The Harp (Volume 4) 9781463232955

Citation preview

T h e H a r p (Volume 4)

The Harp

4

The Harp is an annual review of Syriac Christianity.

T h e H a r p ( V o l u m e 4)

Edited by V. C. Samuel Geevarghese Panicker Jakob Thekeparampil

i gorgias press 2012

Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2012 by Gorgias Press LLC Originally published in 1991 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.

ISBN 978-1-61143-640-2 Reprinted from the 1991 Kottayam edition.

Printed in the United States of America

THE HARP Vol.

IV

No. 1,2,3

July

1991

Page Editorial ... ... ... ... The Second World Syriac Conference, SEERI September 3-8-1990 ... ... ... ( J . T.) Monasticism, the Heart of the Church ... Ignace Philips Themes in Ephrem's Exodus Commentary ...

...

5

...

7

...

17

...

21

Alison Salves en Healing in St. Ephrem's Commentary on Diatessaron ... Karl-Heinz Kuhlmann St. Basil the Great and the Syrian Christian Tradition Danid G. K. Taylor The Suffering, Death and Resurrection of Christ A Philoxenian view ... ... ... ... Mathew Mar Severies Dadisho Qatraya and his Commentary on the Book of the Abbas Isaiah ... ... ... Luise Abramowski Canon Law of Mar Abdisho ... ... ... Mar Aprem Ecumenical Aspects of Barhebraeus' Christology ... Wolfgang Hage Prayer with Tears: A Great Feast of Repentance ... Dr. Geeuarghese Panicker The Role of Women in the early Greek and Syriac Churches Karen Torjesen

35 49

59

67 85 103 m 135

4

THE

HARP

'Singles' in God's Service; T h o u g h t ' s on t h e Ihidaye from the works of Aphrahat and E p h r a e m the Syrian ...

145

Sydney II. Griffith The Book of life in t h e Syriac L i t u r g y An I n s t r u m e n t of Social and Spiritual Survival

161

Andrew

Palmer

Theology and P r a c t i c e of communal life according to Dadiso

173

Martin Tamke Some I m p o r t a n t Baptismal Themes in t h e Syriac T r a d i t i o n 189 Sebastian P. Brock West Syrian A n a p h o r a as an Expression of t h e T r i n i t a r i a n D o c t r i n e ... ... • •• ••• 21-5 Baby Varghese Comparison between Syriac E u c h a r i s t i e P r a y e r s and Actual A f r i c a n E u c h a r i s t i e Prayers ... •• ••• 225 Kabasele Lumbala L i t u r g i c a l R e l a t i o n s between E a s t and West : The prayers of Intercession ... ••• ••• 235 P. De Clerck Catechism and P r e a c h i n g , P r e d i c a t i o n , Questions of Changes Since t h e Apostolic Age in L a t i n and Syriac L i t u r g y ... 251 P. Perrier 259 SEERl-Chronicle ... ... Book Reviews

...

•••

•••

•••

262

Editorial

This is Volume IV of the HARP. In this Volume we are combining the three issues of this year. We are doing so in order to make available to our readers papers on eighteen topics selected from the papers presented by the various international scholars at the Syriac Conference held at SEERI between 3rd and 8th of September 1990. We will be publishing the remaining papers in the next volume. The eighteen articles selected for publication in this volume deal with the spiritual, monastic, and liturgical ideas of the early Syriac tradition. Among the Syriac writers discussed, St. Ephrem, Philoxonos of Mabug Dadiso, Mar Abdiso, Bar Hebrews deserve special attention. Some of the articles attempt to stress a special point of view quite relevant to contemporary Iheological thinking, this for example, 'Ecumenical aspects of Bar Hebrews' Christology, by Wolfgang Hage, "The role of women in the early Greek and Syriac Churches" by Karen Torjesen, 'Comparison between Syriac Eucharistic prayers and actual African Eucharistic prayers' by Kabsale Lumbala, 'Liturgical relation between East and West' by P. De Clerck. It is hoped that these articles by the various Scholars will be an incentive to other scholars for further research along these lines. Assiduous and diligent interest in the early Syriac tradition of Christianity needs to be expanded considerably. And this volume of HARP is intended to help the progress of such an endeavour.

THE

HARP

Vol. IV. No. 1, 2, 3., J u l y 1991, 7 - 1 5

The Second World Syriac Conference, SEERI September 3 - 8 - 1 9 9 0

The war clouds over the Middle East during the months preceding September liad seriously affected our preparations for the Second World Syriac Conference, but we were able to get on with the preparations with the assistance of friends from all over the world. Eventually there were a few inevitable cancellations of delegates from a few Middle East countries. We are, however, happy to record that on the whole we had a larger delegation from abroad at this conference than at the first one held two years ago. The

2nd World Syrlae Conference compared to the 1st one ( 1 9 8 7 )

In both Conferences there were eminent Scholars and participants from abroad. While in the first Conference only 16 colleagues from abroad took part, in the 2nd Conference the number of the foreign participants rose upto twentyfive. I n fact the 2nd Conference was more international than the 1st, because, besides Europe and U. S. A. countries like Zaire (Africa) and Sweden were represented at this. From the Middle East, especially from Iraq, 5 scholars were expected, but on account of the Gulf crisis they could not come. Their absence, however, was made up to some extent by the participation of Malpan Abraham Nuro (Aleppo, Syria), the enthusiastic promoter of Syriac language and heritage. He stayed on to give an intensive Syriac course to 43 students for 5 weeks after the conference. Compared to the 1st conference, the local participation in the second conference, too, was better. About 200 persons attended the Conference daily. They included bishops, priests, sisters, laymen and seminarians

8

THE

HARP

from the different churches of the Syriac tradition. A manifestation of increased public awareness and participation was the sponsorship of the expenses of each day of the conference by various Christian leaders in Kerala. A guided tour of the ancient churches and Christian Centres in Kerala for the participants of the Conference was also sponsored by two benefactors. Monday, 3rd September 1990

The solemn inauguration of the 2nd World Syriac Conference was at 2.45 p . m . on Monday 3rd September 1991. The opening meeting was presided over by the Head of the Syrian Orthodox Church of Malankara and the Catholicos of the East, His Holiness Moran Mar Baselios Mar Thoma Mathews I, who inspite of his indifferent health, graced the occasion by his presence and gave the presidential address. The Head of the Mar Thoma Syrian Church, Most Rev. Dr. Alexander Mar Thoma ceremoniously inaiiguarated the conference in the traditional Indian way by lighting an oil lamp. The key-note address was delivered by Dr. Ignaec Phillips. a monk of the famous Benedictine monastery of Chevetogne, Belgium, where some of the monks live the Byzantine liturgy. Being a specialist in Syriac monasticism, he pointed out the salient features of this monastic tradition and stressed the need of a monastic revival in the Churches of Syriac tradition in India. V. Rev. Dr. Kurian Kaniamparampil Cor-episeopa, Rev. Dr. Victor Z. Narively C.M.I. (Chief Editor "Deepika") and Mr. M.C. Varghese (Chief Editor Mangalam) offered felicitations. Dr. Kurian Kaniamparampil, a gifted writer in Syriac, spoke entirely in Syriac. The musical items for the inaugural function were offered by Rev. Fr. M. P. George Hie Director of the School of Liturgical Music of the Orthodox Theological Seminary, Kottayam and his troupe. He and his troupe also guided the chanting of the Sext daily on all the 5 days of the Conference. This was a notable speciality of the Conference this year. Session 1 was held immediately after the inaugural meeting. Rev. Dr. Joseph Koickakudy, the former Rector of the St. Thomas Apostolic Seminary, Vadavathoor, was moderator of the session and Dr. Sydney H. Griffith (Catholic University of America, Washington D. C. U. S. A.) presented a paper on Asceticism and the contemplative life in the works of St. Ephrem, with the title

T H E SECOND WORLD SYRIAC CONFERENCE

«

"St. Ephrem on Ihidoye". Ihidoyo had originally designated an individual member of the "Bnai Oyomo", whose status was understood in relation to the Son of God "the ihidoyo in the bosom of the Father". Tuesday, 4th September 1991

Session 2, began at 9 15 a. m., was presided over by Rev. Dr. Zacharias Elipulikatt, ihe Rector of the St. Thomas Apostolic Seminary, Kottayam. The 1st paper on "Ecumenical aspects of Bar Hebraeus Christology" was read by Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Hage (Marburg University, Germany). Bar Hebraeus's evaluation of Christologies of the early centuries anticipates the positive and creative perspective in the present day Christological dialogue between the Oriental Orthodox Churches, the Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Nestorian and various Protestant Churches. Rev. Dr, Thomas Kalayil (C.M.I) having done a the.sis on St. Ephrem, read the 2nd paper. "Christ's Work of Redemption according to Ephrem". Rev. Dr. Albrecht Frenz, hailing from Stuttgart, Germany, presented a paper on the influence of the Syriac liturgies in the "First Liturgy of the Basel Mission in Malabar". In Session 3 the moderator was Rev. Dr. Adai Jacob, the Principal of the Malankava Syrian Orthodox Theological Seminary, Udayagiri, Mulanthnruthy. The fust paper was on "The soteriol°gv of Jacob of Sarug" (+ 521) by Dr. Frederic Rillet (Geneva, Switzerland). Malpan Abraham Nuro, born in Edessa and living in Aleppo, Syria, in his talk on "Precisions on Suloqo" introduced his new approach to Syriac Grammar with the help of video cassettes. Rev. Bosco C.M.I, presided over session 4. In his paper on "Persian Words in Syriac" Dr. K. Luke O.F.M. Cap. (St. Francis College of Theology, Thellakom) discussed "Syriac words of Persian origin". Rev. P. M. Mathew Cor-episcopa in his paper discussed the idea of "Stewardship of wealth in the Syrian Lenten prayers". The president of session 5 was Dr. Varghese Ottathengil, Rector, Malankara Major Seminary, Trivandrum. Dr. George Thekkedath (Ottawa, Canada) presented a paper on "Romantic poetry in the Antiochene marriage Rite". The second paper of

10

THE HARP

t h i s session was o n " T h e A. Deprez, f r o m France.

