John of Dara On The Resurrection of Human Bodies 9781463242268

Citation preview

John of Dara On the Resurrection of Human Bodies

Bibliotheca Nisibinensis

4

Bibliotheca Nisibinensis is an academic publication of Fundatio Nisibinensis – a foundation for promoting Aramaic Studies. It engages with Aramaic literature and tradition in general, as well as with the socio-cultural, political, religious and linguistic aspects of the present situation of the communities, which have preserved their Aramaic inheritance.

John of Dara On the Resurrection of Human Bodies

Edited and Translated by

Aho Shemunkasho

gp 2020

Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2020 by Gorgias Press LLC

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

1

2020

ISBN 978-1-4632-4225-1

ISSN 1946-2220

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ................................................................................................................ v Preface ................................................................................................................................. vii Abbreviations....................................................................................................................... ix 1. Introduction...................................................................................................................... 1 Overview ...................................................................................................................... 1 Previous Work ............................................................................................................. 1 Context and Significance of the Study..................................................................... 4 Methodology ................................................................................................................ 6 Structure ....................................................................................................................... 7 2. The Historical Context of Syriac Christianity in the Ninth Century ....................... 9 Dara: From Village to Metropolitan See ................................................................. 9 The Political Situation under the Abbasid Empire.............................................. 13 The Reaction of Syriac Christians to Islam........................................................... 16 The Translation Movement..................................................................................... 22 Syriac Literature of the Ninth Century .................................................................. 26 ‘Resurrection’ in the Literature of the Ninth Century ........................................ 35 3. The Life and Work of John of Dara........................................................................... 39 John as the Metropolitan of Dara .......................................................................... 40 John of Dara’s Work ................................................................................................ 41 4. Edition of the Four Treatises of John of Dara On the Resurrection of Human Bodies........................................................................................................... 75 Introduction to the Edition ..................................................................................... 75 4.0 Chapters of the Four Mimre...................................................................................... 91 4.1 Edition of Mimro I...................................................................................................... 97 4.2 Edition of Mimro II .................................................................................................. 133 4.3 Edition of Mimro III ................................................................................................ 193 4.4 Edition of Mimro IV ................................................................................................ 227 4.5 Summary ..................................................................................................................... 345 5. Translation of the Four Treatises of John of Dara On the Resurrection of Human Bodies......................................................................................................... 351 Chapters of the Four Memre ................................................................................ 351

v

vi

JOHN OF DARA ON THE RESURRECTION OF HUMAN BODIES

5.1 Translation of Mimro I ............................................................................................. 357 5.2 Translation of Mimro II ........................................................................................... 391 5.3 Translation of Mimro III ......................................................................................... 443 5.4 Translation of Mimro IV.......................................................................................... 475 5.5 Summary ..................................................................................................................... 565 6. Bibliography.................................................................................................................. 569 7. Index .............................................................................................................................. 587 Biblical References .................................................................................................. 587 Names and Authors................................................................................................ 596

PREFACE The following work provides the edition and translation of the four treatises of John of Dara (+ 860) On the Resurrection of Human Bodies. The final mimro places the resurrection in the context of the renewal of the whole of creation on the Day of Judgement. The Christian dogma of resurrection and the ecclesiastical understanding of eschatology are the central points of the treatises. The great scholar of the ninth century, John of Dara, collected extensive material and presented it in an elaborate, systematic way. In addition to the spiritual understanding of resurrection, the treatises include material on physical anatomy and psychology, as well as on the philosophical explanation of the elements of creation. Furthermore, the text provides a terminological definition of keywords. Theologically, the concept of the Creator and creation are in focus, along with the logical proof of God’s existence, exegetical commentaries on the relevant Biblical passages, and on the vision of the future world. This volume was completed during my work at the Department of Biblical Studies and Ecclesiastiacal History at the University of Salzburg and was submitted as my ‘habilitation’ thesis in 2017. I am very thankful to my colleagues and assistants for their help and support. In particular, I would like to express my words of gratitude to Prof. Dietmar W. Winkler for offering me a position as university assistant in 2006 and as an assistant professor in 2010. During this time, I started to collect material on John of Dara and work on the four mimre. At the same time negotiations between the Syriac Orthodox Church, the Austrian Ministry of Science, the Archdiocese and the University of Salzburg started, and led successfully to the establishment of a professorship for Syriac Christianity in 2014, a postion that I now hold. An academic degree, Master of Arts in Syriac Theology, was introduced in 2015, and a student house, Beth Suryoye, was established. In order to achieve this, many leading figures were involved and I owe them my sincere gratitude for their trust in the work I am doing: HH Mor Ignatius Zakka I (previous Patriarch of the Syrian Orthodox Church), HH Patriarch Ignatius Aphrem II (current Patriarch), HE Kardinal Christoph Schönborn (Archbishop of Vienna), HE Dr. Alois Kothgasser (previous Archbishop of Salzburg), HE Dr. Franz Lackner (current), Prof. Karlheinz Töchterle (previous Austrian Minister of Science), MP Wolfgang Großruck (previous President of OSCE), Dr. Wilfried Haslauer (Governor of Land Salzburg), Dr. Johann Marte (previous President of Pro Oriente), Prof. Peter Bruck (President of Syriac Institute) and the committee members of Suryoye Theological Seminary Salzburg: Mor Polycarpus Dr. Augin Aydin, Mor Philoxenus Mattias Nayis, Gabriel Malas, Abdulmesih Barabraham and Steve Samuel. In addition there are many other volunteers and benefactors: such as the Austrian Catholic Bishops Conference, Evangelical Church in vii

viii

JOHN OF DARA ON THE RESURRECTION OF HUMAN BODIES

Germany (EKD), Initiative Christlicher Orient (ICO), Mor Gregorios Johanna Ibrahim (Archbishop of Aleppo), Prof. Erich Busek (previous Vice-Chancelor of Austria), Dr. Hania M. Fedorowicz, Dr. Victor Baillou, Dr. Alfred and Sissy Berghammer, Dr. Johannes Großruck, Joseph Leitner and Michaela and Robert Luckmann. The idea of editing and translating John of Dara’s mimre in general was initiatied and encouraged in discussion with Dr. Andreas Juckel (Insitute for Research on New Testament, Münster), to whom I owe profound gratitude. I owe also heartfelt and sincere thanks to Prof. Sebastian P. Brock (emer. Univesity of Oxford) for his counsel throughout the work, particularly for the suggestions regarding the translation of some technical terms. I am very thankful to Elisabeth Humer, our librarian, who ordered the manuscripts from the western libraries: i.e. Birmingham, Bodleian, British, Harvard and Vatican, to whom I extend my appreciation. I am also most grateful to HE Mor Gregorios Saliba Shamoun, the retired Archbischop of Mosul for sending me a digitised copy of Mosul ms, to HE Mor Philoxenus Saliba Özmen for the mss in Mardin, and to HE Mor Philoxenus Mattias Nayis for the MS Damascus Patriarchat 4/4. I would also like to thank HB Mor Ignatius Joseph III Younan for instructing the librarian in Sharfeh, to show me the mss there. During their visits to Salzburg to teach classes for the MA in Syriac Theology, I had the chance to consult my colleagues, and I am thankful for their advice: HE Mor Polycarpus Dr. Augin Aydin, Dr. Kees den Biesen, Dr. Ephrem A. Ishac, Prof. Hubert Kaufhold, Dr. George Kiraz, Dr. Robert Kitchen, Prof. Erich Renhart, Prof. Hidemi Takahashi, Prof. Shabo Talay, Prof. Herman Teule, and Prof. Lucas Van Rompay. Above all, I would like to thank my wife Penelope for her encouragement throughout my career and for proofreading the English text. This work is devoted to her and to our three children Joseph, Rachel and John. Finally, the greatest thanks and praise is to the Lord of heaven and earth, God of the living and the dead for His endless mercy and compassion on me in strengthening me in the growth of such work, and letting me experience the trust, love and support of so many people.

ABBREVIATIONS CPG CSCO GOF JAOS JRS JTS LM NPNF PG OC OCA OLA OLP OS PdO PO SP SSyr ThQ ZKTh

Clavis Patrum Graecorum Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium Göttinger Orientforschungen Journal of the American Oriental Society The Journal of Roman Studies The Journal of Theological Studies Le Muséon Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Patrologia Graeca Oriens Christianus Orientalia Christiana Analecta Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica L’Orient Syrien Parole de l’Orient Patrologia Orientalis Studia Patristica [Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium] Scriptores Syri Theologische Quartalschrift Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie

ix

1. INTRODUCTION OVERVIEW

John of Dara was the metropolitan of Dara from 825 until his death in 860 A.D. A number of treatises have been attributed to him which have been transmitted in various manuscripts. John was very much interested in the creation of the world, celestial and ecclesiastical hierarchy, priesthood, Paradise and the salvation of man in the context of divine revelation and eschatological theology. Among others he composed four mimre [= treatises] On the Resurrection of Human Bodies. Not just these treatises, but most of his other work has been ignored for a long time. Without an edition and translation, John’s rich theological material regarding the Christian dogma on resurrection and of the renewal of the world remains inaccessible, except in manuscripts. John approached the theme of resurrection from many different angles, and for clarification he asks various questions about the nature of resurrection. Through this edition and translation, John’s questions and detailed theological answers are made available to the academic world for the first time.

PREVIOUS WORK

Some academic studies on resurrection in the Syriac tradition – primarily on Christ’s resurrection – have been done in the past. Some liturgical and patristic texts have been edited and translated, such as Ephrem’s hymns de resurrectione, 1 Philoxenus of Mabbug’s homily, 2 Jacob of Serugh’s mimre 3 or Narsai’s homily On Resurrection. 4 But none of the Edmund Beck, Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Paschahymnen: De azymnis, de crucifixione, de resurrectione, CSCO 248/249, S Syr. 108/109 (Louvain 1964). See also the studies of Ignazio De Francesco, Efrem il Siro. Inni Pasquali, sugli Azzimi, sulla Crocifissione, sulla Risurrezione (Milano 2001). 2 Jad Hatem, La gloire de l’un: Philoxène de Mabboug et Laurent de la résurrection (Paris 2003). 3 Thomas Kollamparampil, Jacob of Sarug’s Homily on the Resurrection, Texts from Christian Late Antiquity 14, Homilies of Mar Jacob of Sarug 5 (New Jersey 2008); Edward George Mathews, Jacob of Sarug’s Homily on the Creation of Adam and the Resurrection of the Dead, Texts from Christian Late Antiquity 37, Homilies of Mar Jacob of Sarug 32 (New Jersey 2014). 4 Frederick G. McLeod, Narsai’s Metrical Homilies on the Nativity, Epiphany, Passion, Resurrection and Ascension: Critical Edition of Syriac Text, PO 40.1 [182] (Turnhout 1979). 1

1

2

JOHN OF DARA ON THE RESURRECTION OF HUMAN BODIES

studies which have been done 1 are as thorough as John’s treatises. In his extensive work, John refers to Scripture and previous authors, and he influences later writers, such as Moses Bar Kepha (d. 903), Barhebraeus (d. 1286) and the Jewish philosopher Saadia Gaon (d. 942) 2 – Barhebraeus’ work On Resurrection has been translated into German. 3 Modern scholars have realised the significance of John’s rich material. A general introduction is given by Anton Baumstark, 4 Patriarch Aphram I Barsoum,5 Arthur Vööbus 6 and Sebastian Brock. 7 Nevertheless, only his treatise On Divine Liturgy has been edited and translated into French and English. 8 Additionally, Baumstark devotes an article to John’s references to Bardaisan, 9 and Vööbus highlights the exegetical character of the treatise On Pentecost. 10 One of the earliest Western scholars working on John was Pius Zingerle. In the nineteenth century he had already summarised the four treatises On the Priesthood. 11 With regard to the same work, Michel Breydy published an article in French, 12 and Liza Anderson started her Ph.D at Yale University working on “The Interpretation of Pseudo-Dionysius in the Works of John of Dara”, but then changed her topic without finishing it. Her draft translation of John’s treatises On Celestial Hierachy and On Ecclesi1 Ute Possekel, “Bardaisan of Edessa on the Resurrection: Early Syriac Eschatology in its Religious-Historical Context”, Oriens Christianus 88 (2004), 1–28; Varghese Pathikulangara, Resurrection, Life and Renewal: A Theological Study of the Liturgical Celebrations of the Great Saturday and the Sunday of Resurrection in the Chaldeo-Indian Church (Kottayam 1982). 2 See the recent work of Yonatan Moss, “Fish Eats Lion Eats Man: Saadia Gaon, Syriac Christianity, and the Resurrection of the Dead”, Jewish Quarterly Review 106:4 (2016), 494–520. 3 Hubert Koffler, Die Lehre des Barhebräus von der Auferstehung der Leiber, OC 28:1 [81] (Roma 1932); Élise Zigmund-Cerbü, Le Candélabre du Sanctuaire de Grégoire Abou’lfaradj dit Barhebræus. Dixième base: De la resurrection, Patrologia Orientalis 35.2 (Turnhout 1969). 4 Anton Baumstark, Geschichte der Syrischen Literatur (Bonn 1922), 271–81 [§ 44]. 5 Ignatius Aphram I Barsoum, The Scattered Pearls, 370–97 [number 139–69]. 6 Arthur Vööbus, “New Manuscript Discoveries for the Literary Heritage of Mose bar Kepha: The Genre of Theological Writings”, Harward Theological Review 8 (1975), 377–84; “Important manuscript discoveries of Iwannis of Dara and his literary heritage”, JAOS 96 (1976), 576–78; “Die Entdeckung von Überresten der altsyrischen Apostelgeschichte”, OC 64 (1980), 32–35. 7 Sebastian P. Brock, A Brief Outline of Syriac Literature, (Kottayam 2009), 63–70 [nr. 73–82]. 8 J. Sader, Le De Oblatione de Jean de Dara CSCO 308/9, S.Syr. 132/3 (Louvain 1970); English translation by Baby Varghese, John of Dara Commentary on the Eucharist, Moran Etho 12 (Kerala 1999). 9 A. Baumstark, “Iwannis von Dara über Bardaisan”, OC 8/3 (1933), 62–71. 10 A. Vööbus, “Die Entdeckung von Überresten der altsyrischen Apostelgeschichte”, OC 64 (1980), 32–35. 11 P. Zingerle, “Aus dem Handschriftlichen syrischen Werk des Johannes von Dara über das Priestertum”, ThQ 49 (1867), 183–205; ThQ 50 (1868), 267–285. 12 M. Breydy, “Les compilations syriaques sur le sacerdoce au IXe siècle: Jean de Dara”, OCA 205 (1978), 267–293 (= 2. Symp. Syr. 1976).

1. INTRODUCTION

3

astical Hierarchy, along with the first two mimre On Priesthood were made available electronically. 1 Particular attention has been drawn to the treatise On the Soul, which is attributed to both John of Dara and Moses Bar Kepha. Guiseppe Furlani found this treatise in the manuscript Vat. Syr. 147 and translated some of it (fol. 133r–154r) into Italian, but did not publish it. Based on this work Furlani published an article on John’s psychology in 1928. 2 A great work on this mimro has been done by Jobst Reller, as he carefully analysed John’s understanding of the soul, in comparison to Moses Bar Kepha and Barhebraeus. 3 Also Mauro Zonta has been interested in the treatise On the Soul and published three excellent articles. 4 Some quotations from the second treatise On Resurrection can be found in O. Braun. 5 Very relevant to the theme of resurrection are the articles of Carl-Martin Edsman on “Death, Corruption and Eternal Life” 6 and Yonatan Moss on “Fish Eats Lion Eats Man: Saadia Gaon, Syriac Christianity, and the Resurrection of the Dead”. 7 My publications also include three articles on John’s work. 8 Liza Anderson, a post-doc student at the Episcopal Divinity School in Boston, shared her work on John of Dara on her webpage: www.academica.edu, in March 2017. 2 Giuseppe Furlani, “La Psicologia di Giovanni di Dara”, Rivista degli Studi Orientali 11 (1928), 254– 79. 3 Jobst Reller, “Iwannis von Dara, Mose bar Kepha und Barhebräus über die Seele, traditionsgeschichtlich untersucht”, in: G. J. Reinink and A. C. Klugkist (ed.), After Bardaisan, Studies on Continuity and Change in Syriac Christianity in Honour of Professor Han J.W. Drijvers (Leuven 1999), 253–264. See also J. Reller, “Wahrnehmung und Erkenntnis in syrischsprachigen Lehrbüchern von der Seele”, V. Makarios-Symposion Preetz 1995, GOF, I Syriaca (Wiesbaden 1997), 55–56. See also O. Braun, Moses Bar Kepha und sein Buch von der Seele (Freiburg im Breisgau 1891), 26–132. 4 Mauro Zonta, “Iwānnīs of Dārā on Soul’s Virtues: About a Late Antiquity Greek Philosophical Work among Syrians and Arabs”, in Studia graeca-arabica 5 (2015), 129–43: As Appendix Zonta provides a useful Greek-Syriac glosssary of philosophical terms. See also Zonta, Mauro, “Iwānnīs of Dārā’s Treatise on the Soul and its Sources: A New Contribution to the History of Syriac Psychology around 800 AD”, in Elisa Coda and Cecilia Martini Bonadeo (eds.), De l’Antiquité tardive au Moyen Âge. Études de logique aristotélicienne et de philosophie grecque, syriaque, arabe et latine offertes à Henri Hugonnard-Roche, Études musulmanes 44 (Paris 2014), 113–22; “Nemesiana Syriaca: New Fragments from the Missing Syriac Version of the De Natura Hominis”, JSS 36/2 (1991), 227. 5 O. Braun, “Beiträge zur Geschichte der Eschatologie in den syrischen Kirchen”, ZKTh 16 (1892), 273–91, particularly pp. 286–87. 6 Carl-Martin Edsman, “Death, Corruption and Eternal Life”, in Bulletin of the Iranian Culture Foundation 1 (1969), 85–104 (about John of Dara, On Resurrection, see p. 89). 7 Yonatan Moss, “Fish Eats Lion Eats Man: Saadia Gaon, Syriac Christianity, and the Resurrection of the Dead”, Jewish Quarterly Review 106:4 (2016), 494–520. 8 Aho Shemunkasho, “John of Dara and His References to Previous Authors”, Actes du 10e Symposium Syriacum, in PdO 36 (2011), 413–44; “Jacob of Serugh and His Influence on John 1

4

JOHN OF DARA ON THE RESURRECTION OF HUMAN BODIES

CONTEXT AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

This study contributes to the understanding of John of Dara in the context of his time and enriches the Syriac theological understanding of the Christian dogma of the resurrection of the human body and the renewal of the world. In their style, the four treatises are the most detailed and offer the richest exposition of the concept of resurrection studied in the whole Syriac tradition. As the Patristic age in Syriac Christianity goes beyond the first millennium of the Christian Era, this work contributes to Patristic studies and is complementary to the research and studies done by other scholars on the concept of resurrection in both Byzantine Greek and Roman Latin Patristic texts. 1 Furthermore, in addition to theology, John of Dara`s mimre will be of great interest for philologians, philosophers, anthropologians and for those studying the knowledge of anatomy in late antiquity and the elements out of which the world is created. John of Dara is concerned with the Christian dogma of the resurrection of human bodies and provides an elaborate commentary, in which he manifests the necessity of the resurrection of human bodies. Particularly in the First Treatise, John argues against the heretics and non-believers, who either neglect the resurrection of human bodies or misunderstand it. According to John of Dara, the resurrection must take place because God is capable of doing it and because of justice at the final Day of Judgment, so that everyone can be rewarded or punished according to what he/she deserves. Resurrection must be the restoration of the same body, which is a safeguard for the integrity of the identity of each individuum. In the Second Treatise, divided into 15 chapters, John focuses very much on the classical understanding of the elements and the structure of the human body with its limbs. He refuses the concept of a spiritual and an aerial body, or of any body without limbs and a physical mass. In John’s theology, the resurrected body is a body with a solid material form, including all the limbs that is transformed and nourished by the spirit. John supports his commentary with biblical references as well as with quotations from church fathers. In the whole work the most prominent authors are Ephrem, 2 John Chrysostom, 3 Jacob of Serugh, 4 Jacob of Edessa, 1 Philoxenus of Mabbug, 2 Severus of Antioch 3 and Gregory of Nyssa. 4 of Dara as Exemplified by the use of two verse-homilies”, in: George Kiraz (ed.), Jacob of Sarug and His Times: Studies in Sixth-Century Syriac Christianity (New Jersey 2010), 163–97; “Anmerkungen zu Iwannis von Dara (9.Jh.) und seinen Mimre zur Auferstehung des Leibes”, in Dietmar W. Winkler (ed.), Syrische Studien, Beiträge zum 8. Deutschen Syrologie-Symposium in Salzburg 2014 (Wien 2016), 129–40. 1 A profound study is provided by Caroline Walker Bynum, The Resurrection of the Body: in Western Christianity, 200–1336 (New York 1995). 2 For Ephrem see pp. 224, 297–298, 363, 494, 506, 522, 528–529, 533, 552. 3 For John Chrysostom see pp. 134, 148, 212–215, 219–220, 224, 247, 327, 392, 404, 461–463, 467– 468, 480, 492–493, 495, 536, 549. 4 For Jacob of Serugh see pp. 119–120, 122, 171, 237, 241–242, 295–296, 335, 384, 402, 426, 485, 487–488, 528, 541, 557.

1. INTRODUCTION

5

At the beginning of the Third Treatise, that is divided into eight chapters, John provides a summary of the first two mimre, and then he presents a unique commentary on some relevant biblical passages, among them verses from Deuteronomy (Deut 32:39); 1 Samuel (1 Sam 2:6.10); Isaiah (Isa 25:8; 26:19), Hosea (Hos 3:14; 6:1–2) and Jonah (Jon 2:7). Also a few verses from the Psalms (Ps 30:4.6; 30:11–12; 41:13; 68:21; 88:11) are cited. In chapter 6 a proper exegetical commentary is provided to Daniel 12:2–3.13 and to Ezekiel 37:1–14. Finally, John devotes two whole chapters of detailed work to 1 Cor 15, altogether seven folios, each side of two columns, including over 6,000 words. Chapter seven discusses 1 Cor 15:1–33; and chapter eight comments on 1 Cor 15:34–58. In the Fourth Treatise that contains 24 chapters, John studies the concept of resurrection of human bodies in the context of the whole divine economy and the eschatological renewal of the world. John explains salvation with divine knowledge and accordingly defines the Kingdom of God and Gehenna in the world to come. Also in this Fourth Treatise John refers to Scripture (such as 1 Thess 4:13–16) and quotes from church fathers (such as from Jacob of Serugh and Severus of Antioch), and based on the use of words he often defines the literal meaning of key words, such as ‘revival’ (‫ )ܢܘܚܡܐ‬and ‘forever’ (‫)ܠܥܠܡ‬. The content of the text provides rich material for biblical exegesis, philosophical classical knowledge of the elements, ancient theory of physiology and theological creation of the world and the soul. The treatises support the doctrine that man is created in the image of God with a living soul and a physical body as a rational being. His destiny is the world to come, in which man will take part after the resurrection of the bodies. In the world to come, man remains immortal, and therefore God invites him to enjoy His presence in the heavenly Kingdom and not to remain with a lack of divine knowledge in the punishment of Gehenna. With this concern John, as the Archbishop of Dara, studied the concept of the Christian’s dogma of resurrection and presents his results to the faithful, encouraging them to believe in it and not to follow and believe in other teachings. From a Christian point of view, this can be seen as a response to all heretics, but also to Judaism and Islam in the context of his time. Regarding Islam, for instance, John deals extensively with the question of marriage after the resurrection as he dismisses it on the basis of the bible, but it is very much present in Islam. Therefore, John’s writing is a response to the challenge of his time, namely with the biblical references, as well as with the references to the Hellenistic philosophers and ecclesiastical doctors, he explains the Christian’s dogma of resurrection that is the central point of human salvation. In order to be saved, the integrity of each person must be kept and For Jacob of Edessa see pp. 134, 172, 382, 392, 426, 554. For Philoxenus of Mabbug see pp. 151, 185, 363, 406, 437, 440–441. 3 For Severus of Antioch see pp. 170, 224, 248–249, 310–314, 335, 406, 419, 424–426, 432, 471, 480, 493–494, 538–540, 557. 4 For Gregory of Nyssa see pp. 165, 309, 342, 419–420, 431, 480, 524, 537, 563. 1 2

6

JOHN OF DARA ON THE RESURRECTION OF HUMAN BODIES

the guarantee for it is the resurrection of each person along with his/her own body and to be transformed with divine glory in the presence of God.

METHODOLOGY

Regarding the First to Third Chapter of this work, research has been carried out to gather information on John of Dara, his work and the historical context in the ninth century. Based on primary and secondary literature, relevant material has been identified, studied, analysed, and presented systematically. The editorial task in the Fourth Chapter seeks to reconstruct the original text as closely as possible. With the collection of the manuscripts, looking at their colophons and the relation of the manuscripts to each other, the transmission of the text has been studied. The oldest manuscripts, containing the text on resurrection and the renewal of the word are the manuscripts in Mosul and Vat. Syr. 100 [V]. The other collected manuscripts derive from codex Mosul [M], and thus, M is the archetype of these modern copies. Since M exists there is no need to apply the ‘archetype’ method for these manuscripts. But there is a need to apply it for M and V, as they are related to each other. In case one of them is the archetype of the other, then both might have been copied from the same manuscript. For the reconstruction of the text a mixture of the so called ‘autograph’ and ‘archetype’ methods has been applied, as is done by authoritative Syriac scholars. Andrew Palmer refers to Sebastian Brock, Gerrit Reinink and Andreas Juckel and calls this third method a synthesis of the other two methods. He defines it as such: “The editor’s task is to amend the text, using textual criticism. The apparatus will include only such variants as have a bearing on the original.” 1 Nevertheless, the orthographical method has been more dominant for this edition. M has been used as the main work, and all variations – not orthographical – have been noted. Mistakes have been corrected, and occasionally better readings of V have been applied in the main text. For the edition and translation, one of the main tasks has been the identification of the biblical references and the quotations of previous authors, which results in a large index. The ‘Accordance’ programme was very useful, although the whole Syriac Bible is not included and the search for Syriac terms and phrases is not as advanced as in Western languages. The biblical verses have been compared to the Peshitta, and variations to the Peshitta have been noted in the critical apparatus. The English translation of the biblical passages is based on the Syriac text, but the English Standard Version has been taken into consideration. Although the identified patristic texts, that have been edited and translated into English before, are mainly retranslated in this work. The whole translation follows the Syriac text very closely.

1 See Andrew Palmer, “Editing a Syriac Hagiography: The Life of Barsawmo the Northerner”, in Dietmar W. Winkler (ed.), Syrische Studien: Beiträge zum 8. Deutschen Syrologie-Symposium in Salzburg 2014 (Wien 2016), 97–8.

1. INTRODUCTION

STRUCTURE

7

The context and scope of this study is the edition and translation of John’s four treatises On the Resurrection of Human Bodies and the Renewal of the Word. These can be better understood through a presentation of John and his work in the context of the ninth century historical and religious development and literary creativity. Therefore, the political situation of Syriac Christianity under the Abbasids and the reaction of Syriac Christendom to the new religion of Islam is studied in the Second Chapter. John lived in the time of the translation movement, when Syriac Christianity contributed immensely to the growth of Arabic literature, but was itself still in the process of growing. The Third Chapter aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of John, his life and work. It gathers the few pieces of information we have about him and gives an overview of his work. In particular the treatises preserved in Mardin 356 and in M, along with V are described. In order to get an impression of the richness of John’s work the titles and chapters of each treatise are listed in both Syriac and English. All these three manuscripts could be from the ninth or tenth century. The study shows that most of the other manuscripts containing John of Dara’s work are from the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth century. The introduction to the Fourth Chapter focuses on the editorial work of John’s four treatises on the resurrection and the renewal of the world, which can be found in at least eight manuscripts today, but until the end of the nineteenth century were transmitted only in two known manuscripts, M and V. As we will see, all the other manuscripts were copied from the manuscript in Mosul by the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth century. The edition and translation of the four treatises On Resurrection of Human Bodies and the Renewal of the World appear in the Fourth and Fifth Chapter. In the introduction to the edition the available manuscripts and their relationship to each other is discussed, and the method and the critical apparatus is explained. The translation aims to be reasonably close to the Syriac text. Consequently, at times this results in a somewhat awkward style of English. The large Index at the end should be useful in searching for biblical references and authors, which John of Dara mentions or quotes. Extensive work was involved in identifying the references to the bible and to the previous authors. The long list in the biblical index is evidence of John of Dara’s detailed exegetical and patristic work. Finally, the Bibliography lists the literature used alphabetically, including both primary and secondary sources.

2. THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF SYRIAC CHRISTIANITY IN THE NINTH CENTURY DARA: FROM VILLAGE TO METROPOLITAN SEE

John of Dara’s literary creativity and episcopacy was established in Dara in the 9th century. Dara is located between Mardin and Nisibis in the southeast of Turkey, and today is called Oğuz. Until the beginning of the sixth century, Dara was a little village on the Eastern border of the Roman Empire. In 505 the emperor Anastasius I (491–518) rebuilt the village of Dara in great haste into a strategically significant east Roman fortress on the border with the Sassanid Empire, and therefore it was called Anastasioupolis. While the historical city Nisibis, located only 20 miles south-east of Dara, was the strategically important city of the Sassanid Empire, Dara was built to become a stronghold of the Romans. Both cities, Dara and Nisibis, symbolise the long division of Mesopotamia under different rulers. The Syriac Chronicle, attributed to Zacharias of Mitylene, devotes a whole chapter to Dara and describes how it was built in the days of the emperor Anastasius I. 1 Later, Emperor Justinian I (527–65) improved it and served as the eastern Roman military base until 639, when finally it was captured by the Arabs and lost its military significance permanently. 2 While Dara became an important city and had a large military population, it also became a Melkite metropolitan see with three suffragans: Rishayna, Randus and Nasala

Zacharias of Mytilene, Syriac Chronicle, Book VII, Chapter VI; English translation by F. J. Hamilton and E. W. Brooks (London 1899), 164–68. Another important primary source is Procopius, De Aedificiis, Book II, published in Loeb Classical Library (1940), 96–131. For studies on Dara see Brian Croke, James Crow: Procopius and Dara, JRS 73 (1983), p. 143–159. Italo Furlan, Accertamenti a Dara, Padua 1984; Michael Whitby, Procopius’ description of Dara (“Buildings” II 1–3), in: The defense of the Roman and Byzantine East. Proceedings of a colloquium held at the University of Sheffield in April 1986 (Oxford 1986), 737–783; Gunnar Brands, Ein Baukomplex in DaraAnastasiopolis, in: Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 47 (2004), 144–155. 2 For archaeological and ancient literary evidence for battles near Dara, see Ariel Lewin and Pietrina Pellegrine (Ed.), The Late Roman Army in the Near East from Diocletian to the Arab Conquest: Proceedings of a colloquium held at Potenza, Acerenza and Matera, Italy (Michigan 2007), 299– 311. 1

9

10

JOHN OF DARA ON THE RESURRECTION OF HUMAN BODIES

for the Byzantine Church. 1 According to Zachara of Mitylene, Eutychianus became the first bishop of Dara in 506, but his successor was Thomas who rejected the Council of Chalcedon and was therefore deposed in 519. 2 In 553 bishop Stephanus took part in the Second Council of Constantinople and followed the Chalcedonian tradition. Later, however, after the city was captured by the Arabs, Dara became a bishopric of the West Syriac church and held its metropolitan rank probably until the eleventh century, 3 when Reshayna became a metropolitan see. At the time of the Abbasid Caliph Abu Jafar al Mansur (754–75), the West Syriac Patriarch George I was not recognised by the Caliph when he was elected in Mabbogh in 758. Instead he was imprisoned in Baghdad for nine years, from 766 until the death of al Mansur in 775. Two bishops disagreed with the election of Patriarch George I; one of them was David of Dara, and the other John of Qalliniqus (today Raqqa), 4 who was supported by the Caliph. According to Patriarch Aphrem I Barsoum, John of Qalliniqus became an anti-patriarch until his death in 763 and took his seat in the monastery of Zuqnin; then David of Dara became the anti-patriarch as he took over the Patriarchal See from 766 until 775. Thus, Dara must have played a major role, in that its bishops could be a rival to the Patriarchate of Antioch. However, only George I is recognised as the legitimate Patriarch in the Syriac tradition. 5 For the time after David of Dara, Michael the Great’s chronicle provides a list of seven metropolitans, one bishop and two episcopi of Dara: 1. Patriarch Dionysius I of Tel Mahre (817–845) ordained Severus from the ̈ monastery of Qube (‫ܕܩܘܒܐ‬ ‫ )ܕܝܪܐ‬as Episcopos for Dara. 6 2. Patriarch Dionysius I also ordained the author of these treatises, namely Iwannis/John, who was from the Mor Hannany, as metropolitan for Dara. 7 40F

1 Echos d’Orient X (1907), 145, Nr. 12: “Province de Dara, 3 évèchés: Théodosioupolis ou Résaina, Randos (?), Banasypsa ou Nassala”. 2 Zacharias of Mytilene, Syriac Chronicle, Book VII, Chapter VI; English translation by F. J. Hamilton and E. W. Brooks (London 1899), 164–68. 3 Michel Lequien, Oriens christianus in quatuor Patriarchatus digestus (Paris 1740), vol. 2, coll. 997–8, and 1427–30; Raymond Janin, “Dara”, in: Dictionnaire d’Histoire et de Géographie ecclésiastiques, Vol. XIV (Paris 1960), 83–4. 4 J.-B. Chabot, Chronique de Michel le Syrien, vol. 3, 450; vol. 4, 753; nr. 16: ‫ ܓܐܘܪܓܝ‬.‫ܝܘ‬

̄ ̄ ‫ ܘܗܘܬ ݀ ܡܬܬܣܪܚܢܘܬܗ ܒܡܒܘܩ ܒܣܘܢܕ‬.‫ܡܫܡ ܗܘܐ‬ ‫ ܘܒܬܪܟܢ ܗܘܘ‬.‫ܬܒܝܠܝܬܐ‬ ‫ܛܘܒܬܢܐ ܟܕ ܐܬܩܪܝ ܥܕܟܝܠ‬ ̄ ̈ ̈ ‫ܠܩܘܒܠܗ ܓܒ�ܐ‬ ‫ܘܗܘܘ ܗܠܝܢ‬ .‫ ܝܘܚܢܢ ܕܩܠܝܢܝܩܘܣ ܘܕܘܝܕ ܕܕܪܐ‬.�‫ܥܘ‬ ̣ . ‫ܘܐܬܚܒܫ ̣ܗܘ ̄ܛܘܒܬܢܐ ܒܒܓܕܕ ܫܢܝܐ ܛ‬ ̣ ̈ ‫ ܡܢ ܙܒܢܐ‬. ‫ ܘܫܡܫ ܥܕܡܐ ܠܥܘܢܕܢܗ‬.‫ ܘܗܝܕܝܢ ܢܦܩ ܗܘ ܦܛܪ‬.‫ܬ�ܝܢ ܥܕܡܐ ܕܡܝܬ ܐܒܘܓܥܦܪ ܡܠܟܐ ܕܛܝܝܐ‬ ‫ ܐܬܩܒܪ ܘܐܬܛܟܣ ܦܓܪܗ ܩܕ ̄ ܒܥܘܡܪܐ ܕܡܪܝ ܒܪܨܘܡܐ‬. ‫ ̣ܕܡܬܬܣܪܚܢܘܬܗ ܥܕܡܐ ܕܥ ̣ܢܕ ܫܢ̈ܝܐ ̄ܠ‬.

5 See Aphrem I. Barsaum, Geschichte der syrischen Wissenschaften und Literatur (translated from Arabic by G. Toro und A. Gorgis, Wiesbaden 2012), 286–87. With Patriarch George also the Melchite Patriarch and the East Syriac Catholicos were imprisoned. ̄ ‫ ܣܐܘܝܪܐ‬.‫ܓ‬ 6 J.-B. Chabot, Chronique de Michel, vol. 3, 453; vol. 4, 754; nr. 3: ‫ܐܦܝ ܠܕܪܐ ܡܕܝܢܬܐ ܡܢ ܕܝܪܐ‬ ̈‫ܕܩܘܒܐ‬. ̄ 7 J.-B. Chabot, Chronique de Michel, vol. 3, 454; vol. 4, 754; nr. 27: ‫ܡܝܛܪܘ ܠܕܪܐ‬ ‫ ܐܝܘܐܢܝܣ‬.‫ܟܙ‬ ‫ܡܕܝܢܬܐ ܡܢ ܕܝܪܐ ܕܡܪܝ ܚܢܢܝܐ‬.

2. SYRIAC CHRISTIANITY IN THE NINTH CENTURY

11

3. Patriarch John III (846–73) ordained Athanasius Hakim as metropolitan for Dara. 1 4. Patriarch Theodosius Romanus (887–96) ordained Severus as Episcopos for Dara. 2 5. Patriarch Dionysius II (897–909) ordained Iwannis from the local monastery of St. John as metropolitan for Dara.3 6. Patriarch John V (936–953) ordained Michael as metropolitan for Dara. 4 7. Patriarch John VI (965–985) ordained Ignatius from the convent of Qartmin as metropolitan for Dara. 5 8. Patriarch John VII (1004–1033) ordained John from the convent of Barid as metropolitan for Dara and Habora. 6 9. Patriarch John VII also ordained John from the monastery of Mor Abbay of Deqlath later as metropolitan for Dara. 7 10. Patriarch John IX ordained Ignatius from Qelat as [bishop] for Qelat and Dara. 8

Thus, judging by this list four things can be noticed: firstly, John of Dara’s predecessor was an episcopos as was the second bishop after John of Dara, and both were called Severus. Secondly, the last person on the list, Bishop Ignatius, is not provided with a title. Thirdly, Ignatius is also the only person mentioned here, who became a “bishop” for Qeleth and Dara. Since Qeleth is mentioned first and Dara second, this could simply imply Dara’s declining role in the eleventh century, at the time of Patriarch John IX (1063–1073). Already at the beginning of the eleventh century, at the time of Patriarch John VI (1004–1033), Dara is mentioned together with another city, namely Habora. 1

‫ܠܕܪܐ‬. ̇ . ‫ܡܢܗ‬

2 3

J.-B. Chabot, Chronique de Michel, vol. 3, 457; vol. 4, 756; nr. 64:

̄ ‫ܐܬܐܢܐܣܝܘ ܚܟܝܡ ܡܝܛܪ‬ ̄ .‫ܣܕ‬

̄ J.-B. Chabot, Chronique de Michel, vol. 3, 460; vol. 4, 757; nr. 29: ‫ܐܦܝܣ ܠܕܪܐ‬ ‫ ܣܐܘܝܪܐ‬.‫ܟܛ‬. ̄ J.-B. Chabot, Chronique de Michel, vol. 3, 461; vol. 4, 758; nr. 43: ‫ ܐܝܘܐܢܝܣ ܡܝܛܪ ܠܕܪܐ‬.‫ܡܓ‬

J.-B. Chabot, Chronique de Michel, vol. 3, 464; vol. 4, 760; nr. 46: ‫ ܡܝܟܐܝܠ ܡܝܛܪ ܠܕܪܐ ܡܕܝܢܬܐ‬.‫ܡܘ‬. 5 J.-B. Chabot, Chronique de Michel, vol. 3, 466; vol. 4, 760; nr. 18: ‫ ܐܝܓܢܐܛܝܘܣ ܡܝ܏ܛܪ ܠܕܪܐ‬.‫ܝܚ‬ ‫ܡܢ ܥܘܡܪܐ ܕܩܪܬܡܝܢ‬. 6 J.-B. Chabot, Chronique de Michel, vol. 3, 469; vol. 4, 762; nr. 22: ‫ ܝܘܚܢܢ ܡܝܛܪ ̄ ܠܕܪܐ‬.‫ܟܒ‬ [‫ܘܚܒܘܪܐ ܡܢ ܥܘܡܪܐ ܕܒܐܕܝܪ ]ܕܒܐܪܝܕ‬. 7 J.-B. Chabot, Chronique de Michel, vol. 3, 469; vol. 4, 762; nr. 26: ‫ ܝܘܚܢܢ ܡܝܛܪ ̄ ܠܕܪܐ ܡܢ‬.‫ܟܘ‬ ݀ ‫ܕܩܠܬ‬ ‫ܕܝܪܐ ܕܡܪܝ ܐܒܝ‬. 8 J.-B. Chabot, Chronique de Michel, vol. 3, 773; vol. 4, 764; nr. 1: ‫ ܐܝܛܢܐܛܝܘܣ ܠܩܠܬ ܘܕܪܐ ܡܢܗ‬.‫ܐ‬ ݀ ‫ ̣ܕܩ‬. ‫ܠܬ‬ 4

̄

12

JOHN OF DARA ON THE RESURRECTION OF HUMAN BODIES

Furthermore, from the eighth to the tenth century there must have been a vital monastery in Dara, called the monastery of Mor Yohannun (John) of Qurdis. 1 In Appendix III of his chronicle, Michael Rabo lists at least six monks from the monastery of Mor Yohannun of Dara who were ordained as bishops for different dioceses between the eighth and the tenth century: 11. Patriarch Quriaqos of Tagrit (793–817) ordained Peter as Episcopos for Arzoun. 2 12. Patriarch Ignatius II (878–83) ordained Quriaqos as metropolitan for Edessa. 3 13. The same patriarch also ordained Mattai as metropolitan for Dara. 4 14. Patriarch Theodosius Romanus (887–96) ordained Gewargis as Episcopos for Circesium.5 15. Patriarch Dionysius II (897–909) ordained Quriaqos as Episcopos for Baalbek. 6 16. Patriarch Dionysius II also ordained Iwannis as metropolitan for Dara. 7 Thus, in the ninth century at the time of John of Dara, the metropolitan see must have been an influential and important bishopric of the West Syriac Church, and it remained so for a long time. Dara must have been well-known among West Syriac Christians, so that its name has been interpolated in some hagiographies, such as in the Vita of Mor Yoreth the Alexandrian 8 and Mor Benjamin the Eldest.9 There were Christians in Dara

1 Ignatius Aphram I Barsoum, The Scattered Pearls: A History of Syriac Literature and Sciences, trans. Matti Moosa (New Jersey 2003), 380. ̄ ‫ ܦܛܪܘܣ‬.‫ܣ‬ 2 J.-B. Chabot, Chronique de Michel le Syrien, vol. 3, 452; vol. 4, 754; nr. 60: ‫ܐܦܝ‬ ‫�ܪܙܘܢ ܡܢ ܥܘܡܪܐ ܕܡܪܝ ܝܘܚܢܢ ܕܕܪܐ‬. 3 J.-B. Chabot, Chronique de Michel, vol. 3, 458; vol. 4, 756; nr. 4: ‫ ܩܘܪܝܩܘܣ ܡܝܛܪ ̄ �ܘܪܗܝ ܡܢ‬.‫ܕ‬ ‫ܡܪܝ ܝܘܚܢܢ ܕܕܪܐ‬. ̄ 4 J.-B. Chabot, Chronique de Michel, vol. 3, 459; vol. 4, 757; nr. 19: ‫ܡܝܛܪܘ ܠܕܪܐ ܡܢ‬ ‫ ܡܬܝ‬.‫ܝܛ‬ ‫ܥܘܡܪܐ ܕܡܪܝ ܝܘܚܢܢ ܕܕܪܐ‬. ̄ 5 J.-B. Chabot, Chronique de Michel, vol. 3, 459; vol. 4, 757; nr. 9: ‫ܐܦܝܣ‬ ‫ ܓܘܪܓܝܣ‬.‫ܛ‬ ‫ܠܩܪܩܝܣܝܘܢ ܡܢ ܡܪܝ ܝܘܚܢܢ ܕܕܪܐ‬. ̄ 6 J.-B. Chabot, Chronique de Michel, vol. 3, 460; vol. 4, 757; nr. 10: ‫ܐܦܝܣ‬ ‫ ܩܘܪܝܩܘܣ‬.‫ܝ‬ ‫ܠܒܥܠܒܟ ܡܢ ܡܪܝ ܝܘܚܢܢ ܕܕܪܐ‬. ̄ 7 J.-B. Chabot, Chronique de Michel, vol. 3, 461; vol. 4, 758; nr. 43: ‫ܡܝܛܪܘ ܠܕܪܐ‬ ‫ ܐܝܘܐܢܝܣ‬.‫ܡܓ‬ ̇ . ‫ܡܢܗ‬ 8 Sister Hana Dogan from Mor Augin monastery in Switzerland typed this hagiography along with many others, all of which are not yet published. In chapter 8 of the ܳ Vita, Mor ܰ Yoreth ܳ ܰ ܰ ‫ܕܡܛܐ‬ ܳ ‫ܘܗܘ ܰܡ� ܳܟܐ ܰܥ ܶܡܗ ܐ ܙܶܠ‬ ܰ ‫ܗܘܐ‬ ̇ ‫ܥܕ ܳܡܐ‬ expels demons from the stone-throwing woman: ‫�ܕܳ ܪ ܐ‬ ܰ

ܳ ܺ ܰܰ ܳ ܺ ܳ ܺ ܰ ܰ ‫ ܰܘ‬.. .݀‫ܗܘܬ‬ ܳ ‫ܚܙ ܐ ܐܢ̱ܬܬ ܐ ݂ܕܡܢ ܰܫ‬ ܳ ‫ܒܬ‬ ܳ ‫ܒܥܐ ܫܐܕ�݂̈ܢ ܡܫܬܢܩܐ‬ ܳ ‫ܬܐ܆‬ ‫ܡܕܝܢ̱ܬܐ‬ ‫ܢܦܩ ݂ܡܢ ܕ ܪܐ‬ ‫ ܘܟܕ ݂ܥܠ‬.‫ܡܕܝܢ̱ܬܐ‬ ̱‫ܪܥ ̇ܗ ܕܡܕܝܢ‬ ܳ ܳ ܶ ܰ ‫ܘܡܛܐ ܥܕܡܐ �ܚܣܢܐ ܕܣܪܓܐ‬. ܳ ܰ ܳ ܽ ܶ ܳ ܺ ܰܰ ܳ ܰ ‫ܘܡܛܐ‬ ܳ ‫�ܡ‬ ܰ ‫ܕܢܚܐ‬ 9 Vita of Mor Benjamin: ‫ܡܛܠ‬ .‫ܬܐ‬ ‫�ܕ ܳܝ�ܬ ܐ ܕܚܕ�ܝ ܰ ܕ ܪܐ ܡܕܝܢ‬ ‫ܥܕ ܳܡܐ‬ ‫ܘܗܠܟ ܶܘܐܬ ܐ‬ ̱ ܰ ܽ ܶ ܰ ܳ ‫ܕܣܝܡܐ‬ ܰ ‫ܡܝܢ‬ ܳ ‫ܘܓܝܢ‬ ܺ ‫ܗܘܬ ݀ ܠܗ ܠܫܟܝܢܬܐ ܕ ܰܩ ܺܕ�̈ ܶܫܐ �ܒܢܘܗܝ ܡܪܝ ܐ‬ ‫ ܶܘ ܳܐܬܐ‬.... ‫ܗܘܘ‬ ݂ ‫ܣܝ‬ ݂ ‫ܘܣ ̈ܒܐ ܰܚܒ�ܘܗܝ ܶܡܛܠ ܕܬ ܳܡܢ‬ ܰ ܰ ݂ܶ ܰ ܶ ܳ ܰ ܳ ܰ ܶ ܶ ܳ ܺ ܳ ܺ ܳ ܺ ܽ ܰ ܰ ̇ ̇ ‫ܟܦܪܬܘܬܐ �ܕ ܪܐ ܡܕܝܢ̱ܬܐ‬ ‫ܒܝܬ‬ .‫ܝܘܡܢ‬ ‫ܝܢ‬ ‫ܡ‬ ‫ܢܝ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܡܪܝ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܝܫ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܕܩ‬ ‫ܫܟܝܢܬܗ‬ ‫ܒܗ‬ ‫ܝܗ‬ ‫ܐܝܬ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܘܟܬ‬ ‫�ܕ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܡ‬ ‫ܥܕ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܟ‬ � ‫ܥܡܗ ܡ‬ ܳ ܽ ܳ ܰ ܰ ܳ ܺ ̇ ‫ܘܟܬܐ ܕܢܶܒܢܶܐ‬ ‫ܒܗ ܰܕ ܳܝܪܐ‬ ‫ ܘܚܘܝ ܠܗ ܡ�ܟܐ ܕ‬.‫ܩܪܝܬܐ‬ ‫ܨܝܕ ܕܘܓܢ‬.

