Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies (Volume 1): 1998 [2010] 9781463214067

Table of contents :
Table of Contents
Hugoye 1:1
Letter from the General Editor
Papers
The Baptismal Anointings According to the Anonymous Expositio Officiorum
Ms Vat. Syr. 268 and the Revisional Development of the Harklean Margin
A Bibliographical Clavis to the Works of Jacob of Edessa
An Epiphany of Mystical Symbols: Jacob of Sarug’s Mêmrâ 109 on Abraham and His Types
Projects and Conference Reports
Publications and Book Reviews
Hugoye 1:2
Introduction to the Special Issue
Papers
A Single Human. Being Divided in Himself: Ephraim the Syrian, the Man in the Middle
The Tears of the Sinful Woman: a Theology of Redemption in the Homilies of St. Ephraim and His Followers
St. Ephraim’s Influence on the Greeks
A Spiritual Father for the Whole Church: the Universal Appeal of St. Ephraem the Syrian
Ephraim in Christian Palestinian Aramaic
St. Ephraim the Syrian’s Thought and Imagery as an Inspiration to Byzantine Artists
Ephraim the Syrian in Anglo-Saxon England
John Wesley and Ephraem Syrus
Conference Report
Project Report
Conference Announcement
Publications and Book Reviews

Citation preview

HUGOYE JOURNAL OF SYRIAC STUDIES A Publication of Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute

Volume 1 1998 [2010]

HUGOYE JOURNAL OF SYRIAC STUDIES A Publication of Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute GENERAL EDITOR George Anton Kiraz, Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute / Gorgias Press EDITORIAL COMMITTEE Sebastian P. Brock, University of Oxford Sidney Griffith, The Catholic University of America Amir Harrak, University of Toronto Susan Harvey, Brown University Mor Gregorios Y. Ibrahim, Mardin-Edessa Publishing House Andreas Juckel, University of Münster Hubert Kaufhold, Oriens Christianus Kathleen McVey, Princeton Theological Seminary Wido T Van Peursen, The Peshitta Institute of Leiden University Lucas Van Rompay, Duke University ONLINE EDITION EDITOR Thomas Joseph, Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute BOOK REVIEW EDITOR Kristian Heal, Brigham Young University PRINTED EDITION EDITOR Katie Stott, Gorgias Press

HUGOYE: JOURNAL OF SYRIAC STUDIES (ISSN 1937-318X) Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies is a publication of BETH MARDUTHO: THE SYRIAC INSTITUTE. Copyright © 2010 by GORGIAS PRESS and BETH MARDUTHO: THE SYRIAC INSTITUTE. The Syriac word hugoye, plural of hugoyo, derives from the root hg‚ ‘to think, meditate, study’; hence, hugoyo ‘study, meditation’. Recently, hugoye became to be used for ‘academic studies’; hence, hugoye suryoye ‘Syriac Studies’. SUBSCRIPTIONS Subscription requests should be addressed to Gorgias Press, 954 River Rd. Piscataway, NJ 08854, USA. Subscriptions may be made online at http:// www.gorgiaspress.com. Back issues are available. NOTE FOR CONTRIBUTORS Submission guidelines and instructions are found on the Hugoye web site at http://www.bethmardutho.org. NOTE TO PUBLISHERS Copies for review should be sent directly to the Book Review Editor at the following address: Mr. Kristian S. Heal, Hugoye Book Review Editor, Brigham Young University, Stadium East House - METI, Provo, UT 84604. ADVERTISEMENTS Rates: $250 full page; includes a listing in all e-mail announcements for one year. To place ads, write to the subscription address above.

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials.

TABLE OF CONTENTS HUGOYE 1:1 Letter from the General Editor ............................................................3 Papers The Baptismal Anointings According to the Anonymous Expositio Officiorum ..............................................................................5 Sebastian Brock Ms Vat. Syr. 268 and the Revisional Development of the Harklean Margin .........................................................................19 Andreas Juckel A Bibliographical Clavis to the Works of Jacob of Edessa .............35 Dirk Kruisheer, Lucas Van Rompay An Epiphany of Mystical Symbols: Jacob of Sarug’s Mêmrâ 109 on Abraham and His Types ............................................57 Richard E. McCarron Projects and Conference Reports ........................................................79 Publications and Book Reviews ...........................................................95

HUGOYE 1:2 Introduction to the Special Issue .......................................................117 Andrew Palmer Papers A Single Human. Being Divided in Himself: Ephraim the Syrian, the Man in the Middle.....................................119 Andrew Palmer The Tears of the Sinful Woman: a Theology of Redemption in the Homilies of St. Ephraim and His Followers ...................... 165 Hannah M. Hunt St. Ephraim’s Influence on the Greeks.............................................185 David G.K. Taylor

v

vi

Table of Contents

A Spiritual Father for the Whole Church: the Universal Appeal of St. Ephraem the Syrian.............................197 Sidney H. Griffith Ephraim in Christian Palestinian Aramaic .......................................221 Alain Desreumaux St. Ephraim the Syrian’s Thought and Imagery as an Inspiration to Byzantine Artists ...............................................227 Zaga Gavrilovic Ephraim the Syrian in Anglo-Saxon England..................................253 Jane Stevenson John Wesley and Ephraem Syrus.......................................................273 Gordon Wakefield Conference Report ...............................................................................287 Project Report.......................................................................................288 Conference Announcement................................................................305 Publications and Book Reviews .........................................................309

Volume 1 1998 [2010]

Number 1

HUGOYE JOURNAL OF SYRIAC STUDIES A Publication of Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute

Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies, Vol. 1.1, 3–4 © 1998 [2010] by Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute and Gorgias Press

LETTER FROM THE GENERAL EDITOR [1]

[2]

[3]

The motivation behind this journal can be stated in a few words: Syriac research has always been lacking an exclusive journal through which work of scholarship can be circulated; a journal dedicated to this field is indeed an urgent desideratum. The motivation behind the medium in which the journal appears requires some elaboration. An electronic journal is advantageous for many reasons. Firstly, the circulation of the journal will not be confined to specialized libraries, giving researchers, students and even lay readers easy access to the publication. Secondly, the multimedia nature of this medium allows authors to provide not only high quality images, but also audio and video clips if the paper contents so require (see for example the images in Van Rompay’s report on Syriac Christian art). Thirdly, the costs of publishing are virtually nil to the publisher and the reader (albeit minimal telecommunication costs), making such a project feasible. Finally, electronic publishing will soon become ubiquitous. A number of electronic academic journals in fields related to Syriac studies have already emerged, most notably TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism and The Journal of Hebrew Scriptures; additionally, there is at least one electronic journal which is produced by members of a Syriac-speaking church, viz. The Journal of Maronite Studies. Having said that, one has to admit that an electronic journal in a field like Syriac studies is disadvantageous for the following reason: While papers in the sciences may become obsolete in a few decades, it is not unusual that papers in Syriac studies are referenced for a long period of time. Approaching the twenty first century, Syriac scholarship still pays tribute to the outstanding scholarship of the nineteenth century and earlier periods. This long life span of research will definitely outlive any digital medium, be it 3

4

[4]

Letter from the General Editor

electronic or otherwise. To remedy this, Hugoye will maintain an open policy towards republication: authors will be granted permission to republish articles in other printed journals (a request must be submitted to the General Editor); further, Hugoye itself will look into means of republishing papers in hard copy from to be deposited in specialized libraries. It is my duty and pleasure as General Editor to thank those scholars who accepted to serve on the Editorial Board of Hugoye (in alphabetical order): Sebastian Brock (University of Oxford), Sidney Griffith (Catholic University of America), Amir Harrak (University of Toronto), Susan Harvey (Brown University), Mor Gregorios Y. Ibrahim (Mardin-Edessa Publishing House), Konrad Jenner (The Peshitta Institute of Leiden University), Hubert Kaufhold (Oriens Christianus), Kathleen McVey (Princeton Theological Seminary), William Petersen (Pennsylvania State University), Mar Bawai Soro (Angelicum Pontifical University) and Lucas Van Rompay (Leiden University). Special thanks go to the Technical Editor, Thomas Joseph, whose tireless effort is evident in the typesetting (or rather bytesetting) of the current issue. George Anton Kiraz, Ph.D. General Editor

Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies, Vol. 1.1, 5–17 © 1998 [2010] by Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute and Gorgias Press

THE BAPTISMAL ANOINTINGS ACCORDING TO THE ANONYMOUS EXPOSITIO OFFICIORUM† SEBASTIAN BROCK UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ORIENTAL INSTITUTE PUSEY LANE, OXFORD OX1 2LE

INTRODUCTION [1]

The extensive anonymous commentary, wrongly ascribed by Assemani to George of Arbela, is one of the most important sources of information on the development of the East Syriac liturgical tradition and seems to date sometime between the seventh and ninth century. 1 At many points the author directly quotes the liturgical reformer Isho’yahb III himself. Originally published in G. Karukaparampil (ed.), Tuvaik: Studies in Honour of Rev. Jacob Vellian (Syrian Churches Series 16; Kottayam, 1995) 27–37, and reproduced here by kind permission of the editor. (The volume is available from Madnaha Theological Institute, Thellakam P.O., Kottayam 16, Kerala.) 1 Ed. R.H. Connolly, Anonymi auctoris expositio officiorum ecclesiae Georgio Arbelensi vulgo ascripta, I–II (CSCO 64, 71, 72, 76; Scr. Syri 25, 28, 29, 32; 1911–15). Memra V on baptism features in volume II, pp. 105–9 (text); this section is reproduced, with an accompanying Arabic translation, by J. Isaac, in Bayn an-Nahrayn 11 (1983): 329–80. The Commentary on the baptismal rite by Timothy II draws on the Anonymous Commentator at a few points; see the edition and translation †

5

6 [2]

[3]

[4]

Sebastian Brock

Book V is devoted to the baptismal liturgy, and the fifth chapter of this specifically concerns the anointings. In this chapter the author offers a very interesting—and at the same time idiosyncratic—interpretation of the significance of the four different points at which oil was originally used in the East Syriac baptismal rite, 2 namely at the ¾Ćãü†˜, or ‘marking, signing’, at the ¿šÍÐÙýâ, or ‘anointing’, the pouring of oil on the baptismal water at its consecration, and the post-baptismal ¾ĆâšÍÏ, or ‘sealing’. In this present contribution, I offer an English translation of this chapter, together with some comments. First, however, some introductory remarks should be made concerning the anointings in the Syriac baptismal tradition as a whole. The various Syriac baptismal rites are well known to liturgists for their profusion of anointings. In both East and West Syriac rites 3 we normally encounter three anointings of the baptismal candidates, each originally distinguished by a different term, thus: (1) Before the sanctifying of the water there is the ¾Ćãü†˜, or ‘marking, signing’, when the forehead is ‘marked’ with the sign of the cross. (2) After the water has been sanctified, and immediately before the baptism, there is the ŦŁŴŷƀƤƉ, or ‘anointing’, where the whole body is anointed. 4 (3) After the baptism there is the ¾ïÂÒ, ‘imprint’, 5 or ¾ĆâšÍÏ, ‘sealing’, involving the organs of sense, or just the forehead.

by P.B. Kadicheeni, The Mystery of Baptism (Bangalore, 1980), especially section 19 (pp. 88–93). 2 See notes 7–9. 3 For the West Syriac rites, see my “Studies in the early history of the Syrian Orthodox baptismal liturgy”, Journal of Theological Studies ns 23 (1972): 16–64, esp. pp. 22–40; and, in general, my The Holy Spirit in the Syrian Baptismal Tradition (Syrian Churches Series 9, ed. J. Vellian; 1979). 4 This is absent from the West Syriac ‘Tagrit’ rite, which is used in India. 5 This is the term used in the West Syriac tradition, where the verb htm is used for the signing of the candiates without oil connected with the inscription of the candidates names (the anonymous commentator covers this in his chapter 2, but he does not mention specifically any signing).

The Baptismal Anointings [5] [6]

7

In addition, oil (myron in the West Syriac tradition) is poured on the water in the course of the prayer sanctifying the water. The origin and development of these different anointings is not our concern 6 here, where discussion is confined to the anonymous commentator’s account. The baptismal service that this account describes is basically the same as that still in use in the Church of the East, and will go back to the liturgical reforms of IshoȨyahb III in the mid seventh century. Before turning to the anonymous author’s account of the anointings it will be helpful to summarize the situation in current usage in the Church of the East. 7 In this rite oil is connected with four different elements in the service; these are designated A, B, C, D below, and they are listed in the sequence in which the oil impinges on the candidate: A — the first of the two pre-baptismal anointings (¾Ćãü†˜). B — the second pre-baptismal anointing (¿šÍÐÙýâ). C — the pouring of oil on the sanctified waters in which the candidates are baptized.

D — the post-baptismal anointing (¾ĆâšÍÏ). [7]

It is essential to note that two different sources of oil are involved: (1) the oil in ‘the horn of anointing’ 6 On this see especially G. Winkler, “The history of the Syriac prebaptismal anointing in the light of the earliest Armenian sources”, II Symposium Syriacum (OCA 205; 1978) 317–24, and “The original meaning of the pre-baptismal anointing and its implications”, Worship 52 (1978): 24–45; also S. Brock, “The Syriac baptismal ordines with special reference to the anointings”, Studia Liturgica 12 (1977): 177–83, and “The transition to a post-baptismal anointing in the Antiochene rite”, in B. Spinks (ed.), The Sacrifice of Praise: Studies in honour of A.H. Couratin (Ephemerides Liturgicae, Subsidia 19; 1981) 215–25. 7 An English translation can be found in K.A. Paul and G. Mooken, The Liturgy of the Holy Apostles Adai and Mari...and the Order of Baptism (Trichur, 1967) 117–73 (there are also older English translations by G. Badger (1852) and the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Mission to the Assyrian Church of the East (1893). In both the Chaldean and the restored Syro-Malabar rites there are a number of differences, but these are not our concern here; for the latter, see J. Madey and G. Vavanikunnel, Taufe, Firmung und Busse in den Kirchen des Ostsyrischen Ritenkreises (Einsiedeln, 1971) 85–119, and F. Chirayath, Taufliturgie des Syro-Malabarischen Ritus (Das östliche Christentum, nF 32; 1981) 78–103.

8

Sebastian Brock

(¿šÍÐÙý⃇½åûø),which is already sanctified—and so provides the element of continuity; and (2) the oil in the bowl or flagon (¾æùß), which is sanctified in the course of the service. The oil from the horn is used for the first and the last anointings (A and D), and it is also poured on the water (C); the oil in the bowl, however, is used only for the anointing immediately before the baptism (B). References to these four different ways in which oil is used occur in the following sequence in the course of the rite: A — the verb used in the formula spoken by the priest is äü˜ÿâ; the oil is specified as being from the horn, and the priest applies it with his index finger. (Some manuscripts and printed texts of the rite do not specify the use of oil here at all, 8 and Diettrich 9 thought that the absence of oil represented the original situation, but this is unlikely in view of the early testimony of the anonymous commentator). B(i) — unblessed oil is poured into a bowl (¾æùß) and the priest then recites a special prayer of sanctification, which includes an epiclesis. J ) the oil in the bowl with the oil B(ii) — the priest ‘signs’ (äü˜ in the horn with the sign of the cross. C(i) — after the prayer sanctifying the water (which also contains an epiclesis), the priest takes the horn of anointing J ) the water, pouring in drops in the form of a and ‘signs’ (äü˜ cross. B(iii) — the baptismal candidates are anointed with oil from the bowl. The accompanying formula varies in the manuscripts, 10 with either ‘N is signed (äü˜ÿâ)’, or ‘N is anointed (Ñýâÿâ)’; the latter will certainly be the original. C(ii) — the candidates are baptized in the water on to which some of the oil from the horn has been poured (=C(i)). J ), D — after a prayer of imposition of the hand (ÀÊØ~ äÙè J the priest ‘signs’ (äü˜) on the head all those that have been baptized, and then takes the horn of oil and signs their 8 See G. Diettrich, Die nestorianische Taufliturgie (Giessen, 1903) 61; Chirayath, Taufliturgie des Syro-Malabarischen Ritus, 39 with notes 263–4. 9 Diettrich, Die nestorianische Taufliturgie, 8, note 4, and p. 62. 10 See Diettrich, Die nestorianische Taufliturgie, 77.

The Baptismal Anointings

[8]

9

forehead with the thumb of his right hand. (As with A, there is again variation in the manuscripts and editions, with some omitting all reference to oil). 11 The style of our anonymous author is often terse and obscure, and R.H. Connolly, who translated the text into Latin to accompany his edition in CSCO, commented: 12 ‘the author’s tumultuous style, which often goes against the rules of grammar, prevents any attempt at a word for word translation’. In my translation below I have tried to clarify the author’s cramped style somewhat, and words added by me to help the sense have been placed in brackets. For ease of reference, section numbers have been introduced; also, to assist understanding, I have added headings to each section and, where applicable, the corresponding place in the schema, A–D, set out above. Since the end of chapter 4 is also of relevance, a translation of this is included.

TRANSLATION [End of chapter 4; p. 104] (The horn of oil represents the Holy Spirit) [9]

Thus now too he indicated by means of the horn (of oil) that which took place in (the time of) the Law, for by (the horn) the New (Covenant) is perfected. (For) he places the horn in the role (lit. position) of the Holy Spirit: when (the Spirit) anointed priests, they established the priesthood; and when (the Spirit) anointed kings, they established kingship. And it is the one Spirit who performs all these things, [p. 105] allocating and distributing as she wishes, not being manifested as opposed to a single one of (these) activities. And now, in the case of the signing (¾Ćãü†˜) of the baptismal candidates, the (horn of oil) takes the place of Abraham’s circumcision and the promise (made) to him. 11 See Diettrich, Die nestorianische Taufliturgie, 48, 84–5; Chirayath, Taufliturgie des Syro-Malabarischen Ritus, 58–9; and the discussion in A. Raes, “Ou se trouve la confirmation dans le rite syro-orientale?”, L’Orient Syrien 1 (1956): 239–54, and in W. de Vries, Sakramententheologie bei den Nestorianern (OCA 133; 1947) 182–9. 12 Turbidus auctoris stylus, qui saepe contra grammaticam peccat, impedivit ne verbum pro verbo reddere tentaremus, CSCO 76, Scr. Syri 32, p. 3.

10

Sebastian Brock

Chapter 5

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

1. (The problem stated) Concerning (the reason) why, since we make the ¾Ćãü†˜ and anoint and baptize and seal from a single horn (of oil), we do not (just) do this using it once, but rather, four times. And if the oil in the horn is holy, why is it necessary for the priest to sanctify another lot of oil, and likewise (with) the baptismal water: when the Spirit descends on the water, why does it need to be signed from the horn? 2. (The unity of the Spirit’s activity in the two Testaments) As we have said before, the horn corresponds typologically to the horn in the Old Testament, which partook of the power of the Spirit—for we do not say that the things in the Law were not guided by the power of the Holy Spirit; rather, it is a single God who was with Moses in the oneness of his nature, but who is now K ), (this same God) (known to us) in his trinity of persons (¾ĆâÍæø having manifested in the Old Testament types of the New, in that God, being Creator and one, was manifested as causing the Holy Spirit to act, and not with the Spirit existing and acting apart from the will of God; nor (is the Spirit there depicted) as not fulfilling the will of God, for the Spirit who intimated through the prophets was God, and was named ‘Lord.’ 3. (The role of John the Baptist) Accordingly now John, wanting to fulfil the Old Testament, took the horn of oil from the (prophets) and placed it as a foundation in his own baptismal (rite), (thus) demonstrating that “I have not preached (anything) that is outside the truth to which you hold; and, myself still being within the old laws, I take from them strength so as to preach this covenant”. So, when the Pharisees asked him, “Who are you?”, he confessed, “I am the voice which calls [p. 106] in the wilderness, just as the prophet Isaiah said” (John 1:23). 4. (The four dispensations symbolized by the horn of oil) The four dispensations (ÀăÁ†ƒ) which are indicated by the horn are as follows: the dispensation of the beginning of the Old (Testament), and the latter part of its dispensation; and the beginning of the dispensation of the New (Testament) that (came) through John, and the dispensation which is in Christ.

The Baptismal Anointings

11

[14]

5. (The signing, ¾Ćãü†˜ [= A])

[15]

The first signing is the one with which Abraham was signed by God, so that this signing is therefore on the forehead, indicating that it was from his (sc. Abraham’s) seed that the One who would bless the peoples on their foreheads would come forth. And this signing (¾Ćãü†˜) is equivalent to the sealing (¾ĆâšÍÏ [= D]). The J ) with one finger (is) because the fact that (the priest) signs (äü˜ power of God has not (yet) been revealed over us, and (so) we have not been able to recognize it except in part. 6. (The anointing, ¿šÍÐÙýâ[= B(iii)])

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

The anointing of the baptized is the one which took place through Aaron and his sons, and the kings (of Israel). 7. (The baptism [= C(ii)]) The baptism in the ‘Jordan’ (i.e. font) is the baptism of John, for the forgiveness of sins. 8. (The sealing, ¾ĆâšÍÏ [= D]) The final sealing (is) the baptism of our Lord, which is fulfilment in the Holy Spirit. 9. (Further on the signing [= A]) Therefore the first signing is signed from the horn without any (accompanying) labour (i.e. special prayers), for likewise the promise (made) to Abraham took place without the labour of the laws, and he believed in God by word alone, and this was considered as righteousness in his case (Rom. 4:3). 10. (Further on the anointing [= B(i, ii)]) The anointing which takes place by means of prayers and consecratory (acts is) because thus Aaron too was supplicating with insistent prayers on behalf of the people, and offering up various kinds of offerings, so that the people might acquire forgiveness. 11. (The pouring of oil on the water [= C(i)]) The fact that in the middle of the consecratory prayer (for the J ) the oil and then comes to the ‘Jordan’ water) the priest signs (äü˜ (i.e. font), is because John stood in the midst, between the two Testaments, for he fulfils the Old and the New, in that he observed both laws.

12 [21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

Sebastian Brock

12. (The absence of an epiclesis over the oil in the horn) The fact that the Spirit does not descend upon the oil (in the horn) is because perfection was not granted in the Old (Testament). 13. (The oil in the bowl, however, is consecrated) The fact that (the priest) does not leave the (other) oil in the bowl without consecration is because, when the (Old Testament) priests too approached to be anointed, first of all prayer and sacrifice was also offered up on their behalf, and (only) then [p. 107] would they be anointed. 14. (A further reason why there is no epiclesis over the oil in the horn) The fact that the Spirit does not descend is because they (sc. the Old Testament priests) have not (yet) acquired perfection. 15. (The meeting of the two laws) The fact that (the priest) turns towards the ‘Jordan’ is because he has turned from (one) law to (another) law. 16. (The horn is a sign of continuity from the Old Testament) The fact that the horn comes with him is because he has not caused innovations to spring up. 17. (The reason for the epiklesis over the water) The fact that the Spirit descends over the water is because today there has occurred the complete consecration, in the baptism of John. 18. (The relationship between the oil in the bowl and the oil in the horn [= B(ii)]) (The priest’s) signing the oil (in the bowl) which is being sanctified (with oil) from the horn is because, even though the (Old Testament priests) were sanctified by means of sacrifices, nevertheless they were not perfected without the power of God. 19. (The pouring of oil on the water [= C(i)]) (The priest’s) signing the water using the horn is in order to unite the Old Testament and the New; just as, when our Lord delineated eyes for the man blind from his mother’s womb, he sent him to Shiloh (John 9:7), which belongs to the Old (Testament),

The Baptismal Anointings

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

13

indicating that he was not distancing himself from their Law; so too John (who symbolizes the priest), when sanctifying the ‘Jordan’, indicates its sealing (to be) by means of the Spirit who ministered to the Old (Testament). 20. (Why the deacon, rather than the priest, does the anointing) The fact that the priest who is baptizing does not do the anointing is because he is showing that the anointing belongs to the Old (Testament), and the priests who belong to the Old (Testament) should perform what pertains to the Old (Testament). 13 21. (Why the priest alone baptizes) The fact that (the priest) comes and baptizes alone, having himself sanctified the oil, is because he is indicating that “even though I have acted through the Old (Testament), nevertheless I am (engaged) in something which is greater than that”. 22. (The fourfold experience of the baptismal candidates) The fact that all these things pass over the baptized—I mean the type of Abraham and the type of Aaron—is because they cannot become heirs of the Kingdom and become (Abraham’s) children unless they begin with his way of life, seeing that John said to them “God is able to raise up children for Abraham even from these stones” (Matt. 3:9)—that is, from the gentiles. And the baptismal candidates now become children of Abraham by means of the promise [= A], and companions of Moses by means of matters pertaining to the Law [=B], and they are (next) baptized with the baptism of John [= C]; and then they are perfected with the baptism of our Lord [= D]. 23. (The four types in baptism) These, then, are the four types in baptism, namely (represented in) the signing (¾Ćãü†˜), the anointing (¿šÍÐÙýâ), the baptism J ) and the sealing (¾ĆâšÍÏ). (ÀÊãî

13 I.e. the deacons do the anointing instead. The commentator evidently has in mind the Levitical character of the Old Testament priesthood, and the association, frequent in early Christian literature, of Levites and deacons.

14 [33]

[34]

[35]

[36]

Sebastian Brock

24. (The correspondence between the ¾Ćãü†˜ [= A] and the ¾ĆâšÍÏ [= D]) The fact that (the baptism) of our Lord (i.e. the ¾ĆâšÍÏ) is equivalent to that of Abraham, (but) is different from that of Aaron and that of John, (is) because Christ too is son of David, son of Abraham, whereas he was not a son of Aaron; for he is showing that this sealing (is the one) whose [p.108] beginning took place through the promise to Abraham. And the demonstration (can be seen) from the resemblance of the two of them: in the first, the priest says “is signed”, but now finally, “he has been baptized and is perfected”. But look at the wording: first, “is signed”, and this only on the forehead; then, “is anointed”, in this case, the whole body. But the signing, serving as an indication of the promise, is signed just on the forehead. 25. (The correspondence between the anointing [= B] and the baptism [= C]) For the anointing, corresponding to the priests and kings being anointed, (the deacon) anoints the whole body; (likewise) for the baptism, in that John baptized the whole person, (the priest) baptizes the whole body in the water. 26. (The significance of the threefold immersion at the baptism [= C(ii)]) But take a look too: in the signing and anointing, even though he says the words “is signed...” [= A] and “is anointed... ” [= B], nevertheless he does not indicate this in what he actually does, as (in the case of) the baptism [= C(ii)]: for he says “N is signed” and “is anointed” “in the name of the Father, Son and Spirit”, but it is not the case that, along with saying this, he carries it out (by signing or anointing three times). Just as is the case when, even though God manifested a K ) in the Old type of the threefold character of his Persons (¾ĆâÍæø (Testament), nevertheless he did not bring these types to perfection. (Accordingly) now here at the baptism, along with “is baptized”—in the name of the Trinity—he also baptizes (or, submerges) (the candidate) three times. (Thus) he indicates the name (of the three Persons) and he (also) completes the action in actual practice. 27. (The significance of the sealing [D]) At the sealing, in that the Spirit descends, resembling tongues of fire (cf Acts 2:3), and actually settles on each one of them, (the

The Baptismal Anointings

[37]

[38]

15

priest) makes the sealing on the top of the face, making it resemble that promise (made) to Abraham. 28. (Why the four actions are kept separate) It is for these reasons that he signs, anoints, baptizes and seals from the single horn. The fact that he does not carry all these (actions) out together in one place is because all the actions (in the Old Testament which they signify) were not carried out together, but at each (specific) time the Spirit brought (each individual) one of them to completion, (namely), at the time of the promise, and at the time of the fleshly instructions, and at the time of the baptism with water—but elsewhere (at the time of) the baptism with the Spirit. 29. (A reply to those who object to Old Testament typology) But [p. 109] there are some people who say that the Old (Testament) is not symbolized in the Church’s ministry. But we should say to them (in response): ‘Our Lord said, “I have not come to undo the Law or the prophets, but to fulfil it” (Matt. 5:17). And if these have not been dissolved, (Christ) shows their fulfilment, (using) them in actual practice. Just as he fulfilled everything in the Law, so too both in the case of the baptized, and in the case of all our services, these begin in symbol with creation and (extend) to our resurrection from the dead.

DISCUSSION [39]

[40]

[41]

The passage contains many puzzling features and deserves a detail commentary, but here only a few salient features can be noted. In the first place it is significant that the three anointings are still identified by the use of the three different terms, ¾Ćãü†˜, ¿šÍÐÙýâ, ¾ĆâšÍÏ. The anonymous author sees the baptismal rite as a chronological progress through salvation history in four ‘dispensations’ or ‘modes of life’ (ÀăÁ†ƒ), represented by the ‘signing’, the ‘anointing’, the baptism, and the ‘sealing’ (i.e. A–D); the first two dispensations belong to the Old Testament, and the last two to the New, while the horn of oil (representing the Holy Spirit) provides the continuum. Thus we have the following associations for the four stages, A–D:

16

[42]

[43]

Sebastian Brock

A — the promise of Abraham (5, 9). The end of chapter IV specifically mentions the connection seen between the ¾Ćãü†˜ and Abraham’s circumcision, a link which can be traced back to the earliest roots of the Syriac baptismal tradition. 14 This stage also represents the time before the giving of the Law (9), and this is given as a reason why there is no need to sanctify the oil specially here. B — the anointing of priests (Aaron) and kings (6, 10). Since the Old Testament anointing was accompanied by prayers and offerings (i.e. was subject to the ordinances of the Law), there is need to sanctify oil (that in the bowl) specially for this anointing. C — the baptism is associated with the baptism of John. D — the post-baptismal anointing is associated with the baptism of Christ. While parallels to the interpretations of A and B can readily be found in earlier literature, the understandings given to C and D are surprising; presumably the baptism is seen as primarily providing forgiveness, and the post-baptismal anointing as conferring the benefits brought by Christ. Elsewhere in this Memrć the anonymous commentator is anxious to disassociate Christian baptism from the baptism of Christ in the Jordan. It is evident that he is following IshoȨyahb III on this, for in chapter 1 of Book V the commentator describes how IshoȨyahb was anxious to dissociate the Christian baptismal rite from the baptism of Jesus by placing it at Easter, rather than at Epiphany. Although the four dispensations provide a clear chronological progression, they are at the same time elaborately interlocked, in a variety of different combinations; thus we have: — The Old Testament (= A, B) is linked to the New (= C, D) by John the Baptist who looks both ways (11), and by the horn (19; cp 16). — At the same time the Old Testament is dissociated from the New by a number of features (20, 21, 22), and its imperfection is emphasises on various occasions (18, 24, 26).

14

See Brock, The Holy Spirit in the Syrian Baptismal Tradition, 97–8.

The Baptismal Anointings

17

— B (the second anointing) and C (the baptism) are linked together since both involve the whole body (25). — A (the first anointing) and D (the post-baptismal anointing) are doubly linked: they both involve the forehead (27), and because Christ is a descendant of Abraham, rather than of Aaron (24). The association of these two anointings is of course historically correct, since the post-baptismal anointing, originally absent from the Syrian rite, took over (and at the same time, expanded on) the main symbolic meanings of the pre-baptismal ¾Ćãü†˜. [44]

The various different relationships between the four occurrences of the use of oil and their biblical antecedents can be expressed diagrammatically as follows: A OT B

horn

John; whole body

C NT [45]

Abraham/ Christ; forehead

Finally, we may note that in chapter 2 of the anonymous commentator’s Memrć V, on Baptism, 15 the author hints at the chief rationale underlying all IshoȨyahb’s liturgical reforms, saying that ‘this blessed man (sc. IshoȨyahb III) was eager to depict in all the (different) services a delineation of (both) the Old and the New (Testaments)’. This suggests that the basic inspiration for the commentator’s interpretation of the baptismal anointings in fact may go back to Isho’yahb himself.

15

Text, p. 96.

Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies, Vol. 1.1, 19–33 © 1998 [2010] by Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute and Gorgias Press

MS VAT. SYR. 268 AND THE REVISIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE HARKLEAN MARGIN ANDREAS JUCKEL INSTITUT FÜR NEUTESTAMENTLICHE TEXTFORSCHUNG UNIVERSITY OF MÜNSTER

INTRODUCTION† [1]

When R. Köbert in 1975 published his short article 1 on Ms Vat. syr. 268, his primary concern was to provide scholars with a guide to this manuscript by giving an analysis of its content folio-by-folio. This was made necessary due to a careless (re)binding of the manuscript (before pagination) which put the folios into disorder. The background of Köbert’s article was his co-operation with the † vSod = Hermann Freiherr von Soden, ed., Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments in ihrer ältesten erreichbaren Textgestalt hergestellt auf Grund ihrer Textgeschichte, I. Teil: Untersuchungen (Göttingen, 1911); II. Teil: Text und Apparat (Göttingen, 1913). — IGNTP = The New Testament in Greek. The Gospel according to St. Luke, ed. by the American and British committees of the International Greek New Testament Project. Part I (chapters 1–12) (Oxford, 1984), Part II (chapters 13–24) (Oxford, 1987). — NA27 = B. Aland, K. Aland, J. Karavidopoulos, C. Martini and B. Metzger (eds.), Novum Testamentum graece (Stuttgart, 199327). — Syn = K. Aland (ed.), Synopsis quattuor evangeliorum (Stuttgart, 199616). — CESG = George A. Kiraz (ed.), Comparative Edition of the Syriac Gospels. Aligning the Sinaiticus, Curetonianus, Peshitta & Harklean Versions, vol. I–IV (Leiden, 1996). 1 Biblica 56 (1975): 247–50.

19

20

[2]

Andreas Juckel

International Greek New Testament Project (Luke, vol. I, 1984; vol. II, 1987). Supplying the editor(s) with the readings of the Harklean version, he relied not only on the editio princeps of J. White 2 (Gospels 1778), but also on Vat. syr. 267 and 268 of the 8th/9th century. No doubt he was right in using manuscripts dating from the first millennium for quoting the Harklean evidence. But he certainly did not use the Vatican manuscripts simply to confirm White’s text (founded principally on a single late manuscript, i.e. New College 333, Oxford) by tracing its readings back to the first millennium. Many of the divergent Vatican readings can easily put into question the originality of White’s text by their age and common agreement against it. Obviously Köbert’s intention was to enlarge the horizon of the Harklean evidence and to escape from the idiosyncrasies of a single manuscript, i.e. White’s edition. We are not told if Köbert realized the revisional development within the Harklean tradition which is the clue to understand the variations of the Harklean text and margin. In any case he was the first to introduce Harklean readings taken from early Harklean manuscripts into a scholarly edition of the Greek New Testament, thus opposing—intentionally or not—the unprooved assumption—that White’s text is a reliable source for the original Harklean. 3 The general purpose of the present article is to continue Köbert’s effort to promote our knowledge of the early Harklean text and to move towards a critical edition of the Harklean Gospels based on the manuscripts of the first millennium. 4 The special 2 Sacrorum Evangeliorum versio Syriaca Philoxeniana ex codd. mss. Ridleianis nunc primum edita cum interpretatione et annotationibus, tomus I (Oxonii, 1778). 3 Though a rare set of volumes, the influence of White’s text was (and still is) primarily granted by the scholarly Greek editions which present(ed) its readings as being taken from the original seventh-century version itself, e.g. in the editions of Tischendorf, von Soden, Nestle, Nestle-Aland (GNT). White’s solid achievement did not lose admiration when in the course of time it became clear that the text he published was neither the Philoxenian (as he claimed in the title) nor the original Harklean produced by Thomas of Harqel in 615/16. What he published is actually a revision of the Harklean, clearly distinct from the text we meet in the manuscripts of the first millennium, see CESG, vol. I, p. xxxix. 4 The Letters of St. Paul in the Harklean version are edited by B. Aland and A. Juckel, Das Neue Testament in Syrischer Überlieferung, vol. II,1

Ms Vat. Syr. 268 and the Revisional Development

21

purpose of this article, however, is to prove the importance of Vat. syr. 268 in establishing the original text and for gaining an understanding of the text’s early revisional development. It will also give an idea about the reason why this manuscript was chosen to be published in the Comparative Edition of George A. Kiraz. 5 It is confined to the study of the Harklean margin which is the characteristic feature of this version and especially suitable for tracing revisional development. For convenience the readings of the textline and the margin are presented in Greek, the Syriac form can easily be traced in the Comparative Edition vol. I (p. lii–lxxxii the marginal readings).

THE HARKLEAN APPARATUS [3]

The Harklean Tetraevangelium is a literal translation of a Greek model prepared in 615/16 by Thomas of Harqel (Heraklea in the Euphratensis), bishop of Mabbug, when he was in exile near Alexandria. From the general subscription to the Gospels we learn that Thomas actually proceeded by revising the Philoxenian version of 507/8 with the help of two or three Greek manuscripts representing the graeca veritas for him. The procedure resulted in a scholarly edition including an apparatus 6 with variant readings of the Greek and Syriac tradition (the former translated into Syriac) in the margin, and critically (with asterisks and obeli) marked words and passages in the text. Numerous Greek words in the margin are quoted to give the exact Greek background of single words or expressions in the Harklean text; they are not variant readings (Rom and 1 Cor, 1991), II,2 (2 Cor — Col, 1995), II,3 (1 Thess — Hebr, forthcoming). 5 According to the principal aim to keep to the comparative purpose of the CESG, no philological edition in the proper sense nor extensive collations of other Harklean manuscripts (e.g., of Ms Vat. syr. 267 and of White’s text) could be printed. But Kiraz allowed a lengthy introduction to the Harklean text giving a description of the complex physiognomy of this version and an outline of its revisional development. For general information concerning the subject of this article the reader is referred to this introduction. 6 The Harklean apparatus was studied by John D. Thomas, The Harklean margin. A study of the Asterisks, Obeli, and Marginalia of the Harklean Syriac version with special reference to the Gospel of Luke. Ph. Diss., St. Andrews (Franklin, Pa., 1973).

22

[4]

Andreas Juckel

opposed to the Harklean textline. The purpose of the apparatus was to include textual material current in Thomas’ time to serve scholarly discussion, thus ‘translating’ the essential Greek textual tradition, not just a single manuscript as happened in the time of Philoxenus. This apparatus is the characteristic feature of the Harklean; nevertheless, in most of the manuscripts it is omitted by the scribes. From the first millennium there are only four principal manuscripts attesting the Harklean apparatus: Mss Vat. syr. 267 (ca. 8th c.) and 268 (ca. 8th/9th c.), Ms Mingana syr. 124 (Mingana: “about A.D. 730”) all of them with defects of their own, and Ms syr. 703 of the Chester Beatty Library (Dublin) which is from the beginning of the second millennium (1177 A.D.) but may be added here, because it was copied from a model dated 841 A.D. 7 Two more manuscripts (Ms British Library Add. 7163, ca. 9th/10th century; Ms Harvard syr. 16, ca. 8th/9th century) are fragmentary.Poor attestation of the Harklean apparatus, mutilation, susceptibility to incorrect copying due to its complexity, and finally revisional alteration are severe obstacles to reaching its original form. To enlarge the attestation by turning to manuscripts of the second millennium (the principal manuscript is New Coll. 333 edited by J. White) would not be a reliable contribution to our knowledge of the original apparatus. At the beginning of the second millennium revisional development of the Harklean was reinforced by Dionysius Bar Salibi (+ 1171), bishop of Amid (Diyarbakir), who reorganized the apparatus considerably and influenced the Harklean tradition of the times to follow. Therefore it is a matter of method to confine research on the original Harklean apparatus to manuscripts of the first millennium.

THE REVISIONAL DEVELOPMENT TOWARDS THE BYZANTINE TEXT [5]

The revisional alteration we meet in the four manuscripts of the first millennium is indicated 1) by the fact that there is an exchange of reading between textline and margin, i.e. what is in the textline of one manuscript is in the margin of the other, and vice versa; 2) by 7 A note in the manuscript tells us that the model itself was collated with the correct codex of Qurisuna, probably a revised Harklean codex of great esteem.

Ms Vat. Syr. 268 and the Revisional Development

[6]

23

the different use of the critical signs (asterisks and obeli); 3) by numerous variant readings of the textline due to variants known from the Greek tradition, or giving a different rendering of the homogeneous Greek text. We cannot believe the scribes to be capable of these alterations which were made after renewed consultation of the Greek text; and so we have to ascribe them rather to malphone who were concerned with the correctness and reliability of the Harklean text and were familiar with Greek. In the four manuscripts used for this article we basically find the same text and margin, slightly but significantly altered. Compared with the thorough revision undertaken by Dionysius Bar Salibi, not the whole is shifted but only parts of it. This is important for claiming that the common textual substance of our four manuscripts depends on the original Harklean and that the revisional development gradually grew out of the tradition itself, and was not imposed by a single individual. 8 In CESG, vol. I, p. xxxvii the revisional development of the Harklean is said to be generally connected with the development of the Greek text towards the uniform and then dominant Byzantine text (majority text). This is especially true with regard to the revisional alteration of the apparatus in the early Harklean manuscripts. For a great number of these alterations are promoting the Byzantine text by removing the non-Byzantine reading of the textline to the margin or even by eliminating it. The importance of Ms Vat. syr. 268 for our knowledge of the early revisional development is the fact that it maintains many non-Byzantine readings which the other three manuscripts revise in favour of the Byzantine text. To demonstrate the shifting of the early Harklean text towards the Byzantine text some lists of readings are given below. The conclusion that will be drawn from them is that Ms Vat. syr. 268 does in fact represent an earlier stage of revision than the other three manuscripts used in this article and a critical edition of the Harklean Gospels should principally rely on this manuscript.

8 That is what Dionysius Bar Salibi in the 12th century did. His revision surely relied on revised Harklean manuscripts and started a new period within the Harklean revisional development, see CESG, vol. I, p. xxxvii–xxxix.

24

Andreas Juckel

LIMITATIONS [7]

[8]

a) The first limitation is the choice of the four manuscripts mentioned before. They are in fact the principal ones 9 of the first millennium representing the Harklean apparatus. The defect of Ms Vat. syr. 268 is the damage of its text and margin especially in St. John’s Gospel. But even when the marginal reading is lost, the fact of its existence is recorded by the word in the textline which preserves the graphic sign referring to the margin. 10 This is also true for Ms Mingana syr. 124, most of whose marginalia must be inferred from the reference in the textline and from the intact margin of the other three manuscripts. To improve the reliability, Ms Plut. I.40 of the Biblioteca Laurenziana was used to confirm the non-Byzantine textline reading of the Vatican manuscript. This manuscript (no apparatus, dated 756 A.D. and certainly older than Ms Vat. syr. 268) is in agreement with Ms Vat. syr. 268 in the lists A and B below, but according to list C it is affected by revisional alteration. b) All evidence presented in the lists below is taken from the Harklean margin of Luke. In this Gospel, which is the longest one, we find the most extensive apparatus, and here the damage of the manuscripts just mentioned hardly affects the evidence. It was in the apparatus where Thomas of Harqel quoted or marked variant readings of the Greek and Syriac tradition known to him. Again it is the apparatus where the revisors of the Harklean are quoting or marking non-Byzantine readings formerly belonging to the Harklean textline itself, thus correcting the Harklean. This shifting purpose of the apparatus, from quoting to correcting, can be traced best with the marginal readings, but not with the words put with critical signs in the text. The asterisks and obeli are rather inconsistently transmitted in the manuscripts, and thus have textcritical problems of their own. 11 So this (admittedly essential) 9 For the Vatican manuscripts and Ms syr. 703 of the Chester Beatty Library (Dublin) see CESG, vol. I, p. xlv–xlix. Ms Mingana syr. 124 is described by A. Mingana, Catalogue of the Mingana Collection of Manuscripts, vol. I (Cambridge, 1933) 290–3. 10 In CESG the illegible marginal readings of Ms Vat. syr. 268 are supplemented by the help of Ms Vat. syr. 267 in the list of the marginal readings p. lii–lxxxii. 11 What is true for the marginal readings we surely will have to accept for the words and passages marked with critical signs: not all of them

Ms Vat. Syr. 268 and the Revisional Development

25

part of the Harklean apparatus is neglected in the present article. But for the purpose of this paper, it is sufficient to confine all evidence presented in the lists below to the marginal readings and to the word(s) in the textline referring to the margin. The purpose of list A is to show that the original Harklean Gospels were principally founded upon the (early) Byzantine text. List B will give the divided attestation of the margin of Ms Vat. syr. 268, i.e. the revisional alteration of the Harklean margin. List C gives nonByzantine readings of the textline in Ms Vat. syr. 268 which were removed to the margin of the three other manuscripts by the activity of revisors, i.e. the revisional alteration of the text.

LISTS OF READINGS List A [9]

List A aims to show that the original Harklean Gospel text depends on an early version of the Byzantine text. This recension of the Greek text can be traced back to the fourth century and is the dominant and then uniform text 12 of the Byzantine Empire, approved by ecclesiastical and secular authorities. Its earlier version was less uniform than in later times, and the variety of the earlier version is present in the Harklean manuscripts in a number of “old” readings which were later regarded as non-Byzantine and sufficient enough by number to provoke their revisional elimination. The Greek manuscripts chosen by Thomas might have belonged to the 5th/6th century. His intention obviously was to bring the Philoxenian in line with the generally accepted Greek text, quoting its variety in the margin. We can imagine him proceeding by relying principally on a “normal good” Greek manuscript, compiling the apparatus out of variant readings taken from one or two additional manuscripts (and the Philoxenian?). It is unlikely that Thomas’ intention was to promote or reject special derive from Thomas of Harqel himself but partly from revisors of the Harklean. Especially those combined with a textcritical comment in the margin might be due to the revisors, see Lk 6,1 8,24.52 9,23.50 19,38.45. 12 H. von Soden treats the early stage and the development of the Byzantine text (Koiné) in Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, vol. I,2 (Göttingen) 712–65. On page 708 v. Soden says: “Dagegen [i.e. compared with the pre-Byzantine text] hat K [i.e. the Koiné] ohne Aufhören als Korrektiv gedient für die von ihm abweichenden Texte”.

