe on Cyriacus, patriarch of Tagrit. 8. Arabic manuscripts Clemen. Vat. 23, Synodical epistle on the Trinity and the Incarnation addressed to Mark, patriarch of Alexandria. 9. B.L. Add. 12155, Syriac Florilegium. 10. B.L. Add. 14726, Anton of Tagrit, Divine Providence. 11. B.L. Add. 14731, Moshe Bar Kipho, Divine Providence. 12. Vatican Library, VatSyr 147, Moshe bar Kipho, Book on the Soul. 13. B.L. Add. 12172, Jacob of Edessa, Letters. 14. University of Cambridge, B.L. Add. 2918, Moshe bar Kipho, From the Book of Clement and the Son of Perdition, fol. 248a-256a. 5.2.1.2. Published Studies on Cyriacus Baumstark, A., G. Graf, and A. Rücker, ‘Die literarischen Handschriften des jakobitischen Markusklosters in Jerusalem’, OrChr II. 2 (1912), pp. 120-134. 217

218

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

Draguet, R., ‘Le Pacte d’union de 797 entre les jacobites et les julianistes du Patriarcat d’Antioche’, LM 54 (1941), pp. 91-106. Kaiser, K., ‘Die syrische ''Liturgie'' des Kyriakos von Antiocheia’, OrChr 5 (1905), pp. 174-197. Rücker, AD., ‘Das dritte Buch der Mēmrē des Kyriakos von Antiochien’, OrChr 31 (1934), pp. 107-115. Teule, H., ‘La lettre synodale de Cyriaque, patriarche monophysite d'Antioche (793-817)’, OLP 9 (1978), pp. 121-140. Vööbus, A., Syrische Kanonessammlungen, Beitrag zur Quellenkunde, I: Westsyrische Originalurkunden 1A-B (CSCO Subsidia 35, 38; Louvain, 1970). ———, The Synodicon in the West Syrian tradition, II: 1-2 (CSCO Subsidia 161-164; Louvain, 1975-76). ———, Didascalia Apostolorum in Syriac, (Syriac text) (CSCO 407; Louvain, 1979). ———, ‘Discovery of the biography of Severus of Antioch by Qyriaqos of Tagrit’, Rivista di Studi Bizantini e Neoellenici 12-13 (1975-76), pp. 117-124. ———, ‘Die Entdeckung der Memre des Qyriaqos von Antiochien’, OKS 25 (1976), pp. 193-195. ———, ‘Neue Angaben über die Regierungszeit des Patriarchen Qyriaqos’, OrChr 52 (1968), pp. 87-91. ———, Syriac and Arabic Documents regarding legislation relative to Syrian Ascetism (Stockholm, 1960). Witakowski, W., ‘Cyriacus of Antioch’, in Uhlig, S. (ed.), Encyclopaedia Aethiopica (vol. 1; Wiesbaden, 2003), p. 843.

5.2.2. OTHER PRIMARY SOURCES 5.2.2.1. Syriac Ahoudemmeh Nau, F., ‘Histoires d’Ahoudemmeh et de Marouta, métropolitains Jacobites de Tagrit et de l’orient; Traité d'Ahoudemmeh sur l'homme’, (PO III.1; Paris, 1905). Anonymous Chronicle Brooks, E., I. Guidi, and J.-B. Chabot, ‘Chronicle to the Year 813’ in Chronica Minora, I-III (CSCO 5; Louvain, 1905), pp. 243-60. Anton of Tagrit Watt, J.W., The Fifth Book of the Rhetoric of Antony of Tagrit (CSCO 480-1 = SS 203-4; Leuven, 1986).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

219

Yalgin, G., The Book of the Rhetoric by Anthony Rhitor of Tagrit (Stockholm, 2000) Aphrahat Parisot, J., Aphraatis Sapientis Persae Demonstrationes I-XXII. Patrologia Syriaca 1.1. (Paris, 1894). Bar-Hebraeus Bedjan, P., Nomocanon Gregorii Barhebraei (Paris/Leipzig, 1898). Abbeloos, J. B. & Lamy, Th. J., Gregorii Barhebraei Chronicon Ecclesiasticum (vols. I-III., ed. & tr.; Louvain, 1872-1877). Albert, M., Le Candélabre … Septième base: des demons (PO 30.2 ; Paris, 1961), pp. 270-340 [1-70]. Bakoš, J., Psychologie de Grégorie Aboulfaradj dit Barhebraeus d’après la huitième base de l’ouvrage Candélabre des Sanctuaires, (Leiden, 1948). Çiçek, Y.Y., The Chronography of Bar Hebraeus (Losser, 1987). ———, Nomocanon of Bar-Hebraeus (Losser, 1986). ———, Book of the Dove, (Losser, 1983). ———, Lamp of Sanctuaries, (Holland, 1977) Poirier, P. H., Le Candélabre … Neuvième base: du libre arbitre (PO 43.2 ; Turnhout, 1985), pp. 161-317 [1-157]. Séd, N., Le Candélabre … Onzième base: du Jugement dernier (PO 41.3 ; Turnhout, 1983), pp. 257-394 [1-128]. Zigmund-Cerbü, E., Le Candélabre … Dixième base: de la résurrection (PO 35.2 ; Turnhout, 1969), pp. 217-280 [1-64]. Canons Nau, F., Les canons et les résolutions canoniques de Rabboula, Jean de Tella, Cyriaque d'Amid, Jacques d'Edesse, Georges des Arabes, Cyriaque d'Antioche, Jean III, Théodose d'Antioche, et des Perses (Ancienne littérature canonique syriaque 2; Paris, 1906). Ephrem Benedictus, P., Sancti Patris nostri Ephraem Syri opera omnia, Vol. 1 (Syriac), (Rome, 1737). Mitchell, C. W., S. Ephraim’s Prose Refutations of Mani, Marcion, and Bardaisan, Volume II: The Discourse called ‘Of Domnus’ and six other writings, (London, 1921). Overbeck, J. J., Ephraemi Syri, Rabulae Episcopi Edesseni, Balaei, Aliorumque Opera Selecta (Oxford, 1865). Renoux, C., Éphrem de Nisibe: Memre sur Nicomédie; édition des fragments de l’original syriaque et de la version arménienne, traduction française, introduction et notes (PO 37.2-3; Turnhout, 1975).

220

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

Jacob of Serugh Bedjan, P., Homilies of Mar Jacob of Serugh, (5 vols.; Paris, 1905-1910; repr. Piscataway, NJ, 2006). Michael the Great Chabot, J. B., Chronique de Michel le Syrien (IV vols.; Paris 18991910). Moshe bar Kipho Braun, O., Moses Bar Kepha und sein Buch von der Seele, (Freiburg, 1891). Pseudo-Dionysius Chabot, J.-B., Incerti auctoris Chronicon Pseudo-Dionysianum vulgo dictum I (CSCO 91; Paris, 1927); ———, Incerti auctoris chronicon anonymum pseudo-Dionysianum vulgo dictum, II. (CSCO 104 [SS 53]; Paris 1933). Timothy Bidawid, R. J., Les Lettres du Patriarche Nestorien Timothée I, (Studi e Testi 187 Vatican; Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1956). Braun, O., Timothei Patriarchae I epistulae, (CSCO 74; Paris, 1914). 5.2.2.2. Other languages al-Masudi Lunde, P., and C. Stone, The Meadows of Gold (The Abbasids, transl.; London/New York, 1989). al-Tabari Bosworth, C. E., The 'Abbasid Caliphate in Equilibrium, The History of al-Tabari vol. xxx (Albany, 1989). Coptic patriarchs Severus of Al'Ashmunein (Hermopolis), History of the Patriarchs of the Coptic church of Alexandria Part 4: Mennas I - Joseph (849 AD), (PO 10.5; Paris 1910), pp. 359-551. Theophanes Mango, C., and R. Scott, The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor (Oxford, 1997).