Origin

and

Meaning of A m a d " by

Wednesday, 5th September

The delegates went to t h e Orthodox Theological Seminary t o a t t e n d t h e Holy Qurbono in Syriac celebrated by t h e Revd. K o r u t h u Malpan and Rev. F r . M. P. George. The 6th session began a t 9.15 a.m. presided over by Mrs. Rachel Mathew, General Secretary of the "Sevikasang^m", t h e Women's Organization of the Marthoma Syrian Church. Dr. Mrs. K a r e n Torjesen (the D e p a r t m e n t of Religion, Claremont School of Theology, Los Angelus, U . S . A ) presonted her paper "Women in Syriac arid Grei'k L i t u r g i e s " . The next paper " T h e Canon L a w of Mar Abdiso" was read by Most Rev. Dr. Mar Aprein, Metropolitan of t h e Chaldean Church of t h e E a s t , Trichur. And Prof. Dr Louise Abramowski ( F a c u l t y of Philosophy, University, of Tubingen, Germany) read t h e last paper of this session: " T h e F r a g m e n t s of Theodore of Mopsuestia in t h e manuscript of the British Library Add. 12.156". Session 7 was presided over by Dr. D. Babu Paul I.A.S. " B a r Ito B r i r o " . The papers presented were: 1) " S t . E p h r e m ' s Commentary on E x o d u s " by Dr. A. Salvessen (Oxford University, U.K.). The paper was largely a c o m p a r a t i v e study of t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of the Exodus by Philo, Josephus and St, Ephrem. The other paper on " T r i n i t a r i a n Doctrine expressed in t h e A n a p h o r a " was by Rev. Dr. Baby Varghese (Orthodox Centre, New Delhi). Session 8 was moderated by Dr. Sydney Griffith. Very Reverend K u r i a n K a n i a m p a r a m p i l Cor-Episc^pa gave a talk on " S y r i a c Studies and t h e Syriac S holars in K e r a l a " . Dr. David G.K. Taylor (Oxford University, U.K.) read a paper o n " S t . Basil t h e Great and Syrian Christian T r a d i t i o n " , highlighting t h e considerable influence St. Basil had over t h e Syriac T r a d i t i o n . In Session 9, Moderated by Prof. Dr. Sebastian Brock (Oxford University, U. K.), F a t h e r M. P. George (Orthodox Theological Seminary) gave a talk on t h e wonderful experience of t h e Syriac musical t r a d i t i o n . In t h e evening, t h e guests from abroad visited t h e Malankara Syrian O r t h o d o x Theological S e m i n a r y ,

T H E SECOND WORLD SYRIAC CONFERENCE

11

Udnyagiri, where the Principal and the Staff, and the Metropoltians of the Syrian Orthodox Church were a t home to the visitors. Thursday, 6th September

Session 10 was moderated by V. Rev. Dr. Louis Moolaveettil, Superior General of the Order of the Imitation of Christ, K o t t a y a m . Prof. Dr. Sebastian Brock read the first paper: "Some i m p o r t a n t baptismal themes in the Syriac Liturgical T r a d i t i o n " : Dr. Brock dealt a t some length with the imageries and themes prominent in the West Syrian baptismal liturgy. I n the 2nd paper Dr. Martin Tamcke (University of Goettingen, Germany) dealt with the "Theology and practice of communal Life according to Dadiso and in Barqita". The rules and customs characterising community life in the monasteries of Dadiso were explained in this paper. The last paper "Paschal Lamb according to St. E p h r e m " was read by Dr. Joseph Naduvilezham (Rector, St. Thomas Minor Seminary, Changanacherry). In Session II, moderated by Dr. Albrecht Frenz, Dr. Jacob Kollaparampil (Mar Makkil Gurukulam, Bangalore) read a paper on " D e p o r t a t i o n of Bishop Demetrianus of Antioch to Kuzhistan (A. D. 257) arid the origin of multiple ecclesial jurisdiction in the Persian E m p i r e . " Then Dr. Ignace Phillips presented his paper on " T h e importance of tlie Peshitta Version in Syriac tradition: " H e illustrated this with special reference to chapter 29 of the First Book of Chronicles." Prof. Dr. I. H. Dalmais o. p. ( I n s t i t u t Catholique de Paris, France) dealt w i t h "Aramaic tradition and inculturation: reflections on Nestorian documents from China." Session 12 was presided over by Fr. T. J . Joshua, VicePrincipal of the Orthodox Theological Seminary, K o t t a y a m . Dr. C. A. Abraham (Pontifical Seminary, Alwaye) presented the 1st paper: "St. James' Anaphora and the spiritual heritage of India." His paper showed how t h e liturgy of St. James was more suited to the Indian ethos. Mrs. Christine Taylor (London University, U. K ) read the 2nd paper "Catechism, preaching: question on variation from the apostolic age in latin and Syriac L i t u r g y . " The paper was w r i t t e n by Dr. Pierre Perrier (Versailles, France), who was unable to be present a t t h e conference.

12

THE HARP

Session 13 was moderated by Dr. Mathew Vellanickal (President, Paurasthya Vidyapitham, Kottayam). In this session Dr. David Lane (College of Resurrection, Mirfield, U. K.) presented his paper cn " T h e Works of Mar Subhalmaran," Metropolitan in Iraq during the Sessanian period. This was followed by the paper of Dr. Morton Moebjerg (Randers, Denmark) on " T h e Patriarchal See of Antioch and Seleucia/Ctesiphon: p a t t e r n of a development t h a t frightens and inspires t o d a y . " And Malpan Abraham Nuro was allotted a special time t o continue and complete his lecture on his " S u l o q o " method in teaching Syriac. The reception of foreign guests by Mr. M. C. Varghese, Chief Editor, Mangalam Daily and Weekly, closed the activities of the day. Friday 7th, September

The delegates went in the morning for worship to the Sacred H e a r t Cathedral and participated in the Holv Qurbana of the Syro Malabar Church, celebrated in Syriac by Rt. Rev. Dr. Mar Kuriakose Kannasserry, the Syrian Catholic Bishop of Kottayam. The 14th Session started at 9.15 a . m . It was moderated by Prof. Dr. Louise Abramowski. The following papers were presented in this session, (l) " T h e relations between East and West: prayers of intercession" by Dr. Paul De clerck, Director of the I n s t i t u t Superieur de Liturgie of I n s t i t u t Catholique of Paris. Dr. Paul De clerck pointed out t h a t t h e order and the contents of the Western prayers of Intercession derive from those of the Eastern Anaphoral Intercessions as found in Sahidic Basil. (2) The second paper was on the influence of the Maronile liturgy on the Syro-Malabar Q u r b a n a " by Dr. Jacob Velliyan (Director, Thuvanisa, Kothanalloor, and visiting Professor of the St. Thomas Apostolic Seminary, Kottayam). (3) The third paper was on " H e a l i n g in St. Ephrem's Commentary on Diatessaron" by Dr. Karl-Heinz K u h l m a n n (Bohmte, Germany). In Session 15, presided over by Dr. M. J . J o s e p h (Principal, Marthoma Theological Seminary, K o t t a y a m ) Dr. Simon C. Mimouni (University of Lausanne, Switzerland) presented his paper on

T H E SECOND WOULD SYRIAC CONFERENCE

13

"The feast of Mary's dormition in the Syriac area during the Byzantine period". Then Dr. Geevarghese Panicker (SEERI, Kottayam) presented his paper on "Prayer with tears" that is, tears as an expression of repentance. This was followed by the paper of Dr. Thomas Panicker (Mar Ivanios College, Trivandrum). "Syriac verbs of Epiclesis in the Anaphorae". The afternoon Session, No. 16, was moderated by two bishops: H. G. Philipose Mar Eusebius (Syrian Orthodox Diocese, P»thanamthilta and Rt. Rev. Dr. Joseph Mar Irenaeus Episcopa (Mar Thoma Syrian Church). Rev. Dr. Thomas Elavunkal (VennikuJam), summarized the main ideas of his thesis entitled "Spiritual senses according to St. Ephrem". Dr. M. A. Mathai Remban, a Bish"p-Elecl of the Syrian Orthodox Church (Orthodox Theological Seminary, Kottayam), presented his paper on "The Suffering, Dealth and Resurrection of Christ: a Philoxenian View". Dr. Paul De Clrrck, the President of the "international Association for Liturgy "Societas Liturgica" presided over the 17th Session. The first paper "Comparison between Syriac Eucharistic Prayers and Actual African Eucharistic Prayers" was read by Dr. Francois Kabasele-Lumbala, a renowned specialist on African liturgies ana a Professor of the Catholic Faculty of the Kinhasa University, Zaire, Africa. He pointed out that in the context of inculturation, the Oriental liturgies seem better suited to Africa than the Roman liturgy. Fr. Zacharia John (a member of the liturgical Commission of the Mar Thoma Syrian Church) read the last paper of the day: "Holy Spirit in the Anaphorae". The delegates used the free time in the evening to visit the neighbouring Theological Seminary of the Mar Thoma Syrian Church and the archives, where some ancient Syriac manuscripts are preserved. Later in the evening of the same day His Holiness Moran Mar Baselios Mar Thoma Mathews I, the Catholicos of the Malankara Orthodox Church was at home to the delegates at the Catholicate Aramana: Devalokam, Kottayam. Saturday, 8th September

Session 18 was presided over by Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Hage (Marburg, Germany), Prof. Dr. G. Blum (University of Marburg,

14

THE HARP

Germany) read the first paper: " T h e Mystologv of J o h n the Solitary from Apamea". Mrs. Leela Jacob presented t h e second paper: "The background rationale and scope for Syriac Studies in the Universities of Kerala", And the last paper of this session " N e w insights into the East Syriac Liturgical Year according to t h e interpretation of the Unknown Theologian" was read by Dr Antony Vallavanthara C. M. I. (Director, Mar Thoma Centre, Kanyakumary). Most Rev. Dr. Paulose Mar Philoxenos, Metropolitan of the Malankara Catholic Church (Thozhiyoor) moderated Session 19. Dr. C. A. Ninan, former Professor of Botany, Kerala University and a leading scholar of the Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church read his paper on " T h e modern scientific basis of Syrian Orthodox sacraments and L i t u r g y . " Dr. Geevarghese Chediath (Paurasthva Vidyapitham) dealt with " t h e Seleuoian Calholicate and the Maphrianntc of T ; t g n t h " . And Dr. Assad Saurna Assad ("Bahro Suryoyo", Stockholm, Sweden) presented his paper on " t h e Origin of the word " S u r y o y o " Syriac/Syrian". The 20th and the last session of the conference was moderated by Dr. Geevarghese Panicker (SEERI, Koltayam). In this session the papers of certain scholars, who were unable to come, were briefly introduced, They are: 1.

Dr. David H. Tripp (Dudley, England) " J o h n and Chads Wesley's H y m n on the Lord's supper: a western counter p a r t to the Syro-Malabar R a z a " .

2.

Dr. Andrew Nicolas Plamer (Groningen, The Netherlands) " T h e Book of Life in the Syriac Liturgy: an instrument of social and spiritual survival".

3.

Dr. Jeam Sanders (Amsterdam, The Netherlands) Gazo: origin, terminology and theology".

"Beth

Then, the paper on " T h e Trivandrum Manuscript of the Book of J u d i t h " by Dr. J . P. M. van der Ploeg o. p. CorEpiscopa (Nijmrgen, Holland) was read (in his absence) by Dr. Sr. Scholastica S. I. C. (the Provincial of the Bathery Province of the Sisters of t h e Imitation of Christ).