26

[10]

Andreas Juckel

selected readings. He was a translator (revisor) rather than a critic. What today seems to be the fruit of his textcritical judgement is probably due to the limitation of the material he was relying on. The basic foundation of the original Harklean Gospels on the Byzantine text is not a surprising fact, for it was the text of dominant influence and regarded as superior in style and “correctness” to all remnants of texts prior to or contemporary with the Byzantine. Only a revision of the Philoxenian according to this text could really serve scholarly and dogmatic discussion 13 for centuries, being the final revision of the Syriac New Testament not only for the extent of its “mirroring” the Greek model, but also for being founded upon the text of the future. Due to the gradual advance of the Greek text behind the Harklean Gospels towards uniformity the need for control, comments and revision is evident. Only by revisional dependence on the shifting Greek text could Thomas’ intention be maintained: to keep the Syriac New Testament in line with the current Greek text. Only this allowed the Harklean to remain a useful instrument for scholarly research. In this first list the four manuscripts used in this article have the same (Byzantine) reading in the textline, and there are no differences in the margin. Since the following readings are all present in the Nestle-Aland27 edition, their Greek support for the text and the margin is not listed here. The Harklean text and margin of this list is in agreement with White’s edition. As the Greek background is concerned, all readings are given in Greek, the original Syriac text (and the marginal readings) can be looked up in CESG, vol. I, p. lxvi–lxxvi. x 2,9 Hktxt NXULRX, Hkmg THRX — 2,33 Hktxt R,ZVKI, Hkmg RSDWKUDXWRX — 5,29 Hktxt PHWDXWZQ, Hkmg PHWDXWRX — 6,1 Hktxt HQVDEEDWZGHXWHURSUZWZ, Hkmg OM. GHXWHURSUZWZ — 6,9 Hktxt DSRNWHLQDL, Hkmg DSROHVDL — 6,10 Hktxt HSRLKVHQ, Hkmg H[HWHLQHQ — 7,1 Hktxt HSHLGK HSOKUZVHQ  HLVKOTHQ Hkmg NDL HJHQHWR RWH HWHOHVHQ KOTHQ — 8,26 Hktxt *DGDUKQZQ, Hkmg *HUDVKQZQ — 8,27 Hktxt HNFURQZQLNDQZQNDL, Hkmg NDLFURQZLNDQZ — 9,35 Hktxt DJDSKWR9, Hkmg HNOHOHJPHQR9 — 9,49 Hktxt HSLVWDWD, Hkmg GLGDVNDOH — 10,19 Hktxt GLGZPL, Hkmg 13 There is an interesting “guess” of G. Zuntz, that the Harklean edition ultimately was undertaken to serve the reunion of the Syrian Orthodox (Miaphysite) party of Thomas and the (Greek) Orthodox, see Ancestry of the Harklean New Testament (London, 1945) 11–2.

Ms Vat. Syr. 268 and the Revisional Development

27

GHGZND — 10,39 Hktxt ,KVRX, Hkmg NXULRX — 10,41/42 Hktxt PHULPQD9  HQR9 GH HVWLQ FUHLD, Hkmg PHULPQD9  ROLJZQ GH HVWLQ FUHLD K HQR9 — 17,23 Hktxt PK DSHOTKWH PKGH GLZ[KWH, Hkmg PK SLVWHXVKWH — 18,28 Hktxt DIKNDPHQSDQWDNDL, Hkmg DIHQWH9 WD LGLD — 20,33 Hktxt HQWKRXQDQDVWDVHL, Hkmg K JXQK RXQ HQ WK DQDVWDVHL — 20,34 Hktxt SINE ADD. before JDPRXVLQ, Hkmg ADD. JHQQZQWDL NDL JHQQZVLQ before JDPRXVLQ — 20,36 Hktxt GXQDQWDL, Hkmg PHOORXVLQ — 21,30 Hktxt KGK EOHSRQWH9 DI HDXWZQ, Hkmg WRQ NDUSRQDXWZQ — 22,16 Hktxt H[DXWRX Hkmg DXWR — 23,33 Hktxt DSKOTRQ, Hkmg KOTRQ — 23,45 Hktxt NDL HVNRWLVTK R KOLR9, Hkmg WRX KOLRX HNOLSRQWR9.

x The opposite case that the Byzantine text is in the Harklean margin we find in 3,8 Hktxt NDUSRQ D[LRQ, Hkmg NDUSRX9 D[LRX9 — 23,34 Hktxt NOKURX9, Hkmg NOKURQ.

List B [11]

[12]

List B presents the divided attestation of the margin in the manuscripts (with identical textline throughout) and gives an impression of the difficulty in reconstructing the original margin. To ascribe the omission of marginalia generally to negligent scribes is not tenable: too many of them are omitted which is in contrast to the carefully written codices and to their actual proper attachment to the textline. And the possibility of accidental omission is reduced to the minimum by the way of attaching the whole apparatus: it probably was attached to the main text by a separate procedure, thus the marginalia were protected to a large extent from being dropped. But even if one prefers to blame the scribes for omitting the marginalia, the fuller margin of Ms Vat. syr. 268 would speak in favour of its priority. 14 A better understanding of the omissions comes from ascribing them to revisional activity. As long as the (non-Byzantine) marginalia could be identified within the Greek tradition availiable to the revisor(s) it was justified to maintain them. If identification There are some marginalia of Ms Vat. syr. 268 which are not attested in the three other manuscripts at all: see 7,40 8,37.41 9,10.22 13,15.27 14,12 22,57 24,24. They are all non-Byzantine, the underlined ones probably variants due to translation technique. Theoretically it is possible that all these marginalia were removed from the text, thus Ms Vat. syr. 268 itself being affected by revisional activity. 14

28

[13]

Andreas Juckel

was not possible (for whatever reason) they could easily be regarded as out of use and not serving their original purpose any more. Accordingly, it seemed appropriate to omit them. The renewed consultation of Greek manuscripts by the revisor(s) to check the marginalia is beyond our control. Since some of the nonByzantine marginal readings of list B have only small support among the extant Greek witnesses, the reviser(s) might well not have come across them. In this list the four manuscripts used for this article again have the same Byzantine reading in the textline. The non-Byzantine reading of V268 is in the margin, but omitted at least by one of the manuscripts. The Florentine manuscript (no apparatus) is confirming the textline throughout. V267, V268 = Ms Vat. syr 267, 268; M = Ms Mingana syr. 124; D = Ms Chester Beatty 703; F = Ms Plut. I.40, Florenz. x 1,63 (IGNTP) Hktxt ,ZDQQK9 HVWLQ WR RQRPD DXWRX, Hkmg HVWDL (not in D) — 1,78 (NA27) Hktxt HSHVNH\DWR Hkmg HSLVNH\HWDL (not in D) — 2,21 (IGNTP) Hktxt KPHUDL, Hkmg ADD. DL (not in MD) — 2,27 (IGNTP) Hktxt HLVDJDJHLQ, Hkmg HLVDJHLQ (not in V267 D) — 2,43 (NA27) Hktxt HJQZ,ZVKINDL KPKWKU, Hkmg HJQZVDQRLJRQHL9 (not in M) — 5,7 (NA27) Hktxt ZVWH EXTL]HVTDL DXWD, Hkmg ADD. SDUD WL after ZVWH (not in D) — 5,10 (see IGNTP) Hktxt WZ6LPZQL, Hkmg WRX 6LPZQRX (not in MD) — 5,21 (IGNTP) Hktxt PRQR9, Hkmg HQR9 (not in D) — 6,48 (NA27) Hktxt WHTHPHOLZWR JDU HSL WKQ SHWUDQ, Hkmg GLD WR NDOZ9 RLNRGRPKVTDL DXWKQ (not in M) — 8,37 (NA27) Hktxt *DGDUKQZQ, Hkmg *HUDVKQZQ (not in V267 MD) — 8,38 (NA27) Hktxt DSHOXVHQ, Hkmg DSHVWHLOHQ (not in MD) — 8,41 (IGNTP) Hktxt HLVHOTHLQ, Hkmg LQD HLVHOTK (not in V267 M D) — 10,39 (NA27) Hktxt WRX,KVRX, Hkmg WRX NXULRX (not in D) — 11,13 (NA27) Hktxt DJLRQ, Hkmg DJDTRQ (not in D) — 12,1 (NA27) Hktxt HQ RL9 HSLVXQDFTHLVZQ  ZVWH NDWDSDWHLQ DOOKORX9, Hkmg SROOZQ GH RFOZQ VXPSHULHFRQWZQ NXNOZ (not in V267 D) — 13,3 (NA27) Hktxt ZVDXWZ9, Hkmg RPRLZ9 (not in V267 D) — 13,15 (NA27) Hktxt XSRNULWDL, Hkmg XSRNULWD (not in V267 M D) — 13,31 (NA27) Hktxt KPHUD, Hkmg ZUD (not in M) — 14,24 (IGNTP) Hktxt WRXGHLSQRX, Hkmg WRQGHLSQRQ (not in D) — 16,3 (NA27) Hktxt OM. NDL before HSDLWHLQ, Hkmg ADD. NDL before HSDLWHLQ (not in V267) — 19,8 (IGNTP) Hktxt NXULRQ, Hkmg ,KVRXQ (not in D) — 20,13 (NA27) Hktxt ADD. LGRQWH9 after WRXWRQ, OM. LGRQWH9 after WRXWRQ (not in D) —

Ms Vat. Syr. 268 and the Revisional Development

29

20,14 (NA27) Hktxt HDXWRX9, Hkmg DOOKORX9 (not in V267 D) — 22,34 (NA27) Hktxt SULQK, Hkmg HZ9 (not in M) — 22,36 (NA27) Hktxt HLSHQRXQ, Hkmg RGHHLSHQ (not in M) — 22,37 Hktxt WDSHULHPRX, Hkmg WRSHULHPRX (not in D). — 22,49 (NA27) Hktxt HVRPHQRQ, Hkmg JHQRPHQRQ (not in M) — 22,66 (NA27) Hktxt DQKJDJRQ, Hkmg DSKJDJRQ (not in D) — 23,11 (NA27) Hktxt OM. NDL before R+UZGK9, Hkmg ADD. NDL before R+UZGK9 (not in M D) — 23,12 (IGNTP) Hktxt KPHUD, Hkmg ZUD (not in M). x Again the opposite case that the Byzantine reading is in the Harklean margin we find only in 2,17 (IGNTP) Hktxt HJQZULVDQ, Hkmg GLHJQZULVDQ (not in M) — 4,44 (NA27) Hktxt  WK9 ,RXGDLD9, Hkmg  WK9 *DOLODLD9 (not in D) — 6,7 (NA27) Hktxt HXUZVLQ NDWKJRUHLQ, Hkmg HXUZVLQNDWKJRULDQ (not in M) — 11,3 (vSod) Hktxt VKPHURQ, Hkmg WRNDTKPHUDQ (not in D) — 14,22 (IGNTP) Hktxt JHJRQHQZ9, Hkmg JHJRQHQR (not in M D) — 21,2 (IGNTP) Hktxt EDORXVDQ, Hkmg EDOORXVDQ (not in D). x Some marginal readings are also unhomogeneously attested by the Harklean manuscripts, but their Greek background cannot be traced with the help of the current Greek editions: 1,38 (¿…) (¿ÿâ~) ¾å~, not in M; 2,32 ¾ĆãèÍÂß, not in D; 2,48 K ¾ÂÙÝÁ, not in M D; 2,52 ¾Ùà҆, not in M; 3,14 ÚÐàñ† ¾ÙÒûÓè~, not in M; 4,11 ¾îà attached to the text reading ¾ØÊØ~ (omitted in CESG), not in D; 5,1 ¾Ćããî, not in D; 8,19 ðÅòãß, not in D.

List C [14]

List C presents the revisional alteration of the non-Byzantine textline in Ms V268 (no margin is attached throughout). The other three manuscripts omit its reading or put it in the margin. All these alterations are corrections of the textline in V268 according to the Byzantine text, and the additional marginalia are due to the revisor(s), not to Thomas. It seems to be quite obvious that here V268 represents an earlier stage of the Harklean text than the other three (four) manuscripts. What is most striking is the fact that V268 alone preserves these readings, and even the Florentine manuscript (one of the oldest at all, A.D. 756), gives the revised reading in the textline. But the generally poor attestation of the Harklean margin in only a few manuscripts of the first millennium tells us to be careful. The same are pointing to the few nonByzantine readings which remained unrevised in all Harklean

30

[15]

Andreas Juckel

manuscripts used for this article. Some of them were removed to the margin only in later times, as we can learn from Ms New Coll. 333 (White’ edition) (samples see below). And even some Byzantine readings are removed to the margin by the reviser(s) (see below). Both phenomena can be explained by the unhomogeneity of the Byzantine text the reviser(s) had at hand. Readings of V268 are removed from the text to the margin in V267, D or M (the underlined readings are in opposition to the quotation of White’s text and margin in NA27/Syn, they are good samples for the need to revise the Harklean quotations in the scholarly Greek editions of the New Testament):

J ‹…) J x 1,29 (NA27) V268txt HQHDXWKOHJRXVD (Àûâ~ ÊÜ ÌÁ M D put in the margin, V267 eliminates without margin, F is omitting. The omission is the Byzantine reading. 1,66 (NA27) V268txt JDU (ûÙÄ) V267 M put in the margin, D omits ûÙÄ without PDUJLQ. The omission of ûÙÄ is the Byzantine reading. 3,16 (NA27) V268txt HL9PHWDQRLDQ (¿šÍÂÙÓß) V267 D have in the margin, not in the text, F is omitting (M is supplemented here). The RPLVVLRQLVWKH%\]DQWLQHUHDGLQJ J 4,9 (in no edition) V268txtç؃ ÌØÿØ~† , M removes ç؃ to the margin, V267 D remove it from the text without margin, F is omitting ç؃. The Byzantine text here is NDLKJDJHQ, the nonByzantine text reads KJDJHQGH. Removing ç؃ from the textline means to follow the Byzantine text. The reading of V268txt V267txt with † and ç؃ is unusual and not attested in Greek. 5,34 (NA27) V268txt ,KVR9 (“ÍýØ) is not the textline of V267 D and F, and only V267 has it in the margin (again M is supplemented here). The omission is the Byzantine reading. J 7,12 (in no edition) V268txt ¿ÿàâ˜~ š†… ÌØÿØ~ (‹…†) J (NDL DXWK KQ FKUD). V267 M D F remove š†… ÌØÿØ~ from the text, V267 M D put it in the margin, probably because the Byzantine text leaves it out (NDLDXWKFKUD). 8,10 (IGNTP) V268txt HLSHQDXWRL9 (†Ìß ûâ~ N ). V267 M D omit DXWRL9 (†Ìß) and put it in the margin. F without †Ìß. The omission belongs to the Byzantine text. 10,17 (NA27) V268txt HEGRPKNRQWDGXR (çؘš† çÙïÂü). V267 M D remove GXR (çؘš†) to the margin, F without çؘš†. Their textline is the Byzantine reading.

Ms Vat. Syr. 268 and the Revisional Development

31

12,58 (in no edition) the second ¾æ؃ áïÁ (DQWLGLNR9) of V268txt is in the margin of V267 M D (and omitted in the text of F), probably because the ‘normal’ Greek text does not attest this second DQWLGLNR9. 14,15 (NA27) V268txt RVWL9 (þå~ †…). V267 M Dcorr remove þå~ from the text to the margin. F without þå~. Their textline reads R9 (†…), which is the Byzantine reading. 17,1 (NA27) V268txt SOKQRXDLGH (ç؃ ‹† ûÁ). V267 M D remove ûÁ from the text to the margin. F without ûÁ. Their textline now is ç؃ ‹†, which is the Byzantine reading. 18,41 (IGNTP) V268txt HLSHQDXWZ (Ìß ûâ~ N ). V267 M D omit DXWZ (Ìß), only V267 puts it in the margin. F without Ìß. The omission is the Byzantine text. 20,24 (NA27) V268txt V267txt D txt RLGHDSRNULTHQWH9GH ( Íå… ç؃ ÍÙæñ ÊÜ). M puts RL (Íå…) in the margin, its textline now is ç؃ ÍÙæñ ÊÜ (DSRNULTHQWH9GH), the Byzantine reading. F without Íå…. K 21,9 (IGNTP) V268txt ADD. KDNRD9SROHPZQ ( ¾ïãü †~ ¾Áăøƒ) after SROHPRX9 (¾Áăø) V267 M D (F is omitting) have it in the margin. The text without addition is the Byzantine one. 21,11 (NA27) V268txt ADD. NDL FHLPZQH9 after HVWDL, V267 M put it in the margin, F is omitting. D has no margin, but its K textline is NDL FHLPZQH9 PHJDORL HVRQWDL ( ¾ÁƘ ¿ÍÓè† ††Ìå), not attested in Greek. The Byzantine text has no addition. x There are few Byzantine readings in the textline of V268 which are removed to the margin in V267, D or M: 7,39 (Syn) V268txt Mtxt ûâ~ ÊÜ (OHJZQ), this is the Byzantine N ÊÜ from the textline, only V267 text. V267 D F remove ûâ~ N puts it in the margin. 9,54(see IGNTP) V268txt 267txt Mtxt Ftxt ¾Øûâ (NXULH), this is the Byzantine text. D removes it from the text to the margin. 12,10 (see IGNTP) V268txt Mtxt Dtxt Ftxt Ìß úÁÿýå (DIHTKVHWDL DXWZ), this is the Byzantine text. V267 puts DXWZ (Ìß) in the margin. x In all Harklean manuscripts (including F) used for this article non-Byzantine readings remained in the textline, which later were removed to the margin or were omitted without being put in the

32

Andreas Juckel margin, e.g. in Ms New Coll. 333 (ed. by J. White = NC333). Three samples are: 1,41 (NA27) Hktxt ADD. HQ DJDOOLDVHL (¿‡†ûÁ) after WR EUHIR9, NC333 removes it to the margin to follow the ‘normal’ (Byzantine) text. 2,25 (NA27) Hktxt NDLHXVHEK9 (¿ÿàσ ûÙòü†), Hkmg NDL HXODEK9 (¾òÝå†). NC333 vice versa. 12,1 (see IGNTP) Hktxt ADD. WZQ IDULVDLZQ (¾ýØăñƒ) after K XSRNULVL9 (¾ñ~ Ãéâ). As ¾ýØăñƒ is not attested in Greek, V267 M D put it sub asterisco, NC333 removes it from the text without preserving it in the margin.

[16]

Beside these marginalia due to revision V267, M and D have no additional readings in the margin which are not attested by V268. But on the contrary it is V268 which presents some marginalia not to be found in the other three manuscripts (see note 14). The poor attestation of the Harklean apparatus in general will prevent us from over-esteeming this surplus, but the view that V268 is at an earlier stage of revision than V267, M and D (and F) can hardly be wrong. The revisional development is moving from V268 to the other three manuscripts, not the contrary.

SUMMARY [17]

The Harklean Tetraevangelium is principally founded upon the Byzantine text, but Ms Vat. syr 268 has maintained a larger number of non-Byzantine readings in text and margin than the other three manuscripts. The differences between V268 and the other three can be explained by revisional development to bring the Harklean text of V268 into better line with the Byzantine text. On the one hand this development results in omitting marginalia which cannot be identified within the ‘normal’ Greek text; on the other hand, this development results in adding new marginalia by removing the reading of the textline. The conclusion drawn from the evidence presented in this article is that text and margin of V268 are prior to the ones of V267, M and D, and that the oldest Harklean text of the Gospels we can reach today is that of V268. Both the number of its non-Byzantine text readings and of the marginal notes in general is larger than in any other Harklean manuscript of the first millennium. A critical edition of the Harklean Tetraevengelium

Ms Vat. Syr. 268 and the Revisional Development

33

should give priority to this manuscript as long as no less revised manuscripts of the first millennium are known. But keeping the limitations of this article in mind, research on the critical signs (asterisks and obeli) and on translation technique must re-examine and complete the results presented here.

Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies, Vol. 1.1, 35–56 © 1998 [2010] by Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute and Gorgias Press

A BIBLIOGRAPHICAL CLAVIS TO THE WORKS OF JACOB OF EDESSA DIRK KRUISHEER LUCAS VAN ROMPAY DEPARTMENT OF NEAR EASTERN STUDIES (TCNO) UNIVERSITY OF LEIDEN THE NETHERLANDS

PREFACE [1]

[2]

[3]

Jacob of Edessa († 708) ranks without a doubt among the most prolific and most original writers of Syriac literature. Belonging to the first generation of Syrian Christians who grew up under Islamic rule, he has in many respects contributed to the consolidation and further expansion of the Syriac cultural heritage. For these reasons, his writings have had a great impact on later authors. However, many of these writings have not been preserved in their entirety. Others have only reached us through a complicated process of transmission or can only be studied on the basis of later adaptations or reworkings. Jacob has not fared well in modern scholarly research. A considerable part of his preserved work has remained unpublished to the present day and a comprehensive monograph on him is still missing. In recent years, however, a number of students and scholars have been studying various aspects of Jacob’s works and some major publications may be expected in the near future. This growing interest in Jacob’s works and place in Syriac literary culture has found expression, among other things, in a 35

36

[4]

[5]

Dirk Kruisheer, Lucas Van Rompay

symposium organized at the University of Leiden on 4 and 5 April 1997 under the title “Jacob of Edessa († 708) and the Syriac culture of his day”. Scholars from various countries took part in this symposium, the proceedings of which will be published soon. On that occasion a bibliography was compiled and distributed among the participants. It is published here in a slightly expanded form. A first list was compiled on the basis of C. Moss, Catalogue of Syriac Printed Books and Related Literature in the British Museum (London, 1962) and, for the subsequent years, the bibliographies prepared by S.P. Brock and published in Parole de l’Orient 4 (1973): 393–465, 10 (1981–82): 291–412, 14 (1987): 289–360, 17 (1992): 211–301, now conveniently brought together in book form: S.P. Brock, Syriac Studies. A Classified Bibliography (1960–1990), Kaslik, 1996. While this original list has been thoroughly checked and updated, a great number of new items have been added for those publications which do not primarily deal with Jacob (and cannot therefore directly be retrieved from existing bibliographies), but contain nevertheless valuable discussion or analysis of his works. Under “References” those publications are listed which touch upon aspects of Jacob’s works and in one way or another shed some (new) light on them. Catalogues of manuscripts have in principle not been included; the manuscript tradition of Jacob’s works deserves a separate publication. Among those colleagues and friends who made substantial contributions to the present bibliography, we would like to mention with especial gratitude Barsaum Can (Leiden), Jan van Ginkel (Groningen), Konrad Jenner (Leiden), Richard Saley (Harvard) and Herman Teule (Nijmegen). George Kiraz offered us the possibility of making this bibliography accessible in the new electronic journal “Hugoye”, a medium which easily allows further improvement and elaboration of our work. Readers and users are kindly invited, therefore, to send in their additions and remarks, which will be taken into account in the next update of the bibliography.

ABBREVIATIONS ANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt CSCO Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium GOF Göttinger Orientforschungen

A Bibliographical Clavis to the Works of Jacob of Edessa JAs JTS LM OC OCA OCP OLA OLP OrSuec OS PdO PO ROC ZDMG

37

Journal asiatique The Journal of Theological Studies Le Muséon Oriens Christianus Orientalia Christiana Analecta Orientalia Christiana Periodica Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica Orientalia Suecana L’Orient Syrien Parole de l’Orient Patrologia Orientalis Revue de l’Orient Chrétien Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft

I. GENERAL STUDIES AND PRESENTATIONS A. SECTIONS IN INTRODUCTORY WORKS AND HANDBOOKS J.S. Assemanus, Bibliotheca Orientalis Clementino-Vaticana, I (Rome, 1719) 468b–94a. W. Wright, A Short History of Syriac Literature (London, 1894) 141–54. R. Duval, La littérature syriaque (Anciennes littératures chrétiennes 2; Paris, 1907) 374–6. A. Baumstark, Die christlichen Literaturen des Orients, I. Einleitung. Das christlich-aramäische und das koptische Schrifttum (Sammlung Göschen; Leipzig, 1911) esp. 59; 67–8; 79; 95. A. Baumstark, Geschichte der syrischen Literatur (Bonn, 1922) 248–56. J.-B. Chabot, Littérature syriaque (Paris, 1934) 84–8. A. Baumstark, “Aramäisch und Syrisch”, in Semitistik (Handbuch der Orientalistik III,2–3; Leiden, 1954) 191–2. Aphraam I Barsaum, Kitaab al-lu’lu’ al-manthuur fii taariikh al-culuum wa’l-aadaab al-suryaaniyya (Aleppo, 19562; Glane, 19874) 291– 306. I. Ortiz de Urbina, Patrologia Syriaca (Rome, 19652) 177–83. A. Abouna, Adab al-lugha al-aramiyya (Beirut, 1970) 367–74. P. Bettiolo, “Lineamenti di patrologia siriaca”, in A. Quacquarelli (ed.), Complementi interdisciplinari di patrologia (Rome, 1989) 599–602.

38

Dirk Kruisheer, Lucas Van Rompay

M. Albert, “Langue et littérature syriaques”, in: M. Albert e.a. (eds.), Christianismes orientaux. Introduction à l’étude des langues et des littératures (Initiations au christianisme ancien; Paris 1993) esp. 321–2; 333; 345; 357–8 (no 650).

B. ARTICLES IN DICTIONARIES AND ENCYCLOPEDIAS E. Rödiger, art. “Jakob von Edessa”, Real-Encyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche 6 (1856): 379–80. Chr. E. Nestle, art. “Jakob von Edessa”, Real-Encyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche 6 (18802): 446–7. Chr. E. Nestle, art. “Jakob von Edessa”, Realencyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche 8 (19003): 551–2. A. Rücker, art. “Jakob, syrischer Schrifsteller”, Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche 5 (1933): 257–9. E. Tisserant, art. “Jacques d’Édesse”, Dictionnaire de théologie catholique 8 (1947): 286–91. R. Naz, art. “Jacques d’Édesse”, Dictionnaire de droit canonique 6 (1957): 82–3. W. de Vries, art. “Jakobos, Bischof von Edessa”, Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche 5 (19602): 839–40. C.A. Bouman, art. “Jacob van Edessa”, in L. Brinkhoff e.a. (eds.), Liturgisch Woordenboek, I (Roermond, 1958–62) 1108–9. F. Graffin, art. “Jacques d’Edesse”, Dictionnaire de Spiritualité 8 (1974): 33–5. A. Vööbus, art. “Giacomo di Edessa”, Dizionario degli Istituti di Perfezione 4 (1977) 1155–6. J.-M. Sauget, art. “Giacomo di Edessa”, Dizionario Patristico e di Antichità cristiane 2 (1984): 1508–9. H.J.W. Drijvers, art. “Jakob von Edessa”, Theologische Realenzyklopädie 16 (1987): 468–70. J.-M. Sauget, art. “Jacob of Edessa”, Encyclopedia of the Early Church 1 (1992): 428–9 [transl. and rev. of art. “Giacomo di Edessa”, Dizionario Patristico]. J.G. Blum, art. “Jakob von Edessa”, Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche 5 (19963): 725–7. J.M. Fiey, art. “Jacques, dit “l’Interprète”, évêque d’Édesse”, Dictionnaire d’histoire et de géographie ecclésiastiques 26 (1996): 663–4.

C. GENERAL WORKS AND ARTICLES R. Duval, Histoire politique, religieuse et littéraire d’Édesse jusqu’à la première croisade (Paris, 1892) 241–51. W. Hage, Die syrisch-jakobitische Kirche in frühislamischer Zeit nach orientalischen Quellen (Wiesbaden, 1966) passim.

A Bibliographical Clavis to the Works of Jacob of Edessa

39

J.B. Segal, Edessa, ‘The Blessed City’ (Oxford, 1970) esp. 211–2, see also “General Index”. Zakka Iwas, “Jacob of Edessa († 708)”, Journal of the Syriac Academy (Baghdad) 2 (1976): 13–24 [Arabic]. Forthcoming: D. Miller, “Jacob of Edessa, a Seventh-Century Intellectual”, in Papers of the Syriac Studies Symposium held at Brown University (1991).

D. LIFE OF JACOB — CHRONOLOGICAL QUESTIONS J.B. Chabot, Chronique de Michel le Syrien, I (Paris, 1899) 445–6 [Syr.]; II (Paris, 1901) 471–2 [transl.]. J. Abbeloos and T.J. Lamy, Gregorii Barhebraei Chronicon Ecclesiasticum, I (Louvain, 1872) 289–94. O.J. Schrier, “Chronological Problems Concerning the Lives of Severus bar Mashqa, Athanasius of Balad, Julianus Romaya, Yohannan Saba, George of the Arabs and Jacob of Edessa”, OC 75 (1991): 62–90.

E. REFERENCES V. Ryssel, Ein Brief Georgs, Bischofs der Araber, an den Presbyter Jesus, aus dem Syrischen übersetzt und erläutert. Mit einer Einleitung über sein Leben und seine Schriften (Gotha, 1883) 22; 26; 27; 100–1. M. Jugie, Theologia dogmatica christianorum orientalium, V. De theologia dogmatica nestorianorum et monophysitarum (Paris, 1935) 465–6. A.S. Atiya, A History of Eastern Christianity (1968; repr. Millwood, N.Y., 1980) 196–7.

II. SURVEY OF JACOB’S WORKS A. REVISION OF THE BIBLICAL TEXT Editions and translations J.D. Michaelis, Orientalische und exegetische Bibliothek 18 (1782) 180–3 [Gen. 49:2–11]. C. Bugati, Daniel secundum editionem LXX. interpretum ex tetraplis desumptum (Milan 1788) xi–xvi, 150–151, 157–158 [Gen. 11:1–9; Gen. 49:2– 11; Dan. 1:1–6; Dan. 9:24–7; Sus. 1–6] — reprinted in J.B. Eichhorn, Allgemeine Bibliothek 2 (1789: 270–93. A.M. Ceriani, Monumenta sacra et profana, II/1 (Milan, 1863) x–xii [Gen. 4:8–16; Gen. 5:21–6:1].

40

Dirk Kruisheer, Lucas Van Rompay

A.M. Ceriani, Monumenta sacra et profana, V/1 (Milan, 1868) 8–12; 21–3; 25–38 [Is. 28:1–21; 45:7–16; 46:2–49:25]. M. Ugolini, “Il Ms. Vat. Sir. 5 e la recensione del V.T. di Giacomo d’Edessa”, OC 2 (1902): 412–3 [Ez. 7:1–13]. M.H. Gottstein, “Neue Syrohexaplafragmente”, Biblica 37 (1956): 162–83 [1 Sam. 7:5–12; 20:1–23; 20:35–42; 2 Sam. 7:1–17; 21:1–7; 23: 13–7]. W. Baars, “Ein neugefundenes Bruchstück aus der syrischen Bibelrevision des Jakob von Edessa”, Vetus Testamentum 18 (1968): 548–54 [Sap. Sal. 2:12–24 in ms. Mardin, Syr. Orth. Bishopric, 2/47, AD 1569 — bibliographical data on p. 551, note 4]. In preparation: A. Salvesen [edition of the Syriac text of 1 and 2 Samuel].

Facsimile reproductions in: W. Wright, Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum Acquired since the Year 1838, 3 (London, 1872) Table VII [ms. London, Brit. Libr., Add. 14,429, f. 88b = 1 Sam. 30:25–31]; Ugolini, art. cit., 417 [ms. Vat. Syr. 5, f. 75a = Ez. 27:5–9]; W.H. Paine Hatch, An Album of Dated Syriac Manuscripts (Boston, Mass. 1946) Table XLVII [ms. Paris, Bib. Nat., Syr. 27, IIo, f. 101a = Dan. 2:45–48]. Studies A.I. Silvestre de Sacy, “Notice d’un manuscrit syriaque, contenant les livres de Moïse”, Notices et extraits des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Nationale 4 (Paris, [1798–99]): 648–68 [recension of Jacob of Edessa]. A. Salvesen, “Spirits in Jacob of Edessa’s Revision of Samuel”, ARAM 5 (1993) [Festschrift S.P. Brock]: 481–490. K.D. Jenner, “Nominal Clauses in the Peshitta and Jacob of Edessa”, in P.B. Dirksen & A. van der Kooij (eds.), The Peshitta as a Translation (Monographs of the Peshitta Institute Leiden 8; Leiden, 1995) 47–61. A. Salvesen, “The Purpose of Jacob of Edessa’s Version of Samuel”, The Harp 8–9 (1995–96): 117–26. Forthcoming: R.J. Saley, The Samuel Manuscript of Jacob of Edessa. A Study in Its Underlying Textual Traditions (Monographs of the Peshitta Institute Leiden). Forthcoming: A. Salvesen, “An Edition of Jacob of Edessa’s Version of I–II Samuel”, in R. Lavenant (ed.), VII Symposium Syriacum (OCA).

A Bibliographical Clavis to the Works of Jacob of Edessa

41

References A. Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension der Königsbücher (Septuaginta-Studien 3; Göttingen 1911; 19652) esp. 48–51. S.P. Brock, art. “Bibelübersetzungen I, 4.1.3 Jakob von Edessa”, Theologische Realenzyklopädie 6 (1980): 187.

See also: II.H (“Massora”).

B. SCHOLIA AND COMMENTARY ON THE BIBLE Editions and translations G. Phillips, Scholia on Passages of the Old Testament by Mar Jacob Bishop of Edessa (London, 1864). In preparation: D. Kruisheer [edition of the commentary on the Octateuch].

Studies Assemanus, Bibliotheca Orientalis..., I, 487b–93a [general presentation and edition, with Lat. transl. of extracts from commentary and scholia on the Old and New Testament]. S.P. Brock, “Abraham and the Ravens: A Syriac Counterpart to Jubilees 11–12 and Its Implications”, Journal for the Study of Judaism 9 (1978): 135–52 [cp. also Adler, II.I]. D. Kruisheer, “Reconstructing Jacob of Edessa’s Scholia”, in J. Frishman & L. Van Rompay (eds.), The Book of Genesis in Jewish and Oriental Christian Interpretation. A Collection of Essays (Traditio Exegetica Graeca 5; Louvain, 1997) 187–96.

References S. Brock, “Some Syriac Legends concerning Moses”, Journal of Jewish Studies 33 (1982) [Essays in honour of Yigael Yadin]: 237–55, esp. 241–3. J. Reller, Mose bar Kepha und seine Paulinenauslegung nebst Edition und Übersetzung des Kommentars zum Römerbrief (GOF I,55; Wiesbaden, 1994) 85, note 199 [Jacob on 2 Cor. 12:2]. L. Van Rompay, “La littérature exégétique syriaque et le rapprochement des traditions syrienne-orientale et syrienne-orientale”, PdO 20 (1995): 226–7.

See also: II.I (Letters); III.A–E (Later Tradition).

42

Dirk Kruisheer, Lucas Van Rompay

C. HEXAEMERON Editions and translations V. Ryssel, Georgs des Araberbischofs Gedichte und Briefe. Aus dem Syrischen übersetzt und erläutert (Leipzig, 1891) 130–8 [closing section of Jacob of Edessa’s Hexaemeron written by George]. A. Hjelt, Études sur l’Hexaméron de Jacques d’Edesse, notamment sur ses notions géographiques contenues dans le 3ième traité (Helsingfors, 1892) [with edition of 3rd Memrć]. I.-B. Chabot, Iacobi Edesseni Hexaemeron, seu in opus creationis libri septem (CSCO 92, Syr. 44; Paris, 1928) [text]. A. Vaschalde, Iacobi Edesseni Hexaemeron, seu in opus creationis libri septem (CSCO 97, Syr. 48; Louvain, 1932) [Lat. transl.]. Çiçek, J.Y., Shtat Yawme d-hasya Ya cqob ‘episqopa d-’Urhay (Glane, 1985).

Studies L’Abbé Martin, “L’Hexaméron de Jacques d’Édesse”, JAs (8ème sér.) 11 (1888): 155–219; 401–90. Th.H. Weir, “L’Hexaméron de Jacques d’Édesse”, JAs (9ème sér.) 12 (1898): 550–1 [ms. in Hunterian Museum, Glasgow]. J.P.N. Land, “Aardrijkskundige fragmenten uit de Syrische literatuur der zesde en zevende eeuw”, Verslagen en Mededeelingen der Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen. Afdeeling Letterkunde, Derde reeks, 3 (Amsterdam, 1887), esp. 174–9. A. Hjelt, “Pflanzennamen aus dem Hexaëmeron Jacob’s von Edessa”, in C. Bezold (ed.), Orientalische Studien Theodor Nöldeke zum siebzigsten Geburtstag gewidmet, 1 (Gieszen, 1906) 571–9. L. Schlimme, “Synkretismus in der syrischen Hexaemeron-Literatur (Exemplarisch dargestellt an der Rezeption der antiken Zoologie)”, in G. Wiessner (ed.), Erkenntnisse und Meinungen I (GOF, 1. Reihe: Syriaca 3; Göttingen, 1973) 164–88. L. Schlimme, “Die Lehre des Jakob von Edessa vom Fall des Teufels”, OC 61 (1977) 41–58 [translation and analysis of an excerpt from the first memrć].

References J. Bakos, “Quellenanalyse der Zoologie aus dem Hexaëmeron des Môshe bar Kep(h)a”, Archiv Orientální 6 (1934) 267–71. E. ten Napel, “Influence of Greek Philosophy and Science in Emmanuel Bar Shahhare’s Hexaemeron”, in R. Lavenant (ed.), IIIo Symposium Syriacum 1980 (OCA 221; 1983) 109–18.

A Bibliographical Clavis to the Works of Jacob of Edessa

43

E. ten Napel, “Some Remarks on the Hexaemeral Literature in Syriac”, in H.J.W. Drijvers, R. Lavenant, C. Molenberg, and G.J. Reinink (eds.), IV Symposium Syriacum 1984 (OCA 229; 1987) 57–69.

D. PHILOSOPHICAL WORKS (INCLUDING THE TRANSLATION OF THE CATEGORIES) Editions and translations S. Schüler, Die Uebersetzung der Categorien des Aristoteles von Jacob von Edessa, nach einer Handschrift der Bibliothèque nationale zu Paris und einer der Königl. Bibliothek zu Berlin. Herausgegeben, mit einer Einleitung versehen und mit den griechischen Handschriften verglichen (Berlin, 1897) [partial edition, based on mss. Berlin, Sachau 226 and Paris, Bibl. Nat., Syr. 248]. G. Furlani, “Il manualetto di Giacomo d’Edessa — Brit. Mus. Manuscr. Syr. Add. 12154. Traduzione dal siriaco e note”, Studi e materiali di storia delle religioni 1 (1925): 262–82 [translation of an introduction to the Categories]. G. Furlani, “L’Encheiridion di Giacomo d’Edessa nel testo siriaco”, Rendiconti della R. Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. Classe di Scienze morali, storiche e filologiche (Ser. 6) 4 (1928): 222–49. Kh. Georr, Les Catégories d’Aristote dans leurs versions syro-arabes. Édition de textes précédée d’une étude historique et critique et suivie d’un vocabulaire technique (Beirut, 1948) [complete edition].

Studies Assemanus, Bibliotheca Orientalis ..., I, 493b–4a. G. Furlani, “Di alcuni passi della metafisica di Aristotele presso Giacomo d’Edessa”, Rendiconti della R. Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. Classe di Scienze morali, storiche e filologiche (Ser. 5) 30 (1921): 268–73.

References H. Hugonnard-Roche, “Sur les versions syriaques des Catégories d’Aristote”, JAs 275 (1987): 205–22. S. Brock, “The Syriac Commentary Tradition”, in C. Burnett (ed.), Glosses and Commentaries on Aristotelian Logical Texts. The Syriac, Arabic and Medieval Latin Translations (Wartburg Institute Surveys and Texts 23; London, 1993), esp. 4–5 and 11–2. D. Miller, “George, Bishop of the Arab Tribes, on True Philosophy”, ARAM 5 (1993) [Festschrift S.P. Brock]: 303–20.

44

Dirk Kruisheer, Lucas Van Rompay

E. CHRONICON Editions and translations W. Wright, Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum Acquired since the Year 1838, 3 (London, 1872) 1062–4 [ms. Brit. Libr. Add. 14,685: edition of a long section from the introduction]. E.W. Brooks, “The Chronological Canon of James of Edessa”, ZDMG 53 (1899): 261–327; 54 (1900): 100–2. E.W. Brooks, “Chronicon Jacobi Edesseni”, in E.W. Brooks, I. Guidi, I.B. Chabot, Chronica minora 3 (CSCO 5, Syr. 5; Paris, 1905) 261– 330 [text]; (CSCO 6, Syr. 6; Paris, 1905) 197–258 [transl.].

Studies F. Nau, “Notice sur un nouveau manuscrit de l’Octoechus de Sévère d’Antioche, et sur l’auteur Jacques Philoponos, distinct de Jacques d’Édesse”, JAs (9ème sér.) 12 (1898): 349–51 [argues that the preserved fragments of the Chronicon belong to Jacob Philoponus, not to Jacob of Edessa — see, however, Brooks, ZDMG 53 (1899): 262–4 and ZDMG 54 (1900): 101–2]. S. Fraenkel, “Zur Chronik des Jacob von Edessa”, ZDMG 53 (1899): 534–7 [corrections to Brooks’ first edition]. S.P. Brock, “Syriac Historical Writing: A Survey of the Main Sources”, Journal of the Iraqi Academy (Syriac Corporation) 5 (1979/80): 319 — repr. in S.P. Brock, Studies in Syriac Christianity. Variorum Reprints (London, 1992) I. A. Palmer, S. Brock and R. Hoyland, The Seventh Century in the West-Syrian Chronicles. Including Two Seventh- Century Syriac Apacalyptic Texts (Translated Texts for Historians 15; Liverpool, 1993) 36–42.

References L. Bernhard, “Die Universalgeschichtsschreibung des christlichen Orients”, in A. Randa (ed.), Mensch und Weltgeschichte. Zur Geschichte der Universalgeschichtsschreibung (Salzburg/München, 1969) 111–41, esp. 120–2. X. Loriot, “Les premières années de la grande crise du IIIe siècle. De l’avènement de Maximin le Thrace (235) à la mort de Gordien (244)”, in ANRW II,2 (Berlin/New York, 1975) 768–9, with note 822. H.J.W. Drijvers, “Hatra, Palmyra und Edessa. Die Städte der syrischmesopotamischen Wüste in politischer, kulturgeschichtlicher und religionsgeschichtlicher Bedeutung”, in ANRW II,8 (Berlin/New York 1977) 882–3, with note 399.

A Bibliographical Clavis to the Works of Jacob of Edessa

45

W. Adler, “Abraham and the Burning of the Temple of Idols: Jubilees’ Traditions in Christian Chronography”, The Jewish Quarterly Review 77 (1986–7): 95–117, esp. 110 and 114–7. W. Witakowski, The Syriac Chronicle of Pseudo-Dionysius of Tel-Mahre. A Study in the History of Historiography (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Semitica Upsaliensia 9; Uppsala, 1987) passim. W. Adler, Time Immemorial. Archaic History and Its Sources in Christian Chronography from Julius Africanus to George Syncellus (Dumbarton Oaks Studies 26; Washington, D.C., 1989) esp. 48 and 160. P. Nagel, “Grundzüge syrischer Geschichtsschreibung”, in F. Winkelmann & W. Brandes (eds.), Quellen zur Geschichte des frühen Byzanz (4.–9. Jahrhundert). Bestand und Probleme (Berliner Byzantinistische Arbeiten 55; Berlin, 1990) 245–59, esp. 254–5.

See also: II.I (Letters); III.F (Later Syriac chronicles).

F. LITURGICAL WORKS (INCLUDING MARTYROLOGY) Editions and translations Assemani, Bibliotheca Orientalis..., I, 479–86 [“Jacobi Epistula, de antiqua Syrorum Liturgia”, ed. with Lat. transl., as quoted by Dionysius Barsalibi]; 487ab [Octaechus]. F.E. Brightman, Liturgies Eastern and Western, I. Eastern Liturgies (Oxford, 1896) 490–4 [“The Epistle of James of Edessa to Thomas the Presbyter” — according to Assemani’s forementioned edition]. J. Marquess of Bute, The Blessing of the Waters on the Eve of Epiphany (London, 1901) 79–100 [formula of Jacob]. I.E. Rahmani, I fasti della chiesa patriarcale Antiochena (Rome, 1920), xix–xxv [letter of Jacob (to the priest Thomas)]. P. Peeters, “Le Martyrologe de Rabban Sliba”, Analecta Bollandiana 27 (1908): 129–200 [Martyrology composed by Jacob]. A. Rücker, Die syrische Jakobosanaphora nach der Rezension des Jacqôb(h) von Edessa mit dem griechischen Paralleltext (Liturgiegeschichtliche Quellen und Forschungen 4; Münster in Westf., 1923). O. Heiming, “Anaphora syriaca sancti Iacobi fratris Domini”, in Anaphorae Syriacae quotquot in codicibus adhuc repertae sunt, II, fasc. 2, n. xiv (Rome, 1953) 105–79 [125–33: questions the attribution to Jacob]. S.P. Brock, “Jacob of Edessa’s Discourse on the Myron”, OC 63 (1979): 20–36.