2. SYRIAC CHRISTIANITY IN THE NINTH CENTURY

13

until the middle of the twentieth century, 1 but they left as a result of the political situation. Consequently, there are no Christians in Dara today, but archaeological remains provide evidence of their previous existence. 2

THE POLITICAL SITUATION UNDER THE ABBASID EMPIRE

With the advent of the Arab rulers Syriac Christianity was subject to the rule of the Caliphate (632–661), Umayyads (661–750) and at the time of John of Dara to the Abbasids (750-1250). 3 The Abbasid tribe goes back to al-Abbas who was an uncle of Muhammad (d. 653). Therefore, the Abbasids claimed to be the true descendants of Muhammad. Consequently, the Abbasids were against the Umayyads, their cousins, and fought for imperial power until they succeeded in the Battle of the Great Zab River in 750. Abu al-Abbas (722–54) defeated and killed the last Umayyad Caliph, Marwan II. He slaughtered almost the whole Umayyad family4 and became the first Abbasid Caliph. When the Omayyad Dynasty came to an end in Damascus in 750, the Abbasid Caliphate started in Baghdad and reigned until 1258. The Abbasid Dynasty not only lasted the longest and had the most territory but was also the most influential Islamic Empire. This started particularly in 752, when In the spring and summer of 1915 many Christians were killed in the Armenian genocide. See Raymond Kevorkian, The Armenian Genocide: a Complete History (London 2011), 364, 375, 378. 2 Andrew N. Palmer collected some of the discovered Greek and Syriac inscriptions of Dara and published them in his article, “Syriac Inscriptions of Quṣūr al-Banāt in the Tektek Dağları, Turkey”, in Martin Tamcke and Seven Grebenstein (eds.), Geschichte, Theologie und Kultur des syrischen Christentums: Beiträge zum 7. Deutschen Syrologie-Symposium in Göttingen, Dezember 2011, GOF, I. Reihe: Syriaca 46 (Wiesbaden 2014), 209–290. 3 See Dietmar W. Winkler (ed.), Syriac Churches encountering Islam, Pro Oriente Studies in Syriac Tradition 1 (New Jersey 2010): Raphael Louis Sako, “Muslim-Christian dialogue in Syriac Sources” (6–13), Sidney Griffith, “The Syriac-Speaking Churches and the Muslims in the Medinan Era of Muhammad and the Four Caliphs” (14–46); Gregorios Yohanna Ibrahim, “The Syrian Churches during the Umayyad Era” (48–65); Dietmar W. Winkler, “Christian Responses to Islam in the Umayyad Period” (66–84); Bawai Soro, “The Contribution of Mesopotanian Christianity during the Abbasid Period” (86–109); Herman Teule, “The Interaction of Syriac Christianity and the Muslim world in the Period of the Syriac Renaissance” (110–28). Furthermore for Christians under the rule of Islam see also Harald Suermann, “Orientalische Christen und der Islam: Christliche Texte aus der Zeit von 632–750”, in: Zeitschrift für Missionswissenschaft und Religionswissenschaft 67 (1983), 120–36; David Thomas, Syrian Christians under Islam: The first Thousand Years (Leiden 2001); Jan J. Ginkel and Helen Murre-van den Berg/Theo M. van Lint (eds.), Redefining Christian Identity: Cultural Interaction in the Middle East since the Rise of Islam, OLA 134 (Louvain 2005). 4 Abd al-Rahman I (731–88) survived, as he fled to Spain and established the Muslim dynasty in Cordoba. In 756 he proclaimed himself as the Emir of Cordoba; see Roger Collins, The Arab Conquest of Spain 710–797 (Oxford 1989), 87. 1

14

JOHN OF DARA ON THE RESURRECTION OF HUMAN BODIES

Caliph al-Mansur (754–775) followed his brother As-Saffah (750-754) and moved his imperial residence to Baghdad, a new city on the banks of the Tigris River, not far from Ctesiphon, the ancient Persian capital. Far away from Byzantine influence and from Damascus, a different multicultural society appeared among a demographically mixed population: Christian, Jews, Muslims; Aramaic-, Persian- and Arabic-speakers. These ethnically and religiously different groups contributed to the social, political and cultural activities in Baghdad and formed in one way or the other classical Islamic civilization. 1 Baghdad grew quickly and became an important city for culture, architecture, art and science. Within a few decades Baghdad became of great importance for literature, on the one hand through manufacturing paper easily, which they had learned from the Chinese; on the other hand for establishing the bayt al-Hikma as an excellent intellectual academy and within it embracing knowledge of the other cultures. 2 It was the fifth Caliph Harun al-Rashid, who reigned from 786–809, who established the bayt al-Hikma in Baghdad. In his time scientific and cultural knowledge flourished considerably, as did the economy. This was the beginning of the so-called Islamic Golden Age, which is attributed to the reign of Harun al-Rashid. Throughout the Islamic Golden Age the erudition and knowledge of many civilizations was preserved and developed further. As Gutas sees a paradox in the preservation of Greek heritage in Baghdad instead of in Damascus, he notes: “Much as the Umayyads had to rely on the local Byzantines and Christian Arabs in Damascus for their administration, so also did the early ‘Abbasids have to rely on the local Persians, Christian Arabs, and Arameans for theirs. The culture of these people in the employ of the ‘Abbasids, in contradistinction to the Christians of Damascus, was Hellenized without the animosity against the ethnic Greek learning evident in Orthodox Christian Byzantine circles. Hence the transfer of the caliphate from Damascus to central Iraq – i.e. from a Greek-speaking to a non-Greekspeaking area – had the paradoxical consequence of allowing the preservation of the classical Greek heritage which the Byzantines had all but extirpated.” 3 John of Dara must have been aware of this prosperous time of Arabic culture, but also of the conflict that started in the Caliph’s family at the beginning of the ninth century. It was in John of Dara’s time when the old Sassanid city Sumra 4 was established as a new capital city by the Abbasid Caliph al-Mutasim in 836, and it was called Samara and remained a capital residence until 892. 5 Although Baghdad suffered severe damage due to the ongoing war between the two brothers, al-Amen (809–13) and al-Mamun 1 Dimitri Gutas, Greek Thought, Arabic Culture: The Graeco-Arabic Translation Movement in Baghdad and Early ‘Abbasid Society (2nd–4th/8th–10th centuries) (London 1998), 19. 2 Dimitri Gutas, Greek Thought, Arabic Culture; De Lacy O’Leary, How Greek Science Passed to the Arabs (London 1979); Franz Rosenthal, The Classical Heritage in Islam (London 1975). 3 Dimitri Gutas, Greek Thought, Arabic Culture, 19–20. 4 Sumra is mentioned by Michael the Syrian, J.-B. Chabot, Chronique de Michael le Syrien, vol. 3 (Paris 1905), 88. 5 Chase Robinson (ed.), A Medieval Islamic City Reconsidered: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Samarra (Oxford 2001).

2. SYRIAC CHRISTIANITY IN THE NINTH CENTURY

15

(813–33), it still remained influential in the development of Arabic literature. The population of the imperial city grew more than that of all other cities, probably between a quarter and a half million, suggests Joel L. Kraemer. 1 Baghdad remained as a capital city and as a city of knowledge and kept its famous reputation as the ‘Madinatal-Salam’, the City of peace for a long time, until it was taken by the Mongols in 1258. Particularly this first part of the Abbasid period, the golden Age of Islam, contributed significantly to the growth of Arabic culture and literature. Despite the active involvement of Syriac Christians in translating philosophical, medical and scientific texts from Greek and Syriac into Arabic, the Abbasid Dynasty brought for them a paradigm shift: the Arab empire became an Islamic empire. Hugh Kennedy states that “the early ‘Abbasid state was essentially a Muslim state, rather than a purely Arab or Persian one.” 2 The Chaldean bishop Mar Bawai Soro considers the increase of Islamic rules in public policy to have had a great impact on the Christians: “It was under public policy that the Christians began to feel the weight of persecution and humiliation, especially in the ninth century when the dynasty was already firmly established in Baghdad. And still, under the Abbasids, we see Christians being employed as physicians, even as members of the court and also being instrumental in the translation process of many works of Greek thought and knowledge.” 3 Although the beginning of the Abbasid dynasty was fruitful and lead to cultural and literary exchange between Christians and Muslims, but also between Jews and Muslims, at the end of the first Millennium a decline in Christianity started when a stricter interpretation of Islam appeared and reduced freedom of thought and expression. With the dhimmi-status the Christians, along with the Jews, were under protection. But already this implied a difference in their social and legal status. For instance, Christians could not convert Muslims to Christianity anymore, but conversion became only possible from Christianity or other religions into Islam, such as the converstion of Ali at-Tabari (d. 855). Already in the middle of the seventh century, the East Syrian catholicos Ishoyahb (d. 659) speaks of conversion to Islam in his Letter 14C to Simeon, the metropolitan bishop of Rev Ardashir, followed two decades later by the Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius und later by Jacob of Edessa (d. 708) and his correspondence with Joshua the Stylite of Zuqnin. Half a century later, the anonymous Chronicle of Zuqnin Joel L. Kraemer, Humanism in the Renaissance of Islam: The Cultural Revival during the Buyid Age (Leiden 1992), 47. Kraemer notes that the highest estimate with 1.5 million is that of A. A. Duri, “Baghdad”, EI, I, 899; wheras the lowest is that of J. Lassner, “Massignon and Abaghdad; the complexities of growth in an imperial city,” JESHO 9 (1966), 8, 10. 2 Hugh Kennedy, The Prophet and the Age of the Caliphates: the Islamic Near East from the Sixth to the Eleventh Century (London/New York 1986), 135. 3 Mar Bawai Soro, “The Contribution of Mesopotamian Christianity during the Abbasid Period”, 87. 1

16

JOHN OF DARA ON THE RESURRECTION OF HUMAN BODIES

devotes the last six folios to the topic of conversion, where the author laments the conversion of Christian elders and sometimes entire communities to Islam. 1

THE REACTION OF SYRIAC CHRISTIANS TO ISLAM

Under the Abbasid rulers, historians notice a crucial change in the Christian communities. Sidney H. Griffith states: “And so it was that by the middle of the eighth century historical circumstances began to favour the efforts of the Christian communities to enculturate themselves into the world of Islam.” 2 This implies the adoption of the Arabic language, starting first in the Melkite Church with its centre in Jerusalem, and then followed by the West and East Syriac Christians in the eighth century, as well as by the Copts in Egypt in the ninth century. 3 As a result of inculturation the Christians did not just translate ancient texts into Arabic, but also started creating and composing Christian Arabic literature. 4 Language and confession were two main significant factors to distinguish the Syrian Orthodox community from the other communities. From the ninth century onwards Arabic was used gradually, but this did not lead to a loss of identity. But changing one’s confession was a determination of “nationality”, as Witold Witakowski writes.5 Probably until the time of John of Dara the Syriac language was the most dominant among the Syrian Orthodox Christians. Witold Witakowski says: “So far language is concerned we may surmise that in the second century of Hejira most of the Jacobites still spoke Syriac. There is evidence that high Jacobite churchmen had to resort to interpreters when contact with Muslim authorities was necessary”. 6 With reference to Griffith, Witakowski emphasises that the theologian and apologist Abu Raita al-Takriti 1 Michael Philip Penn, Envisioning Islam: Syriac Christians and the Early Muslim World (Philadelphia 2015), 167–79. 2 Sidney H. Griffith, “Answering the Call of the Minaret: The Topics and Strategies of Christian Apologetics in the World of Islam”, in: Martin Tamcke/Andreas Heinz (eds.), Die Suryoye und ihre Umwelt: 4. Deutsches Syrologen-Symposium in Trier 2004 – Festgabe Wolfgang Hage zum 70. Geburtstag (Münster 2005), 11–42, see page 14–15. 3 See Sidney H. Griffith, “Answering the Call of the Minaret”, 14–15; see also Khalil Samir, “Arabic Sources for Early Egyptian Christianity”, in Birger A. Pearson/James E. Goehring (eds.), The Roots of Egyptian Christianity (Philadelphia 1986), 82–97; Samuel Rubenson, “Translating the Tradition: Some Remarks on the Arabization of the Patristic Heritage in Egypt”, Medieval Encounters 2 (1996), 4–14. For the Copts see Harald Suermann, “Copts and the Islam of the Seventh Century”, in: Emmanouela Grypeou/Mark N. Swanson/David Thomas (eds.), The Encounter of Eastern Christianity with Early Islam (The History of Christian-Muslim Relation 5; Leiden 2006), 95–110. 4 Sidney H. Griffith, “The Monks of Palestine and the Growth of Christian Literature in Arabic”, The Muslim World 78 (1988), 1–28. 5 Witold Witakowski, The Syriac Chronicle of Pseudo-Dionysius of Tel-Mahre: A Study in the History of Historiography (Uppsala 1987), 48. 6 Witold Witakowski, The Syriac Chronicle of Pseudo-Dionysius of Tel-Mahre, 47–48.

2. SYRIAC CHRISTIANITY IN THE NINTH CENTURY

17

was the first West Syrian author writing in Arabic in the ninth century. 1 With the use of written Arabic in the ninth century, Wolfgang Hage sees the end of the climax of the erudition of the Syriac golden age. In a few lines he lists the most important Syriac Arabic writers from the West Syriac Church, as he writes: “Dieser erste Höhepunkt in der Geschichte syrisch-orthodoxer Gelehrsamkeit, die sich der traditionellen Sprache der Kirche bediente, endete aber auch mit diesem 9. Jahrhundert, und es traten Autoren auf den Plan, die jetzt arabisch schrieben, in der Sprache der Herrschenden, die inzwischen auch das eigene Kirchenvolk erfaßt hatte. Sich in ihr auszudrücken, legte aber auch der thematische Charakter dieser nun christlicher-arabischen Literatur nahe, die apologetisch-polemisch geprägt war und ihre Autoren vorwiegend im östlichen Kirchengebiet des Maphrianats fand. Hier setzte sich bereits in der ersten Hälfte des 9. Jahrhunderts der Bischof Abu Raita mit dem Islam, dem Judentum wie auch mit dem Chalzedonenser Theodoros Abu Qurra auseinander; und der weit über seine eigene Kirche hinaus berühmte und einflußreiche Yahya ibn ‘Adi (gest. 974) stritt für seinen christlichen Glauben in zahlreichen Schriften auf hohem philosophischen Niveau. Aus seiner Schule ging Yahya ibn Dscharir (gest. nach 1079) hervor, dessen dogmatisches Hauptwerk ihn zum ersten großen Systematiker der Syrischen-Orthodoxen Kirche machte. Auf seinem ganz anderen Feld aber wurde der Arzt ‘Isa al-Dschurdschani (gest. 1010) berühmt, der aus Persien stammte, in Bagdad studierte hatte, dann im Osten des Kalifats wirkte und unter seinen Schülern den später noch berühmteren Muslim Ibn Sina (Avicenna, gest. 1037) hatte.” 2

While the works written by Syriac Christians in Syriac and Arabic provide a significant aspect of apology for Christianity in response to the challenge of Islam, the Greek Christian texts that are produced outside the Arab Empire, namely in the Byzantine Empire such as in Constantinople, are in genre polemical and aim “to demean, even to ridicule Muhammad, the Quran, and Islam”. 3 Consequently, Christianity in the Islamic world articulated Christian theology in Arabic idiom in the context of Islam and responded to the new challenge, whereas previously it had responded to the challenge by western Christianity, particularly by the Byzantine Greek. By far Syriac played the most important role among all Christian traditions in the Islamic world. The earliest Christian apologetic texts were composed in Syriac. 4 They were mainly for internal use in Witold Witakowski, The Syriac Chronicle of Pseudo-Dionysius of Tel-Mahre, 48; S. H. Griffith, Habib ibn Hidmah Abu Raitah, a Christian mutakallim of the First Abbasid Century, OCh 64 (1980), 161–201. See also Wolfgang Hage, Das Orientalische Christentum (Stuttgart 2007), 154. 2 Wolfgang Hage, Das Orientalische Christentum, 154. 3 See Sidney H. Griffith, “Answering the Call of the Minaret”, 17. 4 See Sidney H. Griffith, “Answering the Call of the Minaret”, 18–19. The first apologies are dialogical in genre, such as the dialogues between Patriarch John I (631–48) and a Muslim Emir, between a Monk of Beth Hale and an Arab Notable, and between Patriarch Timothy I 1

18

JOHN OF DARA ON THE RESURRECTION OF HUMAN BODIES

Christian communities in order to educate and strengthen them in their faith and to help Christians respond to certain questions and objections raised by Muslims. 1 Two main topics were present, defending the Christian doctrine of the trinity and that of incarnation in response to the Quran’s critique. 2 Below, four Christian authors and one Muslim author are briefly presented with their apologetic writings. The East Syriac Catholicos Timothy I (780-823) The East Syriac Church was very strong in the eighth century: “some 19 metropolitans and 85 bishops in dioceses that stretched across the breadth of Asia to China”. 3 The most well-known earliest theological interreligious debate is the dialogue between the famous East Syriac Catholicos Timothy I and Caliph al-Mahdi in 781 or 782 in the Abbasid court. 4 The Caliph and the Catholicos had a common interest in philosophy. The Catholicos, assisted by the East Syriac scholar Abu Nuh, translated Aristotle’s Topica from Syriac to Arabic. 5 The interreligious debate seems to have been generated philosophically and with mutual respect. The debate took place over two days. At the beginning of the first day the Catholicos states: “The next day I had an audience of his Majesty. Such audiences had constantly taken place previously, sometimes for the affairs of the State, and some other times for the love of wisdom and learning which was burning in the soul of his Majesty”. 6 With reference to Caliph al Mahdi’s various ques(780–823) and Caliph al-Mahdi (785). See Michael Penn, “Syriac Sources for the Study of Early Christian-Muslim Relations”, Islamochristiana 29 (2003), 59–78; David Thomas/Barbara Roggema (eds.), Christian-Muslim Relations: A Bibliographical History, Vol. 1 600–900 (Leiden 2009); Sidney H. Griffith, “Disputes with Muslims in Syriac Christian Texts: from Patriarch John (d. 648) to Bar Hebraeus (d. 1286)”, in Bernard Lewis/Friedrich Niewöhner (eds.), Religionsgespräche im Mittelalter (25. Wolfenbütteler Symposion, 1989; Wiesbaden 1992), 251–273. 1 See Sidney H. Griffith, “Answering the Call of the Minaret”, 32: “The earliest texts were clearly addressed to the Christian community. As for the works composed in Arabic, by the very nature of the case they would be open to perusal of any person literate in the Arabic language. But given the prefatory remarks of many of the authors it is clear that Christians themselves were the primary audience for the apologetical texts, in all the genres in which they were written.” 2 See Sidney H. Griffith, “Answering the Call of the Minaret”, 21–27. 3 Erica C. D. Hunter, “Interfaith Dialogues”, in Sophia G. Vashalomidze, Lutz Greisiger (eds.), Der Christliche Orient und seine Umwelt (Wiesbaden 2007), 301. 4 The text has been published as a facsimile with English translation by Alfons Mingana, Woodbrooke Studies, vol. 2 (Cambridge 1928). Newly a profound critical edition with German translation has been provided by Martin Heimgartner, Timotheos I., ostsyrischer Patriarch: Disputation mit dem Kalifen al-Mahdi, 2 vol. CSCO 631/632, SSyr 244/245 (Louvain 2011). Heimgartner also published the letters of Timothy, see CSCO 644/5 and 661/2 (Louvain 2012, 2015). The debate of the first day also survived in Arabic, but that of the second day only in Syriac. See further Laurence E. Browne, “The Patrarch Timothy and Caliph al-Mahdi”, Moslem World 21 (1931), 38–39; Erica C. D. Hunter, “Interfaith Dialogues”, 289–302. 5 Gutas, 61. 6 Alfons Mingana, Woodbrooke Studies II, 60.

2. SYRIAC CHRISTIANITY IN THE NINTH CENTURY

19

tions, Timothy explained and defended the Christian faith, such as the doctrines of the holy trinity and christology. The East Syriac Ammar al-Basri (Ninth century) Another East Syriac Theologian and apologist is Ammar al-Basri, one of the first authors writing a systematic apology in Arabic that can be seen in The Book of Questions and Answers (‫)ﻛﺘﺎب اﻟﻤﺴﺎﺋﻞ واﻷﺟﻮﺑﺔ‬. He provides Christian answers to the Islamic questions on Christ’s natures in the context of His death and resurrection. 1 In comparison to Abu Raita and Abu Qurra, Beaumont notes: “Ammar alone argues that Christ’s resurrection enables others to rise from the dead. The Muslim query about whether Moses and David experienced the resurrection is probably based on the notion of resurrection to bliss. Ammar’s answer focuses not so much on the possibility of resurrection for believers, but on the assurance that Christ’s resurrection gives to those who believe. Muslims believed in the possibility of resurrection but that only God knew who would actually rise. Ammar’s confidence in the promise of resurrection is a notable apologetic position, because the possibility of personal resurrection to life is now strengthened by the firm promise of Christ that those who believe will be raised to life. Here again the value of the incarnation is made clear, that the self-giving of Christ releases humans from the grip of death into life. Muslims would no doubt have understood why Christians held to the incarnation, even though they may not have thought the idea to be true to their comprehension of God’s transcendence.” 2 Beaumont sees Ammar’s theology on resurrection of Christ as a guarantee for the resurrection of others as unique for the eighth and ninth century. 3 87F

8F

89F

The Melkite Theologian Theodore Abu Qurra (ca. 755–830) With reference to the dialogue with Islam, Abu Qurra provides a systematic discourse on christology and the trinity from the Melkite-Chaldean legacy. The Edessene Abu Qurra whose native language was most likely Syriac, wrote in Syriac as well as in Arabic, and became the bishop of Harran for a period of time. 4 As a Melkite theologian he is considered to be a bridge between the Greek Church Fathers and early Arab Chris1

81–86

Ivor Mark Beaumont, Christology in Dialogue with Muslims: A Critical Analysis of Christian,

Ivor Mark Beaumont, Christology in Dialogue with Muslims, 84. Ivor Mark Beaumont, Christology in Dialogue with Muslims, 91–92, 105. 4 Sidney H. Griffith, “Reflections on the Biography”, 149; see also Sidney H. Griffith, “Muslims and Church Councils: The Apology of Theodore Abu Qurrah,” SP 25 (1993), 270– 99; Sidney H. Griffith, “the Monks of Palestine and the Growth of Christian Literature in Arabic,” The Muslim World 78(1) (1988), 22. In the introduction to his recent book Najib George Awad summarises the biography of Abu Qurrah, Orthodoxy in Arabic Terms: A Study of Theodore Abu Qurrah’s Theology in its Islamic Context (Berlin 2015). 2 3

20

JOHN OF DARA ON THE RESURRECTION OF HUMAN BODIES

tian authors. 1 Abu Qurra follows the Greek theological tradition, knows Syriac Christian literature, and reflects on Islamic theology in the context of eighth and ninth century, at the time of Harun al-Rashid and al-Mamun. He tried to build a close relationship with Islamic intellectual leaders. Abu Qurra’s apology aims to explain Christian doctrines to the Arab-speaking Christians by using Quranic terminology. Awad writes: “It is not far from truth to say that the pressure of the Islamic challenge was a main factor influencing the apologetic style of argument Abu Qurrah uses in order to present the Christian faith in its context. At the time of this remarkable Arab theologian, the teachings of the Bible and the councils of the Church on Jesus Christ’s identity and his two natures, as well as the incarnation and the trinity, were still topics of great controversy in the territories under Islamic rule.” 2 Abu Qurra knew the Quran very well and uses quotations from the Quran to defend the Christian faith. For instance, he refers to the Quran 3:55, 4:157–8 to explain Christ’s death, resurrection and ascension into heaven: “Your book says in surat al-nisa: ‘They did not kill him nor did they crucify him, rather God raised him up to himself.’ It also says, ‘Oh Jesus Son of Mary I am putting you to death and raising you to myself and purifying you from those who do not believe in you. And I will see those who followed you above those who do not believe in you for you are the Judge of the World’.” 3 The historical change from a Byzantine Empire to the Arabic Caliphate lead to a different way of thinking among Christian authors. Being a part of Byzantine Christianity, the Melkite Church shaped its own identity in the Arabic world with Abu Qurra. The West-Syrian Apologist Abu Raita al-Takriti (ca. 755–830) Abu Raita is mentioned as a contemporary of Theodore Abu Qurra, as he was invited by the Armenian king Ashot Smbat to defend the miaphysite doctrine against the Melkite bishop Theodore Abu Qurra. Since he did not travel to Armenia, he sent the Archdeacon Nonnus of Nisibis with a treatise on the relevant subject. The Chronicle of Michael the Great also indicates that Abu Raita took part at the synod at Reshayna in 827/28. Abu Raita wrote on Christian-Muslim relations where he defended the Christian faith, and particularly the belief in the holy trinity. His apologetic writing provides support for fellow Christians on how to respond to questions asked by Muslims. 4 Toenies Keating summarises Abu Raita’s method in this way: “Abu Raitas’s apologetic project is intended both to give support to fellow Christians under pressure to convert and to provide a clear, consistent explanation of Christianity. His writings concerning Islam 1 See the publication of Ignace Dick, Maymar fi Ikram al-Aiqunat (Maymar on the Veneration of Icons (Rome 1986). 2 Najib George Awad, Orthodox in Arabic Terms, 9. 3 J. Scott Bridger, Christian Exegesis of the Quran: A Critical Analysis of the Apologetic Use (Eugene/Oregon 2015), 97. 4 For the bibliography see S. Toenies Keating, “Abu Raita l-Takriti”, in: David Thomas and Barbara Roggema (eds.), Christian-Muslim Relations: A Bibliographical History, Volume 1 (600– 900), (Leiden 2009), 567–81.

2. SYRIAC CHRISTIANITY IN THE NINTH CENTURY

21

are primarily dialectical, offering answers to be used by Christians when responding to questions asked by Muslims about Christian doctrine. In his approach, he draws on Christian scripture, traditional apologetic methods, and principles of Hellenistic philosophy, which was becoming of increasing interest to Muslim scholars. … In keeping with the practice of most Christian apologists of his day, Abu Raita makes clear allusions to Islam, but usually without explicit references to it or quotations from the Quran or Hadith. … His method was highly regarded by later theologians, and much of his work became the template for such apologists as Nonnus of Nisibis, Yahya ibn Adi, Abdallah ibn al-Fadl and others.” 1 John of Dara does not mention the Quran or the Hadith explicitly, but tries to present a proper teaching of the Christian faith on the resurrection in response to the people who do not believe at all, but also to those who believe differently, probably among them also the Muslims. The Muslim scholar Abu Uthman Amr ibn Bahr al-Jahiz (777–868) Abu Uthman Amr ibn Bahr al-Jahiz was born in Basra in 777, studied by himself and moved to Baghdad in 816. He wrote various books of which thirty survived. One of his well-known essays is a “Refutation of the Christians” that he wrote apparently at the request of the Abbasid caliph al-Mutawwakil. According to Sidney Griffith, alMutawwakil was one of the first Abbasid caliphs who deliberately encouraged antiChristian policies throughout the caliphate. 2 Abu Uthman as a Muslim polemic writer could be more explicit in condemning Christians, although there was no formal persecution as under the late Roman Empire. The essay provides material on ChristianMuslim relations in the Abbasid society. Abu Uthman emphasises that Christians corrupted scripture and obviously he rejects the doctrine of the trinity. 3 However, David Thomas considers the refutation of the Christians to be of an earlier date but attributed to Abu Uthman. He says: “The Radd ala l-Nasara [Refutation of the Christians] has usually been connected with al-Mutawakkil’s anti-dhimmi measures of 850 (e.g. Pellat, Gahiz à Bagdad, p. 58, n. 1), but there is reason to question this. There is no clear evidence in the work to support a connection with the caliph”. 4 To sum up, Christians responded to the new challenge, provided apologetic works for their fellow Christians and defended the Christian faith very carefully. With such new challenges many educational centres were very active and the monasteries played an important role. Equally, with regard to literacy at all levels, monasteries played a S. Toenies Keating, “Abu Raita l-Takriti”, 569. Sidney F. Griffith, The Church in the Shadow of the Mosque: Christians and Muslims in the World of Islam (Princeton 2008), 147. 3 For the refutation of Christianity see M. M. al Khodeiri (ed), Al-mughni fi abwab al-tawhid wa l-adl, vol. 5: Al-firaq ghayr al islamiyya (Cairo 1965), 80–151. 4 David Thomas, “Al Jahiz”, in: David Thomas and Barbara Roggema (eds.), ChristianMuslim Relations: A Bibliographical History, Volume 1 (600–900), (Leiden 2009), 709–10. 1 2

22

JOHN OF DARA ON THE RESURRECTION OF HUMAN BODIES

significant role. In his collection of articles under the title “Arabic Christianity in the Monasteries of Ninth-Century Palestine”, Sidney Griffith emphasises the creativity of Christian-Arabic literature in the monasteries. 1 A few original texts were also produced in Christian-Arabic defending the Christian ideal of monasticism, such as the treatise of Elias of Nisibis On the Priority of Abstinence, but many spiritual texts were translated into Arabic, and probably influenced Islamic mysticism and Sufism, whereas later Islamic writers influenced the Christian authors, such as Barhebraues, who adapted texts from al-Ghazali. 2

THE TRANSLATION MOVEMENT

The Abbasid era is seen as the time of a broad and fertile cultural exchange between Arabic and other languages, particularly Syriac, Greek and Sanskrit. This became predominantly evident in the systematic translation movement in the fields of philosophy, medicine and science commissioned by the Caliphs in Baghdad (bayt al-hikma). The Syriac scholars and literature served as a bridge between Greek and Arabic, as they contributed extensively to the growth and development of the classical culture of the Islamic world during the Abbasid era. The translation of Greek antique texts into Syriac started a long time before the Arab conquest. While the philosophical Academy of Athens was closed by Emperor Justinian in 529, some philosophers and teachers were exiled and went to Syria and Persia. The schools of Edessa, Nisibis, Gundeshapur and Hirta played an important role in the “transfer of Greek philosophy and Hellenistic knowledge from the Roman-Byzantine civilization to the Syriac-speaking culture”. 3 As the Syriac scholars translated some theological works from Greek to Syriac, so too they “dwelt upon translating the Greek works on history and astronomy, the geographical works of Ptolemy, the medical writings of Hippocrates, the mathematical works of Euclid, the Hermeneutics and Analytica of Aristotle, the neo-Platonic philosophical commentaries and parts of the Isagoge of Porphyry.” 4 Thus, when the active translation movement started in Baghdad in 762, Syriac Christianity was an integral part of the demographic landscape, and Syriac scholars were experienced in the translation technique of Greek texts and could provide the necessary technical methods, such as the work of Sergius of Reshaina (+ 536), who, as a priest and physician, translated among others twenty-six medical works of Galen into Syriac, the Categories of Aristotle and Porphyry’s Introduction to the Categories. 5 Although along with theological texts, some medical, philosophical astrological works were translated into Syriac in the pre Abasid era on an individual basis, the greater part was translated into Syriac and Arabic within 1

1992).

Sidney H. Griffith, Arabic Christinanity in the Monasteries of Ninth-Century Palestine (Farnham

2 Grigory Kessel/Karl Pinggéra, A Bibliography of Syriac Ascetic and Mystical Literature (Eastern Christian Studies 11; Leuven 2011), 3–4. 3 Mar Bawai Soro, “The Contribution of Mesopotamian Christianity”, 90. 4 Mar Bawai Soro, “The Contribution of Mesopotamian Christianity”, 90. 5 Sebastian P. Brock, “From Antagonism to Assimilation”, 21.

2. SYRIAC CHRISTIANITY IN THE NINTH CENTURY

23

the translation movement during the ninth century, while it was supported socially, politically and scientifically. 1 Alongside Graeco-Arabic translations, some Sanskrit and Persian sources were translated into Arabic, too. 2 The whole translation movement aimed to transfer the entire secular works of late antiquity to the Arabs while at the same time “the identity of Islam was being defined and applied more stringently than had been the case under the Ummayyads.” 3 In two long articles Gerhard Endress presents detailed work with a bibliographical survey of the translation movement, the people involved and the development of thought. 4 An excellent work on the social and historical context of the translation movement has been done by Dimitry Gutas. He lists the following four important factors that made the Graeco-Arabic translation so successful: 1. Time factor: the translation movement lasted over 200 years. 2. The Abbasid Caliphs and the whole elite society supported it. 3. Financial funds were provided publicly and privately. 4. Scholarly methods and an organised plan were applied professionally.

In this context Gutas underlines the role of the Syriac authors: “Certainly the Syriacspeaking Christians played a fundamental role in the translation movement”.5 The successful Graeco-Arabic translation and economic prosperity are related to the territorial shift that took place with the Arab rulers. Through the Arab conquest of the East Roman territory the frontier between the East and the West, representatively between Nisibis and Dara, was lifted. Getting rid of these antagonistic powers on both sides and uniting the land of Mesopotamia under the rule of the Arabs, led to an increase in industry and economic growth through both trade and the use of agriculture. 6 Gutas writes: “This allowed for the free flow of raw materials and manufactured goods, agricultural products and luxury items, people and services, techniques and skills, and ideas, methods, and modes of thought.”7 This economic growth contributed Sebastian P. Brock, “From Antagonism to Assimilation”, 25; Cfr. Dimitri Gutas, Greek Thought, Arabic Culture, 22. 2 Dimitri Gutas, Greek Thought, Arabic Culture, 22. 3 Erica C. D. Hunter, “Interfaith Dialogues: the Church of the East and the Abbassids”, in: Sophia G. Vashalomidze/Lutz Greisiger (eds.), Der Christliche Orient und seine Umwelt (Studies in Oriental Religions 56; Wiesbaden 2007), 289–302; page 290. 4 Gerhard Endress, “Die wissenschaftlich Literatur”, in H. Gatje (ed.), Grundriss der arabischen Philologie, vol. 2 (Wiesbaden 1987), 400–506. 5 Dimitri Gutas, Greek Thought, Arabic Culture, 12. 6 In his work A. M. Watson, Agricultural Innovation in the Early Islamic World (Cambridge 1983) presents the influence of Arab rulers on the agriculture. 7 Dimitri Gutas, Greek Thought, Arabic Culture, 12. 1

24

JOHN OF DARA ON THE RESURRECTION OF HUMAN BODIES

to the easy production of paper, which the Arabs had learned from Chinese prisoners during the war in 751. The paper was easy to use and replaced all other materials. Getting rid of the frontier in the heartland of Mesopotamia improved the relationship between the schools and lead to a better exchange between the scholars. In the eighth and ninth century Syriac theological knowledge, as well as the existing secular Semitic knowledge of late antiquity was already hellenised, as the Greek philosophical approach was adapted in Syriac literature and led to a synthesis of Graeco-Syriac erudition. Such knowledge was present in the learning centres, such as in Edessa, Nisibis, Qeneshrin, Mosul, and Dayr Qunna. And next to Baghdad, al-Hira, Harran and Merw became the centre of Graeco-Arabic secular literature. Gutas summarises the relationship between the learning centres as follows: “With the advent of Islam, all these centres were united politically and administratively, and, most important, scholars from all of them could pursue their studies and interact with each other without the need to pay heed to any official version of ‘orthodoxy’, whatever the religion. We thus see throughout the region and throughout the seventh and eighth centuries numerous ‘international’ scholars active in their respective fields and working with different languages.” 1 From Syriac Christianity some families, such as the Bukhtishu, Masawayh, Wahb and Djarrah families, and many individuals took an active part in the translation movement. In the following just a few very famous translators are mentioned: 2 1. The astrologer Theophilus of Edessa (695–785) translated the works of Homer and Aristotle. 3 2. The physician Gabriel Ibn Bukhtishu (d. 828/9) composed various medical works. 4 3. Abu Nuh al-Anbari (730–after 783), along with others, translated Aristotle’s Topics into Arabic. 5 4. The East Syrian bishop Abdishu Ibn Bahriz (d. ca. 827) was a liturgical and legal scholar, who translated works of logic, philosopy and medicine into Arabic and composed a book on “Definitions of Logic” in Arabic and wrote treatises on marriage and inheritance law in Syriac. 6 Dimitri Gutas, Greek Thought, Arabic Culture, 14–15. Dimitri Gutas, Greek Thought, Arabic Culture, 118–43, Goodman, Translation, 480–87. 3 Herman G. B. Teule, “Theophilus of Edessa” in: David Thomas and Barbara Roggema (eds.), Christian-Muslim Relations: A Bibliographical History, Volume 1 (600–900), (Leiden 2009), 305–08. See Robert G. Hoyland (Ed.): Theophilus of Edessa's Chronicle and the Circulation of Historical Knowledge in Late Antiquity and Early Islam (Liverpool 2011). 4 Wilhelm Baum: “Gabriel ibn Bukhtishu”, in: Biographish-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon (BBKL 22, 2003), 125–28. 5 Mark N. Swanson “Abu Nuh al-Anbari”, in: David Thomas and Barbara Roggema (eds.), Christian-Muslim Relations: A Bibliographical History, Volume 1 (600–900), (Leiden 2009), 397–400. 6 Mark N. Swanson, “Abdishu ibn Bahriz” in: David Thomas and Barbara Roggema (eds.), Christian-Muslim Relations: A Bibliographical History, Volume 1 (600–900), (Leiden 2009), 350–52. 1 2

2. SYRIAC CHRISTIANITY IN THE NINTH CENTURY

25

5. The chief physician Job of Edessa (760-after 832) translated at least 36 of the 129 works of Galen from Greek into Syriac. 1 6. Yuhanna ibn Masawayh (ca. 777–857) was the director of a hospital and the head of Bayt al-Hikma and translated various Greek medical works into Syriac and composed a number of treatises, such as on fevers, headache, melancholia, diatetics, ophthalmology and medical aphorisms. 2 7. The East Syrian Hunayn Ibn Ishaq (809–73), as the head of the Bayt al-Hikma, translated about 260 works from Greek and Syriac into Arabic (including works of Galen, Hippocrates and Aristotle), and composed about 100 original works on medicine, philosophy, astronomy, magic, theology, mathematics and linguistics. 3 8. The physician and mathematician Ishaq Ibn Hunayn (830-910), son of Hunayn Ibn Ishaq, translated Euclid’s Elements and Ptolemy’s Almagest, and composed the first biography of physicians in Arabic. 4 9. Hubaysh ibn al-Hasan (d. ca. 890), a nephew of Hunayn ibn Ishaq, contributed to the translation of Galen’s work, and provided an Arabic version of the text of Hippocrates and of the botanical work of Dioscorides. 5

Thus, Greek philosophy and sciences were often translated into Syriac and then from Syriac into Arabic. From the fifth century in particular, theological works were translated from Greek into Syriac using an advanced translation technique. The transmission of Greek science into Arabic could benefit from the experience of a long tradition. As part of the same Semitic family, translating from Syriac into Arabic was much easier than from Greek directly into Arabic. The Christian translators of the eigth and ninth century were mainly East Syriac scholars, but some of them were also West Syriac and Melkite scholars.