T H E SECOND WORLD SYRIAC CONFERENCE

15

The Concluding Function The Second world Syriac Conference ended w i t h a solemn meeting held in t h e a f t e r n o o n of t h e last day. The concluding f u n c t i o n , commencing a t 15.30, was presided over by His Grace Most Reverend Dr. Benedict Mar Gregorios, Archbishop of T r i v a n d r u m a n d t h e head of t h e Malankara Church. H e s t r u c k a n o t e of w a r n i n g against those who raise d o u b t s a b o u t t h e i d e n t i t y a n d distinctness of the Christian i d e n t i t y in India. I n his speech in Malayalam Mr. D. C. K i z h a k e m u r y briefly s u m m a rized t h e history of p r i n t i n g in M i l a y a l a m . This was followed by fo ur evaluations of t h e conference b y Drs. Very Rev. George K u r i a n R e m b a n , Sydney Griffith, David Lane and George Vavanikunnel. The v a l e d i c t o r y speech was delivered by Most Rev. Dr. Mar Kuriakose K u n n a s s e r y , Bishop of K o t t a y a m . T h r o u g h t h e P r a y e r of Our Lord, recited in Syriac, t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s t h a n k e d God for t h e successful Syriac Conference of 1990. Finally w i t h t h e sinking of t h e national a n t h e m of I n d i a t h e Second World Syriac Conference of S E E R 1 came t o a close. A f t e r t h e concluding f u n c t i o n , in t h e evening t h e delegates visited the. St. J o s e p h ' s m o n a s t e r y founded by t h e v e n e r a b l e Chavara Kuriakose Elias, the f o u n d e r of t h e C.M.I. Congregation. They also visited t h e shrine where his remains a r e e n t o m b e d . On 9 t h and 10th September t h e delegates f r o m a b r o a d w e n t on a guided t o u r of t h e a n c i e n t Churches of K e r a l a and c e r t a i n places where Syriac m a n u s c r i p t s are preserved. [ J. T. ]

sc

*

*

THE

HARP

LEARN THINE OWN WEAKNESS

"If a n y m a n a t t e m p t t o speak of God, let him first describe t h e bounds of t h e e a r t h . Thou dwellest on t h e e a r t h , and t h e limit of t h i s e a r t h which is t h e y dwelling t h o u knowest not: how t h e n shalt t h o u be able t o f o r m a w o r t h y t h o u g h t of i t s Creator? T h o u beholdest t h e stars, b u t t h e i r Maker t h o u beholdest not: c o u n t these which are visible, and then describe H i m who is invisible, Who telleth the number of the stars, and calleth them nil be their names. Violent rains lately came pouring down upon us, and nearly destroyed us: n u m b e r t h e drops in t h i s city alone: nay 1 say not in t h e city, b u t nutnber t h e drops on t h i n e own house for one single h o u r , if t h o u canst: b u t t h o u canst not. L e a r n t h e n t h i n o w n weakness; learn f r o m this instance t h e mightiness of God: for He hath numbered the drops of rain, which have been poured d o w n on all t h e e a r t h , not only now b u t in all time. The sun is a work of God, which, great t h o u g h it be, is b u t a spot in comparison w i t h t h e whole heaven; first gaze stedfastly u p o n t h e sun, a n d t h e n curiously scan t h e Lord of t h e sun. Seek not the things that are too deep for thee, neither search out the things that are above thy strength: what is commanded thee, think thereupon." Cyril of J e r u s a l e m ,

Catechetical

Lectures.

THE

HARP

Vol. IV. No. 1,2,3. J u l y 1991, 17-19 Ignace Philips*

Monasticism, the Heart of the Church

If there is one word which could be said to characterize ancient Svriac tradition, t h e n 1 suspect it would be the word " m o n a s t i c " . Evpn before the appearance of monasticism as an institutionalized form of life in the Church, certain believers were seeking God in a n ascetical life of prayer and repentance. The "mourners"

(ii—31)

addressed by Ephrem and the

"sons

of the c o v e n a n t ' ' (J-sa^-O mentioned by Aphrahat were perhaps not monks in the later meaning of t h e word b u t simply believers living out in an absolute way their vows of baptism, immersed in t h e waters of the death and the life of Jesus in a quest so strong t h a t it was their whole life. So there was no fundamental difference between the monks, t h e ascetics and " o r d i n a r y " believers. Celibacy and fasting are only a means to an end which is the t u r n i n g of the heart to God in unceasing prayer. The earliest Syriac writers were ascetics and therefore monks in this wider sense of t h e word. The later development of monasticism as an order of t h e Church corresponded to the idea of monastic life as a kind of sacrament: a sign of the coming of t h e Kingdom. The monk by *Dr. Ignace Philips, a monk of the Chevetogne Monastery, Belgium, is a specialist in Syriac monasticism." This is ths key—note Address given ftt the in&ugur&l session of 3rd September 1990.

18

THE HARP

watchfulness in all things, expresses the desire of Christ's which is the Church and the soul of the believer; in the oi the Song of Songs, " I sleep b u t my heart watches". in this sense t h a t mouasticis'm may be called the heart Church, the hidden p a r t far from the eyes of men which to the r h y t h m of Christ's Name.

Bride, words I t is of the beats

Two very typical things of Syriac monastic life are of great importance to the Church in its spiritual life: the emphasis p u t on heimit life and the daily reading and meditation of Scripture. The monk is I—»j.-»-»»-» , solitary, because he is one with the One and only Son of Gnd; b u t living a p a r t he does not cut himself off from the rest of humanity, but enters more deeply into the mystery of human n a t u r e as it appears before God, he is, in Mar Evagrius's terms, "separated from all and united to all", it is the ultimate folly of man's love for God corresponding to the ultimate folly of God's love for mankind. The meditation of Scripture which should be the basis of all Christian life, is such an integral p a r t of the monk's life in aiicient Syriac monastieisrn t h a t it takes on an almost liturgical and ritual aspect. The monk lives in silence to be able to listen to Christ's voice which comes to him t h r o u g h the word of God which is his daily bread. Although in ancient Syriac monastic tradition the cenobitic life was seen principally as a simple preparation for the solitary life, there later came into existance communities of monks living a common life. The life of fellowship and having all things in common, like the Apostles, the celebration of the liturgical offices together are also signs of the coming of the Kingdom: a sign of fellowship between the brothers which shows Christ's fellowship with his flock, serving each other in humility as Christ served his Apostles. In India the religious quest for the Absolute is p a r t and parcel of the country's very soul. Surely Indian Christianity has a witness to give to t h a t desire in the form of monastic life. \ n d it is precisely Syriac tradition so rich in its monastic heritage and ideals t h a t is the oldest and most venprable form )f Christianity in this country. All Syriac Churches should draw

MONASTICISM, T H E HEART OF T H E CHURCH

19

on their own authentic spiritual experience and t r a d i t i o n lived out by so many men and women of God as a source of renewal and inner cohesion whose t r u e source can only be in a life of prayer. It has been said 1hat a Church without monks is only half a Church. This has nothing to do with w h a t I would call monastic chauvinism where the monk is seen by others, or worse still sees himself, as better t h a n other believers - an a t t i t u d e which should have no place in Christian thought. No, it has to do with giving a sign, a pointer, to the hidden strength of prayer accomplished in t h e secret chamber known only to the F a l h e r , but which upholos the universe because it is Christ himself who t h r o u g h the Holy Spirit is praying in the monk who recognizes himself to be the worst of sinners, b u t is loved, cherished and forgiven by the mercy of God - and this is t h e sign of hope for all who believe in Jesus Christ. As forgiven sinners whose only possession is the love of God, a monastic brotherhood also exemplifies unity of mind a n d worship, preferring one's bj others t o oneself. It is a sign to t h e divided Churches to seek for the unity which Christ himself prayed for. One of the great strengths of living in a monastic community is to learn how to forgive w i t h o u t hesitating, to learn to love others more t h a n oneself: all our Churches can learn from this experience of God's grace. Respect, t r u e respect for the spiritual heritage of other Churches can only be learnt by respecting the life of prayer as it has been lived for centuries. Monasteries can be humble guardians and witnesses to this life of prayer so essential to the life of Christ's Church.

£3

£3

£3

THE

HARP

VICE MIMICS VIRTUE "VICE mimics virtue, and the tares strive to be t h o u g h t wheat, growing like the wheat in appearance, being detected by good judges from the taste. The devil also transfigures himself into an angel of light; not t h a t he may reascend to where he was, for having made his heart hard as an anvil, he has henceforth a will t h a t cannot repent; b u t in order t h a t he may envelope those who are living an Angelic life in a mist of blindness, and a pestilent condition of unbelief. Many wolves are going about in sheep's clothing, their clothing being t h a t a sheep, not so their claws and teeth: b u t clad in their soft skin, and deceiving the innocent by their appearance, they shet upon them from their fangs the destructive poison of ungodliness. We have need therefore of divine grace, and of a sober mind, and of eyes t h a t see, lest from eating tares as wheat we suffer harm from ignorance, and lest from taking the wolf to be a sheep we become his prey, and from supposing the destroying Devil to be a beneficent Angel we be devured: for, as the Scripture saith, he goeth about as a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour. This is the cause of the Church's admonitions, the cause of the present instructions, and of the lessons which are read."

Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical

Lectures.

THE HARP

Vol. IV. No. 1,2,3., J u l y 1991, 21-34 Alison Sal vestn*

Themes in Ephrem's Exodus Commentary

Alms: In this paper on to examine

Ephrem's

Exodus

commentary I w a n t

1) Certain similarities of approach towards Moses' early life in Ephrem, Philo and Josephus

the story of

2) The differences in attitude of these three writers towards the topics of Moses' womenfolk, Moses' killing of the Egyptian, and God's hardening of Pharaoh's heart. Ephrem's Exodus commentary comes down to us in a single 6th C. Vatican MS in which it's preceded by his long and very interesting commentary on Genesis. It dates probably from 360s? Tonneau produced an edition and Latin translation in 1955 and Paul Ffcghali published a French translation in Parole de I'Orient.1 The Exodus commentary belongs to what's called the A n t i o chene school of exegesis. This means t h a t the author expounds the message of the biblical t e x t from a literal, historical and typological point of view, instead of allegorising the events, as exegetes belonging to the Alexandrian school would tend to do. However, the commentary has a popular, non-academic feel to it. This is largely because, instead of expounding the biblical t e x t * 1.

(Dr, A son Sa'vesen, now teaching at Oxford, is a specialist of St. Ephrem) 12 (1984-5), pp.91-131.

in the works

22

THE

HARP

verse by verse, or moving from one tricky passage to another, Ephrem more or less retells the story, incorporating a few biblical citations. This approach is very similar to t h a t of the 1st C. Jewish Hellenistic authors .Josephus and Philo, who each wrote on the early life of Moses following the biblical storv, but whose works are not usually regarded as biblical commentary. Although Josephus and Philo were popular among Western Church Fathers, we can be fairly certain that Ephrem didn't know their works since he knew no Greek, and therefore his o w n writings can't have been influenced directly by them. This makes comparison particularly interesting. In the case of the book of Genesis, the early chapters are full of happenings which cry out for explanation: e. g. order of erec tion, the creation of inan and woman, the Fall, Noah's Flood, Cain and Abel's gifls, the first murder, all of which Ephrem comments upon in his earlier commentary discussing the merits of oth»r explanations and refuting the ones with which he disagrees. However, in the early part of Exodus, the account needs little in the way of explanation, though there are occasional appeals to the readrr, and justifications of actions: all t h a t Ephrem deems necessary is a drawing nut of themes which an author might feel to be implicit in the narrative and benefit to his readers. Ephrem, Philo and Josephus all have this in common when they write about Moses's early life. But what does each author draw out from the biblical t e x t and w h a t does he choose to ignore".' (A) One remarkable feature of the biblical Exodus, chapters 1 - 4 is the prominent part played by women: 1)

the Hebrew midwives who risk their o w n lives in disobeying Pharaoh's orders to kill all the male Hebrew babies.