46

Dirk Kruisheer, Lucas Van Rompay

Studies F. Nau, “Notice sur un nouveau manuscrit de l’Octoechus de Sévère d’Antioche, et sur l’auteur Jacques Philoponos, distinct de Jacques d’Édesse”, JAs (9ème sér.) 12 (1898): 346–51. F. Nau, “Un nouveau manuscrit du Martyrologe de Rabban Sliba”, ROC (2ème sér.) 5 (15) (1910): 327–9 [ms. Vat. Syr. Borgia 129]. S. Salaville, “La consécration eucharistique d’après quelques auteurs grecs et syriens”, Echos d’Orient 13 (1910): 321–4, esp. 322–3. B. Varghese, Les onctions baptismales dans la tradition syrienne (CSCO 512, Subs. 82; 1989) 186–99 (Ch. 16: Jacques d’Édesse (c. 633–708)).

References W. de Vries, Sakramententheologie bei den syrischen Monophysiten (OCA 125; Rome, 1940) [liturgical canones] passim. A. Baumstark, Festbrevier und Kirchenjahr der syrischen Jakobiten (Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Altertums III,3–5; Paderborn, 1910) passim. B. Botte, “Le baptême dans l’Église syrienne”, OS 1 (1950): 137–55, esp. 152–4. G. Khouri-Sarkis, “Notes sur l’Anaphore de Saint-Jacques”, OS 5 (1960): 3–32; 129–58; 363–84; 7 (1962): 277–96. J.-M. Sauget, “Vestiges d’une célébration gréco-syriaque de l’Anaphore de Saint Jacques”, in C. Laga, J.A. Munitiz and L. Van Rompay (eds.), After Chalcedon. Studies in Theology and Church History Offered to Professor A. Van Roey (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 18; Louvain, 1985) 309–45, esp. 324 and 333 [study of a fragment in the National Museum in Damascus].

G. CANONES Editions and translations P. de Lagarde, Reliquiae iuris ecclesiastici antiquissimae (Leipzig, 1856) 117–34. T.J. Lamy, Dissertatio de Syrorum fide et disciplina in re eucharistica. Accedunt veteris ecclesiae syriacae monumenta duo: unum, Joannis Telensis resolutiones canonicae ..., alterum Jacobi Edesseni resolutiones canonicae ... (Louvain, 1859) 98–171. C. Kayser, Die Canones Jacob’s von Edessa übersetzt und erläutert, zum Theil auch zuerst im Grundtext veröffentlicht (Leipzig, 1886). F. 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)

A Bibliographical Clavis to the Works of Jacob of Edessa

47

31–75 [transl.: “Les résolutions canoniques de Jacques d’Édesse"]. A. Vööbus, The Synodicon in the West Syrian Tradition (CSCO 367–8, Syr. 161–2; 1975) 221–72 (text); 206–47 (transl.) with 15–20 (introd.)

Studies A. Vööbus, “The Discovery of New Cycles of Canons and Resolutions Composed by Jaccob of Edessa”, OCP 34 (1968): 412–9. A. Vööbus, Syrische Kanonessammlungen. Ein Beitrag zur Quellenkunde, I. Westsyrische Originalurkunden, 1,A and 1,B (CSCO 307 and 317, Subs. 35 and 38; 1970), esp. 203–16; 273–98 [canons addressed to Addai, to John the Stylite, to Thomas, to Abraham]; 495–7; and passim. A. Vööbus, History of Ascetism in the Syrian Orient, III (CSCO 500, Subs. 81; 1988) 179, n.5; 317–8; 350–6; 436–7. W. Selb, Orientalisches Kirchenrecht, II. Die Geschichte des Kirchenrechts der Westsyrer (von den Anfängen bis zur Mongolenzeit) (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philos.-Hist. Klasse, Sitzungsberichte 543; Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für Antike Rechtsgeschichte 6; Vienna, 1989) passim.

References J. Rendel Harris, The Gospel of the Twelve Apostles (Cambridge, 1900) esp. 8– 9 [ms. Syr. Harris 85: Questions to Jacob by Addai, Thomas, John the Stylite] 14–5 [discussion of the date of the birth of Christ].

See also: II.F (Liturgical works); II.I (Letters); III.G (Canonical tradition).

H. GRAMMATICAL WORK, “MASSORA” (INCLUDING THE “TREATISE ON POINTS”), SYRIAC ORTHOGRAPHY Editions and translations L’Abbé Martin, Jacobi Episcopi Edesseni Epistola ad Georgium Episcopum Sarugensem de orthographia syriaca. Eiusdem Jacobi nec non Thomae Diaconi Tractatus de punctis aliaque documenta in eamdem materiam (Paris, 1869). G. Phillips, A Letter by Mar Jacob, Bishop of Edessa, on Syriac orthography; also a tract by the same author, and a discourse by Gregory Bar Hebraeus on Syriac accents (London, 1869).

48

Dirk Kruisheer, Lucas Van Rompay

W. Wright, Fragments of the Turras mamlla nahraya or Syriac Grammar of Jacob of Edessa. Edited from MSS. in the British Museum and the Bodleian Library (London, 1871). A. Merx, “Fragmenta Grammaticae Jacobi Edesseni ex Guilelmi Wright editione descripta”, in Id., Historia artis grammaticae apud Syros (Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes IX,2; 1889) 73–84.

Studies L’Abbé Martin, “Jacques d’Édesse et les voyelles syriennes”, JAs (6ème sér.) 13 (1869): 447–82. L’Abbé Martin, “Tradition karkaphienne, ou la massore chez les Syriens”, JAs (6ème série) 14 (1869): 245–379 (+19, +4, +4) [esp. 253–5, 276–319, 374–5]. L’Abbé Martin, “Syriens orientaux et occidentaux. Essai sur les deux principaux dialectes araméens”, JAs (6ème sér.) 19 (1872): 305– 483 (+20). L’Abbé Martin, “Histoire de la ponctuation, ou de la massore chez les Syriens”, JAs (7ème sér.) 5 (1875): 81–208 (+ 6) [esp. 132–43, 173, 194–5]. R. Duval, Traité de grammaire syriaque (Paris, 1881) passim. L’Abbé Martin, “La massore chez les Syriens”, in: Introduction à la critique textuelle du Nouveau Testament, chap. 3, art. 2, sect. 6 (English transl. by W.W. Warfield, “The Massora among the Syrians" (Hebraica 2; Chicago, 1885–6) 13–22 [non vidimus]. A. Merx, Historia artis grammaticae apud Syros [see above] 34–102. J.B. Segal, J.B., The Diacritical Point and the Accents in Syriac (London, 1953) esp. 38–44. E.J. Revell, “The Grammar of Jacob of Edessa and the Other Near Eastern Grammatical Traditions”, PdO 3 (1972): 365–74.

References A. Moberg, “Die syrische grammatik des Johannes Estonaja”, Le monde oriental 3 (1909): 24–33. W. Baars, New Syro-Hexaplaric Texts (Leiden, 1968) 23 [Massora].

See also: III.H (Later tradition).

A Bibliographical Clavis to the Works of Jacob of Edessa

49

I. LETTERS Editions and translations W. Wright, “Two Epistles of Mar Jacob, Bishop of Edessa”, Journal of Sacred Literature and Biblical Record 10 (1867): 430–60 [ms. Brit. Libr., Add. 12,172]. R. Schröter, “Erster Brief Jakob’s von Edessa an Johannes den Styliten”, ZDMG 24 (1870): 261–300 [ed. and Germ. transl. from ms. Brit. Libr., Add. 12,172]. E. Nestle, Brevis linguae syriacae grammatica, litteratura, chrestomathia cum glossario (Porta linguarum orientalium 5; Karlsruhe/Leipzig, 1881), Chrestomathia, 83–5: “V. E Jacobi Edesseni epistula de regibus magis e cod. lond. add. 12172 (c. ix. saec.). Accedunt nomina eorum e Cod. londin. add. 12143 (anni 1229) et paris. 232 (xvii. saec.).” [the same section is quoted in I. Sedlacek and I.-B. Chabot, Dionysii bar Salibi Commentarii in Evangelia, I (CSCO 77 and 85, Syr. 33 and 40; 1906) 89,11 ff. (text); 67,34ff (transl.)]. V. Ryssel, Georgs des Araberbischofs Gedichte und Briefe. Aus dem Syrischen übersetzt und erläutert (Leipzig, 1891) 64–70 [Letter to John the Stylite explaining a letter by Jacob of Edessa]. F. Nau, “Lettre de Jacques d’Édesse à Jean le Stylite sur la chronologie biblique et la date de la naissance du Messie”, ROC 5 (1900): 581–96 [ms. Brit. Libr., Add. 12,172]. F. Nau, “Lettre de Jacques d’Édesse au diacre George sur une hymne composée par S. Éphrem et citée par S. Jean Maron”, ROC 6 (1901): 115–31 [Add. 12,172]. F. Nau, “Lettre de Jacques d’Édesse sur la généalogie de la Sainte Vierge”, ROC 6 (1901): 512–31 [Add. 12,172]. F. Nau, “Traduction des lettres XII et XIII de Jacques d’Édesse (exégèse biblique), ROC 10 (1905): 197–208; 258–82. F. Nau, “Cinq lettres de Jacques d’Édesse à Jean le Stylite”, ROC 2ème sér. 4/14 (1909): 427–40. K.-E. Rignell, A Letter from Jacob of Edessa to John the Stylite of Litarab Concerning Ecclesiastical Canons. Edited from Ms. Br. Mus. Add. 14,493 with Introduction, Translation and Commentary (Lund, 1979). In preparation: J. van Ginkel [new edition of the Letters].

Studies Assemani, Bibliotheca Orientalis ..., I, 486a–7a [mention of various letters found in Italian collections]. E. Nestle, “Einiges über Zahl und Namen der Weisen aus dem Morgenland”, in Id., Marginalien und Materialien (Tübingen, 1893)? [non vidimus].

50

Dirk Kruisheer, Lucas Van Rompay

A. Baumstark, “Die Zeit der Einführung des Weihnachtsfestes in Konstantinopel”, OC 2 (1902): 441–6 [excerpt from a letter of Jacob to Moses, as quoted by Giwargis of Bceltan — cf. III.D (Dionysius bar Salibi)]. M. Cook, “An Epistle of Jacob of Edessa”, in Early Muslim Dogma (Cambridge, 1981) 145–52. W. Adler, “Jacob of Edessa and the Jewish Pseudepigrapha in Syriac Chronography”, in J.C. Reeves (ed.), Tracing the Treads. Studies in the Vitality of Jewish Pseudepigrapha (Society of Biblical Literature, Early Judaism and Its Literature 6; Atlanta, Georgia, 1994) 143– 71.

References G.J. Reinink, “The Beginnings of Syriac Apologetic Literature in Response to Islam”, OC 77 (1993): 166–87. J. Reller, Mose bar Kepha und seine Paulinenauslegung nebst Edition und Übersetzung des Kommentars zum Römerbrief (GOF I,55; Wiesbaden, 1994) 139–40, note 140 [extracts from Jacob’s Letters to Moses and John the Stylite in mss. Brit. Libr., Add. 12,144 and Vat. Syr. 103 — ad 2 Cor. 12:2 and Phil. 2:10].

See also: II.B (Scholia and commentary on the Bible); II.F (Liturgical works); II.H (Grammatical work); III.B (Ishocdad).

J. TRANSLATIONS BY JACOB Editions and translations W. Cureton, Corpus Ignatianum. A Complete Edition of the Ignatian Epistles (London, 1849) 215–7; 247–8 (transl.); 356–7 (notes) [extracts from Severus’s Homiliae Cathedrales in Jacob’s translation]. E. Nestle, Brevis linguae syriacae grammatica, litteratura, chrestomathia cum glossario (Porta linguarum orientalium 5; Karlsruhe & Leipzig 1881), Chrestomathia, 79–83: “IV. Ex homiliis Severi patriarchae antiocheni (512–518) secundum translationem a Jacobo Edesseno anno 701 confectam et scholiis illustratam [Add. MSS. 12159. A. Chr. 868.].” R.L. Bensly and W.E. Barnes, The Fourth Book of Maccabees and Kindred Documents in Syriac (Cambridge, 1895) 89–102 [edition of no. 52 of Severus’s Homiliae Cathedrales (on the Maccabean youths) in Jacob’s translation]. I.E. II Rahmani, Testamentum Domini nostri Jesu Christi (Mainz, 1899) [text with Lat. transl.], esp. xiv–xv and 193, note.

A Bibliographical Clavis to the Works of Jacob of Edessa

51

E.W. Brooks, The Hymns of Severus of Antioch and Others in the Syriac Version of Paul of Edessa, as Revised by James of Edessa (PO 6; 1911) 1–179; (PO 7; 1911) 593–802. Les Homiliae Cathedrales de Sévère d’Antioche. Traduction syriaque de Jacques d’Édesse: M. Brière and F. Graffin (PO 38; 1977) 249–470 (hom. 1–17); Iid. (PO 37; 1975) 5–180 (hom. 18–25); Iid. (PO 36; 1974) 539–676 (hom. 26–31); M. Brière, F. Graffin and C. Lash (PO 36; 1972) 395–533 (hom. 32–9); M. Brière and F. Graffin (PO 36; 1971) 7–137 (hom. 40–5); Iid. (PO 35; 1969) 285–9 (hom. 46–51); R. Duval (PO 4; 1906) 3–94 (hom. 52–7); M. Brière (PO 8; 1911, 19712) 211–396 (hom. 58–69); Id. (PO 12; 1919) 1–162 (hom. 70–6); M.A. Kugener and E. Triffaux (PO 16; 1922) 765–864 (hom. 77); M. Brière (PO 20; 1927, 19742) 277–434 (hom. 78–83); Id. (PO 23; 1932, 19742) 3– 176 (hom. 84–90); Id. (PO 25; 1935) 3–174 (hom. 91–8); I. Guidi (PO 22; 1930) 203–312 (hom. 99–103); M. Brière (PO 25; 1943, 19742) 625–814 (hom. 104–12); Id. (PO 26; 1947) 265–450 (hom. 113–19); Id. (PO 29; 1960) 73–262 (hom. 120–5).

Studies M. Brière, “Introduction générale aux homélies de Sévère d’Antioche" (PO 29; 1960) 7–72, esp. 33–50 [67–9: a survey of the previous (partial) editions]. F. Graffin, “Jacques d’Édesse réviseur des homélies de Sévère d’Antioche d’après le ms. syriaque BM Add. 12159”, II Symposium Syriacum (OCA 205; 1978) 243–55. C. Lash, “Techniques of a Translator: Work-notes on the Methods of Jacob of Edessa in translating the Homilies of Severus of Antioch”, in F. Paschke (ed.), Überlieferingsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen (Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur 125; 1981) 365–83.

References S. Brock, The Syriac Version of the Pseudo-Nonnos Mythological Scholia (University of Cambridge, Oriental Publications 20; Cambridge, 1971) 31–2 [Jacob and the Syriac translations of Gregory of Nazianzus’ homilies]. A. Van Roey & H. Moors, “Les discours de Saint Grégoire de Nazianze dans la littérature syriaque. II. Les manuscrits de la version “récente»”, OLP 5 (1974): 81–4 and 125 [Jacob mentioned in one ms. as translator of Gregory’s homilies].

52

Dirk Kruisheer, Lucas Van Rompay

A. de Halleux, “La version syriaque des Discours de Grégoire de Nazianze”, in J. Mossay (ed.), II. Symposium Nazianzenum (Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Altertums. N.F. II: Forschungen zu Gregor von Nazianz 2; Paderborn etc., 1983) 75–111 [Jacob as a possible corrector of Paul of Edessa’s revision of the Syriac translation of Gregory’s homilies]. H. Kaufhold, “Die Überlieferung der Sententiae Syriacae und ihr historischer und literarischer Kontext”, in D. Simon (ed.), Akten des 26. Deutschen Rechtshistorikertages 1986 (Frankfurt a.M., 1987) 505–18, esp. 512 [on Jacob’s translation of the Testamentum Domini].

See also: II.D (Philosophical works); II.K (Various scholia and varia); V. (Selected Themes).

K. VARIOUS SCHOLIA AND VARIA Editions and translations E. Nestle, “Jakob von Edessa über den Schem hammephorasch und andere Gottesnamen. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Tetragrammaton”, ZDMG 32 (1878): 465–508; 735–6 [ms. Brit. Libr., Add. 12,159 — cp. M. Brière]. C.M. Ugolini, Iacobi Edesseni de fide adversus Nestorium Carmen (Rome, 1888 — Al Sommo Pontefice Leone XIII omaggio giubilare) [ms. Vat. Syr. 173]. F. Nau, “La Légende inédite des fils de Jonadab, fils de Réchab, et les îles Fortunées. Texte syriaque (attribué à Jacques d’Édesse) et traduction française”, Revue sémitique d’épigraphie et d’histoire ancienne 6 (1898) 263–6; 7 (1899) 54–75; 136–46. M. Brière, “Scolie (au sujet du nom honorable et secret)”, in M. Brière, Les Homiliae Cathedrales de Sévère d’Antioche. Traduction syriaque de Jacques d’Édesse (PO 29; 1960) 190–207 [cp. E. Nestle].

References A. Guillaumont, Les ‘Képhalaia Gnostica’ d’Évagre le Pontique et l’histoire de l’origénisme chez les Grecs et chez les Syriens (Paris, 1962) 206–7 [Jacob as a possible commentator of Evagrius’s Kephalaia]. E. Riad, Studies in the Syriac Preface (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Semitica Upsaliensia 11; Uppsala, 1988) 29; 106; 167; 200; 218.

A Bibliographical Clavis to the Works of Jacob of Edessa

53

III. JACOB’S WORKS IN THE LATER SYRIAC TRADITION A. CATENA SEVERI Assemanus, S.E., & Assemanus, J.S., Bibliothecae Apostolicae Vaticanae Codicum Manuscriptorum Catalogus, I,3 (Rome, 1759; reprint Paris, 1926) 7–28 [description of ms. Vat. Syr. 103]. C. Bravo, “Un Comentario de Jacobo de Edesa al Gen. 1,1–7, atribuído a S. Efrén”, Biblica 31 (1950): 390–401. T. Jansma, “The Provenance of the Last Sections in the Roman Edition of Ephraem’s Commentary on Exodus”, LM 85 (1972): 155–69. Forthcoming: D. Kruisheer, “Ephrem, Jacob of Edessa, and the Monk Severus. An Analysis of Ms. Vat. Syr. 103, ff. 1–72”, in R. Lavenant (ed.), VII Symposium Syriacum (OCA).

See also: II.B (Scholia and commentary on the Bible); IV.A (Armenian).

B. ISHOȨDAD OF MERV C. Van den Eynde, Commentaire d’Ishocdad de Merv sur l’Ancien Testament, II. Exode-Deutéronome (CSCO 176 and 179, Syr. 80–1; 1958) 71, n. 5 (text); 95, n. 6 (transl.) [marginal quotation, ad Lev. 11:15, from Jacob’s Letter XIII]; 152, n. 4 (transl.) [quotation from Jacob in the Anonymous Commentary, ad Numb. 24:3]. C. Van den Eynde, Commentaire d’Ishocdad de Merv sur l’Ancien Testament, III. Livres des Sessions (CSCO 229–30, Syr. 96–7; 1962) 262,17–8 (text); 312,1–2 (transl.) [quotation, ad Job 39:13, from Jacob’s Letter XIII]; 266,14–16 (text); 318,10–13 [quotation, ad Job 40:10, from the same letter].

C. MOSES BAR KEPA L. Schlimme, Der Hexaemeronkommentar des Moses bar Kepha. Einleitung, Übersetzung und Untersuchungen, 2 vol. (GOF I,14; Wiesbaden, 1977) passim. J. Reller, Mose bar Kepha und seine Paulinenauslegung nebst Edition und Übersetzung des Kommentars zum Römerbrief (GOF I,55; Wiesbaden, 1994).

D. DIONYSIUS BAR SALIBI A. Vaschalde, Dionysii bar Salibi Commentarii in Evangelia, II (CSCO 95 and 98, Syr. 47 and 49; 1931–33) 223,3–9 and 224,19–21 (text);

54

Dirk Kruisheer, Lucas Van Rompay 180,8–14 and 181,14–16 (transl.) [cp. Baumstark, OC 2 (1902) 441–6 — supra I].

E. BARHEBRAEUS J. Göttsberger, Barhebräus und seine Scholien zur Heiligen Schrift (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1900). H.G.B. Teule, Gregory Barhebraeus. Ethicon. Memrć I (CSCO 534–5, Syr. 218–9; Louvain, 1993) esp. 22–3 (text); 19–20 (transl.); 73 (text); 62 (transl.); 93–4 (text); 79–80 (transl.); 95–6 (text); 92 (transl.). H.G.B. Teule, “Juridical Texts in the Ethicon of Barhebraeus”, OC 79 (1995): 23–47, esp. 30–3.

See also I.D (Life of Jacob).

F. JACOB IN LATER SYRIAC CHRONICLES I.-B. Chabot and E.W. Brooks, Eliae Metropolitae nisibeni Opus chronologicum (CSCO 62–3/Syr. 21, 22, 23, 24; 1909–10) passim. J.B. Chabot, Chronique de Michel le Syrien, I. Introduction et Tables (Paris, 1924) xxv–xxvii [see also I.D (Life of Jacob); V.B (Jacob and apocryphal literature)]. R. Abramowski, Dionysius von Tellmahre. Jakobitischer Patriarch von 818–845. Zur Geschichte der Kirche under dem Islam (Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes XXV,2; 1940). W. Witakowski, “Chronicles of Edessa”, OrSuec 33–5 (1984–6): 487–98. W. Witakowski, “Sources of Pseudo-Dionysius for the Third Part of his Chronicle”, Orientalia Suecana 40 (1991): 252–75.

G. JACOB IN THE CANONICAL TRADITION A. Vööbus, Syriac and Arabic Documents Regarding Legislation Relative to Syrian Ascetism (Papers of the Estonian Theological Society in Exile 11; Stockholm 1960).

See also: III.E (Barhebraeus).

H. JACOB’S MASORETIC WORK IN THE LATER TRADITION (see II.H) Martin, “Tradition karkaphienne”, 319–31. Martin, “Histoire de la ponctuation”, 168–70.

A Bibliographical Clavis to the Works of Jacob of Edessa

55

IV. ANCIENT TRANSLATIONS OF JACOB’S WORKS A. ARMENIAN E.G. Mathews, Jr. “The Armenian Commentary on Genesis Attributed to Ephrem the Syrian”, in J. Frishman & L. Van Rompay (eds.), The Book of Genesis in Jewish and Oriental Christian Interpretation. A Collection of Essays (Traditio Exegetica Graeca 5; Louvain, 1997) 143–61. Forthcoming: E.G. Mathews [edition of the Armenian commentary on Genesis attributed to Ephrem, CSCO].

B. ARABIC G. Graf, Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur, I (Studi e Testi 118; Vatican City, 1944) 454–6; II (Studi e Testi 133; Vatican City, 1947) 166 [Jacob quoted by Ibn al-Tayyib]; 232 [in Arabic transl. of Moses bar Kepa]; 269 [in biblical commentary of Bahnaam alSigistaani]; 286 and 288–9 [in anonymous biblical commentary related to Catena Severi]; 430 [quoted by Abu Shakir]; IV (Studi e Testi 147; Vatican City, 1951) 38 [Jacob quoted in SyrianOrthodox Confession of Faith].

V. SELECTED THEMES A. JACOB’S QUOTATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT W.D. McHardy, “James of Edessa’s citations from the Philoxenian text of the Book of Acts”, JTS 43 (1942): 168–73. W.D. McHardy, “The Philoxenian Text of the Acts in the Cambridge Syriac MS. Add. 2053”, JTS 45 (1944): 175 [two vellum leaves containing fragments of the Hymns of Severus of Antioch in the Syriac version of Jacob of Edessa, with quotations from the Philoxenian text in the margin, as part of Jacob’s editorial work]. W.D. McHardy, “The text of Acts in James of Edessa’s Citations and in the Cambridge Add. MS. 1700”, JTS 50 (1949): 186–7.

B. JACOB AND APOCRYPHAL LITERATURE J. Cooper and A.J. Maclean (tr.), The Testament of Our Lord (Edinburgh 1902) [Jacob as translator of the “Testament of Our Lord”].

56

Dirk Kruisheer, Lucas Van Rompay

S. Brock, “A Fragment of Enoch in Syriac”, JTS N.S. 19 (1968): 626–31 [a fragment quoted in Michael the Syrian’s Chronicle, from Jacob or John of Litarba’s version]. H.J.W. Drijvers, “Christians, Jews and Muslims in Northern Mesopotamia in Early Islamic Times. The Gospel of the Twelve Apostles and Related Texts”, in P. Canivet & J.-P. Rey-Coquais (eds.), La Syrie de Byzance à l’Islam VIIe–VIIIe siècles (Institut français de Damas; Damascus, 1992) 67–74. H.J.W. Drijvers, “The Testament of Our Lord: Jacob of Edessa’s Response to Islam”, ARAM 6 (1994): 104–14.

See also: II.B (Scholia and commentary on the Bible); II.I (Letters); II.J (Translations).

VI. VARIA R.Y. Ebied, “Extracts in Arabic from a Chronicle Erroneously Attributed to Jacob of Edessa”, OLP 4 (1973): 177–96. R.Y. Ebied, “Some Syriac Manuscripts from the Collection of Sir E.A. Wallis Budge”, in Symposium Syriacum 1972 (OCA 197; 1974) 530–1 [Ms. Leeds, Syr. Ms. 7,2: Extracts from a Chronicle Attributed to Jacob]. S. Brock, “From Antagonism to Assimilation: Syriac Attitudes to Greek Learning”, in N.G. Garsoïan, T. Mathews and R. Thomson (eds.), East of Byzantium. Syria and Armenia in the Formative Period (Washington, D.C., 1982) 17–34. S. Brock, “Towards a History of Syriac Translation Technique”, in R. Lavenant (ed.), IIIo Symposium Syriacum 1980 (OCA 221; 1983) 1–14. S. Brock, “Diachronic Aspects of Syriac Word Formation: An Aid for Dating Anonymous Texts”, in R. Lavenant (ed.), V Symposium Syriacum 1988 (OCA 236; 1990) 321–30.

Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies, Vol. 1.1, 57–78 © 1998 [2010] by Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute and Gorgias Press

AN EPIPHANY OF MYSTICAL SYMBOLS: JACOB OF SARUG’S MÊMRÂ 109 ON ABRAHAM AND HIS TYPES RICHARD E. MCCARRON DEPARTMENT OF RELIGION AND RELIGIOUS EDUCATION THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA, WASHINGTON, D.C.

INTRODUCTION [1]

Celebrated as the author of 763 metrical homilies and many other prose and poetic works, Jacob of Sarug (c. 450–520/1 CE) is a central figure of Syriac literature who is remembered as a master commentator on scripture: The Holy Spirit revealed to him and explained all the secrets of the Holy Sciptures. This doctor became the vase of the Spirit and filled the Holy Church with his wisdom by commenting on the Sacred Scriptures. 1 As quoted by B. Boulos-Sony, “La Méthode exégétique de Jacques de Saroug,” Parole de l’Orient 9 (1979–80): 67. Boulos-Sony’s source is Paris Syr. 177, col. 147a–8b, an anonymous manuscript whose title is ‹ûâ áî J Ìà܃ À˜šÍφ ¿šÊîƒ ¿ÿÁ– †ûèƒ çæÓÁƒ ÀûÙî ¾Ùî˜ €ÍùïØ ¿šÍæòàâ MS Paris Syr. 177 is the longer of two anonymous panegyric homilies important for their depiction of the life of Jacob. For details on the MS, see A. Vööbus, Handschriftliche Überlieferung der Memre-Dichtung des Jacqob von Serug, vol. I, Sammlungen: Die Handschriften, Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium [hereafter CSCO] 344, subsidia 39 (Louvain: Secrétariat du CSCO, 1973) 13–6. For a recent edition of the text, see P. Krüger, “Ein zweiter anonymer memra über Jakob von Serugh,” Oriens 1

57

58 [2]

Richard E. McCarron

Jacob, bishop of Batnan in Sarug for only two years before his death, represents a generally conservative line of thinking, thus allowing the contemporary reader to appreciate the classical Syriac approach to a given topic. 2 Yet, his formation in the Edessa school whose Nestorianism he came to reject, his own understanding of the Bible, and the task of biblical interpretation certainly make his work particularly his own. 3 Around 470, at about twenty years of age, Jacob was a student at the famous Edessa school of theology, which was one of the centers of christological controversy at the time. 4 According to Barhadbshaba, author of the sixth-century Cause for the Founding of the Schools, the Exegetical tradition of the school of Edessa [consists] of three elements: 1) that which follows the tradition [mashlmćnûtâ] of Mar Ephraem, that is that which they say was transmitted from the time of Addai the Apostle, 2) the commentary [pushćqâ] of Theodore of Mopseustia and 3) the tradition [mashlmćnûtâ] of the school, that is, explications originally transmitted orally and inserted into the homilies and other works of Mar Narsai. 5

[3]

According to Boulos-Sony, one needs as well to attend to Jacob’s theological position that orients him to a more “spiritual” method of exegesis, namely the influence of Cyril of Alexandria: His exegesis is a reaction, although he does not say so expressis verbis, against the Judaizing “textual” exegesis of the Theodorians who, according to him, had divided Christ. Jacob succeeds in uniting the Ephraemian tradition with the Alexandrian tradition in the Christianus 56 (1972): 112–34. He follows the Syriac text with a German translation. 2 For a concise overview of Jacob’s life and work, including attention to the doctrinal controversies of the day, see H. R. Balz, et al. (eds.), Theologische Realenzyklopädie (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1987), s.v. “Jakob von Sarug,” by Wolfgang Hage. 3 See Boulos-Sony, 67–8. 4 See Hage, “Jakob von Sarug.” 5 From J. Frishman, “Type and Reality in the Exegetical Homilies of Mar Narsai,” Studia Patristica 20 (1989): 169. The original text is found in A. Scher, Mar Barhadbshabba cArbaya.Cause de la fondation des écoles (Patrologia Orientalis IV, 4; Paris, 1907) 382–3.

An Epiphany of Mystical Symbols

59

exegetical domain: finding Christ throughout the Bible. 6

[4]

For Jacob, the “center of the Bible is Christ whose two arms stretched out on the cross are symbolized by the two Testaments.” 7 Jacob’s christocentric stance on the Old Testament may well lead one to criticize his failure “to appreciate that narrative within its own context” because he links wondrous events across salvation history and sees the past “exclusively in connection with the working of the image of Christ.” 8 However, close analysis of his homilies leads one to perceive a very dynamic sense of typology, symbol, and poesis that Jacob employs to comment on the scriptures. Nowhere is such skillfull commentary more operative than in his mêmrâ 109, entitled “On Abraham and his Types,” an extended exposition on the searing narrative of Genesis 22:1–14. 9 After preliminary consideration of the genre the mêmrâ, this essay will analyze the content of the homily with an eye to developing Jacob’s dynamic vision of symbolic interplay in salvation history.

THE TEXT [5]

As Mary Gerhart argues, an understanding of genre is requisite to the interpretation of any text: textual meaning is always “genrebound.” 10 Sebastian Brock has examined the wide body of authored and anoymous Syriac poetry of the fifth and sixth centuries and has developed a five-fold taxonomy of the narrative poems. 11 Following his taxonomy, mêmrâ 109 exhibits the genric qualities of type V:

Boulos-Sony, 90. Boulos-Sony, 68. 8 Frishman, 172; 175. 9 Text in P. Bedjan, Homilae selectae Mar-Jacobi Sarugensis, Vol. IV (Leipzig: Harrassowitz, 1908) 61–103. With regard to the biblical text he commented on, Jacob used the Peshitta and probably the Diatessaron. See Boulos-Sony, 68–70. 10 See M. Gerhart, “Generic Competence in Biblical Hermeneutics,” Semeia 43 (1988): 29–44. 11 S. Brock, “Dramatic Dialogue Poems,” in H. J. W. Drijvers (ed.), IV Symposium Syriacum 1984 (Orientalia Christiana Analecta 229; Rome: PIO Press, 1987) 135–47. 6 7

60

Richard E. McCarron The fifth type is characterized by the introduction into the dramatized narrative of homiletic material, where the author may offer moralizing or exegetical comment, or he may himself address one of the characters directly (apostrophe). 12

[6]

[7]

This genre of mêmrâ builds upon other forms: it takes the biblical topic and retells the story in a narrative frame with speeches on the part of the characters in question introduced. To this, a type V adds specifically homiletic material. The actual Sitz-im-Leben of the mêmrâ is not immediately apparent. Was it actually “preached” in a cathedral or in an ecclesial liturgical setting? Does the mêmrâ derive from Jacob’s monastic milieu and the cursus of daily prayer? 13 Is it a transcription of an oral address by Jacob or the later work of monk-copyists? According to biographers, “a large staff of scribes and copyists engaged in securing [Jacob’s] poetic production was put at his disposal.” 14 Rilliet’s study of the rhetoric of Jacob’s prose homilies would lead one to conclude that the homily in verse with biblical exposition would more than likely have been “preached” at less festive times of the liturgical cycle.15 Subsequent witness reveals

Brock, 137. On the development of the office in the Syriac-speaking churches, see R. Taft, The Liturgy of the Hours in East and West (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1986) 225–37. Vööbus asserts that the mêmrê eventually did make their way into the “cells of solitaries, ascetics, mourners and monks” (122). On the early history of the office of the Syriac-speaking churches, see J. Mateos, Lelya-ʜapra: Les offices chaldéens de la nuit et du matin (Orientalia Christiana Analecta 156; Rome: PIO Press, 19762). 14 A.Vööbus, History of Asceticism in the Syrian Orient: A Contribution to the History of Culture in the Near East III (CSCO 500, subsidia 81; Leuven: Peeters, 1988) 119. 15 F. Rilliet, “Rhétorique et style à l’époque de Jacques de Saroug,” IV Symposium Syriacum 1984 (Orientalia Christiana Analecta 229; Rome: PIO Press, 1987) 293. “Pour les deux plus grandes fêtes, Noël et Pâques, il prefère un genre plus “arétalogique» et parénétique, tandis que pour les autres fêtes c’est le commentaire biblique et l’explication des symboles qui constituent le principal, mêmes s’ils sont encadrés assez artificiellement par un exorde et un épilogue.” 12 13

An Epiphany of Mystical Symbols

[8]

61

that the mêmrê found their way into liturgical books, such as homilaries, church handbooks, and choral books. 16 The question of whether the textus receptus reflects a compilation of smaller homilies on similar themes can legitimately be raised. A collection of forty-seven mêmrê ascribed to Jacob found in MS Mingana 546 contains an unpublished homily entitled, “A mêmrâ of Mar Jacob on Abraham and Isaac.” 17 A comparison of the text of this manuscript and the text of mêmrâ 109 of Bedjan reveals three points for consideration. First, certain sections are identical, apart from minor textual variants. Second, some sections reflect a pastiche of some sections. Third, the bulk of exegetical commentary found in early sections of 109 follows the narrative material of the short homily, which takes up Genesis 22:1–14 verse for verse, then develops the exegetical commentary. It seems likely that the Mingana text is a shortened version of 109. Given the nature of the twelve-syllable line that characterizes Jacob’s poetry, one can postulate that it would be rather easy to insert and remove lines. However, any conclusion without consideration of the whole manuscript tradition would be premature. A close reading of 109 shows certain inconsistencies of word choice and juxtapositions of significant terms in the homily. For example, pkar and qʞal for what Abraham is called to do; sakînâ and ʚarbâ for the instrument, the juxtaposition of ‚emrâ and dekrâ, and several words for offering or sacrifice, including Ȩlćtâ, qûrbćnâ, debʚâ, and yaqdâ. Other homilies roughly contemporary with 109 on Genesis 22 do not take the same approach as Jacob, but do show the popularity of the figures of Abraham and Isaac. 18 In fact, Jacob may well have known some 16 See Vööbus, Handschriftliche, 21. “Der Memre-Dichtung war eine sehr grosse Zukunft vorgesehen, nämlich den Bereich des Kults und der Liturgie zu erobern.” 17 Fols. 72v to 75v; See A. Mingana, Catalogue of The Mingana Collection of Manuscripts, vol. I, Syriac and Garshuni Manuscripts (Cambridge: W. Heffer and Sons, Ltd., 1933). 18 See the anonymous sôgîtâ, probably from the fifth or sixth century, edited by B. Kirschner, “Alfabetische Akrosticha in der syrischen Kirchenpoesie,” Oriens Christianus 6 (1906): 44–69. See also the collection of anonymous homilies by Brock wherein one can find other homilies on Abraham (and Isaac), roughly contemporary with mêmrâ 109 in Eight Syriac Mimre on Biblical Themes (Netherlands: Bar-Hebraeus Verlag, 1993). See also the English translation of sogitha by S. P. Brock, “Syriac Poetry on biblical themes, 2. A dialogue poem on the sacrifice of Isaac (Genesis

62

[9]

Richard E. McCarron

of these mêmrê, but “in the case of a skilled poet like Jacob any direct quotation of a source is not to be expected.” 19 The mêmrâ is written in thirty sections of irregular length, composed of couplets of twelve syllables each. The twelve-syllable form is reputed to have been created by Jacob himself; in constrast to the seven-syllable form, his new form “allowed for an amplitude which” was in line with his poetical aims: a dignified and almost dispassionate approach to the doctrinal controversies of the day. 20 It begins with an exordium addressed to Jesus and ends with a very short epilogue. The narrative frame has the following shape: 21 EXORDIUM: “Abraham longed to see my day; he saw it and rejoiced” [Jn 8:56] Section 1 (62.6–63.2): The story of Isaac will be told (Genesis 22:1–14) Section 2–5 (63.3–68.20): Gn 22:1–2 Abraham’s reaction and God’s consolation Section 6 (68.21–70.11) Abraham does not inform Sarah Section 7–12 (70.12–79.14) Gn 22:3–4 The Three days’ travel/conversation between Isaac and Abraham 22),” The Harp: A Journal of Syriac and Oriental Studies (Kottayam) 7 (1994): 55–72. 19 S. Brock, “Two Syriac Verse Homilies on the Binding of Isaac,” Le Muséon 99 (1986): 91. Brock identifies certain parallel themes between the second homily that he analyzes and Jacob’s homily on Abraham and his types. 20 Vööbus, History, 120. It is the MS Paris Syr 177, fol 151 b, that Vööbus cites. According to Vööbus, Jacob’s surprisingly “calm and dignified” stance was something that irked his contemporaries. Cf. History, 121. Vööbus explains with regard to the influence of the controversies of the day that, “Die christologische Einstellung des Verfassers kommt nur sehr selten zum Ausdruck. Damit ist es gesagt, dass die Memre seines Schaffens allein nur zur Erbauung der Gläubigen dienen sollten. Man spürt auf Schritt und Tritt wie er dieses Vorhaben ernst genommen hat” (Handschriftliche, 19). On the often perceived monotony of Jacob’s verse form, see Vööbus, Handschriftliche, 18–9, who considers it as part of Jacob’s extraordinary talents. 21 For the text in question see Gn 22:1–14 in The Old Testament in Syriac according to the Peshitta Version, ed. Peshitta Institute Leiden, Part I, Fascicle I: Genesis to Exodus (Leiden: Brill, 1977). The references here to the text in Bedjan are to page and line.