See Hubert Kaufhold, Die Rechtssammlung des Gabriel von Basra und ihr Verhältnis zu den anderen juristischen Sammelwerken der Nestorianer (Berlin 1976); Walter Selb, Abdiso Bar Bahriz: Ordnung der Ehe und der Erbschaften sowie Entscheidung von Rechtsfällen (Wien 1970). 1 Barbara Roggema, “Job of Edessa”, in: David Thomas and Barbara Roggema (eds.), Christian-Muslim Relations: A Bibliographical History, Volume 1 (600–900), (Leiden 2009), 502–09. See Alfons Mingana, Book of Treasures by Job of Edessa: Encyclopaedia of Philosophical and Natural Sciences as taught in Baghdad about A.D. 817 (Cambridge 1935). 2 Danielle Jacquart and Gérard Troupeau (eds.), Yûḥannâ Ibn Mâsawayh (Jean Mesue): Le Livre des axiomes médicaux (Aphorismi) (Paris 1980); Gérard Troupeau, “Le Livre des Temps de Jean Ibn Māsawayh: traduit et annoté”, Arabica 15:2 (1968), 113–42. 3 Barbara Roggema, “Hunayn ibn Ishaq”, in: David Thomas and Barbara Roggema (eds.), Christian-Muslim Relations: A Bibliographical History, Volume 1 (600–900), (Leiden 2009), 768–79. 4 Franz Rosenthal, “Ishāq b. Ḥunayn’s Taʾrīf al‐Aṭibbāʾ ”, Oriens 7 (1954), 55–80. 5 De Lacy O’Leary, How Greek Science Passed to the Arabs (London 1948), 169.

26

JOHN OF DARA ON THE RESURRECTION OF HUMAN BODIES

SYRIAC LITERATURE OF THE NINTH CENTURY

Through the translation of Greek philosophy and science into Syriac and then into Arabic, Syriac literature was very much enriched. From the fifth century onwards theological texts in particular were translated from Greek into Syriac. In his article “Three Thousand Years of Aramaic Literature” Sebastian Brock summarises the early Arab era: “The period running from the advent of Arab rule in the seventh century to that of the Mongols in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries can be described as one of scholarly consolidation and encyclopaedic effort as far as Syriac literature is concerned. Ironically, Syriac culture was effectively cut off, by the Arab invasions, from close contact with the Greek-speaking world just at the most hellenophile stage of its history. One consequence of this state of affairs proved to be of momentous importance in the subsequent intellectual history of both Arab and western European civilizations, for it was through scholars of the Syriac churches, such as ibn Ishaq in the ninth century, that Greek science and philosophy was first transmitted to the Arab world”. 1 In addition to the above-mentioned authors, involved in the transmission of Greek literature into Arabic, such as Timothy I (d. 823) and Job of Edessa (early ninth cent.), a number of other renowned Syriac scholars need to be mentioned here. Although some Christians started writing in Arabic, Syriac was well kept by the East Syriac and West Syriac writers, as Sebastian Brock states: “As a result of the widespread adoption of Arabic as a literary language especially in the Melkite and Maronite Churches, most Syriac literature in period D (seventh–thirteenth cent.), and all Syriac literature in periods E-F (thirteenth–fourteenth cent.), has been produced by writers from the Church of the East and the Syrian Orthodox Church.” 2 As representative of the East Syriac tradition Anton Baumstark mentions three Catholicoi explicitly and presents the work of four East Syriac scholars, who were contemporary writers of John of Dara: 3 1. Catholicos Sabrisho II (06.08.832–10.11.835) was born in Beth Nuhadra, ordained a bishop for Harran, moved to Damascus and was the Catholicos of the East Syriac Church in Seleucia for four years until his death. His interest was in liturgy and in building schools, churches and monasteries. He wrote about his visits to some church schools and issued rules on how to run the schools. There is a short account about him by Barhebraeus. 4 2. Catholicos Abraham II (23.07.837–16.09.850) was a monk and an abbot in the monastery of Beth Abe, became a bishop of Hdatta and then Catholicos. He wrote a book for the laity. 5 Sebastian P. Brock, “Three Thousand Years of Aramaic Literature”, Aram 1:1 (1989), 21. Sebastian P. Brock, A Brief Outline of Syriac Literature, Moran Etho 9 (Kottayam 2009), 10. 3 Anton Baumstark, Geschichte der syrischen Literatur, 232–33. 4 Anton Baumstark, Geschichte der syrischen Literatur, 233; Jean-Maurice Fiey, Chrétiens syriaques sous les Abbassides surtout à Bagdad (749–1258). CSCO 420/Subs. 59 (Louvain 1980), 66– 77; J. B. Abbeloos and T. J. Lamy (eds.), Bar Hebraeus, Chronicon Ecclesiasticum, vol. 2 (Paris 1877), 190. 5 Jean-Maurice Fiey, Chrétiens syriaques, 90–101. 1 2

2. SYRIAC CHRISTIANITY IN THE NINTH CENTURY 3. 4.

5.

27

Catholicos Theodosius I (23.07.853–06.11.858) was imprisoned for three years by Caliph al-Mutawakkil who issued new rules against the Christians. Theodosius I wrote canons for clergy, physicians and writers. 1 Thomas of Marga is the brother of Theodosius I and was a monk in the monastery of Beth Abe from 832 on. He was the secretary of Abraham II and ordained by him as metropolitan of Beth Garmai later around 850. Thomas represents the monastic history in Syriac, as he composed the Book of Governors, six treatises on the abbots of the monasteries, in which he refers to the history of holy men and women of the monastery of Beth Abe and neighbourhood. He goes as far back as to the foundation of the monastery of Abraham of Kashkar in the Izla Mountain in sixth century. He tried to imitate Palladius’ well known Historia Lausiaca that was translated into Syriac by Hananisho in the sixth century. E.W. Budge edited and translated Thomas’ Book of Governors in 1893, 2 and P. Bedjan edited the text too in 1901. 3 Ishodnah of Basra is most renowned for his ecclesisastical history and his history of the founders of the monasteries. He was a metropolitan of Prat d-Maishan (today Basra). In his Book of Chastity (‫ )ܟܬܒܐ ܕܢܟܦܘܬܐ‬that he wrote around the year 850 he provides 140 notices on founders of the monasteries from the fourth until the ninth century, including Mor Augin. 4 The text has been edited and translated into French by J.-B. Chabot. 5 Furthermore he composed a commentary on logic and homilies and sermons on the dead. 6 130F

13F

132F

Jean-Maurice Fiey, Chrétiens syriaques, 90–101; J. B. Abbeloos and T. J. Lamy (eds.), Bar Hebraeus, Chronicon Ecclesiasticum, vol. 2 (Paris 1877), 192–94. 2 Ernest A. Wallis Budge, The book of Governors: The Historia Moanstica of Thomas, Bishop of Marga, A. D. 840 (London 1893). See also the edition and translation by René Draguet, Les formes syriaques de la matière de l’Histoire lausiaque, CSCO 389/390, 398/399 (Louvain 1978). See further Charbel C Chahine, “Le témoignage de Thomas de Margâ sur les extraits d’Abraham Nethprâïâ dans le Livre du paradis de ‘Nânîšo”, Augustinianum 40:2 (2000), 439–60; JeanMaurice Fiey, “Thomas de Marga. Notule de littérature syriaque”, LM 78:3–4 (1965), 361–66; Herman G.B. Teule, “Thomas of Margā”, David Richard Thomas and Barbara Hjördis Roggema (eds.), Christian-Muslim Relations: A Bibliographical History. Volume 1 (600‒900), (Leiden 2009), 688–90. 3 J.-B. Chabot, Le Livre de la Chasteté compoé par Jésusdenah, éveque de Basrah (Rome 1896); Paul Bedjan, Liber superiorum seu historia monastic auctore Thoma episcopo Margensi (Paris-Leiptzig 1901). 4 Sebastian P. Brock, A Brief Outline of Syriac Literature, Moran Etho 9 (Kottayam 2009), 58. 5 J.-B. Chabot, Le Livre de la Chasteté compoé par Jésusdenah, éveque de Basrah (Rome 1896). See further Jean-Maurice Fiey, “Îchô‘dnah, métropolite de Basra, et son œuvre”, OS 11 (1966), 431– 50; Jean-Maurice Fiey, “Īšō‘dnāh et la Chronique de Seert”, Parole de l’Orient 6–7 (1975–1976), 447–59; Joel Thomas Walker, The Legend of Mar Qardagh: Narrative and Christian Heroism in Late Antique Iraq (Berkeley, California 2006). 6 Anton Baumstark, Geschichte der syrischen Literatur, 234. 1

28 6.

7.

JOHN OF DARA ON THE RESURRECTION OF HUMAN BODIES Ishodad of Merv was the bishop of Hedhatta in the middle of the ninth century. He is a distinguished scholar of biblical exegesis, as he provides detailed commentaries for the Old and New Testament. He collected rich materials from previous authors, used it for his commentaries and thus influenced the East Syriac as well as the West Syriac tradition. Some of his extensive commentaries have been edited and translated into English, French and German. 1 Gabriel of Basra was ordained a deacon by catholicos Abraham II (837–50), as a priest by catholicos Thedosius I (853–58), as a bishop by catholicos Sargis (86072) and as a metropolit by catholicos Enosh (877–84). He was present at the ordination of Catholicos Johanna III on 14.09.884. 2 Gabriel collected the ecclesiastical canon laws under the title of Collection of Judgements in the second half of ninth century. In the first part he refers to ‘the Fathers, Catholicoi, Metropolitans and the Greek emperors’, and in the second part to ‘the synodical canons of the Western and Eastern Fathers’. Not all of this work has survived. Some of it has been edited and translated by Hubert Kaufhold into German in 1976, 3 and a small fragment of it by Sebastian Brock. 1

1 For the significance of Ishodad on Syriac Exegesis see the work of Lucas van Rompay, “Development of Biblical Interpretation in the Syrian Churches of the Middle Ages”, in Magne Sæbø (ed.), Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation. Vol. I: From the Beginnings to the Middle Ages (Until 1300), Part 2: The Middle Ages (Göttingen 2000), 559–77; and his article “Išo‘ bar Nun and Išo‘dad of Merv: New Data for the Study of the Interdependence of their Exegetical Works”, OLP 8 (1977), 229–249. For the commentaries on the Old Testament see Jacques-M. Vosté, L’introduction de Mar Iso’dad de Merw (c.850) aux livres de l’Ancien testament, Pontificium Institutum Biblicum: Biblica 26 (Rome 1945), and the edition and translation of some commentaries in CSCO (1950–55). See the edition and French translations of some commentaries of Ishoda of Merve by C. van den Eynde and L. Durbecq, Commentaire d’Iso’dadh de Merv sur l’Ancien Testament, CSCO 156, 179, 230, 304, 329, 434 (SSyr 75, 81, 97, 129, 147, 186) (Louvain 1955–81). For the commentary on Iob see Johannes Schliebitz, Isô`dâdh’s Kommentar zum Buche Hiob cc.1–20 (Leipzig 1906); Lucas van Rompay, “Le commentaire sur Gen.–Ex. 9,32 du manuscrit (olim) Diyarbakir 22 et I’exégèse syrienne orientale du huitième au dixième siècle”, in François Graffin and Antoine Guillaumont (eds.), Symposium Syriacum, 1976: célebré du 13 au 17 septembre 1976 au Centre Culturel “Les Fontaines” de Chantilly (France), OCA 205 (Rome 1978), 113– 23. For the Commentaries on the Psalms see the work of Clemens Leonhard, such as “Īšō‘dāḏ’s Commentary on Psalm 141,2: A Quotation from Theodore of Mopsuestia’s Lost Commentary”, SP 35 (2001), 449–57; or his article “Ps 119 and 139–147 in East-Syrian Commentaries”, in Werner Arnold, Michael Jursa, Walter W. Müller and Stephan Procházka (eds.), Philologisches und Historisches zwischen Anatolien und Sokotra: Analecta Semitica In Memoriam Alexander Sima, (Wiesbaden 2009), 181–206. Isho‘dad of Merv’s commentaries on the New Testament have been edited and translated by Margaret Dunlop Gibson under the title The Commentaries of Isho‘dad of Merv, Bishop of hadatha (c. 850 AD), (Cambridge 1911–16); reprinted Gorgias Press (New Jersey 2005). 2 Anton Baumstark, Geschichte der syrischen Literatur, 235. 3 Hubert Kaufhold, Die Rechtssammlung des Gabriel von Basra und ihr Verhältnis zu den anderen juristischen Sammelwerken der Nestorinaer (Berlin 1976); see also Walter Selb and Hubert Kaufhold

2. SYRIAC CHRISTIANITY IN THE NINTH CENTURY

29

Anton Baumstark, Patriach Aphrem Barsaum and Sebastian Brock list a number of West Syriac authors who are contemporaries of John of Dara. 2 Baumstark describes the first half of the ninth century as a ‘flourishing time of the Syriac ecclesiastical literature’. 3 Patriarch Barsaum defines the literature of the period from Lazarus Bar Qandasa (d. 773) until Barhebraeus (d. 1286) as theological, “particularly commentaries on the Holy Bible, polemics, jurisprudence, canonical laws and historical chronicles”, and he adds: “Some of the learned men of this period were concerned with philosophy as well as morphology, grammar and vocalization of the Syriac language”. 4 Amongst others, the monasteries of Qenneshre, Eusebonia and Tellada were particularly well known schools in the West Syriac tradition. In the following, twelve scholars are presented briefly: 1. Not a lot is known about Theodorus Bar Zarudi who probably lived in the eighth century and died at the beginning of ninth century. It is interesting that he wrote commentaries on Pseudo Areopagita, who seems to be very well studied at that time. Also, John of Dara’s treatises On the Celestial Hierarchy and On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, as well as his four treatises On the Priesthood are based on the homilies of Pseudo Areopagita. 5 2. David bar Paul of Beth Rabban was born in Beth Shahaq near Nineveh and studied there under Moses, the grandfather of Moses bar Kepha. He became a monk and later the abbot of St Sargis monastery on the Dry Mountain in Sinjar. In the monastery he studied Greek. Around 780 he spent about a year and half in Qenneshre and, when he came back to Sinjar, he brought with him a collection of maenyotho of Severus of Antioch and adapted about 180 of them for use in the liturgy. In a manuscript of 280 pages (Mardin MS 248) some of his metrical letters

(eds.), Das syrisch-römische Rechtsbuch, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, Denkschriften 295 (Wien 2002). 1 Sebastian P. Brock, “Regulations for an Association of Artisans from the Late Sasanian or Early Arab Period”, in Philip Rousseau and Manolis Papoutsakis (eds.), Transformation of Late Antiquity: Essays for Peter Brown (Farnham 2009), 51–62. 2 Anton Baumstark, Geschichte der Syrischen Literatur, 271–81 [§ 44]; Ignatius Aphram I Barsoum, The Scattered Pearls, 370–97 [numbers 139–69]; Sebastian P. Brock, A Brief Outline of Syriac Literature, Moran Etho 9 (Kottayam 2009), 63–70 [numbers 73–82]. 3 Anton Baumstark, Geschichte der Syrischen Literatur, 271: “Sogar in besonders hohem Grade erscheint noch die erste Hälfte des 9. Jhs als eine Blütezeit der syrischen Kirchenliteratur jakobitischen Bekenntnisses.” 4 Ignatius Aphram I Barsoum, The Scattered Pearls, 222. 5 Ignatius Aphram I Barsoum, The Scattered Pearls, 371. For John’s work see the next chapter.

30

3.

4.

5.

JOHN OF DARA ON THE RESURRECTION OF HUMAN BODIES and discourses have survived, dealing with theological, ascetical, ethical, social and philological topics. 1 Patriarch Cyriacus of Antioch (793–817) was from Tagrit and became a monk in the monastery of Estona (Pillar). His ordination as patriarch of Antioch took place on 17.08.793 in Harran. Cyriacus held five holy Synods from 793 until his death in 817, in which he issued several ecclesiastical canons. He also composed three volumes On Divine Providence, answered in ten letters the questions of a deacon Yeshu of Tirminaz, compiled three theological discourses and some homilies, provided an anaphora, and a biography of Severus of Antioch. 2 Lazarus bar Sobto (d. 829) became a monk in St. John Monastery in Dara, and later bishop for Baghdad. He composed an anaphora and wrote a commentary on the Divine Liturgy and the sacrament of baptism, and provided a discourse on the holy Chrism. In his Candelabrum of the Sanctuary Barhebraeus quotes from Lazarus’s work On Divine Providence and Human Freewill. Barhebraeus quotes also from a letter. According to Michael the Great and Barhebraeus there was disagreement between Patriarch Dionysios and Lazarus, and Lazarus was deposed in 829, and therefore probably his work did not survive. 3 Theodosios of Edessa (d. 832) was the eldest brother of Patriarch Dionysios of Tel Mahre (818–845). Like his brother, he studied in Qenneshre, became a monk there and a priest for Edessa before 802, and was ordained as metropolitan bishop for Edessa by Patriarch Cyriacus of Antioch (793–817) around 813. As a bishop

1 Ignatius Aphram I Barsoum, The Scattered Pearls, 372–76; Sebastian P. Brock, “David bar Pawlos”, in Sebastian P. Brock et al. (eds.), The Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage (New Jersey 2011), 116–17; Filoksinos Yuhanna Dolabani (ed.), Egrāteh d-Dāwid bar Pawlos dmetidā d-Bet Rabban, 750–840 (Mardin 1953); Abdulmesih Neman Qarabash (ed.), ‘Esrin wa-tren memrīn d-ḥekmtā d-sīmīn i-mār Dāwīd bar Pawlos d-Bet Rabban (Hengelo 1980); Richard J.H. Gottheil, “Dawidh bar Paulos, a Syriac Grammarian”, JAOS 15 (1893), cxi-cxviii; Arthur Vööbus, “Entdeckung des Briefkorpus des Dawid bar Paulos”, OC 58 (1974), 45–50. 2 Ignatius Aphram I Barsoum, The Scattered Pearls, 376–78; Witold Witakowski, “Quryaqos”, in Sebastian P. Brock et al. (eds.), The Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage (New Jersey 2011), 347–8; François Nau, Les canons et les résolutions canoniques de Rabboula, Jean de Tella, Cyriaque d’Amid, Jacques d’Édesse, Georges des Arabes, Cyriaque d’Antioche, Jean III, Théodose d’Antioche et des Perses, Ancienne littérature canonique syriaque 2 (Paris 1906); Karl Kaiser, “Die syrische ‘Liturgie’ des Kyriakos von Antiocheia”, OC 5 (1905), 174–97; Hermann G. B. Teule, “La lettre synodale de Cyriaque, patriarche monophysite d’Antioche (793–817)”, OLP 9 (1978), 121–40; Mikael Öz, Cyriacus of Tagrit and his Book on Divine Providence, Gorgias Eastern Christianity Studies 33 (New Jersey 2012). 3 Ignatius Aphram I Barsoum, The Scattered Pearls, 380–81; Anton Baumstark, Geschichte der Syrischen Literatur, 278; Lucas Van Rompay, “Lo‘ozar bar Sobhto”, in Sebastian P. Brock et al. (eds.), The Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage (New Jersey 2011), 251–52; PaulHubert Poirier, “Les Discours sur la providence de Lazare bar Sabta”, JTS 38:2 (1987), 431–35; Arthur Vööbus, “Important Discoveries for the Early Stage of the West Syrian LiturgicoHistorical Genre: La‘zar bar Sābetā”, Sacris Erudiri 22:2 (1974), 289–93.

2. SYRIAC CHRISTIANITY IN THE NINTH CENTURY

6.

7.

31

he travelled with Patriarch Dionysios to Egypt in 824/5. Theodosios wrote an ecclesiastical history from 754 until 812 that did not survive as such, but Patriarch Dionysios refers to it and through him also Michael the Great. Theodosios knew Greek and translated some works of Gregory Nazianzus into Syriac. He also knew Arabic well and once translated 25 questions in six pages and another time twelve questions in four pages in relation to the Alexandrian Patriarch. 1 Benjamin of Edessa (d. 843) is known as Rabban d-dogma (professor of dogma), as he taught in the school of Eusebona around 833/4 and later in the school of Tellada around 836/37, where he inspired many students. Before this he lived and worked as a monk and priest in the monastery of Mor Jacob (probably in Kaysum). His ordination day as the metropolitan of Edessa could have been 3 June 837; he was succeeded by metropolitan Elijah in 843. In his teaching he focused on the homilies of Gregory Nazianzen, which he analysed, commented on and provided an index for, including the biblical references that did not survive. His disciples refer to his influential work in their colophons. He also composed a letter about the sacraments of Eucharist and Baptism that has survived in the British Library (Add. 14538, f. 38v). Also, a commentary on Dionysius Areopagita is attributed to him. 2 Patriarch Dionysios of Tellmahre studied in the school of Qenneshrin and of Kashum. He was a novice monk in Qenneshe until his ordination as Patriarch on 1 August 818. Until his death on 22 August 845 Dionysios ordained about 100 bishops and held three councils in Raqqa (818), in the monastery of Euspholis in 828, in Tagrit in 834. Patriarch Dionysios issued ecclesiastical canons at the councils he held. He knew John of Dara and ordained him as Metropolit for Dara in 825. At John’s request, Patriarch Dionysios compiled a chronicle for the period

Ignatius Aphram I Barsoum, The Scattered Pearls, 381–82; Anton Baumstark, Geschichte der Syrischen Literatur, 276; Lucas Van Rompay, “Theodosios of Edessa”, in Sebastian P. Brock et al. (eds.), The Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage (New Jersey 2011), 407; François Nau, Les canons et les résolutions canoniques de Rabboula, Jean de Tella, Cyriaque d’Amid, Jacques d’Édesse, Georges des Arabes, Cyriaque d’Antioche, Jean III, Théodose d’Antioche et des Perses, Ancienne littérature canonique syriaque 2 (Paris 1906). 2 Ignatius Aphram I Barsoum, The Scattered Pearls, 382–83; Anton Baumstark, Geschichte der Syrischen Literatur, 276–7; Lucas Van Rompay, “Benjamin of Edessa”, in Sebastian P. Brock et al. (eds.), The Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage, Sebastian (New Jersey 2011), 69–70; André de Halleux, “Rabban Benjamin d’Édesse et la date du ms. B.L., Or., 8731”, in Han J.W. Driyvers et al. (eds.), IV Symposium Syriacum, 1984: Literary Genres in Syriac Literature (Groningen – Oosterhesselen 10–12 September), OCA 229 (Roma 1987), 445–51; André de Halleux, “Les commentaires syriaques des Discours de Grégoire de Nazianze: Un premier sondage”, LM 98 (1985), 103–47. 1

32

8.

9.

JOHN OF DARA ON THE RESURRECTION OF HUMAN BODIES from 582/3 to 843/3 in two volumes that served as a source for the chronicle of Michael the Great (d. 1199) and Barhebraeus (d. 1286). 1 Anton of Tagrit (ninth cent.) is mentioned in the context of Patriarch Dionysios of Telmahre around 825, but there is not a lot known about his life. He was born into the family of Gurgin and became a monk. Because of his work, however, he is known as a West Syriac theologian and rhetor, as he provides five significant books On Rhetoric that remain unique in Syriac literature. Also, some of his other works have survived: The book On Providence, the treatise On the Myron and his Consolatory Letters. 2 Nonnus of Nisibis (d. ca. 870) is known as a deacon, polemicist and scholar. He was sent to the Armenians by Patriach Quriaqos in around 814 and took a treatise with him defending the miaphysite theology written by Abu Raita. In 817 in the

1 Jean Baptiste Chabot, Chronique de Denys de Tell-Mahré: quatrième partie, Bibliothèque de l’École des hautes études IV, Sciences historiques et philologiques 112 (Paris 1895); Ignatius Aphram I Barsoum, The Scattered Pearls, 386–87; Anton Baumstark, Geschichte der Syrischen Literatur (Bonn 1922), 275. See also Rudolf Abramowski, Dionysius von Tellmahre: Jakobitischer Patriarch von 818 bis 845 (Leipzig 1940); Witold Witakowski, Pseudo-Dionysius of Tel-Mahre, Chronicle Part III (Liverpool 1996); Andrew Palmer, The Seventh Century in the West-Syrian Chronicles (Liverpool 1993); Franz Altheim and Ruth Stiehl, “Ein unbeachtetes Bruchstück Dionysios’ von Tellmahrē”, in idem (eds.): Christentum am Roten Meer (Berlin 1971–1973), 335–46; François Nau, “Nouvelle étude sur la chronique attribuée à Denys de Tellmahré”, Bulletin critique 17 (1896), 464–79; François Nau, “Étude sur les parties inédites de la chronique ecclésiastique attribuée à Denys de Tellmahré († 845)”, Revue de l’Orient chrétien I, 2:1 (1897), 41–68; Irfan Shahîd, “The Restoration of the Ghassanid Dynasty, A.D. 587: Dionysius of Tellmahre”, ARAM 5:1–2 (1993), 491–593. Amir Harrak, “Dionysius of Tell-Maḥrē: Patriarch, Diplomat, and InquisitiveChronicler”, in Maria E. Doerfler, Emanuel Fiano and Kyle Richard Smith (eds.), Syriac Encounters: Papers from the Sixth North American Syriac Symposium, Duke University, 26–29 June 2011, Eastern Christian Studies 20, (Leuven 2015), 215–38; Arthur Vööbus, “Neues Licht über die kirchlichen Reformbestrebungen des Patriarchen Dionysios von Tell Mahre”, OC 48 (1964), 286–300. 2 Sebastian P. Brock, A Brief Outline of Syriac Literature, Moran Etho 9 (Kottayam 2009), 57– 8; Ignatius Aphram I Barsoum, The Scattered Pearls, 372–76; John W. Watt, “Antun of Tagrit”, in Sebastian P. Brock et al. (eds.), The Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage, Brock (New Jersey 2011), 23; Han J.W. Drijvers, “Antony of Tagrit’s Book on the Good Providence of God”, in René Lavenant (ed.), V Symposium Syriacum, 1988: Katholieke Universiteit, Leuven, 29–31 août 1988, OCA 236 (Roma 1990), 163–72; Eliyo Sewan d-Beth Qermaz, The Book of the Rhetoric by Anthony Rhitor of Tagrit (Stockholm 2000); Adolf Rücker, „Das fünfte Buch der Rhetorik des Anton von Tagrit”, OC 31 (1934), 13–22; John W. Watt, “Antony of Tagrit as a Student of Syriac Poetry”, LM 98:3–4 (1985), 261–79; John W. Watt, The Fifth Book of the Rhetoric of Antony of Tagrit, CSCO 480–481, Syr. 203–204 (Leuven 1986); John W. Watt, “Syriac Panegyric in Theory and Practice: Antony of Tagrit and Eli of Qartamin”, LM 102:3–4 (1989), 271–98; John W. Watt, “Guarding the Syriac Language in an Arabic Environment: Antony of Tagrit on the Use of Grammar in Rhetoric” in Wout Jac van Bekkum et al. (eds), Syriac Polemics: Studies in Honour of Gerrit Jan Reinink, OLA 170 (Leuven 2007), 133–50; John W. Watt, Rhetoric and Philosophy from Greek into Syriac. Variorum Collected Studies 960 (Farnham 2010).

2. SYRIAC CHRISTIANITY IN THE NINTH CENTURY

33

court of the Armenian prince Ashot Msaker (775–826), the young Nonnus was successful in explaining the miaphysite doctrine and debating against the wellknown Theodore Abu Qurrah (750–ca.830). Among the Armenians, Nonnus is known as Nanay the Syrian. He is also mentioned in the context of the Council of Reshayna in 827/8, debating against Philoxenos, the bishop of Nisibis who was consequently deposed. Later in 856, together with Metropolitan Toma of Beth Garmai and Toma (the brother of the metropolitan), Nonnus was sent to prison, but released so that he could attend the Armenian council of Shirakawan in 862. At the request of Ashot’s son Bagrat, Nonnus wrote a commentary on John’s Gospel in Arabic that was translated into Armenian, later into Greek and has now been translated into English by Robert Thomson. 1 A Syriac version was brought by Moses of Nisibis in 932 to Dayr al-Suryan in Egypt and is now in the British Library (Add. 14,594). The manuscript contains an apologetical homily on the trinity and incarnation, four mimre against Thomas of Marga, a letter to an anonymous addressee on the trinity and incarnation and a letter addressed to monk Yuhanon. 2 10. Monk Severus of Antioch is from the monastery of St Barbara on the Edessene mountain. He is well known for his extensive exegetical biblical commentary, on which he started working in 851 and finished ten years later on 25 May 861. The commentary includes about 10,000 notices, most of them from Ephrem the Syrian, Jacob of Edessa and John Chrysostom. By the end of the ninth century, a monk called Simon al-Hisn Mansuri had also added references from other authors, such as from Eusebius of Caesarea, Cyril of Alexandria and Severus of Antioch. According to Patriarch Aphrem I Barsoum, Severus died in 861, a year after John of Dara.3 11. Daniel of Beth Batin, from the region of Haran, was a disciple of Metropolitan Benjamin of Edessa, who revised his work on Gregory Nazianzen. He also comRobert W. Thomson, Nonnus of Nisibis, Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John: Translation of the Armenian Text with Introduction and Commentary (SBL Press Atlanta 2014). For the historical context see p. xvii–xx. 2 Ignatius Aphram I Barsoum, The Scattered Pearls, 387–88; Anton Baumstark, Geschichte der Syrischen Literatur, 277–78. See also Albert van Roey, Nonnus de Nisibe. Traité apologétique, Bibliothèque du Muséon 21 (Louvain 1948); David Bundy, “The Commentary of Nonnus of Nisibis on the Prologue of John”, in Samir Khalil Samir (ed.), Actes du premier Congrès international d’études arabes chrétiennes, Goslar, septembre 1980, OCA 218 (Roma 1982), 123–33; Sidney Harrison Griffith, “The Apologetic Treatise of Nonnus of Nisibis”, ARAM 3:1–2 (1991 [1993]), 115–138; Herman G. B. Teule, “Nonnus of Nisibis”, in David Richard Thomas and Barbara Hjördis Roggema (eds.) Christian-Muslim Relations: A Bibliographical History: Volume 1 (600‒900), History of Christian-Muslim Relations 11, (Leiden 2009), 743–45. 3 Ignatius Aphram I Barsoum, The Scattered Pearls, 393; Anton Baumstark, Geschichte der Syrischen Literatur, 279. 1

34

JOHN OF DARA ON THE RESURRECTION OF HUMAN BODIES

posed a liturgical commentary on the divine eucharist that he divided into seven parts and wrote a commentary on the holy Chrism explaining how it could be distinguished from the sacrament of Holy Communion. Furthermore, he provided a new lectionary of the Gospel for the holy week, and compiled a biography of the apostle Pauls’s journey and the theological meaning of his epistles. 1 12. Finally, after John of Dara, the next prolific writer is Mar Severos Moses bar Kepha, who was born around 833 in Balad in the region of Nineveh. At the age of twenty he became a monk in the monastery of Mar Sargis, 15 km northeast of Balad, and about ten years later he became the Bishop of Beth Raman in around 863, just three years after the death of John of Dara. Some sources also refer to him as the Bishop of Beth Kiyonaye, Beth Arabaye and of Mosul. Moses bar Kepha contributed greatly to Syriac theology, exegesis and liturgy with his commentaries, as he is one of the most well-known and famous commentators on Holy Scripture and Divine Liturgy. There is some similarity between his writings and those of John of Dara. For instance, his theological writing On Resurrection is divided into 34 chapters, as are John of Dara’s first three treatise. Other theological works refer to the same topic as those of John of Dara, such as On Priesthood, On the hierarchy of angels (16 chapters) and the treatise On the Soul that is attributed to John of Dara, but is believed to belong to Moses bar Kepha, who died on 12 February 903. 2 Ignatius Aphram I Barsoum, The Scattered Pearls, 393–94. Sebastian P. Brock, A Brief Outline of Syriac Literature, Moran Etho 9 (Kottayam 2009), 58– 60; Anton Baumstark, Geschichte der Syrischen Literatur, 281–82. See further some of his edited and translated texts: Oscar Braun, Moses bar Kepha und sein Buch von der Seele (Freiburg im Breisgau 1891); Richard H. Connolly and Humphrey W. Codrington (eds.), Two Commentaries on the Jacobite Liturgy by George Bishop of the Arab Tribes and Moses Bar Kepha, together with the Syriac Anaphora of St. James and a Document Entitled The Book of Life (London 1913); Andreas Heinz, Die Eucharstiefeier in der Deutung syrischer Liturgieerklärer: Die Liturgiekommentare von Georg dem Araberbischof (†724), Mose bar Kepha (†903), Dionysius bar Salibi (†1171) (Trier 2000); Andreas Masius, De Paradiso commentarius, scriptus ante anno prope septingentos à Mose Bar-Cepha Syro, episcopo in Beth-Raman, & Beth-Ceno, ac curatorum rerum facrarum in Mozal, hoc est Seleucia Parthorum (Antverpiæ 1569); Yonatan Moss, “Fish Eats Lion Eats Man: Saadia Gaon, Syriac Christianity, and the Resurrection of the Dead”, Jewish Quarterly Review 106:4 (2016), 494–520; Jobst Reller, Mose bar Kepha und seine Paulinenauslegung, nebst Edition und Übersetzung des Kommentars zum Römerbrief, GOF, I. Reihe: Syriaca 35 (Wiesbaden 1994); Jobst Reller, “Iwannis von Dara, Mose bar Kepha und Bar Hebräus über die Seele, traditionsgeschichtlich untersucht”, in Gerrit Reinink et al. (eds.), After Bardaisan: Studies on Continuity and Change in Syriac Christianity in Honour of Professor Han J.W. Drijvers, OLA 89 (Louvain 1999), 253–68; Abdul-Massih Saadi, “Moshe bar Kepha’s Commentary on Luke: A Ninth Century Apology”, PhD dissertation, (Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago 1999); Lorenz Schlimme, Der Hexaemeronkommentar des Moses bar Kepha: Einleitung, Übersetzung und Untersuchungen, GOF, I. Reihe: Syriaca 14 (Wiesbaden 1977); Lorenz Schlimme, Der Johanneskommentar des Moses bar Kepha, GOF, I. Reihe: Syriaca 18 (Wiesbaden 1978); Werner Strothmann, Moses Bar Kepha. Myron-Weihe, GOF, I. Reihe: Syriaca 7 (Wiesbaden 1973); Baby 1 2

2. SYRIAC CHRISTIANITY IN THE NINTH CENTURY

35

‘RESURRECTION’ IN THE LITERATURE OF THE NINTH CENTURY

With the exception of Moses bar Kepha (d. 903), who remains as yet unpublished, there is no other known author, contemporary to John of Dara who wrote specifically on the resurrection of human bodies. As mentioned above, in the West Syriac tradition Moses bar Kepha is the next most famous scholar, who also wrote on the resurrection, amongst other topics and was very influenced by John of Dara – some of the titles of the chapters show a similarity. After Moses bar Kepha, the next author is Dionysius bar Salibi (d. 1171), who provides one or more extensive biblical and liturgical commentaries. In his introduction to the Gospel of Matthew, he lists John of Dara as an exegetical commentator that he used for his texts. Bar Salibi’s commentary on the relevant biblical passages on resurrection, such as in 1 Cor 15, deal with the resurrection of human bodies.1 There are not many contemporary Syriac authors dealing extensively with the resurrection of human bodies. In his book on Barhebraeus’ teaching on the Resurrection of human bodies, P. Hubert Koffler provides a chronological list of authors that wrote on resurrection and some of their works are mentioned by Barhebraeus. 2 The list provided at the end of Koffler’s book contains Arab, Jewish, Latin and Greek authors of the same period, along with Syriac authors (of the same period). In Syriac literature Moses bar Kepha (died 903), follows John of Dara, then Dionysius bar Salibai (died 1171), Salomo of Basra (died 1220), Jacob of Bartella (died 1241), Barhebraeus (died 1286) and Abdisho of Soba (died 1318). John of Dara certainly had a great influence on Moses bar Kepha and Barhebraeus, and probably also on some Jewish and Muslim writers. As a contemporary of John of Dara among the Jews, Koffler lists Isaac ben Salomon Israeli 3 (between 845 and 940) and among the Arabs, al-Nazzam (died 845). 4 Both refer to the question of ResurVarghese, Moses Bar Kepha: Commentary on Myron, Texts from Christian Late Antiquity 34 (New Jersey 2014); Arthur Vööbus, Discovery of the Exegetical Works of Mōšē bar Kēphā: The Unearthing of Very Important Sources for the Exegesis and History of the New Testament Text in the Version of the Vetus Syra, Papers of the Estonian Theological Society in Exile 25 (Stockholm 1973). 1 Sebastian P. Brock, A Brief Outline of Syriac Literature, 61–2. 2 See the “Synchronistische Tabelle” attached at the end of the book of P. Hubert Koffler S. J., Die Lehre des Barhebräus von der Auferstehung der Leiber, OC 28 (Rom 1932). Sebastian P. Brock, “Three Thousand Years of Aramaic Literature”, Aram 1:1 (1989), 21. 3 Also, another three Jewish authors are listed by Koffler: Saaida (d. 942), Salomon ibn Gebirol (d. ca. 1050) and Maimonides (d. 1204). 4 According to the list by Koffler, later Arabic authors on eschatology including the topic of resurrection are: Dshahiz (d. 869), Al Kindi, (ninth century), Abu Hashim (d. 933), Al Ashari (d. 935), Al Farabi (d. 950), Ibn Sina Avicenna (d. 1037), Al-Hazen (d.1038), Al-Gazali (d. 1111), Ibn Baddscha (d. 1138), Sharastani (d. 1153), Ibn Tofail Abu Bazer (d. 1185), Ibn Roshd Averroes (d. 1198), Razi (d. 1209), Abhari (d. 1264), Tusi (d. 1273), Qazwini (d. 1276) and Igi (d. 1355).

36

JOHN OF DARA ON THE RESURRECTION OF HUMAN BODIES

rection in their works. Isaac ben Salomon Israeli served Abdalla al-Mahdi of the Fatimid Dynasty as a physician in North Africa and was influenced by al-Kindi and compiled medical and philosophical treatises in Arabic. In his work he provides a philosophical definition of the soul, nature, intellect and the existing elements. Particularly in The Book on Spirit and Soul, as well as on Soul, Spirit and Body, he relates to the idea of life after death, i.e resurrection. 1 Later, in the Middle Ages, the Hebrew Saadia Gaon (d. 942) and Moses Maimonides (d. 1204), provide detailed treatises on resurrection and they answer some similar questions to John of Dara from the Jewish point of view. 2 For instance Saadia deals thoroughly with the resurrection of dead bodies in the seventh treatise of his book on Doctrines and Beliefs, 3 and Maimonides in the Treatise on Resurrection, as well as in Mishne Torah and the Commentary on the Mishna. 4 Yonatan Moss looked at the sources which Saaida Gaon used in his Book of Beliefs and Opinions and confirms that he was influenced by John of Dara and other West Syriac writers, rather than Greek and Muslim scholars: “When it came to explaining the difficult notion of bodily resurrection according to the categories of Hellenistic philosophy and science, it would make sense for Saadia to turn precisely to the resources of Christian tradition, which, by his time, had been engaged in his discourse for centuries.” In his conclusion Moss points out the advanced academic work of West Syriac scholars: “Due to their geographical and ideological proximity to the Greek patristic and scientificphilosophical tradition, West Syrian intellectuals, more so than their East Syrian counterparts, were the primary custodians of Hellenistic tradition in the early Abbasid period. Thus, although, for reasons explained earlier, to us East Syrian material might be more abundantly available, Saadia, in seeking a ‘biblical’ tradition maximally involved in Hellenistic discourse, did well to turn to the West Syrian authors. If we examine, for example, the section on the afterlife in Job of Edessa’s Book of Treasures – an East Syrian text written in Baghdad in the early ninth-century – we find none of the parallels so Saadia’s treatment of his topic that we have found in John of Dara and Moses bar Kepha.” 5 1 Alexander Altmann and S. M. Stern, Isaac Israeli: A Neoplatonic Philosopher of the Early Tenth Century (Oxford 1958). The book Sefer ha-Ruah weha-Nefesh has been published by Moritz Steinschneider, Ha-Karmel (1871), 400–405. 2 See Yechiel Y. Schur “ ‘When the Grave was Searched, the Bones of the Deceased were not Found’: Corporeal Revenants in Medieval Ashkenaz”, in Stefan C. Reif, Andreas Lehnardt, Avriel Bar-Levav (eds.) Death in Jewish Life: Burial and Mourning Customs Among Jews of Europe and Nearby Communities (Berlin 2014), 171–72. For Saaida see Henry Malter, Saadia Gaon: His Life and Works (Philadelphia 1942). 3 See Samuel Rosenblatt, Saadia Gaon: The book of Beliefs and Opinions (New Haven 1948), 264–89. 4 Fred Rosner, Moses Maimonides’ Treatise on Resurrection (New York 1982). See also Albert Friedbert, ‘Maimonides’ Reinterpretation of the Thirteenth Article of Faith: Another Look at the Essay on Resurrection’, in Jewish Studies Quarterly, 10:3 (2003), 244–5. 5 Yonatan Moss, “Fish Eats Lion Eats Man: Saadia Gaon, Syriac Christianity, and the Resurrection of the Dead”, Jewish Quarterly Review 106:4 (2016), 519–20.