5.2.3. CATALOGUES OF SYRIAC MANUSCRIPTS Assemani, S., Catalago de’ codici manoscritti orientali della Biblioteca Naniana (Padua, 1787-1792). Assemanus, J.S., Bibliothecae Orientalis Clementino-Vatucana, in qua Manuscriptos Codices Syriacos, Arabicos, Persicos, Turcicos, Hebraicos,

BIBLIOGRAPHY

221

Samaritanos, Armenicos, Æthiopicos, Græcos, Ægyptiacos, Ibericos, et Malabaricos... (3 vols; Rome, vol I: 1719; vol. II: 1721; vol. III: 1725-8; repr. Hildesheim/New York, 1975). Baumstark, A., Graf, G., and Rücker, A., ‘Die literarischen Handschriften des jakobitischen Markusklosters in Jerusalem’, OrChr n.F. 2 (1912), pp. 120-136. Dolabani, Ph. Y., (ed. G. Y. Ibrahim), Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in St. Mark’s Monastery (Dairo dmor Marqos), = ‫فھرس مخطوطات دير‬ ̈ ‫ܕܟܬܒܐ ܣ̈ܪܝܛܐ ܕܒܝܬ ܐ̈ܪܟܐ ܕܕܝܪܐ ܕܡܪܝ‬ ‫مار مرقس ܡܚܘܝܢܐ‬ ‫ܡܪܩܘܣ ܐܘܪܫܠܡ‬, (Damascus, 1994). ———, Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in Za‘faran Monastery (Dairo dmor Hananyo), = ‫فھرس مخطوطات دير الزعفران‬

̈ - ‫ܕܟܬܒܐ ܣ̈ܪܝܛܐ ܕܒܝܬ ܐ̈ܪܟܐ ܕܕܝܪܐ ܕܡܪܝ ܚܢܢܝܐ‬ ‫ܡܚܘܝܢܐ‬ ‫( ܙܐܥܦܪܐܢ‬Damascus, 1994)

———, Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in Syrian Churches and Monasteries (Dairotho w’idotho suryoyotho), = ‫فھارس مخطوطات سريانية‬

̈ ‫ܕܟܬܒܐ ܣ̈ܪܝܛܐ‬ ̈ ̈ ‫ܘܕܥܕܬܐ‬ ‫ܕܒܬܝ ܐ̈ܪܟܐ ܕܕܝ̈ܪܬܐ‬ ‫ܡܚܘܝܢܐ‬ ‫( ܣܘ̈ܪܝܝܬܐ ܕܒܡܕܢܚܐ‬Damascus, 1994).

Dolabani, Ph. Y., Lavenant R., Brock S.P., Samir, S.K., ‘Catalogue des manuscrits de la bibliothèque du patriarcat syrien orthodoxe à Homs (auj. à Damas)’, ParOr 19 (1994), pp. 555-661. Forshall, J. and F. Rosen, Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum orientalium qui in Museo Britannico asservantur: Pars prima codices syriacos et carchunicos amplectens (London, 1838). Macomber, W. F., Final Inventory of the Microfilmed Manuscripts of St. Mark’s Convent in Jerusalem, (Brigham Young University, 1995). Moss, C., Catalogue of Syriac printed books and related literature in the British Museum (London, 1962). Sachau, E., ‘Über syrische Handschriften-samlungen in Orient’, Mitteilungen des Seminars für Orientalische Sprachen, Berlin, Abteilung Wesasiatsche Studien 3 (1900), pp. 43-47. ———, Verzeichnis der syrischen Handschriften der Königlichen Bibliothek zu Berlin, II, (Die Handschriftenverzeichnisse der Königlichen Bibliothek zu Berlin, 23; Berlin, 1899). Sony, B., Le catalogue de manuscrits du Patriarcat au Couvent de Charfe – ̈ ‫ ܡܚܘܝܢܐ‬،‫بھنام سوني‬ Liban: ‫ܕܟܬܝܒܬܐ ܕܦܛܪܝܪܟܘܬܐ ܕܣܘ̈ܪܝܝܐ‬ ‫ فھرس المخطوطات البطريركية في دير الشرفة لبنان‬.‫ܕܒܫܪܦܗ ܕܠܒܢܢ‬ (Beirut, 1993). ̈ ———, ‫ فھرس مخطوطات قرقوش‬:‫ܕܟܬܒܐ ܕܒܝܬܟܘܕܝܕܐ‬ ‫ܡܚܘܝܢܐ‬ (Baghdad, 1988).

222

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

Wright, W., Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum acquired since the year 1838 (London: I; 1870, II; 1871, III; 1872). Wright, W. & Cook, S., A Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts Preserved in the library of the University of Cambridge (vol. II; Cambridge, 1901). Zotenberg, H., Catalogues des Manuscrits syriaques et sabéens (mandaïtes) de la Bibliothèque Nationale (Paris, 1874).

5.2.4. SECONDARY LITERATURE Abouna, A., Adab al-Lugha al-Arāmīya (Beirut, 1970). Adler, W., ‘Jacob of Edessa and the Jewish Pseudepigrapha in Syriac Chronography’, in J.C. Reeves (ed.), Tracing the Threads. Studies in the Vitality of Jewish Pseudepigrapha, (Atlanta, 1994), pp. 143-171. Arendzen, J. P., ‘A New Syriac Text of the Apocalyptic Part of the ‘Testament of the Lord’’, JTS 2 (1901), pp. 401-16. Alexander P. J., The Byzantine Apocalyptic Tradition (ed. F. A. Dorothy; Berkeley, 1985). ———, ‘Medieval Apocalypses as Historical Sources’, The American Historical Review, 73.4 (Apr., 1968), pp. 997-1018. Amar, J. P., and E. G. Mathews, St Ephrem the Syrian. Selected Prose Works, (Fathers of the Church, 91; Washington D.C., 1994). Arjomand, S. A., ‘Islamic Apocalypticism in the Classic World’, in Bernard McGinn, (ed.) The Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism, vol. 2: Apocalypticism in Western History and Culture (New York, 1998), pp. 238-283. Audo, T., Simto d-lešono suryoyo: Treasure of Syriac Language, (I-II; Urmia 1896; repr. Glane, 1985). Barsaum, A., Patr. I. E., al-Lū-’lū’ al manthūr fī tārīkh al-‘ulūm wal-ādāb al-suryānya (Homs, 1843; repr. Aleppo, 1956; Baghdad, 1976). ———, Kthovo d-berule bdhire d-‘al marduth yulfone suryoye hdire (Ph. Y. Dolabani Syriac tr.; Qamishli, 1967). ———, The Scattered Pearls, The History of Syriac Literature and Sciences (Moosa M., Eng. tr.; Pueblo, 2000; repr. Piscataway, NJ, 2003). Baumstark, A., ‘Das Problem der Bibelzitate in der syrischen Übersetzungsliteratur’, OrChr 3:8 (1933), pp. 208-25. ———, ‘Die Evangelienexegese der syrischen Monophysiten’, OrChr 2 (1902), pp. 151-169, 358-389.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