An Epiphany of Mystical Symbols

63

Section 13 (79.15–81.4) Gn 22:5 The youths remain Section 14 (81.5–82.16) Gn 22:6 The wood on Isaac’s shoulders Section 15–17 (82.17–85.13) Gn 22:7: Where is the lamb? Section 17–19 (85.14–89.19) Gn 22:8:The Lord will provide! Section 20 (89.20–91.7) Gn 22:9 Building of the altar Section 21–27 (91.8–99.3) Gn 22:10 Abraham raises the knife to kill Section 27–28 (99.4–101.16) Gn 22:11–12 Do not offer him! Section 29 (101.17–103.4) Gn 22:13–14 Ram caught in bush CONCLUSION Section 30 (103.5–13) “Abraham longed to see my day; he saw it and rejoiced" [Jn 8:56] 22

[10]

This mêmrâ takes the gospel text John 8:56 as its point of departure, appealing to the narrative of the testing of Abraham (nesyôneh d’ abrćhćm) as the foundational narrative for explication. It is important to note that title found in the Syriac as the trial or testing of Abraham orients the audience to one particular line of interpretation of the text of Genesis 22, namely one that places emphasis on the figure and agency of Abraham. The older dominant tradition, that of the “binding” or sacrifice (aqedah) of Isaac, places emphasis on the figure of Isaac and the role of sacrifice in atonement and redemption. 23 Jacob seems aware of both traditions, for, as Brock notes, Jacob approximates these earlier Jewish concerns about Isaac’s willing acceptance of being a The Syriac text reads: ÚâÍØ ¿ÎÐåƒ ¿†… ˆÍé⠐ÍÜÍÁ~ …ûÁ~ ‹Êφ ¿Îφ Jn 8:56 in Ktabê qadishê (New York: United Bible Society, 1979). 23 See G. Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 19732) 193–218. Vermes’ essay is a careful study of the Jewish exegesis and theology of Genesis 22 and its impact on Christian doctrine. For the “history of readings” of Genesis 22 in the Syriac tradition see S. Brock, “Genesis 22 in the Syriac Tradition,” in Mélanges Dominique Barthélemy, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 38 (Fribourg: Editions Universitaires, 1981), 1–30. For a summary of Greek and Latin patristic commentators, see the introductory chapters of J. Swetnam, Jesus and Isaac: A Study of the Epistle to the Hebrews in Light of the Aqedah (Analecta Biblica 94; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1981). 22

64

Richard E. McCarron

victim and his as though in reality shedding of blood. 24 Yet, the figure of Abraham is also crucial for Jacob. Exordium [11]

Jacob’s exegetical orientation and method of development of his homily are expounded in the exordium of the homily. Invoking upon the “Son of God,” Jacob names Jesus’ passion as the story that calls him. He alludes to John 8:56, where Abraham’s joy is linked to seeing the day of salvation. Jacob will set out to demonstrate that indeed it is possible that Abraham saw the day of the Lord and rejoiced. The crux of Jacob’s interpretation lies in the blazing beauty of the mystical symbols that kindled Abraham’s mind. Abraham saw the “day” depicted by mystical symbols in the lamb. 25 Already the audience is prepared for highly dynamic role that the rćzâ, or “mystical symbol” will play in the Abraham narrative. 26 Interestingly, in the exordium it is in the lamb (‘emrâ) or the ram (dekrâ) whereby Abraham sees Jesus, not in Isaac as he explains in section 1. Thus, one could see the likelihood that the exordium was added onto the rest of the mêmrâ. Section 1

[12]

Here, Jacob addresses his audience, insisting that it is in the story of Isaac that one learns how Abraham saw Jesus’ day. He explains that in the very telling of the story now the mystical symbol will be active once again in an “epiphany.” 27 He indicates that the key to See Brock, “Genesis 22,” 19. ÌÁ ††… çØûؖƒ Þ؇Ă~ƒ Àûâ½Á …ûÁ~ ‹ÊÏ / ... …ÿÙ Ê܆ š†… ¾òÙòè ¾Ùå˜ ¾åÌÁ / ¿šÎÙâăÁ …ûñÍü ‹Íφ ¿‡˜~ M ¿†… ú߃ (p. 61, l. 9 and p. 62, ll. 5–6). 26 For a sense of the importance of the word rćzâ in the Syriac world and thinking, see the significant article by E. Beck, “Symbolum-Mysterium bei Aphraat und Ephräm,” Oriens Christianus 42 (1958): 19–40. I am rendering the term in English as “mystical symbol” as a way of capturing the sense of “mystery,” “symbol,” “secret” or even “sacrament” that are in its semantic range. See L. Costaz (ed.), Dictionnaire Syriaque-Français / Syriac-English Dictionary / Qamus suryani carabi (Beirut: Imprimerie catholique, 1963), s.v. “rćz” and “rćzâ.” 27 ç⚠Úß ˜Íφ ¿‡˜~ Ž‡~š Àûâ½Ć⃠ÌÂùïß / Êî áÙàø ûÄ~† M šÍÐåÊãß ¾å~ ¿š~ (p. 62, ll. 13–4). 24 25

An Epiphany of Mystical Symbols

65

his interpretation is the use of the device of the rćzâ, which will come to be demonstrated. Section 2–5 [13]

[14]

Jacob begins with the injunction of the Lord to Abraham to take his son and sacrifice (dbʚ) him. In the Peshitta text, Isaac is called the îʚîdćyâ, or “only one.” The term îʚîdćyâ has significant christological and spiritual meanings. 28 As the Syriac equivalent for ho monogenes and a frequent title of Christ, it would trigger many associations between Christ and Isaac for the audience. Jacob explains that it is primarily the Lord with whom he is concerned in this homily. Isaac is his shadow (ʞelćleh). Immediately, Jacob dispels the horror of the command by explaining that the Lord asked for the boy’s killing not that he would be killed by his parent, but that the great murder of the Son of God would be shown forth in the mystical symbol. It is not for a test of Abraham, because the Lord already knew well of Abraham’s faith and love. God commanded Abraham to kill Isaac that Abraham would “depict a type of the Only One [namely, Christ] ... and would bring joy to the Old Man (sćbâ) by means of the day of his crucifixion.” 29 This was how Abraham could see it and rejoice. Usually a title of reverence, sćbâ appears typically in monastic texts. 30 Applied to Abraham it extends both the monastic connotations to Abraham and the insight of Abraham to the monastic, appropriate for Jacob’s milieu. Jacob points out to his readers that Abraham did not question or delay setting out by stopping to call God into account for his request. Jacob’s descriptions employ words commonly associated at See S. Griffith, “Singles in God’s Service: Thoughts on the îʚîdćyê from the Works of Aphrahat and Ephraem the Syrian,” The Harp 4 (1991): 145–59; idem, “Monks, “Singles», and the “Sons of the Covenant”. Reflections on Syriac Ascetic Terminology,” in E. Carr, et. al. (ed.), EULOGEMA: Studies in Honor of Robert Taft, S.J. (Analecta liturgica 17 =Studia Anselmiana 110; Rome: Sant’Anselmo, 1993) 141–60. J 29 ÀÊÙÐÙß ‹ÌÙïÁ ¾ØÊÙÐ؃ ÌéñÍÒ ˜†÷åƒ / ¾Âéß ¿†… ÀÊÐ僆 …šÍòÙø‡ƒ ¾ĆâÍÙÁ (p. 64, ll. 6–7). 30 For example, Ephraem uses the term in his hymn to Abraham Kidunaya; see Hymn IV, verse 1 in E. Beck (ed.), Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen auf Abraham Kidunaya und Julianos Saba (CSCO 322; Louvain: Peeters, 1972) 9. See also S. Griffith, “Julian Saba, ‘Father of the Monks’ of Syria,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 2 (1994): 208–9. 28

66

Richard E. McCarron

the time with inquiries in the instance of theological inquiry or controversy: drš, cqb and š ’el. In the context of his homily, Jacob is able to touch on the burning issue of the day of the correct way to do theology. Not only are there those who teach falsely, but the method that the unorthodox use is mistaken. Echoing the Ephraemian tradition, Jacob emphasizes the revelation of God and the teaching of the scriptures as the point of departure, rather than the power of the human mind. Such academic inquiry is impertinent. 31 One does not stop to ask questions about what is clearly revealed by God, but like Abraham would respond with joy to God. There was no hesitation on the part of Abraham who loved and trusted God and God’s promises to him. Jacob creatively develops a dramatic dialogue between God and Abraham to emphasize his point: God asks Abraham to imitate him (section 5). He enjoins Abraham not to be sad and to rejoice that God will bind God’s Son at the appropriate time. Section 6 [15]

Jacob then informs his listeners why Abraham would not have told Sarah, Isaac’s mother, where he was going and why. Abraham hastened and did not want to be held back by Sarah’s mourning for her beloved. He made her a “stranger” to the mystical symbol, because he feared that she would protest and keep him from the so very important task he had: the showing forth of the mystical symbol. 32 31 See Ephraem’s Hymn on Faith 47, 8, and 10, for example. Text in E. Beck (ed.), Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen de Fide (CSCO 154; Louvain: Imprimerie Orientaliste, 1955) 151; 33; 49. On the negative connotation of the words in Ephraem and a comparison with a contemporary of Jacob, Narsai, see T. Jansma, “Narsai and Ephraem: Some Observations on Narsai’s Homilies on Creation and Ephraem’s Hymns on Faith,” Parole de l’Orient 1 (1970): 49–68, esp. appendix I. 32 On the Syriac tradition’s attention to Sarah in Gn 22, see S. Brock, “Genesis 22: Where was Sarah?” The Expository Times 96 (1984): 14–7, and “Sarah and the Akedah,” Le Muséon 87 (1974): 67–77. In “Two Syriac Verse Homilies,” Brock provocatively raises the possibility of a woman author for a mêmrâ that give Sarah such prominent position (p. 99). From a feminist perspective, see P. Trible, “Genesis 22: The Sacrifice of Sarah,” in J. Rosenblatt and J. Sitterson, Jr. (eds.), “Not in Heaven”: Coherence and Complexity in Biblical Narrative (Bloomington: Indiana University Press,

An Epiphany of Mystical Symbols

67

Section 7–12 [16]

[17]

Without delay, Abraham set out on his way and was led by the mystical symbol on a three days’ journey. Jacob describes the three days of Isaac and his “resurrection” in terms of Christ’s days in the tomb and third-day resurrection. While the biblical text is silent, Jacob indicates that Isaac chattered all along the way, trying to ascertain what is going on, where and why they are travelling. Jacob explains how Abraham knew that was the mountain he was to ascend: the sign of the Son beckoned him; the mystical symbol gestured to him to ascend. 33 Abraham, the “captain of mystical symbols” (malćʚ rćzê) is urged to guide his ship to the port where he will find treasures. He is the “painter” (ʜayćrâ) who will paint the image (ʜalmâ) of Jesus with “divine colors” (gawnê alćhćyê). The mountain is named “Golgotha” and Abraham knows that he is to stop there because of “the eye of prophecy.” His task on the mountain is described with ritual language: “that the mystical symbol would be correctly served on the mountain of the crucifixion.” 34 Section 12 emphasizes Abraham’s haste by offering postulations as to why Abraham would not have taken any companions with him. Section 13

[18]

His mind and sight captivated by the dazzingly mystical symbol that drew him to the mountain, Abraham could not turn from his way. Jacob describes Abraham’s reaction in the language of a mystic experience: being on fire with love and inebriated with the wine of Golgotha. He asks the youths to stay behind and wait for him. Jacob indicates that Abraham perhaps edified them by the hope that came from his knowing that both he and Isaac would

1991) 170–91. Trible does not refer to any Syriac texts. However, Jacob, among other Syriac writers, has a place for Sarah in the unfolding of the narrative in his homily, although Sarah is still in the end relegated to a nonclimactic role, as Trible might observe. 33 ¾Âè ¾Ý߃ ¾ñÍå Ìß €ÌØ ÀûÁƒ ÌýÙå† / ... ¿šƒ ¿‡˜~ Ìß Î☠M ¾å~ ¾Ü˜… ¿… ‹ƒ~– Ãè (p. 75, l. 1; 4). 34 ¿šÍòÙø‡ƒ À˜ÍÓÁ ¿‡˜~ ¿†… þâÿýåƒ (p. 77, l. 13). M

68

Richard E. McCarron

return from the top of the mountain. Again, he did not become weak, but ritually served love. 35 Section 14 [19]

On the way up the mountain, Isaac is given the wood to carry on his shoulders, while Abraham carries the other items needed. In this way, the image of the Son of God, carrying the cross himself to Golgotha would be shown forth. Isaac put on a coat of mystical symbols and shone with beauty as he walked on the way to his killing. Section 15–17

[20]

The next sections are Jacob’s poetic expounding on verse 7 of the Genesis text. 36 Jacob first takes up Isaac’s calling out “Father” to Abraham. Herein he sees “the duty of a parent” and the relationship of the child played out. Like a wise one, Isaac then poses his question: “Where is the lamb?” He sees no lamb, sheep, ram or bull for sacrifice, but Abraham still caries the knife and the flame, while Isaac has the kindling. Isaac “boiled over with expressions full of passion.” 37 Abraham, however, did not flinch. He did not allow himself to become sad nor put off the task of the killing. He is “drunk" with love and did not weep bitterly at the perceptive questions asked by his îʚîdćyâ or “only one.” Jacob exhorts his audience to see in Isaac the image (ʛurtâ) of Jesus. He makes allusion to Jesus’ abandonment to the will of the Father: “Not my will but yours” (Lk 22:42b). Section 17–19

[21]

With steadfastness that Jacob parallels to Jesus’ obedience, Abraham answers Isaac’s question in verse 8 of the text: “God will

K J ÌæÙî˜ ç⠋†… þâÿü~ ¾ÁÍÏ ÊÐÁƒ çØÌàÝÁ À˜…š / ÀûØûü †…ƒ ÚñÚ~ ¾Ć߃ (p. 80, ll. 14–5). 36 ‹ûÁ ¾å~ ¿… ûâ~† ¾Á~ ûâ~† ‹…ÍÁ~ …ûÁ½Ćß úÐéØ~ ûâ~† K ¿ÿàïß Àûâ~ ÍÝØ~ ¾éÙø† À˜Íå ¿… Ìß ûâ~†. K 37 úÐéØ~ ¿†… Ñ߇ ¾ýÏ ÚÙàâ ¾ĆàøK çÙ߅ (p. 85, l. 14). 35

An Epiphany of Mystical Symbols

69

provide for [lit. will see to] the lamb for the sacrifice, my Son. ... ” 38 Jacob asserts: For if it were not with the mystical symbol of the Son that Isaac was clothed / in what time would Abraham see the day of the Son? / How did he fix his eyes and see the crucifixion? / Except if on his son it was drawn mystically / when and where was he glad in the Messiah or how / Except in that type that was drawn on his only one. 39

[22]

One can perceive again the play on term, îʚîdćyâ, juxtaposing Isaac and Jesus. In section 19, Abraham lets Isaac know that God’s task is to provide; what Isaac’s part will be he will see. Abraham placed it all in the Lord’s hands, and Isaac willingly accepted. Section 20

[23]

Having arrived at the spot on the mountain, Abraham sets about building the altar for the holocaust. He knew the spot because the “visible glory of the mystical symbols” (škîntâ drćzê) dwelt there. Abraham is likened to the master builder who carefully lays out the stones for the “house of mystical symbols” (baytâ drćzê) wherein the altar would be built. Isaac helps him, according to Jacob, which causes him to exclaim: “Who has ever seen a lamb who builds the altar for his killing!” 40 Section 21–27

[24]

At the prompting of the mystical symbol, Abraham prepares to raise his knife and kill his son. Jacob emphasizes the action of the mystical symbol. The rćzâ is not static, but is an important agent in the unfolding of the story. Isaac notes that everything is ready, but there is still no lamb. In Jacob’s reconstrual of the story, Isaac then tells his father that he will willingly accept whatever it is his father will do to him. Jacob insists that it would have been easy for the 38 ‹ûÁ ¿ÿàïß Àûâ~ Ìß ¿ÎÐå ¿Ìß~ …ûÁ~ ûâ~† (Gn 22:8). In the mêmrâ, Jacob calls God “mćryâ.” 39 úÐéØ~ ¿†… þÙÂß ÀûÁƒ ¿‡˜~ ûÙÄ ¾Ćß Íß~ / ¾æÁ‡ ¾æؽÁ M J …ûÁ~ ¿ÎÏ ÀûÁƒ ÌâÍØ / ¿šÍòÙøÎß …Îφ ƒ–~ ÚÜ ¾æÝØ~ / …ûÂÁ ¾Ćß~ ÿؽ凘~ M š†… ¾ĆãÙü˜ƒ / ¾æÝØ~ †~ ¾ÐÙýãÁ ‹ÊÏ ¾ÝØ~† ‹ÿâ~ / ¾Ćß~ J ¾éñÍÓÁ (p. 87, ll. 16–21). ÌØÊÙÐÙÁ ¿†… äÙü˜ƒ †… 40 ÌàÓùß ¿ÿàî ¾æÁƒ Àûâ~ Ìß ¿ÎÏ Íæãß (p. 90, l. 20).

70

[25]

Richard E. McCarron

youth to flee, but he does not. Rather, Isaac is a rational youth, intelligent and excellent in speech; he is a brave one ready for sacrifice. He feared no harm, so he did not hold back. Like a necklace he wore the mystical symbols so that he could show forth the image (yuqnâ) of Jesus. He stretched out his throat while he rejoiced. Abraham knew because of the mystical symbol that Isaac was to be the lamb, and Isaac freely held out his hands to be bound. Having bound him and placed him on top of the wood, Abraham lets Isaac know what is to happen: “It is right that you rejoice since behold I have given you as a sacrifice to the Lord.” 41 As he lowers Isaac’s head under the knife, Abraham tastes and smells a sweetness and sees not gloom, but life. Abraham’s mind works faster than his deeds: for in his mind, Isaac is already killed and the colors of the mystical symbol shine forth for him. Section 27–28

[26]

Just as Abraham is to lower the knife, he hears the twofold call of his name, and he took away the sword from Isaac without his being wounded. God calls Abraham that he not continue with his sacrifice. God tells Abraham that it would be senseless to kill Isaac because his blood does not save. Rather, because Abraham so desired it, God showed him the mirror of mystical symbols that he might see what God would do by Jesus’s death. 42 God says to Abraham: The shadow is given to you that you would see the type / Rejoice in the image and observe the equivalence to that which is his. 43

[27]

It is Christ the Strong One (ʚasînâ) who will shatter the fetters of hell and destroy Hades. ÿÁÌØ ¾Øûãß ¾æÁ˜Íø ¿…ƒ —ƒ‡ ÀÊϚ† (p.97, l. 21). ÀûÁƒ ÌâÍØ ÿØÍÏ ¿… ÿÄûʚ~ƒ áî† / ... ¿ÿØÎÐâ ¿… J –ƒ~ €†ûø ¾Ü˜… ¿‡˜~ƒ (p. 100, l. 19; p. 101, l. 1). On the rich term ÌÁ M mahzîtâ, see E. Beck, “Das Bild vom Spiegel bei Ephräm,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 19 (1953): 5–24. 43 ¾éñÍÒ ¿ÎϚƒ Þß ÿÁÌؚ~ ¿ÿÙæàÒ / û҆ ¿šÍâÊÁ ‹ÊÏ ‹… Ìà؃Êß ¿šÍãàü (p. 101, ll. 5–6). The implicit subject here is the N kingdom (Gen 49:10). See T. Jansma, “Ephrem on Genesis XLIX 10,” Parole de l’Orient 4 (1973): 247–56. 41 42

An Epiphany of Mystical Symbols

71

Section 29 [28]

Jacob begins the next to last section with a summary of the point of his exegesis: Abraham rejoiced in the day of the Son that he saw in his son / And he understood in the whole matter the reason of the crucifixion / The hidden mystical symbols were explained to him in the sacrifice of his son / And by means of the figures that happen there he came to an insight. 44

[29]

Jacob finishes out his explication of the text with verses 13–14 of the Genesis text that tells of Abraham’s spying a ram caught in a bush nearby that he offers to God. Isaac’s dialogue tells the audience that indeed there was nothing around before, but now there is the miraculous appearance of the ram. In Jacob’s imagination, the ram is another of the figures or signs whereby Abraham sees the day of Jesus. For Jacob, the miraculous appearance of the ram reveals God’s salvation in Jesus: his conception, birth, passion, death and resurrection. Jacob exhorts Abraham, “If you wish to see his birth look out at the tree / And if also his death and his sacrifice, behold it is before you!” 45 Section 30

[30]

The concluding section notes that the binding of Isaac made a proclamation to the world about its salvation. In place of Isaac, Abraham bound and killed the ram, which itself depicted the pasch of Christ. The mêmrâ ends with a blessing of the passion of the Only One (îʚîdćyâ), Jesus, at whose day Abraham rejoiced.

THE MYSTICAL SYMBOLS [31]

This analysis of Jacob’s mêmrâ on Abraham and his types reveals that Jacob has a dynamic understanding of the figure of Abraham and Isaac in salvation history. Typically, this mode of exegesis is identified as typological. Typology is generally defined as J …ûÂÁ ¿Îσ ÀûÁƒ ÌâÍÙÁ …ûÁ~ ‹ÊÏ / ÌàÝÁ ¿†… áÜÿè~† K ¿šÍòÙø‡ƒ ¿ÿàî / …ûÁƒ ¾ÐÁÊÁ ÀûØÿè ¿‡˜~ M Ìß Íùýñš~ / ¿š½ĆàòÁ† K ¿†… çÙÁÿâ ç⚠‹†…ƒ (p. 101, ll. 17–9). ¬ 45 ¾æàؽÁ ˜ÍÏ ÿÙïÁ ¿ÎϚ …ÊßÍ⠐~ / ÌàÓø €†š ~† ‹… N ÞÙâÊø ¿… …šÍÐÙÁƒ† (p. 102, ll. 8–9). 44

72

[32]

Richard E. McCarron

an exegetical strategy that interprets all of history “in light of its fulfillment in Christ ... shadows of New Testament truth in Old Testament events.” 46 But to consider Jacob’s analysis solely in terms of the standard type-antitype relationship misses Jacob’s complex poetic contribution. Indeed, while typology as ordinarily understood is considered out-moded by modern biblical scholars given to the historical-critical methods, one should note that “typology incorporates the old into the new and thereby helps to constitute a tradition.” 47 It may be seen to serve as a means of discourse that enables a participation “in history’s eschatological truth.” 48 As is apparent from his homily on Abraham and his types, for Jacob there is an eschatological experience of history that can be expressed by means of the metaphor of “shadow.” Yet, something more is transpiring in the case of the binding of Isaac. The key is the function of the rćzâ, or mystical symbol. 49 The rćzâ is an active agent in the narrative of salvation history in a way that seems to interlink past, present, and future. It is not so much a “discombobulation of the text by time as the enhancement of a text by time” that allows a reading of greater scrutiny and awareness. 50 The mystical symbol is not a static image or thing. Rather, it is constantly acting in an almost personified way throughout the course of the narrative, in its configuration in Christ and in its epiphany in the homily. Jacob is faced with the same temporal conundrum that the audience of Jesus perceived in Jesus’ assertion that Abraham longed to see his day, saw it, and rejoiced. The audience of Jesus according to the Johannine text 46 J. Kee, “Typology and Tradition: Refiguring the Bible in Milton’s Paradise Lost,” Semeia 51 (1990): 155. 47 Kee, 156. For a summary of the negative view of typology, see R. E. Brown, “Hermeneutics,” in The New Jerome Biblical Commentary (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1990) 1156–7. 48 Kee, 156. 49 My interpretation of rćzâ in Jacob’s homily is far more dynamic and engaged in salvation history that that given by Boulos-Sony, 101–3. For him the rćzâ is “une image temporelle qui attendait que la réalité (qushto) le rende parfait et achevé” (103). According to Boulos-Sony, Christ eclipsed all razê by his coming. 50 R. Carroll, “Discombobulations of Time and the Diversities of Text: Notes on the Rezeptionsgeschichte of the Bible,” in R. Carroll (ed.), Text as Pretext: Essays in Honor of Robert Davidson (JSOT Supplement Series, 138; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992) 77.

An Epiphany of Mystical Symbols

[33]

[34]

[35]

73

exclaims, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” (Jn 8:57). Abraham, for Jacob, is intimately involved in the course of salvation history and did indeed see the day of Jesus because he was led to it, informed, galvanized, and instructed by the mystical symbol. The rćzâ inflamed his mind and shone forth in his actions. From Jacob’s christocentric point of view it is indeed an event of salvation history that Abraham’s wise following of the mystical symbol brings about. The rćzâ breaks linear time: what matters for Jacob is the story of salvation being wrought. Isaac himself at first is not under the sway of the symbol the way his father is, but gradually comes to the wise perception of the event. He did not run away for he knew that he was participating in the bringing to be of the mystic symbol that he himself wore like a neck chain. Far from a “foreshadowing” of Christ, Abraham actually sees Jesus’s saving actions played out before him in his own actions and is thus a major figure in the proclamation of the salvation of the world that is yet to come: the eschatological promise his actions hold. In terms of the present, the very same rćzâ is invoked by Jacob at the beginning of his homily to break forth once more in his retelling of the story. He describes the rćzâ’s function as that of epiphany. In the course of Jacob’s elucidations, there comes to be the same mystical symbol that acted in Abraham’s day as a prepresentation of the event of the cross where the rćzâ would be active again. It is important to pay close attention to the action of gesturing or of making signs (rmaz, nominal form remzâ) that is also in the range of words used to capture symbolic activity: tûpsâ, nîšâ, ʜurtâ, dmutâ, pel’ćtâ, ʜalmâ. In another of his homilies, Jacob speaks of Christ as working with gestures (remzê) or traces that change, destroy, and refashion, even restore a new creature. 51 In the moment of Jacob’s preaching, the mystical symbol is working once more, blazing or shining forth for the present listeners to see at work the traces of history that are indeed part of their tradition. They perceive once again the rćzâ’s brilliance and are led to a deeper love of Christ and of his passion. The rćzâ is almost always referred to by means of light or visual imagery. It blazes, shines, or burns. The visible quality is part of the mystical symbol by which an invisible reality is rendered 51

Cf. Alwan, 101–3

74

[36]

Richard E. McCarron

visible. 52 One sees it, looks out at it, is enticed or drawn by it. It gestures. Abraham depicts it, paints it. The mystical symbols are colorful. The pictorial languge used to describe the narrative scene and the work of the mystical symbol itself in such a way that the “presence of concrete spiritual reality” opens the way to the perception of God’s activity. 53 The narrative of the binding of Isaac manifests a reality with which the hearer can dwell once more. 54 Jacob himself asks, “Let the mystical symbol of the Son abide in the narrative.” 55 The audience is discerning and questioning; Jacob intends to let the epiphany of the mystical symbol in his preaching enlighten his demanding hearers. Jacob’s reading of the text might in fact be seen as a rather sophisticated reconstruction of the field of reality at work in the Genesis narrative through a process of gap-filling by means of the rćzâ. 56 The first gap that Jacob seeks to fill is the difficult question of why God would ask Abraham to sacrifice his son and why Abraham would respond so willingly. He imaginatively reconstructs 52 “Die Sichtbarkeit gehört zum Wesen des Symbols; aber sie erschöpft nicht ihr Wesen. Denn ebenso wesentlich ist das Wunderbare, daß in dieser Sichtbarkeit ein Unsichtbares sichtbar wird.” Beck, “Symbolum-Mysterium,” 28. 53 Verna Harrison, “Word as icon in Greek patristic theology,” Sobornost 10,1 (1988): 40. See also S. Griffith, “The Image of the Image Maker in the Poetry of St. Ephraem the Syrian,” Studia Patristica 25 (1993): 258–69, who demonstrates that Ephraem’s work better exemplifies the phenomenon of iconographic language. 54 Cf. Harrison, 48. She notes the tendency to dismiss patristic exegesis because it is often characterized as “typology” or “allegory” and suggests an “iconic” reading would be the way to bridge, judge, and rehabilitate patrisitic exegesis. For a developed argument for a “theoretic” hermeneutics (in the sense of theoria or “spiritual vision”) see J. Breck, The Power of the Word in the Worshipping Church (Crestwood: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1986) 49–92. 55 “npûsh mekêl razeh dabrâ men tashcîtâ” (p. 63, l. 1). 56 See M. Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987) 186–229. “The literary work consists of bits and fragments to be linked and pieced together in the process of reading: it establishes a system of gaps that must be filled in. This gapfilling ranges from simple linkage of elements, which the reader performs automatically, to intricate networks that are figured out consciously, laboriously, hesitantly, and with constant modifcations in light of additionally information disclosed in later stages of the reading.” (186).

An Epiphany of Mystical Symbols

[37]

75

a dialogue between God and Abraham and seeks to discern God’s motive: it is not a question of love, faithfulness or obedience on Abraham’s part, but it is done so that the mystical symbol might show forth. The state of mind of Abraham and Isaac is probed for clues when the text falls silent: what happened on the the three day journey? where was Sarah? what did Isaac think? why did Abraham not respond? what did the youths do? why did Isaac carry the wood? how did Abraham know where he was going? why did they not become sad or weep bitterly? why would Isaac call upon his father? why did Isaac not run? why did Abraham hold back the knife finally? whence the ram? For Jacob it is precisely in the gaps that he perceives the mystical symbol at work. While the narrative sets up system of gaps to “establish (and impress on the reader) a hierarchy of importance,” 57 Jacob constructs a world of drama by which he is able to manifest the event character of the rćzâ for his audience. For Jacob, rćzâ is absolutely linked to the the event of Christ’s passion, death, and resurrection. The Pasch, in turn, is the axis of Jacob’s reconstrual of all reality experienced. If the text is going to have the capacity to inform the present hearer, then it must be understood as disclosure of the Pasch. 58 This is possible because of an epiphany of rćzê. Jacob interprets within an intertextual frame whereby he finds present meaningfulness in particular narratives because they blaze with mystical symbols. Through homiletic reconstrual of the story he is able to make them shine forth once more for his hearers.

Sternberg, 192. Quite interestingly, such concerns are not far off from those of contemporary hermeneutics. For example, see H. Frei’s reading of P. Ricoeur in “The ‘Literal Reading’ of Biblical Narrative in the Christian Tradition: Does It Stretch or Will It Break?” in F. McConnell (ed.), The Bible and the Narrative Tradition (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986) 43–55. “One needs, finally and foremost, to have a text both atemporally distanced from its moorings in a cultural and authorial or existential past and yet also re-entering the temporal dimension at the point of the present, if it is going to have the capacity to inform an understanding that is itself essentially characterized as present, in a word, a hermeneutics of restoration” (53). Later in the same essay, Frei calls for urgent attention to midrash in the formulation of the task of Christian biblical interpretation. 57 58

76 [38]

Richard E. McCarron

Jacob’s mêmrâ on Genesis 22: 1–11 thus has a poetic function. 59 The point of the mêmrâ is not an empirical description nor an exposition on the original meaning or authorial intent. Rather, it operates from a point of view that “truth no longer means verification, but manifestation, i.e., letting what shows itself be.” 60 A new way of being, a proposed world of possibilities, is unfolded by the text by means of Jacob’s imaginative reconstrual of the story. At the outset of the mêmrâ, he moves beyond the received interpretations of the Genesis narrative: a test of Abraham’s faith by God or that God needed sacrifices. Rather, Jacob begs a closer scrutiny of the text, one that almost does require a literal reading of the text that seeks God’s actions in the mystical symbols. Such a reading enables one to discern in the shadows the traces of the murder of God’s Son. 61 People who investigate (baʚćrê) can see the mystical symbol at work. Investigation is not always negative, but can be done well as long as it respects the revelation of God. Thus, the world they perceive is not one of trial or child sacrifice, but “the way of the great murder of the Son” that alone brings life to the world. 62 Far from being diminished or passive, Abraham and Isaac directly participate in the revelation of this way by painting the blazing protrait of mystical symbols. It is precisely the mystical symbol that opens up this perception of the binding of Isaac and the ram caught in the tree of “how there would be salvation by the hands of our Lord” in the event of Christ’s Pasch. 63 For Jacob the Pasch is a central event in the economy of salvation, the mdabrćnûtâ d’alćhâ. Because of his conception of the centrality of the Pasch in God’s economy of salvation, Jacob can speak of rćzê hinting and gesturing. The activity of the mystical symbol is possible because God brings it to be or allows it. Jacob reads the Genesis 22 narrative in an eschatological frame: the figures and actions of Abraham and Isaac are anticipatory of the death of Christ and what 59 See P. Ricoeur, “Toward a Hermeneutics of the Idea of Revelation,” chap. in L. Mudge (ed.), Essays on Biblical Hermeneutics, (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981) 98–110. 60 Ricoeur, 102. J áî ‡Íâûå (p. 63, l. 6). 61 …ûÁƒ ¾Á˜ ¾ĆàÓø †… 62 On the significance of the metaphor of the way in Jacob’s conception of soteriology, see F. Rilliet, “La métaphore du chemin dans la sotériologie de Jacques de Saroug,” Studia Patristica 25 (1993): 324–31. K 63 û⠋ÊؽÁ ¾æø˜Íñ †…J ¿†…J çÝØ~ (p. 62, l. 4).

An Epiphany of Mystical Symbols

[39]

77

that death brings about. For Jacob, the Pasch of Christ is the key moment, one which is integral to the whole scope of God’s providence. In mêmrâ 109, Jacob perceives the event of the sacrifice of Isaac as a prophetic situation whose ambiguity calls for explication. The historical event of the Pasch then takes on a hermeneutical function: one comes to understand and to know what has transpired in salvation history in light of the Pasch. 64 When Jacob takes up the biblical text, he speaks of what God is doing and signifiying from the point of view of the salvific death and resurrection of Jesus. Jacob’s interpetation itself takes on the narrative structure of the original, following the text verse by verse. For Jacob, it becomes an open frame that he imaginatively reconfigures through dramatic dialogue and explication of the mystical symbol’s agency in the event. He transforms the events of the narrative in way that its meaning is manifested to his present audience. He reads from the future back rather than from the past forward. He certainly respects the particular character of the narrative that he explicates: he preserves its language, its master images, and its plot. However, his telling of the story has as its goal the present appropriation of the text, which for him can only make sense in the literally blazing light of the Pasch manifested by rćzê. Such would be the “spiritual" sense of the passage, but it is only through the literal level that it can be made clear.

CONCLUSION [40]

The mêmrâ on Abraham and his types exemplifies Jacob of Sarug’s poetic artistry and dynamic understanding of the task of biblical interpretation. To dismiss Jacob’s exegesis as merely typological fails to appreciate a far more dynamic strategy of narrative reconfiguration in light of the Pasch. By calling forth attention to the epiphany of mystical symbols that allow an almost ecstatic communion of past, present, and future, Jacob reveals Abraham and Isaac’s important role of depicting the traces of God’s decisive action in Jesus in the whole course of salvation history. Abraham’s binding and near sacrifice of Isaac are not 64 See Betty Rojtman, “Le récit comme interprétation (à partir de Gen. 22 et du Midrach Rabba),” Revue de théologie et de philosophie 122 (1990): 162, on history’s hermeneutical function.

78

Richard E. McCarron

relegated to a less-than-true type of the fulfilment to come in the Pasch, but is perceived themselves as a blazing forth of the salvific action of God in an event of eschatological truth. By means of the mêmrâ genre, Jacob weaves exegetical comment, imaginative gapfilling, and dramatic dialogue in order to unfold an event. Each moment he calls attention to the agency of rćzê as the means of unlocking the meaning of the text of Genesis 22:1–11.

PROJECTS AND CONFERENCE REPORTS Short Report on the Symposium: “Jacob of Edessa (c. 640–708) and the Syriac Culture of His Day” Leiden University, 4–5 April 1997 KONRAD JENNER, UNIVERSITY OF LEIDEN LUCAS VAN ROMPAY, UNIVERSITY OF LEIDEN

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

It was the aim of this Symposium to bring together students and scholars doing research on Jacob of Edessa. This learned monk and bishop belonged to the first generation of Syrian Christians who grew up under Islamic rule and as such he made a creative and personal contribution to many fields of Syriac tradition. Various new research projects concerning Jacob have recently been started and the organizers (K.D. Jenner & L. Van Rompay), therefore, wanted to offer some scholars an opportunity to present their work, inviting others to make a more general contribution or to discuss the present state of the research on Jacob’s works. Not all scholars working in the field could be invited, nor could all fields of Jacob’s activity be covered. Nevertheless, the Symposium gave a good idea of the author’s versatile spirit as well as of present-day research. Jacob’s version of the Books of Samuel was discussed in two papers, which complemented each other: Richard J. Saley (Harvard University) studied the underlying textual traditions (Peshitta, SyroHexapla, Greek texts of predominantly Lucianic character, other), whereas Alison Salvesen (Oxford) focused on Jacob’s purpose and methods, taking into account not only Jacob’s biblical version, but also data taken from his exegetical work. Jan J. van Ginkel (Groningen University) gave a survey of Jacob’s existing Letters, of which he is preparing an edition (for a number of letters this will be the first edition to appear). He also read, as an example, one unpublished letter to John of Litharba. In his discussion of the themes and the literary genre of the letters, he more than once referred to the “network of scholars” (Gelehrtenkreis) to which, besides Jacob and John of Litharb, also George of the Arabs and Athanasius of Balad belonged.

79

80 [6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

Projects and Conference Reports

Some of the Letters were also discussed in two papers concerned with Jacob’s juridical writings. Herman Teule (Catholic University of Nijmegen) first gave a general survey of Jacob’s writings in this field, mainly his Canons (which quite often are known only in later, reworked versions) and some Letters (of which compilations already started being made in the eighth century). He then turned to the themes discussed in these writings and gave special attention to what Jacob had to say about Islam, which apparently in his day was not yet seen as a direct threat to Christianity. Konrad Jenner (Leiden University) made some suggestions for putting Jacob’s juridical writings in their larger historical and cultural context and drew attention to the question to what extent the canons were related to the authority of the Bible. In the field of Jacob’s grammatical work, R. Talmon (University of Haifa) made an attempt at a re-evaluation of Jacob’s achievements as a grammarian. Although research is seriously hampered by our very imperfect knowledge of the turrâs mamllâ nahrâyâ, some of Jacob’s innovations in his description of the language could be singled out for discussion, especially in the sphere of phonetics and morphology. Moreover, some interesting suggestions were made concerning possible connections between Jacob—who was a master in the three Syrian sciences which left their traces in early Arabic grammar, namely grammar, logic and massora—and the Arab grammarians prior to Sîbawayh (c. AD 800), among whom Sîbawayh’s teacher, Halîl b. Ahmad, would deserve special attention. In his turn, Michel Limpens (Catholic University of Nijmegen), discussing the vowels of Syriac and the vowels of Arabic, pushed forward the question of the connections between Jacob and early Arabic grammatical tradition. Dirk Kruisheer (Leiden University), who is studying Jacob’s exegetical work, disentangled the various levels of exegesis and the related terminology in Jacob’s work: typological, spiritual, and factual interpretation. He also ventured some ideas about the Sitz im Leben of Jacob’s exegesis. Jacob’s Chronicle was first discussed in a thorough paper by Witold Witakowski (University of Uppsala), with due attention paid to the problems of its transmission (and influence on later historiographers), the question of its sources, and its place in the Greek and Syriac historiographical tradition. One section of the Chronicle, dealing with the history of Edessa when it was an

Projects and Conference Reports

[10]

[11]

[12]

81

independent kingdom, was the topic of L. Van Rompay’s paper (Leiden University), which concluded the Symposium. ——————— The papers read at this Symposium (together with some additional papers on Jacob) will be published soon. As a tool for further research, Dirk Kruisheer and Lucas Van Rompay have compiled “A Bibliographical Clavis to the Works of Jacob of Edessa,” which was submitted to the participants of the Symposium and which, in a slightly expanded version, is published in the present issue of Hugoye. Richard J. Saley’s research has now reached its final form and will be published, in the spring of 1998, as: The Samuel Manuscript of Jacob of Edessa. A Study in Its Underlying Textual Traditions (Monographs of the Peshitta Institute Leiden). In the same series, Alison Salvesen is soon due to publish the Syriac text, with an annotated English translation, of Jacob’s Syriac text of 1 and 2 Samuel. On Jacob’s exegetical writings (both the Scholia and the Commentaries), work by Dirk Kruisheer and Edward G. Mathews, Jr. is well underway. See most recently: D. Kruisheer, “Reconstructing Jacob of Edessa’s Scholia,” in J. Frishman & L. Van Rompay (eds.), The Book of Genesis in Jewish and Oriental Christian Interpretation. A Collection of Essays (Traditio Exegetica Graeca 5; Louvain, 1997) 187–96; E.G. Mathews, Jr., “The Armenian Commentary on Genesis Attributed to Ephrem the Syrian,” in the same volume, 143–61 (where sections of the Armenian Commentary are identified as stemming from Jacob’s Scholia).

Short Report on the Symposium: “East Syrian Christians in the Ottoman Empire (c. 1600–1800)” Leiden University, 17–18 October 1997 HELEEN L. MURRE-VAN DEN BERG, UNIVERSITY OF LEIDEN

[1]

[2]

[3]

The history, language, and literature of the East Syrian Christians in the Ottoman Empire constituted the subject of this Symposium. Since 1996 a research project has been running in Leiden, in which Alessandro Mengozzi and Heleen L. Murre-van den Berg are cooperating in the study of the language and literature of the East Syrian Christians in northern Iraq between 1600 and 1800. Special attention is being paid to Neo-Aramaic poetry, which makes its first appearance in this period. As this period of East Syrian history is relatively unknown, it was deemed important to bring together various scholars whose research touches on the field of study under discussion. Four interrelated themes were dealt with at the symposium: (i) Neo Aramaic literature and language; (ii) Classical Syriac literature in the 17th and 18th centuries; (iii) the transmission and reception of earlier Classical Syriac literature; (iv) broader historical context, including the growing influence of Roman Catholicism in the region. Papers were delivered by A. Mengozzi (Leiden University): “Israel Alqoshaya and Yausip Tilkepnaya at the Beginning of Sureth Literature,” F.A. Pennacchietti (Università di Torino): “Neo-Aramaic and Persian Glosses in the Syriac Translation of the Pseudo-Callisthenes and the Literary Traditions around the School of Alqosh,” G. Goldenberg (Hebrew University, Jerusalem): “Early Neo-Aramaic and Present-day Dialectal Diversity,” J.F. Coakley (Harvard University, Cambridge MA): “The East Syrian Patriarchate in the 17th Century According to Mar Elia of Alqosh,” G.J. Reinink (Groningen University): “A Chaldean taksâ d-kahnê in an EastSyrian Ms. from the University Library of Groningen,” H. Teule (Catholic University, Nijmegen): “The Ascetic Florilegium in Ms. Charfeh 86 and its Connections with East-Syriac Ascetic/Monastic Literature,” C.A. Ciancaglini (La Sapienza, Rome): “La rédaction syriaque du Roman d’Alexandre: les éléments persans entre histoire et philologie,” B. Poizat (Université Claude Bernard, Lyon 1): “Les trésors perdus de l’antique Ninive,” B. Heyberger (Strasbourg, Université des Sciences Humaines): “Pour une étude de l’échange 82

Projects and Conference Reports

[4]

83

culturel entre chrétiens orientaux et catholicisme latin: problèmes et méthodes,” A.H. de Groot (Leiden University): “Ottoman Administration and its Christian Subjects: Changes in the Millet System under Influence of Western Missions,” L. Van Rompay (Leiden University): “Alqosh as a Channel of Transmission of Syriac Literary Culture,” and H.L. Murre-van den Berg (Leiden University): “The Church of the East in the 17th and 18th Centuries: Bet Israel Alqoshaya and the Periodization of History.” For more information, please contact one of the organizers: L. Van Rompay, A. Mengozzi, or H.L. Murre-van den Berg.

Short Report on the Symposium: “Conference on the Influence of Saint Ephraim the Syrian” School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, 17–18 December, 1997 ANDREW PALMER, UNIVERSITY OF LONDON

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

This conference was focused on the task of measuring the influence of St Ephraim, not only on his fellow-Syrians and their neighbours, the Armenians, the Georgians, the Greeks, and, through these last, the other Eastern Orthodox, including the Christian Arabs, but also on Western Europe and on the world today. The twenty-two speakers came from eight different countries in three different continents. A special effort was made to include three speakers from Kerala, one from Syria, one from the Lebanon and one from Romania. The major funding for this came from the Fellowship of St Alban and St Sergius, the School of Oriental and African Studies, the Charles Wallace India Trust and the Worshipful Company of Mercers. The sessions were chaired by distinguished scholars in the various fields who contributed greatly to the long discussions in the new Brunei Gallery Lecture Theatre. Attendance was good (around seventy people) and socially varied. The papers and the discussions held the attention of participants from various backgrounds, some academic, some religious, as was evident from the large number of oral and written compliments received by the organiser. On each of the two days there was a musical event. On the first day this took the shape of a varied recital of liturgical music in the tradition of St Ephraim and Romanos the Melode, in which the Syrian Orthodox, the Assyrian Church of the East, the Maronites, the Antiochian, Greek and Russian Orthodox, the Armenian Apostolic, the Malankara Orthodox and the Ethiopian Orthodox took part. On the second day there was a recreation with harp accompaniment by Andrea Schmidt of Madrasha 15 on the Nativity by St Ephraim in Andrew Palmer’s English translation. The final lecture was by Sidney Griffith, Professor at the Institute of Oriental Christian Research in the Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C. He drew together all the threads of the conference and added much of his own, including the important discovery that the ascetical sermon attributed to St 84

Projects and Conference Reports

[6]

[7]

85

Ephraim, which was composed in Greek and translated into nearly all the languages of medieval Christianity, is built around a solid skeleton of material translated from the original Syriac of St Ephraim. Detailed studies included papers on the following subjects by the scholars whose names and workplaces appear in brackets after their titles : Syriac Literature. Ephraim’s ideas on singleness (T. Kunammakkal, Kottayam); The tears of the sinful woman: Ephraim’s theology of redemption (H. Hunt, Leeds); Did Ephraim sing for everyone, or did he write for an intellectual elite? (A. Palmer, London); Ephraim in the eyes of later Syriac tradition (S. Brock, Oxford); Ephraim and Jacob of Serugh (M. Papoutsakis, Oxford); Ephraim and Philoxenos of Mabbugh (M. Mar Severios, Kottayam). Eastern Christianity. Ephraim’s influence in Egypt and Ethiopia (H.-G. Brakmann, Bonn — paper sent); Ephraim’s influence in Armenia and Georgia (B. Outtier, Paris); Ephraim in Christian Palestinian manuscripts (A. Desreumaux, Paris—paper sent); The Arabic Ephraim (S. Khalil Samir, Beirut); Ephraim’s influence on the Indian Christians of St Thomas (M. P. George, Kottayam); Ephraim’s influence on the Greeks (D. Taylor, Birmingham); The Greek Ephraim and the Metre of Mar Afrem (E. Lash, Manchester); Ephraim’s thought and imagery as an inspiration to Byzantine artists (Z. Gavrilovic, Birmingham); Ephraim’s influence on Orthodox theology (D. Oancea, Sibiu). Western and Modern. Merovingian readers of Ephraim (D. Ganz, London); Ephraim in seventh-century Canterbury (J. Stevenson, Warwick); Some parallels between Ephraim and Hildegard of Bingen (M. Schmidt, Eichstaett—paper sent); John Wesley and Ephraim (G. Wakefield, Lichfield); Ephraim and the Oxford Movement (G. Rowell, Basingstoke); The position of women in the church: what did Ephraim change? (F. Boulos, Aleppo); Ephraim and the theology of the environment (R. Murray, London). Papers from this conference will be published in the upcoming issues of Hugoye.

Art and Material Culture of the Christian Syriac Tradition: Some Current Projects LUCAS VAN ROMPAY, UNIVERSITY OF LEIDEN

[1]

Within the same communities which produced and transmitted Syriac literary works, artists and craftsmen were active in creating material culture and art. The remains of their efforts deserve to be studied both in their own right and as sources—complementary to the literary texts—for our knowledge of the life and ideas of Syrian Christians. Two recent projects, initiated at the University of Leiden (The Netherlands) and carried out in close cooperation with scholars and specialists from Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, and various European countries, include documentation and conservation of art connected with the Syriac tradition. Syrian-Netherlands Cooperation for the Study of Art in Syria (SYNCAS)

[2]

[3]

[4]

As of May 1996, a team of art historians and restorers, under the aegis of the Universities of Damascus and Leiden, has been involved in the documentation and conservation of Syrian art of Late Antiquity as well as of the Christian and Islamic traditions. At workshops held at the University of Damascus on 16–19 September 1996 and at the University of Leiden on 3–5 July 1997, ideas were exchanged and concrete plans discussed. Among the fields selected is that of Christian wall-paintings. In the area between Damascus and Homs are preserved some very interesting collections of paintings stemming either from the Syrian-Orthodox or the Greek-Orthodox tradition. Among them are the well-known wall-paintings of the Monastery of Musa al-Habashi near Nabk, which was a Syrian-Orthodox monastery until the 19th century. Many paintings have Greek and Syriac inscriptions. For our September 1997 campaign, we have chosen to work in the Chapel of Saint Elijah at Ma’arrat-Saydnaya (15 km to the north of Damascus), at just a few kilometres from the newly built SyrianOrthodox Monastery of Mor Efrem. A team of Syrian, Dutch, and Egyptian restorers has cleaned the existing wall-paintings which represent: Saint Nicholas, the Virgin Mary and Child, Three Saints (one of them being Saint Athanasius, the second probably Andreas of Crete, the third, dressed as a deacon, still unidentified). In the 86

Projects and Conference Reports

[5]

[6]

87

course of the work, new parts of paintings came to light. Among them are the remnants of the Ascension of Elijah as well as fragmentary depictions of some other saints, which still need some further study. These paintings in Byzantine style, which probably belong to the Greek-Orthodox tradition (and bear only Greek, no Syriac inscriptions), are the work of different hands. They may be dated to the 13th–14th centuries. The work in this chapel will hopefully continue in May 1998. A publication with photographs is in preparation. A photograph of the Virgin and Child, after treatment by our team, is included as Fig. 1. While much work still remains to be done in the documentation and conservation of Syrian wall-paintings, other extremely rich fields are those of manuscript illuminations and of mosaics. These fields lead us to a period antedating that of the wall-paintings preserved. Like the wall-paintings, the manuscript illuminations and mosaics show us many aspects of the cultural and artistic life of Christianity in this region, with the interaction of Greek and local Syriac traditions. Much work has already been done in these fields in recent years, but new findings and materials that have barely been noticed so far still await full documentation and study. Not only mosaics, but other pieces of church architecture and furniture, which have come to light in recent or older excavations, as well deserve further study. Egyptian-Netherlands Cooperation for Coptic Art Preservation (ENCCAP)

[7]

[8]

This project deals with Egyptian art and is carried out in various Coptic monasteries, in close cooperation with the monks. For our present purpose, the work going on in the “Monastery of the Syrians" (Dayr al-Suryan) in the Wadi al-Natrun, one of the centres of Medieval Syriac culture, deserves to be singled out. Whereas this monastery is already widely known for its unparalleled manuscript treasures, inscriptions and wall-paintings, new discoveries connected with the period when it was inhabited by SyrianOrthodox monks are presently being made. In three recent campaigns (September-October 1995, September-October 1996, and October-November 1997) Karel Innemée (Leiden University) and Ewa Parandowska (National Museum Warsaw, Poland) have uncovered previously unknown

88

[9]

[10]

Projects and Conference Reports

wall-paintings and Syriac texts on the walls of the Church of the Holy Virgin. Among the new wall-paintings there is one representing the Three Patriarchs and another very beautiful one with the Virgin breast-feeding the Jesus Child (Fig. 2). The latter may be datable to the seventh century and may even antedate, therefore, the Syrian presence in the Monastery. Among the Syriac texts found on the walls (most of them written from top to bottom) some are quite long and resemble colophons of manuscripts, giving names and dates. As such, these texts become historical witnesses, providing information on the history of the Monastery and its architecture as well as on its links with the Syrian motherland. The text reproduced in Fig. 3 is dated to the year “three hundred and twenty and [...] of the Arabs,” which is between AD 932 and 940. Another text, of a strikingly ornamental character, is written from top to bottom on a vertical line and is reflected, as in a mirror, on the right side of the same line (Fig. 4). This remarkable piece still needs to be examined in more detail. Whereas publications on the discoveries of 1995 and 1996 are already forthcoming, the newly discovered paintings and texts still await further study. The next campaign is planned for January 1998. Some Bibliographical References P. van Moorsel & K. Innemée, “Brève histoire de la ‘Mission des peintures coptes’,” in Les Coptes. Vingt siècles de civilisation chrétienne en Égypte (Dossiers d’Archéologie 26; sept. 97) 68–75 (73–75 on Dayr al-Suryan). K. Innemée, “New Discoveries of Wall-Paintings in Dair alSuryan,” Mitteilungen zur christlichen Archäologie, Vienna (forthcoming). K.D. Jenner & L. Van Rompay, “New Syriac Texts on the Walls of the al-’Adra Church of Dair al-Suryan. First Notes,” Mitteilungen zur christlichen Archäologie, Vienna (forthcoming). Practical Information on the Projects The projects SYNCAS and ENCCAP are financed and supported by the University of Leiden, the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Foundation for Christian Art and Culture in the Middle East (Alphen a.d. Rijn), and the Institute for Cultural Heritage (Amsterdam). The counterparts are: The University of Damascus and the Syrian Directorate-General of Antiquities and

Projects and Conference Reports

89

Museums (for SYNCAS); The Coptic-Orthodox Church (for ENCCAP). The Dutch staff consists of: Dr. Mat Immerzeel (SYNCAS and ENCCAP), Dr. Karel Innemée (SYNCAS and ENCCAP), Luitgard Mols (SYNCAS and ENCCAP), Kalli Tsitsiloni (SYNCAS), Prof. Lucas Van Rompay (SYNCAS). The Syrian programme director is Prof. Elias Zayat (University of Damascus). Address: Department of Near Eastern Studies Art Historical Projects (SYNCAS & ENCCAP) P.O. Box 9515 NL – 2300 RA Leiden (The Netherlands) E-mail: [email protected]

90 [11]

Projects and Conference Reports

Illustrations

Fig. 1. Ma‘arrat-Saydnaya (Syria), Chapel of Saint Elijah. Wall-painting: Virgin Mary and Child (Photo: Mat Immerzeel).