2. SYRIAC CHRISTIANITY IN THE NINTH CENTURY

37

On the Arab side, Al-Nazzam’s work has not survived, but it is evident that he wrote on the elements of the universe and on the nature of the world, including creation and human nature.1 Among Muslim writers there are references to the day of resurrection in general, when priority is given to the Muslim community, as David Cook refers to a passage from the Hadith collection of Hammam ibn Munabbih (died 752): “We [Muslims] are the last, [but] the first on the Day of Resurrection – despite the fact that they were given the book prior to us, but they differed concerning it, while we were given the book after them.” 2 In his Chronicle, Michael the Great speaks of the common belief in resurrection: “They [Muslims] confess the Resurrection of the dead and that there will be judgment and reckoning of everyone in accord with his deeds”. 3

David Thomas, “Al-Nazzam”, in: David Thomas and Barbara Roggema (eds.), ChristianMuslim Relations, 618–21. For an Islamic view on resurrection see Jane Idleman Smith and Yvonne Yazbeck Haddad, The Islamic Unterstanding of Death and Resurrection (Oxford 2002). 2 David Cook “Christians and Christianity in hadith works before 900”, in: David Thomas and Barbara Roggema (eds.), Christian-Muslim Relations: A Bibliographical History, Volume 1 (600– 900), (Leiden 2009), 73. 3 Quoted from Michael Philip Penn, Envisioning Islam: Syriac Christians and the Early Muslim World (Philadelphia 2015), 93. 1

3. THE LIFE AND WORK OF JOHN OF DARA John of Dara must be the Syrian Orthodox metropolitan of Dara, who died in 860 AD. Although not much is known about him, Patriarch Ignatius Aphram I Barsaum (1887–1957), describes him as a “proficient scholar and illustrious theologian”. 1 Due to the importance of his treatises he is often listed among the well known biblical and liturgical West Syriac commentators, such as Jacob of Edessa, George, Bishop of the Arab Tribes, Moses Bar Kepha, Dionysius Bar Salibi and Gregorios Bar Hebraeus. Not a lot is known about him for two reasons. First, hardly any historical information exists about John of Dara, neither a vita, nor biography, or any proper account of his life. Second, so far only a small number of his commentaries and theological treatises have been studied. 2 However, some important treatises attributed to John of Dara have survived. A detailed list of known works is given by Arthur Vööbus. 3 There follows a general introduction to John of Dara with an overview of his life and work. Ignatius Aphram I Barsoum, The Scattered Pearls. A History of Syriac Literature and Sciences, translated and edited by Matti Moosa (New Jersey 2003), 390–92. 2 John of Dara’s liturgical commentary has been edited by J. Sader, Le De Oblatione de Jean de Dara CSCO 308, SSyr 132 (Louvain 1970), and translated into French, Le De Oblatione de Jean de Dara, CSCO 309, SSyr 133 (Louvain 1970). An English translation was produced by Baby Varghese, John of Dara Commentary on the Eucharist, Moran Etho 12 (Kerala 1999). Liza Anderson started her Ph.D at Yale University working on “The Interpretation of Pseudo-Dionysius in the Works of John of Dara”, but then changed her topic. Now, a post-doc student at the Episcopal Divinity School in Boston, she shared her work on John of Dara, which has not been finalised yet, on her www.academica.edu site. These are an English translation of the two mimre On Celestial Hierarchy and On Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, and the first two mimre On Priesthood. 3 Arthur Vööbus, “Important manuscript discoveries of Iwannis of Dara and his literary heritage”, JAOS 96 (1976), 576–578. An overview about John of Dara’s work is also given in my three articles: “John of Dara and His References to Previous Authors”, Actes du 10e Symposium Syriacum, in PdO 36 (2011), 413–44; “Jacob of Serugh and His Influence on John of Dara as Exemplified by the use of two verse-homilies”, in: George Kiraz (ed.), Jacob of Sarugh and His Times: Studies in Sixth-Century Syriac Christianity (New Jersey 2010), 163–97; “Anmerkungen zu Iwannis von Dara (9.Jh.) und seinen Mimre zur Auferstehung des Leibes”, in Dietmar W. Winkler (ed.), Syrische Studien, Beiträge zum 8. Deutschen Syrologie-Symposium in Salzburg 2014 (Wien 2016), 129–40. Some of the text in this paragraph is identical. 1

39

40

JOHN OF DARA ON THE RESURRECTION OF HUMAN BODIES

JOHN AS THE METROPOLITAN OF DARA

John of Dara, known as Mor Iwannis of Dara (‫ )ܡܪܝ ܐܝܘܐܢܢܝܣ ܕܕܪܐ‬in Syriac, appears as a West Syriac metropolitan of Dara in the context of Patriarch Dionysios of Tellmahre. According to the Chronicle of Michael the Great, Dionysios of Tellmahre became Patriarch of Antioch on 1 August 818, and died twenty-seven years later on 22 August 845. 1 In his ministry, Patriarch Dionysios of Tellmahre ordained three Metropolitans and an Episcope with the name Iwannis for different places. These are numbers 25, 27, 46 and 52 in the list provided by Michael the Great: 2 168F

Iwannis metropolitan for Rosapha from the Monastery of Sarmin (Sirimis). Iwannis metropolitan for the city of Dara from the Convent of Mor Hanania. Iwannis Episkopos for Tella from the Convent of Qenshrin.

Iwannis metropolitan for Hanrah from the Monastery of Mor Shina (Shaina).

169F

̄ ‫ܡܝܛܪܘ ܠܪܨܦܐ ܡܢ‬ ‫ܐܝܘܐܢܝܣ‬ ‫ܕܝܪܐ ܕܣܪܡܝܢ‬ ̄ ‫ܐܝܘܐܢܝܣ ܡܝܛܪܘ ܠܕܪܐ ܡܕܝܢܬܐ‬ ‫ܡܢ ܥܘܡܪܐ ܕܡܪܝ ܚܢܢܝܐ‬ ̄ ‫ܐܦܝܣ ܠܬܐ� ܡܢ‬ ‫ܐܝܘܐܢܝܣ‬ ‫ܥܘܡܪܐ ܕܩܢܫܪܐ‬ ̄ ‫ ܡܝܛܪܘ ܠܗܢܪܗ ܡܢ‬3 ‫ܐܝܘܐܢܢܝܣ‬ ‫ܕܝܪܐ ܕܡܪܝ ܫܝܢܐ‬

25 27 46 52

It is very likely that Iwannis of Dara, listed under number 27, is our John of Dara to whom a number of treatises and important works are attributed. Furthermore, we learn from Patriarch Dionysios that Iwannis of Dara was a monk from the monastery of St. Hanania, that could be the Deir Zafaran in Mardin that was re-established by Mor Hannanyo in 792. John was ordained as metropolitan for Dara in 825, and he was succeeded 35 years later, namely in 860, by Metropolitan Athanasius Hakim. 4 Both Patriarch Dionysios, as well as John, were excellent scholars of their time and good friends. It seems that John encouraged Patriarch Dionysios to write a chronicle of his time. Anton Baumstart underlines this aspect as he writes: “M. Iwannis von Dara veranlasste 1 Anton Baumstark, Geschichte der Syrischen Literatur, 275–77. See also Rudolf Abramowski, Dionysius von Tellmahre. Jakobitischer Patriarch von 818–845. Zur Geschichte der Kirche unter dem Islam, Abh. für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, XXV/2 (Leipzig 1940). 2 The Chronicle of Michael the Great, Manuscript Aleppo, fol. 381v–382r. A facsimile of it has been published by Gregorios Yuhanna Ibrahim, Gorgias Press 2008. There is an edition and French translation by Jean-Baptiste Chabot, Chronique de Michel le Syrien. Patriarche Jacobite d´Antioch (1166–1199), I–IV (Paris 1899–1910). 3 It is noticeable that only the name of the fourth person is written with a double nun (‫)ܐܝܘܐܢܢܝܣ‬. The same appears on folio 256r. 4 Michael the Great, fol. 382v: Patriarch John ordained Metropolitan Athanasius Hakim for Dara, see Nr 64: ‫ܐܬܐܢܐܣܝܘܣ ܚܟܝܡ ܡܝܛܪܘܦܘܠܝܛܐ ܠܕܪܐ‬.

3. THE LIFE AND WORK OF JOHN OF DARA

41

Dionysios zur Abfassung seines Geschichtswerkes, das dieser ihm als dann mit Worten hoher Anerkennung seiner geistigen Regsamkeit widmete.” 1 Accepting the ninth century as the time of John of Dara, he would belong then to a literary period when encyclopaedic, lexicographical and scholastic works were being produced. There was great intellectual activity in the Syriac speaking world, although Arabic was already widespread. The ninth century belongs further to the period when the transmission of Greek philosophy and sciences to the Arab world took place with a great contribution from Syriac scholars, as discussed in chapter one. Pointing out the importance of John of Dara’s work for the study of cultural history in the ninth century, Vööbus says: “He [John of Dara] occupies a very important place in the history of intellectual culture in the ninth century in the lands of Euphrates and Tigris”. 2 Likewise, Edsman emphasises John’s significant role in understanding the intellectual movement of his time: “John of Dara’s work was exceptionally important to cultural history as a conveyor of the classical Greek heritage to the Arabs. … Even ancient Oriental and Jewish traditions are preserved in his literature.” 3 Anton Baumstark also briefly points out the significance of John’s admirable work by saying: “Er [John] selbst ist Verfasser einer Reihe größerer dogmatischer Spezialarbeiten, die bei gediegener Gelehrsamkeit ein besonderes Interesse für Eschatologisches, die Geisterwelt und das Spiegelbild der himmlischen in der kirchlichen Hierarchie bekunden.”

JOHN OF DARA’S WORK

Through John of Dara’s extensive work, a huge amount of theological material has survived serving as a very valuable source illuminating the history of intellectual culture during the first and second century of the Abbassid rule. John deals with the theological discourses he chooses at great length, as he studies extensive material, approaches it systematically and presents it efficiently. Most of his work has survived and in eighteen mimre it deals with creation and paradise; Easter, resurrection, pentecost and finding the holy cross; divine economy; celestial and ecclesiastical hierarchy; priesthood; resurrection of human bodies and renewal of the world; and with the holy eucharist. Another two texts have been attributed to John of Dara, but they do not seem to be authentic: A treatise On the Soul and another On Demons. Furthermore, an Anaphora and a commentary on the Gospel have been attributed to John, but these have not yet been confirmed, as no such text has been found up until now. John’s treatises survived in various manuscripts, but two old manuscripts contain most of his work. One of them is the manuscript found in the Syriac Orthodox bishopric in Mosul, Iraq, and the other is a manuscript from the library of the Forty Martyrs Church in Mardin, Turkey. Additionally, there is another old manuscript in the Anton Baumstark, Geschichte der syrischen Literatur, 275. Arthur Vööbus, “Important manuscript discoveries of Iwannis of Dara”, 576. 3 Carl-Martin Edsman, “Death, Corruption and Eternal Life”, in Bulletin of the Iranian Culture Foundation 1 (1969), 85–104 (about John of Dara, On Resurrection, see p. 89). 1 2

42

JOHN OF DARA ON THE RESURRECTION OF HUMAN BODIES

Vatican that is almost identical to the one in Mosul. Most of the other manuscripts were copied by the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth century, either from the manuscript in Mosul or from the one in Mardin. Treatises included in the Codex Mardin 356 One of the main manuscripts containing seven mimre is the manuscript found in Mardin, in the Syriac Orthodox Church of the Forty Martyrs, MS 356. The text that is slightly damaged is written in fine Estrangelo script on 126 folios. The colophon and the first three and a half kephalaia of the first mimro are missing. 1 This parchment codex could be from the ninth to th twelfth century. 2 At the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth century the manuscript was copied at least three times, and these can be found in the MSS Vatican library (Vat. Sir. 581) 3, Minganga Collection in Birmingham (Ming. Syr. 67) 4 and Damascus (Dam 4/4). 5 The corpus contains the following seven mimre which are listed below with reference to the folios in MSS Mardin 356, Vat. Syr. 581, Birmingham Mingana 67 and page numbers of Dam4/4.

The first four folios and the top half of the fifth folio are lost. A. Vööbus, “Important manuscript discoveries of Iwannis of Dara”, 577: “Because it has lost its colophon it does not instruct us more precisely about its age, but on palaeographical grounds it can be assigned to the ninth or tenth century. It is astounding to discover that all the works preserved in this collection are new.” 3 A. Vööbus, “Important manuscript discoveries of Iwannis of Dara”, 578: “In addition to this manuscript, other codices have come into our possession, namely Ms. Vat. Syr. 581 and MS. Birmingham Ming. Syr. 57. However they have no independent value since they are copies of the same unique parchment codex in Deir Za‘faran.” Deacon Jacob Bar Petrus, from the family of deacon Isaac, known as deacon Sakka from Bartelle, copied MS Vat. Sir. 581 at the end of September 1917 (see the last folio of the ms). 4 In 1911, the Mardin Codex was taken to Mosul by the Priest Apram Barsoum (later Patriarch) and was copied by Diakon Mattai Bar Paulus for Alfons Mingana. 5 Dayroyo Michael Bar Jeshu‘ wrote the manuscript in Damascus, except the sixth treatise, which was written by a monk called John. In 1912, the MS was written in Dayro d-nutpho, the monastery of Yoldath Aloho near Deir Mor Hannanyo, Deir Za‘faran in Mardin. 1 2

3. THE LIFE AND WORK OF JOHN OF DARA

Vat. Syr. 581 1

219r–227v

227v–264v 264v–278v 290v–316r 316r–332v 332v–346v 346v–370r

Dam. Patr. 4/4

19–41

41–157

Berm. Ming. 67

4r–13r

13r–56v

158–204 56v– 73v 205–318 74r– 115r

318–371 115v– 134v 372–418 134v– 151v 419–493 151v– 179r

43

MS Mardin Orth. 356 Title of the treatise

[On Paradise] On Creation

[Against the Heretics] On the Resurrection of our Lord from the tomb [=Easter] On Pentecost 2

On the Finding of the Cross On the Divine Economy, particularly on the [Nativity] of Christ regarding salvation

Fols.

Chs.

7r–13v

5

13v–42v 42v–53v

19 8

Title of the mimro

[‫]ܥܠ ܦܪܕܝܣܐ‬ ‫ܥܠ ܒܪܝܬܐ‬ [‫]ܠܘܩܒܠ ܗ�ܝܛܝܩܝܐ‬

54r–84v

33

84v–95v

11

‫ܥܠ ܦܢܛܩܘܣܛܝ‬

95v–105v 11

‫ܥܠ ܫܟܚܬܗ ܕܨܠܝܒܐ‬

106r– 125r

19

‫ܥܠ ܩܝܡܬܗ ܕܡܪܢ ܡܢ‬ ‫ܩܒܪܐ‬

‫ܥܠ ܡܕܒܪܢܘܬܗ ܕܐܠܗܐ‬ ‫ܝܬܝܪܐܝܬ ]ܥܠ‬ ‫ܡܘܠܕܗ[ ܦܪܘܩܝܐ‬ ‫ܕܡܫܝܚܐ‬

Nr. of the mimro I

II

III IV V VI VII

It is worth mentioning that in the beginning of the codex John of Dara refers to many authors and their works, mentioning their names and the title of the sources. This gradually changes after the fourth mimro, so that in the last mimre only a few authors and sources are referred to. But this is not the case with the biblical references in mimro four to seven, where he comments on the biblical periscopes in detail in the sense of exegesis. John refers to the biblical passages used in the Lectionary for the relevant feast and comments on them elaborately. M. Breydy, “Les compilations syriaques sur le sacerdoce au IXe siècle: Jean de Dara”, in OCA 205 (1978), 267–293 (= 2. Symp. Syr. 1976). 2 A. Vööbus, “Die Entdeckung von Überresten der altsyrischen Apostelgeschichte”, OC 64 (1980), 32–35. On page 33 Vööbus writes: “Mit Genugtuung stellen wir hier fest, daß Iwannis von Dara den Text der Apostelgeschichte sehr sorgfältig behandelt und den ganzen Text der Episode genau angeführt hat. In dieser Hinsicht hat er vorbildlich gehandelt, denn bisher kennen wir keinen einzigen Kommentar im syrischen Schrifttum, mit dem man unsere Kunde vergleichen könnte. Was uns hier aufbewahrt worden ist, ist in der Tat wohl einzigartig.” 1

44

JOHN OF DARA ON THE RESURRECTION OF HUMAN BODIES

John’s real aim is to provide a comprehensive anthropological and eschatological theology. It seems that these seven mimre belong to each other as a unit. Needless to say, the number seven has a symbolic character, a symbol for fulfilment and perfection, and it reminds us of the biblical narrative on creation. And indeed, the first three mimre are on Paradise, creation and on the correct way of understanding it – not like the heretics, such as Simon the Muggier, Mani, and others who lead people astray. John of Dara is deeply concerned about the salvation of man. In order to understand how salvation takes place, one should understand the creation of the world, the spiritual and physical beings, Paradise and the role of man at the beginning. He considers these at great length in the first two mimre. In mimro three he argues strongly against the heretics who do not understand creation, Paradise and the role of man correctly. In the middle, mimro four expresses the resurrection of Christ as the axis of the divine economy. John provides us with a theological model of understanding the relation of the Creator to his creation and the role of man who has been blessed with divine gifts. After the fall and Christ’s resurrection, human beings can take part in the holy divine mystery of salvation via the Holy Spirit (Pentecost) and the sign of the holy cross. The anamnesis of the divine economy of salvation, particularly of the death and Resurrection of Christ are the way to the restoration of man to his paradisiacal state and further to the heavenly kingdom. If not all seven mimre, certainly the last four, show a part of the liturgical structure of the church calendar, and in their form they have the character of a sermon, as well as of an exegetical and liturgical commentary. Therefore, John of Dara’s writing style might be described as follows: 1. In mimros 1–4 John works thoroughly academically. At the beginning of the mimro he provides an introduction, sometimes called proomeone, or kephalaion. He refers to the relevant biblical passages, quotes them if necessary, and deals with them partly exegetically. John presents the different interpretations of the church fathers. Most of the time he refers to them as authorities to prove his interpretation or provide a synthesis. Even though John often harmonises the comments of the church fathers, he also deals with contradictions. 2. Throughout his work we get the impression that John has got a great knowledge of Holy Scripture. Although he refers to the Greek and Hebrew Bible, it is difficult to be certain that he had an extensive knowledge of Greek and Hebrew. The pericopes dealt with indicate an exegetical character, particularly the pericope On the Resurrection of Our Lord in mimro four, and On Pentecost in mimro five. 1 In the whole of mimro five we find just two references to Jacob of Edessa and one each to Philoxenus of Mabbug and to Gregorios the Theologos. 35.

1

A. Vööbus, “Die Entdeckung von Überresten der altsyrischen Apostelgeschichte”, 32–

3. THE LIFE AND WORK OF JOHN OF DARA

45

3. Mimre four to seven are also written in the style of a sermon. In particular mimre four to six refer to the great church feasts: Easter, Pentecost, and the feast of the Holy Cross. These treatises provide very few explicit references to previous authors. John quotes mainly from the Bible and explains the biblical passages in his own words – as far as one can tell. 4. In the last mimro in particular, some of the kephalaia are structured in the form of questions and answers. John’s answers often start with “I” or “we say”. 5. In some other kephalaia the pro-contra style is also noticeable: “If they say …”, or, “If anyone says …”, then “I say/we say”.

Thus, the text gives the impression that John of Dara felt very satisfied and confident, not just with his answers and comments, but also with the methods he uses to present the themes he chooses. Next to the church fathers, the main source for John is obviously Holy Scripture that is the main authoritative text. In his exegetical treatises, John refers explicitly to the Greek (‫)ܝܘܢܝܐ‬, Hebrew (‫ )ܥܒܪܝܐ‬or Septuagint (‫)ܫܒܥܝܢ‬. 1 In the following, each mimro is given with the titles of the chapters. The folio numbers in the brackets refer to MS Mardin. 183F

[On Paradise] (fol 7r–13v)

I. First Treatise:

- [The first three and a half chapters are missing]

4. Chapter: The words of the holy teachers, which demonstrate that Paradise is physical and located on earth. Therefore, they argue against those who claim that it is non-physcial and is located in heaven. 5. Chapter: It demonstrates the vain suspicion about Paradise.

:‫ܡܐܡܪܐ ܩܕܡܝܐ‬ [‫]ܥܠ ܦܪܕܝܣܐ‬

̈ �‫ ̈ܡ‬:̄‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ ܕܕ‬ ̈ ̈ ‫ܕܡ�ܦܢܐ‬ ‫ܕܡܚܘܝܢ‬ ‫ܩܕ�ܫܐ‬ ‫ ܗܟܢ‬.‫ܕܓܘܫܡܢܐ ܗܘ ܦܪܕܝܣܐ ܘܕܒܐܪܥܐ ܗܘ‬ ‫ܕܝܢ ܘܐܓܘܢܐ ܥܒܕܝܢ ܠܘܩܒܠ ܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܐܡܪܝܢ‬ .‫ܕܠܘ ܓܘܫܡܢܐ ܗܘ ܘܕܒܫܡܝܐ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܡܣܒܪܢܘܬܐ ܕܥܠ ܦܪܕܝܣܐ‬:‫ܕܗ‬ ‫ܡܒܛ�ܝܬ‬

For instance for the Hebrew (‫ )ܥܒܪܝܐ‬and Greek version (‫ )ܝܘܢܝܐ‬see mimro 2, chapters 3, 6 and 12. The term Septuagint (‫ )ܫܒܥܝܢ‬is used at the beginning of mimro 2, chapter 1: ‫ܘܢܨܒ ܡܪܝܐ‬ 1

‫ ܘܣܡ ܬܡܢ �ܕܡ ܕܓܒܠ܀ ܿ ܼܒܕܫܒܥܝܢ ܦܪܕܝܣܐ ܿ ܼܒܥܕܝܢ ܡܢ ܡܕܢܚܐ ܟܬܝܒ ܘܣܡ ܬܡܢ‬.‫ܦܪܕܝܣܐ ܒܥܕܝܢ ܡܢ ܩܕܝܡ‬ ‫ܠܒܪܢܫܐ ܕܓܒܠ‬.

46

JOHN OF DARA ON THE RESURRECTION OF HUMAN BODIES

II. Second Treatise: On Creation (fol 13v–42v)

1. Chapter: A word of clarification on what Moses wrote regarding Paradise. 2. Chapter: It includes three reasons: First: On which day was Paradise planted? Second: On Adam’s entrance there. Third: On both trees. 3. Chapter: On the river that waters Paradise and then is divided into four branches. 4. Chapter: It demonstrates: [1.] Adam’s entry into Paradise. 2. On the law that was given to him. 3. Enquiry on the [necessity] of the given law. 4. Why the law was related to the desire of food.

5. Chapter: It demonstrates: 1. The formation of Eve. 2. The creation of the animals, beasts and birds. 3. The giving the names. 4. If [the creation of] Adam and Eve, the entrance into Paradise and the expulsion [from Paradise], the giving of names and the sin took place in one day. 6. Chapter: It demonstrates: [1.] The creation of Eve. 2. Why she was taken from [Adam’s] rib. 3. Adam’s prophecy regarding her. 7. Chapter: It demonstrates: [1.] From which species was the serpent? 2. If the word was given to [the serpent] or if Satan spoke through it?

:‫ܡܐܡܪܐ ܕܬܪܝܢ‬ ‫ܥܠ ܒܪܝܬܐ‬

̄ ‫ ܡܠܬܐ ܡܦܫܩܢܝܬܐ ܕܗܠܝܢ ܕܐܟܬܒ‬:‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ ܕܐ‬ .‫ܡܘܫܐ ܥܠ ܦܪܕܝܣܐ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ̈ ‫ ܒܗ‬:‫ܕܒ‬ :‫ܗܘܢܐ ܬܠܬܐ‬ .‫ܩܕܡܝܐ ܕܒܐܝܢܐ ܝܘܡܐ ܐܬܢܨܒ ܦܪܕܝܣܐ‬ .‫ܕܬܪܝܢ ܥܠ ܡܥܠܬܗ ܕܐܕܡ ܠܬܡܢ‬ ̈ ‫ܕܬܠܬܐ ܥܠ‬ .‫�ܬܖܝܗܘܢ ܐ�̈�ܢܐ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ‫ ܥܠ ܢܗܪܐ ܗܘ ܕܡܫܩܐ ܠܦܪܕܝܣܐ‬:‫ܕܓ‬ .‫ܘܒܬܪܟܢ ܦܪܫ �ܪܒܥܐ ̈ܖܝܫܝܢ‬ :‫ܕܡܚܘܐ‬ ܼ ܿ :̄‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ ܕܕ‬ ̄ .‫[ ܥܠ ܡܥܠܬܗ ܕܐܕܡ ܕܠܦܪܕܝܣܐ‬.‫]ܐ‬ .‫ ܘܥܠ ܢܡܘܣܐ ܕܐܬܬܣܝܡ ܠܗ‬.‫̄ܒ‬ ̄ .‫ ܘܒܥܬܐ ܼܿܕܣܝܡܗ ܕܢܡܘܣܐ‬.‫ܓ‬ ̄ ‫ܒܪܓܬ ܡܐܟܘܠܬܐ ܐܬܬܣܝܡ ܠܗ‬ ܼ ܿ ‫ ܘܕܠܡܢ‬.‫ܕ‬ .‫ܢܡܘܣܐ‬ ̄ ‫ܕܡܚܘܐ‬ ܼ ܿ :‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ ܕܗ‬ ̄ ̇ .‫�ܬܘܩܢܗ ܕܚܘܐ‬ ‫ ܥ ܠ‬.‫ܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܕܚܝܘܬܐ ܘܒܥ ̣ܝܪܐ‬ ‫ ܥܠ�ܓܒ ̣ܝ�ܘܬܐ‬.‫̄ܒ‬ .‫ܘܦܖ̈ܚܬܐ‬ ̈ ̄ .‫ܫܡܗܐ‬ ‫ ܥܠ ܣܝܡ‬.‫ܓ‬ ‫ ܕܐܢ ܐܕܡ ܘܚܘܐ ܘܡܥܠܬܐ ܕܠܦܪܕܝܣܐ‬.̄‫ܕ‬ ̈ ‫ܫܡܗܐ ܘܚܛܝܬܐ ܒܚܕ ܝܘܡܐ‬ ‫ܘܡܦܩܐ ܘܣܝܡ‬ ̈ .‫ܗܘܝ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ‬:‫ܕܘ‬ ̄ ̇ ‫[ ܥܠ ܒܪ ̣ܝ‬.‫]ܐ‬ .‫ܕܚܘܐ‬ ܼ ܿ ‫ܬܗ‬ .‫ ܘܡܛܠ ܡܢܐ ܡܢ �ܥܐ ܐܬܢܤܒܬ‬.‫̄ܒ‬ ̄ ̇ ̇ ‫ ܘܢܒܝܘܬܗ ܕܐܕܡ‬.‫ܓ‬ .‫ܕܡܛܠܬܗ‬ ‫ܒܗܢܝܢ‬ ‫ܕܡܚܘܐ‬ ܼ ܿ :̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ ܕܙ‬ ̄ .‫[ ܥܠ ܚܘܝܐ ܕܡܢ ܐܝܢܐ ܓܢܣܐ ܗܘܐ‬.‫]ܐ‬ ‫ ܘܕܐܢ ܠܗ ܐܬܝܗܒܬ ܡܠܬܐ ̇ܐܘ ܤܛܢܐ‬.‫̄ܒ‬

3. THE LIFE AND WORK OF JOHN OF DARA 3. If it was Satan, what was the fault of human beings that he misled them? 4. And if Satan misled, why was the serpent cursed? 8. Chapter: It inquires: [1] Was the woman created or not, when Adam received the commandment? For the way that it is written indicates that she was not created. 2. Was the commandment given with an audible voice, or was it printed into the heart? 3. Did Satan receive the commandment and speak against it to mankind while he knew it, or did he approach [Adam] to investigate and test. 4. About Satan’s talk with the woman and the woman’s [talk] with Satan. 5. About eating from the tree. 6. About what has been said: ‘Their eyes were opened’ (Gen 3:7). 7. About the loincloth (περίζωμα) from the leaves of the fig tree. 9. Chapter: [1.] On why God went to them in the afternoon. 2. Did they sin on the same day they were created or on another day? 10. Chapter: It demonstrates: 1. How long was Adam in Paradise? 2. Why did God not prevent him from sinning? 3. Why did not he die when he sinned? 4. About what God told him while He rebuked him. 5. About the punishment of the serpent, for Adam and Eve.

47

.‫ܼ ܿܡܠܠ ܒܗ‬ ̄ ‫ ܘܕܐܢ ܤܛܢܐ ܗܘܐ ܡܢܐ ܐܣܟ�ܘ ܕܒܝܬ‬.‫ܓ‬ .‫ܐܕܡ ܕܐܛܥܝ ܐܢܘܢ‬ .‫ ܘܕܐܢ ܤܛܢܐ ܐܛܥܝ ܚܘܝܐ ܠܡܢܐ ܐܬܬܠܝܛ‬.̄‫ܕ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ‫ ܕܡܥܩܒ‬:‫ܕܚ‬ ̄ ܿ ܿ ‫[ ܕܐܢ ܼܒܪܝܐ ̣ܗܘܬ ܐܢܬܬܐ ܟܕ ܼܩܒܠ ܐܕܡ‬.‫]ܐ‬ ‫ ܡܛܠ ܕܟܬܝܒܐ ܐܝܟ ̇ܗܘ‬.� ‫ܦܘܩܕܢܐ ̇ܐܘ‬ .‫ܕܡܚܘܐ ܕ� ܿ ܼܒܪܝܐ ̣ܗܘܬ‬ ܼܿ �‫ ܘܕܟܕ ܐܬܝܗܒ ܦܘܩܕܢܐ ܐܢ ܒܩ‬.‫̄ܒ‬ .‫ܡܬܪܓܫܢܐ ܐܬܝܗܒ ܐܘ ܒܠܒܐ ܐܬܛܒܥ‬ ̄ ‫ ܘܕܐܢ ܩܒܠܗ ܣܛܢܐ ܠܦܘܩܕܢܐ ܘܟܕ‬.‫ܓ‬ ‫ܝܕܥ ܠܗ ̣ܐܡܪ ܠܩܘܒܠܗ ܠܕܒܝܬ ܐܕܡ ܐܘ‬ .‫ܟܕ ܡܕܡܐ ܘܡܢܣܐ ܐܬܩܪܒ‬ ‫ ܘܕܐܢܬܬܐ‬.‫ ܘܡܡܠܗ ܕܣܛܢܐ ܠܘܬ ܐܢܬܬܐ‬.̄‫ܕ‬ .‫ܠܘܬ ܣܛܢܐ‬ .‫ ܡܐܟܘܠܬܐ ܕܡܢ ܐܝ�ܢܐ‬.‫̄ܗ‬ ̈ ‫ ̇ܗܝ ܕܐܡܝܪܐ‬.‫̄ܘ‬ .‫ܕܐܬܦܬܚܝ ܥܝܢ̈ܝܗܘܢ‬ ̄̈ .‫ ܥܠ ܦ�ܙܘܡܐ ܕܡܢ ܛ�ܦܐ ܕܬܐܢܐ‬.̄ ‫ܙ‬

̄ :‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ ܕܛ‬ ̄ ‫[ ܥܠ ܡܐܬܝܬܐ ܕܐܠܗܐ ܠܘܬܗܘܢ ܒܦܢܝܗ‬.‫]ܐ‬ .‫ܕܝܘܡܐ‬ ̇ ‫ ܘܕܐܢ‬.‫̄ܒ‬ ‫ܒܗܘ ܝܘܡܐ ܕܒܗ ܐܬܒܪܝܘ ܒܗ ܚܛܘ‬ .‫̇ܐܘ ܒܐܚܪܢܐ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ‬:‫ܕܝ‬ .‫ ܕܟܡܐ ̣ܗܘܐ ܐܕܡ ܒܦܪܕܝܣܐ‬.‫ܐ‬ ̄ .‫ܢܚܛܐ‬ ܸ �‫ ܘܕܠܡܢܐ � ܟܠܝ �ܗܐ ܕ‬.‫ܒ‬ ̄ .‫ ܘܕܠܡܢܐ � ܡܝܬ ܟܕ ܚܛܐ‬.‫ܓ‬ .‫ ܘܕܐܝܠܝܢ ̣ܐܡܪ ܠܗ �ܗܐ ܟܕ ܡܟܣ ܠܗ‬.̄‫ܕ‬ ‫ ܘܥܠ ܡܣܡ ܒܪܝܫܐ ܕܚܘܝܐ ܘܕܚܘܐ ܘܕܐܕܡ‬.‫̄ܗ‬ ̄ .‫[ ܕܟܡܐ ̣ܗܘܐ ܐܕܡ ܒܦܪܕܝܣܐ‬.‫]ܘ‬

48

JOHN OF DARA ON THE RESURRECTION OF HUMAN BODIES [6.] How long was Adam in Paradise?

11. Chapter: On the garment of skin God made for Adam. 12. Chapter: [1.] On [the verse]: Behold, Adam has become like one of us (Gen 3:22). 2. And on his expulsion from Paradise.

13. Chapter: It demonstrates: [1.] What was the tree of good and evil? 2. Why is it called the tree of good and evil? 3. What is good and evil? 4. Did the tree have the power to grant Adam the knowledge of good and evil by eating from it? 14. Chapter: What was that tree?

15. Chapter: Objection of some people stating, for the sin was not large, why was the verdict and punishment so severe? Many have sinned in greater things and they were forgiven, but Adam has been struck bitterly along with his children. 16. Chapter: On the fact that God blessed Adam.

17. Chapter: It demonstrates that Adam possessed discernment, which means the knowledge of good and evil, before the transgression against the commandment. 18. Chapter: It examines and demonstrates by whom the accusation remains.

19. Chapter: It demonstrates the mysterious contemplation of Paradise and its spiritual meaning.

̄ ‫ ܥܠ ܟܘܬܝܢ̈ܝܬܐ ܕܡܫܟܐ ܕܥܒܕ‬:‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ ܕܝܐ‬ .‫ܡܪܝܐ �ܕܡ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ :‫ܕܝܒ‬ ̄ .«‫ܗܘܐ ܐܝܟ ܚܕ ܡܢܢ‬ ̣ ‫[ ܥܠ »ܕܗܐ ܐܕܡ‬.‫]ܐ‬ .‫ ܘܥܠ ܡܦܩܬܗ ܕܡܢ ܦܪܕܝܣܐ‬.‫̄ܒ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ‬:‫ܕܝܓ‬ ̄ .‫ܗܘܐ ̇ܗܘ ܐ ̣ܝ�ܢܐ ܕܛܒܬܐ ܘܕܒ ̣ܝܫܬܐ‬ ̣ ‫[ ܕܡܢܐ‬.‫]ܐ‬ ‫ ܕܡܛܠ ܐܝܕܐ ܕܝܕܥܬܐ ܕܛܒܬܐ ܘܕܒ ̣ܝܫܬܐ‬.‫̄ܒ‬ .‫ܡܬܩܪܐ‬ ̄ ̇ .‫ܓ‬ .‫ܕܡܢܐ ̇ܗܝ ܛܒܬܐ ܘܒܝܫܬܐ‬ ‫ ܘܕܐܢ ܐ ̣ܝܬ ̣ܗܘܐ ܒܐ ̣ܝ�ܢܐ ̇ܗܘ ܚܝ� ܕ�ܕܡ‬.̄‫ܕ‬ ‫ܒܝܕ ܡܐܟܘܠܬܗ ܢܶܬܠ ܝܕܥܬܐ ܕܛܒܬܐ‬ .‫ܘܕܒ ̣ܝܫܬܐ‬ .‫ ܕܡܢܐ ̣ܗܘܐ ̇ܗܘ ܐܝ�ܢܐ‬:̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ ܕܝܕ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ̈ ‫ ܗܦܟܬܐ‬:‫ܕܝܗ‬ ‫ܕܐܢܫܝܢ ܕܐܡܪܝܢ ܕܟܕ ܠܘ‬ ܵ ‫ ܠܡܢܐ ܪܒ‬.‫ܗܘܬ ݀ ܚܛ ̣ܝܬܐ ̇ܗܝ‬ ‫ܓܙܪ‬ ̣ ‫ܪܒܬܐ‬ ܵ ̈‫ ܚܛܘ ܓܝܪ ܣܓܝܐܐ‬.‫ܘܡܣܡ ܒܪ ̣ܝܫܐ‬ ‫ܕ ̣ܝܢܐ‬ ̈ ̇ ‫ ܐܕܡ ܕܝܢ‬.‫ܠܗܘܢ‬ ‫ܘܐܫܬܒܩ‬ ‫ܕܪܘ�ܒܝ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܚܛܗ‬ ̣ ̣ ܼܿ ‫ܡܪܝܪܐ ̣ܝܬ ̣ܐܬ‬ ̈ ‫ܬܒܥ ܘ ܼܿܝ‬ .‫ܠܕܘܗܝ‬ ̄ .‫ܕܒܪܟܗ �ܗܐ �ܕܡ‬ ܼ ܿ ‫ ܥܠ ̇ܗܝ‬:‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ ܕܝܘ‬ ‫ܗܘܐ ܒܐܕܡ ܦܪܘܫܘܬܐ‬ ̣ ‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܕܐ ̣ܝܬ‬:̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ ܕܝܙ‬ ܵ‫ܐܘܟܝܬ ܝܕܥܬܐ ܕܛܒܬܐ ܘܕܒ ̣ܝܫܬܐ ܩܕܡ ܥܒܪ‬ .‫ܦܘܩܕܢܐ‬ ܰ :‫ܕܝܚ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ‫ܘܡܚ ܸܘܐ ܕܨܝܕ ̇ܡܢ ܫ̇ ܶܪܟ‬ ܼ ܿ ‫ܕܡܒ ܸܚܢ‬ .‫ܥܕܠܝܐ‬ ̄ ‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܠܬܐܘܪܝܐ ܐܪܙܢܝܬܐ ܕ ̣ܝܠܗ‬:‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ ܕܝܛ‬ ܵ .‫ܘܫܘܘܕܥܗ ܪܘܚܢܝܐ‬ ‫ܕܦܪܕܝܣܐ‬

3. THE LIFE AND WORK OF JOHN OF DARA

[Against the H eretics] (fol 42v–53v)

III. Third Treatise:

1. Chapter: Objections and accusations regarding the tree brought and composed by Simon the Magician. 2. Chapter: Objections of the Manichians.

3. Chapter: [Objections] of the Julians and their provocations. 4. Chapter: Objection of the Nestorians regarding trespassing against the commandment.

5. Chapter: Regarding the contemplation (θεωρία) of the Tree of Life. From Philoxenos’ Letter to Telias Qumis, incipit: ‘Regarding the contemplation (θεωρία) of the Tree of Life’. 6. Chapter: On the tree.

7. Chapter: Regarding the reason of the whole tree. 8. Chapter: Regarding the Tree of Life.

On the Resurrection of Our Lord from the tomb [=Easter]

IV. Fourth Treatise:

49

:‫ܡܐܡܪܐ ܕܬܠܬܐ‬ [‫]ܠܘܩܒܠ ܗ̈ܪܝܛܝܩܝܐ‬

̄ ̈ ̈ ‫ܘܥܕܠܝܐ ܕܡܝܬܐ ܘܡܪܟܒ‬ ‫ܗܦܟܬܐ‬ :‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ ܕܐ‬ .‫ܣܝܡܘܢ ܚܪܫܐ ܡܛܠ ܐܝ�ܢܐ‬ ܵ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ‫ܐܢܝ‬ ̣ ‫ ܗܦ ̈ܟܬܐ ܕܒܝܬ ܰܡ‬:‫ܕܒ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ .‫ ܕܒܝܬ ܝܘܠܝܢ̈ܐ ܘܫ�ܚܗܝܢ‬:‫ܕܓ‬ ‫ ܗܦܟܬܐ ܕܒܝܬ ܢܣܛܘܪܝܘܣ‬:̄‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ ܕܕ‬ ܵ ‫ܕܡܛܠ‬ .‫�ܥܒܪ ܦܘܩܕܢܐ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ̈ ‫ ܡܛܠ�ܬܐܘܪܝܐ ܕܐ ̣ܝ�ܢܐ‬:‫ܕܗ‬ :‫ܕܚܝܐ‬ ‫ܦܝ�ܘܟܣܝܢܘܣ ̣ܡܢ ܐܓܪܬܐ ܕܠܘܬ ܬܐܠܝܣ‬ ‫ܩܘܡܝܣ ܪܫܐ ܠܗ ܡܛܠ�ܬܐܘܪܝܐ ܕܐ ̣ܝ�ܢܐ‬ ̈ .‫ܕܚܝܐ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ .‫ ܥܠ ܐ ̣ܝ�ܢܐ‬:‫ܕܘ‬ .‫ ܡܛܠ�ܥܠܬܐ ܕܟܠܗ ܐ ̣ܝ�ܢܐ‬:̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ ܕܙ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ̈ ‫ ܡܛܠ ܐ ̣ܝ�ܢܐ‬:‫ܕܚ‬ .‫ܕܚܝܐ‬

:‫ܡܐܡܪܐ ܕܐܪܒܥܐ‬ ‫ܕܥܠ ܩܝܡܬܗ ܕܡܪܢ ܕܡܢ ܩܒܪܐ‬

(fol 54r–84v)

1. Chapter: Introduction (προοίμιον)

2. Chapter: It demonstrates why they state that Satan has been killed, sinned, ceased

̄ .‫ ܦܪܐܘܡܝܘܢ‬:‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ ܕܐ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܕܐܝܟܢܐ ܐܡܪܝܢ ܕܐܬܩܛܠ‬:‫ܕܒ‬

50

JOHN OF DARA ON THE RESURRECTION OF HUMAN BODIES and about the death he died.

3. Chapter: On the names [attributed to] the day. 4. Chapter: On the glory and honour of the day.

5. Chapter: It demonstrates that neither the kind of resurrection nor its [exact] time can be comprehended. 6. Chapter: It demonstrates: [1.] What the aim of the Evangelists was regarding the narrative on resurrection. [2.] Also regarding [the narrative] on [Mary Magdalean] and Mary, the mother of James.

7. Chapter: It demonstrates [1.] Why our Lord appeared to the women first and ordered them to proclaim His resurrection. [2.] Why the angels announced to the [women] first. [3.] How many Marys there are which the evangelists mention. [4.] Regarding Mary Magdalene. 8. Chapter: Why were the women used to put spices on the body and on the tomb? 9. Chapter: How did the keepers, the women and the disciples know that He rose?

10. Chapter: It demonstrates why the resurrection was seen by the guard first.

1 2

This chapter is mistakenly numbered as “9”. This chapter is mistakenly numbered as “10”.