223

———, Geschichte der Syrischen Literatur (Bonn, 1922; repr. Berlin, 1968). Bloom, A., ‘The suffering and death of children’, EChr 8 (1976), pp. 107-112. Bou Mansour, T., ‘Aspects de la liberté humaine chez saint Éphrem le Syrien’, in Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 60 (1984), pp. 252-282. ———, ‘La défense éphrémienne de la liberté contre les doctrines marcionite, bardesanite et manichéenne’, OCP 50 (1984), pp. 331-46. ———, ‘La liberté chez s. Éphrem le Syrien’, ParOr 11 (1983), pp. 89-156; 12 (1984/5), pp. 3-89. Bremmer, J., The Early Greek Concept of Soul (Princeton, N.J., 1983). Braun, O., ‘Beiträge zur Geschichte der Eschatologie in den syrischen Kirchen’, Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 16 (1892), pp. 273-312. ———, ‘Zwei Synoden des Katholikos Timotheos I. Veröffentlich’, OrChr 2 (1902) pp. 283-311. Brock, S. P., ‘Abraham and the Ravens: A Syriac Counterpart to Jubilees 11-12 and its Implications’, Journal for the Study of Judaism 9 (1978), pp.135-152. ———, A Brief Outline of Syriac Literature (Kottayam, 1997). ———, ‘A Palestinian Targum feature in Syriac’, Journal of Jewish Studies 46 (1995), 271-82. ———, ‘Clothing metaphors as a means of theological expression in Syriac tradition’, in Typus, Symbol, Allegorie bei den östlichen Vätern und ihren Parallelen im Mittelalter, ed. M. Schmidt (Eichstätter Beiträge IV; Regensburg, 1982) pp.11-38, (reprinted in S.P. Brock, Studies in Syriac Christianity: History, Literature and Theology, Hampshire, 1992, selection XI). ———, ‘North Mesopotamia in the Late Seventh Century: Book XV of John Bar Penkāyē’s Rīš Mellē’, JSAI 9 (1987), pp. 5175; repr. in S. P. Brock, Studies in Syriac Christianity: History, Literature and Theology (selection II; Hampshire, 1992). ———, ‘Syriac Sources for Seventh-Century History’, Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 2 (1976), pp. 17-36. ———, ‘Syriac Studies 1960-1970: A Classified Bibliography’, ParOr 4 (1973). ———, ‘Syriac Studies 1971-1980: A Classified Bibliography’, ParOr 10 (1981-2).

224

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

———, ‘Syriac Studies 1981-1985: A Classified Bibliography’, ParOr 14 (1987). ———, ‘Syriac Studies 1986-1990: A Classified Bibliography’, ParOr 17 (1992). ———, ‘Syriac Studies 1996-2000: A Classified Bibliography’, ParOr 29 (2004). ———, ‘Syriac Views of Emergent Islam’, in G. H. A. Juyunboll (ed.), Studies on the First Century of Islamic Society (Southern Illinois University Press, 1982), pp. 9-21. ———, Syriac Perspectives on Late Antiquity (Selection VIII; London, 1984). ———, The Harp of the Spirit; Twelve Poems of St Ephrem; Hymns on Paradise (Studies Supplementary to Sobornost 4, 1975). ———, The Luminous Eye: The Spiritual World Vision of St. Ephrem. (2nd ed.; Cistercian Studies 124; Kalamazoo, 1992). ———, ‘The use of Hijra dating in Syriac manuscripts: a preliminary investigation’, in J.J. van Ginkel, H.L. Murre-van den Berg, and T.M. van Lint (eds), Redefining Christian Identity. Cultural Interaction in the Middle East since the Rise of Islam (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 134; Leuven, 2005), pp. 275-290. ———, ‘Towards a Typology of the Epicleses in the West Syrian Anaphoras’, in H-J. Feulner, E. Velskovska, and R.F. Taft (eds), Crossroad of Cultures. Studies in Liturgy and Patristics in Honor of Gabriele Winkler (OCA 260; Rome 2000), pp. 173-192. ———, ‘Two Apocalyptic Texts of A.D. 691+’, The Seventh century in the West-Syrian Chronicles, in A. Palmer, S. P. Brock, and R. Holyland (eds.), (Liverpool, 1993), pp. 222-269. ———, ‘Two editions of a new Syriac Apocalypse of Daniel’, Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 48/49 (2005/2006), pp. 7-18. ———, ‘Two Letters of Patriarch Timothy from the Late Eight Century on Translations from Greek’, Arabic Sciences and Philosophy 9 (1999), p. 233-246. Brockelmann, C., Lexicon Syriacum (2nd ed.; Halle, 1928). Buck, C., Paradise and Paradigm: Key Symbols in Persian Christianity and the Bahai Faith (New York, 1999). Budge, E. A. W., The book of the Cave of Treasures, (London, 1927). Burkitt, F. C., Early Eastern Christianity (London, 1904). Chabot, J. B., Littérature syriaque (Paris, 1934). Chodkiewicz, M., The Spiritual Writings of Amir ‘Abd al-Kader (Albany, 1995).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

225

Collins, J. J., The Origins of Apocalypticism in Judaism and Christianity, vol. 1 of Collins, J. J., B. McGinn, and S. J. Stein, (eds), The Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism, (New York, 1998). Connolly, R. H. and Codrington, H.W., Two commentaries on the Jacobite liturgy by George, Bishop of the Arab tribes and Moses bar Kepha (London, 1913). Constas, N., ‘To Sleep, Perchance to Dream: The Middle State of Souls in Patristic and Byzantine Literature’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 55 (2001), pp. 91-124. Cook, M., Early Muslim Dogma: A Source Critical Study (Cambridge, 1981). ———, ‘The Origins of Kalam’, BSOAS 43 (1980), pp. 32-43. Cooper, J. & Maclean, A.J., The Testament of Our Lord translated into English from the Syriac, with introduction and notes (Edinburgh, 1902). Cooper, J. W., Body, Soul, and Life Everlasting (Michigan/Cambridge, 1998). Daley, B. E. S. J., ‘Apocalypticism in Early Christian Theology’, in B. McGinn (ed.), Apocalypticism in Western History and Culture, vol. 2 of The Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism, (New York 1998), pp. 3-47. ———, The Hope of Early Church (Cambridge, 1991). Dolabani, Ph. Y., ‫ܡܟܬܒܢܘܬܐ ܕܦܛܪܝ̈ܪܟܐ ܕܐܢܛܝܘܟ ܕܣܘ̈ܪܝܝܐ‬ ‫( ܬ̈ܪܝܨܝ ܫܘܒܚܐ ܕܣܝܡܐ ܠܕܝܪܝܐ ܝܘܚܢܢ ܕܘܠܒܐܢܝ‬Jerusalem, 1929; repr. Mardin, 1969; repr. Die Patriarchen der syrisch orthodoxen Kirche von Antiochien, Losser, 1990). Draguet, R., Julien d’Halicarnasse et sa controverse avec Sévère d’Antioche sur l’incorruptibilité du corps du Christ (Louvain, 1924). Drijvers, H. J. W., ‘Antony of Tagrit’s book on the good providence of God’, OrChA 236 (1988), pp. 163-72. ———, ‘Christians, Jews and Muslims in Northern Mesopotamia in Early Islamic Times; the Gospel of the Twelve Apostles and Related Texts’, in P. Canivet, and R. Coquais, (eds.), La Syrie de Byzance à l'Islam (Damas, 1992) pp. 67-74; ———, ‘The Gospel of the Twelve Apostles: a Syriac Apocalypse from the Early Islamic Period’, in A. Cameron, and L. I. Conrad (eds.), The Byzantine and Early Islamic Near East I (Princeton, 1992), pp. 189-213. ———, ‘The Testament of the Lord: Jacob of Edessa's Response to Islam’, ARAM 6 (1994), pp. 104-114.