2)

Moses' mother, Jochabed, who conceals Moses for three m o n t h s , and later acts as his w e t - n u r s e

3)

Moses' sister, usually identified with Miriam, who watches t o see his fate when the basket is put into the river

THEMES IN E P H R E M ' s EXODUS COMMENTARY

river

23

4)

Pharaoh's daughter, who rescues Moses f r o m t h e adopts him

and

5)

Zipporah, Moses' wife, who saves him (or her son) when t h e Lord tries t o kill him a t t h e lodging place on t h e way to Egypt.

Note t h a t all these women are particularly involved w i t h saving life, including t h e life of Moses, and all are active a g e n t s for good, w i t t i n g l y or u n w i t t i n g l y . In their versions of Exodus, t h e Hellenistic w r i t e r s Philo a n d J o s e p h u s b o t h relegate these female characters t o a more m i n o r role t h a n t h e y play in t h e Bible. For instance, in Josephus, t h e midwives are described as E g v p t i a n and so t h e y d o n ' t i n t e r v e n e to save t h e children. I n Philo, t h e y d o n ' t f e a t u r e a t all. Philo describes how Moses' u n n a m e d p a r e n t s b o t h conceal t h e child, b o t h expose him, a n d are both consumed w i t h regrets for keeping him so long. On t h e other hand, in Josephus Moses' f a t h e r Amaraimes prays to God for mercy and deliverance, and receives in reward a divine vision and assurance t h a t his expected son will deliver t h e Hebrews and a t t a i n gieat glory. His wife J o c h a b e d h a s an easy and therefore quiet labour, and b o t h p a r e n t s rear and conceal t h e child u n t i l they are forced by fear of detection to commit Moses t o G j d ' s p r o t e c t i o n by p u t t i n g him in t h e river. We will see f u r t h e r examples of t h e way in which Philo and Josephus diminish t h e role played by women in t h e Exodus story. I n t h i s t h e y were no doubt influenced by t h e prevailing Greek/Hellenistic culture; because according to this u r b a n c u l t u r e in which t h e y lived, a good woman was one who remained indoors and anonymous. In c o n t r a s t , E p h r e m makes t h e most of the heroines of t h e biblical t e x t ; t o t h e e x t e n t of ignoring completely t h e brief mention of Moses' falher t h a t appears in the Bible, t h o u g h he does refer in passing to "Moses' p a r e n t s . " He displays enormous sensitivity t o the emotions of t h e women, t h e i r courage and their fears, and his characterisation is therefore far more d r a m a t i c a n d effective t h a n t h a t of Philo and Josephus.

24

T H E HARP

For instance, The tnldwives are seen as p r o t o t y p e martyrs, who are saved in the manner of Luke 21.15 by the wise speech t h a t God puts into their m o u t h s when Pharaoh asks them why they disobeyed him. Moses' mother fears t h a t neither the rest of the family nor Moses himself will survive for long if he is discovered. It is she, not Moses' father as in Josephus's account, who makes intercession and supplication in tears to God, complaining t h a t p h a i a o h is trying to t h w a r t God's promise. She and Miriam " t r u s t in God and the beaut y of I he child t h a t the first person to see the basket will take it and save the b a b y . " Pharaoh's daughter: In Josephus, Pharaoh's daughter is playing by t h e river when she sees the basket. Philo's princess is a noble Hellenistic lady who never sets foot outside Ihe palace. However, the dreadful worry of her barrenness drives her on t h a t particular day to go down to the riverì She later pretends to be pregnant so t h a t she can preselit Moses as her own child. Ephrem's princess is neither a neurotic noble woman, nor a young girl. She feels shame at her childlessness, and is easily convinced t h a t the Egyptian gods have provided her with a baby via the river. It is her daily practice to go down to the river to bathe, but t h a t fateful day the weather is like an oven, so she goes earlier t h a n usual, and encounters the child Muses. However, all three writers, Josephus, Philo and Ephrem, say t h a t Pharaoh's daughter's reaction to Moses is governed by her barrenness (.which isn't mentioned in the Bible), and the baby's amazing beauty. B u t the biblical t e x t , with greater realism, says t h a t she responded to the child's crying something t h a t Philo mentions almost incidentally. Miriam: The young Miriam in Ephrem is a resourceful'girl who carefully chooses the right demeanour for approaching P h a raoh's daughter. She is "neither downcast nor cheerlul, since she had made herself a stranger to both emotions." She is sensitive to the requirements of royal service; she will call a Hebrew wet—nurse who has both good milk and a good character.

THEMES IN E P H R E M ' S E X O D U S COMMENTARY

25

Moses's mother: E p h r e m ' s d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e r e a c t i o n of Moses' m o t h e r t o t h i s r o y a l s u m m o n s is v e r y m o v i n g . She a r r i v e s s u i t a b l y dressed a n d b r i n g i n g special g i f t s , and c a n h a r d l y believe t h a t she is to n u r s e her o w n son. " S h e h a d b e e n w i l l i n g t o give her whole house t o p r e v e n t Moses f r o m b e i n g t h r o w n i n t o t h e r i v e r , a n d now t h a t h e h a d been given t o her for n o t h i n g she could not believe i t . " E p h r e m c o n t r a s t s her p r e s e n t mood of rejoicing w i t h her p r e v i o u s a n g u i s h , a n d describes h o w she c a n t a k e Moses h o m e p u b l i c l y in b r o a d d a y l i g h t , t h o u g h b e f o r e she h a d t a k e n h i m d o w n t o t h e r i v e r u n d e r cover of darkness. T h e r e is n o t h i n g c o m p a r a b l e t o t h i s deeply s y m p a t h e t i c p o r t r a y a l of c h a r a c t e r in t h e t w o Greek w r i t e r s , e v e n in t h e case of Moses himself, who is t o o m u c h of a p a r a g o n of v i r t u e to J o s e p h u s andl P h i l o t o h a v e m u c h s u b s t a n c e as a p e r s o n a l i t y . Zipporah: In b o t h P h i l o a n d J o s e p h u s , Z i p p o r a h ' s sole f u n c t i o n is as t h e wife of Moses, a n d m o t h e r of his two sons. I n J o s e p h u s , she is given t o h i m by J e t h r o as a r e w a r d for saving t h e seven, sisters f r o m t h e bad b e h a v i o u r of t h e s h e p h e r d s a t t h e well. As f o r t h e s t r a n g e e n c o u n t e r b e t w e e n Moses a n d t h e L o r d a t t h e lodging place on t h e w a y back t o E g y p t , i n which t h e L o r d t r i e s t o kill h i m before Z i p p o r a h carries o u t t h e c i r c u m c i s i o n of her son, b o t h P h i l o a n d J o s e p h u s pass over t h e whole passage in u t t e r silence. T h e t e x t of t h e P e s h i t t a c o n c e r n i n g Z i p p o r a h r u n s , "(2.21-22) A n d Moses was w i l l i n g t o dwell w i t h t h e m a n ( J e t h r o ) . A n d he gave him his d a u g h t e r Z i p p o r a h as a wife. She b o r e a son a n d he called his n a m e G e r s h u n , because he said, '1 have been a s o j o u r n e r in a f o r e i g n land. A n d she bore Moses a second son, a n d he called his name Eliezer, ' B e c a u s e t h e God of m y f a t h e r s is m y help a n d delivered m e f r o m P h a r a o h ' s sword.' (vv. 4.20-21) Muses t o o k his wife a n d sons a n d p u t t h e m o n a n ass a n d t u r n e d t o go t o E g y p t . And Moses t o o k t h e staff of God i n his h a n d (vv. 24-2(5) A n d Moses was a t a lodging place on t h e j o u r n e y a n d t h e L o r d m e t h i m and s o u g h t t o kill Moses. And Z i p p o r a h t o o k a Hint a n d circumcised t h e foreskin of her son, a n d she seized his feet a n d said " I h a v e a b r i d e g r o o m of b l o o d . " A n d he l e f t h i m alone. T h e n she said, " A b r i d e g r o o m of blood f o r c i r c u m c i s i o n . "

26

THE

HARP

This is a brief and enigmatic passage! Why did the Lord t r y to kill Moses [the victim is not specified in the Hebrew t e x t ] ? There's no hint that Moses had offended him. What do Zipporah's words mean? Why isn't Moses' family mentioned after this episode, until Jethro brings them along to Israelite camp many chapters later ( E x 13.2- 3) ? Never an exegete to avoid a difficult issue, Ephrein presents a version of the episode which resolves the problems. He fills in the bare bones of the biblical text, giving Zipporah in particular a personality and emotional depth t h a t is absent in Exodus. This is Ephrem's version of events, somewhat paraphrased: Zipporah was the proud daughter of pagan priests, and when she was given to Moses in marriage, she willingly accepted him as a marriage partner, but refused to adopt his religion. As for their two sons, she allowed Moses to perpetuate his religious customs bv circumcising one, but kept the other uncircumcised, in accordance with the requirements of Irr o w n religion. After God spoke to Moses from the burning bush, Moses ceased to have conjugal relations with his wife in order to const-crate himself to God's service. Though he explained what had happened to him at Horeb, she didn't entirely believe him, and f e l t very hurt. So on the journey to Egypt with their children, Moses and Zipporah were quarrelling! She was arguing about his behaviour, and he was blaming her for not allowing their son to be circumcised. They spent the night in this mood, when suddenly an angel appeared on two accounts: Moses' abstinence from maiital relations, and his failure to circumcise both sons. However, the angel only told them that he had comc ab'^ut circumcision. The point was t h a t while the Hebrews in Egypt were continuing to practise circumcision even at the cost of their children's death, Moses had failed to carry out this sign of the covenant although he wasn't suffering persecution! This l a x i t y would make his mission a laughing stock. He should fear God, not his wife!

THEMES IN EFHKEM S E X O D U S COMMENTARY

27

When Zipporah saw t h a t Moses was dying because of his failure t o circumcise their son, which they had been arguing about t h a t very evening, she herself took a knife and circumcised her son, trembling with fear at the angel's appearance. Leaving the child spattered with blood, she seized the angel's feet and said, " I have a bridegroom of bloodl D o n ' t cause suffering on the feast day of circumcision. When Abiaham circumcised Isaac, it was a day of great rejoicing. So if you don't hold back for my sake or Moses' sake, hold back for the sake of the commandment of circumcision t h a t was established." At this t h e angel left Moses alone. Moses found he now had the opportunity to explain to Zipporah why he couldn't sleep with her; " Y o u were afraid of all this t h a t happened in the space of a moment; shouldn't I be even more afraid of God who continually appears to me, and consecrate myself to h i m ? He performs miracles through me, and equipped me with this staff, in order to redeem 600,00 people." So Moses sent Zipporah back, firstly because he was worried t h a t the pain of the circumcision would overcome his son on the journey, and secondly because there was no point in the family entering Egypt when all the Israelites were about to leave it. This is a n ingenious and even humorous view of events. Zipporah's personality is well-defined - a certain h a u t e u r due to her father's position, an independence of mind t h a t prevents her from taking her husband's religion (this was perhaps a phenomenon familiar t o Ephrem from the mixed marriages of the Sassanid Empire), her feelings of rejection when Moses refuses to sleep with her again, her reluctance to believe and understand the reasons for thir- abstinence (again, this is no doubt a reflection of the abstinence enjoined upon Christian couples of the early period in Syriac Christianity) Her pride and contentiousness is balanced by her courage and resourcefulness when Moses' life is threatened; confronted with the t r u t h of his faith and his God, she still has t h e wit to intervene and save him despite her terror.