Projects and Conference Reports

Fig. 2. Dayr al-Suryan (Egypt), Church of the Holy Virgin. Wall-painting: Virgin breast-feeding the Jesus Child (Photo: Karel Innemée).

91

92

Projects and Conference Reports

Fig. 3. Dayr al-Suryan (Egypt), Church of the Holy Virgin. Syriac text on the wall bearing a date between AD 932 and 940 (Photo: Karel Innemée).

Projects and Conference Reports

Fig. 4. Dayr al-Suryan (Egypt), Church of the Holy Virgin. Ornamental Syriac text on the wall (Photo: Karel Innemée).

93

PUBLICATIONS AND BOOK REVIEWS Some Recent Books on Syriac Topics (1996–1997) SEBASTIAN BROCK, UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD, ORIENTAL INSTITUTE

[1]

1996 Le sacrement de l’initiation: origines et perspectives. Patrimoine Syriaque, Actes du Colloque III. Antelias: Centre d'études et de recherches pastorales, 1996. Azar, E. Odes de Salomon. Présentation et traduction. Paris: Cerf, 1996. Bat Ye’or. The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam: from Jihad to Dhimmitude, 7th to 20th Century. London: Associated Universities Press, 1996. Bettiolo, P. Evagrio Pontico. Per conoscere lui. Magnano: Edizioni Qiqayon, 1996. Bilge, Y. Süryaniler: Anadolu’nun solan rengi. Istanbul, 19962. Brock, S.P. Syriac Studies: a classified bibliography (1960–1990). Kaslik: Parole de l’Orient, 1996. Chaillot, C. The Malankara Orthodox Church. Visit to the Oriental Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church of India. Geneva: Inter-Orthodox Dialogue, 1996. Coakley, J.F., and Parry, K., eds. The Church of the East: Life and Thought = Bulletin of the John Rylands Library Manchester 78:3 (1996). Debie, M., Coutourier, G., and Matura, T., tr. Theodore de Mopsueste. Homelies catechetiques. Paris: Migne, 1996. Ebied, R.Y., Van Roey, A., and Wickham, L.R. Petri Callinicensis Patriarchae Antiocheni Tractatus contra Damianum. II, Liber Tertii capita I–XIX. Corpus Christianorum, Series Graeca, 32; 1996. England, J.C. The Hidden History of Christianity in Asia: the Churches of the East before 1500 (Delhi/Hong Kong: ISPCK/CCA, 1996). Feghali, P. Les origines du monde et de l’homme dans l’oeuvre de saint Ephrem. Paris: Cariscript, 1996. Fiey, J.-M. Les syriaques... aux enfants. Antelias, 1996. Gregorios, Mar, Saliba Shamoun. The General Chronicle of Michael the Syrian Patriarch of Antioch, translated into Arabic, I–III. Damascus, Sidawi, 1996. Guillaumont, A. Etudes sur la spiritualité de l'Orient chretien. Spiritualité orientale, 66. Abbaye de Bellefontaine, 1996. Heinz, A. Die Heilige Messe nach dem Ritus der Syrisch-Maronitischen Kirche. Sophia, 28. Trier, 1996. Hindo, B., and Saleh, C. Chants pour la Nativité, de saint Ephrem le Syrien. Paris: L’Harmattan, 1996.

95

96

Publications and Book Reviews

Iskander, Nuri (ed. Mar Gregorios Yohanna Ibrahim). Beth Gazo: Music of the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch. Damascus: Sidawi, 1996. Joosten, J. The Syriac Language of the Peshitta and Old Syriac Versions of Matthew. Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics, 22. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Juckel, A. Der Ktaba d-Durrasha (ktaba d-ma’wata) des Elija von Anbar (Memre I–III). CSCO, 559–60 = Scr. Syri 226–7; 1996. Juhl, D. Die Askese im Liber Graduum und bei Afrahat: eine vergleichende Studie zur frühsyrischen Frommigkeit. Orientalia Biblica et Christiana, 9; 1996. Kakkanatt, A. Christological Catechesis of the Liturgy. A Study of the Great Feasts of our Lord in the Malankara Church. Rome: Mar Thoma Yogam, 1996. Kiraz, G.A. Comparative Edition of the Syriac Gospels aligning the Sinaiticus, Curetonianus, Peshitta and Harklean Versions, I–IV. New Testament Tools and Studies 21. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Kiraz, G.A., ed. Syr-COM 96. Proceedings of the Second International Forum on Syriac Computing. Syriac Computing Institute, 1996. McDonnell, K. The Baptism of Jesus in the Jordan. The Trinitarian and Cosmic Order of Salvation. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1996. [Much on Syriac sources.] Martin, M., ed. Zur Lage der Christen in der Sudostturkei, in Syrien und dem Irak... Dokumentation einer Reise. München: Ökumenereferat der Evangelisch Lutherischen Kirche in Bayern, 1996. Müller-Kessler, C., and Sokoloff, M. A Corpus of Christian Palestinian Aramaic. III, The Forty Martyrs of the Sinai Desert, Eulogios the StoneCutter, and Anastasia. Groningen: Styx, 1996. Orsatti, P. Il fondo Borgia della Biblioteca Vaticana e gli studi orientali a Roma tra sette e ottocento. Studi e Testi, 376; 1996. Valavanolickal, K.A. The Use of the Gospel Parables in the Writings of Aphrahat and Ephrem. Studies in the Religion and History of Early Christianity, 2. Frankfurt a/m: P.Lang, 1996. Witakowski, W. Pseudo-Dionysius of Tel-Mahre. Chronicle, Part III. Translated Texts for Historians. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1996. Yacoub, J. Babylone chrétienne. Géopolitique de l’Eglise de Mesopotamie. Paris, 1996.

[2]

1997 Madedono. Prozessionen und Segnungen zu Festen des Kirchenjahres und zu besonderen Anlassen nach Ritus der Syro-Antiochenischen Kirche (und der Malankarischen Kirche). Paderborn, 1997.

Publications and Book Reviews

97

Die Sakramente der Heiligen Taufe und der Eheschliessung, das Sakramentale Begräbnis der Toten nach der Ordnung der Syrisch-Orthodoxen Kirche von Antiochien. Bar Hebraeus Verlag, 1997 [Syriac-German texts]. Berhanu, D. Das Mashafa des Mar Yeshaq aus Ninive. Einleitung, Edition und Übersetzung mit Kommentar. Hamburg, 1997. ISBN 3-86064-556-0. Bombeck, S. Das althebräische Verbalsystem aus aramäischer Sicht. Masoretischer Text, Targume und Peschitta. Frankfurt a/M: P.Lang, 1997. Borbone, P.G., and Jenner, K.D. A Concordance to the Old Testament in Syriac. I, the Pentateuch. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Briquel-Chatonnet, F. Manuscrits syriaques de la Bibliothèque Nationale de France (nos 356–435). Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale, 1997. Brock, S.P. The Wisdom of Saint Isaac the Syrian. Fairacres Publications, 128. Oxford, 1997. Cicek, J., ed. Mnorath Kudshe (Lamp of the Sanctuary) by Mor Gregorios Yohanna bar ‘Ebroyo. St. Ephrem Monastery, Holland, 1997. Drijvers, H.J.W., and J.W. The Finding of the True Cross. The Judas Kyriakos Legend in Syriac. CSCO 565 = Subs. 93; 1997. Fox, S.E. The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Jilu. Semitica Viva, 16; 1997. Frishman, J., and van Rompay, L., eds. The Book of Genesis in Jewish and Oriental Christian Interpretation. Traditio Exegetica Graeca, 5. Leuven: Peeters, 1997. Heinz, A. Die Maronitsche Messe: Qurbono. Trier: Paulinus, 1997. Hunt, L.A. The Mingana and Related Collections. A Survey of Illustrated Eastern Christian Manuscripts in the Selly Oak Colleges Birmingham. Bermingham, 1997. Kollamparampil, T. Jacob of Serugh: Select Festal Homilies. Rome: CIIS/Bangalore: Dharmaram Publications, 1997. [English translations.] Luther, A. Die syrische Chronik des Josua Stylites. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997. Merten, K. Die syrisch-orthodoxen Christen in der Turkei und in Deutschland. Studien zur Orientalischen Kirchengeschichte, 3. Hamburg, 1997. Muller-Kessler, C., and Sokoloff, M. A Corpus of Christian Palestinian Aramaic. I, The CPA Old Testament and Apocrypha from the Early Period. Groningen: Styx, 1997. Muraoka, T. Classical Syriac: a Basic Grammar. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1997. Nuro, A. Tawldotho, or Syriac Neologisms. Principles, Criteria and Examples. Stockholm, 1997. Pathikulangara, V. The Crown of the Year, I–II. Bangalore, 1997. [English translation of propers for East Syrian Qurbana for Sundays and Feasts.] Rodrigues Pereira, A.S. Studies in Aramaic Poetry (c. 100 BCE – c. 600 CE). Selected Jewish, Christian and Samaritan Poems. Studia Semitica

98

Publications and Book Reviews

Neerlandica, 34. Assen, 1997. [Includes Ephrem, C.Nis 35–42, Fid. 81–5.] Sanders, J.C.J. Assyro-Chaldese Christenen in oost-Turkei en Iran. Hun laatste vaderland opnieuw in kaart gebracht. Hernen: Brediusstichting, 1997 [with 4 detailed maps]. Ter Haar Romeny, R.B. A Syrian in Greek Dress: the use of Greek, Hebrew and Syriac Biblical texts in Eusebius of Emesa’s Commentary on Genesis. Traditio Exegetica Graeca, 6. Leuven: Peeters, 1997. Tovey, P. Encountering Syrian Monasticism. Mar Koorilose Series, 1. Kunnamkulam, 1997.

Note. Syriac Studies: a classified bibliography (1991–1995) is to appear in the next number of Parole de l’Orient. A new journal, devoted to the theology of the Eastern Churches (especially those of India) has recently appeared, entitled Ephrem’s Theological Journal (P.B. No. 26, 485001 Satna, M.P., India).

Publications and Book Reviews

99

The Mardin Syrian Orthodox Press, Aleppo: A Review ANDREW PALMER, UNIVERSITY OF LONDON

[1]

[2]

The Syrian Orthodox community in Aleppo has been strengthened, since the late nineteenth century, by large groups migrating from elsewhere to the city. One such group came, in 1924, from Urfa [Syr. ťſŤƘĿĭĥ], the former ar-Ruha, Urhoy [Syr. IJĬĿĭĥ], or Edessa, which is now Sanliurfa, in north-western Mesopotamia (included since 1919 within the boundaries of Turkey). The members of this group are still known as ‘Urfali.’ Two areas on the far side of the railway line in the north-western part of the city are called after these twentieth-century immigrants: Hayy as-Suryan al-Qadimah [Ar. ƨŻƾǬdzơ ǹƢȇǂLjdzơ ȆƷ] and Hayy as-Suryan al-Jadidah [Ar. ƧƾȇƾŪơ ǹƢȇǂLjdzơ ȆƷ]. The church in the elder of the two quarters is dedicated to St. George, as was one of the two churches which the community abandoned in Urfa; it contains a recent relief sculpture of King Abgar of Edessa [Syr.IJĬĿĭĥĪ ƢŬŨĥ] receiving the letter and the miraculous self-portrait sent to him by Jesus. Another group of Syrians, which worships in the Cathedral Church of St. Ephraim, in Suleimaniye, Aleppo, traces its origins to the province of Mardin in north-eastern Mesopotamia, an area where there are still some Syrian Orthodox villages, in spite of the fact that it is presently a part of Turkey. Aleppo is a very clannish city and these two groups of Syrian Orthodox tend to emphasise their different origins. Each of the two defines its ‘mentality’ in contrast with that of the other. There is also a difference of language: the Urfali know Armenian and Turkish, or rather, a mixture between the two; they do not know Turoyo (an Aramaic dialect spoken by those who come from Qamishly and, more remotely, from Tur ‘Abdin in the province of Mardin). There is a corresponding difference in the musical and liturgical traditions of the two main churches (a third, dedicated to the Mother of God, has recently been added in the New Syrian Quarter). The Metropolitan Bishop, whose father was from Yardo, near Midyat, and whose mother was from Diyarbakir, both a long way from Urfa, fosters the distinct identities of both groups in a spirit of brotherly unity. Some confusion exists as to whether the Syrian Orthodox publishing house, which is near the Cathedral, is called Dar al-Raha [Ar. Ƣǿǂdzơ ǁơƽ] or Dar Mardin [ Ar. ǺȇƽǁƢǷ ǁơƽ], after Urfa or after Mardin.

100

[3]

Publications and Book Reviews

Before 1995 it was called Dar al-Raha; in 1995 the two names existed side by side; but now Dar Mardin is the official name. It is rumoured that Dar al-Raha was felt to be an awkward name, politically. This is perhaps the only Christian publishing house in the Arab Republic of Syria, though many other Christian books are published in that country. The list of Dar Mardin includes, at the latest count (May 1997), 71 or 72 titles dated between 1980 and 1997, a period which begins in the second year of the reign of the present Metropolitan Bishop, Mar Gregorios Yohanna Ibrahim (abbreviated in what follows to GYI). Indeed, sixteen of these books (and at least two others not published by Dar Mardin) are the product of his own labours; and he has edited or written introductions, some of them important contributions in their own right, for many of the rest. This man is a tireless activist and an efficient manager. One might think, seeing the evidence of his literary efforts, that he takes refuge in his study from the world; but in actual fact he is a busy administrator, an active pastor and an inspirational preacher. He is closely involved with the world-wide ecumenical movement which has gained momentum over the last few years. He is also one of the moving spirits of local ecumenism; Aleppo may be unique, in that its Christian leaders have a scheduled monthly meeting to discuss ecumenical initiatives at every level. I have heard criticism of GYI for his “fanatical” attachment to the traditions of his own community; but he understands, perhaps better than his critics, the principle that a distinct consciousness of the way in which one is different from another is an essential precondition of mutual respect. His first series of publications was called ‘Studia Syriaca’ [Syr. ò ; Ar. ƨȈǻƢȇǂLJ ƩƢLJơǁƽ], in retrospect ‘Studia Syriaca I’ (A1), ťƀſǓŴƏ ťƀūĭĬ and contained 21 volumes dated between 1980 and 1986. To these have been added three unnumbered volumes (A2) all published in 1994. ‘Studia Syriaca II’ (A3) began with three volumes published in 1997. The second series (1987–1996) is entitled ‘Syriac Patrimony’ (B) and consists of 16 volumes. There is a concurrent third series (1991–1995), entitled ‘Biblical Studies’ (C), which consists of six volumes. GYI’s own books began by being listed partly under ‘Syriac Studies’ and partly under ‘Other Books’, but they are now listed as a separate category (D): 16 books. GYI has found time to write imaginatively and playfully for the younger members of his flock. Half of his total output falls into

Publications and Book Reviews

101

this category. In the category ‘Other Books’ (E) there are nine publications. I shall list the titles of all these publications, translated into English, describe the books and, in some cases, make a brief appraisal of their content. My intention is to make known to scholars and other readers outside Syria the existence of these books, some of which they may find useful. Many of the books are translations into Arabic of books more readily accessible to European readers in other languages. Some of the books are little more than reprints or photographic reproductions, having said which, one of the latter is very precious: a reproduction of three catalogues written by hand, mainly in Syriac, by Mar Philoxenos Yuhannon Dolabani, describing the MSS in the libraries of various Syrian Orthodox monasteries, churches and families, including especially the libraries of St. Mark's, Jerusalem, and of Dayr alZa‘faran, Mardin. Many of the books from these two libraries are now in the library of the Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate in Bab Tooma, Damascus. Of the remaining books, some are devotional and some laudatory; but there are also some original works of scholarship. Among these perhaps the most valuable are two studies of Syriac church music by Nuri Skandar and GYI. [4]

A1. STUDIA SYRIACA, FIRST SERIES (19.5 x 14 cm), all but one by Syrian Orthodox clergymen. Vol 1 (1980) The Syrians and the Iconoclastic Controversy [Ar. ƣǂƷȁ ǹƢȇǂLjdzơ ƩƢǻȂǬȇȋơ], by Metropolitan Gregorios Yohanna Ibrahim, in Arabic, 44 pages, illustrated. Vol. 2 (1980) The Seven Sleepers of Ephesus [Ar. ƨȈǻƢȇǂLjdzơ ǁƽƢǐŭơ Ŀ ǦȀǰdzơ DzǿƗ] [according to the Syriac sources], by Patriarch Ignatios Zakka I ‘Iwas, in Arabic, 68 pages. Vol. 3 (1980) The Epistolary Style of the Syrian Fathers [Ar. ƾǼǟ ƨdzƢLJǂdzơ ƣƽƗ ǹƢȇǂLjdzơ], by Metropolitan Gregorios Paolos Behnam, in Arabic, 68 pages, reprint. Vol. 4 (1980) The Aramaic Kingdoms [Ar. ƨȈǷơǁȉơ ǮdzƢǸŭơ], by Metropolitan Gregorios Saliba Shamoun, in Arabic, 108 pages, illustrated. Vol. 5 (1981) The Resurrection in the Syrian Orthodox Concept [Ar. ƨǷƢȈǬdzơ ƨȈǻƢȇǂLjdzơ ƨLjȈǼǰdzơ ǵȂȀǨǷ Ŀ], by Metropolitan Severios Isaac Saka, in Arabic, 140 pages, reprint.

102

Publications and Book Reviews

Vol. 6 (1981) The Incarnation in the Syrian Orthodox Concept [Ar. ƧƾȈǬǟ ƨȈǻƢȇǂLjdzơ ƨȈǯƢǘǻƗ ƨLjȈǼǯ ǵȂȀǨǷ Ŀ ȆŮȍơ ƾLjƴƬdzơ], by Patriarch Ignatios Zakka I 'Iwas, in Arabic, 88 pages, reprint. Vol. 7 (1981) The Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch at a Glance [Ar. ǁȂǐǠdzơ Őǟ ƨȈLjǯƿȂƯǁȋơ ƨȈǻƢȇǂLjdzơ ƨȈǯƢǘǻƗ ƨLjȈǼǯ], by Patriarch Ignatios Zakka I 'Iwas, in Arabic and English, 62 pages and 25 pages respectively, illustrated, reprint. Vol. 8 (1982) The Shepherd and the Flock [Ar. ƨȈǟǂdzơȁ Ȇǟơǂdzơ], by Metropolitan Gregorios Saliba Shamoun, in Arabic, 132 pages. Vol. 9 (1982) The Holy Bible in the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch [Ar. ƨȈǻƢȇǂLjdzơ ƨȈǯƢǘǻƗ ƨLjȈǼǯ Ŀ DžƾǬŭơ ƣƢƬǰdzơ], by Metropolitan Severios Isaac Saka, in Arabic, 78 pages. Vol. 10 (1983) The History of the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch [Ar. ƧǁƢǔƷȁ ǹƢŻơ ǹƢȇǂLjdzơ], part 1, by Metropolitan Severios Ishaq Saka, in Arabic, 262 pages, illustrated. Vol. 11 (1983) The History of the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch [Ar. ƧǁƢǔƷȁ ǹƢŻơ ǹƢȇǂLjdzơ], part 2, by Metropolitan Severios Ishaq Saka, in Arabic, 213 pages, illustrated. Vol. 12 (1983) The Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch at a Glance, a reprint of the English text of Vol. 7, 25 pages, illustrated. Vol. 13 (1983) The History of the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch [Ar. ƧǁƢǔƷȁ ǹƢŻơ ǹƢȇǂLjdzơ], part 3, by Metropolitan Severios Ishaq Saka, in Arabic, 457 pages, illustrated. Vol. 14 (1983) The History of the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch [Ar. ƧǁƢǔƷȁ ǹƢŻơ ǹƢȇǂLjdzơ], part 4, by Metropolitan Severios Ishaq Saka, in Arabic, 375 pages, illustrated. Vol. 15 (1983) The History of the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch [Ar. ƧǁƢǔƷȁ ǹƢŻơ ǹƢȇǂLjdzơ], part 5, Metropolitan Severios Isaac Saka, in Arabic, 324 pages, illustrated. Vol. 16 (1984) The Journey Towards Easter [Ar. ƶǐǨdzơ ńƛ ƨǴƷǁ], by Chorepiscopus Barsoum Y. Ayoub, in Arabic, 193 pages, illustrated. Vol. 17 (1984) Barhebraeus’ Biography and Poems [Ar. ǾƫƢȈƷ ȅŐǠdzơ Ǻƥơ ƢǼƷȂȇ ǽǂǠNjȁ], Metropolitan Gregorios Paolos Behnam, in Arabic and Syriac, 133 pages, reprint. Vol. 18 (1984) The Syriac Words in the Arabic Dictionaries [Ar. ǙƢǨdzȋơ ƨȈƥǂǠdzơ ǶƳƢǠŭơ Ŀ ƨȈǻƢȇǂLjdzơ], part 1, by Patriarch Ignatios Afrem I Barsoum, 315 pages, reprint.

Publications and Book Reviews

103

Vol. 19 (1984) The Syriac Words in the Arabic Dictionaries [Ar. ǙƢǨdzȋơ ƨȈƥǂǠdzơ ǶƳƢǠŭơ Ŀ ƨȈǻƢȇǂLjdzơ], part 2, by Patriarch Ignatios Afrem I Barsoum, 531 pages, reprint. Vol. 20 (1985) The Divine Economy [Ar. ȆŮȍơ ŚƥƾƬdzơ], by Jacob, Bishop of Edessa, translated into Arabic by Metropolitan Militios Barnaba, in Syriac and Arabic, 238 pages. Vol. 21 (1986) The History of the Aramaeans [Ar. ƣǂǠdzơ džſ ǵơǁƕ džſ], by ‘Abdel-Hadi Nasri, in Arabic, 286 pages, illustrated.

[5]

A2. SYRIAC STUDIES, NOT IN SERIES (24 x 17 cm) 1. A Tour With Scattered Syriac Manuscripts [Ar. ƧǂưǠƦǷ ƨȈǻƢȇǂLJ ƩƢǗȂǘű ǞǷ ƨdzȂƳ] [a collection of historical and archaeological essays], by Yusif alQas 'Abdul-Ahad al-Bahzani, in Arabic, 152 pages. 2. The Church of Saint Symeon the Stylite [Ar. ȅƽȂǸǠdzơ ǹƢǠũ ǁƢǷ ƨLjȈǼǯ], by 'Abdallah Hajjar, in Arabic, 274 pages, illustrated. 3. Syriac Dialogue [Ar. ňƢȇǂLjdzơ ǁơȂūơ]: the first non-official consultation on dialogue within the Syriac tradition, translated into Arabic by Marcel al-Khouri Taraqji, 437 pages, with two colour plates of the signing, by Catholicos-Patriarch Dinkha IV (for the Assyrian Church of the East) and Pope John Paul II (for the Roman Catholic Church), of a common christological declaration, November 1994.

[6]

A3. STUDIA SYRIACA, SECOND SERIES (19.5 x 14 cm) Vol. 1 (1997) The Armenian-Syriac Cultural Relations [Ar. ƨȈǧƢǬưdzơ ƩƢǫȐǠdzơ ƨȈǻƢȇǂLjdzơ - ƨȈǼǷǁȋơ], by Levon der Bedrosian, a native of Aleppo and President of the Armenian Republic, translated in Arabic by Boghos Sarajian, 253 pages. Vol. 2 (1997) Syriac Literature [ Ar. ƨȈǻƢȇǂLJ ƩƢǫƢǗ], by Metropolitan Severios Ishaq Saka, in Arabic, 172 pages. Vol. 3 (1997) I centri culturali della Chiesa Siro-Ortodossa d’Antiochia [Ar. ƨȈǻƢȇǂLjdzơ ƨȈǧƢǬưdzơ DŽǯơǂŭơ], by Metropolitan Gregorios Yohanna Ibrahim, in Arabic and Italian, 236 pages. Vol. 4 (1997) The Syriac Churches: their Origins and Roots [Ar. ƨdzƢǏƗ ǹƢȇǂLjdzơ ǁȁǀƳȁ], by Gregorios Georgios Shahin, in Arabic, reprint, with a new introduction by GYI, 249 pages.

104 [7]

Publications and Book Reviews

B. THE SYRIAC PATRIMONY (17 x 14 cm.) Vol. 1 (1987) is a reprint, with one new colour plate, of the second edition (Homs, 1945) of The Scattered Pearls [Ar. ƺȇǁƢƫ Ŀ ǁȂưǼŭơ ƚdzƚǴdzơ ƨȈǻƢȇǂLjdzơ ƣơƽȉơȁ ǵȂǴǠdzơ] (560 pages, one b/w plate), the famous Arabic History of Syriac Scholarship and Literature by Patriarch Ignatios Afram I Barsom; reprinted again by the Mardin Syrian Orthodox Press in 1996, though without reference to this series. Vol. 2 (1988) is an unauthorised translation into Arabic (423 pages, 44 plates, three in colour), of J. B. Segal’s well-known Edessa, ‘the blessed city’ [Ar. ƨǯǁƢƦŭơ ƨǼȇƾŭơ Ƣǿǂdzơ] (Oxford 1970), with covers showing a mosaic of Orpheus from Edessa. Vol. 3 (1988), The Voice of Nineveh and of Aram [Ar. ǵơǁƕȁ ȃȂǼȈǻ ƩȂǏ], is an Arabic biography (180 pages, ten b/w plates) of Metropolitan Gregorios Bulus Behnam, of Baghdad and Busra, by Metropolitan Severios Ishaq Saka. Vol. 4 (1990) is The Six Days [Ar. ƨƬLjdzơ ǵƢȇȋơ; Gr. Hexameron], a Syriac book on the creation the world, written about A.D. 700 by Jacob of Edessa and translated into Arabic (206 pages) by Metropolitan Gregorios Saliba Shamoun. GYI’s Introduction (26 pages) discusses Jacob's life and work. Vol. 5 (1992) is the Beth Gazzo [Syr. & Ar. Ŧŵū ƼŨ ȁǃƢǯ ƮȈƥ], the “Store” of Syrian Orthodox Church music, as sung by the Patriarch Ignatius Jacob III according to the tradition of Mardin (the Saffron Monastery), with musical notation by Nuri Skandar (572 pages). The first 97 pages of the book, comprising the Arabic Introduction, on Syriac music, by GYI (74 pages), the Arabic Preface by Nuri Skandar (14 pages) and the poetically phrased Syriac Forward (4 pages) by Ghattas M. Alyas (in that order) was reprinted, with a few notated examples, as a separate book in 1996 (also by the Mardin Syrian Orthodox Press), as was the whole book, this time without reference to the series. I understand that Nuri Skandar has all but finished preparing a similar volume in which the tradition of Urfa is recorded, but that the production of this book has run into problems. The importance of recording an oral tradition in all its regional forms cannot be overstated. To record only one is to suggest that it is authoritative, which is inexact and which may impoverish the tradition. The Syrian Orthodox community in Aleppo is fortunate indeed—sua si bona norint—to have among them a man capable of recording their tradition as it should be recorded: Nuri Skandar. He should be given every kind of financial support and editorial liberty in doing so.

Publications and Book Reviews

105

Vol. 6 (1992), The Lighthouse of Syrian Antioch [Ar. ƨȈǻƢȇǂLjdzơ ƨȈǯƢǘǻƗ ƧǁƢǼǷ] (xxvii + 201 pages, one b/w plate), is a collection of studies in Arabic on the history and archaeology of Syriac Christianity, by Patriarch Ignatios Afram I Barsom. GYI’s Introduction includes a brief account of the life and times of the author and of his many publications. Vol. 7 (1993) is a collection of 19 Syriac mimre [Ar. ƣȂǬǠȇ ǁƢǷ ƾƟƢǐǫ ǺǷ ƩơǁƢƬű ȆƳȁǂLjdzơ] (verse homilies) written about A.D. 500 by Jacob of Serugh and translated into Arabic (350 pages) by Metropolitan Militios Barnaba. In an appendix I shall give the first lines of the 19 mimre in Syriac (one page of the Syriac original of each mimro is reproduced before its Arabic translation). GYI’s Introduction (pp. 7–21) covers Jacob's biography and his works and ends with some bibliographical references. Vols. 8, 9 and 10 (1994) are the three parts of a handwritten mainly Syriac catalogue of the Syriac manuscripts in the well-known Syrian Orthodox monastery of St. Mark, in the Old City of Jerusalem [Ar. džǫǂǷ ǁƢǷ ǂȇƽ Ŀ ƨȈǻƢȇǂLjdzơ ƩƢǗȂǘƼŭơ DžǂȀǧ], (vol. 8) and of St. Ananias, known as Der ez-Za’faran, Mardin [Ar. ƩƢǗȂǘƼŭơ DžǂȀǧ ǹơǂǨǟDŽdzơ ǂȇƽ Ŀ ƨȈǻƢȇǂLjdzơ], (vol. 9), as well as in various churches, monasteries and private houses [Ar. ƨȈǻƢȇǂLJ ƩƢǗȂǘű DžǂȀǧ] (vol. 10). It was compiled by Bishop Philoxenos Yuhannon Dolabani (1885–1969), whose life and works are appraised by GYI in the Introduction. Many of the manuscripts described in the first two catalogues are now at the Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate in Bab Tooma, Damascus, and will soon be moved to a new library in Ma’arat Sayyidnaya. Dolabani’s work underlies that of the Patriarch Afram Barsom, whose catalogue of the manuscripts in the patriarchal library of Homs (now Damascus) has recently been published in a French translation (Parole de l’Orient 19 [1994] 555–661). Dolabani’s Catalogue fills three weighty tomes (469 + 395 + 488 = 1352 pages, not including the thrice-repeated Introduction of 51 pages). There are two or three b/w illustrations in each volume, including one of GYI, as a boy, with Dolabani and Rabban ’Allaf in Mardin, which suggests that Dolabani may have inspired him with his love of scholarship and his industry. This publication, which was made possible by the encouragement of Walter Selb and Hubert Kaufhold, and by a subsidy from the Faculty of Law of the University of Vienna, ought be purchased by all libraries which aspire to enable scholars to pursue research in Syriac.

106

Publications and Book Reviews

Vols. 11 and 12 (1994) are reprints, respectively, of the Syriac-Arabic dictionary, Al-Lubab [Ar. ĺǂǟ ňƢȇǂLJ DžȂǷƢǫ :ƣƢƦǴdzơ], by Father Jebrail Qardahi (Beirut, 1891), and the Arabic-Syriac dictionary by Father Mikhael Murad (died in 1952). The date of the latter is not given. The two volumes contain, respectively, 1356 and 752 pages, with 3 b/w plates in the first and one in the second. Vol. 13 (1996) is The Candelabra of the Sanctuary [Ar. Džơƾǫȋơ ƧǁƢǼǷ], a Syriac book by Gregorios Yuhannon Bar Hebraeus (1226–1286), translated into Arabic (885 pages) by Bishop Dionysios Behnam Jejjawi. This is an encyclopaedic work in twelve parts covering knowledge, the nature of the universe, theology, the Incarnation, the angels, the priesthood, the demons, the soul, free will, the Resurrection, the Last Judgement and Paradise. Vols. 14, 15 and 16 (1996), with, respectively, 446, 469 and 479 pages, contain the Syriac History of Michael I [Ar. 2 1 Ʊ ŚƦǰdzơ DzȈƟƢƼȈǷ ƺȇǁƢƫ 3], Syrian Orthodox Patriarch from 1166 to 1199, in a new Arabic translation, made from Chabot’s edition, by Metropolitan Gregorios Saliba Shamoun.

[8]

C. BIBLICAL STUDIES (19.5 x 14 cm.) Vols. 1, 2 and 3 (1991) are an Introduction to the New Testament in Arabic by Dr. Maurice Tawdoros, who teaches New Testament Theology at the Coptic Theological Seminary in Cairo. Vol. 4 (1991), in Arabic, contains Part I of the same author’s Theological and Linguistic Studies in the New Testament. Vol. 5 (1991) contains the same author’s Theological and Linguistic Notes on the Words of the Gospel According to St. Matthew, likewise in Arabic. (In the absence of a volume specifically marked as Part II of the previous entry, this may perhaps be taken as Part II.) Vol. 6 (1995), by the same Arabic author, bears the title Logos: The Interpretation of ‘The Word’ in the New Testament. All these books, which have 319 + 203 + 211 + 166 + 201 + 291 = 1391 pages in all, were edited by GYI. This Syrian Orthodox Bishop evidently feels quite happy about publishing a Coptic theologian; indeed, in spite of the cultural differences, these two Oriental Orthodox Churches have remained close, with only short periods of disunity, throughout their history.

[9]

D. BOOKS BY MAR GREGORIOS YOHANNA IBRAHIM i. On the Faith a. In the series ‘God with us’ [Ar. ƢǼǠǷ ƅơ] (in Arabic; 24 x 17 cm.):

Publications and Book Reviews

107

1- Emmanuel [Ar. DzȈƟȂǻƢǸǟ], the front showing, against the background of a green cross, a colour illustration of a picture of the Presentation in the Temple from a Syriac manuscript; a children’s book with many games and pictures to colour in (71 pages). 2- Good Hope [Ar. ŁƢǐdzơ ƔƢƳǂdzơ], the front showing, against the background of a red cross, a colour illustration of the Cross as the Tree of Life with the Syriac inscription ‘Look at him and hope in him!’ Like the previous (71 pages). 3- The Lamb of God [Ar. ƅơ Dzŧ], the front showing, against the background of a yellow cross, a colour illustration of the Resurrection (Harrowing of Hell) from a Syriac manuscript. Like the previous (71 pages). 4- The Good Shepherd [Ar. ŁƢǐdzơ Ȇǟơǂdzơ], the front showing, against the background of a light blue cross, a colour illustration of the Descent from the Cross from a Syriac manuscript. Like the previous (71 pages).

b. Prayer books (16.5 x 12 cm.): 1- The Believer’s Friend [ Ar. ǺǷƚŭơ ǪȈǧǁ]: The Order of Service of Holy Communion and Spiritual Hymns, Syriac and Arabic, 394 pages. 2- Pray for us! [Ar. ƢǼǴƳȋ ơȂǴǏ] Prayers (196 pages), including the Eucharistic Liturgy in Syriac with an Arabic translation facing it. The front shows a colour illustration of a page of a Syriac Gospel-book showing the Agony in the Garden and the Arrest of Jesus. ò ], in Syriac, on a single, folded ò ŦŁŴƆĽ 3- Canonical Prayers [Syr. ŦƼƌŴƍƟ card.

c. Jesus, in Arabic, with pictures (24 x 17 cm.): 1- The Life of Jesus [Ar. ǝȂLjȇ ƧƢȈƷ]. A children’s book, with drawings suitable for colouring in (64 pages). 2- Jesus Our Friend [Ar. ǹăŐƷă ǝȂnjȇ]. Like the previous, bound at the shorter side (48 pages). 3- Jesus Our Hope [Ar. ǹăŐLJă ǝȂnjȇ]. Like the previous (48 pages).

ii. History, Biography and Musicology (in Arabic): 1- The Syrians and the Iconoclastic Controversy = A1.1. 2- The Glory of the Syrians [Ar. ǹƢȇǂLjdzơ ƾů]: Mar Ignatius Afram I Barsom (1887–1957): biography and bibliography, 115 pages, including 24 pages of illustrations. (24 x 17 cm)

108

Publications and Book Reviews 3- Syriac Music [Ar. ƨȈǻƢȇǂLjdzơ ȄǬȈLJȂŭơ], 74 pages, with appendixes. (24 x 17 cm) [Originally published as the introduction to B.5, above: The Beth Gazzo with musical notation.] 4- A Man of God [Ar. ƅơ DzƳǁ]: Mar Dionysios Georgios al-Qas Behnam: his life and times, 134 pages, including 32 pages of illustrations. (24 x 17 cm)

[10]

OTHER BOOKS (mostly 24 x 17 cm) 1- The Last Caravan [Ar. ƧŚƻȋơ ƨǴǧƢǬdzơ], by Yusif Nameq [an eyewitness's account of the emigration of the Syrian Orthodox, Catholics and Protestants from Urfa to Aleppo in 1924], in Arabic, 76 pages, about 130 illustrations, of which the first ten or so are photomontages, recreating from the author’s memory (he was six or seven at the time), in the absence of authentic photographs, the scenes of emigration: the wagon-trains leaving Urfa; the people crossing the Euphrates at Jerablus and waiting for the train to Aleppo on the other side; the tents which the French gave at Aleppo, in which they stayed for two years, hoping that the French would recover Urfa; the makeshift chapel which they constructed after that and worshipped in for six years. From the time at which the church of St. George in the Old Syrian Quarter was built onwards, the photographs are authentic. 2- Azakh [Ar. ƹǃƕ]: [Great] Events and [Great] Men, by Yusif Jebrail alQas and Elias Haddaya, in Arabic, 207 pages. ò ]: [poetic] impulses and inquiries, by Ghattas Muqsi 3- Laments [Syr. ťƍūŴŨ Elias, in Syriac, with Arabic preface by GYI, 7 + 98 pages. 4- Arabism and Islam [Ar. ǵȐLJȍơȁ ƨƥȁǂǠdzơ], by George Jabur, in Arabic, 206 pages. 5- The Vienna Dialogue [Ar. ŖǼȇǁȁƗ ȁǂƥ]: Five Pro Oriente Consultations with Oriental Orthodoxy, Booklet No. 1: CommuniquǷs and Joint Documents, translated into Arabic by Michel Azraq, 201 pages. 6- The Vienna Dialogue [Ar. ŖǼȇǁȁƗ ȁǂƥ]: Five Pro Oriente Consultations with Oriental Orthodoxy, Booklet No. 2: Summaries of the Papers, translated into Arabic by Fa’iz Iskandar, 151 pages. 7- The Spiritual Treasure [Ar. ƨȈƷȁǂdzơ ƨǨƸƬdzơ]: On Canonical Prayer, by Patriarch Ignatius Afram I Barsoum, in Arabic and Syriac, 232 pages, republished. (13.5 x 10 cm)

Publications and Book Reviews

109

8- Waking visions: [poetic] impulses and inquiries, by Ghattas (Denho) Muqsi Elias, in Syriac, with an Arabic preface by GYI, 10 + 86 pages. (19.5 x 14 cm)

[11]

[12]

[13]

These lists do not cover all of Mar Gregorios Yohanna Ibrahim’s publishing activities; I have seen an Arabic leaflet on the Russian Orthodox Church [Ar. ƨȈLjǯƿȂƯǁȋơ ƨȈLJȁǂdzơ ƨLjȈǼǰdzơ] (Aleppo, no date; 24 pages) and an Arabic biography of the Patriarch Ignatius Zakka I ’Iwas, entitled ‘Nur wa Ata’ [Ar. ƔƢǘǟȁ ǁȂǻ] (Aleppo, 1981; 199 pages). Nor do they quite exhaust the repertoire of the Mardin Syrian Orthodox Press; I have seen a scientific book on mushrooms [Ar. ȆǟơǁDŽdzơ ǂǘǨdzơ] (!) in Arabic by two Muslims with Ph.D.s in Agriculture (Aleppo, 1992), which bears the imprint of Dar al-Raha. But they are sufficient to give an impression both of the quantity and of the nature of the publications which bear this imprint and this exceptionally active bishop's editorial stamp of approval. The above books include works on a wide range of subjects in the fields of Archaeology (A2.1,2; B.6), Biography (A1.17; B.3; D.ii.2,4), Catechism (D.i.a.1–4,c.1–3), Ecumenism (A2.3; E.5,6), History (A1.1,4,7,11–15,21; A2.1; A3.2; B.2,6,14-16; E.1,2,4,10), the History of Literature (A3.1; B.1), Literature (A1.2; B.4,14–16), Lexicography (A1.18,19; B.11,12), Musicology (B.5; D.ii.3), New Testament Studies (C.1–6), Philology (B.8–10; C.4–6), Philosophy (B.13; E.4), Poetry (A1.17; B.7; E.3,9), Prayer (A1.16; D.i.b.1–3), and Theology (A1.5,6,8,20; B.13; C.6; E.7). The greatest quantity of publications concerns the history of the Syrian Orthodox community. There can be no doubt of the value of the whole list in building up the Syrian Orthodox community's sense of identity and in giving it intellectual content. It may also serve to bind the Urfa people and the Mardin people closer together. Even if the enormous stress on national-historical, theological and linguistic particularism militates against the dissolution of the frontiers between this group and others in the city of Aleppo, the ecumenical publications may well contribute to the development of the ecumenical movement in the Arab world. The manuscript catalogues and the translation of the History of Michael the Syrian are global milestones in Syriac scholarship—a ‘must’ for every library where Syriac Studies are taken seriously. It

110

[14]

Publications and Book Reviews

is striking how many of the books are written by Syrian Orthodox bishops and patriarchs. There are, of course, gaps; and I am sure that we can look forward to future publications in these neglected areas. Considering, on the one hand, the fame of the Syrian churches in Late Antiquity for their witness to the ability of women to take part both in the diaconal and pastoral activities and in the teaching ministry of the Church, and, on the other hand, the abundance of gifted and dynamic women in the Alepine Syrian Orthodox community, an obvious book to choose for translation would be Brock and Harvey’s Syrian Women in Late Antiquity. Now that Jacob of Serugh’s encomium on Saint Ephraim has been newly edited and translated in the Patrologia Orientalis, it might well be translated into Arabic. This is the poem that contains the memorable verses: The aim of all his teaching was a world renewed: a world where men and women both have equal rights.