݀ .‫ܘܒܛܠܬ ܚܛܝܬܐ ܘܡܝܬ ܡܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܣܛܢܐ‬ ̈ ‫ ܥܠ‬:‫ܕܓ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ .‫ܫܘܡܗܘܗܝ ܕܝܘܡܐ‬ ‫ ܥܠ ܫܒܝܚܘܬܗ ܘܡܝܩܪܘܬܗ‬:̄‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ ܕܕ‬ .‫ܕܝܘܡܐ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ̇ ‫ܐܝܟܢܝܘܬܗ‬ ‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܕ� ܡܬܕܪܟܐ‬:‫ܕܗ‬ ̇ �‫ܕܩܝܡܬܐ ܘ‬ .‫ܥܕܢܗ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ‬:‫ܕܘ‬ ̄ ̈ ‫�ܘܢܓ�ܣܛܐ ܒܡܠܬܐ‬ ‫[ ܕܐܝܢܐ ܢ ̣ܝܫܐ ̣ܗܘܐ‬.‫]ܐ‬ .‫ܕܥܠ ܩܝܡܬܐ‬ ̄ ̇ [.‫]ܒ‬ ‫ܕܒܗ ܬܘܒ ܘܡܛܠ ܡܓܕܠܝܬܐ‬ .‫ܘܡܪܝܡ ܐܡܗ ܕܝܥܩܘܒ‬ ‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ‬:̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ ܕܙ‬ ̈ ‫[ ܕܠܡܢܐ‬.̄ ‫]ܐ‬ .‫ܠܢܫܐ ܐܬܚܙܝ ܠܘܩܕܡ ܦܪܘܩܢ‬ .‫ܘܦܩܕ ܐܢܝܢ ܕܢܣܒ�ܢ ܩܝܡܬܗ‬ ̄ ‫ ܘܕܠܡܢܐ ̈ܡ�ܟܐ ܠܗܝܢ ܠܘܩܕܡ‬.[‫]ܒ‬ .‫ܣܒܪܘ‬ ̈ ̄ ‫[ ܘܕܟܡܐ ܡܪܝܡ ܗܘܝܢ ܗܠܝܢ ܕܡܕܟܪܝܢ‬.‫]ܓ‬ ̈ .‫ܐܘܢܓ�ܣܛܐ‬ .‫[ ܘܡܛܠ ܡܪܝܡ ܡܓܕܠܝܬܐ‬.‫]܏ܕ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܕܥܠ ܡܢܐ �ܡܝܢ ̈ܗܘܝ‬1:‫ܕܚ‬ .‫ܢ̈ܫܐ ܗ�ܘܡܐ ܥܠ ܦܓܪܐ ܘܥܠ ܩܒܪܐ‬ ̄ ‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܕܡܢ ܐܝܟܐ ̣ܝܕܥـ]ܘ[ ܢܛܘ�ܐ‬2:‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ ܕܛ‬ ̈ .‫ܘܫܠܝܚܐ ܕܩܡ‬ ‫ܘܢ̈ܫܐ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܕܠܡܢܐ ܠܢܛܘ�ܐ ܐܬܚܙܝܬ‬1:‫ܕܝ‬ .‫ܩܝܡܬܐ ܠܘܩܕܡ‬

3. THE LIFE AND WORK OF JOHN OF DARA 11. Chapter: [1.] Were the guards from the Jews or from the gentiles? [2.] And regarding the sealing? 12. Chapter: Commentary regarding the guards and Jews that is full of doubt. If the soldiers went to the high priests while the tomb was unsealed, and told them that He rose, how do they accept this from them and believe them, for they did not even trust them when they left them asking them to guard the tomb, as they sealed it. 13. Chapter: It rebukes those saying how can He leave the tomb that is sealed? 14. Chapter: It demonstrates why the angels appeared at the tomb, but not at Golgatha.

15. Chapter: It demonstrates why the angels appear to the women in white [garments] while they were seated.

16. Chapter: It demonstrates how the soldiers guard the tomb according to Matthew (Matt 27:62–66; 28:11–15), [and how] Simon and John came to the tomb according to John, and they saw the strips of linen (John 20:3–8).

̄ :‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ ܕܝܐ‬ ̈ ‫[ ܕܐܢ ܡܢ‬.̄ ‫]ܐ‬ ‫ܝܗܘܕܝܐ ̣ܗܘܘ ̣ܗܢܘܢ ܢܛܘ�ܐ ̇ܐܘ ܡܢ‬ ̈ .‫ܥܡܡܐ‬ ̄ ̈ ‫[ ܘܡܛܠ‬.‫]ܒ‬ .‫ܛܒܥܐ‬ 2

̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ̈ ‫ ܦܘܫܩܐ ܡܛܠ ܢܛܘ�ܐ‬:‫ܕܝܒ‬ ‫ܘܝܗܘܕܝܐ‬ 3 � ‫ ܕܐܢ ܟܕ‬.‫ܡܬܒܥܝܐ ܕܝܢ ܘܦܘܫܟܐ ܡܠܝܐ‬ ‫ܚܬܝܡ ܩܒܪܐ ܐܙܠܘ ܩܣܛܘܢ�ܐ ܠܘܬ �ܒܝܟܗܢܐ‬ ‫ ܐܝܟܢܐ ܡܩܒܠܝܢ ܡܢܗܘܢ‬.‫ܘܐܡܪܘ ܠܗܘܢ ܕܩܡ‬ ̣ ‫ ܗܢܘܢ ܕܐܦ� ܟܕ ܫܒܩܘ‬.‫ܘܡܗܝܡܢܝܢ ܠܗܘܢ‬ ‫ܐܢܘܢ ܕܢܛܪܘܢ ܗܝܡܢܘ ܐܢܘܢ ܥܠ ܢܛܘܪܬܗ‬ ̈ ‫ܕܩܒܪܐ܇ ܐ� ܐܪܡ ̣ܝܘ ܥ�ܘܗܝ‬ .‫ܛܒܥܐ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ̇ :‫ܕܝܓ‬ ‫ܕܡܟܣ �ܝܠܢ ܕܐܡܪܝܢ ܕܐܝܟܢܐ‬ .‫ܢܦܩ ܡܢ ܩܒܪܐ ܟܕ ܚܬ ̣ܝܡ‬ ̣ ‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܕܡܛܠ ܡܢܐ ܐܬܚܙܝܘ‬:̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ ܕܝܕ‬ .� ‫̈ܡ�ܟܐ ܨܝܕ ܩܒܪܐ ܘܨܝܕ ܓܓܘܠܬܐ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ‫ ܘܟܕ‬:‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܕܠܡܢܐ ܒܚܘ�ܐ‬:‫ܕܝܗ‬ ̈ ‫ܝ̇ܬܒܝܢ ܐܬܚܙܝܘ ̈ܡ�ܟܐ‬ .‫ܠܢܫܐ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܐܝܟܢܐ ܟܕ ܩܣܛܘܢ�ܐ ܢܛܪܝܢ‬:‫ܕܝܘ‬ ‫ܗܘܘ ܩܒܪܐ ܐܝܟ ܕܣܗܕ ܡܬܝ܆ ܫܡܥܘܢ‬ ‫ܘܚܙܘ‬ ̣ ‫ܕܐܡܪ ܝܘܚܢܢ‬ ̣ ‫ܘܝܘܚܢܢ ܐܬܘ ܠܩܒܪܐ ܐܝܟ‬ ̈ .‫ܠܟܬܢܐ‬

This chapter is mistakenly numbered as “11”. This chapter is mistakenly numbered as “12”. 3 Added above the line, it might be from a second hand. 1 2

51

52

JOHN OF DARA ON THE RESURRECTION OF HUMAN BODIES 17. Chapter: It demonstrates: Why John says that Peter and John came to the tomb ‘and he saw and wondered’ (John 20:8). 18. Chapter: Regarding why our Lord said to his disciples: Behold, I will meet you in Galilee (Matt 28:7). 19. Chapter: It demonstrates how the Lord appeared to the disciples after the resurrection. 20. Chapter: It demonstrates to whom the tomb belonged to and why.

21. Chapter: It demonstrates regarding the Lord’s clothes and the strips of linen. 22. Chapter: It demonstrates regarding the cloth.

23. Chapter: Commentary on the reading of the Gospel.

24. Chapter: It demonstrates why He was in the tomb for three days and no more or less.

25. Chapter: It demonstrates how He was at the same time in the hand of His Father, in Paradise and in the heart of the earth. 26. Chapter: Why did He rise on Sunday?

27. Chapter: It demonstrates in which way Our Lord called His disciples His brothers, and when.

28. Chapter: Regarding what Our Lord told the apostles: I am ascending to my Father and 1

John 20:8: ‫ܘܗܝܡܢ‬

‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܕܐܝܟܢܐ ̣ܐܡܪ ܝܘܚܢܢ‬:̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ ܕܝܙ‬ .‫ܕܦܛܪܘܣ ܘܝܘܚܢܢ ̣ܐܬܘ ܠܒܝܬ ܩܒܘܪܐ‬ .1 «‫»ܘܚܙܐ ܟܬܢܐ ܘܐܬܕܡܪ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ‫ ܡܛܠ ̇ܗܝ ܕܐܝܟܢܐ ̣ܐܡܪ ܦܪܘܩܢ‬:‫ܕܝܚ‬ ̈ ‫ܠܬܠܡܝܕܘܗܝ »ܕܗܐ ܩܕܡ ܐܢܐ ܠܟܘܢ‬ .«�‫ܠܓܠܝ‬ ̄ ‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܕܐܝܟܢܐ ܡܬܚܙܐ ̣ܗܘܐ‬:‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ ܕܝܛ‬ ̈ .‫ܠܬ�ܡܝܕܐ ܒܬܪ ܩܝܡܬܐ ܡܪܝܐ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܕܡܢܘ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ̣ܗܘܐ ܩܒܪܐ‬:‫ܕܟ‬ .‫̇ܗܘ ܘܐܝܟܢܐ‬ ̄ ̈ ‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܡܛܠ ܢܚܬܘܗܝ ܕܦܪܘܩܢ‬:‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ ܕܟܐ‬ .‫ܘܟܬܢ̈ܘܗܝ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ .‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܡܛܠ ܣܘܕܪܐ‬:‫ܕܟܒ‬ ̄ .‫ ܦܘܫܩܐ ܕܩܪܝܢܐ ܕܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ‬:[‫]ܕܟܓ‬ ‫]ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܕܡܛܠ ܡܢܐ ܬܠܬܐ‬:̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ ܕܟܕ‬ ̈ .‫ܝܘܡܝܢ ܒܩܒܪܐ ̣ܗܘܐ ܘ� ܝܬ ̣ܝܪܐ ܘ� ܚܣ ̣ܝܪܐ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܕܐܝܟܢܐ ܒܗ ܟܕ ܒܗ ܒܙܒܢܐ‬:‫ܕܟܗ‬ ̇ ‫ܘܒܠܒܗ ܕܐܪܥܐ ܗܘܐ‬ ‫ܒܐ�̈ܕܝ ܐܒܐ ܘܒܦܪܕܝܣܐ‬ .‫ܡܪܝܐ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ .‫ ܕܠܡܢܐ ܒܝܘܡܐ ܕܚܕ ܒܫܒܐ ܩܡ‬:‫ܕܟܘ‬ ‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܕܒܐܝܢܐ ܙܢܐ ̣ܩܪܐ ܡܪܢ‬:̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ ܕܟܙ‬ ̈ ̈ ‫ܠܬ�ܡܝܕܘܗܝ‬ .‫ܐܚܘܗܝ ܘܐܡܬܝ‬ ̈ ‫ ܥܠ ̇ܗܝ ܕܐܡܪ ܡܪܢ‬:‫ܕܟܚ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ‫�ܫܠܝܚܐ‬

‫( ܘܚܕܐ‬Peshitta). ‫( ܘܚܕܘ ܘܗܝܡܢܘ‬Sinaiticus).

3. THE LIFE AND WORK OF JOHN OF DARA your Father, to my God and your God (John 20:17). 29. Chapter: On the descension of our Lord to Sheol. 30. Chapter: It demonstrates what Sheol is.

31. Chapter: It inquires about the dead who rose: How many were they? When did they rise? How were they? And how long did they stay? 32. Chapter: How do we count three days and three nights for Christ, and from when?

33. Chapter: It demonstrates that Christ rose from among the dead. At first the angels witnessed, then the women, the apostles and the evangelists.

V.

On Pentecost (fol 84–95v) Treatise:

1. Chapter: Regarding Pentecost.

2. Chapter: It demonstrates why there were seven weeks to Pentecost. And it demonstrates also from where the term ‘Pentecost’ is taken. 3. Chapter: Regarding the number of the weeks.

4. Chapter: It demonstrates the veneration of Pentecost, and because of the number seven times seven, and because the law

53

‫ ܘܐܠܗܝ‬.‫»ܕܣܠܩ ܐܢܐ ܠܘܬ ܐܒܝ ܘܐܒܘܟܘܢ‬ .«‫ܘܐܠܗܟܘܢ‬ ̄ .‫ ܥܠ ܡܚܬܬܗ ܕܡܪܢ ܠܫܝܘܠ‬:‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ ܕܟܛ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ .‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܕܡܢܐ ̇ܗܝ ܫܝܘܠ‬:‫ܕܠ‬ ̄ ‫ ܕܡܥܩܒ ܡܛܠ ̈ܡ ̣ܝܬܐ ̇ܗܢܘܢ‬:�‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ ܕ‬ .‫ ܘܕܐܡܬܝ ܩܡܘ‬.‫ܕܩܡܘ ܕܟܡܐ ̇ܗܘܝܢ ܗܘܘ‬ .‫ ܘܟܡܐ ܩܘ ̣ܝܘ‬.‫ܘܐܝܟܢܐ ܗܘܘ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܕܐܝܟ ܐܝܟܢܐ ܡܬܡܢܐ‬:‫ܕܠܒ‬ ̈ ̈ ‫ܠܡܫܝܚܐ ܬܠܬܐ‬ ‫ܠܝ�ܘܢ‬ ‫ܐܝܡܡܝܢ ܘܬܠܬܐ‬ ̣ .‫ܘܡܢ ܐܡܬܝ‬ ̄ ‫ܡܫܝܚܐ‬ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ̣ ‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܕܩܡ ܗܟܝܠ‬:[‫]ܕܠܓ‬ ̈ ̈ .‫ܣܗܕܘ‬ ̣ ‫ ܠܘܩܕܡ ܡ�ܟܐ‬.‫̣ܡܢ ܒܝܬ ܡ ̣ܝܬܐ‬ ̈ ̈ .‫ܘܐܘܢܓ�ܣܛܐ‬ ‫ܘܫܠܝܚܐ‬ ‫ܘܗܝܕܝܢ ܢ̈ܫܐ‬

:‫ܡܐܡܪܐ ܕܚܡܫܐ‬ ‫ܕܥܠ ܦܢܛܩܘܣܛܝ‬

̄ .‫ ܡܛܠ ܦܢܛܩܘܣܛܝ‬:‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ ܕܐ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ̈ ‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܕܡܢܐ ̇ܗܝ ܥܠܬܐ‬:‫ܕܒ‬ ‫ܕܫܒܘܥܐ‬ ‫ܕܟܕ ܫܒܝܥܐܝܬ ܡܬ�ܟܒܢ ܥܒܪܝܢ‬ ‫ ܕܒܗ ܬܘܒ ܘܡܢ ܐܝܟܐ ܢܣܝܒ‬.[‫ܠܦܢܛܩܘ]ܣܛܝ‬ .‫ܫܡܐ ܕܦܢܛܩܘܣܛܝ ܡܬܚܘܝܐ‬ ̈ ‫ ܡܛܠ ܡܢܝܢܐ‬:‫ܕܓ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ .‫ܕܫܒܘܥܐ‬ ‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܐܝܩܪܗ ܕܦܢܛܩܘܣܛܝ‬:̄‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ ܕܕ‬ ‫ ܘܕܡܛܠ ܕܒܗ ܐܬܝܗܒ‬.‫ܘܡܛܠ ܫܒܝܥܝܘܬܐ‬ .‫ܢܡܘܣܐ‬

54

JOHN OF DARA ON THE RESURRECTION OF HUMAN BODIES was given on it.

5. Chapter: It informs us why God was revealed to them in such a vision, and not with a joyful and happy vision. 6. Chapter: It demonstrates why on the same day, on which the law was given to them, the Spirit was also given to the apostles.

7. Chapter: It demonstrates why there are ten days between the ascension and the descension of the Spirit, and why the Spirit did not come immediately after His ascension. And why Christ did not give the Spirit to the apostles when He was on the earth, but sent it from heaven. 8. Chapter: Why we venerate the day of Pentecost, commentary of the lectionary passage from the Gospel. 9. Chapter: It is an objection regarding the Spirit, whether [the Spirit] itself is given to the disciples or its grace. 10. Chapter: Commentary on the lectionary chapter from the Acts.

11. Chapter: It demonstrates that the Spirit is God and equal in essence to the Father and the Son.

On the Finding of the Cross

VI. Treatise:

1

This chapter is mistakenly numbered as “10”.

̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ‫ ܕܡܘܕܥ ܕܠܡܢ ܒܚܙܬܐ ܕܐܝܟ ܗܕܐ‬:‫ܕܗ‬ ‫ ܘܠܘ ܒܓܠܝܢܐ‬.‫ܐܬܓܠܝ �ܗܐ �ܐܕܝܗܘܢ‬ .‫ܕܡܚܕܐ ܘܡܦܨܚ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܕܡܛܠ ܡܢܐ ܒܗ ܒܝܘܡܐ‬:‫ܕܘ‬ ̇ ‫ܕܐܬܝܗܒ ܢܡܘܣܐ‬ ‫ܠܗܢܘܢ܆ ܒܗ ܐܦ ܪܘܚܐ‬ ̈ .‫ܠܫܠܝܚܐ‬ ‫ܐܬܝܗܒ‬ ‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܕܠܡܢܐ ܥܣܪܐ ܝܘܡܝ̈ܢ ܡܢ‬:̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ ܕܙ‬ ‫ ܘܠܘ ܡܚܕܐ‬.‫ܣܘܠܩܐ ܠܡܚܬܬܐ ܕܪܘܚܐ ܗܘܐ‬ ‫ ܘܕܡܛܠ ܡܢܐ ܟܕ‬.‫ܒܬܪ ܣܘܠܩܗ ܐܬܐ ܪܘܚܐ‬ ‫ܥܠ ܐܪܥܐ ܡܕܝܪ ܗܘܐ ܡܫܝܚܐ܇ � ܝܗܒܗ‬ ̈ .‫ܠܫܠܝܚܐ ܐ� ܡܢ ܫܡܝܐ ܫܕܪܗ‬ ‫ܠܪܘܚܐ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܕܡܛܠ ܡܢܐ ܡܝܩܪܝܢܢ‬:‫ܕܚ‬ ‫ܠܝܘܡܐ ܕܦܢܛܩܘܣܛܝ܆ ܘܦܘܫܩܐ ܕܩܪܝܢܐ‬ .‫ܕܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ‬ ̄ ‫ ܕܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܗܦܟܬܐ ܡܛܠ ܪܘܚܐ‬1:‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ ܕܛ‬ ‫ܕܐܢ ܩܢܘܡܗ ܐܬܝܗܒ ܠܬܠܡܝ̈ܕܐ܇ ܐܘ ܛܝܒܘܬܐ‬ .‫ܕܡܢܗ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ .‫ ܦܘܫܩܐ ܕܩܪܝܢܐ ܗܘ ܕܦܪܟܣܝܣ‬:‫ܕܝ‬ ̄ ‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܕܪܘܚܐ ̇ܗܘ �ܗܐ ܘܫܘܐ‬:‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ ܕܝܐ‬ .‫ܒܐܘܣܝܐ �ܒܐ ܘܠܒܪܐ‬

:‫ܡܐܡܪܐ ܕܫܬܐ‬

3. THE LIFE AND WORK OF JOHN OF DARA (fol 95v–105v)

1. Chapter: Regarding finding [the cross] and veneration of the day. 2. Chapter: It demonstrates that through worshipping the cross we neither worship a corruptible material nor just simply the symbol. 3. Chapter: It demonstrates that through worshipping Christ the sign is also included.

4. Chapter: It demonstrates with a rebuke: Has the cross been established because of its material? [If so] nature wershippers would be the first holy people. 5. Chapter: Why Christ is worshipped in the type of cross that is the proclaimer of dishonour and humiliation, and not through what proclaims His power and His miracles. 6. Chapter: It demonstrates in many ways the glory of the cross. 7. Chapter: It demonstrates regarding the same sign out of Scripture. 8. Chapter: It demonstrates the greatness of the cross. 9. Chapter: It demonstrates the greatness of the cross from the heroic actions performed through it. 1

55 1‫ܕܨܠܝܒܐ‬

̣

̇ ‫ܥܠ‬ ‫ܫܟܚܬܗ‬

̄ ̇ ‫ ܡܛܠ‬:‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ ܕܐ‬ ‫ܫܟܚܬܐ ܘܡܛܠ ܐܝܩܪܗ‬ ‫ܕܝܘܡܐ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ [‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܕܠܘ ܠܡ�ܘܐ]ܐ‬:‫ܕܒ‬ .‫ܡܬܚܒ�ܢܐ ܣܓܕܝܢܢ ܒܣܓܕܬܗ ܕܨܠ ̣ܝܒܐ‬ .‫ܘܐܦ� ܠܢ ̣ܝܫܐ ܦܫܝܛܐܝܬ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܕܐܝܟܢܐ ܟܕ ܒܨܠ ̣ܝܒܐ‬:‫ܕܓ‬ ‫ܡܫܝܚܐ ܡܣܬܓܕ ܐܦ ܗܘ ܢܝܫܐ ܥܡܗ‬ ̣ .‫ܡܫܬܘܬܦ‬ ‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܡܟܣܢܐܝܬ ܕܐܢ ܡܛܠ‬:̄‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ ܕܕ‬ ‫ܡ�ܘܐܐ ܡܬܬܩܢ ܨܠ ̣ܝܒܐ܆ ̇ܣ ̈ܓܕܝ ܠܒ�ܝܬܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܡܬܚܘܝܢ ܕܐܝܬܝܗܘܢ ܡܛܠ ܗܕܐ‬ ‫ܘܩܕ ̣ܝܫܐ‬ ̈ .‫ܩܕܡܝܐ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ‫ ܕܠܡܢܐ ܒܛܘܦܣܐ ܕܨܠ ̣ܝܒܐ‬:‫ܕܗ‬ ‫ܕܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܡܟܪܙܢܐ ܕ ̣ܫܦ� ܘܕܡܘܟܟܐ‬ ‫ ܘ� ̣ܗܘܐ ܒܐܝܠܝܢ‬.‫ܡܫܝܚܐ‬ ̣ ‫ܡܣܬܓܕ‬ .‫ܕܡܟ�ܙܢ ܿ ܼܚܝܠܗ ܘܬܕܡ�ܬܗ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܥܠ ܣܓܝܐܘܬ ܙܢ̈ܝܐ‬:‫ܕܘ‬ .‫ܕܫܘܒܚܗ ܕܨܠ ̣ܝܒܐ‬ ̣ ‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܥ�ܘܗܝ ܟܕ ܥ�ܘܗܝ ܕܢ ̣ܝܫܐ‬:̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ ܕܙ‬ ̈ �‫ܡܢ ̈ܡ‬ .‫ܕܟܬܒܐ‬ ̣ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ .‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܥܠ ܪܒܘܬܗ ܕܨܠ ̣ܝܒܐ‬:‫ܕܚ‬ ̄ ‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܥܠ ܪܒܘܬܗ ܕܨܠ ̣ܝܒܐ ܡܢ‬:‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ ܕܛ‬ .‫ܓܒ�ܘܬܐ ܕܒܐܝܕܗ‬

The numbers of all the chapters in this treatise have been added later by hand.

56

JOHN OF DARA ON THE RESURRECTION OF HUMAN BODIES 10. Chapter: It demonstrates the majesty of the cross in its natural form. 11. Chapter: It demonstrates its greatness from the mysteries of Scripture.

On the Divine Economy, particularly on the [Nativity] of Christ regarding

VII. Treatise:

salvation (fol 106r–125r)

1. Chapter: It demonstrates what the reason is for the Word of God to be incarnate. 2. Chapter: Objection from those opposing asking us: why the Word became united with the flesh, saved with passion and death. And why is He united to an animated body and saved by means of [His] passion and death, but not through power that is more fitting to God.

3. Chapter: Objection that collects the absurdities of those in opposition, thus one of them states: It was not man who defeated the enemy, but God with skillful methods. 4. Chapter: An objection again asking why the Lord did not come with Glory. 5. Chapter: It demonstrates why the Lord came by Himself. 6. Chapter: It demonstrates how we have been justified by Christ (cf. Rom 5:9).

7. Chapter: It demonstrates that the coming of the Lord in flesh was essential and necessary for our salvation.

̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ‫ ̣ܡܢ‬.‫ܪܒܘܬܗ ܕܨܠ ̣ܝܒܐ‬ ̣ ‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܥܠ‬:‫ܕܝ‬ .‫ܛܘܦܣܐ ܕܒܟܝܢܐ‬ ̄ ‫ܪܒܘܬܗ ̣ܡܢ �ܐܙܐ‬ ̣ ‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܥܠ‬:‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ ܕܝܐ‬ ̈ .‫ܕܒܟܬܒܐ‬

:‫ܡܐܡܪܐ ܕܫܒܥܐ‬ ‫ܕܥܠ ܡܕܒܪܢܘܬܗ ܕܐܠܗܐ ܝܬܝܪܐܝܬ ]ܥܠ‬ ‫ܡܘܠܕܗ[ ܦܪܘܩܝܐ ܕܡܫܝܚܐ‬

݀ ‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܕܐܝ̇ܕܐ ̣ܗܝ ܥܠܬܐ ܕܐܠܨܬ‬:̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ ܕܐ‬ .‫ܕܢܬܒܣܪ ܡܠܬܐ �ܗܐ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ �‫ ܗܦܟܬܐ ̣ܡܢ ̇ܗܢܘܢ ܕܕܠܩܘܒ‬:‫ܕܒ‬ ‫ܕܡܫܐܠ ̣ܝܢ ܠܢ ܕܡܛܠ ܡܢܐ ܠܒܣܪܐ ܐܬܚܝܕ‬ ̈ .‫ܡܠܬܐ‬ ‫ ܘܡܛܠ ܡܢܐ‬.‫ܘܒܚܫܐ ܘܡܘܬܐ ܦܪܩ‬ ̈ .‫ܠܦܓܪܐ ܢܦܫܐ ܐܬܚܝܕ ܘܒܚܫܐ ܘܡܘܬܐ ܦܪܩ‬ .‫ܒܫܘܠܛܢܐ ܦܐܐ �ܠܗܐ‬ ̣ ‫ܘܠܘ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ‫ ܗܦܟܬܐ ܕܡܟܢܫܐ ܫܟܝ�ܘܬܐ ܐܝܟ‬:‫ܕܓ‬ ‫̣ܕܡܢ ̇ܗܢܘܢ ܕܕܠܩܘܒ�܆ ܐ� ̇ܐܡܪ ܐܢܫ ܡܕܝܢ ܠܘ‬ ‫ ܘܒܦܘܪܣܐ‬.‫ܒܪܢܫܐ ܙܟܐ ܠܒܥܠܕܒܒܐ ܐ� �ܗܐ‬ .‫ܕܒܐܘܡܢܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܬܘܒ ܕܡܫܐ�܆ ܕܠܡܢܐ ܠܘ‬ ̣ ‫ ܗܦܟܬܐ‬:̄‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ ܕܕ‬ .‫ܒܫܒܝܚܘܬܐ ̣ܐܬ ܐ ܡܪܝܐ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ̇ ‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ‬:‫ܕܗ‬ ‫ܒܩܢܘܡܗ ̣ܐܬ ܐ‬ ‫ܗܘ‬ ̣ ̣ ‫ܕܠܡܢܐ‬ .‫ܡܪܝܐ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ .‫ܒܡܫܝܚܐ‬ ‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܕܐܝܟܢܐ ܐܙܕܕܩܢ‬:‫ܕܘ‬ ̣ ܵ ݀ ‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܕܐܠܨܝܬܐ ܗܘܬ‬:̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ ܕܙ‬ ‫ܘܐܢܢܩܝܬܐ‬ .‫ܠܦܘܪܩܢܢ‬ ‫ܕܒܒܣܪ‬ ̣ ܼ ܿ ‫ܗܘܬ ݀ ܡܐܬ ̣ܝܬܗ ܕܡܪܝܐ‬

3. THE LIFE AND WORK OF JOHN OF DARA 8. Chapter: Was it necessary to come [down] and become a man? What made it necessary to submit to conception and birth, upbringing, hunger, thirst, pains, sadness, mockery, scorn and derision? 9. Chapter: It demonstrates which the true passions are, and what a natural act is.

10. Chapter: It demonstrates what the passions of human nature are, and in which of them the Only Begotten took part. 11. Chapter: It demonstrates that the properties regarding the Divine body of the Word of God are referred to in three different ways. 12. Chapter: It demonstrates that the Lord suffered on our behalf and not because of Himself.

13. Chapter: It collects the absurdities that are related to those saying He suffered by force. 14. Chapter: It demonstrates for what the Lord suffered and died, and the nature of His death. 15. Chapter: It demonstrates whether Christ died naturally like a human being or differently. 16. Chapter: Against the Jews, pagans and heretics who accuse us for saying God suffered and died.

17. Chapter: Objection from those in opposition, saying that the effect of scorn and blasphemy carried out by men, and the disturbance, provocation and worship of

57

̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ‫ܘܢܬܒܪܢܫ ܡܘܢ‬ ̣ :‫ܕܚ‬ ܼ ܿ ‫ܕܢܐܬܐ‬ ܸ ݀‫ܕܐܢܗܘ ܕܐܠܨܬ‬ ‫�ܨܬ ݀ ܕܢܫܬܥܒܕ ܠܒܛܢܐ ܘܝܠܕܐ ܘܬܪܒ ̣ܝܬܐ‬ ‫ܘܟܡܝܪܘܬܐ ܘܒܙܚܐ‬ ‫ܘܟܦܢܐ ܘܨܗܝܐ ܘܥܩܬܐ‬ ̣ .‫ܘܨܥܪܐ ܘܡܘܝܩܐ‬ ̄ ̈ ‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܕܐܝܠܝܢ ܐܢܘܢ‬:‫ܕܛ‬ ‫ܚܫܐ‬ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ܰ ̇ ‫ܚܬܝܬܐ ̣ܝܬ ܘܐܝܢܘ‬ .‫ܥܒܕܐ ܕܟܝܢܐ‬ ̈ ‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܕܐܝܠܝܢ ܐܢܘܢ‬:‫ܕܝ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ‫ܚܫܐ ܕܟܝܢܐ‬ ܰ .‫ ܘܒܐܝܠܝܢ ܐܫܬܘܬܦ ܝܚܚܕܝܐ‬.‫ܐܢܫܝܐ‬ ̈ .‫ܠܚܫܐ ܕܟܝܢܐ ܐܢܫܝܐ‬ ‫ܘܡܛܠ ܡܢܐ ܐܫܬܘܬܦ‬ ̈ ‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܕܐܦ‬:̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ ܕܝܐ‬ ‫ ܒܬܠܬܐ ܙܢ̈ܝܐ‬.‫ܕܝܠܝܬܐ‬ .‫ܡܬܐܡ�ܢ ܥܠ ܦܓܪܗ ܕܡܠܬܐ �ܗܐ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܕܚ�ܦܝܢ ܚܫ ܡܪܝܐ ܕܝܠܢ‬:‫ܕܝܒ‬ .‫ܘܠܘ ܡܛܠ ܩܢܘܡܗ‬ ̈ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ‫ܕܢܩܦܢ �ܝܠܝܢ‬ ‫ ܕܡܟܢܫ ܫܟܝ�ܘܬܐ‬:‫ܕܝܓ‬ .‫ܕܐܡܪܝܢ ܕܩܛܝܪܐܝܬ ܚܫ‬ ‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܕܡܛܠ ܡܢܐ ܚܫ ܘܡܝܬ‬:̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ ܕܝܕ‬ .‫ ܘܐܝܢܘ ܙܢܐ ܕܡܘܬܗ‬.‫ܡܪܝܐ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܕܐܢ ܟܝܢܐܝܬ ܐܝܟ ܒܢ̈ܝܢܫܐ‬:‫ܕܝܗ‬ .‫ܡܝܬ ܡܫܝܚܐ ܐܘ ܐܚܪܢܝܐܝܬ‬ ̈ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ‫ܘܚܢܦܐ‬ ‫ ܠܘܩܒܠ ܝܗܘܕ�̈ܐ‬:‫ܕܝܘ‬ ‫ܘܗ�ܝܛܝܩܘ ܕܡܙܛܡܝܢ ܠܢ ܟܕ ܐܡܪܝܢܢ ܕܚܫ‬ .‫�ܗܐ ܘܡܝܬ‬ �‫ ܐ‬.�‫ ܗܦܟܬܐ ܕܡܢ ܗܢܘܢ ܕܕܠܩܘܒ‬:̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ ܕܝܙ‬ ̈ ̈ ‫ܕܨܘܚܝܬܐ ܘܓܘܕܦܐ ܕܡܢ‬ ‫ܣܩܘܒܠܝܐ‬ ‫ܐܡܪܝܢ‬ ̈ ̈ ‫ܒܢܝܢܫܐ ܘܫܚܩܐ ܘܡܘ�ܡܪܐ ܘܣܓܕܬ ܦܬܟ�ܐ‬

58

JOHN OF DARA ON THE RESURRECTION OF HUMAN BODIES idols do not affect God, whereas the piercing of His side, the wounds, nails, whip, murder and death affect Christ. 18. Chapter: Now when they hear these [words], they say: You said that it is impossible for God to endure suffering, but we say that His nature is beyond suffering, and that He did not endure suffering as you are stating. 19. Chapter: It demonstrates in which way the heretics state that God suffered.

‫ ܬܪܥ ܤܛܪܗ ܕܝܢ‬.‫ܠܘ ܒܗ ܒܐܠܗܐ ̇ܓܫܦܝܢ‬ ̈ ‫ ܒܗ‬.‫ܘܫܘܡܬܐ ܕܨ̈�ܐ ܘܦ�ܓ� ܘܩܛ� ܘܡܘܬܐ‬ . ‫ܡܫܝܚܐ ܓܫܦܝܢ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ .‫ ܐܡܪܝܢ‬.‫ ܗܪܟܐ ܟܕ ܗܠܝܢ ܫ̇ ܡܥܝܢ‬:‫ܕܝܚ‬ ̈ ‫ܕܐܡܪܬ ܕ� ܡܟܢ �ܗܐ ܠܡܣܒܠ‬ ܰ .‫ܚܫܐ‬ ‫ܘܚܢܢ ܠܡ ܗܟܢܐ ܐܡܪܝܢܢ ܕ ̇ܥܠܝ ܟܝܢܗ ܡܢ‬ ̈ ̈ ‫ܠܚܫܐ ܐܝܟ ܕܐܡܪܝܢ‬ ‫ܚܫܐ ܘܠܘ ܕܐܫܬܥܒܕ‬ .‫ܐܢܬܘܢ‬ ̄ ‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܕܒܐܝܢܐ ܙܢܐ ܐܡܪܝܢ‬:‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ ܕܝܛ‬ .‫ܗܝ�ܝܛܝܩܘ ܕܚܫ �ܗܐ‬

3. THE LIFE AND WORK OF JOHN OF DARA

59

Treatises found in the manuscript of the Syriac Orthodox Bishopric of Mosul [=M 1 and Vatican Library Sir. 100 [=V] The manuscript of the library of the Syriac Orthodox bishopric in Mosul [M], along with the manuscript of the Vatican Syriac collection 100 [V], belong to John of Dara’s oldest texts. M is not dated, but the handwriting shows some similarities to that of V, and it might have served as the main text for V, that is one of the manuscripts Moses of Mardin took to Deirl Suryan in Egypt before 932. 2 M consists of 326 pages, 163 folios, and V of 136 folios. V has got less folios, because it does not include the last treatise of M (On the Eucharist) and the collection of various texts at the end of the Codex M. The codex M can be divided into four different parts and V into two: The first one provides the two treatises On Celestial Hierarchy and On Ecclesiastical Hierarchy (M1v– 27v; V80r–115r) and the four treatises On Priesthood (M27v–49v; V115v–136v). The first two mimre are a commentary On Celestial and On Ecclesiastical Hierarchy with reference to Dionysius the Areopagite. 3 Liza Anderson started working on these two mimre and drafted an English translation but did not finalise it. She only used the MS Harvard Houghton Syr 122 (Harvard Harris 119), a copy from M written in 1899. 4 The four mimre On Priesthood have sometimes been attributed to John Maron. These treastises were already summarised in the nineteenth century 5 by Pius Zingerly, and Liza Anderson has also drafted an English translation of the first two mimre. 1 I am very thankful to H E Mor Gregorios Saliba Shamoun, the retired Archbischop of Mosul, for his kindness in sending me a digitilised copy of this manuscript. I received it just a few months after meeting him at the ordination of Mor Polycarpus Dr. Augin Aydin in Maarat Saydnaya, Syria, April 15th, 2007. I expressed my appreciation to Mor Gregorios Saliba Shamoun when I visited him in Iraq on May 28th 2010, during the Pro Oriente Forum Syriacum that took place in Sulaymaniyah, May 26th–27th 2010. 2 This will be explained later in the introduction to the edition of the Mimre on Resurrection of the Human Body. 3 See I. A. Barsoum, The Scattered Pearls, 392; See W. Strothmann, Das Sakrament der Myronweihe in der Schrift de Ecclesiastica Hiearchia des Pseudo Areopagita in syrischen Übersetzungen und Kommentaren (Wiesbaden 1978), 49–57. 4 Liza Anderson started her Ph.D at Yale University working on “The Interpretation of Pseudo-Dionysius in the Works of John of Dara”, but then changed her topic. Now she is a post-doc at Episcopal Divinity School in Boston and shared her work on John of Dara in her www.academica.edu, which is not yet finalised. 5 P. Zingerle, “Aus dem Handschriftlichen syrischen Werk des Johannes von Dara über das Priestertum”, in ThQ 49 (1867), 183–205; ibid 50 (1868), 267–285. This work has sometimes been attributed to John Maron. See Baby Varghese, John of Dara Commentary on the Eucharist, Moran Etho 12 (Kerala 1999); Jean Sader, “Jean de Dara”, Dictionnaire de Spiritualitè VIII (Paris 1974), 467–68; Michel Breydy, La doctrine Syro-Antiochene sur le sacerdoce dans sa version maronite (Jounieh 1977). 1

60

JOHN OF DARA ON THE RESURRECTION OF HUMAN BODIES

The second part includes the four mimre On Resurrection (M50r–124v; V1v–79v), which has been divided into 34 chapters. There is confusion with Moses bar Kepha who also composed 34 chapters in three treastises entitled On Resurrection (11+15+8=34). 2 The third part is the mimro On the Offering of the Holy Mysteries (M125r–145v). It is the only work that has been edited and translated so far, first into French by Jean Sader and then into English by Baby Varghese. 3 The treatise On the Offering of the Holy Mysteries is written in later Serto-script and it differs strongly from the rest of the manuscript (M125r–146). This treatise was given by Jonan ibn Shemoun al-Hesni to the monastery of St Behnam in Mosul in 1744. 4 The last part is a collection of various texts (M147r–163v) that needs detailed work to identify. These folios, most of which only have one column, are different to the others and the handwriting differs too. They do not seem to belong to John of Dara. 5 For instance, folio M148r has got five lines of big Estrangelo script, a different handwriting to the text, stating: “This book of the commentaries of Dionysios belongs to the priest Aaron who collected it for his own benefit, as well as for those who encounter it and for the commemoration of his departed people.” 6 In the following table the headlines of the mimre are given according to M and V. On the right hand side, the roman characters refer to the number of mimre in M, and the chapter numbers are listed under Ch[apters]: Title

(1) The mimro by Mor Iwannis, metropolitian of Dara, On Celestial Hierarchy. Also it illuminates the words of Saint Dionysius [the Areopagite found] in the mimro On Angelic Hierarchy.

Ch. 16

M

1v–12v

V

80r–92v

Title

‫ܡܐܡܪܐ ܕܥܒܝܕ ܠܚܣܝܐ ܡܪܝ ܐܝܘܐܢܝܣ‬ ‫ܡܛܪܘܦܘܠܝܛܐ ܕܕܐܪܐ ܥܠ ܡܛܟܣܘܬܐ‬ ̈ ‫ ̇ܡܢܗܪ ܕܝܢ ܘܐܦ‬.‫ܫܡܝܢܝܬܐ‬ ‫�ܡ�ܘܗܝ‬ ‫ܕܩܕܝܫܐ ܕܝܘܢܘܣܝܘܣ ܕܒܗ ܒܡܐܡܪܐ‬ ‫ܕܪܝܫܘܬ ܡܛܟܣܘܬܐ ܡ�ܟܝܬܐ‬

I

Her translation is published on her www.academica.edu. See W. Strothmann, Moses Bar Kepha, Myron-Weihe, I. Reihe Syriaca, Band 7 (Wiesbaden 1973), 25. 3 J. Sader, Le De Oblatione de Jean de Dara CSCO 308, SSyr 132 (Louvain 1970), and translated into French, Le De Oblatione de Jean de Dara, CSCO 309, SSyr 133 (Louvain 1970). An English translation was produced by Baby Varghese, John of Dara Commentary on the Eucharist, Moran Etho 12 (Kerala 1999). 4 See folio M 146r. 5 For instance, the text on pp. 321–323 is attributed to Severus of Antioch. ̈ 6 M148r: ‫ܕܦܘܫܩܐ ܕܕܝܢܘܣܝܘܣ ܕܐܗܪܘܢ ܩܫܝܫܐ ܕܩܢܝܗ ܐܝܟ ܕܠܝܘܬܪܢܐ ܕܢܦܫܗ ܘܕܟܠ‬ ‫ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܟܬܒܐ ܗܢܐ‬ 1 2

̈ ]‫ܕܦܓܥ ܒܗ ܘܡܛܘܠ ܕܘܟܪܢܐ ܕܥ̈ܢܝܕܘܗܝ܇ ܟܠ ܕܩܐܪܐ ܢܨ� ܡܛܠ ܡܝ‬ ‫ܬܘܗܝ[ ܟܠ ܕܫܩܐܠ�ܠܗ ܘܟܝܡ ܥ�ܘܗܝ‬ ‫ܓܪܒܗ ܕܓܚܙܝ ܢܠܒܫ‬.

3. THE LIFE AND WORK OF JOHN OF DARA (2) Second mimro of Bishop Mor Iwannis of Dara. It includes a commentary, i.e. interpretation, of the words of Saint Dionysius [the Areopagite found] in the mimro On Ecclesiastical Hierarchy.

6

12v–27v 92v– 115r

(1) [The First] mimro On Priesthood of the same bishop Mor Iwannis, metropolitan of Dara.

8

27v– 30v

115v– 117v

(2) The second mimro On Priesthood of the same bishop Mor Iwannis, metropolitan of Dara.

18

30v– 38v

117v– 126v

(3) The third mimro On Priesthood of the same Bishop Iwannis, metropolitan of Dara.

2

38v– 41r

126v– 129v

(4) The fourth mimro of the same bishop Mor Iwannis On the Priests.

12

41r– 49v

129v– 136v

(1) With the power and support of the [Holy] trinity, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, we start writing the mimre On Resurrection of Human Bodies, composed and collected by bishop Mor Iwannis, metropolitan of the city of Dara.