28

THE

HARP

Moses t o o c o m e s a c r o s s in a r e a l i s t i c f a s h i o n ; f o r t h e sake of d o m e s t i c p e a c e he h a s a g r e e d t o h i s w i f e ' s d e m a n d s t h a t o n e of t h e i r sons s h o u l d be Jeft u n c i r c u m c i s e d , a n d e v e n a f t e r h e k n o w s t h a t he s h o u l d n ' t h a v e y i e l d e d , he c a n o n l y b l a m e h e r , w i t h o u t b e i n g a b l e t o do w h a t is r i g h t . W e c a n a l m o s t h e a r his sigh of relief w h e n a t l a s t he c a n e x p l a i n t o Z i p p o r a h h o w i m p o r t a n t it is t h a t h e s h o u l d s a n c t i f y himself for c o n t i n u a l c o n t a c t w i t h God a n d f o r t h e sake of his m i s s i o n . T h e q u a r r e l o n t h e r o a d is p a r t i c u l a r l y v i v i d ; i t is t h e t i m e l e s s b i c k e r i n g of f a m i l i e s o n a j o u r n e y or h o l i d a y , w h e t h e r i t t a k e s p l a c e o n a n ass or i n a c a r ! Guillaumont2 pointed out t h a t there are parallels with Palestinian Jewish rabbinic sources to Ephreni's i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of e v e n t s i n E x 4;24-26. F o r i n s t a n c e , t h e A r a m a i c p a r a p h r a s e s of t h e Bible, t h e T a r g u m s , m e n t i o n t h a t o n l y one of Moses' t w o s o n s w a s c i r c u m c i s e d , a n d t h a t Moses w a s a t t a c k e d b y a n a n g e l (not t h e Lord). Of c o u r s e i t is i m p o r t a n t t o n o t e such p a r a l l e l s , p a r t i c u l a r l y as t h e y d e m o n s t r a t e a l i n k b e t w e e n P a l e s t i n i a n J e w i s h t r a d i t i o n s and Ephreni's thinking, whereas Hellenistic J e w i s h i d e a s such as t h o s e f o u n d in P h i l o a n d J o s e p h u s do n o t seem t o h a v e a f f e c t e d early S y r i a c exegesis. B u t t h e r e a r e s i g n i f i c a n t differences too. F o r example, in t h e Palestinian Jewish sources i t is J e t h r o , n o t Z i p p o r a h , w h o m a k e s Moses a g r e e n o t t o c i r c u m c i s e o n e son. G u i l l a u m o n t e x p l a i n s t h i s d i f f e r e n c e as a p a r t i c u l a r S y r i a c t r a d i t i o n , and r e f e r s t o a n a l l u s i o n in A p h r a h a t . I n t h i s passage, i n t h e Demonstration on the Monastic Life (6.3), A p h r a h a t lists e x a m p l e s of t h e b a l e f u l i n f l u e n c e of w o m e n u p o n u p r i g h t m e n : f o r i n s t a n c e , Moses t o o k w i t h h i m t o E g y p t a w o m a n w h o " c o u n s e l l e d c r i m e s " , a n d f o r t h i s r e a s o n God t r i e d t o kill h i m u n t i l he s e n t h e r b a c k h o m e t o M i d i a n ! I t is h a r d to s a y w h e t h e r t h i s brief a l l u s i o n i n A p h r a h a t r e a l l y r e f e r s t o Z i p p o r a h ' s , r e f u s a l t o c i r c u m c i s e o n e son, or o n l y m ^ a n s t h a t she w a s g e n e r a l l y a b a d i n f l u e n c e s i n c e she w a s a p a g a n p r i e s t ' s d a u g h t e r . 2.

"Un midrash d'Hxo'c 4,24 26 chrz A"h-aate et Ephrcm de A Tribute to Arthur Voobus. (Chicago 1977)

Nisibe"

THEMES IN EPHREM'S EXODUS COMMENTARY

29

]£ it does have t h e sense t h a t she gave Moses " h a t e f u l " advice, by dissuading him from circumcising one son, and E p h r e m and Aphrahat were working f r o m a common t r a d i t i o n in t h i s , E p h r e m ' s p o r t r a i t provides a p a r t i c u l a r y striking c o n t r a s t with A p h r a h a t ' s misogynistic use of the episode. E v e n if it strikes us as a bit lame, E p h r e m does s t a t e t h a t Moses sent his family home out of concern for his newly-circumcised son, and because it was pointless taking them into E g y p t when all Israel was on t h e verge of leaving t h e c o u n t r y . To Ephrem, Zipporah is f a r f r o m being a villainess; t h e episode with t h e angel has convinced her of t h e veracity of Mose's story, and therefore of t h e necessity b o t h for circumcision and for abstinence from conjugal relations. I t is not her presence on t h e expedition t h a t causes God t o t h r e a t e n Moses' life, nor her dismissal back to Midian t h a t saves him. Ephrem may well have t h e t h r e a d s of earlier t r a d i t i o n s a t his disposal, b u t he weaves them into something quite new and q u i t e different, just as he models t h e bare bones of t h e biblical t e x t and elements of t r a d i t i o n a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s into believable characters. B) Another difficult passage in E x o d u s t h a t involves E p h r e m in some e x p l a n a t i o n describes Moses' killing of t h e E g y p t i a n , followed by his flight to Midian when t h e m u r d e r becomes known to P h a r a o h . Here t h e problem is not due to a t e x t t h a t is h a r d to understand, b u t concerns inslead t h e m o r a l i t y of Moses' action and his subsequent flight. The P e s h i t t a t e x t (2.11-15), literally rendered: And i t came t o pass in those days t h a t Moses grew u p and went out to his b r e t h r e n and looked upon t h e i r servitude. And he saw an E g y p t i a n m a n smiting a H e b r e w m a n f r o m his b r e t h r e n , from the sons of Israel. And he t u r n e d himself this way and t h a t , and saw t h a t t h e r e was no one. And he killed t h e Egyptian and buried him in t h e sand. And he w e n t out another day, and saw, and behold t w o H e b r e w men struggling. And he said to offender, " W h y do you smite y o u r f r i e n d . " And he said to him, " W h o made you a great man and judge over u s ? Are you intending t o kill me as you killed t h a t E g y p t i a n yesterday?" And Moses was afraid and said, " T r u l y , t h e t h i n g is k n o w n " and P h a r a o h

30

THE HARP

heard of this affair and sought to kill Moses, and Moses fled from before Pharaoh and went to the land of Midian. This unsavoury episode does not feature at all in Josephus, who replaces it with a tale of Moses' military exploits in Ethiopia, the success of which arouses Egyptian fears of Moses' power. Moses flees to the desert in order to escape plots against his life. Philo does report the episode, and attempts some justification of Moses' action. He says that Moses has no authority over the Egyptian taskmasters, but tries to persuade them to deal leniently with the Hebrews, whom he exhorts to bear up under their labours. When he pleads with the cruellest overseer, the man becomts even harsher, so that Moses considers killing him a righteous act. The Egyptian king believes that Moses is basically disloyal to his regime, while the other authorities fear that Moses will revenge himself on them, and so they denounce him to the king. Moses "retires" 3 to Arabia, where he studies philosophy, and thinks about how to use power to uphold the weak. In some ways Ephrem's justification of Moses is very similar to that of Philo. Ephrem's Moses is aware that the prophesied time of redemption is at hand, and wanls to see whether he's the one to bring it about. As the king's son, he has authority over the officials, whom he has been reprimanding for their ruthless treatment of the Hebrews. When the cruellest taskmaster refuses to listen to him, Moses kills him, because he wants to give the Hebrews a respite from cruel treatment. Moses is well within his authority when he merely rebukes the Hebrew fighting with his friend, since he is allowed to flog and kill. So °he is astonished when the Hebrew denounces him for murdering the Egyptian, because he thought no one except the Egyptian's intended victim knew of the affair. Pharaoh erupts into blazing and murderous fury when he hears about it, but Moses flees to Midian-according to Ephrem, this is to spare his real parents the distress of seeing him undergo torturel 3.

Hypanechorfsen

THEMES IN

E P H R E M ' S E X O D U S COMMENTARY

31

B o t h Eplirem and Philo keep t h e i r e x p l a n a t i o n of t h e passage w i t h i n the bounds of Ihe realistic. This incidentally c o n t r a s t s w i t h the Jewish rabbinic sources, which say t h a t Moses had s u p e r n a t u r a l knowledge t h a t among ihe E g y p t i a n ' s descendants t h e r e would never be any righteous, p e n i t e n t s or proselytes and by killing him, Moses would n o t be depriving t h e world of good people. A n o t h e r J e w i s h t r a d i t i o n is t h a t t h e E g y p t i a n had c o m m i t t e d a d u l t e r y w i t h t h e wife of his Hebrew v i c t i m and when discovered, he tried to kill t h e h u s b a n d . Moses executed t h i s a d u l t e r e r and would be m u r d e r e r w i t h o u t violence or any weapon, merely by p r o n o u n c ing t h e sacred name of God over him. Though n o t averse t o s u p e r n a t u r a l e x p l a n a t i o n s . E p h r e m does n o t avail himself of such a r g u m e n t s here. E p h r e m did not have complete liberty t o refashion the. E x o d u s n a r r a t i v e , of course. His own high regard for sacred s c r i p t u r e , w i t h all its difficulties made such a course of a c t i o n unthinkable. Besides, in c o n t r a s t to Philo and J o s e p h u s who were recounting t h e story largely for the b e n e f i t of Gentiles who were unfamiliar w i t h the Bible, E p h r e m was w r i t i n g for Christians who had some knowledge of scripture. This m a s t be why he does not omit awkward episodes; unlike Philo and Josephus, E p h r e m ' s audience would have been aware t h a t an e v e n t had been passed over, probably t h e very one for which t h e y w a n t e d an e x p l a n a t i o n . Perhaps t h e m o s t obvious of these difficulties in E x o d u s is a t h e m e r a t h e r t h a n a passage, t h a t of t h e h a r d e n i n g of P h a r a o h ' s h e a r t d u r i n g the t e n plagues. T h i s motif appears 20 t i m e s in t h e H e b r e w t e x t , w i t h minor variations. In 6 cases " P h a r a o h ' s h e a r t became h a r d . " In 3 cases 5 P h a r a o h h a r d e n s his h e a r t . B u t in 11 cases 6 God h a r d e n s P h a r a o h ' s h e a r t . F o r most c o m m e n t a t o r s t h i s presents problems of God's justice and h u m a n free-will; how can God punish P h a r a o h for his o b d u r a c y when he himself has made him unable t o r e p e n t ? Josephus and Philo do include t h e motif of P h a r a o h ' s h a r d heart , b u t t h e y a t t r i b u t e it entirely to P h a r a o h . I n P h i l o , P h a r a o h is 4. Tn 7 13, 14,22; 8.15; 9.7,35. Cf. 13,15 5. 8.11,28: 9.34 6. 4.21, 7.3. 9.12. 10.1.20,27, 11.10, 14.4,8,17