226

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

Duval, R., La littérature syriaque (Paris, 1907; repr. Amsterdam, 1970). Döpp, D. & Geerlings, W., Dictionary of Early Christian Literature (New York, 2000). Edward, E. S., ‘Materials for the History of the Muhammadan Doctrine of Predestination and Free Will’, JAOS 8 (1866), pp. 105-182. El-Khoury, N., ‘Willensfreiheit bei Ephraem der Syrer’, OKS 25 (1976), pp. 60-66. Emmanouela, G. M. N., M. N. Swanson, and D. Thomas (eds), The Encounter of Eastern Christianity with Early Islam (Boston, 2006). Esbroeck, V. M., ‘Les signes des temps dans la littérature syriaque’, Revue de l’Institut catholique de Paris 39 (Sep. 1991), pp. 113-149. Every, G., ‘Toll Gates on the Air Way’, EChR 8 (1976), pp. 139-51. Feulner, H-J. E. V, and Taft, R.F., (eds) Crossroad of Cultures. Studies in Liturgy and Patristics in Honor of Gabriele Winkler (OCA 260; Rome 2000), pp. 173-192 Fiey, J. M., Chrétiens syriaques sous les Abbasides surtout à Bagdad 7491258 (CSCO vol. 362/Subs.44; Louvain, 1980). ———, Mossoul Chrétienne, (Beirut, 1959). ———, ‘Tagrit. Esquisse d’histoire chrétienne’, OrSyr 8 (1963), 289-342. Frankfurter, D., ‘Early Christian Apocalypticism: Literature and Social World’, in J. J. Collins, (ed.) The Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism, vol. 1: The Origins of Apocalypticism in Judaism and Christianity (New York, 1998), pp. 415-53. Frolov, D. V., ‘Freedom and Predestination’, in J. D. McAuliffe (ed.), Encyclopedia of the Qur’an, (Brill Online), (26 May 2009); http://www.brillonline.nl/subscriber/entry?=q3_SIM-00163. Frothingham, A. L, Stephen bar Sudaili: The Syrian mystic, and the Book of Hierotheos (Leiden, 1886). Funk, F. X., Das Testament unseres Herrn und die verwandten Schriften (Mainz, 1901). Gavin, F., ‘Aphraates and the Jews’, JSOR 7 (1923), pp. 95-166. ———, ‘The Sleep of the Soul in the Early Syriac Church’, JAOS 40 (1920), pp. 103-20. Geerard, M., Clavis Patrvm Graecorum, (5 vols; Turnhout, 1983). Gimaret, D., ‘Mu‘tazila’, in P. Bearman et al., (eds), Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd Edition (Brill Online, 2009), (26 May 2009); www. brillonline.nl/subscriber/entry?entry=islam_ COM-0822.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

227

Graffin, S. I. F., ‘Le Florilège Patristique de Philoxène de Mabboug’, OrChrA 197 (Symposium Syriacum 1972; Rome, 1974), pp. 267-290. Griffith, H. S., ‘A Ninth Century Summa Theologiae Arabica’, in Actes du Deuxième Congrès International d’Études Arabes Chrétiennes (Oosterhesselen, septembre 1984), (OrChrA 226 ; Rome, 1986), pp. 123-41. ———, ‘Arab Christian Culture in the Early Abbasid Period’, Bulletin of the Royal Insitute for Inter-Faith Studies 1 (1999), pp. 25-44. ———, ‘Byzantium and the Christians in the World of Islam: Constantinople and the Church in the Holy Land in the Ninth Century’, Medieval Encounters 3 (1997), pp. 231-265; ———, ‘Chapter Ten of the Scholion: Theodore Bar Kônî’s Apology for Christianity’, OrChrP 47 (1981), pp. 158-88. ———, ‘Christians, Muslims, and Neo-Martyrs: Saints’ Lives and Holy Land History’, in A. Kofsky, and G. G. Stroumsa, (eds.), Sharing the Sacred: Religious Contacts and Conflicts in the Holy Land; First-Fifteenth Centuries CE (Jerusalem, 1998), pp. 163-207. ———, ‘Dionysius bar Salibi on the Muslims’, OrChrA 229, (1987), pp. 353-65. ———, ‘Disputes with Muslims in Syriac Christian Texts: from Patriarch John (d. 648) to Bar Hebraeus (d. 1286)’, in F. Niewohner, (ed.), Religionsgespräche im Mittelalter (Wolfenbütteler Mittelalter-Studien, 4; Wiesbaden, 1992), pp. 251-273. ———, ‘Disputing with Islam in Syriac: The Case of the Monk of Bêt Hālê and a Muslim Emir’, Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies, vol. 3.1, (January, 2000), syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/vol3no1 /HV3N1Griffith.html. ———, ‘Faith and Reason in Christian Kalãm: Theodore Abū Qurrah on Discerning the True Religion’, in K. S. Samir, and J. Nielsen, (eds.), Christian Arabic Apologetics during the Abbasid Period (750-1258) (Studies in the History of Religions, vol. 63; Leiden, 1994), pp. 1-43. ———, ‘Free Will in Christian Kalām: Moshe bar Kepha, Against the teachings of the Muslims’, LM 100 (1987), pp.143-159. ———, ‘Free Will in Christian Kalām: the Doctrine of Theodore Abū Qurrah’, in: Journal of Arab Christian Studies 1 (1986), pp. 69-97; ParOr 14 (1987), pp. 79-107. ———, ‘‘Melkites’, ‘Jacobites’ and the Christological Controversies in Arabic in Third/Ninth-Century Syria’, in D. Thomas, (ed.),