[15]

Of course it should be translated from the original Syriac. It would be good to show that it is not only the Catholics and the Protestants who find active roles for women in the teaching ministry of the Church. Another neglected area is that of liturgical history. I was witness to a beautiful celebration of the Eucharist in the Church of St. George in the Old Syrian Quarter of Aleppo, in which the whole congregation joined in singing parts of the service, recited as a body a form of confession which is recited elsewhere individually to a priest, and received Holy Communion, which in some parts of the Orthodox Churches is only received two or three times a year, or once every forty days. The Metropolitan remarked on this in his sermon and said that he favoured innovations which actually brought the Church closer to its own origins: bringing in the old anew. A close reading of Saint Ephrem, by Sebastian Brock, has shown that at least some people received Holy Communion daily in the fourth-century churches of Mesopotamia; and this finding, contained in his book, The Luminous Eye, has been translated into Arabic and published by Metropolitan Athanasius Yeshue, of America and Canada, in 1984. Another candidate for translation into Arabic is Erich Renhart’s recent book, Das syrische Bema [The Syrian Bema] (Graz, 1995). This book brings the archaeology of the Aleppo region into dialogue with research into the early

Publications and Book Reviews

[16]

111

forms of eastern Christian liturgies and raises questions which others are now engaged in answering, questions concerning the exact functions and the symbolic meaning of the platform which is found in the middle of the nave in some ancient churches, the ruins of which can easily be visited from Aleppo, such as Daret ’Azzeh, Qalb Lozeh, or Ar-Rusafa. If answers to these questions can be found, they may give a new (or rather restore the ancient) relevance to many of the words in Syrian Orthodox hymns. Those hymns, after all, were composed for use in the Late Antique churches which exhibit this feature. At that point, the Syrian Orthodox might feel ready for reforms in church architecture, bringing in the old anew. A comparable reform in the Roman Catholic Church has been the reintroduction of the westwardfacing altar. I am not advocating a westward-facing altar in Syrian Orthodox churches; but I am advocating a debate on the reintroduction of the bema in some cases, in the light of recent and continuing scholarship. This debate would need to be informed by publications such as the one I have suggested. Finally, I would advocate the publication of the Syriac texts which are translated in the series. If this were done in companion volumes, then readers could compare the translation with the original. The Arabic version of selected mimre [Syr. ŧǔƉŤƉ] of Jacob of Serugh, by Bishop Militios Barnaba (B.7), would be the better for the inclusion of the whole Syriac text of each mimro translated, not just the first page, a deficiency which has been regretted by local readers. Parallel texts of the Western Classics are a publishing success and can be found on the shelves of many people of average education in Europe; but only a few expensive or unobtainable books contain Syriac texts in parallel with their translations. Besides the usefulness of an affordable parallel Syriac text and translation, there is the fact that Syria possesses great manuscript resources in this field which have been insufficiently tapped. If Syrian Orthodox scholars of the calibre of Dolabani (see B.8–10) could rediscover the strict discipline of critical edition, a tradition practised in the sixth to eighth centuries by scholars such as Thomas of Harqel and Jacob of Edessa (see B.4), but very largely left to Western scholars at the present, they could themselves edit texts which are lying unread in their libraries and by this act of love redeem them, as Hannah and Elizabeth were redeemed, from their shameful barrenness. Again, either subsidies are needed to release those

112

[17]

[18]

[19]

Publications and Book Reviews

qualified from other essential tasks, or else, perhaps, the Church could exploit its own resources more effectively, the great scholars (who are often the bishops) delegating, as GYI does delegate, many essential tasks to others, in order to be free to give their community, and the global community, the benefit of their scholarship. It would be good if future generations were able to write of Syrian Orthodox bishops today what GYI has written of Barsawm: that he is ‘The Glory of the Syrians’ (D.ii.2). The Mardin Press has been refused ISBN and ISSN numbers, because it is in Syria; for this reason, and perhaps for others (Syria is justly famous for the thorough approach of its governmental bureaucracy), distribution is a problem. The only way, at present, to obtain the books is to write to the Press direct. The postal address is as follows: Mardin Publishing House P.O. Box 4194 — Aleppo — Syria Telex 331850 NAHRIN SY Fax 00963-21-642260 Telephone 00963-21-642210 Considering the lack of abundant resources, the books are well produced and reasonably well bound, although I imagine that the bindings of the dictionaries will not last long if they are used frequently and left open. Where reprints are concerned, attention should be paid to documenting the publication history of the book reprinted. The proof-reading of western languages in notes and bibliographies in all the series leaves much to be desired: perhaps western scholars could offer their services? It is a pity that a volume finished in every other way should be rough-and-ready in this respect. The publisher’s catalogue should give the date of each volume and of any reprint; sometimes more detail is needed, if the reader of the catalogue is to come away with some idea of what is in the book. For example, “Pro Oriente, Book I” is not much help, particularly in Arabic transcription. A review must contain some constructive criticisms and a review of a young publishing house’s output should contain some suggestions for future initiatives. The abiding impression received by this reviewer is one of intellectual vigour and artistic sensibility, allied to a desire to feed the imagination and so foster innovation in the spirit of the tradition. The driving force behind the enterprise is Mor Gregorios Yohanna Ibrahim, who seems determined to keep

Publications and Book Reviews

113

his tradition alive and kicking. His evident commitment to ecumenism coexists with a proper pride in his own Church's historical identity, something which, as the Roman Catholic Church has admitted in the Second Vatican Council and the Agreement of Balamand, was only partially affirmed, and thereby partially negated, by the incorporation of oriental traditions and identities in the Roman Catholic Church. If some aspects of the production of some of the books is open to criticism, the other side of this coin is the efficiency of this publishing house in making texts available to its readers. 71 books in seventeen years, even if some of them are only reprints, is not bad for a Press with a tiny staff (at present, just Claudia ’Ido, Roula Syriani and Ruba Shahin) in a country where there are many obstacles to efficiency. The Mardin Syrian Orthodox Press and its indefatigable chief deserve to be warmly congratulated.

114

Publications and Book Reviews

Appendix [20]

Contents of B.7 : Selected mimre of Jacob of Serugh (first line of each mimro):

ò .ƁƍƀƏ ĿŴŹ ƈƕ ųƙƟĭŁ ƧĽĪł ťƊíƇƕ Ƣũƍū ô –1 .ƅƍƉ ťƖŨĪ ťƠƀƍƐƆ ħĬ ŧƢſƦƕł Ʀƌĥ – 2 .ŁĭĬ ťƍƣĿƦƉ ŦĮǓĥô ķĭųǀŨ ŧƢŨĪł ųŶĿĭĥ – 3 ò ò .ƎƀíƇƉ ŧĿĬŴƌ ťŨǂŨ ƻĥĪ ƨƉò Ǝſųƿ – 4 ł ł ň Ƨ–5 ò ł ƎƉ ķƢƉ ŦƦƇƉ džƉƦƉ .ƨíƇƉ ł ł ň ƧĪ ŦƦƇƉ ŧűƇſł – 6 ò ƎƉ džƉƦƉ .ŦŁŴƀƉ ł ň .ĬűƀŷſĪ ųƉűŨ ƎƟƢƘĪ ťƍƊŶƢƉ ťŨĥ – 7 Ņ ň Ņ ň –8 ò ťƖũƌ .ťƀƇƕ ƎƉ ķŁŴƆ ŧĪĿĪł ťƀŶĪ ł ň ťƍſűƆ ťƣĭǓĪ Ƌƕ ŦƼǑ ŦŁűƕ – 9 .ƦƇƕ ò ųƍƉ ŴſƦƣĥĪŅ ťƀŶĪ ò ťƖũƌň - 10 ł ł ŦƼƉ .ŴƀŶĭ ò Ņ ł ƚƇŶ ťŷŨĪ ŦĭĬĪ Ŧųƭ ƢŨ - 11 .ťƀźŶ ł ł ň ŁƢƀƕŁŁĥ Ņ - 12 .ƁŨ džƉŁŁĪ ħĭŁ ŧƢŨĪ ĬƦƊƀƟ ò ƼŨ ƎƉ ťƀƕĿ ƋƟŅ űƃł – 13 ł ŦƼƉ .ťŨĿ ƈƀŷŨ .ƻŤũƀũŶł ĴŵūĪ ųƕĿŁ ķƢƉ ƁƆ įƦƘ ò ł ŦƻƢũŨł ŸƌĪł ťŨĿ ŧĿĬŴƌ .ķƢƉ ƁƉŴƀŨ ł ň ťƣĭǔƘ ĭŁ .ťƍƙƆŴſ ƎƉ ƎƉŴſ ƋƐũƌ .ƅƍƀŨĽ ƅſĥ ķƢƉ ƁŨ IJƢŨ ťƀƃĪł ťũƆŅ

– 14 – 15 – 16 – 17

ò ťƀƉ ò Ŵū ƎƉ ƎƆ űũƕĪ ŧƢŨ – 18 .IJĬŴŨƧ ťƀƍŨ Ņ ł ħųſĪŅ ťŨĭųſŅ Ʀƌĥ – 19 .ųƆ ťƖŨűƆ ƎŬƉ Ņ ł ƅƆŅ IJƢƉŅ – 20 ł ł ťƊƇƕ ųƿ ŪƀŶ .ŴŷũƤƊƆ

Volume 1 1998 [2010]

Number 2

HUGOYE JOURNAL OF SYRIAC STUDIES A Publication of Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute SPECIAL ISSUE: THE INFLUENCE OF SAINT EPHRAIM THE SYRIAN – I Guest Editor Andrew Palmer

Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies, Vol. 1.2, 117–118 © 1998 [2010] by Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute and Gorgias Press

INTRODUCTION TO THE SPECIAL ISSUE ANDREW PALMER SCHOOL OF ORIENTAL AND AFRICAN STUDIES UNITED KINGDOM [1]

[2]

[3]

In December 1997, as reported in the first issue of Hugoye, a number of scholars, from different branches of learning, met together at my invitation in the School of Oriental and African Studies in the Centre of London, which has become, over the last five years, a centre for Oriental Christian encounter and study. The subject of our papers was the influence of Saint Ephraim the Syrian. A selection of the papers delivered there, and in addition, one or two which were not, in fact, delivered at that time, will be published in this special issue of Hugoye and the next. The present issue contains the following papers: Andrew Palmer, A Single Human Being Divided in Himself: Ephraim the Syrian, the Man in the Middle; Hannah Hunt, The tears of the sinful woman: A theology of redemption in Saint Ephraim and his Followers; David Taylor, St. Ephraim’s Influence On The Greeks; Sidney Griffith, A Spiritual Father for the Whole Church; Alain Desreumaux, Saint Ephraim in Christian Palestinian Aramaic; Zaga Gavrilovic, Saint Ephraim’s Thought and Imagery as an Inspiration to Byzantine Artists; Jane Stevenson, Saint Ephraim in SeventhCentury Canterbury; Gordon Wakefield, John Wesley and Saint Ephraim. These papers are ordered chronologically, beginning with Ephraim’s own life. After that comes a study of his theology and its influence in his own Syriac tradition. Then a paper on the relationship between Ephraim and Greek Christians. Sidney Griffith’s keynote paper sums up the whole conference, but it has 117

118

[4]

[5]

Andrew Palmer

something original to say about the sermo asceticus, a partly Ephremic, partly embroidered discourse composed in Greek which was translated into all the languages of mediaeval Christianity, except for Syriac. There follows a short paper, showing that even the Aramaic-speaking Melkite Christians of Palestine translated Ephraim (or Pseudo-Ephraim) from the Greek and honoured him highly. Zaga Gavrilovoc traces the influence of Ephraim on Byzantine art as far as Serbia, while Jane Stevenson shows that the Greek Ephraim—and perhaps even parts of the Syriac Ephraim— reached England with Theodore of Tarsus, when he came as Archbishop to Canterbury. Finally, Gordon Wakefield shows how much Saint Ephraim appealed to the spiritual minds of John Wesley and his brother Charles, the hymn-writer, founders of the Methodist Movement. It was John Wesley who called Ephraim ‘the most awakening of all the ancients.’ Attached to this collection of papers is a recording made at the conference, the first performance of a teaching-song by Ephraim in a metrical English translation to a modern melody, expressed in sacred movement with accompaniment on the Celtic Harp. The next issue of Hugoye (Vol. 2, No. 1) will contain other papers presented at the conference and accepted for publication.

Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies, Vol. 1.2, 119–163 © 1998 [2010] by Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute and Gorgias Press

A SINGLE HUMAN BEING DIVIDED IN HIMSELF: EPHRAIM THE SYRIAN, THE MAN IN THE MIDDLE ANDREW PALMER SCHOOL OF ORIENTAL AND AFRICAN STUDIES UNITED KINGDOM [1]

Much of western Syria had been fluent in Greek for six centuries by the time of Ephraim’s birth (usually given as ca A.D. 306). Mesopotamia, in the northern, Roman, part of which he made his career (at first in Nisibis; after 363, for a short time, in Amida 1 and Amar 1988: section 10. This Life is considered unhistorical (e.g. Brock 1990:8 and even Barsaum 1967:2206), but his otherwise insignificant brief presence in Amida is likely to have been remembered by the Christian community in that city. In fact, this is probably where he wrote his VHF [Verse-Homilies on Faith]. Their editor says they were composed ‘between 350 and 363’ (Beck 1953: 122, reading ‘350’—as the context demands—for ‘330’) in Nisibis (Beck 1961); but this cannot be right, because they speak of a Roman defeat and allude to the loss of Roman territory (6:15f; 347ff; 379ff; 427ff; 443ff), so must be dated after the humiliating treaty of 363. The walls which were, not just breached (as Beck 1953: 122 understands, treating the unambiguous text as a poetic exaggeration), but ‘thoroughly demolished’ (6:444) must be those of Amida, taken by the Persians in 359. The mounds of earth (VHF 6:448) piled up against the walls were the means by which the Amida was eventually captured (Ammianus Marcellinus, Rerum gestarum liber XIX, 8, 1–2); there is no record of mounds raised against the walls of Nisibis. Amida was besieged for seventy-three days at the height of summer (ibid., 9, 9; 5,4 describes subterranean stairs leading down to the Tigris, but they 1

119

120

Andrew Palmer

finally, until his death in 373, in Edessa), was less hellenised, it is true. Yet Ephraim might certainly have learned Greek, had he wished to do so. There are distinct traces of Stoicism and of Platonism in his work, yet, as a theologian, he professed to have little time for Greek philosophy (TSF [Teaching-Songs (Madroshe) on Faith = Beck 1955] 2:24: ‘Blessed he that neither tastes / bitter wisdom from the Greeks, / nor spits out the simple words / of the men of Galilee!’). 2 It made the Transcendent a subject for a debate which had more to do with proving the virility of the participants, he thought, than with ascertaining the truth (TSF 87:1 and 4— translated below). All the same, he seems able enough to engage in complex philosophico-theological argument, even though he does so in order to demonstrate its limitations. A good example is TSF 45, which I quote in full: 3 were very difficult to negotiate), which would explain the ‘thirst’ of VHF 6:450, though Ammianus (who was there) does not mention this. The baleful twang of bowstrings and the terrifying strength of the elephants (VHF 6:501–3) might have been observed at either siege (Ammianus, ibid., 2, 8 and 7, 6; TSN 2:18). In the VHF E. never mentions breaches in the walls, caused by the force of the river’s water released against them, which is what fills his songs about the siege of Nisibis in 350 (TSN 1 and 2). It seems unlikely that he was in Amida during the siege of 359, since he composed TSN 5 in that year at Nisibis. Arriving at Amida in 363 (the Romans had soon restored that city) after the Persians had taken possession (by treaty, not by aggression) of Nisibis and the five Transtigritane Provinces, E. felt the sufferings of the Amidenes as his own (6:443–504), partly because his mother was from Amida (Amar 1988: section 1) and partly because he had personally endured three sieges and the status of a refugee. Indeed, 6:355f (‘Is any city big enough for us to write in her about our arguments?’) suggests that he did not feel welcome even in Amida, which would explain his subsequent migration to Edessa). 2 Bowersock 1990:29–40; Drijvers 1984; Millar 1993. There has been some discussion of E.’s debt to Greek philosophy, notably in Beck 1980. 3 Like the other translations in this paper, this one is my own; in translating the teaching-songs, I have generally conserved the syllablecount and the line-divisions of the original and have attempted to imitate some of Ephraim’s tricks as a wordwright. In the present translation, the word ‘Isness’ is likely to bother some readers; but only ‘there-is-ness’ could be a more exact rendering of ituto, which consists of it, ‘there is’, plus -uto, ‘-ness’. ‘Being’ or ‘existence’ are synonyms, perhaps, but they are used in many senses by philosophers. To coin a new term makes it easier to remain open to E.’s distinctive notion, which seems to be that of a

A Single Human Being Divided in Himself

121

TSF 45 (unpublished translation: Andrew Palmer) 1. Sight and thought can teach; each can learn from each. If you have an itch underneath a lid, then you cannot see clearly. So with thought. Scripture’s sunlight makes you wise. Sunlight helps your eyes, Truth your mind; so choose sunlight for your sight, Scripture for your thought. R. Praise your hiddenness, Offspring of the High! 2. How the eye detests that which makes it itch! Curiosity irritates the mind, as a crumb the eye, spoiling everything and perverting thought, always. Poking fingers hurt eyes and help them not. Probing thinkers, too, harm their powers of thought. 3. Which is harder? God’s Fatherhood, or God’s sheer Existence? Can Isness be produced out of any place, out of any thing? This is hard. But thing from thing, like begetting like: that is easier. Present in them all, Isness holds all things. 4. If it occupies space, then it is small; great though Isness be, space outgrows it then. Space is finite, though; Isness, infinite. There’s a breadth no space can span! Isness cannot be fully occupied. How can mind contain all its fullness, then? 5. If his Knowledge can coextend with space, while his Isness can’t coextend with space, then his Knowledge is greater than his Being, meaning He’s conjoined from two. Is He one in both? No, it seems, not so! Greatness can’t be one with its opposite.

quality shared by everything in both parallel universes, visible and invisible, by virtue of their having been created by its source. And the property of that absolute Isness is to create an abundance of things possessing Isness derived from Him.

122

Andrew Palmer

6. Is it not unknown whether space contains endless beings, worlds and created things? That is why the fools stray in blasphemies. Now it’s time they said: ‘He is of Himself one God; of Himself the Sire; fully self-possessed; perfect and entire.’ 7. Greatness would be small, were the Great contained; Fatherhood a fraud, were He barren, too; Isness impotent, could He not create. He is whole in all respects: bearing with no pain; making with no work; dwelling in no space; wealthy with no gold. 8. Space does not exist great enough to enclose Him, nor intellect sharp enough to probe. Great in Isness, He; great in Fatherhood. Space and mind accept defeat. As there is no space equal to his Being, so there is no mind equal to that Birth. 9. How He made a thing, when there was no thing, intellect cannot fathom, but it’s true. How to demonstrate that it can be done? Logic has no space for this. Give your mind repose! Say: ‘This is the way I, by Faith, have stormed sharp Inquiry’s hill.’ 10. And because your mind could not concentrate on the problem of sheer Reality, find another path; reconcile your soul: ‘To All Things’ Lord All Things Are Plain.’ Gird yourself with this argument to still probing of the mind, questions on the birth! [2]

In one poem (TSF 47) he portrays Moses, Daniel and Paul as having enjoyed the best education that Egypt, Babylon and Athens, respectively, had to offer, only to find true wisdom in the simplicity of God’s self-revelation; compare TSF 47:6 (‘Moses, who threw off Egypt’s knowledge, wrote, / with simplicity, revelation’s truth’) with the autobiographical confession in TSF 64:11 (‘Forsaking all else, / I applied my mind / to Holy Scripture, / lest I forfeit this / for words not written’). Ephraim may have been more educated than he admits. But, insofar as he wrote for the educated, he wrote

A Single Human Being Divided in Himself

[3]

123

to show them the way back to simple faith; and, insofar as he sang for the simple, he attempted (not always, perhaps, with complete success) to reduce complex arguments to simple terms. 4 Certainly he was well-versed in the Scriptures. TSF 59:1 has a description of the memorisation of the Scriptures and fruitful meditation upon them which, taken together with the extraordinary scriptural resonance of Ephraim’s writings (Brock speaks somewhere of their being ‘drenched’ with Scripture, Van Rompay uses the Dutch word wemelen—‘swarming’ with allusions), may be understood as a description of the Judaic side of his education: Which man, groping blind, has explored his mind? Oh how and oh where is gathered and stored the grain of God’s Word, which he gets by heart and guards like a hoard? Memory harvests, mulling multiplies and neglect depletes that marvellous crop. The mind amazes.

[4]

Much of Ephraim’s output was concerned with the interpretation of the Scriptures. There can be little doubt that he must have been recognised in his lifetime, though no doubt grudgingly by some, as one of the leading authorities in this field. Certainly after his death, once the Council of Constantinople (A.D. 381) had vindicated his dissident theology and declared it Orthodox, he became the great interpreter of Scripture, at least for some at Edessa. In his contribution to the next issue of Hugoye (Vol. 2, No. 1), Bernard Outtier informs us that the Armenians, having invented a script for their language in the early fifth century at Edessa, translated first the Scriptures and then Saint Ephraim’s commentaries on them. No other Syriac commentator existed, apparently, who was worthy to be set beside him. There was a school of thought in fifth-century Edessa which came to prefer a different style of scriptural exegesis; but it had to import this from another linguistic milieu, by translating the works of Theodore of Mopsuestia (died 428) from Greek into Syriac. This corpus became 4

See Palmer 1993a; Palmer 1993b.

124

[5]

[6]

Andrew Palmer

the basic teaching tool of the Church of the East (often, though misleadingly, called ‘Nestorian’), which, while revering Saint Ephraim as ‘the Great Teacher’, uses ‘the Interpreter’ (par excellence) to refer to Theodore. Considering how central the Scriptures were to the life of the Church, this expertise as an exegete ought to have given Ephraim an important place during his lifetime in the increasingly Christian society of the fourth-century Roman Empire. He ought to have been a Bishop, like most of the other Fathers of the Church, expounding the Scriptures from his Throne. There are indications, however, that he forfeited the episcopacy because he was too otherworldly and did not curry favour with the rich and powerful. The TSN [Teaching-Songs Concerning Nisibis; also known as Carmina Nisibena = Beck 1961] 13 and 14 contain high praises of James, the famous bishop of Nisibis (308/9 – ca. 338), and of his two successors, Babu and Vologeses, written shortly before the death of this last (around 359), which do not neglect to mention that the author has been the disciple of all three. TSN 15 and 16 defend the aged Vologeses against his detractors. At a later date Ephraim may have regretted his defence of this bishop, which was apparently as insincere as it was unprofitable. He is a scathing critic of ‘spinelessness’ in a leader—precisely the fault of which Vologeses was accused (TSN 19:14; VHF [Verse-Homilies on Faith] 6:195–8). The praises (TSN 17–21) of Abraham, who succeeded Vologeses, are mixed with claims that the ‘fat ones of the herd’ (wealthy laymen) were gratified by his appointment, which changed nothing in their selfish (cf. Ezekiel 34:21) ‘grazing’ arrangements, while the ‘community of the under-shepherds’ (the clergy) were pleased, because their dignity was enhanced by promotion (TSN 17:3). Describing himself as ‘the dregs of the flock’ (the diocese), who has ‘not withheld what is due’ (a song of praise for Abraham), Ephraim finds consolation in the fact that he still has an influential platform: God, he says, ‘has made me his harp’ (TSN 17:13). In fact, he was now able to exploit the prophetic potential of his liminal status, on the fringes of the sacred area, in the midst of the people, representing the social conscience which was so sadly lacking in the higher echelons. TSN 17:8 suggests that Abraham’s appointment excited envy. It looks as though Ephraim may have hoped to be the successor to Vologeses (Abraham, though also a disciple of all three of his predecessors, was a younger man), if only

A Single Human Being Divided in Himself

125

in order to delegate management and jurisdiction and consecrate himself to a life of prayer, as he recommends (with more idealism than realism) to Abraham. His later writings (e.g. TSF 87) contain satirical passages on the ambition of the priests of his time. Ephraim, it would seem, was marginalised. Having toadied to bishops and Christian emperors while (we may surmise) he cherished the hope of office for himself, he now became a dissident. His new stance was more honest and more pessimistic (or rather, since pessimism is a sin, more eschatological): his poetry gained power and a bitter edge. He decided that the pride of the worldly was of a piece with the arrogance of the rationalistic theology (Arianism) taught by many of the most favoured exegetes of the time. Be not dismayed, you catechumen, if the one initiated is confused! Be not infected, all you novices, if he that’s versed in language is adrift! If your instructor goes astray, then go and meditate upon the Books yourself! Enquiring minds have gone astray, but your discerning mind need not be tangled, too. The teachers are mistaken; all the same, the catechumens need not be dismayed. (VHF 6:163–72)

[7]

He had not spoken a word against the Arian Emperor Constantius, whom he praises fulsomely in his Teaching-Songs Against Julian, composed in the early 360s; but he became an outspoken, though necessarily guarded, critic of the Arian Emperor Valens in the TSF, composed in the early 370s. 5 The kind of training in public speaking he received can only be investigated through his works. We hear of the ‘School of Nisibis’, which is said to have been founded by Bishop James before 338; but it is only from the late fifth century that we begin to know something of its curriculum. 6 He lived in an age which set a high value on the ability to speak well and to persuade. The sons of wealthy houses received many years of training in this art, which involved learning how to use body-language as well as words. The 5 6

See Palmer, forthcoming. See Brock 1996: 239.

126

[8]

Andrew Palmer

Church could not afford to ignore rhetoric, though it must have been wary of the danger to the truth inherent in a skill developed for use by both the prosecution and the defence in a court of law and by opposed parties in the political arena. Like Isocrates and Cato, the Church will have stressed the necessity for the speaker to be a good man as well as a fine stylist. But it will have had no scruples about taking over the existing arsenal of verbal and gestural techniques and adapting them to its purpose. Ephraim, ‘God’s harp’, evidently benefited from a considerable training in rhetoric, one which was certainly acquired, in part, from reading the close study of the Scriptures; and which owed a great deal to the traditions of Aramaic-speaking Mesopotamia, Jewish and Christian; but which may also have been enhanced by a certain acquaintance with Cappadocian Christianity. Basil of Caesarea studied rhetoric at Athens and recommended a discriminating use of classical Greek literature in a Christian education. It is legitimate to reserve judgment as to the historicity of Ephraim’s reported personal acquaintance with Basil of Caesarea; 7 certainly, the Vita is no work of sober history. Yet David Taylor’s contribution to this issue of Hugoye will argue for a very considerable link between Ephraim and the Cappadocians, one which involved learning on the part of Basil and the Gregories, as well as Ephraim. And Caesarea is not so very far away from Amida. The mountains are something of an obstacle; but if Ephraim had traversed them, that would explain the vivid mountain-imagery in his poetry, where he evokes the image of of higher mountains, swathed in mists, beyond the foothills (TSF 42:12f; 47:4 etc.). If he had seen Mount Argaeus, the extinct volcano which threw up the extraordinary tufa landscape of western Cappadocia, that would explain his use of the image of the high mountain with the hidden summit for the unity of God, communicating through a hierarchy of heavenly command with the multiplicity of the low-lying physical creation (VHF 1:1ff; compare TSF 1:3; 6:1 etc.). There is no sky-scraping mountain in Mesopotamia. This imagery enters his poetry, if I am not mistaken, with the VHF, which would mean around 360. Now in 358 the city of Nicomedia, capital of Bithynia, was devastated by an earthquake Ammianus XVII 7). Ephraim Amar 1988: sections 25–8, esp. 25.; See Brock 1990: 8 (‘unhistorical’). 7

A Single Human Being Divided in Himself

127

wrote a series of verse-homilies about that catastrophe, which are preserved in an Armenian translation. Why should he have done that? Perhaps because he went there. 8 In 359, Bishop Vologeses completed a splendid new building in stone at Nisibis. It still stands, with a Greek inscription naming the bishop and giving the date. This was a mausoleum for Bishop Jacob and at the same time, as the inscription tells us, a baptistery. When bishops added to the public buildings of their city, they commonly appealed to the Emperor for a subsidy. In order to do so they travelled to the Imperial Court and presented a petition. Such, at least, is the picture we get from sixth-century sources, such as Procopius of Caesarea and the Syriac chronicle written at Edessa in 506. It may be that the aged Bishop Vologeses took his best orator, Ephraim, with him to Nicomedia, which was frequently the imperial residence in time of war with Persia. If Ephraim accompanied his bishop in the capacity of orator, he may have travelled a great deal. There is nothing inherently unlikely, to my mind, about his having sailed, as well. To judge from his poetry, he had an intimate acquaintance with at least one of the great seas, with waves so big that they could wreck a boat, with sailors so skilled that they could yield to such forces and survive, with swimming, buoyed up against all expectation by the mass of the water in which one fears to drown, with divers coming up, fighting for breath, after only a few moments of exploration under water (TSF 25:8f; 81:11f; etc.). He might have acquired second-hand knowledge of these things from literature or from the close questioning of travellers who passed through his city; but if so, he had a remarkable capacity for making other people’s experiences vividly his own. Renoux 1975: xxxv assumes, perhaps more realistically, that E.’s description of liturgical life at Nicomedia is a projection of that he knows in Nisibis; yet his geographical description of Nicomedia is exact. It is true that E. refers to messengers, but these brought the news of the earthquake; it is still an open question whether E. acquired all his knowledge of Nicomedia before the earthquake from hearsay or from personal observation. With regard to the question as to why E. should have written about Nicomedia, the right answer is probably that the fall of such a great city affected the entire empire and provided E. with an opportunity to warn the Nisibenes, in 359, a time of great danger, the year when Amida fell to the Persians, of the punishment which threatened them if they did not improve their Christian lives (Renoux 1975: xxxiv). 8

128 [9]

Andrew Palmer

Later in this paper I shall give some examples of Ephraim’s skills. But before doing that, I want to say something about the performance of his musical works. 9 A teaching-song, or madrosho, consists of a series of verses, or stanzas, each followed by a response, which is usually the same throughout. The singer would stand on a platform set squarely in the middle of the nave and intone the stanzas, addressing himself sometimes, as the people’s teacher, to the congregation and sometimes, as the people’s representative, to God. After each stanza, the congregation would sing the response, almost always consisting of praises to Christ and, through Him, to his Father. For example, TSC [Teaching-Songs on Christmas = Beck 1959] 1 consists of ninety-nine two-line stanzas (to be sung to a melody known as ‘The Confessors’) designed for the vigil of the Feast of the Nativity, beginning with scriptural teaching about the anticipation of Christ in the Old Testament (TSC 1:1–60), continuing with specific admonitions about the proper way to keep vigil (TSC 1:61–83), and ending with general exhortations to behave in a christian way, at Christmas (‘On this day’), of all times (TSC 1:84–99). After each stanza was repeated the response: ‘Glory to You, Son of our Creator!’ In one of the verse-homilies transmitted in an Armenian translation, Ephraim describes how this worked in the church of Nicomedia, destroyed in the earthquake of 358. (The passage is translated from the Armenian by Renoux 1975 and by Renhart 1995; when it is translated from the French or the German into Syriac, it falls naturally into Ephraim’s favourite verse-homily couplets consisting of twice times seven syllables.)

An extract from a performance of Ephraim’s TSC [Teaching-Songs on Christmas (or the Nativity)] 15 to the accompaniment of the Celtic Harp, which took place at the Conference which gave rise to this special issue, accompanies this paper. The melody is of my own invention and has no claim to authenticity; but it is true to the form of the metre, which consists of a central section of sixteen syllables, framed by symmetrical opening and closing sections of twelve syllables each. This Madrosho (like TSF 49 and many others) lends itself to an imaginative range of gesture. The comparison of the singer with a lyre, in particular, suggests that the arms should be held like the horns of a lyre, with the throat and mouth in the place of the strings and the thorax as the sound-box (compare TSP 8:8; Brock 1990:134; Palmer 1993b:380). 9

A Single Human Being Divided in Himself

129

In the middle of the church stood the platform, like a source: thirsty ears would flock to it, drinking life eternal there; drinking thence instruction, too; taking, giving in return. Scripture was explained for ears; mouth repaid the debt with praise. (VHN 8:619–26 = Renoux 1975: 150f)

[10]

The ‘instruction’ and the ‘explanation’ should be understood as descriptions of the content of a teaching-song and the ‘giving in return’ of praise describes the alternation of the teacher’s stanzas and the congregation’s responses. There is a perfect match between this description and TSC 1. Ephraim seems to have taken the revolutionary step of forming a women’s choir to lead the congregation in these responses; but he is also reported, by Jacob of Serugh, to have made women mallponyoto, ‘teachers’, in the church. This would mean that they had actually gone up on the platform and sung the stanzas which contain the teaching. Since the platform was in the middle of the nave, they could do this without going up into the sanctuary, where only males could go, and even, if the nave was already divided into a women’s section at the west and a men’s section at the east, without leaving the women’s half of the churchbuilding. This could be the explanation of Ephraim’s custom of sometimes writing the stanzas as if they were spoken by the City (of Nisibis, or of Bethlehem), personified as a woman, by Mother Church, or by Mary. These Teaching-Songs were perhaps designed to be sung by a woman ‘teacher’ (not by a man, as in the performance of TSC 15 accompanying this paper); in some cases a male teacher may have alternated with a female teacher (e.g. TSC 2), the response giving them time to change places. 10 A good example 10 This alternation may have been a part of traditional Mesopotamian performance-art, which loved the disputation-poem. Disputation literature is known from ancient Babylonia; Syriac poets use it as well (Earth and Heaven, Mary and the Gardener, the Soul and the Body are all examples of male/female alternation; see Brock 1996: 179–81; Brock, 1991); and as late as the nineteenth century, a mime representing the altercation between the Penitent Thief and the Cherub with the Burning Sword was performed in the Assyrian Liturgy in Northern Iraq (Wigram 1929: 198).

130

Andrew Palmer

of a teaching-song which was most probably designed for performance by a female singer is TSN 4. The eleventh stanza seems to refer to the high voices of the women, mingled with the low voices of the men in the bleating refrain: savra-a-a-n hwi shura-aa-n (‘Our Hope, be our Wall!’)—here very freely translated to achieve the same effect. I quote stanzas 1, 3–4, 7–8, 10–2, 23 and 27–28, as the parts most clearly suited to be sung by a woman. The first stanza recalls the persistent woman of Luke 18:1–8; the last evokes the City of Nisibis and Mother Church, and suggests that the person who speaks the words of the teaching-song may be identified with both of these: 1. Worn your doorstep, unwearying your heart! Shamelessly, I come, not deserving help, yet demanding it! R. Spare us, by your care! 3. Open up your door, pitying the cries of my children, Lord! Hear their groans, so sad! Make their sackcloth glad! 4. After You were weaned, Firstborn Child, You joined other boys—the cursed sons of Nazareth. Hear my bleating lambs! 7. Hear my babies’ cry! They’re so innocent! You were once a child: you can reconcile Him of Ancient Days. 8. On the day when You landed in the Crib, Wakeful Ones came down and proclaimed that peace which my children need.

A Single Human Being Divided in Himself

131

10. Pity, Lord, my babes, who remind You that You became a Child! Let them live by Grace, for that likeness’ sake! 11. Bleating innocents cry, and ewes reply: voices low and high call for rescue by Him that shepherds all. 12. I shall make a crown woven of them all, voices high and low, and shall offer this to your Father, Lord. 23. Lord, my chicks have flown, left their nest, alarmed by the Eagle. Look, where they hide in dread! Bring them back in peace! 26. Peace outside my wall: peasants bantering! Peace inside my wall: city-dwellers’ din! These shall be my thanks. 28. Church and those who serve, Town and those who dwell in her, Lord, shout ‘Thanks!’ Let the sound of peace be their noise’s wage! [11]

The teaching remained a male product, however, and these ‘female voices’ teach that the man is head of the woman (TSC 16:16), that women are weak and immoderate (TSN 6:16), that male jealousy is a necessary defence of women’s virtue and a proof of love (TSN 6:13, 15), even, perhaps, that God’s punishments are like the blows her lovers, compelled by her husband, inflict upon an unfaithful woman in front of her children (TSN 5:4), etc. The repeated references, placed by the poet in the female singer’s

132

Andrew Palmer

mouth, to the nakedness and the victimisation of the protagonist (whether the city of Nisibis, as in TSN 6, or the pearl, as in TSF 83) seem to pander to the imagination of the male spectators in a way that is never reciprocated with reference to a male protagonist. Impotence, with Ephraim, is a favourite metaphor for the intellectual limitations of human beings (e.g. TSF 75) and sexual potency is a metaphor for faith (e.g. TSF 21 and 25). This entails imagining God, for the moment, in the role of a female (which Ephraim frequently does) and thus endowing the feminine sex with an aura of power and mystery. I am neither saying that Ephraim underestimated the power and the mystery of women, nor that he hated women for this power. He seems to have been extraordinarily open about his interest for the risqué episodes involving women which are found in Sacred Scripture. 11 His strong sexual longings were redirected into an ardent aspiration to union with God (e.g. TSF 11:18f; 85:11ff) and, on a human plane, to the restoration of openness between the sexes through the espousal of continence. That this ardour embarrassed later generations of Syrian Christians will be shown by Sebastian Brock in his contribution to the next issue of Hugoye (Vol. 2, No. 1). For modern western readers, the powerful sexuality of his poetry, combined with its unswerving restraint, is a great part of its charm. All the same, outside the cloister, Ephraim was no social reformer. Jacob of Serugh, a noted woman-hater, celebrated Ephraim more than a century after his death, saying that ‘the whole aim of his teaching was a new world in which men and women would be equal’. 12 For all that Ephraim, unlike Jacob, appears to empathise with women (often presenting himself, as poet, under the guise of a woman, as in TSF 10), this is a distortion of the facts. In fact, Ephraim co-opted women into a teaching establishment designed to reinforce the patriarchal status quo, rather than to reform it; which explains why Jacob was able to use him, cynically, to praise the mere shadow of equality—the promotion of women from absolute silence to the dignity of ‘teacher’, whereby they become Brock 1992: 168–72. Amar 1995. That Jacob was a woman-hater can be inferred, not only from his projection onto Eve and all her sex of the contamination caused by the sin of disobedience (Ephraim’s Commentary on Genesis gives at least equal blame to Adam), but also from his authorship of the misogynistic Life of Daniel of Glosh, on which see Palmer 1990. 11 12

A Single Human Being Divided in Himself

[12]

[13]

133

the mouthpieces, after Ephraim, of male poets such as Jacob—as if it were real equality between the sexes. The Teaching-Songs on Nisibis show that some, at least, of Ephraim’s compositions were intended for the ears of married people, not only for the celibate section of the community to which he himself certainly belonged. The qaddishe, that is those consecrated to a life of celibacy in the service of God, numbered ‘a quarter and a third’ (that is, either between a quarter and a third, or—as Beck thinks—a quarter of the males and a third of the females) of the Christian community in Nisibis (TSN 19:6). They included both those who had never lost their virginity and others who had subsequently consecrated themselves to celibacy, whether because their spouses had died or for another reason. 13 How exactly the celibate members of the community lived is hard to ascertain. Ephraim does mention dayroto, which might mean ‘monasteries’ (e.g. at TSN 17:3; TSF 79:9). It may well be that some of his works were intended only for these dedicated religious. The biblical commentaries, for example. The introduction to the Commentary on Genesis (Tonneau 1965: 3) suggests that there was a school in which the teaching-songs and the verse-homilies were studied and that the commentaries were intended as a brief guide to the fuller teaching of the songs: I did not at first wish to write a commentary on the first book, the Book of the Creation, for fear of having to repeat here what we have set out in the versehomilies and teaching-songs; but under the pressure of the love of friends, we write briefly here, after all, that which has been written by us at length in the versehomilies and teaching-songs.

[14]

These ‘friends’ are likely to be the ‘Sons and Daughters of the Covenant’. These qaddishe would certainly have used the church more often than the lay-people. Brock infers from one passage of Ephraim (TSP [Teaching-Songs on Paradise] 6:8) that some of the faithful (probably this inner circle) took Holy Communion daily. Some of the teaching-songs were probably designed for use in these services. The Teaching-Songs on Virginity, for example. The 13 Much has been written on celibacy in the Syriac tradition. For orientation in recent, though not the most recent literature, see Brock 1996: 229–35.

134

[15]

Andrew Palmer

other teaching-songs were probably collected into codices and deposited in a library where the members of this community could study them. The Fifteen Teaching-Songs on Paradise (TSP = Beck 1957; Brock 1990) were composed as a sequence and these must be among those referred to in the introduction to the Commentary on Genesis. And there is one much longer sequence of teaching-songs cast in its entirety from a single mould, displaying overarching structures which unite the individual songs by symmetry and contrast, by number and by pattern, by logical progression and by scriptural allusion. This is the Eighty-Seven Teaching-Songs on Faith, 14 which mirrors in some aspects of its overall composition the Six Verse-Homilies on Faith; for example, both begin with the image of God as a mountain unconquerable by Man and both end with the image of a city encircled by a wall. The last of the Eighty-Seven is translated below. The verse-homilies were probably intended for recitation during long vigils in the church, in between the prescribed offices of the Liturgy. It is difficult to think of another context. They are composed of heptasyllabic lines (rendered by me into English iambic pentameters), paired as couplets and end-stopped, with irregular sections marked only by caesurae in the progression of the argument. The rhythmic monotony of the end-stopped couplets presumably corresponds to the repetition of a melodic line, with or without instrumental accompaniment, as in many balladic compositions around the world. But, although the verse-homilies imitate some of the characteristics of oral poetry (such as the threefold repetition of an idea with variations), they are much too intricate to have been composed in this way, nor are they genuinely formulaic. The Six Verse-Homilies on Faith were probably composed in Amida, as I said in the first note; but that does not mean Beck’s project to infer from them something about the curriculum of the School at Nisibis is a pointless endeavour (Beck 1953: 59–63). The fifth almost certainly recalls that School (which may well have travelled to Amida, and so on to Edessa) and takes issue with some of the opinions formulated there. In the following translation words added to fill out the English metre are printed in italics:

14

See Palmer 1995b and Palmer, in preparation.

A Single Human Being Divided in Himself

135

VHF 5 (unpublished translation by Andrew Palmer) Far senior to those with whom he dwells— to those who teach him and to those who learn is Learning, yet he would become the friend of youth and ‘be all things to all’ as well. Together with the teachers he would teach; together with the students he would learn. If Learning teaches, Learning learns as well; unlike a river, Learning flows both ways. In masters of the art of rhetoric he’s praised; through scholars he gets better known. He dwells in both the simple and the sly, in all amounts in all their different souls. For Learning gives himself to everything, just like the One who’s Lord of everything. He makes himself the same as each amount, though greater than his measurers himself. The students cannot measure him, because their faculties as yet are still unformed. No teacher yet has gauged his full extent, because no teacher could exhaust his springs. and yet, though greater than the ones who learn and greater than the ones who teach, as well, he’s less by far than Him that made him still, because he can’t explore Him thoroughly. No one who learns can put his finger on the quantity of his Creator’s power, or get his mind around what God has made, or all that He is able to create. For this creation—all that He has made; this history—the things that He has done; this world—is not the sum of all his power, the only thing the Maker could have done. For not because He was not able to, did He refrain from making more than this. His will can never be encompassed. If He wished, He could make new things every day. But that would cause confusion, if the sum of what He made continued to increase.

10

20

31 32 29 30

40

136

Andrew Palmer The things He has created would not know each other, if their number were too great. Though He Himself knew each one very well, the whole would never comprehend itself and what would be the use of making things which would not know the other things He made? The reason He created things at all was not at all to magnify Himself. He was no less before He made those things, nor greater after He created them. He wanted what He made to grow; that’s why He limited his creativity. He could have gone on making great the world created by His will without an end. But then the ones who lived in it would range; and ranging would be dangerous to them. For then they would not hear about the Men of Righteousness, nor learn their prophecies. Suppose the world were bigger than it is— a hundred times as spacious, let us say— his heralds, the Apostles, would have been unable to evangelize it all. He made Jerusalem the central point, that all the world might know that city well. For when He brought them up from Egypt, or redeemed them out of Babylon again, because He sent them down and brought them up, the whole of his creation heard her name. But if the world were larger than it is, it could not have perceived her as it did. The Lord Himself encapsulates the world, since He extends on all sides far beyond, but how could it have benefited from Jerusalem the way that it has done? If now, although it’s small, the world He made is troubled by the voice of ignorance, how much more badly would it be disturbed, if it were far more spacious than it is? The sun would not have time to cross the sky

50

60

70

80

A Single Human Being Divided in Himself from one horizon to the other edge. The time its journey took would be too long; a single day would take at least a year. Just think of all the damage that would cause, if nature lost its regularity! The summers and the winters would be stretched; the fall of night, the dawn of day, postponed. And when would all the corn be ready? When would all the apples ripen on the trees? All this would not be difficult for Him, but think how hard for us such things would be! This shows the Maker never makes a thing according to the measure of his power. No: everything that He creates and does, He measures in proportion to our good. From this great Womb which does not have a wall emerged the Child who cannot be explored. If you’re determined, nonetheless, to probe, then let me be a counsellor to you. Go, first of all, explore his Genitor and test your strength against his Father’s own! Begin and finish penetrating Him and measure all his length and all his breadth! If you succeed in measuring THE ONEWHO-IS, you’ve measured HIM-THAT-IS-OF-HIM. If you can get the measure of the Sire, why, then you’ll have the measure of his Son. How could you measure HIM-THAT-IS? So don’t explore his only Child: it can’t be done! You feeble diver! Surface from the sea! Come, let’s get back to what we posited! Let’s not relinquish what is known , ‘the land’ and thrash about in what’s unknown, ‘the sea’! So, then, the One who makes does not create as much as He is able to create. He does not make as much as He can make: He makes as much as it is right to make. If He just went on making things and set no limit to his creativity,

137

90

100

110

120

138

Andrew Palmer then nature would be boring, all the same, undifferentiated, on and on, just like a spring, which always flows the same and keeps on pouring water boringly. The Maker would become an open tap, with no control of his own will at all, a source constrained by nature so to flow, unable to prevent its flowing so. For just as, if He did not flow at all, He’d never show his will to us at all, so also, if He never used restraint, He could not show us that He has control. He starts, in order that He may create. He finishes, to order what is made. If, every day, He made a heaven and earth and creatures which inhabited them both, his creativity would simply be confusion with no regularity. His creativity would not be great, because its understanding would be small. A mouth which has the gift of speaking well should speak with moderation, all the same, and just because it’s able to speak well, that does not mean its speech should not be short. But words are not so easy for the mouth as making things for Him that made the world. Though words come easily to orators, yet works come much more easily to Him. And even so, He does not just go on for ever making things, although He could. He gave the human race the power of speech, but also that of regulating speech, so surely He can regulate Himself, though able to create at every hour. So therefore He refrained from making more, that He might put in order what He made. Just how much more He could have made, who knows? For who can calculate such quantities? What He created is a vast amount.