32

THE HARP

" w e i g h e d d o w n w i t h t h e p r i d e of m a n y g e n e r a t i o n s " i m p i o u s , s t u b b o r n a n d t o o foolish t o l e a r n f r o m t h e plagues. T o J o s e p h u s h e is t h o r o u g h l y w i c k e d , n o t m e r e l y s t u p i d , a n d o p p o s e s God o u t of p e r v e r s i t y , c o n t i n u a l l y g o i n g b a c k o n his w o r d a n d revoking his promises. H e is f r e q u e n t l y in a r a g e a n d s h o w s n o p r u d e n c e whatsoever. His E g y p t i a n subjects are a greedy and unpleasant lot. So t h e r e a d e r h a s l i t t l e s y m p a t h y w i t h t h e m ; t h e i r f a t e is d e s e r v e d . More i m p o r t a n t l y , in J o s e p h u s ' s a c c o u n t , God is n e v e r d e s c r i b e d as b e i n g t h e c a u s e of P h a r a o h ' s s t u b b o r n n e s s . E p h r e m is all t o o well a w a r e of t h e cases w h e r e t h e L o r d is said t o h a v e h a r d e n e d P h a r a o h ' s h e a r t . 7 H i s w a y of d e a l i n g w i t h t h e p r o b l e m is t o q u o t e passages w i t h t h e p h r a s e , " P h a r a o h ' s h e a r t b e c a m e h a r d " , a n d p o i n t o u t t h a t t h e t e x t doesn't s a y t h a t God did t h e h a r d e n i n g ! H e does t h i s t h r e e t i m e s , f o r t h e o c c u r r e nces a t 7.11, 7.'22, 8.15. F o r 7.3, 7.13, >U2, 14.4, 14.8, w h e r e t h e b i b l i c a l t e x t says t h a t t h e L o r d h a r d e n e d P h a r a o h ' s h e a r t , E p h r e m ignores the phrase entirely. On 10.1, t h e L o r d says, " I h a v e h a r d e n e d his h e a r t " , s o E p h r e m a d d s , " ( I h a r d e n e d his h e a r t ) - w i t h t h e p a t i e n c e I s h o w e d t o w a r d s h i m in t h e p l a g u e s . . . a n d t h a t I e s t a b l i s h e d for h i m t o r e p e n t . I t w a s n ' t t h a t I d i d n ' t k n o w his t r i c k e r v , b e c a u s e I t o l d y o u i n a d v a n c e t h a t ' h e will n o t l i s t e n t o y o u . " O n 10.16, w h e n P h a r a o h says " I h a v e s i n n e d a g a i n s t t h e L o r d " , Ephrem asserts t h a t this s t a t e m e n t proves t h a t P h a r a o h h a d n ' t b e e n h a r d e n e d , b e c a u s e he c o u l d n ' t h a v e r e p e n t e d like t h i s . If h e begged f o r m e r c y in a t i m e of crisis, a n d t h e n w h e n t h e r e w a s a b r e a t h i n g s p a c e he r e b e l l e d a g a i n , t h i s o n l y goes t o p r o v e t h a t h e w a s a c t i n g as a f r e e a g e n t ! A t 10.27: " T h e L o r d h a r d e n e d P h a r a o h ' s h e a r t " ; E p h r e m a r g u e s t h a t if t h i s w a s r e a l l y t h e w o r k of God, P h a r a o h w o u l d h a v e b e e n u n a b l e t o k e e p c h a n g i n g his m i n d b e c a u s e n o c h a n g e w o u l d h a v e been possible. T h e f a c t t h a t h e w a s so fickle j u s t g o e s t o s h o w t h a t i t was a s t u b b o r n n e s s c a u s e d b y h i s o w n m i n d .

7. T.Jansma, "Reflections on the Interplay of H 'man Fremiti anl Divine PiOvicknce: Ephraem on Ex 11.5." Orientalia Christiana Periodica 39 (19/3).

THEMES

So E p h r e m

IN

EPHREM'S

continually

quite freely, and therefore

stresses

that Pharaoh was

33

acting

deserved his punishment. B u t he ran

o n l y do t h i s b y s u p p r e s s i n g God hardening Pharaoh's

EXODUS COMMENTARY

m o s t of

t h e p a s s a g e s t h a t s p e a k of

heart.

Conclusion T o summarise,

we have

examined

important

t o p i c s i n E x o d u s in E p h r e m ' s

with two

Jewish

relell

the biblical

Greek story

writers. and

t h e y e a c h do so f r o m a

compared

A l t h o u g h all three essentially

justify

slightly

t h e t r e a t m e n t of t h r e e commentary,

certain different

e v e n t s and viewpoint.

actions, Put

very

crudely, P h i l o ' s a p p r o a c h is a

philosopical

w a y s a n d c u l t u r e in S c r i p t u r e and Hellenised

Josephus's

approach

and for this

Jewish

reason,

becomes a

Ephrem,

on

is

of

the

justification

Moses, t h e

supreme

p a r a g o n in t h e i r other

Judaism,

revealed in Scripture.

an historical

of

the

law-giver

andi

non-Jews.

C h r i s t i a n p e r s p e c t i v e . He is foundations

of

Jews.

Jewish race, aimed at

h e r o of Israel

justification

l a r g e l y f o r t h e b e n e f i t of G e n t i l e s

hand,

works.

writes

from

an

Eastern

therefore not seeking to d r f e n d

but

Writing

to

justify

for

the

ways

of

the

G o d as

f e l l o w - C h r i s t i a n s , he c a n n o t

c o m p l e t e l y i g n o r e w h a t his a u d i e n c e k n o w s t o be i n t h e b i b l i c a l t e x t , a n d t h e r e f o r e he m u s t a t t e m p t s o m e e x p l a n a t i o n of d i f f i c u l ties.

Since

h e is l i t e r a l l y

preaching to the

is G o d , n o t Moses, a n d i t his

mainly

converted, his hero

God's actions, not Moses',

t h a t need t o be j u s t i f i e d . In t h i s w a y h e h i g h l i g h t s G o d ' s a t t r i b u t e s of p r o v i d e n c e , g r a c e , m e r c y , a n d with

the Father

t u r n t a k e s t h e pressure off t h e exceptionally

finally

G o d r e v e a l e d in t h e f i e w

virtuous'

fallible vessels t h r o u g h

main

justice, to harmonise Testament.

human

This

in

p r o t a g o n i s t s t o be

They

are

permitted

whom

the

p o w e r of G o d c a n w o r k , a n d

as s u c h t h e y s t r i k e us as f a r m o r e those appearing in Philo and

to

be

weak

believable as characters

Jo.>>eplius.

and than

34

THE HARP

However, this still does not explain the prominent role of women in Ephrem's Exodus commentary, nor their sympathetic portrayal. This is hardly a specifically Christian trait, as Western Church Fathers tended to give women a bad press or diminish their role (apart from Mary the mother of Jesus, of course). No doubt the lack of Hellenistic influence on Syriac culture played some part, but we must bear in mind lhat Aphrahat, Ephrem's slightly older contemporary wasn't especially sympathetic towards women. So it is quite possible that this positive attitude is entirely due to Ephrem himself.

XK

CONCERNING HIS BIRTH OF T H E VIRGIN

"Believe then that this Only-begotten Son of God for our sins came down from heaven upon earth, and took upon Him this human nature of like passions with us, and was begotten of the Holy Virgin and of the Holy Ghost, and was made Man, not in seeming and mere show, but in truth; nor yet by passing through the Virgin as through a channel; but was of her made truly flesh, (and truly nourished with Milk), and did truly eat as we do, and truly drink as we do. For if the Incarnation was a phantom, salvation is a phantom also. The Christ was of two natures, Man in what was seen, but God in what was not seen; as Man truly eating like us. for He. had the like feeling of the flesh with us; but as God feeding the five thousand from five raising him that had been dead four days; truly sleeping in the ship as Man, and walking upon the waters as God." Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical

Lectures.

THE

HARP

Vol. IV. No. 1,2,3, J u l y 1991, 3 5 - 4 7 Karl-Heinz Kuhlmann*

Healing in St. Ephrem's Commentary on Diatessaron Preface This paper does not originate from the classroom of a seminary or a university but from the life of a rural congregation in Germany where I am the pastor. F o r years I have done my duty as I was expected to do: preaching the Gospel, celebrating the Eucharist and visiting the sick. B u t due t o my theology, in visiting the sick I saw a rather human undertaking. Coming to my parishioners as their pastor did not really mean that my prayer could change their misery. Of course I prayed b u t this prayer was without conviction, — a formula. Then somehow my view changed. I came across the " H e a l i n g M i n i s t r y " of the Church being stressed upon more and more in different places. So I went into it myself to learn about it and to apply it to my own congregation. Today we have " H e a l i n g Services" once a month and praying for the sick has become a major part of my ministry. Before I now deal with the main topic of my paper I shall give a survey on " H e a l i n g " from Jesus to Augustin. 1.

The Healing Ministry of Jesus of Nazareth.

When we actually look a t t h e record of healing in the four gospels, it is apparent t h a t the writers were describing *

D r . K a - 1 - H : ; n z K ih'mann, pastor o f the Lutheran Church, in Bohtnte, Germany, is a theologian with specialization in syriac Tiadition

36

THE HARP

the effect of Jesus' actions on quite a number of different diseases. The words they used were of course different from those of Modern clinical diagnosis, but even so, many of the conditions are well enough identified to compare w i t h diseases we know today. Probably the most common ailment healed was mental illness, generally described in New Testament times as demon possession (Mt. 8,28-32, 15:22-28, Mk. 1:23-27, Lk. 8:2), Several persons were healed of leprosy. There is a number of examples of the healing of lameness, palsy or paralysis, and other crippling infirmities. Two different accounts describe sickness involving fever. The first is the story of Peter's m o t h e r - i n - l a w (Mt. 8:14-15 par.) and then the incident of the nobleman's son in John 4:47-53. There is healing Mt. 20 30-34 Mk. 8:22 find the story of how an impediment of his

of blindness in many examples Mk. 10,46-52; 25; Mt. 9 27-30). In Mk. 7:32-35 we also Jesus healed a man who was deaf and had speech.

Aside from individual healings, there are also nineteen incidents in the first three gospels where it is said that numbers of people were healed, without much detail as to the disease concerned. There were also cures of other conditions that cannot be identified at all. And the; last words of the Gospel of John tell us, "That there were many other things that Jesus did; if all were written down, the world itself, I suppose, would not hold all the books that would have to be written" (21:25). Many attempts have been made to explain away the healing ministry of Jesus as simply suggestion which relieved functional and hysterical symptoms. I know this well, for it is the idea upon which 1 was raised. There is no basis for it, however, in the actual records that have come down to us, nor is there any basis for rationalizing the healings as mere suggestions to psychoneurotics. Nor is it possible to understand "the lame, the crippled, the blind, the dumb and many others" who were brought to Jesus, according to Mt. 15:30, as simply neurotics or only functionally disturbed. The words of the gospels are few, and they must be read as they are.