228

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

Syrian Christians under Islam: The First Thousand Years (Leiden, 2001), pp. 9-55. ———, ‘Muslims and Church Councils: The Apology of Theodore Abū Qurrah’, in E. A. Livingstone, (ed.), Studia Patristica 25 (Louvain, 1993), pp. 270-299. ———, ‘North Mesopotamis in the Late Seventh Century: Book XV of John Bar Penkāyēs Rīś Mellē’, Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 9 (1987), pp. 51-75. ———, ‘Reflections on the Biography of Theodore Abū Qurrah’, ParOr 18 (1993), pp. 143-170. ———, ‘The Apologetic Treatise of Nonnus of Nisibis’, ARAM 3 (1991), pp. 115-138. ———, The beginnings of Christian theology in Arabic: Muslim-Christian encounters in the early Islamic period (Variorum, 2002). ———, The Church in the Shadow of the Mosque: Christians and Muslims in the World of Islam (Princeton/Oxford, 2008). ———, ‘The Life of Theodore of Edessa: History, Hagiography and Religious Apologetics in Mar Saba Monastery in Early Abbasid Times’, OrChrA 98 (2001), pp. 147-169. ———, ‘The Syriac Letters of Patriarch Timothy I and the birth of Christian Kalam in the Mu‘tazilite milieu of Baghdad and Basrah in early Islamic times’, in W. J. Van Bekkum, J. W. Drijvers, and A. C. Klugkist (eds.), Syriac Polemics (Leuven, 2007), pp. 103-132 ———, ‘Theodore Abū Qurrah; a Treatise on the Veneration of the Holy Icons’, Sacred Art Journal 13 (1992), pp. 3-19. ———, Theodore Abū Qurrah: The Intellectual Profile of an Arab Christian Writer of the First Abbasid Century (Tel Aviv, 1992). ———, ‘Theodore Abū Qurrah: “Reflections on the Biography of Theodore Abū Qurrah’, ParOr 18 (1993), pp. 144-170. ———, ‘Theodore Bar Kônî’s Scholion: A Nestorian Summa Contra Gentiles from the First Abbasid Century’, in N. Garsoïan, T. Mathews, and R. Thomson (eds.), East of Byzantium: Syria and Armenia in the Formative Period (Washington DC, 1982), pp. 53-72. Grumel, V., La chronologie, (Paris, 1958). Guinan, M. D., The Eschatology of James of Sarug (Dissertation; Catholic University of America, 1972).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

229

Gwynn, J., The Apocalypse of St. John, in a Syriac version hitherto unknown ... to which is prefixed an introductory dissertation on the Syriac versions of the Apocalypse (Dublin, 1897). Hage, W., Die syrisch-jakobitische Kirche in frühislamischer Zeit: nach orientalischen Quellen (Wiesbaden, 1966). ———, ‘Jacobitische Kirche’, Theologische Realenzyklopädie (vol. 16; 1987), pp. 474-485. Harrak, A., ‘Recent archaeological discoveries in Takrit and the discovery of Syriac inscriptions’, in Hugoye 4:1 (2001). ———, ‘Recent archaeological excavations in Takrit and the discovery of Syriac inscriptions’, JCSSS 1 (2001), pp. 11-40. Harris, J. R., The Gospel of the Twelve Apostles, together with the Apocalypses of Each One of Them (Cambridge, 1900). Heidemann, S., ‘The Citadel of al-Raqqa and Fortifications in the Middle Euphrates Area’, in H. Kennedy (ed.), Muslim Military Architecture in Greater Syria. From the Coming of Islam to the Ottoman Period (History of Warfare 35; Leiden, 2005), pp. 122-150. Heiming, O., ‘Anaphora Sancti Iacobi, fratris Domini’, in A. Raes (ed.), Anaphorae Syriacae, vol. 2, Fasc. 2 (Rome, 1953), [XIV; pp. 107-179]. Henze, M., The Syriac Apocalypse of Daniel: Introduction, Text, and Commentary (Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum 11; Tübingen, 2001) Howard, G. B., The Christians of St. Thomas and their Liturgies (Oxford and London, 1864). Hoyland, G. R., Seeing Islam as Others Saw It, (Princeton 1997). Hurst, T. R., The Syriac Letters of Timothy I (727-823): A Study in Christian Muslim Controversy (Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation; Washington DC, 1986), University Microfilms International, #8613464. ———, ‘The Epistle-treatise: An Apologetic Vehicle. Lettre 34 of Timothy I’, Symposium Syriacum IV (1984), pp. 367-382. Innemée, K., and L. Van Rompay, ‘La présence des Syriens dans le Wadi al-Natrun (Égypte). À propos des découvertes récentes de peintures et de textes muraux dans l'Église de la Vierge du Couvent des Syriens’, ParOr 23 (1998), pp. 167-202. ———, ‘Deir al-Surian (Egypt): Its Wall-paintings, Wall-texts, Manuscripts’, Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies 2:2 (1999).

230

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

Jansma, T., ‘Ephraem on Exodus II,5: reflections on the interplay of human free will and divine providence’, OCP 39 (1973), pp. 5-28. Kaufhold, H., ‘La litterature pseudo-canonique syriaque’, in M. Debié et al. (eds.), Les Apocryphes syriaques (Paris, 2005), pp. 147-167. Kelly, J. N. D., Early Christian Doctrines (5th ed.; London, 1985). Khoury, J., Le Candélabre du sanctuaire de Grégoire Abou'lfaradj dit Barhebraeus Quatrième base; de l’Incarnation (PO 31.1 ; Paris, 1965), pp. 1-268. Klein, M. L., Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch (2 vols.; Cincinnati, 1986). Krüger, P., Das syrisch-monophysitische Mönchtum im Tur-Ab(h)din von seinen Anfängen bis zur Mitte des 12. Jahrhunderts (Münster, 1937). ———, ‘Le sommeil des âmes dans l'oeuvre de Narsai’, OrSyr 4 (1959), pp. 196-210. Lagarde, A. P., Reliquiae iuris ecclesiastici antiquissimae (Vienna, 1856). Lamoreaux, J. C., Theodore Abū Qurrah (Library of the Christian East 1; Provo, 2005). Leaman, Oliver., The Qur’an: An Encyclopedia (London, 2006). Le Quien, M., Oriens Christianus in quatuor patriarchatus digestus, vol. 2 (Paris, 1740). Lee, F. G., The Christian doctrine of prayer for the departed (London, 1875). Legenhausen, G., ‘Notes Towards an Ash‘arite Theodicy’, Religious Studies 24.2 (2004), pp. 259-61. Le Goff, J., The Birth of Purgatory (Chicago, 1984). Macpherson, J. R., The Pilgrimage of Arculfus in the Holy Land (About the year A.D. 670), (Palestine Pilgrims’ Text Society 3.1; London, 1889). Marsh, F. S., The Book which is called the Book of the Holy Hierotheos (London, 1927). Martikainen, J., ‘Die Lehre vom Seelensschlaf in der syrischen Theologie von Afrahat dem Persischen Weisen bis zu dem Patriarchen Timotheos I’, in Theologia et Cultira: Studia in honorem G. Nygren, (Åbo, 1986), pp. 121-9. Martinez, F. J., ‘The Apocalyptic Genre in Syriac: The World of Pseudo-Methodius’, in H. J. W. Drijvers (ed.), IV Symposium Syriacum 1984: Literary Genres in Syriac Literature (OCA 229; Rome, 1987), pp. 337-52.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