130

140

150

160

A Single Human Being Divided in Himself What He left uncreated, too, is vast. The things He made could never be enclosed. What He abstained from can’t be ascertained. For someone who creates, by one small sign, all things from nothing, is entirely veiled. from those who look for Him, not only in his hidden parts, but also in his shown. You neither know how much He made, my son, nor yet how much He could have made besides. There is one Child concealed within his Womb who knows his quality and quantity. For only He that is both veiled and shown can know both what is veiled and what is shown. The sources run too forcefully for him that tries to study: how, then, can he cope? By Learning we are able to be helped, however weak and feeble we may be. For Learning helps the slowest to achieve the greatest speed by easy leaps and bounds. By multiplying ten by ten he gains the number of a hundred with one bound. By multiplying this again by ten, the number of a thousand can be reached. From one to many thousands and from ten to millions he jumps with perfect ease. By this example you should be convinced that all things are as quick for him as this. For he’s the unseen bridge whereby the soul can cross to study that which is unseen. With him, as with a key, our poverty can open up a vault where treasure lies. He is the gravity whereby old age imparts to youthful minds a pleasant taste. He is the wall around virginity, which keeps her safe from pillagers and rape. By him were sea and land subdued to those who plough the waves and navigate the fields. He harnessed ships and reined them in with ropes and made them canter over oceans green

139

170

180

190

200

140

Andrew Palmer and, like these chariots upon the sea, prepared those ships which travel over land. To Weakness he makes love and renders her that was bereft of power powerful. He touches Levity and renders her that was bereft of savour savoury. He touches Uselessness and teaches her that was bereft of skills all kinds of skill. He touches Wordlessness and brings to her that was bereft of speech all eloquence. He shares the judge’s indignation and the guilty man’s humiliation, too; teaches the one enforcement of the Law, the other how to plead for clemency. He reasons out with those who reason out; he seeks to know with those who seek to know. On one side he is that: the quest to know; and, on the other, he is what is found. Both this and that are linked to him, because he ministers to both sides equally. Although he forces no one, all the same, his lordship is imposed on one and all. The craftsman learns from him the way to work and fabricate from one thing something else enabling him to learn that this is God: the One who makes all things from nothing else. For so he shows to one created One Creator who is greater than himself. The made one makes from other things a thing; the Maker makes from no thing every thing.

[16]

210

220

This relatively short verse-homily gives a convincing picture of a school with an integrated programme of learning, which incorporates natural science, geography, history, mathematics, philosophy, logic, rhetoric, theology and more. It is well worth going through it line by line. ‘Those who teach and those who learn’ (1f) presupposes a school with more than one teacher. This school has room for ‘masters of the art of rhetoric’ and for ‘scholars’ (9f), for students of widely different intellectual strength, ‘the simple and the sly’ (11f). In some sense the aim of all involved

A Single Human Being Divided in Himself

141

is to ‘measure’ things (17ff), to ‘put one’s finger on them’, to ‘get one’s mind around’ them, though they should not imagine that they can do this to God (25ff). The syllabus includes ‘this creation—all that He has made’ and ‘the things that He has done’ (31f), that is to say, natural science, in relation to theology, and history, understood as the sequence and the meaning of God’s dealings with his world. The sources will consequently be Nature and Scripture, elsewhere referred to by Ephraim as the ‘Two Books’, both of which are studied in a christocentric way (hence the play on mshih, ‘measured’, and mshiho, ‘Messiah’; compare also the number of the poem, five—in Syriac hamsho, almost an anagram of mshiho). The school encourages speculation. This has given rise to certain arguably false opinions, which Ephraim opposes with logic and rhetoric (the two cannot be quite disentangled and were called by the same name in Syriac: mliluto), as: That the Creator never stops creating. Having argued against this, Ephraim, after an artful digression, refers back to ‘what we posited’ (mo d-armin: note the use of the first person plural): ‘The Creator does not make as much as He is able to create.’ This, too, is speculative. The sentence ‘Let us return to what we posited’ (108) suggests a certain habit of disciplined logical debate, whereas the specious claim to be leaving ‘what’s unknown’ and returning to ‘what is known’ suggests that the course of debates at this school is often swayed by rhetoric (109f). There is a tendency to derive morals from such speculation, but the moral derived in this case is only applicable to those who have learned the art of public speaking: from the idea that God does not create as much as He is able to create Ephraim derives the lesson that: ‘A mouth which has the gift of speaking well should speak in moderation, all the same’ (137f). The idea of moderation and selfregulation is related to the idea of measuring. Not only the quality of things, but also their quantity is of interest, though only Christ knows the quality and the quantity of God (166). Mathematical knowledge is the model for all other kinds of knowledge (173–82). The overall aim is to progress from the knowledge of things revealed (Nature and Scripture) to that of invisible things; mathematics is the prime example of how this can be done and of the unchanging truth which exists in the invisible realm and which can be extracted from that which is visible (183f). To learn this is to acquire great spiritual wealth (185f). The old should teach the young (187f). ‘Virginity’ is valued in this community as well, as a

142

Andrew Palmer

safeguard against the intrusion of a perverted mentality, which lacks self-discipline, repentance and humility (189f, interpreted in the light of the following verse-homily, VHF 6). But the knowledge pursued in this school is not without practical applications to the domination, by human beings, of their natural environment (191ff). Knowledge is power (197f), good taste (199f), skill (201f), eloquence (203f), good judgment (206f), persuasiveness (207f) and reason (209f). The model of the Man of Knowledge is the craftsman, himself the image of the Creator (217ff), with one crucial difference, which should always make him humble: The made one makes from other things a thing; the Maker makes from no thing every thing. (223f)

[17]

Ephraim wrote his works entirely for the Christian community. He never wrote for Jews or pagans, although he wrote about them. Having said that, there seems to have been a section of the Christian community that had not yet severed its connection with Judaism. They practised the circumcision of male children, respected the Sabbath as a day of rest and abstained from the foods described in the Book of Leviticus as unclean (once again, italics are used for words added by the translator for the sake of the English metre): One illness is defunct, another thrives; one cure is out of date and one survives. The illnesses are gone; so are their cures: the holocausts, the Sabbath Days, the tithes. But there remain those other ills and cures: ‘Don’t swear!’ ‘Don’t steal!’ ‘Don’t be adulterous!’ So don’t resort to any ordinance which has no use, because its ill is gone. Pay great attention to the ordinance which promises to cure your own disease. Beware of salving spiritual wounds with dressings inappropriate to you, thus making pain more painful than before and adding to the evil greater wrong. The One who gave the Law is angered now, because you ban what He declares allowed. The ordinance He gave you is ignored; the one He cancelled, you observe instead.

220

230

A Single Human Being Divided in Himself

143

You idiot! Refrain a little from the all-too-keen observance of the Law! Can circumcision be effective as a cure for sin which lodges deep within? The sin has settled deep inside your heart— and you cut off your foreskin as a cure! (VHF 3:215–38) The ancestors of these people, to whom in particular, it seems, Ephraim addressed this verse-homily, may have been converted by missionaries from Jerusalem before the Gentile-friendly version of Christianity pioneered by St. Paul reached Mesopotamia. The epitaph of Bishop Aberkios of Hierapolis, who died late in the second century, suggests that he was one of the first Pauline missionaries to arrive in Nisibis: ‘Having Paul as a companion, everywhere faith led the way’. 15 It was about the same time that the historical Addai probably came to Edessa and shortly afterwards that Palut was ordained in Antioch as the leader of the Church which afterwards became that of Nicaea (McCullough 1982: 24). Another group of Christians at Edessa said their apostle was Thomas, one of the twelve; even in Ephraim’s time, they still referred to the ‘Pauline’ Christians as ‘Palutians’, as if they were a sect created by that man (Segal 1970: 81). 16 This would explain why, in Eusebius’ version of the Legend of King Abgar (Church History I 13), Thaddaeus (Addai, transformed into one of the Twelve) is the apostle of Edessa, whereas, when Egeria visited the city eleven years after Ephraim’s death, she did so partly because she had heard that the apostle of Edessa was Thomas (Palmer 1982: 5f). The Greek inscription of Kirkmagara, outside Edessa, harmonises these conflicting traditions by saying that Thomas and Thaddaeus are the same (Segal 1970: plate 31b). All this fits the McVey 1989: 6. Without attacking Saint Thomas directly, Ephraim perhaps aimed a blow at this party when he used the metaphor of ‘poking with the finger’, everywhere in TSF, to describe a wrong attitude in religion: certainly he was so understood by the interpolator of TSF 7:11 (originally, surely, a five-stanza poem on the letters of Ephraim’s name: see Palmer 1995a; Palmer 1995b; Palmer 1997b), which compares ‘Judas [= the Jew?] Thomas’ unfavourably with the centurion of Matthew 8, Mark 15 and Luke 7, ‘because he wanted to touch and to probe’. 15 16

144

[18]

Andrew Palmer

thesis put forward by Ferdinand Baur in 1831 and so ably defended, with many new arguments, by Michael Goulder (Goulder 1994): that Jerusalem Christianity, including all of the Twelve, was responsible for one mission, compatible with a kind of Judaism, and Pauline Christianity for another mission, drastically at odds with it. In the middle of the fourth century there seems to have been a resurgence of confidence among the Jews of Mesopotamia. They perceived that the Christian community was disappointed in the record of the Christian emperors. The Cross had been vaunted as the new amulet of the Empire, guaranteeing security against the enemy. Yet there had been a long and damaging war with Persia, during which the city of Amida had been sacked. After the death of Julian, a Christian emperor had unnecessarily ceded Ephraim’s own city, Nisibis, with all the territory to the south and east of it, to the Persians. This meant that the Jews in that area were not now prevented from making converts among the Christians (McVey 1989: 14f). The reign of Constantius had been marred by corruption in high places and many hasty executions of people whom informers had induced the Emperor to fear. Constantius himself had gone back on the policy of Constantine and endorsed Arianism, a doctrine, which, by compromising the divinity of Jesus, narrowed the gap between Christianity and Judaism. It was possible for the Jews to persuade some Christians that the whole religion of Jesus had been an aberrance. It was a tug-o’-war between the Jews and the Christian clergy, with the Jewish Christians as the handkerchief in the middle of the rope. As McVey says: ‘Under the circumstances, relations between the two religious communities were bound to be strained.’ In addressing the people on behalf of the clergy, for example in his Six Verse-Homilies on Faith, Ephraim vilified the Jews and demonised them. He wanted to make them as unattractive as possible to his congregation, whom he urged to abandon any persisting Jewish practices. In his triumphalist idea of the progress of Christianity towards the point at which the Church would be coterminous with the world, the Jews had no place. They should rightly have shrivelled up and died. They did not and their presence was a standing rebuke to Ephraim’s triumphalism. Judaism could not be allowed to appear a viable option. (In the following translation, words added for the sake of the English metre are printed in italics.)

A Single Human Being Divided in Himself Let Sabbath Day and circumcision go, as they have let you go and passed away! Your guilt is due to your internal thoughts; but you observe external disciplines. The soul within you might have perished; but the Sabbath Day, outside you, is observed! The Jew, although he did not keep the laws and ordinances while they were in force, would press us hard to keep the Law today, although its time is past, the infidel! He wants to make us healthy ones contract that illness which he suffered from of old. The cutting and the cauterising irons, the drugs, as well, prepared to cure his pains, he wants to use for mutilating us, for cutting off the limbs of perfect health. The fetters, shackles, manacles prepared to keep him captive in his servitude, he cunningly attempts to use to clap the freedom of the love of God in irons. The ravening slave is prompting us to clamp his fetters, shackles, irons on the free. By flattering the pride of freedom, he subjects her to the yoke of slavery. He makes pretence of honouring the free, but really all he feels for us is scorn. Attracting us to Moses is his way of fleecing the Messiah of his flock. If one is proud to stand beside the Slave, how much more proud to stand beside his Lord! He doesn’t even stand beside the Slave, denying, as he does, that Servant’s Lord. And Moses, who was scorned of old by them, was always held in honour by ourselves. The Lord is honoured as a Lord; and slaves are honoured as the servants of their Lord. He persecuted Moses in his time and, in his time, he crucified his Lord. The nations, at that time, were off the track;

145

290

300

310

320

146

Andrew Palmer but, all the same, he ran away to them. Today, when, by denial, he has strayed, he calls the nations off the beaten track. The Gentile Church preserves her chastity; by Egypt, though, pollution was embraced. He would have hurried back to Egypt’s arms, had deep sea-water not prevented him. He will not enter this Girl, full of truth; he longed to run to that Girl, full of lies. Because he’s tasted blood on such a scale, he cannot stop himself from murdering. In former times he murdered openly; but now he murders secretly instead. He tramps around the ocean and the land to find companions for the road to Hell. He has no Prophets whom he might destroy in public, as his lust would make him do, Among the kings he was dispersed, that they might hold in check his lust for blood by force. He saw that mediums could no longer hold the pagans spellbound, while the Prophets could. So then he dressed himself in prophecies, the prophecies of those whom he had killed; he put them on and took them off at will, the more to kill by reasoning with them. He kills the bodies of the prophets, then he takes the prophets’ voices for a cloak. Avoid the Jew, you vulnerable man! Your death and blood is nothing much to him! He took upon himself the blood of God; and will he be afraid of shedding yours? He has no fear of leading you astray; he had no fear of wandering himself! Beneath the very Pillar of the Cloud he made the Calf and did not even blush. He placed the idol with the fourfold cheeks, bereft of dread, within the Holy Place. He hanged the Maker on a piece of wood and all Creation shuddered at the sight.

330

340

350

360

A Single Human Being Divided in Himself

147

The Spirit rent the curtain of the door, to make the disbeliever rend his heart. The stones above the tombs were rent as well, but still that heart of stone felt no remorse. The Spirit saw that he was undismayed; She fled his rabid, predatory lust. The accursed one then snorted through his nose in front of his most honourable God. The Prophet was too modest to relate 370 his filthy deed exactly as it was; Ezekiel found modest words to tell what filthy acts the Jew committed then. Because those acts were told by modest lips, they were articulated modestly. For just as what is sanctified has passed through Jewish lips and so has been outraged, so filthy acts committed by the Jew have passed through modest lips and been improved. He slaughters all the prophets sent by God, 380 like newborn lambs, so innocent and pure. Physicians came to visit him, but he became his doctors’ executioner. So get away from him, because he’s mad! Run for your life! Take refuge in the Christ! Don’t come to Him with curiosity! Approach Him, rather, as a worshipper! If he, the disbeliever, crucifies, and you, the one who worships, penetrate, discerning men will shed great tears, because the one blasphemes, the other penetrates. 390 He visited the seed of Abraham: the heirs turned into murderers; and then he visited the nations, immature as yet: the innocent began to probe. (VHF 3:281–394) In considering the influence of Saint Ephraim, we cannot speak only of his influence for the good. We have to say, also, that he was largely responsible for the virulent anti-Jewish language which has ever since characterised the Syriac Liturgy. Understanding the

148

[19]

Andrew Palmer

historical context helps to explain why he used such inflammatory language against the Jews; it does not excuse him. Nor does the fact that this language had not yet led to large-scale physical violence against the Jews, tolerated or even ordered by a Christian State. Line 305 shows that the Jews gave the appearance, at least, of honouring their Christian neighbours, which makes Ephraim’s ungentle behaviour even more culpable. 17 Things became even worse for Ephraim’s party when the Emperor was not only an Arian (as Constantius had been), but began (as Valens did) to enforce Arianism, sending recalcitrant bishops into exile and replacing them with Arians. Ephraim’s best policy was then to identify the Jews and the Arians as equally dangerous enemies of the true faith and to call the remnant of true believers to resistance and possible martyrdom. This is what he does in his Eighty-Seven Teaching-Songs on Faith, which must have been composed not long before his death at Edessa in 373. It will be helpful, I think, to quote and translate the last of these in full at this point. We can then use it to discuss Ephraim’s skill with words. Teaching-Songs on Faith 87 (unpublished translation by Andrew Palmer) 1. I watched them, strutting peacocks on a circus floor: philosophers, at utmost pains to taste fire, see breath, feel the light; to split the very beam which made them partisans. R. Praise Father, Son and Holy, Vestal Breath of God! 2. The Son, too fine for mind to see, they thought to feel. 17

1995a.

Compare Cerbelaud 1995b and the introduction to Cerbelaud

A Single Human Being Divided in Himself That Vestal Breath, untouchable, they thought to touch by questioning. The Father’s ways, unfathomed, they interpreted. 3. The model for our faith in God is Abraham. For penitence, the Ninevites and Rahab for expectancy. Both Old and New belong to us and Satan glares! 4. Egyptians gave that wicked vice, the wicked Calf. The Hittites gave that evil god, with the evil stare and double face. But Athens gave that creeping worm: philosophy. 5. Embittered, Satan overturned the good He saw and propagated hateful things and axed and felled the hope He saw. Philosophy, his apple, sets our teeth on edge. 6. For when He saw that Truth had choked

149

150

Andrew Palmer

his weeds, and Him, He shut Himself away and made a fiendish trap to catch the Faith. He shot at priests with arrows tipped with lust for power. 7. For precedence upon that chair they duelled then, some hiding their desire for it, some wrestling for it openly; some shameless, others cunning—all the same at last. 8. The young man never even thinks to wait his turn. The old man is oblivious of his imminent decrepitude. Old, young, yes, even children, want promotion—now! 9. The clerks of old were once His cloaks; now clerics are. First, worm and weevil gnawed the Jews to rags, then left them, moving on to newer cloth and newer races, hungry still.

A Single Human Being Divided in Himself 10. The ones who crucified are scorned outsiders now. When Satan saw this, He resolved to make insiders probe their Lord. The Cloth itself now breeds the Worm: its poison spreads. 11. The Granary is weevil-ridden: Satan gloats. The Winnowed Wheat begins to rot; the Worm devours the shining robes. Abused by Him, we drunkards now abuse ourselves. 12. He sowed his tares and thorns attacked the Weeded Vine. Infection flew from sheep to sheep; all ewes, diseased, now flock to Him. The Jews were his; but now He wants the Gentiles, too. 13. The former gave the Son a reed and mocked their King. The latter dared to use the reed to write that He was human, too. So Satan traded

151

152

Andrew Palmer

reed for reed to wage his war. 14. Instead of robes of purple and of other hues, He used a dye to stain his name and dressed Him up in other names, like ‘Creature’, or ‘The Made’, although He made the world. 15. To hurt Him then He plaited thorns which could not speak. But now He twists a crown of thoughts and music, like a teaching-song, so thick, that all his barbs can be concealed within. 16. The methods which had failed Him were too obvious; the spittle, too unsubtle; thorns and acid; nails and wood; robe, reed and piercing spear, too loathsome; so He’s changed his ploys. 17. No brutal slap, but brittle speculation, now! No spitting, now: disputes instead! No robes, but rifts which no one sees!

A Single Human Being Divided in Himself No reeds, but feuds with which He hopes to thrash us all! 18. Pride summons Rage, her sister. Envy comes, and Scorn. Anger and Lies deliberate against the King who liberates, as once they took his liberty, when He was down. 19. A subtle form of torture is controversy. Enquiry pierces, like the nails. Denial is a living death. For Satan seeks new ways in which to crucify. 20. The sponge which dripped with gall is out. His darts are in: invasive thoughts, which drip with death. Our Lord spat out the bitter gall; the Bitter One makes wild-goose-chases sweet to fools. 21. The Governor opposed them then— his placard stood. Now Governors implacably oppose our stand

153

154

Andrew Palmer

with their decrees. The Crown is free from censure. Priests mislead the Kings. 22. Instead of prayers for Royalty, which Priesthood owes, that wars might leave mankind in peace, they taught the Kings inverted war: a struggle with their cities blessed with circuit-walls. 23. O soothe, our Lord, both Crooks and Crowns and, in one Church, let Bishops pray for Kings they serve; and Kings relieve the Towns they love; and inner peace, in You, surround us like a Wall! [20]

In these skilfully composed stanzas we see Ephraim, the orator, manipulating the minds of his hearers through the varied use of the pronouns ‘us’ and ‘them’. In the first stanza he creates a complicity between himself, the ‘spectator’, and those to whom he is relating what he has ‘seen’ (presumably the congregation in the church). Over against this ‘us’ stand the ‘philosophers’, like gladiators in the arena, at a distance. But when he says ‘they were forced to make schisms’ (‘of the beam’, or ‘by the beam’: my free translation renders the ambiguity: ‘to split the very beam which made them partisans’), his hearers are likely to have thought of the circus factions, especially since the context (which at first suggests the refraction of a beam of light) makes one think of the colours of the rainbow and the factions were the Blues and the Greens (in living memory there had been Golds and Reds as well). The whole amphitheatre was divided in its allegiance to one or other of the

A Single Human Being Divided in Himself

[21]

[22]

[23]

155

teams of gladiators. So, in a sense, the ‘us’ includes the men in the ring and the ‘them’ includes the people on the spectators’ benches. This ambivalence continues throughout the poem. There follows the response, an acclamation of the Holy Trinity by the congregation; then stanza 2, in which the philosophers, now distinctly ‘they’, are depicted as trying to probe the mystery of the Trinity, instead of being content, like the congregation, to praise It. In stanza 3 the opposition is between the virtues with which ‘we’ (unspecified) are associated—faith, repentance and hope—and the envy of ‘the Evil One’, excited by the fact that ‘we’ possess the Jewish Scriptures, as well as to the writings of the apostles. ‘We’ evidently identify with the righteous figures in the Old Testament. In stanza 4 there is no explicit ‘we’, but ‘they’ are various foreign peoples—Egyptians, Hittites, Greeks—who have infected the Chosen People (the implicit ‘us’) with their blasphemous habits, ever since the Golden Calf. The latest of these bad habits is philosophy, which has infected the Church. ‘They’ were always the instruments of Satan (stanza 5), who is envious of everything that is good (implicitly, of ‘us’). He attacks the faith (‘us’) by shooting arrows at the priests (‘them’, although they belong to ‘us’) and thus infecting them with the love of power (stanza 6). It is common for those members of a community who share in power to be regarded as ‘them’ by the majority who lack power. Stanza 7 recalls the amphitheatre from stanza 1, only now it is the priests, not the philosophers, who are competing, and the object of their competition is ‘that chair’ (the episcopal throne). The suggestion is that these priests are the philosophers of stanza 1 and that ambition, not the love of the truth, is their true motivation. There follows a satirical passage (stanza 8) on the many forms of ambition in young and old. All these, since the congregation is invited to laugh at them, are to be regarded as ‘them’, not ‘us’. But in stanza 9 the ‘new peoples’ (Gentiles) take the place of the young, as against ‘the old’, who are the Jews. The majority among Ephraim’s congregation would appear to have identified with the Gentiles. In stanza 10, the Jews are called ‘foreigners’, reversing the opposition of stanza 4, where the Gentiles were the foreigners and the Jews were the Chosen People, admittedly perpetuated as such in the Church, which is supposed to have inherited this status. ‘God’s own people’ are now the Christians, but Satan now makes

156

[24]

[25]

[26]

Andrew Palmer

of them ‘probers’ of the Mystery of their faith. Ephraim is obliging his congregation to take a share of the blame for the arrogant rationalism which has swept through the Church. In stanza 11 he depicts the whole community of the baptised as infected; the stanza ends with three rhyming lines with the -an ending which indicates ‘us’: ‘He has abused us; indeed, we have abused ourselves, because drink had intoxicated us.’ The winnowed wheat and the robes of glory of stanza 11 are followed by the weeded vineyard and the gathered sheep of stanza 12, all images of the saved. But the rot has established itself inside these protected areas. Thorns are growing among the vines; vast numbers of ewes (lay-people) are now infected and have gone over to the enemy. The ‘we’ of the Christian community has now been split again, into the ‘them’ of the traitors and the ‘us’ of the faithful remnant. ‘We’, the faithful remnant, are again present in the name ‘our Saviour’, given to Christ in stanzas 13 and 14. The way that ‘they’, the modern theologians, talk about Jesus is to be compared with the way that other ‘they’, the Jews, treated Him when He was on earth. By this polarisation, the theologians are equated with the Jews as tools of Satan, the enemy of all that is good, and ‘we’ are identified with Christ, his intended victim. In another context (TSF 12:2) it suits Ephraim to count himself as one among a number of teachers: ‘all we who form our fellow-men’—so some of them must have been among his hearers. In stanza 15 of the present teaching-song he paints a picture of ‘their’ poetic activity as the creation of Satan himself, who plaits a ‘Crown of Thorny Thoughts’ with the help of rhetoric and beguiling music, ‘like teaching-songs’. He is describing poetteachers like himself, but he does not identify with them. He is like an academic who curries favour with an audience drawn from the general public by saying ‘Beware of academics!’. It is a risky strategy, but it can work. The public believes that the speaker, being a professional, knows the techniques of professionals well enough to see through them. In stanza 16, doubt, inquiry and disagreements, which are characteristic of the intellectual community, are depicted as subtle modern instruments with which to torture Christ. In stanza 18 argument, questions and denial are added to the list, suggesting that to question Christ’s status is to deny Christ. In the intervening stanza 17, Arrogance and ‘her sister’, Aggressiveness,

A Single Human Being Divided in Himself

[27]

[28]

157

are personified, along with other negative emotions, Envy, Haughtiness and Deviousness, and take part in a conspiracy against ‘our’ Saviour, which is compared with the ambush of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane. (There is a pun on melko shqalw, ‘they deliberated’, and shqalw malko, ‘they arrested the King’, which Beck’s German translation does not notice.) The way that this is placed between two stanzas which demonize the tools of the intellectual trade means that these negative emotions are also projected onto the philosophers. Stanza 20 adds that ‘fools’ (the word is derived from the same root as the verb ‘to understand’) find scientific inquiry full of sweetness, whereas in fact it is a dead end of falsehood and as bitter as the gall which Jesus refused to drink on the Cross. Ephraim pretends not to be an intellectual himself and writes like a rabble-rouser, encouraging popular prejudice against academics. In stanza 21, ‘we’, whom the Roman State opposes in Ephraim’s time, are placed on a par with ‘them’, the Jewish priests whose request, that the title on Jesus’ Cross be altered, Pilate refused. But the mind does not accept this parallel as an identification. Instead, it associates the Christian priests mentioned at the end of the stanza with the Jews. The obstinacy of the civil authority is misdirected, the poet is saying; the Emperor should be like Pilate and oppose ‘them’, the priests, not ‘us’. In stanza 22, the priests are depicted as acting in a way which is damaging to humanity itself in turning the Emperor’s armed force against his ‘walled cities’. This description fits Edessa, where Ephraim was writing, and invites the audience to identify their city with the faithful remnant of the Church which is still opposed to the Emperor’s Arianism. The effect of this, especially when Edessa is multiplied into a number of ‘walled cities’, is to make those who attack that remnant look like enemies of the Church and of the Roman Empire itself, even if one of them is the Emperor. The solidarity which a country feels in the face of a threat to its security becomes the ‘we’, the Emperor and the Bishops—but especially the Bishops—the ‘they’. The last stanza evokes the healing of the wound which has opposed ‘them’ to ‘us’ in the Church and Empire. The poet calls upon ‘our Lord’ in the name of all, including the Bishops, the Emperors and the Walled Cities, and asks that, in one Church, the Bishops should support each other and the Emperors (turning the

158

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

Andrew Palmer

third person plural into a part of ‘us’), and that internal concord should become, in Christ, an external wall of defence for ‘us’. It is a regular feature of Ephraim’s rhetoric that he moves the boundaries in this way. It is very effective and must have been acquired by taking many pains. One would think that the art had been passed on to Ephraim by others who had already mastered it. I am suggesting that there was a school of rhetoric in Nisibis, where also such techniques as satire, innuendo, and allegory were taught. The style is highly mannered and crafted. I have taken trouble in my translation to try to replicate the effect of the everpresent assonance and wordplay which is part of this traditional art. If one looks closely at the structure of the poem, one finds that the first stanza is strongly linked to the last and that themes are enunciated or hinted at in the first stanza which recur throughout the poem, now one of them, now another coming to the surface. One begins to see that Ephraim’s description of his opponents’ poetic art can also be applied to Ephraim’s own art (including the ‘hidden thorns’, which are his uncharitable innuendoes about his fellow-intellectuals, his fellow-clergy and his fellow-poets). This compositional technique must also be a traditional art, for Ephraim’s opponents are unlikely to have learned it from him. In this poem, Ephraim attacks philosophy. Elsewhere he undermines science, saying that it is impossible to know everything about the natural world and so better just to praise the superior knowledge and power of God. He confuses the excitement of scientific discovery with the excitement of sexual discovery and condemns the first in terms designed by a repressive society for the condemnation of the second. Both kinds of excitement are, for him, dangerously undisciplined. He tries to divert the disapproval which his audience would have felt for a lack of discipline in sexual relations against the risquǷ theology of the moderns, by suggesting that both have the same psychological roots. Yet Ephraim was also caught up into the youthful ‘spirit of the age’ which the stern patriarch in him condemned. It is no wonder that he felt himself to be ‘divided’ (TSF 20:17—the passage quoted in the title of this paper). If he had been undivided in his patriarchal disapproval, his work would have been boring in the extreme. As it is, it is relieved and even made attractive by his daring and his love of new discoveries, things which he must have learned from the lively students at the School of Nisibis, of whom

A Single Human Being Divided in Himself

159

he professed to disapprove. It is because he is neither one thing nor the other that he sometimes short-circuits himself, claiming, for example, that the only reason why he has tried (again and again!) to paint pictures of God by comparisons with nature (which he now says cannot be done!) is ‘to disorient arrogance’ (TSF 41). He wants to have his cake and eat it. Subconsciously, perhaps, he saw himself as that Janus-faced idol placed by Manasseh in the middle of the Temple. 18 His station in the middle of the nave gave him a platform of intermediate status in the hierarchy of society. Standing amongst the people, while the rest of the clergy congregated in the Sanctuary in readiness for the Liturgy of the Faithful, he might seem to be a tribune of the people; but in fact he was a member of the clergy and consciously functioned as the official spokesman of the Church. There is an unresolved political ambiguity in his role, which infected all his attitudes. He seems to be a great manipulator of symbols; in fact, he was probably manipulated by them, subject to the conflicting influences of the two poles between which, as deacon on the bema, he took his stand. 19 The irony is that his work was and still is used to try to stifle, in the Syriac Churches, the very liveliness which makes him so stimulating and the very independence of mind which so often made him go against the stream of his time. His influence throughout the Middle Ages was very great, but by the processes of selection and edited dissemination, his ambiguity was removed. What remained was an unattractive Ephraim, a killjoy, whose perverted passion incited to kill Jews, an opponent of rationalism and of science, in short, an enemy of youth, tolerance, reason, truthfulness and progress. Fortunately, thanks to the bibliophilia of a certain abbot Moses, to the conservatory powers of the Egyptian climate and to the labours of modern editors, we can recover 18 VHF 3:357f; TSF 87:4; 2 Chronicles 33:7 (Peshitta), where d-arba’ appin should be understood as ‘four-cheeked’ and thus ‘two-faced’, like Izzummi, a Hittite god (see H. Otten, art. ‘Izzummi’, in D. O. Edzard, ed., Reallexikon der Assyriologie, vol. 5 (Berlin, 1976–80), 228), of whom Ephraim must have known. (My thanks, for this intelligence, to Professor David Hawkins, who denied any knowledge of ‘four-faced’, as opposed to ‘two-faced’, gods among the Hittites.) 19 On the bema, see Tchalenko/Baccache 1979–1990; Renhart 1995; Palmer 1997a. Emma Loosley is preparing a doctoral dissertation on the subject at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London.

160

Andrew Palmer

another Ephraim, life and laughter-loving, compassionate, philosophically minded, remarkably honest, delighting in invention. The real Ephraim was a mixture of the two, something which baffles comprehension, if we assume that, as a person, he must have had a fixed and consistent character. But it becomes quite easy to understand, when we see him as subject to conflicting forces by virtue of the pivotal position which he occupied in society, as symbolically ordered in the church.

REFERENCES Amar, J. P. The Syriac Vita Tradition of Ephrem the Syrian (Washington, DC, 1988). Amar 1995 Amar, J. P. “A metrical homily on holy Mar Ephrem by Mar Jacob of Sarug: Critical Edition of the Syriac Text, Translation and Introduction,” Patrologia Orientalis, vol. 47, fasc. 1, no. 209 (Turnhout, 1995). Barsaum 1967 Barsaum, I. E. Syrian Orthodox Patriarch, Berulle bdire. Syriac translation of the Arabic al-lu’lu’ almanthȉr (Qamishly, 1967). Beck 1955 (= TSF) Beck, E. Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen de fide, 2 vols. (CSCO 154/5 = SS 73/4; Louvain, 1955). Beck 1957 (= TSP) Beck, E. Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen de paradiso, 2 vols. (CSCO 174/5 = SS 78/9; Louvain, 1957). Beck 1959 (= TSC) Beck, E. Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen de nativitate, 2 vols. (CSCO 186/7 = SS 82/3; Louvain, 1959). Beck 1961 (= TSN) Beck, E. Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Carmina Nisibena, 2 vols. (CSCO 218/9 = SS 92/3; Louvain, 1961). Beck 1962 (= TSV) Beck, E. Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen de virginitate, 2 vols. (CSCO 223/4 = SS 94/5; Louvain, 1962). Beck 1980 Beck, E. EphrDzms des Syrers Psychologie und Erkenntnislehre (CSCO. Subsidia 58; Louvain, 1980). Beck 1981 Beck, E. Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers sermones de fide, 2 vols. (CSCO 212/3 = SS 88/9; Louvain, 1961). Amar 1988

A Single Human Being Divided in Himself Bedjan 1892 Bowersock 1990 Brock 1990 Brock 1991

Brock 1992

Brock 1996 Cerbelaud 1995a

Cerbelaud 1995b

Drijvers 1984 Goulder 1994 McCullough 1982

McVey 1989

Millar1993 Palmer 1990

Palmer 1993a

161

Bedjan, P. (ed.), Acta martyrum et sanctorum III (Paris/Leipzig, 1892) 667ff. Bowersock, G. W. Hellenism in Late Antiquity (Jerome Lectures 18; Ann Arbor, 1990). Brock, S. Saint Ephrem: Hymns on Paradise (Crestwood/New York, 1990). Brock, S. P. ‘Syriac dispute-poems: the various types’, in Reinink, G., and H. Vanstiphout (eds.), Dispute Poems and Dialogues = OLA 42 (1991): 109– 19. Brock, S. The Luminous Eye: The spiritual world vision of Saint Ephrem (Cistercian Studies 124; Kalamazoo, 19922). Brock, S. P. Syriac Studies: A Classified Bibliography (1960– 1990) (Kaslik, 1996). Cerbelaud, D. Éphrem: Célébrons la Pǰque. Hymnes sur les Azymes, sur la Crucifixion, sur la Résurrection (Les Pères dans la Foi 58; Paris, 1995). Cerbelaud, D. “L’Antijudaïsme dans les hymnes de pascha d’Éphrem le Syrien,” Parole de l’Orient 20 (1995): 201–7. Drijvers, H. J. W. East of Antioch: Studies in Early Syriac Christianity (London, 1984). Goulder, M. A Tale of Two Missions (London, 1994). McCullough, W. S. A Short History of Syriac Christianity to the Rise of Islam (Scholars Press General 4; Chico, 1982). McVey, K. Ephrem the Syrian: Hymns. The Classics of Western Spirituality (New York/Mahwah, 1989). Millar, F. The Roman Near East (London, 1993). Palmer, A. “Sisters, fiancǷes, wives and mothers of Syrian holy men,” Orientalia Christiana Analecta 236 (1990): 207–14. “The Merchant of Nisibis: Saint Ephrem and his Faithful Quest for Union in Numbers,” in Boeft, J. den, and A. Hilhorst, Early Christian Poetry: A Collection of Essays (Vigiliae Christianae: Supplement 22; Leiden, 1993) 167–233.

162 Palmer 1993b

Andrew Palmer

Palmer, A. “‘A Lyre Without A Voice’: The Poetics and the Politics of Ephrem the Syrian,” Aram 5:1&2 (1993): 371–99. Palmer 1995a Palmer, A. “Saint Ephrem of Syria’s Hymn on Faith 7: an ode on his own name,” Sobornost / Eastern Churches Review 17:1 (1995): 28–40. Palmer 1995b Palmer, A. “Words, silences, and the Silent Word: Acrostics and empty columns in Saint Ephraem’s Hymns on Faith,” Parole de l’Orient 20 (1995): 129– 200. Palmer 1997a Palmer, A. Review of Renhart 1995, in Sobornost / Eastern Churches Review 19:2 (1997): 53–61. Palmer 1997b Palmer, A. “Mind the Gap! Or: A Church Father with a sense of fun,” Gouden Hoorn: Tijdschrift over Byzantium 4:2 (1997) [URL: http://www.geocities. com/ Athens/Parthenon/5157/42andrew.htm] Palmer, forthcoming Palmer, A. “The Prophet and the King: Saint Ephraim’s message for the Emperor Valens,” in Reinink, G., and A. C. Klugkist (eds.), Untitled [Festschrift for Han Drijvers] (Leuven, 1999). Palmer, in Palmer, A. Saint Ephraim the Syrian: Six Versepreparation (a) Homilies on Faith (Oxford Early Christian Texts). Palmer, in Palmer, A. A Crown of Thoughts: Eighty-Seven preparation (b) Teaching-Songs on Faith by Saint Ephraim the Syrian (International Sacred Literature Trust). Renhart 1995 Renhart, E. Das syrische Bema: liturgisch-archDzologische Untersuchungen (Grazer Theologische Studien 20; Graz, 1995). Renoux 1975 Renoux, C., etc. (ed.), Éphrem de Nisibe: Memre sur (=VHN) Nicomédie [Verse-Homilies on Nicomedia] = Patrologia Orientalis, vol. XXXVII, fasc. 2/3, nos. 172/3 (Turnhout, 1975) Segal 1970 Segal, J. B. Edessa: the “Blessed City” (Oxford, 1970). Tchalenko/ Tchalenko, G., and E. Baccache, Églises de village de Baccache la Syrie du Nord, vols. 1 and 2, and Tchalenko, G. 1979–1990 Églises syriennes Ǯ bêma (Institut Français de l’Archéologie du Proche-Orient 105, vols. 1–3; Paris, 1979, 1980, 1990). Tonneau 1965 Tonneau, R. M. Sancti Ephraem Syri in Genesim et in Exodum Commentarii (CSCO 152/3 = SS 71/2; Louvain, 1965).

A Single Human Being Divided in Himself Wigram 1929

163

Wigram, W. A. The Assyrians and their Neighbours (London, 1929).

Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies, Vol. 1.2, 165–184 © 1998 [2010] by Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute and Gorgias Press

THE TEARS OF THE SINFUL WOMAN: A THEOLOGY OF REDEMPTION IN THE HOMILIES OF ST. EPHRAIM AND HIS FOLLOWERS HANNAH M. HUNT UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS UNITED KINGDOM

INTRODUCTION [1]

Ephraim’s Homily on the Sinful Woman, 1 which gives an exegesis of Luke’s account of the sinful woman who bathes the feet of Jesus with her penitent tears, 2 is a remarkable piece of poetic theology in its own right. It also forms the inspiration for a number of other theological commentaries in Syriac. There are two dialogue-poems on the subject. 3 Two anonymous homilies are edited by Graffin 1962; a third was projected but is not extant. There is one by Jacob of Serugh. 4 Sauget 1975/6 provides a translation of another homily 1 Johnston 1898, as well as the Homily on the Sinful Woman listed as number 3 in this translation; number 1, a Homily on Our Lord, devotes a substantial section to the same story. 2 Luke 7:37–50. 3 Beck, Sermones, II, no. 4, English Trans., Brock 1988. 4 Amar, J. P. “A Metrical Homily on Holy Mar Ephrem by Mar Jacob of Sarug: Critical Edition of the Syriac Text, Translation and Introduction,” Patrologia Orientalis 47, fasc. 1, no. 209 (Turnhout, 1995).

165

166

[2]

[3]

[4]

Hannah M. Hunt

“attributed to Bishop John,” which may refer to Chrysostom, to whom is attributed another homily on the subject in Sahidic which survives. This Coptic text shares many stylistic points with the Syriac homilies, especially in developing the dialogue between the woman and Satan and the seller of perfumes, a peculiarly Ephraimic interpolation into the Lucan text. The popularity of this Lucan story is attested by modern as well as ancient scholars. Sauget’s introduction refers to the plethora of Byzantine homilies based on this text. Brock 1989: 144 notes that this story is one motif that found its way from Syriac literature into Greek texts. Carpenter, in her edition of the Kontakia of Romanos, 1970, notes that this was “a peculiarly oriental motif.” 5 Ode 10 in this volume is on the sinful woman. My contention is that this focus of interest may be accounted for in part by the Syrian tradition of typology and symbolism, which provides, in the person of the penitent woman, a model for the whole of sinful humanity. In the case of Ephraim, the focus on female characters reflects his sympathy for, and understanding of, the local and specific audience for which he was writing. This paper, therefore, begins with a consideration of Ephraim’s typology, and the conflation of several female characters in the New Testament. This sets the background for an assessment of the available homilies on the Lucan story, in which what the Greeks know as penthos is portrayed in its Syrian mode as grieving penitence. The symbolic mode of utterance which underlies these texts, reveals the individual’s remorse for sinfulness expressed in inner dialogues, which, being externalized, invites healing.

EPHRAIM’S LIFE AND POETIC IDIOM [5]

The dangers of relying on Byzantine sources for information about the Syrian Fathers are well known, and nowhere are they more present than in the case of the life of Ephraim, where a deceptively full Vita exists, which is not, however, corroborated by internal evidence from Ephraim’s own writings. 6 Carpenter 1970: 99. Jerome, writing only two decades after Ephraim’s death affirms his enduring importance to the Syrian Church. (Book of Illustrious Men, chapter 115) Both Palladius in the early fifth century (Lausiac History, chapter 40), and the slightly later Sozomen (Ecclesiastical History 3, 16) give 5 6

A Single Human Being Divided in Himself [6]

167

His dates may be taken as c. 306 to 373, and it is generally accepted that he was born into a Christian family, ordained as a deacon, and worked as a catechetical teacher, predominantly with women. The evidence for this comes from a verse panegyric by Jacob of Serugh, cited by Brock 7 which describes Ephraim as “a second Moses for women folk.” In his wisdom, he saw that it was appropriate for them to sing, and he composed hymns specifically for them. 8 He died not long after having assisted victims of famine. The three sieges of Nisibis feature significantly in his works, and he also comments on his relationships with significant bishops of the day in his hymns. The appeal of Ephraim’s poetry has been recognized only relatively recently, according to Brock, 9 who has played a large part in the renaissance of interest in his theological use of symbolism and paradox within well-crafted verse. It is as a “theologian-poet” 10 that he should be read. His complex literary and linguistic devices, such as antithesis, paradox and puns, not only produce compellingly beautiful literature, but also illuminate his understanding of God. In particular, the focus in his writings glowing accounts of his literary merits, and Theodoret (Ecclesiastical History 4, 29) and Gennadius (Supplement to Jerome’s Book of Illustrious Men) make brief references to Ephraim. Outtier 1973 accepts to a great extent the authenticity of these Byzantine accounts; a more critical appraisal of their findings and other bibliographic suppositions may be found in Brock 1990: Intro. and in the same scholar’s contribution to the next issue of Hugoye (Vol. 2, No. 1). 7 Brock 1990: 22–4. 8 This panegyric notes that these women are enabled to do this through the work of the Second Eve, who has purged out the First Eve from them, an analogy much used by Ephraim himself. Brock notes Ephraim’s affection for and interest in women, from which he infers that he is unlikely to have been a monk enclosed in a cell, avoiding even the sight of women, as the Life says. In addition, in the fourth century asceticism in Nisibis is more likely to have taken the form of what he terms “proto-monasticism” than of monaticism in the more formal sense of the term (Brock 1990: 25–33. In this, he corroborates the findings of Beck (1958: 298), who concludes that a confusion of monasticism with “the asceticism of the young church” had taken place. 9 Brock 1975/6: 21–23 cites the disparaging comments of Burkitt and Segal, and attributes their opinions to the fact that they looked in vain for certain biographical and historical references in Ephraim’s works. 10 Murray 1975: 220–3.

168

Hannah M. Hunt

on the dynamic between what is hidden and what is revealed discloses the fundamentally incarnational basis of his thought.

TYPOLOGY AND SYMBOLISM9 [7]

[8]

The Lucan story of the sinful woman is treated by Ephraim in all three of the verse forms he favours: memre (verse-homilies), madrćshe (stanzaic hymns), and sogyćthć (dialogue poems), 11 which exhibit, perhaps better than his biblical commentaries, the particular theological approach which is his trademark. That, at least, is the opinion of de Halleux. 12 Regardless of the form chosen, Ephraim’s works are moulded by his understanding of types and symbols 13 as being not just important literary devices, but indicators of the mystery of God’s redeeming work. The symbol does not merely represent something other, in a metaphorical sense; at some level it actually constitutes the other. For Ephraim, the hidden meaning of matter (which should not, therefore, be despised) is revealed by the “luminous eye of faith,” 14 the process of hidden power known as haylć kasyć. Ephraim’s use of typology, antithesis and other such modes is demonstrated effectively in his treatment of various female characters from the New Testament. They seek healing for their inner and outer selves, healing both from physical infirmity and Full bibliographical details of the substantial number of studies of typology in Ephraim may be found in Murray’s scholarly monograph and full-length study (1975 and 1975/6), and in Brock (1983, especially 37, where he notes that in Ephraim’s hands, typology becomes “something of an art form.”). McVey 1989: 41 likewise lists numerous modern studies on Ephraim’s use of symbols. 12 Detailed definitions of these forms may be found in Brock 1983: 35–45; 1990: 336–39; and 1992: 34. 13 de Halleux 1973: 36. de Halleux’s understanding of Ephraim’s theology is that he avoids so-called Greek dualism, whilst already being part of “a profound intellectual osmosis” of both Hellenic and Semitic mindsets. 14 As to the vocabulary used, raza is the most significant single word in Ephraim’s work. Brock 1990: 42ff. says that, for the Fathers, raza, “symbol", indicates the connection between two different modes of reality. A symbol actually participates in some sense in the spiritual reality it symbolizes. See also his comments in The Harp of the Spirit (1983) 12f and cf. Murray 1975/6: 8f. 11

A Single Human Being Divided in Himself

169

spiritual disease. With the sinful woman, Ephraim focuses on the process of grief for sin by moving through various stages in the externalization of inner knowledge. This externalization of an inner state is quintessential to Syrian asceticism, 15 in which purity of heart is valued together with physical purity, and where asceticism is the condition of a heart and mind focused, in covenant with God, rather than the physical anachoresis of other desert ascetics. In all these homilies, it is in the crux between the inner and outer aspects of humanity that the ascetic phenomenon of grief for sin is experienced.