11

50r– 60v

1v–15r

(2) The second mimro of the same bishop Mor Iwannis. 1

15

60v82v

15r– 36r

‫ܡܐܡܪܐ ܕܬ�ܝܢ ܕܝܠܗ ܕܚܣܝܐ ܡܪܝ‬ ‫ ܕܐܝܬ ܒܗ ܦܘܫܩܐ‬.‫ܐܝܘܐܢܝܣ ܕܕܐܪܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܐܘܟܝܬ ܢܘܗܪܐ‬ ‫ܕܡ� ܕܩܕܝܫܐ‬ ‫ ܕܒܡܐܡܪܐ ܕܪܝܫܘܬ‬.‫ܕܝܘܢܘܣܝܘܣ‬ ‫ܡܛܟܣܘܬܐ ܥܕܢܝܬܐ‬ ‫ܡܐܡܪܐ ܕܥܠ ܟܗܢܘܬܐ ܕܝܠܗ ܟܕ ܕܝܠܗ‬ ‫ܕܚܣܝܐ ܡܪܝ ܐܝܘܐܢܝܣ‬ ‫ܡܝܛܪܘܦܘܠܝܛܝܣ ܕܕܐܪܐ‬ ‫ܡܐܡܪܐ ܕܬ�ܝܢ ܕܥܠ ܟܗܢܘܬܐ ܕܝܠܗ‬ ‫ܕܚܣܝܐ ܡܪܝ ܐܝܘܐܢܝܣ‬ ‫ܡܝܛܪܘܦܘܠܝܛܝܣ ܕܕܐܪܐ‬ ‫ܬܘܒ ܡܐܡܪܐ ܕܬܠܬܐ ܕܥܠ ܟܗܢܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܕܝܠܗ ܕܚܣܝܐ ܐܝܘܐܢܝܣ‬ ‫ܡܝܛܪܘܦܘܠܝܛܝܣ ܕܕܐܪܐ‬ ‫ܡܐܡܪܐ ܕܐܪܒܥܐ ܕܝܠܗ ܟܕ ܕܝܠܗ‬ ̈ ‫ܕܚܣܝܐ ܡܪܝ ܐܝܘܐܢܝܣ ܕܥܠ ܟܗܢܐ‬ ‫ ܐܒܐ‬:‫ܕܬܠܝܬܝܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܥܠ ܿ ܼܚܝ� ܘܥܘܕܪܢܐ‬ ̣ ̇ ‫ܕܢܟܬܘܒ‬ ‫ܘܒܪܐ ܘܪܘܚܐ ܩܕܝܫܐ ܡܫܪܝܢܢ‬ ̇ ‫ܡܐܡ�ܐ ܕܥܒ ̣ܝܕܝܢ‬ ‫ܘܡܟܢܫܝܢ ܠܚܣܝܐ‬ ‫ܡܪܝ ܐܝܘܐܢܝܣ܂ ܡܝܛܪܘܦܘܠܝܛܝܣ‬ ‫ܕܕܪܐ ܡܕܝܢܬܐ܉ ܥܠ ܩܝܡܬܐ ܕܦܓ�ܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܐܢܫܝܐ‬ ‫ܕܝܠܗ ܟܕ ܕܝܠܗ ܕܚܣܝܐ ܡܪܝ‬ ‫ܐܝܘܢܢܝܣ ܡܐܡܪܐ ܕܬܪܝܢ‬

61 II

III

IV

V

VI

VII

VIII

Quotations are found in O. Braun, “Beiträge zur Geschichte der Eschatologie in den syrischen Kirchen”. ZKTh 16 (1892), 273–91, particularly pp. 286–87. See also C. M. Edsman, “Death, Corruption and Eternal Life”, Bulletin of the Iranian Culture Foundation I (1969), 85–104. 1

62

JOHN OF DARA ON THE RESURRECTION OF HUMAN BODIES

(3) Third mimro of the same bishop Mor Iwannis, Episcopus of Dara, that contains the Christian dogma On the Resurrection of the Bodies, and it goes quickly through what has been said in the first mimro.

8

82v– 94v

36r– 46v

(4) The fourth mimro of the same bishop Mor Iwannis, metropolitan of Dara.

23

94v– 124v

46v– 79v

4

125r– 145v

With divine power and trust we start writing and demonstrate from where the offering [of the holy mysteries] came into being. [Various texts from the Bible and Church Fathers]

147r– 163v

‫ܕܝܠܗ ܟܕ ܕܝܠܗ ܕܚܣܝܐ ܡܪܝ ܐܝܘܐܢܝܣ‬ ‫ ܡܐܡܪܐ ܕܬܠܬܐ ܕܒܗ‬.‫ܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ ܕܕܪܐ‬ ‫ܕܘܓܡܐ ܕܟ�ܣܛܝܢܐ ܕܡܛܠ ܩܝܡܬܐ‬ .‫ܕܦܓ�ܐ‬ ‫̇ܥܒܪ ܕܝܢ ܡܪܗܛܐܝܬ܉ ܘܥܠ ܗܠܝܢ‬ ̄ .‫ܕܐܬܐܡ�ܝ ܒܡܐܡܪܐ ܐ‬ ‫ ܕܝܠܗ ܕܚܣܝܐ‬.‫ܬܘܒ ܡܐܡܪܐ ܕܐܪܒܥܐ‬ ̄ ‫ܡܝܛܪܘܦܘ ܕܕܪܐ‬ ‫ܡܪܝ ܐܝܘܐܢܢܝܣ‬ ‫ܥܠ ܚܝ� ܘܬܘܟ�ܢܐ ܕܐܠܗܐ ܡܫܪܝܢܢ‬ ‫ܕܢܟܬܘܒ ܘܕܢܚܘܐ ܕܡܢ ܐܝܟܐ ܗܘܐ‬ ‫ܩܘܪܒܐ‬

IX

X

XI

XII

The text on folio M1–124 is written in a smart Estrangelo script in two columns. The style of writing changes in the middle of folio M112v, as it becomes closer to Sertoscript. A few folios are missing between folios M124 and M125, that includes the text of mimro four, chapter 24. From folio M91 on there is a hole in the folios that gradually becomes larger until folio M100, so that folio M101 is totally lost, and then the split and hole gradually becomes smaller and on folio M108 has almost disappeared. On 136 folios, each of two columns, V contains the first ten mimre of M, and at the beginning it has the four treatises on the resurrection of human bodies, and then the other six mimre on hierarchy and on priesthood follow. V must have been written before 932, when Moses of Mardin collected many manuscripts in the region of Mosul and Baghdad for the Syriac monastery in Egypt. M might have served as a template for the manuscript Vat Syr100 , transcribed before the year 932, 1 but certainly did for all the other known manuscripts. A copy of M can be found in the Mingana collection in Birmingham, MS Ming. Syr. 56 (March

1 The MS Vat Syr. 100, transcribed before the year 932, begins with the four books on resurrection (fol. 1r–79v) followed by the two books on celestial and ecclesiastical hierarchies and the four books on priesthood (fol. 80r ff.). See Assemani, Catalogue II, 530–45.

3. THE LIFE AND WORK OF JOHN OF DARA

63

1912), but without folios 146–163 that are difficult to read. 1 Also the following MSS are a copy of M: MS Atshaneh 111 and MS Bartelli Mar George 1 (both from the twentieth) cent.); MS Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate Damascus 4/5 [D4/5] (March 1904); MS Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate Damascus 4/4 [D4/4] (April 1931); MS Harvard Har. 119 [=Harvard Houghton 122] (1898/9); MS Sharfeh Syrian Catholic Patriarchate 281 (June 1891); 2 MS Vat Syr 581 (September 1917).3 The first six mimre of M can also be found in MS Bodleian Orient. 264 (1654). 4 In the following, each mimro is presented with the title of its chapters, apart from the four mimre on resurrection whose text is edited and translated later – the folio numbers refer to M: I. The mimro by Mor Iwannis, metropolitian of Dara, On Celestial H ierarchy . Also it illuminates the words of the Saint Dionysius [the Areopagite found] in the mimro On Angelic H ierarchy (M1v–12v).

1. Chapter: On Divine Goodness.

2. Chapter: It demonstrates how and by which means we are in communion with the Good One. 3. Chapter: It demonstrates what the high priest is.

4. Chapter: It demonstrates why all the heavenly powers are called angels.

‫ܡܐܡܪܐ ܕܥܒܝܕ ܠܚܣܝܐ ܡܪܝ ܐܝܘܐܢܝܣ‬ ‫ܡܛܪܘܦܘܠܝܛܐ ܕܕܐܪܐ ܥܠ ܡܛܟܣܘܬܐ‬ ̈ ‫ ̇ܡܢܗܪ ܕܝܢ ܘܐܦ‬.‫ܫܡܝܢܝܬܐ‬ ‫ܠܡܠܘܗܝ ܕܩܕܝܫܐ‬ ‫ܕܝܘܢܘܣܝܘܣ ܕܒܗ ܒܡܐܡܪܐ ܕܪܝܫܘܬ‬ ‫ܡܛܟܣܘܬܐ ܡ�ܟܝܬܐ‬

̄ .‫ ܥܠ ܛܒܘܬܐ �ܗܝܬܐ‬:‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ ܕܐ‬ ‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܕܐܝܟܢܐ ܘܒܐܝܕܐ ܠܛܒܐ‬:‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ ܕܒ‬ .‫ܡܫܬܘܬܦܝܢܢ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ .‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܡܢܐ ̇ܗܝ ܪܝܫܘܬ ܟܗܢܘܬܐ‬:‫ܕܓ‬ ‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܕܡܛܠ ܡܢܐ ̈ܡ�ܟܐ ܡܬܟܢܝܢ‬:̄‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ ܕܕ‬ ̈ ̈ ‫ܚܝ�ܘܬܐ‬ .‫ܫܡܝܢܐ‬ ‫ܟܠܗܘܢ‬

A. Mingana, Catalogue of the Mingana Collection of Mss., I (Cambridge 1933), 155: “This original [Ming Syr 56] which is some seven hundred years old, belongs to the Church of St. Thomas at Mosul, fol. 140–b”. 2 It is from 1891 AD. See catalogue du Fonds Rahmani à Charfet, OS (Paris 1957), 93–107). 3 See M. Breydy, “Les compilations syriaques sur le sacerdoce au IXe siècle: Jean de Dara”, in OCA 205 (1978), 267–293 (= 2. Symp. Syr. 1976); M. Breydy, “Historisch-literarische Daten zu den Hauptmanuskripten der Lehre vom Priestertum bei Mose bar Kepha”, in Ostkirchliche Studien (Würzburg 1976), 67–71; A. Vööbus, “Important manuscript discoveries of Iwannis of Dara and his literary heritage”, JAOS 96 (1976), 576–578. 4 Bodleian. Orient. 264, resp. Syr. 152 is dated 1654 and provides only the first sixth mimre. See R. Payne-Smith, Catalogues Codd. Syr. Bodleian (Oxonii 1864), 486–96. 1

64

JOHN OF DARA ON THE RESURRECTION OF HUMAN BODIES 5. Chapter: Why Scripture calls all of the heavenly beings angels. 6. Chapter: On the first, second and third hierarchy of heavenly beings. 7. Chapter: It demonstrates where the names of the heavenly powers are taken from and their origins.

8. Chapter: On dominions, powers, authorities and on their middle high priesthood.

9. Chapter: On the principalities, archangels and angels, and on their last high priesthood.

10. Chapter: How are the churches above structured and how are the ranks divided? 11. Chapter: Why all of the heavenly beings are commonly called the heavenly powers, while they are the middle powers of the middle church, but not the lowest of all.

12. Chapter: You said that the lower beings do not share all features of the higher beings.

13. Chapter: But someone might answer and say: If lower beings are guided by higher beings, as the discourse showed in many ways, why is it then said that Isaiah was purified by the Seraphim? 14. Chapter: What does the angelic number mean that is handed down to us by Scripture? 15. Chapter: It demonstrates that each divine enlightenment remains simple, when it proceeds with goodness to

̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ̈ ‫ ܕܡܛܠ ܡܢܐ ܠܟܠܗܝܢ‬:‫ܕܗ‬ ‫ܐܘܣܝܣ‬ ̈ ̈ ̈ .‫ܫܡܝܢܝܬܐ ܡ�ܟܐ ̇ܩܪܝܢ ܟܬܒܐ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ‫ ܥܠ ܡܛܟܣܘܬܐ ܩܕܡܝܬܐ ܘܡܨܥܝܬܐ‬:‫ܕܘ‬ ̈ ‫ܕܐܘܣܝܣ‬ ̈ ‫ܘܐܚܪܝܬܐ‬ .‫ܫܡܝܢܝܬܐ‬ ‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܕܡܢ ܐܝܟܐ ܢܣ ̣ܝܒܝܢ ܘܡܬܬܝܬܝܢ‬:̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ ܕܙ‬ ̈ ̈ ‫ܕܚܝ�ܘܬܐ‬ .‫ܫܡܝܢܐ‬ ‫ܟܘܢ̈ܝܐ‬ ̈ ̈ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ‫ܘܫܘܠܛܢܐ‬ ‫ܘܚܝ�ܘܬܐ‬ ‫ ܥܠ ܡ�ܘܬܐ‬:‫ܕܚ‬ .‫ܘܥܠ ܪܝܫܘܬ ܟܗܢܘܬܗܘܢ ܡܨܥܝܬܐ‬ ̄ ̈ ‫ ܥܠ �ܝܫܢܘܬܐ ܘ�ܝܫܝ ̈ܡ�ܟܐ‬:‫ܕܛ‬ ‫ܘܡ�ܟܐ܆‬ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ .‫ܘܥܠ ܪܝܫܘܬ ܟܗܢܘܬܗܘܢ ܐܚܪܝܬܐ‬ ̈ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ‫ܡܛܟܣܢ ܥ̈ܕܬܐ ܕܠܥܠ ܆‬ ‫ ܕܐܝܟܢܐ‬:‫ܕܝ‬ ̈ .‫ܘܬܓܡܐ ܐܝܟܢܐ ܡܬܦܠܓܝܢ‬ ̈ ‫ ܕܡܛܠ ܡܢܐ ܟܠܗܝܢ‬:̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ ܕܝܐ‬ ‫ܐܘܣܝܣ‬ ̈ ̈ ‫ܚܝ�ܘܬܐ ܕܫܡܝܐ‬ ‫ܫܡܝܢܝܬܐ ܓܘܢܐܝܬ‬ ‫ ܟܕ ̈ܚܝ�ܘܬܐ ̈ܡܨܥܝܐ ܐܢܘܢ ܕܥܕܬܐ ̇ܗܝ‬.‫ܡܬܩܪܝܢ‬ ̈ .‫ܡܨܥܝܬܐ܆ ܘܠܘ ܬܚܬܝܐ ܕܟܠܗܘܢ‬ ̈ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ‫ ̣ܐܡܪܬ ܕ� ܡܫܘܬܦܝܢ ̇ܗܢܘܢ ܬܚܬܝܐ‬:‫ܕܝܒ‬ ̈ ‫ܟܘܠܢܝܬܐ ܕܗܢܘܢ‬ ̈ ‫ܒܕܝܠܝܬܐ‬ ̈ .‫ܥܠܝܐ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ̇ ‫ ܐ� ̇ܡܗܦܟ ܐܢܫ‬:‫ܕܝܓ‬ ‫ ܕܐܢ ̇ܗܢܘܢ‬:‫ܘܐܡܪ‬ ̈ .‫ܬܚܬܝܐ ܡܢ ܗܠܝܢ ܕܠܥܠ ܡܢܗܘܢ ܡܬܐܪܙܝܢ‬ ̈ ‫ܬ ܡܠܬܐ‬ ݀ ‫ܐܝܟܢܐ ܕܚܘ ̣ܝ‬ ‫ ܠܡܢܐ ̣ܡܢ‬.‫ܒܣܓܝܐܬܐ‬ .‫ܣ�ܦܐ ܐܡܝܪ ܕܐܬܕܟܝ ܐܫܥܝܐ‬ ‫ ܕܡܢܐ ܡܫܘܕܥ ܡܢܝܢܐ ܡ�ܟܝܐ‬:̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ ܕܝܕ‬ ̈ .‫ܕܐܫܠܡܘ ܠܢ ܟܬܒܐ‬ ̣ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܕܟܠ ܡܢܗܪܢܘܬܐ �ܗܝܬܐ‬:‫ܕܝܗ‬ ‫ܟܕ ܦܬܝܟܐܝܬ ܒܝܕ ܛܒܘܬܐ ܢ̇ܦܩܐ ܠܘܬ ܐܝܠܝܢ‬

3. THE LIFE AND WORK OF JOHN OF DARA these about whom it cares. And not just this, but also it unites those who are enlightened. 16. Chapter: In which holy images do the holy visions of Scripture shape the heavenly orders? [Is it] in fire, powers, men, honourable matters, etc.?

II. Second mimro of bishop Mor Iwannis of Dara. It includes a commentary, i.e. interpretation, of the words of Saint Dionysius [the Areopagite found] in the mimro

On Ecclesiastical H ierarchy

65

̇ ‫ܕܡܬܒܛܠ‬ .‫�ܠܗ ܥܠܝܗܘܢ ܡܟܬܪܐ ܦܫܝܛܬܐ‬ ̣ ̇ ‫ܘ� ܗܘܐ ܗܕܐ ܒܠܚܘܕ܆ ܐ� ܘܡܚܝܕܐ‬ ‫ܠܗܢܘܢ‬ .‫ܕܡܬܢ̇ܗܪܝܢ‬ ̈ ‫ ܕܒܐܝܠܝܢ‬:‫ܕܝܘ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ̈ ‫ܨܘܠܡܐ ̈ܩܕܝܫܐ‬ ‫ܡܣܟܡܢ‬ ̈ ̈ ‫ܠܗܘܢ ܠܬܓܡܐ‬ ‫ܫܡܝܢܐ ܨܘ�ܬܐ ̈ܩܕܝܫܬܐ‬ ̈ ̈ ̈ ‫ܘܒܢܝܢܫܐ‬ ̈ ‫ ܒܢܘܪܐ ܘܚܝ�ܘܬܐ‬.‫ܕܒܟܬܒܐ‬ ‫ܘܗܘ�ܣ‬ .‫ܡܝܩ�ܬܐ ܘܫܪܟܐ‬

‫ܡܐܡܪܐ ܕܬ̈ܪܝܢ ܕܝܠܗ ܕܚܣܝܐ ܡܪܝ ܐܝܘܐܢܝܣ‬ ‫ ܕܐܝܬ ܒܗ ܦܘܫܩܐ ܐܘܟܝܬ ܢܘܗܪܐ‬.‫ܕܕܐܪܐ‬ ̈ ‫ ܕܒܡܐܡܪܐ‬.‫ܕܡ� ܕܩܕܝܫܐ ܕܝܘܢܘܣܝܘܣ‬ ‫ܕܪܝܫܘܬ ܡܛܟܣܘܬܐ ܥܕܢܝܬܐ‬

(M12v–27v).

1. Chapter: On what is accomplished through the enlightenment that means baptism. 2. Chapter: On what is accomplished in the synaxis, that means in the offering [of the holy Eucharist].

3. Chapter: On what is accomplished in the consecration of the Myron, and on what is completed through it, that is its ministry – how it is carried out and administered by the priests, and on what is fulfilled through it.

1 2

‫ ܩܘܪܒܢܐ‬V. + ‫ ܕܝܢ‬V.

̄ ‫ ܥܠ ܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܒܡܬܢܗܪܢܘܬܐ ܐܘܟܝܬ‬:‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ ܕܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܥܡܕܐ ܡܫܬ‬ .‫ܡܠܝܢ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ‫ ܥܠ ܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܒܟܢܘܫܝܐ ܐܘܟܝܬ‬:‫ܕܒ‬ ̈ .‫ ܡܫܬܡܠܝܢ‬1 ‫ܩܘܪܒ ܩܘ�ܒܢܐ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ‫ ܥܠ ܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܒܩܘܕܫ ܡܘܪܘܢ‬:‫ܕܓ‬ ̈ ‫ܡܫܬܡܠܝܢ ܘܥܠ ̇ܗܢܘܢ ܕܒܗ ܡܬܓܡܪܝܢ܆‬ ‫ ܥܠ ܡܟܗܢܢܘܬܗ ܕܐܝܟܢܐ ܡܬܟܗܢ‬2 ‫ܗܢܘ‬ .‫ܘܡܫܬܡ� ܘܕܐܝܠܝܢ ܡܬܓܡܪܝܢ ܒܗ‬

66

JOHN OF DARA ON THE RESURRECTION OF HUMAN BODIES 4. Chapter: On priestly fulfilment.

5. Chapter: On the orders to be accomplished. 6. Chapter: On what is accomplished regarding those who have passed away.

III. [The first] mimro On Priesthood of the same bishop Mor Iwannis, metropolitan of Dara (M27v–30v). 1. Chapter: On the divine gifts and on the celestial and ecclesiastical high priesthood.

2. Chapter: It commands one to honour the sacraments, and not to put them in front of everyone. 3. Chapter: It demonstrates what high priesthood is.

4. Chapter: It demonstrates what the essence is, that means the substance of our high priesthood.

5. Chapter: It demonstrates the origin of the high priesthood. 6. Chapter: It demonstrates the common accomplishment of the entire high priesthood. 7. Chapter: It demonstrates the impact of the high priesthood and who 1 2

‫ ܕܡܫܬܡܠܝܢ‬V.

< V.

.‫ ܥܠ ܫܘܡܠܝܐ ܟܗܢܝܐ‬:̄‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ ܕܕ‬ ̈ ‫ ܥܠ‬:‫ܕܗ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ .‫ܛܟܣܐ ̇ܗܢܘܢ ܕܡܫܬܡܠܝܢ‬ ̈ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ‫ ܥܠ ̇ܗܢܘܢ‬1 ‫ܕܡܫܬܡܠܝܢ‬ ‫ ܥܠ ܐܝܠܝܢ‬:‫ܕܘ‬ .‫ܕܫ̇ ܟܒܝܢ‬

‫ܡܐܡܪܐ ܕܥܠ ܟܗܢܘܬܐ ܕܝܠܗ ܟܕ ܕܝܠܗ ܕܚܣܝܐ‬ ‫ܡܪܝ ܐܝܘܐܢܝܣ ܡܝܛܪܘܦܘܠܝܛܝܣ ܕܕܐܪܐ‬

̈ ‫ ܥܠ‬:̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ ܕܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܫܘܟܢܐ‬ ‫�ܗܝܐ ܘܥܠ ܪܝܫܘܬ‬ .‫ܟܗܢܘܬܐ ܫܡܝܢܝܬܐ ܘܐܪܥܢܝܬܐ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ̇ :‫ܕܒ‬ ‫ܕܦܩܕ ܕܢܝ̇ܩܪ ܠ�ܐܙܢܝܬܐ ܘ� ܩܕܡ‬ .‫ܟ�ܢܫ ܢܣܝܡ ܐܢ̈ܝܢ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ .‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܕܡܢܐ ܗܝ ܪܝܫܘܬ ܟܗܢܘܬܐ‬:‫ܕܓ‬ ‫ ܗܝ ܐܝܬܘܬܐ ܐܘܟܝܬ‬2 ‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܕܡܢܐ‬:̄‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ ܕܕ‬ .‫ܐܘܣܝܐ ܕܪܝܫܘܬ ܟܗܢܘܬܐ ܕܝܠܢ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܕܡܢܐ ̇ܗܝ ܪܝܫܝܬܐ ܕܪܝܫܘܬ‬:‫ܕܗ‬ .‫ܟܗܢܘܬܐ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ̇ ̇ ‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ‬:‫ܕܘ‬ ‫ܕܟܠܗ‬ ‫ܕܡܢܘ ܫܘܡܠܝܐ ܓܘܢܝܐ‬ .‫ܪܝܫܘܬ ܟܗܢܘܬܐ‬ ‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܕܡܢܐ ܗܝ ܡܥܒܕܢܘܬܐ ܕܪܝܫܘܬ‬:̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ ܕܙ‬

3. THE LIFE AND WORK OF JOHN OF DARA granted it.

8. Chapter: It demonstrates what our priesthood and the angelic priesthood have in common and what is unique in each.

IV. The second mimro On Priesthood of the same bishop Mor Iwannis, metropolitan of Dara (M30v–38v) Introduction

1. Chapter: It demonstrates what priesthood is. 2. Chapter: It demonstrates what the term priesthood means.

3. Chapter: It demonstrates from where the priesthood started and how it is transmitted. 4. Chapter: It demonstrates how the priesthood is transmitted.

5. Chapter: It demonstrates the reason why priesthood was given. 6. Chapter: It demonstrates to whom the ecclesiastical priesthood was given and for whom. 7. Chapter: It demonstrates simply which the divisions of the priesthood are and how it is divided. 8. Chapter: It demonstrates what the essence, power and activity of each

67

̇ ‫ܘܡܢܘ ̇ܗܘ ܕܝ‬ ̇ ‫ܟܗܢܘܬܐ‬ .‫̇ܗܒܗ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܕܐܝܠܝܢ ܐܢ̈ܝܢ ܓܘܢ̈ܝܬܐ‬:‫ܕܚ‬ ̈ ̈ ‫ܘܕܝ�ܢܝܬܐ ܕܪܝܫܘܬ ܟܗܢܘܬܐ ܕܝܠܢ‬ .‫ܘܕܡ�ܟܐ‬

‫ܡܐܡܪܐ ܕܬ̈ܪܝܢ ܕܥܠ ܟܗܢܘܬܐ ܕܝܠܗ ܕܚܣܝܐ ܡܪܝ‬ ‫ܐܝܘܐܢܝܣ ܡܝܛܪܘܦܘܠܝܛܝܣ ܕܕܐܪܐ‬

‫ܦܪܐܘܡܝܘܢ‬ ̄ .‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܕܡܢܐ ܗܝ ܟܗܢܘܬܐ‬:‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ ܕܐ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܕܡܢܐ ܡܣܟܠ ܫܡܐ‬:‫ܕܒ‬ .‫ܕܟܗܢܘܬܐ‬ ݀ ‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܕܡܢ ܐܝܟܐ ܫܪ ̣ܝ‬:‫ܕܓ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ‫ܬ ܟܗܢܘܬܐ‬ ݀ ‫ܐܬܝܒܠ‬ .‫ܬ‬ ‫ܘܡܢ ܐܝܟܐ‬ ̣ ݀ ‫ܐܬܝܒܠ‬ .‫ܬ ܟܗܢܘܬܐ‬ ‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܕܐܝܟܢܐ‬:̄‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ ܕܕ‬ ̣ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ݀ ‫ܐܬܝܗܒ‬ ‫ܬ‬ ‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܕܡܛܠ ܐܝܕܐ ̣ܥܠܬܐ‬:‫ܕܗ‬ ̣ .‫ܟܗܢܘܬܐ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ݀ ‫ܐܬܝܗܒ‬ ‫ܬ ܟܗܢܘܬܐ‬ ‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܕ�ܝܠܝܢ‬:‫ܕܘ‬ ̣ .‫ܥܕܬܢܝܬܐ ܘܚܠܦ ܐܝܠܝܢ‬ ̈ ‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܕܐܝܠܝܢ ܐܢܘܢ‬:̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ ܕܙ‬ ̇ ‫ܦܘܠ‬ ‫ܓܝܗ‬ .‫ܕܟܗܢܘܬܐ ܦܫ ̣ܝܛܐܝܬ ܘ�ܝܠܝܢ ܡܬܦܠܓܐ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ �‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܕܡܢܐ ܗܝ ܐܘܣܝܐ ܘܚܝ‬:‫ܕܚ‬

68

JOHN OF DARA ON THE RESURRECTION OF HUMAN BODIES one of them is.

9. Chapter: Division of the priesthood in another way.

10. Chapter: It demonstrates what the work of the priesthood is, and into how many groups it can be divided. 11. Chapter: It demonstrates what the accomplishment of its activity is.

12. Chapter: On the excellency, splendor, and exaltation of the ecclesiastical priesthood. 13. Chapter: It demonstrates again the excellency of the priesthood.

14. Chapter: It demonstrates that its glory is also known from the variety of its gifts. 15. Chapter: On the virtues of the priesthood. 16. Chapter: On the exaltation of the priesthood. Which one is exalted, splendid and full of glory: [Is it] the kingship, prophecy or priesthood?

17. Chapter: It demonstrates in which way Melchizedek is an image of Christ. 18. Chapter: It demonstrates the laying of hands [=ordination].

1

.‫ܘܡܥܒܕܢܘܬܐ ܕܟܠ ܚܕܐ ܡܢܗܝܢ‬ ̄ .‫ ܦܘܠܓܐ ܕܟܗܢܘܬܐ ܒܙܢܐ ܐܚܪܢܐ‬:‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ ܕܛ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ̇ ‫ܦܘܠܚܢܗ ܕܟܗܢܘܬܐ‬ ‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܕܡܢܐ ܗܘ‬:‫ܕܝ‬ .‫ܘܠܟܡܐ ܡܬܦܠܓܐ‬ ̄ ̇ ̇ ‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ‬:‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ ܕܝܐ‬ .‫ܕܡܥܒܕܢܘܬܗ‬ ‫ܕܡܢܘ ܫܘܡܠܝܐ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ̇ ̇ ‫ܘܢܨܝܚܘܬܗ‬ ‫ܪܒܘܬܗ‬ ‫ ܥܠ‬:‫ܕܝܒ‬ ̇ .‫ܘܡܥܠܝܘܬܗ ܕܟܗܢܘܬܐ ܥܕܬܢܝܬܐ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ̇ ‫ܪܒܘܬܗ ܕܟܗܢܘܬܐ‬ ‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܬܘܒ ܥܠ‬:‫ܕܝܓ‬ ̇ ‫ܫܒܝܚܘܬܗ‬ ‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܕܡܬܝܕܥܐ ܕܝܢ‬:̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ ܕܝܕ‬ ̈ ̇ ‫ܕܫܘܟ‬ .‫ܢܝܗ‬ ‫ܬܘܒ ܡܢ ܫܘܚ�ܦܐ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ̇ .‫ܡܝܬܪܘܬܗ ܕܟܗܢܘܬܐ‬ ‫ ܥܠ‬:‫ܕܝܗ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ̇ ‫ܡܥܠܝܘܬܗ ܕܟܗܢܘܬܐ ܕܐܝ̇ܕܐ‬ ‫ ܥܠ‬:‫ܕܝܘ‬ ‫ܡܥܠܝܐ ܘܢܨܝܚܐ ܘܡܠܝܐ ܬܫܒܘܚܬܐ܆ ܡܠܟܘܬܐ‬ .‫ܐܘ ܢܒܝܘܬܐ ܐܘ ܟܗܢܘܬܐ‬ ‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܕܒܐܝܠܝܢ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܡܠܟܝܙܕܩ‬:̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ ܕܝܙ‬ 1 .‫ܕܡܘܬܗ ܕܡܫܝܚܐ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ .‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܥܠ ܣܝܡ ܐ ̣ܝܕܐ ܕܟܗܢܘܬܐ‬:‫ܕܝܚ‬

In the main text is ‫ܕܡܪܢ‬, but corrected at the mg with ‫ܕܡܫܝܚܐ‬.

3. THE LIFE AND WORK OF JOHN OF DARA V. The third mimro On Priesthood of the same Bishop Iwannis, metropolitan of Dara (M38v–41r).

1. Chapter: Objection from the Jewish point of view regarding what has been said. 2. Chapter: It demonstrates the abundance of the ecclesiastical priesthood, and why the [priesthood of the Mosaic] law has been left, and instead [the ecclesiastical priesthood] is given.

VI. The fourth mimro of the same bishop Mor Iwannis On Priests (M41v–49v).

1. Chapter: Introduction to the account. 2. Chapter: Regarding the hierarchy.

3. Chapter: It is Paul’s canons and rules that he set up regarding priests and deacons. 4. Chapter: Commentary on Paul’s words.

5. Chapter: It teaches which [virtues] are fitting for pastors of men. 6. Chapter: It demonstrates what is expected from a hierarch, pastor and leader to possess these [skills]. 7. Chapter: It demonstrates regarding marriage of priests.

69

‫ܬܘܒ ܡܐܡܪܐ ܕܬܠܬܐ ܕܥܠ ܟܗܢܘܬܐ ܕܝܠܗ‬ ‫ܕܚܣܝܐ ܐܝܘܐܢܝܣ ܡܝܛܪܘܦܘܠܝܛܝܣ ܕܕܐܪܐ‬

̈ :̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ ܕܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܗܦܟܬܐ ܐܝܟ ܕܡܢ ܦܪܨܘܦܐ‬ ‫ܕܝܗܘܕܝܐ‬ .‫ܠܘܩܒܠ ܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܐܬܐܡ�ܝ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ̇ .‫ܡܝܬܪܘܬܗ ܕܟܗܢܘܬܐ ܥܕܬܢܝܬܐ‬ ‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ‬:‫ܕܒ‬ ݀ ‫ܐܫܬܒܩ‬ ‫ܬ ̇ܗܝ ܕܒܢܡܘܣܐ ܘܗܕܐ‬ ‫ܘܕܠܡܢܐ‬ ̣ ݀ ̇ . ‫ܐܬܝܗܒܬ‬ ‫ܚ�ܦܝܗ‬ ̣

‫ܡܐܡܪܐ ܕܐܪܒܥܐ ܕܝܠܗ ܟܕ ܕܝܠܗ ܕܚܣܝܐ ܡܪܝ‬ ̈ ‫ܐܝܘܐܢܝܣ ܕܥܠ‬ ‫ܟܗܢܐ‬

̄ .‫ ܦܪܐܘܡܝܘܢ ܕܩܕܡ ܡܟܬܒܢܘܬܐ‬:‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ ܕܐ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ .‫ ܡܛܠ ܪܝܫܢܘܬܐ‬:‫ܕܒ‬ ̈ ̈ ‫ ܕܐܝܬܘܗܝ‬:‫ܕܓ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ‫ܘܬܚܘܡܐ‬ ‫ܩܢܘܢܐ‬ ̈ ̈ ‫ ̇ܗܢܘܢ ܕܡܛܠ‬.‫ܕܦܐܘܠܘܣ‬ ‫ܘܡܫܡܫܢܐ‬ ‫ܩܫܝܫܐ‬ .‫ܛܟܣ‬ ̈ ‫ ܦܘܫܩܐ‬:̄‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ ܕܕ‬ .‫ܕܡ� ܕܦܘܠܘܣ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ‫ ܕܡܠܦ ܕܐܝܠܝܢ ܙ̇ܕܩ ܠܗ ܠܪܥܝܐ‬:‫ܕܗ‬ .‫ܕܒܢ̈ܝܢܫܐ ܕܢܩܢܐ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܕܠܡܢܐ ܡܬܬܒܥ ܪܝܫܐ ܘܪܥܝܐ‬:‫ܕܘ‬ .‫ܘܡܕܒܪܢܐ ܕܢܩܢܐ ܗܠܝܢ‬ ̈ ‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܡܛܠ ܙܘܘܓܐ‬:̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ ܕܙ‬ .‫ܕܟܗܢܐ‬

70

JOHN OF DARA ON THE RESURRECTION OF HUMAN BODIES 8. Chapter: Regarding the fact that it is not fitting for a priest to hit [someone].

9. Chapter: Regarding the fact that it is fitting for a priest not to love money. 10. Chapter: Regarding the fact that it is fitting for a priest to teach and care about teaching the word of faith, and to comfort with his sound teaching, and to admonish those who fight. 11. Chapter: It demonstrates to which language the term patriarch, catholicos, metropolitan and episcope belong and from what it is derived.

12. Chapter: It is a debate and demonstration if there is a certain difference between patriarch, catholicos and episcopos in the kind of gifts and ordination they receive. 13. Chapter: It demonstrates what the duty of each of the priestly ranks and orders is.

VII. With the power and support of the [Holy] trinity, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, we start writing the mimre On the Resurrection of H uman bodies , composed and collected by the bishop Mor Iwan1 2 3

+ ‫ ܠܗ‬V.

̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ‫ ܡܛܠ ̇ܗܝ ܕ� ܙ̇ܕܩ ܠܟܗܢܐ‬:‫ܕܚ‬ .‫ܠܡܡܚܐ‬ ̄ ‫ ܠܟܗܢܐ ܕ� ܢܗܘܐ‬1 ‫ ܥܠ ̇ܗܝ ܕܙ̇ܕܩ‬:‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ ܕܛ‬ .‫ܪܚܡ ܟܣܦܐ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ‫ ܡܛܠ ̇ܗܝ ܕܙ̇ܕܩ ܠܟܗܢܐ ܕܢܗܘܐ‬:‫ܕܝ‬ ‫ܡ�ܦܢ ܘܕܒܛܝܠ�ܠܗ ܥܠ ܝܘܠܦܢܐ ܕܡܠܬܐ‬ ‫ ܕܢܫܟܚ ܠܡܒܝܐܘ ܒܝܘܠܦܢܗ‬2 ‫ܕܗܝܡܢܘܬܐ܆‬ .‫ܚܠ ̣ܝܡܐ܆ ܘܠܡܟܣܘ �ܝܠܝܢ ܕܡܬܚܪܝܢ‬ ̄ ‫ ܡܛܠ ܫܡܐ ܕܦܐܛܪܝܪܟܐ‬3 ‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ‬:‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ ܕܝܐ‬ ‫ܘܕܩܐܬܘܠܝܩܐ ܘܕܡܝܛܪܘܦܘܠܝܛܝܣ‬ ̇ ‫ܐܝܬܝܗ ܩܪܝܬܐ‬ ‫ܘܕܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ ܕܒܐܝܢܐ ܠܫܢܐ‬ .‫ܕܟܠܚܕ ܡܢܗܘܢ ܘܕܡܢ ܡܢܐ ܫܩܝܠ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ‫ ܕܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܒܥܬܐ ܘܡܚܘܝܢܘܬܐ ܕܐܢ‬:‫ܕܝܒ‬ ‫ܐܝܬ ܫܘܚ�ܦܐ ܡܕܡ ܒܝܬ ܦܐܛܪܝܪܟܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܠܩܐܬܘܠܝܩܐ �ܦܣܩܘܦܐ ܒܙܢ̈ܝܐ‬ ‫ܕܫܘܘܟܢܐ‬ .‫ܘܕܟܝ�ܘܛܘܢܝܐܣ ܕܡܩܒܠܝܢ‬ ̈ ‫�ܬܓܡܐ‬ ̈ ‫ ܕܡܚܘܐ ܥܠ‬:‫ܕܝܓ‬ ̄ ‫ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ‫ܘܛܟܣܐ ܟܗܢ̈ܝܐ‬ ̇ .‫ܕܡܢܘ ܦܘܠܚܢܐ ܕܟܠܚܕ ܡܢܗܘܢ‬

‫ ܐܒܐ ܘܒܪܐ‬:‫ܕܬܠܝܬܝܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܥܠ ܿ ܼܚܝ� ܘܥܘܕܪܢܐ‬ ̣ ̇ ‫ܕܢܟܬܘܒ ܡܐܡ�ܐ‬ ‫ܘܪܘܚܐ ܩܕܝܫܐ ܡܫܪܝܢܢ‬ ̇ ‫ܘܡܟܢܫܝܢ ܠܚܣܝܐ ܡܪܝ ܐܝܘܐܢܝܣ܂‬ ‫ܕܥܒ ̣ܝܕܝܢ‬ ‫ܡܝܛܪܘܦܘܠܝܛܝܣ ܕܕܪܐ ܡܕܝܢܬܐ܉ ܥܠ ܩܝܡܬܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܕܦܓ�ܐ‬ ‫ܐܢܫܝܐ‬

‫ܘܕܒܛܝܠ�ܠܗ ܥܠ ܡܠܬܐ ܕܝܘܠܦܢܐ ܕܗܝܡܢܘܬܐ‬ ̣ .‫ ܕܙܕܩ ܠܗ ܠܟܗܢܐ ܕܢܗܘܐ ̇ܡ�ܦܢ‬V.

This is the end of the last folio of V, the rest of the text is lost.

3. THE LIFE AND WORK OF JOHN OF DARA

71

nis, metropolitan of the city of Dara (M50r–60v) VIII. The second mimro of the same Bishop Mor Iwannis 1 (M60v–82v)

‫ܕܝܠܗ ܟܕ ܕܝܠܗ ܕܚܣܝܐ ܡܪܝ ܐܝܘܢܢܝܣ ܡܐܡܪܐ‬ ‫ܕܬܪܝܢ‬

IX. The third mimro of the same bishop Mor Iwannis, Episcopus of Dara, that contains the Christian dogma On the Resurrection of the Bodies , and it goes quickly through what has been said in the first mimro (M82v–94v).

‫ܕܝܠܗ ܟܕ ܕܝܠܗ ܕܚܣܝܐ ܡܪܝ ܐܝܘܐܢܝܣ‬ ‫ ܡܐܡܪܐ ܕܬܠܬܐ ܕܒܗ‬.‫ܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ ܕܕܪܐ‬ .‫ܕܘܓܡܐ ܕܟ�ܣܛܝܢܐ ܕܡܛܠ ܩܝܡܬܐ ܕܦܓ�ܐ‬ ‫̇ܥܒܪ ܕܝܢ ܡܪܗܛܐܝܬ܉ ܘܥܠ ܗܠܝܢ ܕܐܬܐܡ�ܝ‬ .�‫ܐ‬ � � � � ‫ܒܡܐܡܪܐ‬

X. The fourth mimro of the same bishop Mor Iwannis, metropolitan of Dara (M94v–124v).

‫ ܕܝܠܗ ܕܚܣܝܐ ܡܪܝ‬.‫ܬܘܒ ܡܐܡܪܐ ܕܐܪܒܥܐ‬ ‫ܦܘܠ� ܕܕܪܐ‬ ��������‫ܐܝܘܐܢܢܝܣ ܡܝܛܪܘ‬

[These are the four mimre on resurection. For the titles of the chapters see the Table of Context at the beginning of the edition (chapter 4.0.4) and translation (chapter 5.0).]

XI. With divine power and trust we start writing and demonstrate from where the offering [of the holy mysteries] came into being (M125r–145v). [Preface, i.e. introduction]

1. Chapter: Briefly on the preparation before the Eucharist.

‫ܥܠ ܚܝ� ܘܬܘܟܠܢܐ ܕܐܠܗܐ ܡܫܪܝܢܢ ܕܢܟܬܘܒ‬ ‫ܘܕܢܚܘܐ ܕܡܢ ܐܝܟܐ ܗܘܐ ܩܘܪܒܐ‬

[‫]ܦܪܘܡܝܘܢ ܐܘܟܝܬ ܥܘܬܕܐ‬ ̄ ‫[ ܥܘܬܕܐ ܕܩܕܡ ܩܘܪܒܐ ܐܝܟ‬:‫]ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ ܕܐ‬ .‫ܕܒܙܥܘ�ܝܬܐ‬

Quotations are found in O. Braun, “Beiträge zur Geschichte der Eschatologie in den syrischen Kirchen”, ZKTh 16 (1892), 273–91, particularly p. 286–87. See also C. M. Edsman, “Death, Corruption and Eternal Life”, Bulletin of the Iranian Culture Foundation I (1969), 85–104. 1

72

JOHN OF DARA ON THE RESURRECTION OF HUMAN BODIES 2. Chapter: Commentary on the Eucharist and all its structure; on the altar and its order and all its forms. 3. Chapter: Again a commentary on the order of the prayers of the Eucharist and how they are set up, and on the mysterious meaning of each prayer. 4. Chapter: Again regarding the prayers, cross and the meaning of the role of priest and deacon; and regarding the cannons and silent prayers of the presbyter and deacon; and regarding the sermon and the prayer “the angel of peace” and “our Father in heaven”.