HEALING IN ST. E P H R E M ' S COMMENTARY ON DIATESSARON

37

If we accept the stories a t all, we must conclude t h a t Jesus healed all kinds of disease and t h a t we do not know how he did it, for we are still not fully to follow in his steps. And while there may be uncertainty in certain instances, the plain sense of the gospels is t h a t Jesus healed most kinds of ailments, and t h a t what he did had the effect of t r u e healing, not just of alleviating symptoms. One last question: why did Jesus heal ? The most important reason t h a t Jesus healed was t h a t he cared about people and suffered when they did. The root meaning of compassion is just this: to know suffering together. He could not care without wanting t o show mercy and to help. He was opposed to sickness because it caused needless suffering. I think in cultures where the spirit of Christ has not been felt, this compassion is often conspicuously lacking. The healing ministry is the logical result of the incarnation. 2.

Signs and Wonders

Any serious study of healing in the early church should begin with three brief references in the letters of Paul. They occur in three of the earliest letters to different congregations: the Galatians, the Corinthians, and Ihe Romans. Writing to the Galatians who were t u r n i n g away from his teaching, Paul asked, "Does God give you the Spirit so freely and work miracles among you because you practise t h e law, or because you believed what was preached to y o u " (3:5). To the Corinthians, who were in conflict with him on many subjects Paul was opening his heart about what it meant to be a n apostle; toward the end of this second letter he stated one of the clearest confirmations of his authentic ministry: " Y o u have seen among you all the things t h a t mark the t r u e apostle, unfailingly produced: the signs, the marvels, the miracles" (1 i: 12). In the following year he put together his careful reasoning about Christian experience in his letter t o the Roman's, in conclusion commending his ministry to them and saying, " W h a t 1 am presuming to speak of, of course, is only what Christ himself has done to win the allegiance of the pagins, using what I have said and done by the power of signs and wonders, by the powei of the Holy S p i r i t " (15:18-19).

38

THE

HARP

Paul miracle

used

and

or wonders. A l l gospels

and

here

power,

the

three

Acts

Greek w o r d " d u n a m i s " translated as

were

to

what

miracles

in

he

was

also

refer

and

again

miracles

" t e r a s " , marvels and again

in the

done hy Jesus and

o f t e n miracles of healing. Thus i t is

speaking

Galatians

used

t o the

later by the apostles, v e r y clear

or sign,

"semeion",

and

of when

he

emphasized

w r o t e simply about

signs

and

wonders

in

R o m a n s and 2 Corinthians. Healing, he t o l d these congregations, is a sign by which they could k n o w the H o l y Spirit was working in them

here

and

now:

so

it

was

one

important

test

of

a true apostle of Christ.

The healing practice referred to in the letters of the N e w Testament is b i r n e out all to

say,

wherever

years of the

through the O^ok^ of Acts, which is

Christianity

church's life,

was

taken

and thus the

during all the early

apostles, in a c t u a l i t y ,

seem t o have started w i t h and continued the ministry of healing that

Jesus

impression

had

commended

Christianity

to

made

them.

upon

f r o m the healing ministry of these 3.

NT> small

people in

part

of

the

those days came

earliest ambassadors of Christ.

Healing In the early Church A s we k n o w the Church experienced a time of great v i t a l i t y

during the t w o

hundred

years

following

the

apostolic

period

recorded in the N e w Tesi anient. F r o m about the middle

of

the

second century on, early leaders, n o w termed " a p o l o g i s t s "

began

t o express the Christian message in w a y s that the

pagan

world

writings

show

and

its

philosophers

would

understand,

'there

t h a t the healing m i n i s i r y was continuing in much the same w a y as in apostolic days. Ileal-ug of physical illness and the t o relieve " d e m o n possession" are spoken

the more important w o i k s and referred to in some

way

these writers. Indeed the healing of physical illness was this periou as t e l l i n g

evidence

that

actually present and at v u i k among

the

ability

of again and again in

spirit

of

by

all

seen in

Christ

was

Christians.

Quadratus w r o t e in R o m e t h a t the works of had continued to his time and that the continued

the Saviour presence of

people who had been healed l e f t no question as of physical healing.

the

to

reality

HEALING IN ST. E P H R E M ' S COMMENTARY ON DIATESSARON

39

Theophilus of A n t i o c h specified t h e physical healing of h u m a n beings he had witnessed as p a r t i c u l a r evidence t h a t t h e r e s u r r e c t i o n was beginning to work in t h e m and t h a t d e a t h was being p u t t o flight. P e r h a p s the m o s t i n t e r e s t i n g discussion of healing a m o n g t h e a n t e - N i c e n e writers comes from lrenaeus in Gaul, who p r o b a b l y w r o t e more freely because he was somewhat removed f r o m t h e danger of persecution t h a t faced most of these t h i n k e r s . In " A g a i n s t Heresies", one of his telling points was t h a t heretics were n o t able t o accomplish t h e miracles of healing t h a t Christians could perform. A t t h e same time Origen also showed t h a t t h e g i f t of healing extended even t o Greeks and b a r b a r i a n s who came to believe in J e s u s Christ, and these people sometimes p e r f o r m e d amazing cures by invoking t h e name of Jesus. Also Cyprian discussed t h e meaus by which healing continued to t a k e place w i l h i n t h e church. Finally, a t t h e beginning of t h e f o u r l h c e n t u r y , b o t h Arnnbius and his pupil L a e t a n t i u s w r o t e a b o u t healing. So for nearly three c e n t u r i e s t h i s healing, c e n t r a l l y experienced, was a n indispensable ingredient of Christian life. 4.

The Doctors of the Church

The Christian church emerged f r o m u n d e r g r o u n d life to become one of the most i m p o r t a n t i n s t i t u t i o n s in t h e B y z a n t i n e E m p i r e and it produced some of its greatest minds. The great A t h a n a s i u s broke g r o u n d for olher t h i n k e r s and laid t h e f o u n d a t i o n for all subsequent o r t h o d o x Christian t h i n k i n g . In t h e E a s t he was followed by four men of c u l t u r e , intellectual power, and saintliness. Three were k n o w n as t h e g r e a t Cappadocians: Basil t h e Great (329-379), his b r o t h e r Gregory of Nyssa (331-396), and t h e i r friend Gregory of Nazianzus (329-389). J o h n Chrysostom (345-107), k n o w n as t h e " g o l d e n - m o u t h " for his eloquence, was t h e geatest preacher of his titna. All f o u r were bishops and t h e y all recorded t h e p r a c t i c e of healing i n t h e church and had a place for i t in t h e i r theology. Meanwhile t h e West produced four men in t h e same period who were later acclaimed as doctors of t h e church. T h e y were Ambrose (340-397), Augustine (351-430), J e r o m e (310-420) a n d

40

THE HARP

Gregory the Great (510-601). In their writings we find of healing too.

accounts

But let us take a closer look on Augustine only: The development of his thought holds special interest for the understanding of healing. In his early writings he stated quite specifically that Christians are not to look for < ontinuance of the healing gift. Then something happened, and he frankly admitted that he had been wrong. In the "Confessions" he acknowledged the important part played in his conversion hy Athanasius's "Life of Anthony". Al; that time, however, physical healing among the distant desert fathers did not seem important to him. Nearly forty years later in 421, when his greitest work, "The City of God," was nearing completion, his ontlook changed l a an important final section of that work, he describes miracles of healing in his o w n diocese of Hippo Regius, and how he instituted the recording and attesting of miracles there, because, he wrote: "I realized how many miracles were occuring in our o w n day and which were so like the miracles of old and also now how wrong it would be to allow the memory of these marvels of divine power to perish from among our people. It is only two years ago tlv.it keeping of records was begun here in Hippo, jind already, at this writing, he have nearly seventy attested miracles (The City of God X X I I . 8). The "City of God" was completed in 426. The following year, three years before he died, Augustine wrote in the "Retractions": "1 also said, These miracles are not allowed to continue into our time, lest the soul should always require things that can be seen, and; by becoming accustomed to I hem mankind should grow cold towards the very thing whose novelty had made men glow with fire. It is indeed true: that; not everyone today who has hands laid on them in baptism thus receives the Holy Spirit so as to speak in tongues; nor a r e the sick always healed by having the shad >w of promise of Christ! pass across them; and if such things were once done, it is clear that they afterwards ceased. But what I said should not be taken as understanding that no miracles are believed to happen today in the name of Christ. For at the very time I wrote this book 1 already knew

HEALING IN ST. E P H R E M ' s COMMENTARY ON DIATESSARON

41

t h a t , b y a p p r o a c h i n g t h e bodies of t h e t w o m a r t y r s of Milan, a blind m a n in l h a t city was given back his sight; and so m a n y other things of t h i s kind have happened, even in t h i s p r e s e n t time, t h a t it is n o t possible for us either to k n o w of all of t h e m or t o c o u n t u p all of those t h a t we do have knowledge o f . " ( R e t r a c t a t i o n u m I. 13. 7, in P a t r . L a t . 32, cols. 604-05). 5.

Healing in St. Epliretn's Commentary on Diatessaron

I n this p a p e r I shall not go i n t o details a b o u t St. E p h r e m ' s life and works. There are m a n y o t h e r studies in these fields and we have scholars among us who have c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e m i n d e p t h . F o r t h e m all let me name Prof. Brock a n d his work. W h a t I am going to do is t o t a k e just a closer look a t those passages in t h e DIATKSSARON which are dealing with. Jesus and his w o r k of healing. As we have seen Healing h a s been a m a j o r concern in t h e course of t h e early h i s t o r y of C h r i s t i a n i t y and i m p o r t a n t persons have witnessed t o it. How a b o u t St. E p h r e m ? 1) The DIATESSARON comprises t w e n t y - t w o chapters. In chapter V,19 St. E p h r e m q u o t e s M a t t h e w 9,2: "Vidit, V, 19 ait (evangelista), Dominus noster fidem eorum illorum, dicil ad eum: Dimisxa sint tibi peccala tua." I t is t h e healing of t h e p a r a l y t i c who was accompanied by his friends whose f a i t h was enough to heal him. According to St. E p h r e m t h e Saviour did not ask for f a i t h in t h e sick m a n because he was a broken house ("ediflcium fragile"). Healing t h e r e fore is not depending on t h e f a i t h of t h e one who suffers. H i s misery could have t a k e n all his confidence. I t is t h e word of t h e Saviour which cleans him from his sins a n d heals him in his visible flesh. There is r e p r e s e n t a t i v e f a i t h ; t h e f a i t h of his friends. 2) The second healing which is commented by St. E p h r e m is the healing of t h e s e r v a n t of t h e c e n t u r i o n . His saying, VI,22 "Dowirte, noli vexari, sed die »crbo ct sanabiiur" (Luke 7,6-7) is t h e reason for the highest a d m i r a t i o n . Indeed it is t h e a d m i r a t i o n of a man b y God himself. Again t h e f a i t h of a n o t h e r person has motivated t h e Lord t o heal t h i s servant. This faith was stronger t h a n t h a t of t h e accompanying J e w s and t h u s t h e reason t o t u r n t h e destiny of a d e a t h - b o u n d man.