231

McCarthy, C., Saint Ephrem’s Commentary on Tatian’s Diatessaron, (JSS Supplement 2; Oxford, 1993). McCullough, J. C., ‘Early Syriac Commentaries on the New Testament’, NESTTR 5 (1982) 14-33, 79-126. McGinn, B., Apocalypticism in Western History and Culture, vol 2 of The Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism, (New York, 2002). McVey, K., Ephrem the Syrian: Hymns (Classics of Western Spirituality; New York, 1989). Meinecke, M., ‘Raqqa on the Euphrates. Recent Excavations at the Residence of Harun er-Rashid’, in S. Kerner, (ed.), The Near East in Antiquity. German Contributions to the Archaeology of Jordan, Palestine, Syria, Lebanon and Egypt II (Amman, 1991), pp. 17–32; Moorhead, J., ‘Cooking a kid in its mother’s milk: Patristic exegesis of an Old Testament command’, Augustinianum 37 (1997), p. 261-271. Morony, G. M., Iraq After The Muslim Conquest (Piscataway, NJ, 2005). Muir, W., The Caliphate, its rise, decline, and fall (Edinburgh, 1924). Murray, R., Symbols of church and kingdom (Piscataway, NJ, 2004). Muyldermans, J., La domination arabe en Arménie. Extrait de l’historie universlle de Vardan (Paris/Louvain, 1927). Nabe-von Schönberg, I., Die Westsyrische Kirche im Mittelalter (6001150) (Diss; Heidelberg, 1977), pp. 89-92. Nau, F., La version syriaque de l’Octateuque de Clément (Ancienne littérature canonique syriaque 4; Paris, 1913; reprint 1967). Olster, D., ‘Byzantine Apocalypses’, The Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism, vol. 2: in B. McGinn (ed.) Apocalypticism in Wetern History and Culture (New York 2002), pp. 48-73. Ortiz De Urbina, I., Patrologia Syriaca, (Rome, 1958). Palmer, A., Monk and Mason on the Tigris Frontier. The Early History of Tur-‘Abdin (Cambridge, 1990). ———, The Seventh Century in the West-Syrian Chronicles (Translated Texts for Historians, 15; Liverpool, 1993). Payne Smith, J., A Compendious Syriac Dictionary (Oxford, 1904). Payne Smith, R., Thesaurus Syriacus (vols. I-II; Oxford, 1879-1901. ———, Supplement to the Thesaurus Syriacus, (Oxford, 1927). Pinggéra, K., All-Erlösung und All-Einheit: Studien zum ,Buch des heiligen Hierotheos‘ und seiner Rezeption in der syrisch-orthodoxen Theologie (Wiesbaden, 2002).

232

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

Plumptre, E. H., The Spirits in Prison and other Studies on the Life after Death (London, 1884). Possekel, U., ‘Expectations of the End in Early Syriac Christianity’, Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies, vol. 11 (Winter, 2008). Psellos, M., ‘On the Memory of the Soul after Death’, in D. J. O’Meara (ed), Philosophica Minora, II.20 (Stuttgart-Leipzig, 1989), pp. 34-35. Pusey, P. E., Cyril of Alexandria, Against those who reject the offering for the dead (CPG 5234.2; [Works of St Cyril] Oxford 1868-1877; vol. 5.) Rahmani, I. E., Testamentum domini nostri Jesu Christi nunc primum, edidit latine reddidit et illustravit, (Mainz, 1899, repr. Hildesheim, 1968). Rahmer, K., On Theology of Death (London, 1964). Reeves, J. C. (ed.), Tracing the Threads. Studies in the Vitality of Jewish Pseudepigrapha, (Atlanta, 1994), [pp. 143-171], pp. 152-154. Reinink, G. J., Die syrische Apokalypse des Pseudo-Methodius (CSCO 540-1, SS 220-1; Louvain, 1993). ———, ‘Early Christian Reactions to the Building of the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem’, Christianskij Vostok II (VIII) (2001), pp. 227-241. ———, ‘The beginnings of Syriac Apologetic Literature in Response to Islam’, OrChr 77 (1993), pp. 165-87. ———, ‘The Romance of Julian the Apostate as a Source for Seventh Century Syriac Apocalypses’, in P. Canivet and J. ReyCoquais (eds.), La Syrie de Byzance à l’Islam, VIIe-VIIIe siècles (Damascus, 1992), pp. 75-86. Rendel, J. H., The Gospel of the Twelve Apostles, together with the Apocalypses of Each One of Them, (Cambridge, 1900). Reuss, J., Matthäus-Kommentare aus der griechischen Kirche (Texte und Untersuchungen 61; Berlin, 1957), pp. 153-269. Rosenthal, F., The Muslim Concept of Freedom (Leiden, 1960). Rücker, A., Die syrische Jakobosanaphora nach der Rezension des Ja'qôb(h) von Edessa (Liturgiegeschichtliche Quellen 4; Münster in Westf., 1923). Rudolph, U., ‘Christliche Bibelexegese und mu`tazilitische Theologie - der Fall des Moses bar Kepha (gest. 903 n.Chr)’, Oriens 34 (1994), p. 299-313.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

233

Salisbury, E. E., “Materials for the History of the Muhammadan Doctrine of Predestination and Free Will,” AJOS 8 (1866), pp. 103-182 Sackur, E., Sibyllinische Texte und Forschungen, (Halle, 1898). Sauma, A., Efrem Syriern (306-373), Hans Liv och Skrifter (Stockholm/Uppsala, 2005). Shemunkasho, A., Healing in the Theology of St Ephrem (Piscataway, NJ, 2002). Scher, A., Theodorus bar Kônî, Liber Scholiorum (CSCO, vols. 55 & 69; Paris, 1910 & 1912). Sourdel, D., Medieval Islam tr. W. J. R. Montgomery and P. Kegan (London/New York, 1983). Suermann, H., ‘Einige Bemerkungen zu syrischen Apokalypsen des 7 JHDS’, in IV Symposium Syriacum (1984), pp. 327-335. ———, ‘Orientalische Christen und der Islam; christliche Texte aus der Zeit von 635-750’, Zeitschrift für Missionswissenschaft und Religionswissenschaft 67 (1983), pp. 122-128. Swete, H. B., ‘Prayer for the Departed in the First Four Centuries’, JTS 8 (1907), pp. 500-514. Tayeb, E., Reinterpreting Islamic Historiography: Harun al-Rashid and the Narrative of the Abbasid Caliphate (New York, 1999). Taylor, D. G. K., Daniel of Salah, Commentary on the Psalms (Forthcoming, CSCO; access was given by author to draft edition). ———, ‘Les pères cappadociens dans la tradition syriaque’, in Les pères grecs dans la tradition syriaque, ed. Schmidt, A., & Gonnet, D., (Études syriaques 4; Paris, 2007). ———, ‘L’importance des Pères de l’Église dans l’oeuvre spéculative de Barhebraeus’, in D. Aigle (ed.), Barhebraeus et la renaissance syriaque (special issue of ParOr, 2008/2009, Kaslik). ———, ‘The Christology of the Syriac Psalm Commentary (AD 541/2) of Daniel of Salah and the Phantasiast Controversy’, in M.F. Wiles & E.J. Yarnold, (eds), Studia Patristica XXXV (Leuven, 2001), pp. 508-15. Trimingham, J. S., Christianity among the Arabs in pre-Islamic times (Beirut, 1990). Van Ginkel, J. J., ‘The End is Near! Some Remarks on the Relationship between Historiography, Eschatology, and Apocalyptic Literature in the West-Syrian Tradition’, in W. J. van Bekkum, J. W. Drijvers, A. C. Klugkist (eds) Syriac Polemics: Studies in Honour of Gerrit Jan Reinink (Louvain, 2007).