̄ ‫]ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ̇ ‫ܘܕܟܠܗ‬ ‫ ܦܘܫܩܐ ܕܩܘܪܒܐ‬:[‫ܕܒ‬ ̈ ‫ܘܕܡܛܟܣܘܬܗ‬ ‫ܡܛܟܣܘܬܐ ܕܝܠܗ܆ ܘܕܡܕܒܚܐ‬ .‫ܘܕܐܣܟܝ ̈ܡܘܗܝ ܟܠܗܘܢ‬ ̄ ‫]ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ‬ ‫ ܬܘܒ ܦܘܫܩܐ ܕܡܛܟܣܘܬܐ‬:[‫ܕܓ‬ ̈ ‫ܕܝܠܗܝܢ‬ ‫ ܘܕܣܝܡܐ‬.‫ܕܨܠܘܬܐ ܕܝܠܗ ܕܩܘܪܒܐ‬ ̈ ‫ ܘܕܟܠ ܚܕܐ ܡܢܗܝܢ ܕܨܠܘܬܐ ܕܡܢܐ‬.‫ܕܝܠܗܝܢ‬ .‫ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܐܪܙܐ ܕܝܠܗ‬ ̈ ‫ ܬܘܒ ܡܛܠ‬:[̄‫]ܩܐܦܐ�ܘܢ ܕܕ‬ ‫�ܨܠܘܬܐ ܘܨܠܝܒܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܘܫܘܘܕܥܐ ܕܟܗܢܐ ܘܡܫܡܫܢܐ ܒܝܕ ܩܘܡܐ‬ ‫ ܘܡܛܠ ܩܢ̈ܘܢܐ ܘܓ ̈ܗܢܬܐ ܕܝܠܗ‬.‫ܕܝܠܗܘܢ‬ ‫ ܘܡܛܠ‬.‫ ܘܟܪܘܙܘܬܐ‬.‫ܕܩܫܝܫܐ ܘܐܦ ܕܡܫܡܫܢܐ‬ ‫ ܘܡܛܠ�ܨܠܘܬܐ‬.‫ܡ�ܟܐ ܕܫܝܢܐ ܘܕܫܠܡܐ‬ .‫ܕܐܒܘܢ ܕܒܫܡܝܐ‬

Other Works In addition to the treatises found in both manuscripts M and V, another four works are attributed to John of Dara. Two of them, the treatise On the Soul and the book On the Demon are known but the authorship is disputed. The other two, Commentary on the Gospel and Anaphora have not been found, and probably never existed. A Treatise on the Soul (De Anima). The treatise On the Soul attributed to John of Dara is included in Vatican Manuscript 147 (fol. 133r–168v) that is dated 1234. Already at the beginning of the twentieth century, Guiseppe Furlani worked on Vat. Man. 147 and translated folios 133r–154r into Italian, but did not publish it. 1 The authenticity of the authorship is not certain. There is confusion with Moses bar Kepha, since he composed a book with the same title, De Anima 2 that is included in the first part of the same manuscript, namely Vat. Man. 147 (fol. 3r–91r). In his article from 1999, Reller focuses on the relation of John’s treatise On the Soul to Moses bar Kepha and Barhebraeus. 3 John’s work On the Soul, if it is au1 See Giuseppe Furlani, “La Psicologia di Giovanni di Dara”, Rivista degli Studi Orientali 11 (1928), 254–79. 2 O. Braun, Moses Bar Kepha und sein Buch von der Seele (Freiburg im Breisgau 1891), 26–132. 3 Jobst Reller, “Iwannis von Dara, Mose bar Kepha und Barhebräus über die Seele, traditionsgeschichtlich untersucht”, in: G. J. Reinink and A. C. Klugkist (ed.), After Bardaisan, Studies on Continuity and Change in Syriac Christianity in Honour of Professor Han J.W. Drijvers (Leuven 1999), 253–264. See also J. Reller, “Wahrnehmung und Erkenntnis in syrischsprachigen

3. THE LIFE AND WORK OF JOHN OF DARA

73

thentic, must have been known to Moses bar Kepha, as John’s exegetical writings served as a source for Moses. 1 John of Dara’s treatise, as well as Moses bar Kepha’s book, contains long passages from De Natura Hominis by Nemesius, bishop of Emessa, who compiled it by the end of the fourth century. In 1991, M. Zonta compared the Syriac with the Greek text. 2 Part of De Natura Hominis was ascribed to Gregory of Nyssa, περί Ψυχής, as well as to Pseudo-Gregory Thaumaturgus. 3 The mimro On the Soul also appears in at least another two manuscripts found in Harvard Houghton Syr. 47 [Harvard Harris 35] (fol 4r–52v) and Harvard Houghton Syr. 112 [=Harvard Harris 112] (fol 6v–45r). Based on these manuscripts, Mauro Zonta published another two articles in 2014 and 2015, analysing the sources used and the understanding of the soul’s virtues in late late Antiquity. 4 A Book on Demons According to Vööbus, the oldest codex providing “The Book on Demons” that is attributed to John of Dara and divided into 23 chapters, is Mardin Orthodox MS 381 from the sixteenth or seventeenth century. This manuscript also contains a corpus of theological work attributed to Moses bar Kepha, of which section five bears the same title, namely “The Book of Demons” and is likewise divided into 23 kephalaia. 5 The other manuscripts are all younger, such as MS Harvard Houghton Syr 118 [=Harvard Harris 112] from 1753 AD; MS Mar Behnam 9 from the nineteenth century; MS. Harvard Houghton

Lehrbüchern von der Seele”, V. Makarios-Symposion Preetz 1995, GOF, I Syriaca (Wiesbaden 1997), 55–56. 1 Arthur Vööbus, Discovery of the Exegetical Works of Mose bar Kepha: The Unearthing of Very Important Sources for the Exegesis and History of the New Testament Text (Stockholm 1973), 27f. 2 Mauro Zonta, “Nemesiana Syriaca: New Fragments”, 223–58. 3 Mauro Zonta, “Nemesiana Syriaca: New Fragments from the Missing Syriac Version of the De Natura Hominis”, JSS 36/2 (1991), 227. S. P. Brock, “Clavis Patrum Graecorum III, 7717”, JTS 32 (1981), 176–78. 4 Mauro Zonta, “Iwānnīs of Dārā on Soul’s Virtues: About a Late Antiquity Greek Philosophical Work among Syrians and Arabs”, in Studia graeca-arabica 5 (2015), 129–43: As Appendix Zonta provides a useful Greek-Syriac glosssary of philosophical terms. See also Zonta, Mauro, “Iwānnīs of Dārā’s Treatise on the Soul and its Sources: A New Contribution to the History of Syriac Psychology around 800 AD”, in Elisa Coda and Cecilia Martini Bonadeo (eds.) De l’Antiquité tardive au Moyen Âge. Études de logique aristotélicienne et de philosophie grecque, syriaque, arabe et latine offertes à Henri Hugonnard-Roche, Études musulmanes 44 (Paris 2014), 113–22; “Nemesiana Syriaca: New Fragments from the Missing Syriac Version of the De Natura Hominis”, JSS 36/2 (1991), 227. S. P. Brock, “Clavis Patrum Graecorum III, 7717”, JTS 32 (1981), 176–78. 5 A. Vööbus, “New Manuscript Discoveries for the Literary Heritage of Mose bar Kepha: The Genre of Theological Writings”, Harvard Theological Review 8 (1975), 377–84.

74

JOHN OF DARA ON THE RESURRECTION OF HUMAN BODIES

Syr. 112 [=Harvard Harris 106] from 1894; and MS British Museum Orient 9374 also from 1894. 1 The style of writing differs from the other text and it has not yet been proved if it is an authentic work of John of Dara. A Commentary on the Gospels A Gospel commentary attributed to John of Dara is mentioned by Bar Salibi in the introduction to his Commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew. A separate commentary has not been found yet and it was thought that this commentary is lost.2 But looking carefully in the treatises that have survived in the MSS Mosul, Mardin and Vatican, one can see many references and detailed exegetical commentaries on certain biblical passages, such as the commentary on 1 Cor 15 in the third treatise, On Resurrection, chapters 7 and 8. John certainly had extensive scriptural knowledge and he uses it to define theological topics and biblical terminology in the context of Divine revelation and holy economy. Such passages and whole chapters that can be found throughout John of Dara’s work, must have been considered as proper biblical commentaries and served as a rich source for other writers, such as Bar Salibi. Therefore, it is very likely that John might not have composed a separate exegetical Commentary of Scripture. An Anaphora Following Assemani, Patriarch Aphram Barsoum also mentions an Anaphora that is attributed to John of Dara, 3 but so far no such Anaphora has been found. Here, the case might also be similar to the previous work. With his commentary on Easter, Pentecost and Priesthood, John of Dara provides very useful material to understand the liturgy. This could have led to the assumption that he also composed an Anaphora.

A. Vööbus, “Important manuscript discoveries”, 578. In the introduction to his Gospel’s Commentary, Bar Salibi lists John of Dara, along with Ephrem, John Chrysostom, Cyril and Moses Bar Kepha: ‫ ܒܦܘܫܩܐ‬.‫ܕܚܪܢܢ ܘܐܬܒܩ ̣ܝܢܢ‬ ̣ ‫ܬܘܒ ܕܝܢ ܡܛܠ‬ 1 2

‫ ܘܒܬܪ ܗܠܝܢ ܡܘܫܐ‬.‫ ܘܡܪܝ ܩܘܪܝܠܘܣ‬.‫ ܘܡܪܝ ܐܝܘܢܢܝܣ‬.‫ ̇ܐܡܪ ܐܢܐ ܕܝܢ ܡܪܝ ܐܦܪܝܡ‬.‫ܕܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ ܕܥܒܕܘ ܗܠܝܢ‬ ̈ ‫ ܥܡ ܣܘܓܐܐ‬.‫ ܘܐܝܘܢܢܝܣ ܕܕܪܐ‬.‫ܒܪ ܟܐܦܐ‬. See I. Sedlacek et I.-B. Chabot, Dionysii bar Salibi ‫ܕܡ�ܦܢܐ ܐܚ�ܢܐ‬ Commentarii in Evangelia, CSCO 77, SSyr 33 (Louvain 1953), 1. 3 A. Barsoum, The Scattered Pearls, 392; J. S. Assemani, Bibliotheca orientalis ClementinoVaticana, II, 123.

4. EDITION OF THE FOUR TREATISES OF JOHN OF DARA ON THE R ESURRECTION OF H UMAN B ODIES INTRODUCTION TO THE EDITION

The four commentaries, On the Resurrection of Human Bodies can be found in at least eight manuscripts, but for this edition the earliest two have been used, and the others consulted where necessary. The oldest two manuscripts survived in Mosul (MS Syr Orth Bishopric), and the Vatican (MS Vat Sir 100). All of the other manuscripts identified were copied from the MS in Mosul by the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth century, and therefore are less important for the reconstruction of the text. MS Vatican Syriac 100 [=V] MS Vatican Syriac 100 belongs to the collection of 250 manuscripts that Moses of Nisibis took from Baghdad to Deirl Suryan in the Vadi Natrun in 932. Moses was in Baghdad for five to six years where he collected manuscripts for St. Mary’s monastery in Egypt. He either found V already written or asked someone to copy it for him before 932. Thus, at the latest, V must have been written 72 years after John’s death in 860. The V colophon provides a similar note to the Abbot Moses of Nisibis’s other manuscripts (eg. also, in Add. 14,445). The colophon is at the beginning of the codex and is only partly legible now, but the transcript can be found in the catalogue of the Vatican Library by Assemani, 1 though a few words are missing: For the honour, admiration and veneration of this holy Syriac monastery of St Mary in the desert of Scetes, the weak and sinful Abbot Moses, called of Nisibis, took labour and collected this manuscript together with many others, altogether 250. He bought most of them and some of them were given to him as a

2

‫�ܝܩܪܐ ܘܠܗܕܪܐ ܘܪܘܡܪܡܐ ܕܕܝܪܐ ܗܕܐ‬ ‫]ܕܩܕܝܫܬܐ[ ܝܠܕܬ �ܗܐ ܕܣܘ�ܝܝܐ ܕܒܡܕܒܪܐ‬ ‫ ]ܐܬܚܦܛ[ ܘܩܢܐ ܠܟܬܒܐ ܗܢܐ ܥܡ‬.‫ܕܐܣܩܛܝ‬ ‫ܐܚ�ܢܐ ̈ܣܓܝܐܐ ܕܗܘܝܢ ܡܐܬܝܢ ܘܚܡܫܝܢ ]ܡܘ[ܫܐ‬ ‫ ܕܝܪܐ ┐ܕܡܬܕܠܠ‬3‫ܒܨܝܪܐ ܘܚܛܝܐ ܪܝܫ‬ ‫ ܕܙܒܢ ܣܘܓܐܗܘܢ ܘܐܬܝܗܒܘ ܠܗ‬4 ‫]ܢܨܝܒܢܝܐ[܆‬

S. E. and J. S. Assemani, Biblioghecae Apostolicae Vaticanae codicum manuscriptorum catalogus, Pt. 1, Tomus 2 (Paris 1926), 531–45. 2 < Assemani. 3 ‫ ܘܪܝܫ‬Assemani. 4 < Assemani. 1

75

76

JOHN OF DARA ON THE RESURRECTION OF HUMAN BODIES

blessing by people, when he went to Baghdad for the sake of this holy desert and the monks in it, for the Glory of the name of God and for the benefit of everyone who reads them. God might forgive him and his departed people and everyone who shared them, and He might reward them in the heavenly kingdom.

By the living word of God no one is permitted to secretly lay hold of one of these books in any way, and not to take them for himself, or to delete, eliminate or cut out this memorandum, nor to offer them to anyone else or remove them from this monastery. He, who boldly dares and transgresses, be cursed – pity to the wretched one. These [books] arrived in this monastery with Abbot Moses, who is mentioned above, after six years in the year 1243 of the Greek era.

̈ ‫ܒܘܪ]ܟـ[ܬܐ ܡܢ‬ ‫ܐܢܫܝܢ ]ܟܕ ܐܙܠ[ ܠܒܓܕܕ‬ ̈ ‫ܥܠ‬ ̄ ‫ܐܦܝ ܗܢ ܡܕܒܪܐ ܩܕ ܘܕܕܝ�ܝܐ ܕܒܗ‬ ̄ ‫ ܘܝܘܬܪܢܐ‬:‫ܕܐ]ܠܗܐ[ ܗܘ ܕܡܛܠ�ܬܫܒܘ ܕܫܡܗ‬ ‫ ܢܚܣܐ ܠܗ‬.‫ܕܐܝܠܝܢ ̇ܕܩܪ]ܝܢ[ ܒܗܘܢ‬ ̈ .‫ܘܠܥܢܝܕܘܗܝ ܘܠܟܠ ܕܐܫܬܘܬܦ ܒܗܘܢ‬ .‫ܘܢܦܪܘܥ ܐܢܘܢ ܒܡܠܟܘܬܐ ܕܫܡܝܐ‬ :‫ܘ� ܫܠـ]ܝܛ[ �ܢܫ ܒܡܠܬܐ ܚܝܬܐ ܕܐܠܗܐ‬ .‫ܕܢܟܘ]ܡ ܥܠ[ ܚܕ ܡܢܗ]ܘܢ[ ܒܚܕ ܡܢ ܙܢ̈ܝܢ‬ ̇ �‫ܘ‬ [‫ܕܢܒܝܬܐ ܐܢܘܢ ܠܢܦܫܗ܆ ܘܐܦ� ܕܢܠـ]ܚܐ‬ ‫ܠܥܘܗܕܢܐ ܗܢܐ ܐܘ ܢܓܪܘܕ ܐܘ ̣ܢܩܛܘܥ ܐܘ‬ .‫ ܘ� ̣ܢܥܛܐ ܐܢܘܢ ܡܢ ܗܕܐ ܕܝܪܐ‬1[‫ܢܦܩܘܕ �]ܢܫ‬ ̇ .‫ܘܗܘ ̇ܕܡܡܪܚ ܘ]ܥܒܪ[ ܚܪܡܐ ܢܗܘܐ ܥ�ܘܗܝ‬ ‫ ܗܘܬ ]ܕܝܢ[ ܡܐܬܝܬܗܘܢ‬2 .‫ܚܘܣ ܥܠ ܕܘܝܐ‬ ‫ܕܠܕܝܪܐ ܗܕܐ ܥܡ ܪܝܫ ܕܝܪܐ ܡܘܫܐ ]ܗܘ[ ܕܐܡܝܪ‬ ‫ ܡܢ ܒܬܪ ̈ܫܬ ̈ܫ]ܢܝܢ[ ܫܢܬ‬.‫ܡܢ ܠܥܠ‬ ‫�ܦ ܘܡܐܬܝܢ ܘܐ�ܒܥܝܢ ܘܬܠܬ ܒܕܝܘܢ̈ܝܐ܀‬

The Estrangela text is beautifully written on 137 folios, 273 pages. Each folio is divided into two columns. Depending on the size of the text, each column is usually made up of about 35 lines, but sometimes it can be as many as 40 lines (such as fol. 39) or as little as 29 (such as fol. 88). The codex includes the four mimre On the Resurrection, two mimre On Celestial Hierarchy and On Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, and four mimre On Priesthood, whereby chapters 11 to 13 of this mimro are missing which makes up about one folio. Thus, altogether the codex holds ten mimre. However, looking at the quires, more folios could be missing. Altogether there are 14 complete quires, each with 10 folios, except numbers 5 and 7, each having 8 folios. The last quire, number 15, has only got one folio, and all the others are missing. It could also be the case that there was at least another quire, that together with quire number 15 included the mimro On the Offering, as does the Mosul manuscript [M], although it is written in different handwriting from a much later period. Each folio of the quire is numbered with the Syriac alphabet, one to eight or ten. However, looking at the folios and the quires it becomes clear that these ten mimre were copied in the same sequence. Not one single folio recto starts with the beginning of a mimro, except folio 80, where the mimre on hierarchy and priesthood begin. Although there is a clear break between the first four mimre and the others, the text starts in the middle of quire number 9. Looking at the titles of the mimre, only the first mimro begins in a typical way for the beginning of a book: “With the power and sup-

1 2

‫ ܐܢܫ‬Assemani. ‫ ܢܦܫܐ ܕܘܝܐ‬Assemani.

4. EDITION OF THE TEXT

77

port of the holy trinity …” This is also the beginning of the first mimro On Resurrection, as can be seen in the following table for the first four mimre: I

Title

II

The second mimro of the same bishop Mor Iwannis. 1

With the power and support of the [Holy] trinity, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, we start writing the mimre On the Resurrection of Human Bodies, composed and collected by bishop Mor Iwannis, Metropolitan of the city of Dara.

III

The third mimro of the same bishop Mor Iwannis, metropolitan of the city of Dara, that contains the Christian dogma On the Resurrection of the Bodies, and goes quickly through what has been said in the first mimro.

IV

The fourth mimro of the same bishop Mor Iwannis, metropolitan of Dara.

Chs. 11

Fols.

15

15r– 36r

8

24

1v– 15r

Title

‫ ܐܒܐ‬:‫ܕܬܠܝܬܝܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܥܠ ܿ ܼܚܝ� ܘܥܘܕܪܢܐ‬ ̣ ̇ ‫ܕܢܟܬܘܒ‬ ‫ܘܒܪܐ ܘܪܘܚܐ ܩܕܝܫܐ܉ ܡܫܪܝܢܢ‬ ̇ ‫ܡܐܡ�ܐ ܕܥܒ ̣ܝܕܝܢ‬ ‫ܘܡܟܢܫܝܢ ܠܚܣܝܐ ܡܪܝ‬ ‫ܐܝܘܐܢܝܣ܂ ܡܝܛܪܘܦܘܠܝܛܝܣ ܕܕܪܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܡܕܝܢܬܐ܉ ܥܠ ܩܝܡܬܐ ܕܦܓ�ܐ‬ ‫ܐܢܫܝܐ‬ ‫ܕܝܠܗ ܟܕ ܕܝܠܗ ܕܚܣܝܐ ܡܪܝ ܐܝܘܢܢܝܣ‬ ‫ܡܐܡܪܐ ܕܬܪܝܢ‬

36r– 46v

46v– 79v

‫ܕܝܠܗ ܟܕ ܕܝܠܗ ܕܚܣܝܐ ܡܪܝ ܐܝܘܐܢܝܣ‬ ̄ ‫ ܡܐܡܪܐ ܕܬܠܬܐ‬.‫ܡܝܛܪܦܘ ܕܕܐܪܐ ܡܕܝܢܬܐ‬ ‫ܕܒܗ ܕܘܓܡܐ ܕܟ�ܣܛܝܢܐ ܕܡܛܠ‬ .‫ܩ ̣ܝܡܬܐ ܕܦܓ�ܐ‬ ‫ܡܪܗܛܐܝܬ܉ ܘܥܠ ܗܠܝܢ‬ ‫̇ܥܒܪ ܕܝܢ‬ ̄ .‫ܕܐܬܐܡ�ܝ ܒܡܐܡܪܐ ܐ‬ ‫ ܕܝܠܗ ܕܚܣܝܐ ܡܪܝ‬.‫ܬܘܒ ܡܐܡܪܐ ܕܐܪܒܥܐ‬ ̄ ‫ܡܝܛܪܘܦܘ ܕܕܪܐ‬ ‫ܐܝܘܐܢܢܝܣ‬

On the last folio (fol 137r) there is a note about the ownership of the book: This book belongs to Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Dinoro of Tagrit. He collected it for his own benefit and for that of all those who love theology. [God] might make him, who took care and collected [this book], worthy for the pleasant rewards, which are prepared for those reflecting on the divine commandments day and night. However, he who will take it in whichever way, keep it and not return it to his owner, should know that he is

‫ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܟܬܒܐ ܗܢܐ �ܝܣܚܩ ܒܪ ܐܒܪܗܡ‬ ‫ ܬܓܪܬܢܝܐ ܕܩܢܝܗܝ ܡܛܠ ܝܘܬܪܢܐ‬2 ‫ܒܪ ܕܝܢܪܐ‬ .‫ܕܩܢܘܡܗ ܘܕܟܠܗܘܢ �ܚܡܝ ܝܘܠܦܢܐ ܕܐܠܗܐ‬ ‫̇ܗܘ ܕܡܛܠ ܫܡܗ ܩܕܝܫܐ ̣ܝܨܦ ܘܩܢܐ܆ ̣ܗܘ‬ ̈ ‫ܢܫܘܝܘܗܝ ܠܦܘ�ܥܢܐ‬ ̇ ‫ܛܘܒܬܢܐ ܕܢܛܝܪܝܢ‬ ‫ܠܗܢܘܢ‬ ̈ 3 ‫ܕܒܢܡܘܣܐ‬ .‫�ܗܝܐ ܐܬܗܓܝܘ ܐܝܡܡܐ ܘܠܝܐ‬ ̈ ̇ ‫ܒܪܡ ܟܠ ܕܫ̇ ܩܠ�ܠܗ ܒܚܕ ܡܢ ܙܢܝܢ‬ ‫ܘܟܐܡ‬ ‫ܥ�ܘܗܝ ܘ� ܡܗܦܟ ܠܗ ܠܡܪܗ܆ ܢܕܥ‬

Quotations are found in O. Braun, “Beiträge zur Geschichte der Eschatologie in den syrischen Kirchen”. ZKTh 16 (1892), 273–91, particularly pp. 286–87. See also C. M. Edsman, “Death, Corruption and Eternal Life”, Bulletin of the Iranian Culture Foundation I (1969), 85–104. 2 It could be also ‫ ܕܝܪܐ‬, the ‫ ܝ‬and ‫ ܢـ‬are not clear. ̈ 3 Corr ‫ܕܒܢܡܘܣܐ‬ . 1

78

JOHN OF DARA ON THE RESURRECTION OF HUMAN BODIES

transgressing the living word of God, and will be prevented [from partaking of the sacraments] until he return it. O mortal man, you should fear and do not dare. What will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, but lose his own soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul? (Matt 16:26; Luke 8:36). Mercy should be upon him who wrote and bound [the book], and upon the collector who laboured and collected it, and upon the industrious student. Amen. Amen. Amen.

‫ ܘܬܚܬ‬.‫ܕܥܠ ܡܠܬܐ ܕܚܝܠܬܐ ܕܐܠܗܐ ̇ܥܒܪ‬ ‫ܡܠܬܐ ܕܟܠܝܢܐ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܥܕܡܐ ܕܡܗܦܟ‬ .‫ܠܗ‬ ‫ ܡܢܐ ܓܝܪ‬.‫ܙܘܥ ܐܘ ܒܪܢܫܐ ܡܝܘܬܐ ܘ� ܬܡܪܚ‬ ‫ܢܐܬܪ ܒܪܢܫܐ ܐܢ ܥܠܡܐ ܟܠܗ ܩܢܐ ܘܢܦܫܗ‬ ‫ ܐܘ ܡܢܐ ܢܬܠ ܐܢܫ ܬܚ�ܘܦܐ‬1 .‫̣ܢܚܣܪ‬ ‫ ܘܥܠ ܕܟܬܒ ܘܕ]ܒܩ[܆ ܘܥܠ‬.‫ܕܢܦܫܗ‬ ‫ܩܢܝܐ ܕܝܨܦ ܘܩܢܐ܆ ܘܥܠ ܩܪܘܝܐ ܟܫܝܪܐ �ܚܡܐ‬ .‫ ܘܐܡܝܢ ܐܡܝܢ‬.‫ܢܗܘܘܢ ܠܥܠܡ ܥܠܡܝܢ ܐܡܝܢ‬

Thus, this old codex includes John of Dara’s four mimre On Resurrection and another six mimre that can be found in the manuscript of the Syriac Orthodox Bishopric of Mosul. MS Syriac Orthodox Bischopric Mosul [=M] The manuscript [M] from the library of the Syriac Orthodox bishopric in Mosul belongs to the same period as V. M is not dated, but the handwriting shows some similarities to that of V, and it might have been the archetype for V. M consists of 325 pages, 163 folios. The text on folios 1 to 123 is written in a smart Estrangela in two columns on parchment. The last folios are split, so that in some of them the whole text is lost, and a few folios are completely missing. The four mimre On Resurrection are identical to V, but they do not start at the beginning of the codex, rather after the two mimre On Celestial Hierarchy and On Ecclesiastical Hierarchy and after the four mimre On Priesthood. This structure of the codex could be more original than V, for the knowledge about the celestial and ecclesiastical world along with priesthood could serve to a better understanding of the resurrection of human bodies. Mimre seven to nine in the codex are On the Resurrection of Human Bodies, whereby mimro ten is on the resurrection in the context of the renewal of the world. 2 The four mimre On Resurrection are a unit and can be found on folios: 1. Treatise fol 50r–60v 2. Treatise fol 60v–82v 1 The first verb is different in both Matthew and Mark. Matt 16:26: ‫ܡܢܐ ܓܝܪ ܡܬܗܢܐ ܒܪܢܫܐ܆‬ ‫ ܐܘ ܡܢܐ ܢܬܠ ܒܪܢܫܐ ܬܚ�ܘܦܐ ܕܢܦܫܗ‬.‫ ;ܐܢ ܟܠܗ ܥܠܡܐ ܢܩܢܐ܂ ܘܢܦܫܗ ܢܚܣܪ‬Mark 8:36: ‫ܡܢܐ ܓܝܪ ܢܬܥܕܪ‬ ‫ ܐܘ ܡܢܐ ܢܬܠ ܒܪܢܫܐ ܬܚ�ܘܦܐ ܕܢܦܫܗ‬.‫ܒܪܢܫܐ܇ ܐܢ ܥܠܡܐ ܟܠܗ ܢܐܬܪ܂ ܘܢܦܫܗ ܢܚܣܪ‬.

2 There is confusion with Moses bar Kepha, since he has the same number of kephaleia on resurrection as John of Daras’ mimro 7, 8 and 9 together, namely altogether 34 kephalaia on resurrection. See W. Strothmann, Moses Bar Kepha, Myron-Weihe, I. Reihe Syriaca, Band 7 (Wiesbaden 1973) 25.

4. EDITION OF THE TEXT

79

3. Treatise fol 82v–94v 4. Treatise fol 94v–124v

On the left margin of fol. 110r a big Serto text provides a few lines about an event that took place in 1527: “In the year 1838 of the Seleucit era [i.e. 1527] a Muslim man fell down off the bridge in Batman and came until the city of Cizre [both cities are in the east of Turkey]. The fishermen took him out [of the water] and took him into a cave, and found in him a little breath of life. They asked him: who are you? He said: I am a Muslim, I fell down yesterday in the ninth hour [= 3 pm]. He went, the cave fell upon him. Glory be to God.” 1 Since the rest of the text was lost, folios 125–146 were written in Serto on paper by Jonah the son of Simon in 1744 in Mosul. 2 Folios 147–161 seem to be written in a different handwriting in Serto with some Estrangela characters that is dated before 1527 as a Garshuni text on the margin of the folio points out. It is very unlikely that the whole collection belongs to John of Dara. The style of writing is not the same. Fol 147r has five lines of big Estrangela, in different handwriting to the text, stating: “This book of the commentaries of Dionysios belongs to the priest Aahron who collected it for his own benefit, as well as for those who encounter it and for the commemoration of his departed people.” 3 Apart from V, all the other identified mss that provide the treatises on resurrection are certainly a copy of M. These are:

1

Fol 110r:

̈ ‫ܐܦܠܚ‬ ܰ ̄ ‫ܘܐܬ ܐ ܥܕܡܐ ܠܡܕܝܢܬܐ ܓܙܝܪܐ‬ ‫ܢܦܠ�ܓܒܪܐ ܛܝܝܐ ܡܢ ܓܝܫܪܐ‬ ‫ܒܫܢܬ‬ ̣ ‫ܕܒܬܡܢ‬ ̣ ‫ܕܝܘܢܝܐ‬ ̄ ̈ .‫ܘܐܡܪܘ ܗܢܘܢ ܡܢܐ ܐܝܬܝܟ‬ ̣ .‫ܘ�̈ܕܝ ܡܨܝܕܢ̈ܐ ܕܢܘܢܐ ܐܦܩܘ ܠܒܪ ܘܐܘܒ�ܘܗܝ ܠܡܥܪܬܐ ܘܐܫܟܚ]ܘ[ ܒܗ ܢܫܡܬܐ ܕܪܘܚܐ‬ ̇ ‫ܢܦܠܬ ܡܥܪܬܐ ܥ�ܘܗܝ ܘ�ܠܗܐ‬ ‫ ܐܙܠ‬.‫ܗܘ ܐܡܪ ܐܢܐ ܛܝܝܐ ܐܝܬܝ ܢܦܠܬ ܡܢ ܐܬܡܠـ]ܝ[ ܒܫܥܬܐ ܕܬܫܥܫܥܝܢ‬ ‫ܫܘܒܚܐ‬. This text is also copied into MS Mingana Syr. 56, fol. 140 V. The last verb ‫ ܐܙܠ‬is confusing. It could refer to passing away in the sense of death: “the cave collapsed upon him and he died.” ̈ 2 Colophon in Garshuni, folio 145r: ‫ܣܢܗ �ܦܝܢ ܘܟܡܣܗ ܘܟܡܣܝܢ ܝܘܢܐܢܝܗ‬ ‫ܠܡܐ ܟܐܢ ܒܬܐܪܝܟ‬

‫ܐܘܩܦ ܗܕܐ �ܟܬܐܒ �ܫܪܝܦ �ܡܒܐܪܟ �ܡܕܥܘ ܟܬܐܒ ܐܝܐܘܢܝܣ �ܕܐܪܐ ܫܡ ܝܘܢܐܢ ܐܒܢ �ܡܪܚܘܡ ܫܡܥܘܢ‬ ̈ ̇ ‫ܘܐܘܩܦܗ ܠܘܜ ܪܘܚܗ ܘܪܘܚ‬ ‫ܡܕܝܢܗ �ܡܘܣܠ‬ ‫�ܚܨܢܝ �ܝ ܕܝܪ �ܩܕܝܣ �ܫܗܝܕ ܡܐܪ ܒܗܢܐܡ �ܕܝ ܦܝ‬ ‫ܘܐܠܕܝܗ ܘܡܐ �ܚܕ ܣܠܛܐܢ ܐܢ ܝܟܪܓܗ ܡܢ �ܕܝܪ �ܡܕܟܘܪ ܡܐܪ ܒܗܢܐܡ ܒܢܘܥ ܣܪܩܗ ܘܟܠ ܡܢ ܝܬܓܐܣܪ‬ ‫ܘܝܪܦܥܗ ܡܢ �ܕܝܪ ܒܗܕܐ �ܢܘܥ ܝܟܘܢ ܬܚܬ ܐܠܟܠܡܗ ܘܐܠܚܪܘܡ ܘܟܠܡܢ ܝܩܪܐ ܒܗ ܘܝܬܪܚܡ ܥܠܝ �ܡܕܟܘܪ‬ ̄ . ̈ .‫ܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܡܝܢ‬ ‫ܫܡ ܝܘܢܐܢ ܐܠܗ ܝܓܦܪ ܕܢܘܟܗ ܘܝܡܚܝ ܐܘܙܐܪܗ ܕܟܝܪܐ ܗܝ ܝܠܕܬ �ܗܐ ܘܟܠܗܘܢ‬ ̈ 3 Fol 106v: ‫ܕܦܘܫܩܐ ܕܕܝܢܘܣܝܘܣ ܕܐܗܪܘܢ ܩܫܝܫܐ ܕܩܢܝܗ ܐܝܟ ܕܠܝܘܬܪܢܐ ܕܢܦܫܗ‬ ‫ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܟܬܒܐ ܗܢܐ‬ ̈ ]‫ܘܕܟܠ ܕܦܓܥ ܒܗ ܘܡܛܘܠ ܕܘܟܪܢܐ ܕܥ̈ܢܝܕܘܗܝ܇ ܟܠ ܕܩܐܪܐ ܢܨ� ܡܛܠ ܡܝ‬ ‫ܬܘܗܝ[ ܟܠ ܕܫܩܐܠ�ܠܗ ܘܟܝܡ‬ ‫ܥ�ܘܗܝ ܓܪܒܗ ܕܓܚܙܝ ܢܠܒܫ‬.

80

JOHN OF DARA ON THE RESURRECTION OF HUMAN BODIES

MS Sharfeh Patr. 281 1 [=S281] (1891) At the beginning of the manuscript the copyist supplies a table of content, including the same mimre as in M, namely the first two mimre On the Celestial and Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, the four mimre On the priesthood, four mimre On the Resurrection of Human Bodies and Renewal of the World, one mimro as a commentary on On the Offering of the Holy Mysteries, and finally a few pages from the collected text at the end of M. The manuscript is from 1891 AD. At the end of the index, at the beginning of the manuscript, the copyist provides us with his name and the date as follows: “The index has finished, glory to God and commemoration to Mary the bearer of God, by the hands of the humble servant Solomon bar Joseph bar Isaac Safer, 24 June 1891” 2 The first mimro On the Resurrecction of Human Bodies starts on page 150, and in the first chapter includes the name of the heretics in the same structure as in M, also in the same Bardaisan alphabet. MS Harvard Har. 119 (Harvard Houghton 122)] [=H119] (1899) 3 The MS Harvard Houghton Syr. 122 (MS Harvard Houghton 122) [H119] was copied from M by Jacob bar Petrus, the son of Deacon Isaac Zakka, in Bartelle in Mosul in the autumn and winter of 1898/1899. The copyist mentions a few different dates at the end of some of the treatises or chapters, as well as in the colophon, and they are confusing: (1) The first date is given in the Christian Era on fol 66v, at the end of the fourth mimro On Priesthood: It is 25 November 1899. 4 Since all the other dates are before this time, the copyist must have been confused by one year, particularly because he was probably used to the Seleucid Era, but gave the date in the Christian Era. The correct date must be 25 November 1898, a week before the next date. (2) Folio 75r, at the end of the fifth chapter of the first mimro On Resurrection, Jacob writes a different date again in the Christian Era: 2 December 1898. 5 (3) At the end of the second treatise On the Resurreciontion of Human Bodies, fol 106v, the same copyist notes the date 15 December 2200 of the Seleucid Era, i.e 15 De-

1 At the beginning of November 2012 Deacon Youssef Darham and Abouna Deeb were kind to let me see and read this manuscript. I am very thankful to them, and particularly to Mr Darham who sent me the index along with the first few folios by the end of November 2012. See catalogue du Fonds Rahmani à Charfet, OS (Paris 1957), 93–107.

2 ‫ܫܠܡ ܩܕܝܟܘܣ ܘܠܝܗ ܕܘܟܣܐ ܕܟܝܪܐ ܗܝ ܝܠܕܬ �ܗܐ ܡܪܝܡ ܒܐ�̈ܕܝ ܥܒܕܐ ܡܚܝ� ܫܠܝܡܘܢ ܒܪ ܝܘܣܦ‬ ̣ ̄ ‫ܒܪ ܐܝܣܚܩ ܣܦܪ ܫܢܬ ܐܦ�ܐ ܟܕ ܚܙܝܪܢ‬.

3 I am very thankful to the Houghton Library for providing me with a digital copy of this manuscript in October 2012. ̄ ̈ ‫ܐܦ�ܛ ̄ܡ ܥܣܪܝܢ ܘܚܡܫܐ‬ 4 Fol 66v: ‫ܝܘܡܝܢ‬ ‫ܫܠܡ ܡܐܡܪܐ ܕܐܪܒܥܐ ܥܠ ܝܕ ܕܘܝܐ ܝܥܩܘܒ ܒܪ ܦܛܪܘܣ ܫܢܬ‬ ‫ ̄ܨܠܘ ܥܠ ܟܬܘܒܐ‬.‫ܬܫܪܝܢ ܬܪܝܢܐ‬. ̄ ‫ܫܠܡ‬. ̄ ‫ܩܦ‬ ̄ ‫ܐܦܨܚ‬ ̄ 5 Fol 75r: ‫ܒ ܟܢܘܢ ܐ‬ ‫ܕܗ ܥܠ ܐ�̈ܕܝ ܕܘܝܐ ܝܥܩܘܒ ܫܢܬ ̄ܡ‬

4. EDITION OF THE TEXT

81

cember 1889. 1 This must be a mistake, the date is given in the Seleucid Era, and probably a ‫ ܛ‬is missing. It should be 15 December 1898. (4) The next date appears again in the Christian Era on fol 142, at the end of chapter 12 of the mimro On the Renewal of the World: It is 31 December 1898. 2 (5) In the colophon, fol 185r, the copyist writes 15 January 2210 of the Seleucid Era, i.e. 15 January 1899, as the date when the whole manuscript was completed. 3

Thus, Jacob must have started copying manuscript M in November 1898 and finished two and a half months later in January 1899. In the colophon he states that the text was copied for himself in order to study and enjoy it. Jacob leaves blank areas and empty pages for all the cut and missing pages of M, where the text is illegible or completely missing. MS Syriac Orthodox Patriarchate Damascus 4/5 [=D4/5] (1904) 4 The same copyist as B56, Mattai bar Paulus also completed the MS Syriac Othodox Patriarchate Damascus 4/5 in Mosul on 13 March 1904. His father was already dead. The text is in Serto and on the margin an alternative reading is given to the words which were not very clear in M. In the colophon on the last page, Mattai refers to the source he used as being about 800 years old. It is the source that he found in St. Thomas church in Mosul. This is the whole colophon: “This illuminating book which is full of spiritual delights that was composed by our father bishop Mor Iwanis, Metropolitan of Dara, has been finished. God may grant us benefits through his blessing prayers and supplications, Amen. And the writing of this [manuscript] took place on 13th March 1904 Christian Era, 2215 Seleucid Era. It was written by the hands of the weak and sinner, deacon Mattai, the son of the departed Syriac Orthodox Paulus, in the city of Mosul that is located and founded on the river Tigris – God might built it through his mighty right hand, Amen. It has been copied from an old manuscript that I found in St Thomas church in Mosul that is more than 800 years old. Many parts of it are damaged where there is no single character/letter left. Therefore, I left some gaps as you can see. It might happen that a com-

̈ ‫ܫܠܡ ܡܐܡܪܐ ܕܬܪܝܢ ܕܥܠ ܩܝܡܬܐ ܕܦܓ�ܐ‬ 1 Fol 106v: ‫ܐܢܫܝܐ ܒܐ�̈ܕܝ ܡܚܝ� ܘܚܛܝܐ ܝܥܩܘܒ ܒܪ ܦܛܪܘܣ‬ ̣ ̄ ̄ ̄ ‫ ̣ܡܢ ܩܪܝܬܐ ܒܪܛ� ܫܢܬ ̇ܒܪ ܝܘܢ ܒܟܢܘܢ ܩܕܝܡ ܝܗ ܒܗ܀‬. ̄ ‫ܫܠܡ ܩܦ�ܘܢ‬ ̄ 2 Fol 142r: ‫ܐܦܨܚ ܡܫܝܚܝܬܐ ܬܠܬܝܢ ܚܕ‬ ‫ܕܝܒ ܒܐ�̈ܕܝ ܚܛܝܐ ܝܥܩܘܒ ܒܪ ܦܛܪܘܣ ܫܢܬ‬ ̄ ‫ܝܘܡ ܟܢܘܢ ܐ‬. ̄ ‫ܪܝ ܝܘܢܝܬܐ‬ ܵ ‫ܝܗ ̣ܡܢ ̣ܝܪܚ ܟܢܘܢ ܐܚܪܝ ܥܠ ܝܕܘܕܐ ܵܫ‬ ̈ ‫ܟܬܒܐ ܗܢܐ ܕܥܠ‬ ̄ ‫ܐܝܕܝܐ ܫܢܬ ̇ܒ‬ 3 Fol 185r: �‫ܛܝܐ ̇ܗܘ ܕ‬ ܿ ̈ ‫ܡܫܝܚܝܐ ܕܐܚܐ ܩ�ܘܝܐ ܕ ܼܢܣܪܚܘܢ‬ ‫ܚܘܒܐ‬ ̣ ‫ ܐ� ܡܛܠ‬.‫ܠܡܪ ܼܿܫܡ ܫܡܗ ܒܟܬܒܐ ܗܢܐ ܡܛܠ ܣܢܝܘܬ ܕܘܒ�ܘܗܝ‬ ̣ ܸ ‫ܫ̇ ܘܐ‬ ‫ ܝܥܩܘܒ ܒܪ ܡܗܝܡܢܐ ܦܛܪܘܣ ܩܪܘܝܐ ܒܪ ܡܫܡܫܢܐ ܐܝܣܚܩ ܕܡܬܩܪܐ‬.‫ܘܫܘܒܩܢܐ‬ ‫ܕܚܘܣܝܐ‬ ̣ ̣ ‫ܥ�ܘܗܝ ܨܠܘܬܐ‬ ‫ ܐܬܟܬܒ ܕܝܢ ܟܬܒܐ ܗܢܐ ܒܩܪܝܬܐ‬... ‫ܘܢܬܒܣܡ܀‬ ‫ ܘܟܬܒܗ ̣ܡܢ ܕܝܠܗ ܠܢܦܫܗ ܕܢܩܪܐ ܒܗ‬.‫ܡܫܡܫܢܐ ܣܟܐ‬ ܼܿ ‫ܡܚܣ ܼܿܢܬ ܒܐܠܗܐ ܒܪܛ� ̣ܡܢ ܩܘ�ܝܐ ܕܡܪܥܝܬܐ ܕܡܪܝ ܡܬܝ ̣ܛܘܒܢܐ ܩܕܝܫܐ ܡܝܬܪܐ‬ ܼܿ . Dayroyo Joseph Bali was so kind as to send me a few pages of the beginning and the end of this and the next manuscript [M4/4] in April 2016. 4

82

JOHN OF DARA ON THE RESURRECTION OF HUMAN BODIES

plete manuscript like it will appear. But I do not think that there is any, for I searched very much and I could not find another book. I ask all the brothers, readers and those who meet this book not to blame me for writing it – for I copied it in the nights of the winter, but to offer a prayer of forgiveness for the feeble copyist and say: mercifull and compassionate God forgive the sins and weakness of your servent, deacon Mattai, and have mercy on the weakness of his faithfully departed people.” 1 M4/5 also provides the 23 chapters of the text On the Devils that is found in MS ̇ ‫ܬܘܒ ̈ܩܦ�ܐ ܕܥܠ ̈ܫܐܕܐ܂ ܕܥܒ ̣ܝܕܝܢ ܠܡܪܝ ܐܝܘܐܢܢܝܣ ̇ܗܘ ܕܕܪܐ܆‬ Harvard Houghton 112: ‫ܕܗܘܝܢ‬ ‫ܥܣܪܝܢ ܘܬܠܬܐ‬. The text is attributed to John of Dara, also the other mimre and headlines of the MS Harvard Houghton 112 speak of the book of Mor Severus Moses bar Kepha: ‫ܩܘܕܝܟܘܣ ܕܟܬܒܐ ܗܢܐ ܕܡܪܝ ܣܐܘܝܪܐ ܕܡܘܫܐ ܒܪ ܟܐܦܐ‬.