HARP

In vi, ¿' K> s t . iipnrem is dealing with the demonized Gadarene. He comments on the incident of exorcism, saying t h a t it is the goodness of the Lord who protects this man. He is the doctor and He can cast out demons; He the Lord of all Gooduess. Thus this story stresses upon acting for the good of mankind.

the mercy of Jesus. He is

In chapter VII of the DIATESSARON and St. Ephrem's commentary on it we touch on the most extensive discussion about the alternating effect of faith and healing. St. Ephrem has taken Mark 5, 21-34, - the Heling of the Woman with the Issue of Blood. 1) It was the invisible divinity which was brought- t o vision by the hidden wounds and pains of this woman. She witnessed to his divinity and He, the Lord, witnessed to her faith. Tt was indeed a kind of " b a r t e r " : faith for health and health for faith. B u t all started with her faith as he approached him and He saw this faith and gave it a public healing. 5) In touching His h u m a n i t y she approached him as God and found the treasures of healing. 6) All this could have been done in secret b u t then the woman would have been healed only in her body; spiritually she would have stayed sick. So when the Lord heals the body he always intends spiritual healing too. 7) In the case of this woman she should testify to the doctor and to the power which had healed her. 9) The Lord knew thai; he was the doctor for all and she had understood t h a t he healed the visible wounds. 10) He crownpd the faith of this woman publicly which did shine in the hidden bailie. And after all; saying; your faith has saved you, - means; it has given her L I F E . 13) Again and again St. Ephrem is stressing t h a t the healing and saving power of tlm Lord comes from his divinity. He uses this fine picture: that, faith is a tree under which are lying the divine goods! 16) There are m a n y doctors b u t this sickness healed by the one and only doctor himself.

could only be

HEALING I N ST. E P H R E M ' S COMMENTAKY ON DIATESSARON

43

17) Why then the Divinity came down to mankind? To take away the miseries and to show itself by signs to faith. He, Christ, took on flesh in order t h a t mankind could have access to his divinity and He has shown His divinity in order t h a t His h u m a n i t y could no longer be stamped upon. 20) As the hand of this woman had distributed large sums her wonnd got no healing b u t when her hand stretched out empty then her heart was filled with health. As long as her hand was filled with palpable recompenses she was empty of hidden faith but when she put aside these she was filled with invisible faith. She gave visible recompenses and got no visible healing; she gave a visible faith and got a hidden healing (from the one who can heal all sickness(21). It was the power of the Lord which had healed the woman whereas his tongue could not convince the people. So it w-as-his work which proclaimed his t r u t h . The thoughts of St. Ephrem are difficult to be brought into a systematic order. Again and again he circles his observations around the text. But there is no doubt: the Divine One has t h e power to heal. Here He heals because of the strong f a i t h of this woman who is getting what she wanted b u t more: spiritual healing and L I F E (eternal). Chapter

VIII,1

Here St. Ephrem comments on the mission of the disciples, quoting Lk. 10,1 and Mt. 10,8 where the Lord sends t h e m two by two, saying: you got it free and now give it without charge. St. Ephrem brings this mission to the point by summing up the commission: (HE sent them) " t o preach the t r u t h , to do miracles (signs) and to bear pains 'in similarity to him' and to reproduce this in themselves as an image." " t o do signs,"- t h a t ' s itl The disciples are commissioned to do the same things Jesus did, including miracles and reproducing them like an image. In doing so they are doctors as their master and have the order to heal.

44

THE

Chapter

HARP

IX,1

In this chapter St. Ephrem is dealing with the Baptist's question (Mt. 11,3) and asking why J o h n is sending his disciples t o Jesus: this is not done just for questioning but to ratify1:ases as the Nestorians do. The result of this however is preposterous as well: to pronounce Jesus Christ to be one person and to give him two natures which are separated hypostatically. So Barhebraeus draws his conclusion: When we confess one Jesus Christ and one person of the incarnate Logos, we neither can see the union after incarnation only personally nor even only hypostatically. Real union of the two natures resulting in real one peisoncan not mean anything but union of natures, i. e. natural union, following the formula "out of two natures one nature after incarnation". With such an argumentation Barhebraeus' christology proves to be the well-known Monophysite one, which opposes the christologies of Nestorians and Chalcedonians together, the Chalcedonians being considered as no more than moderate (but inconsistent) Dyophysites. The criticism of both the christological opponents on the side of Dyophysitism, however, is not the most remarkable aspect of Barhebraeus' position. It is even more interesting to notice that the prominent bishop has to defend himself against opponents right on the other side as well, keeping the distancé the same (or even more) with the advocates of a strict Monophvsitism in its utmost consequence. So he opposes the teachings of Eutyches and bishop Julian of Halicarnassus, the spiritual

E C U M E N I C A L ASPECTS OF B A R H E B R A E U S ' CHRISTOLOGY

father of " J u l i a n i s m " . 4

I n t e r p r e t i n g the

formula

"out

105

of

two

natures one n a t u r e " in the sense of natural confusion, Julianism took the manhood t o be absorbed by the Godhead and propagated consistently

the doctrine

incorruptible

just

after

that the

a c c o r d i n g t o which w e l l - k n o w n being

really

physical b o d y of Christ was

incarnation

and

before

resurrection,

docetistic position Jesus Christ,

i m m o r t a l on earth,

only

pretended

to die o n the

Cross. Julianism of that kind had impressed the A r m e n i a n Church f o r some time as well as a small group of Syrians in their neighbourhood which disappeared before the end of the first millennium 5 centuries before Barhebraeus' time. Nevertheless

Julianism l i v e d

on t o be a latent danger for all f o l l o w e r s of the formula " o u t of t w o natures one naLure", and mind.

So he

opposes

the

Barhebraeus

strict

had

Mjnophysite

to bear this in position

just

as

v i o l e n t l y as he does against the Dyophysites. H e rejects the claim of Christ being incorruptible before the resurrection, emphasizing Christ

t o be

not only

perfect

God

but

perfect

man

as w e l l ,

cousubstantial with the Father in his Godhead and consubstantial with

us

in his

manhood. 6

With

that

we

hear

Barhebraeus

speaking like a Chalcedonian; and just like a sympathizer of the F o u r t h Ecumenical Christ)

he

does

Council

not

using the genuine

(but looking

at the

one

hesitate t o stress his o w n

Chalcedonian term ' ' w i t h o u t

change".7

this term against the u l t r a - M o n o p h y s i t e position, the Monophysite

Barhebraeus proves t o

be

W i t h this Barhebraeus represents the

genuine

christologieal

tradition

nature

orthodoxy

in by

Using

prominent

a rather m o d e r a t e one. in of

fact his

no

more

than

Syrian-Orthodox

Church, which can be seen f r o m the patriarch Severus of A n t i o c h in the early sixth century, more than seven hundred years b e f o r e Barhebraeus' pronounced

time. the

R e j e c t i n g the Chalcedonian f o r m u l a Severus

incarnate

Logos to

tasis and o n l y one nature as well. 4.

It

be one person, one hypos-

B u t emphasizing the

natural

s an o p e n question w t r t h e r o r not " J u l i a n i s m " was in f u l l accordance

w i t h Julian's

g e m i n e tea h n i ; c f . A . G r i M n u i e r ,

J sus der

C h istas im

G ' a a b e n der K m he, vol. 11,2, F r e i b u r g 1989, pp. 83 - 116. T h s p r o b l e m , hovever,

can be left un lecided

poL-mi -'s did not ma'ce

in o j r ,

c o n t s x t , sin e the

anti-Jal.amst

th s dist n : t on.

5. C " . W . H a g e , b i ¿ syr s . h ja . o j i t s h ; . K i r c h : in fruhislamíschsr ,Zeit na h a enia is.hen Q i : I L n , W . e s b a J e n 1966, pp. 79 f. 6. P O X X X r , pp. 186 f., 214 f. 7. P O X X X I , pp. 208 f .

1Q6

THE

HARP

union in Christ, 8 he did by no means think of mixing or confusing the natures out of which Christ was made. J u s t in contrast to Julian of Halicarnassus, Severus emphasized the continuing "difference" (but not " s e p a r a t i o n " ) of Godhead and manhood in Christ, which "difference (as he confirmed in one of his letters) we in no wise assert to have been removed by the union". 9 And such a moderate Monophysite interpretation reveals Cyril's of Alexandria well-known formula of the " m i a physis tou Theou Logou sesarkomene", t h e " o n e incarnate nature of God Logos." Barhebraeus, however, taking up this tradition of a moder a t e Monophysitism, is not afraid of going beyond Severus' expressions by speaking of the one nature to be " o n e double one, 10 which term gave cause t o call such a moderate position a "Diplophysite" rather t h a n a "Mono-physite" one. This is a well-founded and helpful distinction, since "Monophysitism" in its strict sense stresses the only one single naiure and rejects any difference in the incarnate Christ, while "Diplophysitism" emphasizes t h e double character of this only one nature confessing the incarnate Christ to be perfect man just as perfect God, without division and separation indeed, b u t w i t h o u t any confusion and change as well. This Diplophysitism actually corresponds to the Chalcedooian christological intention. Barhebraeus rejects the Dvophysite formula of the Fourth Council strictly, b u t he affirms ils meaning precisely. Bv emphasizing the union in the Lord Christ hypostatically (one hypostasis and two natures according to Chalcedon) or naturally (one hypostasis and one double n a i u r e according to Barhebraeus) the difference is only a terminological one, while the intention 'is quite the same: to guarantee the union of the natures and the continuance of their characteristics as well. The Chakedonians and Barhebraeus do agree t h a t the difference between t h e natures was by no means abolished by the union and t h a t the properties of each nature were preserved intact. Chalcedonian Dyophysitism and moderate Monophysitism in the form of D>plophysi!ism are very close i.o each other, the reason why even the 8. Siverus prefe-s the nh sne "hynostatic" as equivalent to "natural" un'nn; cf. R. C. Chesnut, Three Monophys te Christo'or'es, Severus of Ant'o.h, Ph OK n is of Mabnug, and Ja o> of Sa.ug, LonJon 1976, p. 12, n. 5. 9. Letter XI; cf. ibid., p, 16, n. 2. 10. P O X X X I , pp. 186 f.„ 190 f.

ECUMENICAL ASPECTS OP BARHEBRAEUS* CHRISTOLOGY

107

presentday ecumenical contacts come along. The theological dialogue between the (Chalcedonian) Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches realizes the christological agreement in principle, as we can see, for example, front the agreed statement of the Joint Commission of the churches just mentioned adopted on the occasion of its second meeting in J u n e 1989. It expresses the Chalcedonian Dyophysitism and the non-Chalcedonian Diplophysitism as well, in saying: "Those among us who speak of two natures in Christ, do not thereby deny their inseparable, indivisible union; those among us who speak of one united divine-human nature in Christ, do not thereby deny the continuing dynamic presence in Christ of the divine a n d the human, without change, without confusion." 1 1 And Barhebraeus, representative of the Syrian Orthodoxy seven centuries ago, would not have hesitated either before subscribing this ecumenical statement of to-day. B u t that is not the sum total regarding the ecumenical character of his christol'igical position. There is still an other and even more interesting aspect of Barhebraeus* position which reveals his ecumenical consciousness in its entirety and in a wider sense compared with the point of view to-day. The abovementioned statement of the J o i n t Commission Seals the christological agreement by "condemning the Nestorian and the Eutychian heresies." 1 2 Such a communication at the expense of a third and fourth party may be useful to make one's own position clearer. In this case, however, the condemnation hits a church, the " N e s t o r i a n " Church of the East, which is a member of the World Council of Churches as well, and by this the ditch between the churches is filled up in a very unfortunate way, by increasing another one. To avoid such an unpleasant consequence and to act m