234

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

Van Roey, A., Nonnus de Nisibe; traité apologétique, (Bibliothèque du Muséon 21; Louvain, 1948). Van Rompay, L. and Schmidt, A. B., ‘Takritans in the Egyptian desert: the Monastery of the Syrians in the ninth century’, JCSSS 1 (2001), pp. 41-60. Varghese, B., The Syriac Version of the Liturgy of St James: A brief history for Students (Alcuin/GROW Joint Liturgical Studies 49; Cambridge, 2001). Vööbus, A., History of Asceticism in the Syrian Orient, 3 vols., CSCO 184 (Louvain, 1958), CSCO 197 (Louvain, 1960), CSCO 500 (Louvain, 1980). Watt, M. W., Free Will and Pre-destination in Early Islam (London, 1948). ———, Islamic Surveys I, Islamic Philosophy and Theology (Edinburgh, 1962), pp. 58-71. ———, The Formative Period of Islamic Thought (Edinburgh, 1973). Wensinck, A. J., The Muslim Creed; Its Genesis and Historical Development (Cambridge, 1932). Witakowski, W., ‘Interpreting the past: Syriac historical writing’, ch. 8 in S. P. Brock (editor-in-chief), D. G. K. Taylor, W. Witakowski, and B. E. Witakowski, The Hidden Pearl III (Rome, 2001), pp. 167-219. Witakowski, W., The Syriac Chronicle of Pseudo-Dionysius of Tel-Mahrē, A Study in the History of Historiography (Acta Univ. Ups. Studia Semitica Upsaliensia 9; Uppsala, 1987). Wolfson, H. A., ‘Immortality and Resurrection in the Philosophy of the Church Fathers’, Harvard Divinity Bulletin 21 (1955-56), pp. 5-36. ———, The Philosophy of the Kalam (London, 1976). Wright, W., A Short History of Syriac Literature (London, 1894). Ye’or, B., The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam (Piscataway, NJ, 1996). Young, F., ‘Exegetical Method and Scriptural Proof – The Bible in Doctrinal Debate’, in E. A. Livingstone (ed.), Papers Presented to the tenth International Conference on Patristic Studies held in Oxford 1987, Studia Patristica 19 (Leuven, 1988), pp. 291-304. ———, ‘The Rhetorical Schools and their Influence on Patristric Exegesis’, in R. Williams (ed.), The Making of Orthodoxy: Essays in Honour of Henry Chadwick (Cambridge, 1989), pp. 182-199.

5.3. CYRIACUS IN ART Picture I In the monastery of Deir al-Surian we find the inscription saying "Saintly Cyriacus, patriarch of Antioch" ( ‫ܩܕܝܫܐ ܩܘܪܝܩܘܣ ܦܐܛܪܝܪܟܐ‬ ‫ )ܕܐܢܛܝܘܝܟܝܐ‬on the front part of the nave, left of the door leading into khurus. The text is written on a vertical line, from top to bottom, it is mirror reflected on the right side of the same line. Since Cyriacus was patriarch between 793 and 817, the text must have been written in that period or shortly thereafter. Cf. Karel Innemée & Lucas Van Rompay, “Deir al-Surian (Egypt): Its Wall-paintings, Wall-texts, Manuscripts”, Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies 2:2 (1999).

235

236

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP Picture II

This is a drawing of ms. Deir al-Surian, Syr. 20, f. 4r; The Book of Holy Hierotheos. The supposed author of the book is illustrated on the right side, with Cyriacus (793-817) on the left. The two figures in the upper part are identified as Zakkay (right) and Mattay (left); possibly the holy man of Deir al-Surian (from Tagrit?) mentioned in the colophon of Bn Syr 27 and an early Tagritan abbot.

5.4 INDEX Abba Isaiah, 20, 95, 153, 202, 203, 207 Abbasid, 6, 38, 101, 102, 103, 214, 220, 226, 227, 228, 233 Abū Qurrah, 63, 64, 101, 102, 106, 227, 228, 230 Abu’l Hudhayl, 104 Al-Raqqah, 5, 6, 38, 229 anti-Chalcedonian, 5, 6, 38, 229 Antioch, v, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 18, 19, 20, 21, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 38, 39, 44, 45, 50, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 65, 71, 72, 75, 86, 94, 95, 128, 140, 142, 150, 154, 161, 163, 189, 191, 196, 200, 202, 204, 207, 218, 219, 225, 235 Anton of Tagrit, 11, 71, 76, 106, 131, 132, 184, 206, 214, 217, 218, 225 Aphrahat, 10, 111, 139, 142, 156, 219 Arabic, xi, 3, 5, 27, 28, 73, 97, 101, 103, 145, 217, 218, 220, 224, 227, 228 Armenian, 56, 63, 64, 74, 129, 185, 191 Ash‘arites, 102 Athanasius I, 37, 60 Athanasius of Alexandria, 95, 152, 202, 203, 207

Bar Hebraeus, xi, 4, 7, 11, 13, 33, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 63, 71, 76, 79, 80, 124, 125, 126, 131, 132, 138, 143, 144, 148, 154, 155, 165, 167, 168, 169, 184, 186, 188, 192, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 219, 227 Basil the Great, 43, 86, 128, 141, 188, 190, 192, 196, 206, 207 Beth Gobrin, viii, 8, 9, 50, 51, 55 Beth-Botin, v, 8, 15, 16, 27, 45 Bokt-Isho, 102 Byzantine, 4, 6, 162, 222, 223, 225, 231 Calaz, 50, 51 Callinicum, 5, 6, 7, 19, 38, 50, 54, 57, 72 Caria, 56 Chalcedonians, 16, 63 Christophoros, metropolitan of Assur, 60 Christophoros, Patriarch of the Armenians, 59 Church of the East, 44, 101, 102, 131, 133, 138, 139, 145, 156, 214 Circesium, 59