MS Mingana Syriac 56 in Birmingham [=B56] (1912) 2 MS Mingana Syr. 56 was copied in Serto from M by deacon Mattai bar Paulus bar Ne‘matallah(?) in Mosul and was completed on 3. January 1912. In his colophon deacon Mattai states: “The book, from which we copied, is very old, about seven hundred years, and it belongs to the Church of St. Thomas in Mosul.” 3 A very similar note can also be found at the end of the fourth mimro On Priesthood, where he describes the folios of manuscript M as dark, and missing some text passages and therefore adds a few empty pages. 4 Mattai left some gaps for the passages he could not read and pro-

247r: ‫ܫܠܡ ܗܢܐ ܟܬܒܐ ܢܗ ̣ܝܪܐ ܕܡ� ܗܢ̈ܝܢܐ �ܘܚܢܝܐ ܕܥܒܝܕ �ܒܘܢ ܚܣܝܐ ܡܪܝ ܐܝܘܢܢܝܣ‬ ̈ ܿ ݀ ‫ܘܗܘܬ‬ ‫ܟܬܝܒܘܬܗ ܒܫܢܬ �ܦ ܘܬܫܥܡܐܐ‬ ‫ ܼܿܢܫܟܢ ܠܢ �ܗܐ ̣ܝܘܬܪܢܐ‬.‫ܡܛܪܘܦܘܠ ̣ܝܛܐ ܕܕܐܪܐ‬ ̣ ̣ ‫ܒܒܘܪܟܬ ܨܠܘܬܗ ܐܡܝܢ܀‬ ܼ ܿ ̄ ܵ ̈ ̄ ‫ܡܚܝ� ܘܚܛܝܐ ܡܫܡܫܢܐ ܼܡܬܝ ܒܪ ܡܢܚܐ‬ ‫ ܒܐܕܪ ܝܪܚܐ ܝܓ ܀ ܒܐ�ܕܝ‬.‫ܒܪܝܗ ܕܝܘܢ̈ܝܐ‬ ‫ ܘܒܫܢܬ‬:‫ܘܐܪܒܥܐ ܠܡܪܢ‬ ̣ ܿ ܵ ̇ ‫ܕܐܝܬܝܗ ܥܠ ܝܕ ܕܩܠܬ ܢܗܪܐ ܼܒܢܝܐ ܘܡܛܟܣܐ ܡܥܡܪ‬ ̇ ̇ ‫ܠܗ ܡܪܝܐ‬ ‫ܣܘܪ�ܝܐ ܒܡܕܝܢܬ ܡܘܨܠ‬ ‫ܦܘܠܘܣ ܐܪܬܘܕܘܟܣܝܐ‬ ‫ܒ ܼܿܝܡܝܢܗ ܿ ܼܚܝܠܬܢ ̣ܝܬܐ ܐܡ ̣ܝܢ ܀ ܘܐܬܟܬܒ ܥܠ ܐܨܚܬܐ ܥܬ ̣ܝܩܬܐ ܕܫܟܝܚܬܐ ܒܥܕܬܐ ܕܡܪܝ ܬܐܘܡܐ ܒܡܘܨܠ ܕܐ ̣ܝܬ‬ ̈ ‫ ܘܥܠܗܕܐ ܫܒܩܬ‬.‫ܫܬ ܒܗܝܢ ܐܬܘܬܐ‬ ̈ ݀ ‫ܐܬܚ ̈ܒܠܝ ܘ� ܵܦ‬ ̇ ‫ܘܕܘܟ ܵܝܢ ܣܓܝ̈ܐܢ‬ ̇ ‫ܕܘܟܝܬܐ‬ ‫ܠܗ ܝܬܝܪ ܡܢ ܬܡܢܡܐܐ ܫܢ̈ܝܢ‬ ܸ ܼܿ ‫ܡܢܗ‬ ܵ ܿ ̇ ‫ ܕܟܒܪ ̇ܓܕܫܐ ܘܡܫܬܟܚܐ ܐܨܚܬܐ ܐܟܘ‬.‫ܙܝܬܘܢ‬ ̇ ̇‫ܸܚ ܵܘ�ܬܐ ܐܟܡܐ ܕܚ‬ ‫ܫܟܝܚ܇ ܡܛܠ‬ ‫ ܐ�܄ � ̇ܣܒܪ ܐܢܐ‬.‫ܬܗ ܡ ܼܫܡܠܝܬܐ‬ ̣ ̈ ̈ ‫ܘܒܥܐ ܐܢܐ ̣ܡܢ‬ ̇ ‫ܥܩܒܬ܆ ܘ� ܐܫܟܚ̇ ܬ ܟܬܒܐ ܣܛܪ ܡܢܗ ܀‬ ̇ ‫ܣܓܝ‬ ‫ܘܦܓܘܥܐ ܕܒܟܬܒܐ ܗܢܐ � ܢܥܕܠܘܢܢܝ‬ ‫ܐܚܐ ܘܩ�ܘܝܐ‬ ̈ ܵ ‫ܕܚܘܣܝܐ ܥܠ ܟܬܘܒܐ ܕܘܝܐ ܘܢܐܡܪܘܢ‬ ‫ܕܒܠܝ�ܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܥܠ ܟܬ ̣ܝܒܘܬܗ ܡܛܠ‬ ̣ ‫ܕܣܬܘܐ ܟܬܒܬܗ܆ ܕܢܣܪܚܘܢ ܨܠܘܬܐ‬ ̄ ̄ ̈‫ ܘܫܒܘܩ ܠܥܢܝ‬.‫ܚܛܗܘܗܝ ܘܒܘ��ܘܗܝ‬ ̈ ‫ܕܘ‬ ̈ .‫ܒܘ��ܝܗܘܢ‬ ‫ܡܫܡ ܡܬܝ‬ ‫�ܗܐ ܚܢܢܐ ܘܡܪܚܡܢܐ ܚܣܐ ܠܥܒܕܟ‬ ̣ ‫ܡܗܝܡܢܐ‬ ‫ܐܡܝܢ ܀‬. 1

Fol

2 I would like to express my thanks to the kindness of the librarians of the University of Birmingham, for letting me use the manuscript in their library and giving me a copy of it at the end of October 2012. 3 See A. Mingana, Catalogue of the Mingana Collection of Mss., vol. 1 (Cambridge 1933), 155: “This original [Ming Syr 56] which is some seven hundred years old, belongs to the Church of ̄ St. Thomas at Mosul, fol. 140–b”. Fol 140v: ‫ܐܝܬܘ ܕܐܝܬ ܠܗ‬ ‫ܘܟܬܒܐ ܕܟܬܒܢܢ ܥ�ܘܗܝ ̇ܣܓܝ ܥܬ ̣ܝܩܐ‬ ̄ ̈ ‫ ܐܝܟ ܫܒܥܡܐ ܫܢܝܢ܇ ܒܥܕܬܐ ܕܡܪܝ ܬܘܡܐ ܒܡܘܨܠ ܐܝܬܘ ܟܬܒܐ ܥܬܝܩܐ‬. Fol 139v: ‫ܫܠܡ ܦܘܫܩܐ ܕܩܘܪܒܐ ܒܐ�̈ܕܝ‬

̈ ‫ܢܥܡܗܐܠܗ ܕܒܡܕܝܢܬܐ ܕܡܘܨܠ ܕܥܠ ܝܕ ܕܩܠܬ‬ ‫ܡܚܝ� ܡܫܡܫܢܐ ܡܬܝܘܣ ܣܘܪܝܝܐ ܒܪ ܦܘܠܘܣ ܡܢܚܐ ܒܪ‬ ܿ ̄ ̄ .‫ ܼܘܗܘܐ ܒܫܢܬ ܐܨ̇ܒ ܠܡܪܢ ܓ ܒܬܫܪܝܢ ܐܚܪܝ‬.‫ܢܗܪܐ‬. 4 Fol 50v: ‫ܫܠܡ ܡܐܡܪܐ ܕܫܬܐ ܡܫܡܠܝܐܝܬ ܆ ܒܐ�̈ܕܝ ܡܚܝ� ܘܚܛܝܐ ܡܫܡܫܢܐ ܡܬܝܘܣ ܐܪܬܘܕܘܟܣ‬ ̇ ‫ܕܐܝܬܝܗ ܥܠ ܝܕ ܕܩܠܬ ܢܗܪܐ ܒܫܢܬ �ܦ ܘܬܫܥܡܐܐ ܘܬܪܬܝܢ‬ :‫ܒܡܕܝܢܬܐ ܕܡܘܨܠ ܕܡܬܟܢܝܐ ܒܐܬܘܪ ܘܢܝܢܘܐ‬ ̇ ‫ ܘܟܪܛܝܣܐ ܐܘܟܡܐ‬.‫ܘܟܬܒܬ ܗܢܐ ܟܬܒܐ ܥܠ ܟܬܒܐ ܣܓܝ ܥܬ ̣ܝܩ ܕܐܝܬ ܠܗ ܐܝܟ ܫܬܡܐܐ ܫܢ̈ܝܢ‬ .‫ܡܫܝܚܝܬܐ‬ ̣ ̈ ܵ ‫ܣܡܢܢ ܟ�ܛܝܣܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܒܕܘܟܝܬܐ ܡܢ ܣܘܓܐܐ ܕܥܬܝܩ‬ ‫ܚܘ�ܬܐ‬ ‫ ̣ܗܘܐ܆ ܘܐܝܬ ܒܗ ܚܣ ̣ܝܪ‬. ̣ ‫ܝܘܡܬܐ‬

4. EDITION OF THE TEXT

83

vided an alternative reading for some illegible words on the margin. The text finishes with the mimro On the Offering of the Holy Mysteries, and it does not copy the rest of the unidentified text. MS Vat Sir 581 [=V581] (1917) Vat Sir 581 contains the eleven mimre of M, as well as the seven mimre of John of Dara found in the manuscript of Mardin. But at the beginning of the manuscript the text speaks explicitly of “writing this illuminating book of our father, the blessed bishop Mor Iwannis, Metropolitan of Dara” that contains “ten mimre”.1 Additionally the eleventh mimro is attached. The first eleven mimre have been copied by Mattai bar Paulus of Mosul. He mentions his name after the first mimro and refers to the First World War as follows: The first mimro was completed in April 1917, in the days of the war and fighting between the kings and the powers throughout Turkey and France. And hunger took place in the cities. It has been three years fighting until now. God may protect us from this danger. He, who reads this book, should remember the feeble writer, deacon Mattai Bar Paulus, a Syrer from Mosul, who is in need of God’s mercy. He wrote this book to the splendid priest, father Marutha Hakim, who [lives] in pure celibacy. He is from the city Amid (Diyerbakir), a respected Chaldean one. The Lord may prolong his life in joyful time and [good] health, and He may help us by his heavenly prayers, through the prayers of the blessed Mary, who gave birth to God, and through that of the saints. Amen. 2 Mattai Bar Paulus wrote the book for a celibate Chaldean priest from Amid, called Marutha Hakim. He must have written very quickly, for he gives the date again after a month, namely 21st May 1917, on page 271. 3 He finished the whole of the first eleven mimre, 417 pages, in about two months, namely by 29th June 1917. 4 He also wrote other books, such as MS Mingana Syr 67 in 1911. Page 2: ‫ܥܠ ܚܝ� ܘܥܘܕܪܢܐ ܕܬܠܝܬܝܘܬܐ ܩܕܝܫܬܐ܆ ܐܒܐ ܘܒܪܐ ܘܪܘܚܐ ܩܕܝܫܐ܆ ܡܫܪܝܢܢ ܠܡܟܬܒ ܟܬܒܐ‬ ‫ܗܢܐ ܢܗ ̣ܝܪܐ ܕܥܒ ̣ܝܕ �ܒܘܢ ܛܘܒܢܐ ܚܣܝܐ ܡܪܝ ܐܝܘܐܢܢܝܣ ܡܝܛܪܘܦܘܠܝܛܐ ܕܕܐܪܐ ܨܠܘܬܗ ܥܡܐܢ ܐܡܝܢ ܀ ܘܒܗ ܡܐܡ�ܐ‬ ‫ܥܣܪ‬. 2 The copyist notes at the end of the first Mimro, page 39: ‫ܫܠܡ ܡܐܡܪܐ ܩܕܡܝܐ ܒܢܝܣܢ ܫܢܬ‬ ̈ ̈ ‫ܒܝܘܡܝ ܩܪܒܐ ܘܬܟܬܘܫܐ ܒܝܢ̈ܝ ̈ܡܠܟܐ‬ ‫ܘܗܘܐ ܟܦܢܐ‬ ‫ܐܨ̇ܝܙ ̄ ̄ܡ܆‬ ̣ :‫ܘܫܠܝܛܢܐ ܒܟܠ ܐܬ�ܘܬܐ ܕܬܘ�ܟܝܐ ܘܦ�ܢܓܝܐ‬ ̈ ̇ .‫ ܘܥܕܡܐ ܠܗܫܐ ܬܠܬܐ ܫܢܝܢ ܒܬܟܬܘܫܐ܆ �ܗܐ ܢܦ�ܐ ܠܢ ܡܢ ܐܘܠܨܢܐ ܗܢܐ‬.‫ܒܡܕܝܢ̈ܬܐ‬ ‫ܘܕܩܪܐ ܒܟܬܒܐ ܢܬܕܟܪ‬ ̄ ‫ ܘܟܬܒܗ ܠܗܢܐ‬.‫ ܕܣܢܝܩ ܠ�ܚܡܘܗܝ ܕܐܠܗܐ‬.‫ܡܫܡ ܡܬܝ ܒܪ ܦܘܠܘܣ ܣܘܪܝܝܐ ܡܘܨܠܝܐ‬ �‫ܠܟܬܘܒܐ ܡܚܝ‬ ̄ ܵ ‫ ܡܪܝܐ ܢܘܪܟ‬.‫ܟܬܒܐ �ܒܘܢ ܟܗܢܐ ܙܗܝܐ ܘܒܬܘ� ܕܟܝܐ ܩܫܝܫܐ ܡ ̣ܪܘܬܐ ܚܟܝܡ ܕܐܝܬܘ ̣ܡܢ ܐܡ ̣ܝܕ ܡܕܝܢܬܐ ܟܠܕܝܐ ܡܝܩܪܐ‬ ̈ ‫ ܘܠܢ ܢܥܕܪ‬.‫ܕܚܕܘܬܐ ܒܚܘܠܡܢܐ‬ ̈ ‫ ܒܨܠܘܬ ܡܪܝܡ ܛܘܒܢܝܬܐ ܕܝܠܕܬ �ܗܐ‬.‫ܫܡܝܥܬܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܒܨܠܘܬܗ‬ ̈ ̈ ‫̈ܚܝܘܗܝ‬ ‫ܘܕܩܕܝܫܐ܆‬ ‫ܒܙܒܢܐ‬ ‫ܐܡܝܢ‬. ̄ ̄ 3 Page 271: ̄ ‫ ܒܐܝܪ ܝܪܚܐ ܟܐ ܫܢܬ ܐܨ̇ܝܙ‬.‫ܕܐܝܬܘ ܡܐܡܪܐ ܕܬܠܬܐ ܕܥܠ ܩܝܡܬܐ ܕܦܓ�ܐ‬ ‫ܫܠܡ ܡܐܡܪܐ ܕܬܫܥܐ܆‬ ̄‫ܡ‬. ̈ 4 Fol 206v, page 412: ‫ܒܐܝܕܝ ܡܚܝ� ܡܫܡܫܢܐ ܡܬܝ ܒܪ ܦܘܠܘܣ ܡܢܚܐ‬ ‫ܫܠܡ ܦܘܫܩܐ ܕܩܘܪܒܐ܆‬ ̄ ̄ ‫ ܒܫܢܬ ܐܨ̇ܝܙ ܡܫܝܚܝܬܐ ܟܛ ܒܚܙܝܪܢ ܝܪܚܐ‬.‫ܐܬܘܪܝܐ ܘܣܘܪܝܝܐ‬. It is interesting to note, that he previously 1

84

JOHN OF DARA ON THE RESURRECTION OF HUMAN BODIES

Mattai Bar Paulus uses Syriac and Arabic numbering for the pages. The scanned version also provides western Arabic numbers. Here I refer to the Syriac and Arabic system: 1. Celestial Hierarchy (2–39) 2. Ecclesiastical Hierarchy (40–88) 3. Priesthood I (88–93) 1 4. Priesthood II (94–118) 5. Priesthood III (118–126) 6. Priesthood IV (126–149) 2 7. Resurrection I (149–184) 8. Resurrection II (184–240) 9. Resurrection III (240–271) 10. Resurrection IV (271–360) 11. Com on Liturgy – I Part (361–417) Mattai bar Paulus does not mention from where he copied the text, but it must be from M.

referred to himself as “a Syrer from Mossul”, whereas here he calls himself “an Assyrer and Syrer”. 1 See M. Breydy, “Les compilations syriaques sur le sacerdoce au IXe siècle: Jean de Dara”, in OCA 205 (1978), 267–293 (= 2. Symp. Syr. 1976); M. Breydy, “Historisch-literarische Daten zu den Hauptmanuskripten der Lehre vom Priestertum bei Mose bar Kepha”, in Ostkirchliche Studien (Würzburg 1976), 67–71; A. Vööbus, “Important manuscript discoveries of Iwannis of Dara and his literary heritage”, JAOS 96 (1976), 576–578. 2 Just after page 149, where the first mimro On the Resurrection of the Bodies starts, there are both sides of a scanned folio that do not belong to the manuscript. It is written in the beautiful East Syriac alphabet that is vocalized. The mimro is written in 12–syllabus style, and it must belong to Barhebraeus:

‫ ܟـ]ܬܒܬ[ �ܓܪܬܝ ܒܬܒܥܐ ܡܕܟܝ ܒܕܪܐ ܗܢܐ‬:‫ܕܫܚܠ�ܥܝܢܐ ܝܘܡ ܦܘܪܫܢܐ‬ ܼ ܿ ‫ܒܕܡܐ ܕܠܒܐ‬ ̈ [‫ ܘܒܐ�ܕܝ ܢܕܥܘܢ ܠܒܐ ܣܘܝܐ ܕܣܡܝـ]ܟ‬:‫ܕܡܐ ܕܡܬܚܙܝܐ ܡܢܟܘܢ ܐܓܪܬܝ ܬܩܪܐ ܥܝܢܐ‬....... ‫ ܠܒܐ ܕܬܠܝܥ ܬܡܢ ܠܘܬܟܘܢ ܠܡܦܢܐ ܬܫܪܘܢ‬:‫ܡܘܡܐ ܐܢܐ ܠܟܘܢ ܕܡܐ �ܓܪܬܐ ܗܕܐ ܬܩܪܘܢ‬ ‫ � ܬܫܕܪܘܢܝܗܝ ܐܘ ܕܠܡܐ ܟܕ ܒܬܪ ܕܬ�ܪܘܢ܀‬:‫ܒܪܡ ܝܕܥܢܐ ܕܐܢ ܠܕܢܚܝܝ ܩܢܘܡܝ ܒܪܘܚܐ ܬܕܠܘܢ‬ ‫ܟܡܝܣ‬ ‫ ܒܢܦܫܝ ܐܝܬܝ ܕ� ܦܘܠܓܐ ܗܟܝܠ�ܥܒܕܟܘܢ‬:‫ܐܦܢ ܒܦܓܪ ܪܚܝܩ ܐܢܐ ܠܝ ܡܢ ܥܢܝܢܟܘܢ‬ ̈ ‫ ܠܡܦܪܥ‬:‫ܘܐܡܝܢܐܝܬ ܡܢܝ ܡܫܪܪܢܐ ܪܘܚܐ ܠܘܬܟܘܢ‬ ‫ܚܘܒ� ܐܘ ܡܝ�ܢܐ ܕܚܝܒ ܐܢܐ ܠܟܘܢ‬ ‫ ܕܫܪܓ ܦܓܪܐ ܒܪܚܝܩܘܬܐ ܩܪܝܒ ܠܡܕܥܟ‬:‫ܗܢܐ ܟܠܗ ܝܪܒܬ ܣܘܚܬܝ ܕܠܘܬ ܦܓܥܬ‬ ‫ ܕܢܘܟܪܝܐ ܐܢܐ ܘ� ܝܕܥ ܐܢܐ ܐܬܐ ܠܬܪܥܟ܀‬:‫ܫ�ܘܢܝ ܐܘ ܕܥܝܢܝ ܕܒܐܝܢܐ ܫܒܝ� ܐܪܗܐ ܒܬܪܟ‬ ̈ ‫ ܝܘܩܢܟ ܦܐܝܐ ܠܘܬ ܠܝ ܘܪܫܝܡ ܒ�ܘܚ ܥܘܗܕܢܐ‬:‫ܩܢܘܡܐ ܦܪܝܫܝܢ ܣܝܥܝܢ ܡܢ ܥܢܝܢܐ‬ ‫ܐܢ ܓܝܪ‬ ‫ ܘܡܢ ܚܘܫܒܐ ܪܚܘܡܐ ܠܝܬܘܗܝ ܡܫܬܒܝܢܐ܀‬:‫ܘܥܝܢܐ ܚܙܝܐ ܠܡܬܒܥܝܢܐ ܚܕ ܥܕܢܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܠܝ ܐܝܡܡ ܠܡܝܨܬ‬ ‫ ܘܒܟܠ ̈ܫܥܐ ܠܘܥܕܐ ܕܝܠܟܘܢ ܬܠܝܐ ܥܝܢܐ‬:‫ܛܒܐ ܬܠܝܐ ܐܕܢܐ‬ ‫ ܘܗܕܐ ܗܟܢ ܥܕܡܐ �ܡܬܝ � ܝܕܥܢܐ܀‬:‫ܘܒܗܢܐ ܙܢܐ ܡܓܡܪ ܐܢܐ ܠܝ ܟܠܗ ܙܒܢܐ‬

4. EDITION OF THE TEXT

85

In contrast to the other manuscripts, this codex also contains John of Dara’s seven mimre that are preserved in the old manuscript of the Syrian orthodox library of Mardin. The seven mimre were copied by Jacob from Bartel in September 1917, as he reveals his name and the date at the end of the fourth 1 and six 2 mimro. A short colophon can be found on the last folio: “This book has been completed and bounded from the real treasures of Mor Iwannis at the End of September 1917 by the hand of the weak and sinner, full of disgrace, Jacob bar Petrus, by the name a deacon, but by deeds far and lost from the status of deacon. He is from Bartele, from the house of Deacon Isaac, who is known as Mshamshono (deacon) Sakka. I ask everyone, who finds this book to say a prayer of forgiveness for my feeble soul. Amen.” 3 At the beginning the copyist provides the titles of the mimre and the chapters (fol 213–217), and then starts with the text. 1. Mimro On Paradise, starting with the end of chapter 3 (the Syriac numbers refer to the folios of this part of the codex, and they start from the beginning (fol 3v–11v) 2. Mimro On Creation (fol 11v–48v) 3. Mimro Against the Heretics (fol 48v–62v) 4. Mimro On the Resurrection of Our Lord from the Tomb (63v–100r) 5. V Mimro On Pentecost (fol 100r–116v) 6. VI On Finding the Cross (fol 116v–130v) 7. VI On the Holy Economy (fol 130v–154r) MS Syriac Orthodox Patriarchate Damascus 4/4 [=M4/4] (1931) Almost the same colophon as in M4/5 can be found in the MS Syriac Orthodox Patriarch Damascus 4/4 [M4/4] that was also copied by Mattai bar Paulus on a Thursday 25.04.1931. 4 In addition to the colophon of M4/4 Mattai mentions the name of the current patriarch Mor Ignatius Elias III and the name of a few bishops. In this colophon he guesses that the original manuscript is about 900 years old. 5 The colophon is Fol 100: ‫ ܒܚ�ܪܐ ܕܝܥܩܘܒ ܚܛܝܐ܆ ܡܫܡܫܢܐ‬.‫ܫܠܡ ܠܗ ܡܐܡܪܐ ܪܒܝܥܝܐ ܕܥܠ ܩܝܡܬܐ ܕܝܫܘܥ ܚܝܐ‬ ‫ ܙ ̄ ܒܐܝ�ܘܠ‬.‫ ܫܢܬ ܐܨ̇ܝܙ ̄ ܡܫܝܚܝܬܐ‬.‫ ܒܪܛܠܝܐ‬. ̄ 2 Fol 130v: ‫ ܒܐܝ�ܘܠ܀‬.‫ܡܫܡ ܝܥܩܘܒ ܒܪܛܝ� ܚܛܝܐ ܫܢܬ ܐܨ̇ܝܙ ̄ ܡܫܝܚܝܬܐ‬ ‫ܫܠܡ ܡܐܡܪܐ ܫܬܝܬܝܐ ܒܝܕ‬. ̈ 3 Fol 154r: ‫ܣܝܡܐ ܚܬ�̈ܬܐ ܕܡܪܝ ܐܝܘܐܢܝܣ܇ ܒܫܢܬ ܐܨ̇ܝܙ ̄ ܡܫܝܚܝܬܐ‬ ‫ܫܠܡ ܘܐܣܬܝܟ ܟܬܒܐ ܗܢܐ ̣ܡܢ‬ ̈ ‫ ܕܒܫܡܐ ̇ܡܢ ܡܫܡܫܢܐ܆ ܒܪܡ‬.‫ܘܡ� ܫܟܝ�ܬܐ ܝܥܩܘܒ ܒܪ ܦܛܪܘܣ‬ ‫ܘܚܛܝܐ‬ ‫ܒܚܪܬܗ ܕܐܝ�ܘܠ܂‬ ܸ ܼ ܿ �‫ܒܐܝܕܝܕ ܡܚܝ‬ ‫ ܒܓܢܣܐ ܕܝܢ ܘܒܥܡܘܪܝܐ ܒܪܛܠܝܐ ܡܢ ܒܝܬ ܡܫܡܫܢܐ‬.‫ܘܪܚܝܩ ̣ܡܢ ܕܪܓܐ ܕܡܫܡܫܢܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܒܣܘܥܪܢܐ ܣܓܝ ܡܒܥܕ‬ ̣ ̄ ܵ .‫ܡܫܡ ܿ ܼܣ ܿ ܼܟܐ‬ ̇ ‫ܥܘ ̣ܡܢ ̇ܟܠ‬ ‫ ܐܡܝܢ܀‬. ‫ܕܚܘܣܝܐ ܥܠ ܢܦܫܝ ܕܘ ̣ܝܬܐ‬ ‫ܕܦܓܥ ܕܢܣܪܚ ܨܠܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܐܝܣܚܩ ܕܡܬ ̣ܝܕܥ ܗܘܐ‬. ̣ ‫ܒܒ‬ ̄ ̄ ‫ܕܐܝܬܘ‬ ̄ 4 Fol 239r: ‫ܟܗ ܒܗ ܒܚܙܝܪܢ ܝܪܚܐ ܫ ܿܢܬ ܐܨ̇� ܡܫܝܚܝܬܐ‬ ‫ܫܠܡ ܀ ܝܘܡ ܕܚܡܫܐ‬. ̣ ܼ 5 Fol 239v–240r: ‫ܫܠܡ ܗܢܐ ܟܬܒܐ ܢܗܝܪܐ ܕܡ� ܗܢ̈ܝܢܐ �ܘܚܢܝܐ܆ ܘܝܘܬ�ܢܐ �ܘܚܢܝܐ܆ ܕܥܒܝܕ �ܒܘܢ ܚܣܝܐ‬ ̣ ̈ ̈ ܿ ݀ ‫ܘܗܘܬ‬ ‫ܟܬܝܒܘܬܗ‬ ̣ ̣ ‫ ܼܿܢܫܟܢ ܠܢ �ܗܐ ̣ܝܘܬܪܢܐ‬.‫ܡܪܝ ܐܝܘܢܢܝܣ ܡܛܪܘܦܘܠ ̣ܝܛܐ ܕܕܐܪܐ‬ ̣ ̄ ‫ܒܒܘ ܼܪܟܬ ܨܠܘܬܗ ܘܒܥܘܬܗ ܐܡܝܢ܀‬ ̄ ̈ ̇ ‫ܒܝܘܡܝ ܐܒܐ‬ ‫ܕܐܝܬܝܗ ܫܢܬ �ܦ ܘܬܫܥܡܐܐ ܘܬܠܬܝܢ ܘܚܕܐ ܠܡܪܢ܆ ܒܚܙܝܪܢ ܝܪܚܐ ܟܗ ܀‬ :‫ܒܪܡܒ ܕܝܘܢ̈ܝܐ‬ ‫ܒܫܢܬ‬ 1

86

JOHN OF DARA ON THE RESURRECTION OF HUMAN BODIES

completed by a seven-line summary in Garshuni text of what has been said in the Syriac text. Like M,4/5 M4/4 has also got the mimro On the Devils at the end of the manuscript. Other Manuscripts There are a number of other mss containing the other work of John of Dara, which have been copied from the ms in Mardin. 1 However, two mss could be a copy from M and would contain the mimre On the Resurrection of Human Bodies, but I could not get a copy of them. These are MS Atshaneh 111 and MS Bartelli Mar George 1, both from the twentieth century according to Vööbus. 2 The Edition of the Text and the Critical Apparatus The edition of the text is based on both of the oldest mss M and V. The relevant differences are included in the footnotes. Most of the time M has been used as the main text throughout the four mimre, apart from when text was missing or illegible. The edition follows the reading in M in orthography, punctuation and diacritical marks, but occasionally V is prioritised because of clarity of reading, or mistakes, or corruption of the text in M. M is highly lacunose in the folios 91 until 118 and a few folios are missing at the end. All lacunae are filled from V in square brackets ‘[ ]’. Occasionally the other manuscripts have been consulted, first of all to see if the text was present and legible when they were copied, and secondly to see how the copyist understood the text, as their punctuation and diacritical points can indicate this. The differences in terminology, grammar, additions or omission of letters, words or larger text, as well as transpositions and text in the margin are marked and identified

̈ ‫ܟܗܢܘܬܐ‬ ‫ ܘܪܝܫܐ ܕܥ̈ܠܢܐ ܘ�ܥܘܬܐ܂ ܠܒ ̣ܝܫ ܐܦܘܕܐ ܕܪܝܫܘܬ ܟܘܡܪܘܬܐ ܝܫܘܥܝܬܐ܆ ܘܡܥܛܦ ܦܪܝܣܐ ܕܪܒܘܬ‬.‫ܕܐܒܗܬܐ‬ ̣ ̇ ‫ܟܠܗ ܣܘܪܝܐ ܘܡܠܝܒܐܪ ܕܗܢܕܘ‬ ‫ ܡܪܝ ܐܝܓܢܐܛܝܘܣ �ܝܐܣ ܬܠ ̣ܝܬܝܐ ܦܛܪܝܪܟܐ ܕܐܢܛܝܘܟܝܐ ܘܥܠ‬.‫ܫܡܥܘܢܝܬܐ‬ ܵ ܸ‫ ܢܬܩܝܡ ܒܟܠ ̈ܙܟܘܢ܆ ܘܢܬܢܛܪ ̣ܡܢ ܟܠ ܢ‬:‫ܘܕܡܕܢܚܐ‬ ̈ ‫ ܘܡܪܡܪܡ ܕܪ ܓܗ܆ ܠܫܘܒܗܪܐ‬.‫ܟܝܢ ܘܣܘܓܦܢ‬ ‫ ܘܚܘܬܪܐ‬.‫ܕܥܕܬܗ‬ ̈ ̈ ‫ܕܡ�ܥܝܬܗ ܐܡܝܢ ܀ ܘܫܪܟܐ‬ .‫ܘܐܦܣܩܘܦܐ ܀ ܡܪܝ ܐܬܢܐܣܝܘܣ ܡܛܪܘܦܘܠܝܛܐ ܒܪܘ� ̣ܕܗܘ ܬܐܘܡܐ ܡܘܨܠܝܐ‬ ‫ܕܚܣܝܐ‬ ̄ ‫ ܘܫܪܟܐ‬.‫ܘܡܪܝ ܣܐܘܝܪܝܘܣ ܐܦܪܝܡ ܒܪܨܘܡ ܡܘܨܠܝܐ ܡܛܪܘܦܘ ܕܪܡܣܘܩ ܘܚܡܨ ܘܒܝܪܘܬ ܘܠܒܢܢ ܡ�ܦܢܐ ܡܗ ̣ܝܪܐ‬ ̈ ܵ ‫ܡܚܝ� ܡܫܡܫܢܐ ܼ ܿܡܬܝ ܒܪ‬ ̈ ‫ܡܢܚܐ‬ ‫ ܐܡܝܢ ܀ ܘܐܬܟܬܒ ܒܐ�̈ܕܝ‬.‫ܨ�ܘܬܗܘܢ ܢܬܢܛܪܘܢ ܡ�ܥܝܬܗܘܢ‬ ‫ܕܚܣܝܐ ܕܒܝܕ‬ ̣ ̇ ‫ܦܘܠܘܣ ܣܘܪܝܝܐ ܐܪܬܘܕܘܟܣܝܐ ̣ܕܡܢ ܡܕܝܢܬ ܡܘܨܠ ܕܡܬܝܕܥܐ ܒܐܬܘܪ ܘܢ ̣ܝܢܘܐ ܕܡܛܟܣܐ ܘܒܢܝܐ ܥܠ ܝܕ ܕܩܠܬ‬ ̇ ‫ ܡܥܡܪ‬:‫ܢܗܪܐ‬ ‫ܠܗ ܡܪܝܐ ܒ ܼܿܝܡܝܢܗ ܿ ܼܚܝܠܬܢ ̣ܝܬܐ ܐܡ ̣ܝܢ ܀ ܘܐܬܟܬܒ ܥܠ ܐܨܚܬܐ ܥܬ ̣ܝܩܬܐ ܕܢܛܝܪܬܐ ܒܒܝܬ ܐ�ܟܐ‬ ̈ ݀ ‫ܐܬܚ ̈ܒܠܝ ܘ� ̇ܦ‬ ̇ ‫ܒܗ ܒܡܕܝܢܬܐ ܕܐܝܬ‬ ̇ ‫ܕܥܕܬܐ ܕܡܪܝ ܬܘܡܐ‬ .‫ܫܬ ܒܗܝܢ ܐܬܘܬܐ‬ ܼ ܿ ‫ ܘܕܘܟ ܵܝܢ ܣܓܝ̈ܐܢ‬:‫ܠܗ ܬܫܥܡܐܐ ܫܢ̈ܝܢ‬ ̈ ‫ܫܒܩܬ‬ ܵ ܿ ̇ ̇ ‫ ܕܟܒܪ ̇ܓܕܫܐ ܘܡܫܬܟܚܐ ܐܨܚܬܐ ܐܟܘ‬.‫ܕܘܟܝܬܐ ܚܘ�ܬܐ ܐܟܡܐ ܕܚ̇ ܙܝܬܘܢ‬ ‫ ܐ�܄ � ̇ܣܒܪ‬.‫ܬܗ ܡ ܼܫܡܠܝܬܐ‬ ‫ܘܥܠܗܕܐ‬ ̈ ̈ ̇ ‫ܥܩܒܬ܆ ܘ� ܐܫܟܚ̇ ܬ ܟܬܒܐ ܣܛܪ ܡܢܗ ܀‬ ̇ ‫ܫܟܝܚ܇ ܘܣܓܝ‬ ‫ܘܒܥܐ ܐܢܐ ̣ܡܢ ܐܚܐ ܘܩ�ܘܝܐ ܘܦܓܘܥܐ ܕܒܟܬܒܐ ܗܢܐ‬ ̣ ‫ܐܢܐ‬ .‫ܕܚܘܣܝܐ ܥܠ ܟܬܘܒܐ ܚܠܫܐ‬ ̣ ‫ ܐ� ܕܢܣܪܚܘܢ ܨܠܘܬܐ‬:‫ ܡܛܠ ܕܡܣܪܗܒܐܝܬ ܗܘܬ‬:‫� ܢܥܕܠܘܢܢܝ ܥܠ ܟܬ ̣ܝܒܘܬܗ‬ ̈ ‫ܘܣܟ�ܘܬܐ ܕܥܒܕܟ ܡܬܝ ܟܬܘܒܐ܆ ܘܚܣܐ‬ ‫ܘܢܐܡܪܘܢ܂ �ܗܐ ܚܢܢܐ ܘܡܪܚܡܢܐ ܒ�ܚܡܝܟ ܫܦܝ̈ܥܐ ܚܘܢ ܡܬܥܒ�ܢܘܬܐ‬ ̈ ̈ ̈ ̈ ‫ܘܕܐܒܗܘܗܝ‬ .‫ܕܐܚ ̄ܘ ܕܦܓܪ ܘܕܪܘܚ ܘܐܣܡܟ ܐܢܘܢ ܒܥܘܒܐ ܐܒ�ܗܡܝܐ ܒܛܝܒܘ ܕܡܢܟ‬ ‫ܚܘܒܘܗܝ ܘܫܒܘܩ ܒܘ��ܘܗܝ‬ ̄ ̈ ̈ ܿ ܿ �‫ܕ�ܝ ܘܥ ̣ܡܠ‬ ̣ �‫ ܘܢܐܡܪ �ܗܐ ܕܝ̇ܗܒ ܐܓܪܐ ܠܥܡ�܂ ܚܣܐ ܒ�ܚܡܝܟ ܠܡܚܝ‬.‫ �ܗܐ ܼܢܚܣܐ ܠܗ ܼܚܘܒܘ‬:�‫ܘܟܠ ܕܡܨ‬ ̈ ‫ܠܝܘܬܪܢܗ܆ ܘܠܝܘܬܪܢܐ ܕܐܚ�ܢܐ ܒܬܪܗ܆ ܘܫܒܘܩ ܠܥܢܝ̈ܕܘܗܝ‬. ̈ ‫ܘܕܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܡܝܢ ܀‬ ‫ܡܗܝܡܢܐ܇ ܒܨܠܘܬ ܡܪܝܡ ܝ̇ܠܕܬ �ܗܐ‬ See the chapter on the Life and Work of John of Dara. A. Vööbus, “Important manuscript discoveries of Iwannis of Dara and his literary heritage”, JAOS 96 (1976), 576–578; footnote 11. 1 2

4. EDITION OF THE TEXT

87

in the apparatus. Occasionally, I suggest an alternative reading, identified by ‘lege’ (legendum: reader). The number of the folios of the two manuscripts, M and V are given between slashes ‘/ /’, but only in the edited text, not in the translation. The main text is provided in Serto script, whereas the titles, chapters and all the text written in red is given in Estrangelo. The relationship of the two old manuscripts Since both mss are very old and provide a rich similarity in script, interpunctuation and diacritical points, they must be related to each other. M and V could have been copied from the same ms, but there are also a few indications that V might have been copied from M. In a number of places some text has been missed and added in V, either between the lines or at the margin. The missing text is sometimes exactly a whole line in M, such as: M50v – where the second last line has been added between lines 6 and 7 in V: ‫ܫܚܝܢ‬ ̣ ̇‫ܥܡ ̇ܗܢܘܢ ܕܠܗܘܢ ܚ‬. V has a variety of texts written on the mg or between the lines: - Because of haplography a few words have been missed in M and added later in ̄ V, such as in M53ra: haplography because of the number ‫ܒ‬, that appears ̄ twice, as the text reads in the margin V5rb: ‫ܢܕܥܘܢ܂ ܕ� ̣ܡܨܝܐ܂ ܕܒ‬. - Another haplography is because of the verb ‫ ̇ܡܘܒܕ‬, as the next few words are missed out and added on the mg in V16ra: ‫ܘܐܢ ܟܝܢܗ ̇ܡܘܒܕ‬. - Another example of haplography can be seen with the word ‫ ܥܠܡܐ‬in V22ra: ‫ ̇ܗܘ ܠܡ ܕܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܡܢ ܩܕܡ ܥܠܡܐ‬. - Sometimes both mss provide the same text on the mg, such as at the end of ̄ the first mimro: ‫ܗ ܡܫܬܚܠܦ ܠܬܘܪܣܝܐ‬. - The only Greek word written in the Greek alphabet is the name of Methodius of Lympus in M95v and V48r between both columns: ΜΕΘΟΔΕΟΣ. - In M62va and V16ra both manuscripts use an abbreviation in the middle of ̄ the line ‫ܐܝܬܘ‬. Script Both mss M and V are written in a beautiful Estrangela script, and show some similarity. V gives the impression that the Estrangela is more square shaped, particularly in comparison to the folios M112v until M146r, which can be seen as one indication that V is older than M. A particularity of one character is worth mentioning: V has a particular form of the character mim, a combination of mim at the beginning of the word and mim at the end of the word, but without the circle in the middle. This sort of mim with a stroke above the line and a stroke under the line appears in lines where the writer

88

JOHN OF DARA ON THE RESURRECTION OF HUMAN BODIES

tries to save space. It occurs often in V, but also a few times in M (such as in fol M126v–line 13 [‫ ;]ܘܡܣܬܬܬܐ‬154v–line 24 [‫–]ܘܡܠܬܐ‬line 32 [‫)]ܘܡܛܠ‬. 1 269F

Addition of words With the symbol ‘+’ (add) in 97 footnotes, words have been given in the apparatus that are missing in the main text. Most of them are from V, and a few from M. In M they are often in the mg. V adds for instance ‫( ܗܘܘ‬I:1.1; II:14.7); ‫( ܐܦ‬I:3.5); ‫( ܓܝܪ‬II:8.1.1; IV:7.2); ‫( ܕܝܢ‬III:8: com. on 1 Cor 15:36); ‫( ̇ܗܝ‬III:7: com. on 1 Cor 15:11–9); ‫( ܗܢܐ‬II:5.2); ‫( ܟܠܗܘܢ‬II:7); �‫( ܚܝܠܬܢܐ ܘܡܚܝ‬II:7). But also in a few places in the context of biblical references V adds words that are based on Scripture, such as in II:2.5 (Rom 8:1); II:8.1.1 (Eph 4:13); IV:11.7 (Matt 25:46). These are supposed to help complete the biblical citation or to help in understanding the text better. The terms that are not included in V, are indicated by the symbol ‘