237

238

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

Coptic, 28, 42, 43, 52, 53, 220 Cyril of Alexandria, 86, 94, 150, 172, 188, 200, 207, 232 Cyrrhestians, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 54, 57, 65 Cyrrhus, 9, 27, 48 Damascus, 4, 27, 103, 104, 221, 232 Deir al-Surian, 5, 38, 65, 115, 229, 235, 236 Diodore of Tarsus, 44 Dionysius bar Salibi, 172, 176, 227 Dionysius of Tellmahre, 7, 39, 50, 54, 55, 59, 64, 65, 76, 173, 211 Doctrina Addai, 94, 142, 161, 196, 197, 198, 207 Edessa, vi, 4, 16, 40, 41, 42, 48, 57, 59, 63, 64, 66, 73, 74, 75, 76, 125, 126, 130, 131, 132, 147, 148, 160, 163, 164, 217, 222, 225, 228, 232 Egypt, 5, 15, 37, 38, 52, 54, 90, 91, 92, 229, 231, 235 Egyptian, 52, 53, 90, 91, 92, 152, 221, 234 Empress Theodora, 38 Ephrem the Syrian, 10, 73, 74, 75, 84, 86, 90, 101, 128, 129, 130, 139, 142, 145, 146, 156, 160, 185, 186, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 207, 219, 222, 223, 224, 226, 230, 231, 233 florilegia/florilegium, 10, 11, 106, 128, 138, 149, 151, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 194, 195, 196, 198, 199, 201, 202, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 213, 217, 227

Ghaylān al-Dimashkī, 104 Greek, 6, 9, 10, 27, 28, 43, 76, 97, 98, 101, 108, 133, 139, 142, 145, 160, 162, 172, 183, 206, 223, 224 Gregorios Jarjis, 19 Gregory of Nazianzus, 94, 141, 196, 197, 198, 207 Gregory of Nyssa, 86, 94, 128, 142, 187, 188, 190, 191, 192, 194, 196, 197, 207 Gubite[s], 8, 40, 47, 49, 50, 51, 54, 211 Gubo-Baroyo/Gub[b]a Monatery, 9, 39, 47, 48, 50, 51, 52, 66, 67 Halicarnassus, 55, 56, 189, 225 Harran, v, 4, 15, 28, 37, 39, 42, 45, 58, 63, 90 Harun al-Rashid, 6, 7, 46, 49, 231, 233 Hierotheos, 5, 38, 226, 230, 231, 236 Isaac the Great, 140 Islam[ic], ix, xi, 4, 6, 7, 11, 13, 17, 44, 49, 73, 75, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 123, 124, 132, 133, 159, 162, 163, 170, 175, 179, 214, 222, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 232, 233, 234 Ismail ibn-Saleh, 50 Jabarites, 102 Jacob Baradaeus, 56 Jacob of Edessa, 66, 73, 75, 76, 125, 126, 130, 131, 132, 147, 148, 163, 164, 217, 222, 225 Jacob of Serugh, 10, 73, 74, 75, 86, 128, 146, 147, 160, 191, 192, 207, 220

INDEX Jerusalem, xi, 3, 4, 9, 10, 18, 19, 31, 50, 72, 76, 80, 81, 108, 175, 217, 221, 225, 227, 228, 232 Job of Mopsuestia, 51 John Chrysostom, 94, 142, 150, 152, 172, 196, 197, 199, 200, 201, 207 John IV, v, 27, 28 John of Aleppo, 48, 67 John of Damascus, 103, 104 John of Ephesus, 48 John of Kokta, 51 John of Phenek, 12 John of Serugh, 48 Julianist[s], vi, 8, 16, 17, 18, 40, 52, 55, 56, 65, 66, 187, 189, 206, 212, 218 Justinian I, 6 Kafro of Halif, 50 Ma‘bad al-Juhanī, 104 Mark III, v, 27, 28, 52, 53 Mattai of Kephar-Tuta, 51, 52 Melkite[s], 5, 101, 227 Mesopotamia, 52, 116, 215, 223, 225, 228 Monastery of Eusibona, 51 Monastery of Mar Mattai, 32, 38, 59, 60, 61, 66, 67, 76 Monastery of Qenneshrin/ Monastery of John bar Aphtonia, 15, 39, 41, 50, 64, 75 monastery of St Jacob of Cyrrhus, 48, 50 Monastery of St Mark, 3, 9, 10, 18, 19, 31, 72, 217, 221 Monastery of the Pillar, 4, 6, 19, 38, 52, 65, 71, 72

239 Monk Abraham/Abiram, 28, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 59, 65 Monk Salomon of the Monastery of St Jacob, 48, 49, 50, 67 Moshe bar Kipho, xi, 10, 11, 71, 76, 77, 126, 131, 132, 136, 137, 143, 144, 148, 149, 151, 154, 176, 184, 185, 186, 188, 189, 190, 192, 194, 195, 196, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 214, 217, 220, 225, 227, 232 Mosul, v, viii, 8, 31, 32, 37, 40, 59, 60, 61, 67, 76 Mu’tazilites, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 226, 228 Muslim[s], 7, 12, 49, 50, 63, 73, 74, 76, 78, 101, 102, 103, 104, 112, 124, 125, 126, 129, 132, 145, 225, 227, 228, 229, 231, 232, 234 Nestorian[s], 4, 16, 46, 136, 137, 138, 140, 228 non-chalcedonian, 52, 56 Nonnus of Nisibis, 63, 64, 102, 106, 228, 234 Palladius of Hellenopolis, 94, 150, 199, 200, 207 Patriarch Gabriel, 17, 56, 57, 65, 66 Patriarch George, viii, 16, 28, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 66, 212 Patriarch Joseph, 16, 39, 41, 66 Persian, 4, 59, 74, 143, 224 Phantasiast[s], 8, 55, 56, 189, 233 Philoxenus of Nisibis, 57, 58 Philoxenus of Mabbug, 10, 206, 227

240

CYRIACUS OF TAGRIT & HIS BDP

Pseudo-Methodius, 12, 159, 160, 161, 162, 179, 230, 232 Qadar/Qadarite[s], 102, 103, 104 Qartmin Monastery, 40, 51, 63 Qenneshrin, v, viii, 8, 15, 17, 18, 39, 41, 50, 56, 57, 64, 75 Roman, 10, 12, 49, 60, 74, 176 Sasanians, 6 Seleucia-Ctesiphon, 9, 26, 48, 50, 67, 72, 135 Seleucos II Kallinikos, 6 Severus of Antioch, v, 3, 4, 8, 9, 29, 30, 43, 56, 57, 65, 86, 94, 95, 128, 150, 154, 161, 163, 189, 191, 192, 200, 202, 203, 204, 207, 218 Severus of Sabukht, 75 Severus of Samosata, 46 Shahanshah Khusrau I, 6 Simon, the metropolitan of Tagrit, 40, 58, 59 Syria, 5, 21, 27, 38, 52, 54, 116, 153, 215, 227, 228, 229, 231

Tagra, 7, 49 Tagrit, vi, 3, 5, 11, 19, 30, 31, 32, 37, 40, 58, 59, 60, 61, 65, 67, 71, 76, 106, 115, 116, 131, 132, 184, 206, 211, 213, 214, 217, 218, 219, 225, 226, 236 Theodore of Mopsuestia, 44, 140 Theodosius of Callinicum, 57 Theodosius of Edessa, 54, 59, 64 Theodosius of Seleucia, 9, 26, 48, 50, 67, 72, 135 Theophilus of Alexandria, 95, 153, 202, 203, 207 Timothy I, 102, 124, 131, 132, 137, 138, 140, 144, 145, 151, 152, 155, 156, 157, 220, 224, 228, 229 Tirminaz, 9, 26, 27, 97, 98 Zechariah of Edessa, 16, 40, 41, 57, 66