CONFLATIONS AND TYPOLOGY OF WOMANHOOD 16 [9]

Ephraim draws on the existing Biblical conflation of Luke’s “sinful woman” 17 with the woman who anoints Jesus at Bethany 18 and also with the woman with the haemorrhage. 19 This conflation is found in the hymns and homilies, 20 and also in Ephraim’s Commentary on Tatian’s Diatessaron. 21 There are also references to the sinful woman 15 Hymn on Faith 3:5, quoted in Brock 1992: 73 (hence the title of this book). Brock also offers useful explanations of this term in the introduction to his translation of the Hymns on Paradise (1990). 16 Fitzmyer 1979: 684ff. gives a detailed explanation of the biblical conflations to do with Luke’s story of the sinful woman. Ward 1987: 10–25 cites evidence of medieval conflations of these characters. 17 As well as appearing throughout the two verse-homilies mentioned, this character appears in Hymns on Virginity 4:4 and 35:5, Hymn on the Fast 14 (Rouwhorst 1989, vol. 2: 27–9 and in the Commentary on the Diatessaron 8 and 10, and Hymn 9 on the Church verse 19, (Murray 1980: 38). 18 Mt 26: 6–13 and Mk 14: 3–10. This conflation in Ephraim may be seen in Hymn on Virginity 4:11, and the Hymn on the Church 9:10 (Murray 1980). Robinson 1997 offers further arguments concerning the shared identity of Mary of Bethany (who he sees as the “Sinner Woman”), and Mary of Magdala. 19 Mt 9: 20–2, Mk 5: 25–34 and Lk 8: 40–8. The woman with the haemorrhage appears in the following texts: Hymns on Virginity 4:7; 26:6; 34:1, Hymn on the Faith 10:5 (Murray 1970: 143), Commentary on the Diatessaron 7, nos. 1, 2, 6, 9, 18, Homily on Our Lord, no. 13. 20 For example, Hymn on the Faith 10:5 (Murray 1970: 142). 21 McCarthy 1993: 137 (Book 7, 18). The antithesis between what is hidden and what is revealed is a significant motif in the story of the woman with the haemorrhage and the sinful woman, in this text; note especially McCarthy 1993: 129–31 (Section 7, 1, 2 and 6). As well as

170

Hannah M. Hunt

in connection with the Samaritan woman at the well 22 whom Ephraim cites as a model of one healed of impurity by her penitence and faith, being: “a type of our humanity that He leads step by step.” 23

[10]

[11]

McVey, whose recent translations of a selection of the Hymns is most valuable, suggests that Ephraim’s focus on these women is connected with the concept of spiritual brides. She also claims that: "The anointing of Jesus by the sinful woman, perhaps to be identified here with Mary, sister of Martha, is placed in a line with priestly and royal messiahship, as well as being a model of forgiveness.” 24 Certainly, there are many references in the Hymns to the virtues of physical and spiritual virginity. The image of the spiritual bridegroom is a significant feature of Syrian asceticism. A number of the hymns focus on the merits of oil, as used in anointing, 25 which also gives weight to McVey’s comment. But close examination of Ephraim’s work as a whole reveals a more fundamental reason for the choice of this particular woman, namely the typology of Mary as second Eve. Murray notes that Ephraim adds to the established convention the analogy of the Holy Mother of God and the Church. The name “Mary” becomes, like Kepha, “almost a functional title,” he argues. 26 A Mary was the first person to see the incarnate Christ and the first to seek him in the empty tomb at the end of his incarnate life. McVey follows this train of thought in seeing Ephraim’s focus on Marian typology as fundamental to his incarnational theology. 27 conflations, the different characters are frequently found in juxtaposition to one another, suggesting that the stories are mutually illuminating. 22 Hymn on Virginity 22:5 and 7 (McVey 1989: 365f). This juxtaposition is repeated in Soghitha 1:5 (Brock 1988: 43). 23 Hymn on Virginity 22:21 (McVey 1989: 360). 24 McVey 1989: 376. 25 E.g. Hymn on Virginity 7 (McVey 1989: 275–80; 287–91; 292–6. 26 Murray 1975: 147. Murray 1975: 146 and 330ff also notes the deliberate “fusion” of Mary Magdalene and Mary the Mother of God. See also Murray 1971. For an example of this in Ephraim, see Hymn on Virginity 6:7. 27 McVey 1989: especially 32–4 and 44–6. Specifically with reference to the sinful woman’s anointing, Hymn on Virginity 4:11 notes that the oil

A Single Human Being Divided in Himself [12]

171

The Marian typology provides Ephraim and his school with a model for a broader typology. Running parallel to this convention, which is an obvious echo of the Pauline motif of the First and the Second Adam, is a generic typology of womanhood as the heirs of Eve. The women who feature in these homilies and commentaries thus become models of sinning penitents. This is stated explicitly in the first of the anonymous homilies edited and translated by Graffin (1962): “Blessed are the sinners ... the guilty ones ... the image of Adam,” 28 the author writes; “For in calling this one, it is our entire race that he invites to love, and in her person, it is all sinners whom he invites to pardon.” 29

[13]

The forgiveness offered to the sinful woman is extended, by analogy, to all the faithful penitent, through the institution of the Divine Liturgy, the bloodless sacrifice of the Incarnate Saviour. 30 The fact of these being women in need of healing is used to a theological end by Ephraim, as attested in Section 15 of part 7 of the Commentary on the Diatessaron, where Ephraim reflects that faith in the incarnation is inspired by the healing of an unclean womb by the one born of a pure womb. 31 Both the woman with the haemorrhage and the “sinful woman” consciously seek out Jesus, used “became the bridge to the remembrance of Mary to pass on her glory from generation to generation.” (McVey 1989: 279). 28 Graffin 1962: 179 (1, 1–2). 29 Graffin 1962: 181 (1, 4). Cf. the comment in the homily edited by Sauget 1975/6: 166 (14): “This name of sinner is effectually a name for of all dirtiness, an image full of impurities". Cf. Hymn on the Nativity 4:40 (McVey 1989: 92): “The sinner who had been a snare for men—He made her an example for penitents.” Cf. also the first of Brock’s Sogyatha, v. 59, p. 52: “O Son of God, who opened His mouth and forgave the sinner her sins, forgive us our sins too, just as you did hers, for we have sinned just as did she.” 30 Brock’s first Soghithć notes this explicitly, v. 60, p. 62: “And as the sinful woman was forgiven because she kissed Your feet in Simon’s house, do You forgive Your church which consumes Your Body and Blood at the altar.” 31 McCarthy 1993: 136.

172

Hannah M. Hunt

one covertly, the other openly, with a physical manifestation of an inner need for healing. They demonstrate that they have the “eye of faith” required in order to be open to God. Female sexuality, represented by the hidden gynaecological ailments and the overt sexuality of the supposed prostitute, thus become symbolic of the whole of humanity’s need for cleansing and healing by the Second Adam. The healing of mind and body are interdependent because of their indivisibility. 32 The Syrian tradition elaborates on the gynaecological metaphor by describing sin as sterility, which penitence restores to fecundity, 33 in the context of becoming a pure bride of Christ.

GRIEVING PENITENCE AND THE SINFUL WOMAN [14]

[15]

[16]

In the Syrian tradition represented by these homilies, certain themes and modes of operating recur. The first to be noticed is that the homilies start with a part of the narration not found in the Biblical story as it has come down to us. Ephraim’s madrćshe introduce the person of Satan as a personification of the sinful woman’s former state and of her doubts about her acceptability to Jesus. This allows for extended inner dialogue. The perfume-seller is also introduced in some of these homilies. The second theme is that the woman’s own attributes are the instruments of her healing. Her impurity is transformed through the correct use of her body. The restoration offered to her by Jesus is comprehensive, and heals—rather than spurning as unworthy— the woman’s physical condition, as well as her soul. The analogy between physical illness and mental or spiritual affliction has already been noted, and the juxtaposition of this story with that of the woman with an issue of blood reinforces this motif. Both women’s love and faith constitute a typology of the mystery of salvation, with the visible redeeming the invisible, through the eye of faith. Symbolism and typology here are more Ephraim expresses this sense of the integrity of the human person in Nisibene Hymn 69:3 (Brock 1983: 77): “You looked upon the body, as it mourned, and on the soul in its grief, for you had joined them together in love, but they had parted and separated in pain.” 33 Sauget 1975/6: 164 (3) and 168/9 (31) compares the Penitent sinful woman to Anna, the mother of Samuel. Exactly the same use of metaphor is made by Romanos in Ode 10, 8 (Carpenter 1970: 104). 32

A Single Human Being Divided in Himself

173

than literary devices. They mirror the mystery of salvation, in which the invisible Godhead is manifested through His Incarnate Son, who secretly heals souls and bodies as a symbol of the whole person’s restoration to the image of God.

INNER DIALOGUE AND PERSONIFICATION [17]

[18]

[19]

Ephraim’s Homily on the Sinful Woman starts where the woman weeps for her sins and expresses her determination to change. Having said these things inwardly, “then she began to do [them] outwardly.” 34 The two Sogyćthć translated by Brock, which he believes to be clearly based on Ephraim’s memrć, both constitute a meditation purely on this point of conversion. The woman’s conscience engages in dialogue with her old self, personified by Satan. 35 It is the awakening of her conscience which catalyses the movement of metanoia and leads her to weep at the feet of Jesus. The homily translated by Sauget makes specific reference to this pricking of conscience which is accompanied by an “interior” repentance. 36 This text focuses on her inner thoughts, which are expressed not by audible words, but through her eloquent eyes and her tears, 37 for these speak to Jesus of her grief for her sins. Here, in this moment of spiritual awakening, is found the Syrian equivalent of the Greek katanuxis, expressed not in one discrete word, but in a whole mass of typology and symbolism. In Ephraim’s memrć, Satan appears in several guises. First he appears as one of her former customers, then, realising that he will not be able to dupe Jesus, he appears to Simon, knowing that “secret things are not manifest to him.” 38 Satan’s role is similar in Johnston 1898: 326/7 (2, 3). Brock 1988. On page 22 he describes these as “an externalized account, in dramatized form, of the inner pyschological conflict through which the woman might be thought to have gone, with all the arguments for hesitating from her proposed action forcefully posed through the mouth of Satan.” Apart from the opening and closing stanzas, the whole of each text explores the rhetorical dialogue between the woman and her conscience, personified as Satan. In both texts, Christ the bridegroom imagery points out the paradox of the purity of the prostitute. 36 Sauget 1975/6: 166f. 37 Sauget 1975/6: 168 (30). 38 Johnston 1898: 338f (10–12). The antithesis between hiddenness and openness recurs throughout Ephraim. Here, it is used to indicate the 34 35

174

Hannah M. Hunt

Nisibene Hymn 60, 39 in which he berates the woman for abandoning him. Both in this hymn, and in Soghithć one, Satan acknowledges the superior power of Jesus. 40

ANOINTING AS PREFIGURING CHRIST’S SAVING DEATH [20]

Mention has been made of the seller of unguents 41 who tempts the woman to return to her sinful way of life. This interpolation serves two purposes, firstly to emphasise the inner struggle of the woman’s conscience with various worldly concerns, as well as with her sense of unworthiness. Secondly, it elaborates on the theme of anointing, which, through the conflation with story of the anointing at Bethany, constantly reminds the reader that Christ died for these sins and that the woman’s anointing of him prefigured his death. Hymn on the Epiphany 3 is explicit about this. 42 The theme of anointing is also used to stress the majesty of Christ as Son of God: this is a major theme in the Hymns on Virginity, for example, Hymn on Virginity, 4:7 and 11: “An abundance is oil with which sinners do business: the forgiveness of sins. By oil the Anointed forgave the sins of the sinner who anointed [his] feet. With [oil] Mary poured out her sin upon the head of the Lord of her sins... It became the bridge to the remembrance of

blindness of Simon the Pharisee to the true nature of the woman’s repentance and his questioning of the prophetic wisdom of Jesus (Luke 7:39), which is commented on also in the Homily on Our Lord (Johnston 1898: 3311 and elsewhere). 39 Johnston 1898: 212f. 40 In the latter, Jesus is referred to throughout as “Mary’s son.” 41 In Ephraim’s homily, the perfume-seller is introduced before the figure of Satan. (Johnston 1898: 337 (4 and 5)) Sauget’s homily reduces this character to one phrase, but elaborates on the theme by comparing the preciousness of the ointment purchased with the pearl of great price bought by the merchant, an interpolation into the Lucan text which emphasises the woman’s awareness of the uniqueness of Jesus, and the significance of her act in anointing Him. The theme of the purchase of ointment is the focus of Mahr 1942, which notes that this incident is not actually mentioned by Luke. 42 Johnston 1898: 269 (1–3). This part of the hymn also uses the visible/invisible paradox which is a recurring motif in Ephraim.

A Single Human Being Divided in Himself

175

Mary to pass on her glory from generation to generation.” 43

[21]

In Ephraim’s treatment the anointing acquires a typology of its own. It is the chrism of the Son of God, the memorial of his saving death, the image of healing and purification. 44 The sinful woman, in anointing Jesus, represents the one who recognizes Jesus’ divinity, his power to save, and his ability to restore the lost image of God to soiled humanity. 45 This again makes her a type for all penitents. Her experience of penitence leads directly to the grief which she expresses in her tears.

THE TRANSFORMATION EFFECTED BY HEALING [22]

A recurrent motif in the Ephraimic tradition is the analogy between sin and illness. It opens Ephraim’s Homily on the Sinful Woman 46 and is echoed in the second of the homilies edited by Graffin (1962), which opens with a description of the longing of the invalid for health, and how this is exactly the situation of the penitent sinner, who is “sick from sin.” This author attributes her suffering to her remembrance of her sins, which is worse than the superficial suffering of her shameful face. 47 Jesus, in his mercy and wisdom, offers appropriate healing to those who seek him

McVey 1989: 278/9. Note especially Hymn on Virginity 6:7 (McVey 1989: 289/90): "The oil jar she poured on Him emptied out a treasury of types on Him. In that moment the symbols of oil took shelter in the Anointed, and the treasurer of the symbols of oil completed the symbols for the Lord of symbols.” 45 “Mary by the oil showed forth the mystery of His mortality, Who by His teaching mortified the concupiscence of her flesh.” Homily on Our Lord 47 (Johnston 1898: 326). 46 Johnston 1898: 336 (1). There are many references in these homilies and in Ephraim’s hymns to Jesus as the “physician of souls,” who offers the “medicine of life.” Homily on Our Lord 15 (Johnston 1898: 311). 47 Graffin 1962: 197/9 (4). 43 44

176

[23]

[24]

Hannah M. Hunt

out, 48 and calls on the faith of those who seek, be they leper, paralytic or sinner. 49 This analogy is developed in the case of the sinful woman. It is emphasized that the very physical attributes which had been used to charm her clients are the instruments of her salvation. Her humanity is transformed through her correct use of her body. 50 Her body becomes the sacrifice of a contrite heart (Ps. 51:17), with the tears flowing in place of blood, and the mortified flesh and skin represented by her hair. 51 Her approach to Jesus is overtly physical: she washes his feet, “the symbol of his incarnation.” 52 The dual nature of Christ is mirrored by his receiving both physical and spiritual offerings, the table of food from the Pharisee, and the “table” of penitence from the woman. 53 The healing he Graffin 1962: 183 (1:8). The comparison between the effective faith of the sinful woman and that of those in need of more purely physical healing is made in Sauget 1975/6: 173 (64). 50 Homily on Our Lord 14 (Johnston 1898: 310), cf. Sauget 1975/6: 169 (33–6) and 174 (75–81); Brock 1988: 49–51 (1:42–51). The woman herself is aware of this paradox: “The mouth that has kissed the lewd, forbid it not to kiss the body that remits transgressions and sins.” Homily on the Sinful Woman 15 (Johnston 1898: 340). Cf. Hymn on Virginity 35:6 (McVey 1989: 417): "By that thing by which she was lost, she was found, since she believed, so that triumphant was the oil that had condemned her, and sanctified was the mouth that had defiled her, and purified was the beauty that had debased her.” 51 Graffin’s 1962: 191 (1:22f). 52 Graffin’s 1962: 189 (1:19), and note McCarthy 1993: 170 (Section 10(9)). Several passages in the Old Testament suggest that ‘the feet’ was a Hebrew euphemism for the genitals. It is possible that a reader familiar with Hebrew idiom would have made this association and wondered whether Jesus possessed not only a body, but also sexual desire (which might well be aroused in the circumstances described by Luke). However, a passage in the Nisibene Hymn 35 shows that Ephraim, at least, exempted Jesus from the sexual desire which is in all other bodies, ‘awake in them even when they are asleep.’ 53 Sauget 1975/6: 170 (41f), cf. Graffin 1962: 183–5 (no. 1, 9, 10). The double nature of the offering is enforced through the comment that the Pharisee’s pride caused him to invite Jesus to his table, but not into his heart. The woman, on the other hand, out of her penitent humility, offers 48 49

A Single Human Being Divided in Himself

[25]

177

gives is of the whole person, and the woman with the haemorrhage is mentioned again, to emphasise the completeness of the healing offered. 54 It is the woman’s initiative which makes possible the gracious act of forgiveness; through washing she is washed, and in washing something pure, she is herself purified. 55 The woman’s body is thus used appropriately now, and its integrity with her soul and mind means that all aspects of herself are sought out and healed. Ephraim’s Homily on Our Lord states explicitly that the grief which accompanies the woman’s actions is used by Jesus to heal her particular wound of sin: "These medicines the sinful woman offered to her Physician, that by her tears He might wash away her stains, by her kisses He might heal her wounds, by her sweet ointment He might make her evil name sweet as the odour of her ointment. This is the Physician who heals men by the medicines which they bring to Him.” 56

[26]

[27]

In other words, the woman has within her the source of her own healing. Her insight enables her to present herself to the physician as “the gift which He calls secretly.” 57 Her repentance leads her to both grief at her sins, and the confidence that she is worthy of forgiveness and that Jesus has the power to effect this restoration. Ephraim’s gloss on this aspect of the story is that the prophetic power of Jesus, which is questioned by Simon the Pharisee, is demonstrated by her movement from sinner to penitent, in silent supplication. Her belief that Jesus would know, without her speaking, why she wept, showed that she had “the eye of faith.” This is “the power that changed her.” 58 Her wisdom 59 and faith is contrasted with the blindness of the Pharisee, who, in not her whole self to Jesus for his healing touch. The Pharisee’s riches are purely those of the world, while her apparent poverty conceals the riches of her heart. 54 Homily on Our Lord 13 (Johnston 1898: 310) and Homily on the Sinful Woman 11 (Johnston 1898: 339). 55 Sauget 1975/6: 170 (40). 56 Johnston 1898: 324 (43). 57 Graffin 1962: 185 (1:11). 58 Johnston 1898: 324 (43). 59 A quality stressed in Graffin 1962: 189 (1:18).

178

Hannah M. Hunt

recognizing Jesus to be a prophet, “was himself proved not to know the Prophets” despite his learning. 60

THE EYE OF FAITH [28]

[29]

In the Homily on the Sinful Woman Ephraim repeatedly refers to Jesus as: “He Who knows what is secret.” 61 The “interior eye of his divinity” 62 enables him to see that the woman’s soul is predisposed towards penitence, and a parallel interior vision on the part of the woman enables her to recognize Christ as the Lord, and to ask him for spiritual healing. Through her physical act in anointing Jesus’ feet she knows he is truly man. 63 The prayer that she offers 64 makes it explicit for the reader that it is through the manifestation of His humanity that she dares to approach God. This exchange of unspoken recognition between Jesus and the sinful woman becomes externalized, in order to provide evidence of Jesus’ humanity and divinity. Ephraim elaborates on this in the Homily on Our Lord: 65 it is when infirmities are brought into the open that they can be healed; the visible healing symbolizes the invisible healing of forgiveness. 66 Reference to this may also be found in Hymn on Virginity 46: Homily on Our Lord 42 (Johnston 1898: 323), cf. Graffin 1962: 185 (1:11). The Commentary on the Diatessaron 10 (10) notes: “He brought the faith of this woman out into the open with praise, but unmasked the thoughts of Simon with reproach. He was a physician to her that believed, for it is he who heals everyone.” (McCarthy 1993: 171). The contrast between the actions of the sinful woman and the Pharisee feature in all these homilies, as a model of the antithesis between insight and blindness, humility and arrogance, true and false love, etc. Note Graffin 1962: 209 (2:23f etc.). 61 Johnston 1898: 340 (14f); cf. 338f (10). Sections 3 and 4 use the antithesis of the woman’s secret and open actions. 62 Sauget 1975/6: 164 (4). 63 Graffin 1962: 189 (1:19). 64 Graffin 1962: 189/91 (1:20). 65 Johnston 1898: 312–4 (18–21). 66 The Commentary on the Diatessaron notes, with regard to the woman with the haemorrhage, who is juxtaposed to the sinful woman, that: “By means of a woman whom they could see, they were enabled to see the divinity which cannot be seen. Through the Son’s own healing his divinity became known, and through the afflicted woman’s being healed her faith was made manifest” (McCarthy 1993: 129 (7, 1)). 60

A Single Human Being Divided in Himself

179

“Insofar as tears are found in our eyes, we will blot out with our tears the letter of bondage of our sins ... Who will give us [the possibility] that visible tears will blot out concealed sins? Who gives us [the possibility] that by visible things an invisible wound may be healed?” 67

[30]

For Ephraim, the ultimate example of the invisible made visible is the Incarnation. The forgiveness shown to the sinful woman is thus inextricably linked with the manifestation of God’s divinity through the person of Jesus Christ. In these homilies, this soteriological epiphany stands as one of the author’s key theological insights.

HEALING AS DEMONSTRATIVE OF THE INCARNATION [31]

The desire and the ability of Jesus to heal humanity reveals His divine power. His humanity makes it possible for those in need of healing (spiritual and physical) to approach the Godhead. In the first of the homilies edited by Graffin (1962) this is pointed out by the use of transferred epithets; Jesus is seen as the one who “thirsts,” (like the Samaritan woman at the well, who is mentioned there) 68 for sinners to come to him. 69 The human attribute of hunger is applied to him to show how much he longed for the woman to be restored: "Because of her who craved pardon, He wished himself to hunger at the table of Simon the Pharisee; just as McVey 1989: 450 (12–15). Jn 7:37 is also referred to in Ephraim’s Homily on Our Lord, in an image of the “healing fountain” offered by Jesus to all sinners (Johnston 1898: 323 (41)). 69 Graffin 1962: 181 (1:7). The author describes how she had been like stone, but through her penitence, now opens up from her soul “the source of repentance.” The language of hunger and thirst for a spiritual condition recalls the beatitudes’ “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness.” Portraying Jesus as one who craves in this way gives him human attributes, which are used to divine end, in that it is his desire to reconcile the sinner which effects the Incarnation, and restores the lost image of God. The language of the beatitudes is overtly use in “Hymn 26 on Virginity,” where the sinful woman, the woman with the haemorrhage and others are addressed as “Blessed” (McVey 1989: 378 (4, 6)). 67 68

180

Hannah M. Hunt under the cover of a table of bread, He had prepared for the sinful woman a table of penitence.” 70

[32]

[33]

[34]

The author gives as Jesus’ reason for accepting Simon’s hospitality that He hungers for the life of Man, that He may recover his lost image. 71 This transference of epithets continues with a overtly kenotic description of the woman “emptying her soul” so that God can fill it, whereas the Pharisee only fills his table for Jesus to empty it. 72 The sinful woman, seeking wholeness, is thus compared to God seeking to express his whole nature through the Incarnation. The broken-hearted sacrifice of herself is mirrored by Christ’s self-sacrifice in the sacrament of the Divine Liturgy. This homily is framed by references to God seeking out his lost image: it is subtitled “God seeking out his creature and his image,” and, at the end of the homily, the concern of God to reclaim His image is mentioned again. 73 In restoring the fallen to the image of God, grieving penitence becomes the embodiment of the healing offered by the embodied Lord. The healing is the outward manifestation of the inner state of sorrow for sins, being the result of the grief at having lost the image of God. The antithesis: inner/outer states of being is expressed by the dynamic: visible/invisible, as demonstrated in the Incarnation. The actions of the sinful woman are described by the author of Graffin’s first homily as enabling the invisible to become visible, in order to help humanity understand the true nature of its Saviour: “it is because the eye of man cannot grasp His essence that God showed himself bodily in creation, so that

70 Graffin 1962: 181 (1:5), cf. Sauget 1975/6. This homily shares with Sauget’s the image of the woman as an innocent lost sheep, in need of the Shepherd. 71 Graffin 1962: 81 (1:6f). 72 Graffin 1962: 185 (1:11). The antithesis between the woman and the Pharisee is a recurring motif in this and the second homily edited by Graffin, in which it is stressed that his love for Jesus is purely human, whereas hers is more sanctified because she recognizes Him for who He is. Graffin 1962: 209 (2:25). Her humility is set in opposition to the pride of the Pharisee, and her recognition of the divinity of Jesus is opposed to the blindness of the Pharisee who questions whether Jesus is truly a prophet. 73 Graffin 1962: 193 (1:25).

A Single Human Being Divided in Himself

181

those who could not see Him as God, could see Him in the man, with their bodily eye.” 74

[35]

The feet which she bathes with her tears are “the symbol of his Incarnation” 75 and the relationship established between her and Jesus through this very human action gives her proof that He was truly man. 76 The synthesis of human need and divine gift is brought out vividly in the relevant passage of Ephraim’s Commentary on the Diatessaron: 77 "His humanity was washed by her tears and was refreshed, while his divinity granted redemption there and then for the price of her tears. Only his humanity was capable of being washed, whereas his divinity alone could expiate the sins which were not visible.”

[36]

The woman’s faith, love and penitence are often the focus in these homilies. The emphasis on her experience of mourning for sin is one of grieving penitence rather than penitent grief. The grief is very much the vehicle of her awakened conscience, rather than an end in itself. The Syriac texts are concerned with the involvement of her heart in this experience, the quality of the emotion she experiences at being so distanced from God. Arising as it does from the heart, this grief is rooted in the centre of the human being, as understood by the Syrians. Her outpouring of tears is described, rather than analysed:

74 Graffin 1962: 189 (1:18), cf. Hymn on the Nativity 27:8 (McVey 1989: 212): “He showed the hidden by way of the revealed.” and 4:7 (McVey 1989: 277), which recalls the anointing theme again: “When they anointed and healed by oil, the Anointed was portrayed in secret, and He persecuted all ills, as on the hem of the garment the flow of blood saw Him and dried up.” 75 Graffin 1962: 189 (1:19). 76 Graffin 1962: 189 (1:19). The second homily of Graffin devotes some space to the issue of Christ’s accessibility to humanity through his human form (Graffin 1962: 311 (2:28)) and various instances of his being received as God during his earthly ministry are cited, including the healing of the woman with the haemorrhage (Graffin 1962: 312). 77 McCarthy 1993: 170 (Section 10, 8).

182

Hannah M. Hunt “she gave abundantly the tears from her eyes; there was in her heart a source of continual tears and in her soul, groanings without end.” 78

[37]

[38]

The intimacy in the encounter between Jesus and the sinful woman brings out the relationship between human sin and the sufferings of Christ, whose death atones for sin. The juxtaposition of the story of the anointing at Bethany reinforces this. Mourning for sin is set, in these Syriac homilies, in the context of God’s desire to reconcile humanity, to offer healing through the salvation of Christ. The nature of the Syriac language predisposes Syriac authors to the use of antithesis, typology and symbolism, which imply the Biblical typology of Jesus as Second Adam and the revelation of the hidden power of God. The grieving penitence of the sinful woman provides her with her own route to wholeness; her body, put to honourable use, is the vehicle for the healing of her soul. Despite a background of often severe asceticism and abhorrence of the sexual function of the body, these homilies, in the hands of Ephraim and his imitators, reveal a most compassionate and constructive view of the sinful woman. 79 As a Type of sinful humanity, she is to be identified with by all people. The love expressed by her for Jesus, and his loving response, is the model for Christian discipleship, rather than the uprightness of the Pharisee. The distinctive contribution by Ephraim and his school to the exegesis of this text, lies in the reinterpretation of womanhood as a crucial exegetical symbol of redemption. In these homilies, female sexuality is presented as symbolic of all humanity’s need for the healing offered by Christ. The woman’s body, as we have seen, becomes the instrument of her own healing, a symbol of the redemption afforded by the body of Christ, broken on the Cross and in the Holy Eucharist. The sterility of sin is replaced by the fecundity of penitence. The use of Marian typology thus goes far beyond the association of women with the fallen state. In symbolising sinful humanity, the woman also symbolises the Mary who was the bearer of the Incarnate Christ and the Mary who was the first to seek Him in his Risen Life. Her conscious Graffin 1962: 195 (1:27). This dynamic is clearly expressed in Luke’s telling of the story; it is significant that Ephraim and others were so keen to focus on this story. 78 79

A Single Human Being Divided in Himself

183

acknowledgement of her need for healing enables her inner eye of faith to recognise the glory of Easter morning. Ephraim and his followers thus contribute unique insights into an inclusive theology of redemption.

REFERENCES Brock 1975

Brock, S. “St. Ephrem on Christ as Light in Mary and the Jordan,” Eastern Churches Review 7 (1975): 137–44. Brock 1983 Brock, S. The Harp of the Spirit (Studies supplementary to Sobornost, no. 4; 1983). Brock 1988 Brock, S. “The Sinful Woman and Satan: Two Syriac Dialogue Poems,” Oriens Christianus 72 (1988): 21–62. Brock 1989 Brock, S. Spirituality in the Syriac Tradition (Kottayam, 1989). Brock 1990 Brock, S. St. Ephrem the Syrian: Hymns on Paradise (Crestwood, NY, 1990). Brock 1992 Brock, S. The Luminous Eye: The Spiritual World Vision of Saint Ephrem the Syrian (Cistercian Studies 124; Kalamazoo, 19922). Budge 1904 Budge, E. A. W. The Book of Paradise, 2 vols. (London, 1904). Carpenter M. Carpenter (tr.), Kontakia of Romanos, vol. 1 (Columbia, 1970 1970). Fitzmyer Fitzmyer, J. “The Gospel According to Luke,” ch. i–ix 1979 Anchor Bible Commentary (New York, 1979). Graffin 1962 Graffin, F. “Homélies anonymes sur la pécheresse,” L’Orient Syrien 7 (1962): 175–22. Hartranft Hartranft, C. D. “Sozomenus: Ecclesiastical History,” 1890 A Select Library of the Christian Church, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd Series (United States: Christian Literature Publishing Company, 1890). Jackson 1892 Jackson, B. “Theodoret: Ecclesiastical History,” A Select Library of the Christian Church, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd Series, vol. 3 (United States: Christian Literature Publishing Company, 1892). Johnston Johnston, A. E. “Ephrem’s Homilies on Our Lord, 1898 Admonition and Repentance, and The Sinful Woman,” A Select Library of the Christian Church, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Second Series), vol. 13 (United States: Christian Literature Publishing Company, 1898).

184 Mahr 1942 McCarthy 1993 Murray 1975 Murray 1976 Murray 1980 McVey 1989 Outtier 1973 Robinson 1997 Sauget 1975/6 Ward 1987

Hannah M. Hunt Mahr, A. C. Relations of Passion Plays to St. Ephrem the Syrian (Columbia University Press, Ohio, 1942). McCarthy, C. “St. Ephrem’s Commentary on Tatian’s Diatessaron,” JSS Supplement no. 2 (1993). Murray, R. Symbols of Church and Kingdom (Cambridge, 1975). Murray, R. “The Theory of Symbolism in St. Ephrem’s Theology,” Parole de l’Orient 6–7 (1975–76): 1–20. Murray, R. “St. Ephrem’s Dialogue of Reason and Love,” Sobornost 2. (1980): 26–40. McVey, K. Ephrem the Syrian: Hymns, Classics of Western Spirituality (New York, Mahwah, 1989). Outtier, B. “Saint Éphrem d’après ses biographies et ses oeuvres,” Parole de l’Orient 4, nos. 1–2 (1973): 11–33. Robinson, B. P. “The Anointing by Mary of Bethany,” Downside Review (April 1997): 99–111. Sauget, J. H. “Une homélie syriaque anonyme sur la Nativité,” Parole de l’Orient 6–7 (1975–76): 159–194. Ward, B. Harlots of the Desert (Cistercian Studies 106; Kalamazoo, 1987).

Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies, Vol. 1.2, 185–196 © 1998 [2010] by Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute and Gorgias Press

ST. EPHRAIM’S INFLUENCE ON THE GREEKS DAVID G.K. TAYLOR DEPARTMENT OF THEOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM UNITED KINGDOM [1]

[2]

Attempting to identify the nature and extent of St. Ephraim’s influence on the Greeks (by which term I designate simply those who wrote Greek, irrespective of their mother tongue or place of origin), is far from easy, despite the fact that there is no shortage of available materials which bear upon the subject. In addition to the numerous authentic Syriac writings which survive 1 (Ephrem wrote exclusively in Syriac and is not thought to have known more than the bare rudiments of Greek), there are a number of accounts of the saint’s life written in Greek and Syriac; a large collection of Greek writings attributed to him and conventionally termed “Ephraim Graecus;” and a variety of Greek writers of the 4th to 6th centuries with whom connections have been posited. The difficulty is that although a figure conventionally identified as St. Ephraim came to occupy a position of great importance and influence within the Greek-speaking Church, it is far from clear how this figure can be connected with the Syrian “Harp of the Spirit” and his genuine theological writings. Of the various sources listed the biographical materials appear, at first glance, to offer the greatest potential. The earliest known allusion to Ephraim’s work in a non-Syriac text is given by 1 For a very useful survey of these cf. S.P. Brock, “A Brief Guide to the Main Editions and Translations of the Works of St. Ephrem,” The Harp 3 (1990): 7–25.

185

186

David G.K. Taylor

Epiphanios (fl. 377) in his Panarion, 2 but the first reference with any biographical information is provided by Jerome in his De viris illustribus of AD 392, in which he notes; “Ephraim a deacon of the church at Edessa, wrote much in the Syrian language, and attained to such renown, that in some churches, after the reading of the scriptures, his writings are publicly recited.” 3 Already by approximately 420 when the Lausiac History was written, that is within 50 years of Ephraim’s death in 373, its author Palladios can open his chapter on Ephraim with the words “You must have heard particulars about Ephraim, the deacon of the church of Edessa...,” 4 and is able to expand upon Jerome’s bare statement with an account of Ephraim’s activity during a famine in Edessa. Furthermore, he already has the Edessan deacon metamorphosing into a monk, and so has him living a solitary life in a cell. 5 Theodoret 6 and Sozomen, 7 both writing their ecclesiastical histories in the first half of the fifth century, build upon these materials, as does the pseudo-Amphilochian life of Basil, 8 with its colourful account of the meeting of Basil and Ephraim in Cappadocia which leads to Basil ordaining Ephraim to the diaconate and Ephraim miraculously receiving that most blessed of

2 K. Holl and J. Dummer (ed.), Panarion (GCS 31; Berlin, 19802) 52.22.7. 3 De viris illustribus 115, PL 23.745. 4 Chapter 40 of C. Butler (ed.), The Lausiac History of Palladius (Cambridge, 1904) 126; English translation by W.K.L. Clarke (London, 1918) 139. 5 For a thorough analysis of the extant biographical sources and their reliable historical information, cf. B. Outtier, “S. Ephrem d’après ses biographies et ses oeuvres,” PdO 4 (1973): 11–33. 6 L. Parmentier and F. Scheidweiler (ed.), Theodoret, Historia ecclesiastica (written post 429) (GCS 44; Leipzig, 1954) IV.26. 7 J. Bidez and G.C. Hansen (ed.), Sozomen, Historia ecclesiastica (written circa 443) (GCS 50; Leipzig, 1960) III.16. 8 F. Combéfis (ed.), SS. Patrum Amphilochii Iconiensis, Methodii Patarensis et Andreae Cretensis opera omnia (Paris, 1644) 155–225; Syriac version, P. Bedjan (ed.), Acta Martyrum et Sanctorum VI (Paris, 1896) 297–334. A very useful survey and analysis is provided by O. Rousseau, “La Rencontre de S. Ephrem et de S. Basile,” OrSyr 2 (1957): 261–84; 3 (1958): 73–90.

St. Ephraim’s Influence on the Greeks

[3]

187

divine gifts, knowledge of the Greek language. 9 The later (circa 650) encomium on Ephraim attributed incorrectly to Gregory of Nyssa 10 further expands the monastic and ascetic imagery associated with St. Ephraim. As is well known to most scholars, the majority of the biographical details provided in these works are either legendary or, at best, untrustworthy. That, however, does not extinguish their interest for us. First it should be noted that these texts were all composed in Greek and the earliest of them not only predate but often subsequently influenced the Syriac vita tradition. This poses a very simple question; Why were they written? One obvious answer is that Ephraim’s reputation and status was so great amongst the Greeks that there was a demand for such materials to satisfy their curiosity about the man. This admiration is well demonstrated by several ‘purple passages’ in the Pseudo-Gregory encomium just referred to; “Ephraim is the true universal doctor of the Church, who has attained the highest level on the ladder of spiritual virtues;” 11 “Wherever the sun shines (Ephraim) is known, and he is only not known amongst those who are also ignorant of that great luminary of the Church, Basil;” 12 and this wonderfully redolent text, “Ephraim is the mental Euphrates of the church, from whom the whole company of believers being watered, they produce a hundred-fold the fruit of faith.” 13 Again, in a treatise falsely attributed to John Chrysostom, the Sermo de Pseudoprophetis et falsis Doctoribus, 14 the author bewails the lack of devout theologians in his age and provides a list of the great church fathers of the past, Evodius, Ignatius, Dionysius, Hippolytus, Basil, Athanasius, Gregory and Ephraim, to each of whom is given a few short words of praise; thus Evodius is the “fine fragrance of the church, and the successor and imitator of the apostles,” Ignatius is “the dwelling 9 Not to be outdone, one of the Syriac versions of the Acts of Saint Ephraim, T.J. Lamy (ed.), Sancti Ephraem Syri Hymni et Sermones, II (Malines, 1882) 5–90, also has Basil receive the gift of Syriac. 10 PG 46.819–50. 11 PG 46.828D. 12 PG 46.821D. 13 PG 46.824A. 14 B. de Montfaucon (ed.), Joannis Chrysostomi Archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani opera omnia quae exstant, vel quae ejus nomine circumferuntur (Paris, 1728) VIII (Spuria), 72ff.

188

[4]

David G.K. Taylor

place of God,” and Dionysius is “a bird of heaven.” The list climaxes, however, with Ephraim who is described as “the arouser of the slothful, the consoler of the afflicted, the instructor of the young, the guide of the penitent; an arrow and javelin against heretics, a depository of virtues, and a habitation and resting place of the Holy Spirit.” 15 From this it is clear that Ephraim’s prestige in the Greek-speaking church should not be underestimated. Returning now to the Pseudo-Amphilochian life of Basil with its account of the encounter between Basil and Ephraim, one can reasonably question the motives that produced this almost certainly fictitious meeting. Is it simply an attempt to tie up a pair of loose biographical strands: i.e. both fathers lived within easy travelling distance of each other, and both were engaged in combating Arianism and other heresies in the region, and so it stood to reason that they must have met at some point? Or is it, as some scholars have suggested, that a Greek-speaking Syrian sought to increase Ephraim’s prestige by associating him with Basil? (Indeed Rousseau 16 goes so far as to talk of “a sort of canonisation” of Ephraim by Basil.) Given the status that Ephraim already possesses in the passages cited above from Palladios and the early Greek lives and histories, this analysis does not seem persuasive. I would argue instead that the underlying purpose of this account is to bring Ephraim within the sphere of the Greek-speaking church. He is no longer an outsider, but is transformed into an insider. His life and writings become part of the patrimony of the Greek and orthodox church, distanced from any suspicion of foreign heresy (which from the fifth century on tainted the Greek view of most Syrians). This could be no more than an attempt by admirers to strengthen their links with one of the great heroes of the church, but the gift of Greek in particular could also be interpreted not as a condescending gift to a provincial Syrian, or as an attempt by a Syrian biographer to bestow posthumous cultural respectability upon his subject, but as an attempt to include Ephraim within the fold of the Greek-speaking theologians, rather than leave him as a notorious and disquieting example of a divine who was able to produce outstanding theology unhindered by possessing only ‘tourist Greek’. Furthermore the receipt of this gift, and his 15 16

79C. Op. cit., 89.

St. Ephraim’s Influence on the Greeks

[5]

189

diaconal orders, at the hands of Basil could then be construed as the clear subordination of the ‘glory of the Syrians’ to the great hellenising bishop of the age (with a concomitant enhancement of Basil’s prestige). Whether, in the final analysis, one reads this text as strengthening Ephraim’s bonds with the Greek-speaking church through friendly association and divine grace, or through hellenisation and ecclesiastical subordination, one can be left in no doubt of the admiration and respect that it accords to him. The origin of this status lies not, primarily, in his ecclesiastical activities and way of life, but in his writings (though these of course are the product of, and mirror, that life). It is important, then, to provide an overview of the Greek corpus of writings attributed to Ephraim, although it should be noted that surprisingly little work has been done on this corpus, either in analysing its contents or in charting its development and expansion. For an early description of its contents one cannot do better than look at the relevant section of the Bibliotheca by Photios 17 (written 855–56). He mentions 49 discourses; the first describing the author’s own life; the second an exhortation to his brothers living in community; the fourth is an initiation for those who undertake the monastic life, as are the next 19! The 25th is an exhortation not to change monastic location, the 33rd is an exhortation to chastity, and so on. Some of these texts have been identified with Greek writings in the great eighteenth-century Roman edition of Ephraim’s works, 18 yet not only do they have no discernible relation to the genuine extant Syriac texts of Ephraim, but they are clearly incompatible with such details of his life as are generally deemed trustworthy. (Ephraim was no coenobitic monk!) The Ephraim Graecus corpus eventually achieved a great size, 19 and although a leading expert on these writings, Hemmerdinger-Iliadou, 20 was able to identify some which were certainly of Syriac origin, or which apparently contained gospel citations from the Diatessaron, there is little evidence that 17

89–92.

Cf. R. Henry (ed.), Photius: Bibliothèque, III (Paris, 1962) §196 pp.

J.S. Assemani, P. Mobarek, and S.E. Assemani, S. Ephraem Syri opera omnia quae exstant graece, syriace, latine, in sex tomos distributa (Rome, 1732–46). 19 Cf. M. Geerard (ed.), Clavis Patrum Graecorum, II (Turnhout, 1974) 366–468. 20 D. Hemmerdinger-Iliadou, “Éphrem (Les Versions): I. Éphrem grec. II. Éphrem latin,” DSp 4 (1960): 800–19. 18

190

[6]

David G.K. Taylor

these were produced by Ephraim himself. Some of the writings attributed to him have been recognised as the work of other theologians, such as Pseudo-Macarius, 21 Palladios, 22 Isaac of Nineveh, 23 and John Chrysostom, 24 and some have features characteristic of a later period or a different place of origin. Indeed most scholars are doubtful whether any of the extant Greek corpus was translated from genuine works of Ephraim, with the possible exception of a homily on Jonah and the repentance of Nineveh. 25 For devotees of Ephraim’s writings this is hard to explain, although given that many of his Syriac hymns survive in a single manuscript it is possible that it is simply due to chance. The fact that much of his work consists of poetry rather than prose may also have been a contributory factor. It is clear, however, that both the translation into Greek of Syriac works ascribed to Ephraim, and the circulation of Greek works under his name, began at the earliest period. Sozomen, in the mid 5th century, states that his writings “were translated into Greek during his life, and translations are even now being made,” 26 and Epiphanios in his Panarion 27 of 377 gives his approval to a piece of genuine Ephraimic exegesis now found in the hymn De Nativitate 5.13. Jerome however, in the text mentioned above, 28 written in 392, claims to have read a Greek version of Ephraim’s work on the 21 E.g. De patientia, Assemani, op. cit., II.326C–334A = Homily B 55 of Pseudo-Macarius; De conversatione fratrum, III.314C–316 = Homily 3; Institutio ad monachos, III.324D–356A = the Epistola Magna. 22 E.g. De domina Sala, II.393C–394 = Lausiac History ch. 34. 23 E.g. De mansionibus beatis, III.25E–26A = PG 86.832B–833A. 24 E.g. De oratione, III.455–458 = PG 48.743D–746D. 25 For the Greek text cf. D. Hemmerdinger-Illiadou, “Saint Éphrem le Syrien: Sermon sur Jonas (Texte grec inédit),” Le Muséon 80 (1967): 47– 74, and for the Syriac text J.S. Assemani, op. cit. V.359D–387A, translated by H. Burgess, The Repentance of Nineveh, a metrical homily on the mission of Jonah, by Ephraem Syrus (London, 1853). For a study of these cf A. de Halleux, “ǎ propos du sermon éphrémien sur Jonas et la pénitence des Ninivites,” in R. Schulz & M. Görg (eds.), Lingua Restituta Orientalis: Festgabe für Julius Assfalg (Ägypten und Altes Testaments 20; Wiesbaden, 1990) 155–66. 26 Sozomen, loc. cit. 27 Op. cit., 52.22.7. Cf. E. Beck, Ephräm der Syrer: Lobgesang aus der Wüste (Freiburg, 1967) 11. 28 Cf. n. 2.

St. Ephraim’s Influence on the Greeks

[7]

[8]

191

Holy Spirit; “Legi ejus de Spiritu sancto graecum volumen, quod quidam de Syriaca lingua verterat; et acumen sublimis ingenii, etiam in translatione, cognovi.” No treatise on this subject survives amongst Ephraim’s Syriac writings, and Jerome’s description of the work hardly encourages an identification with any of his hymns or verse homilies. The implication would thus seem to be that within a few decades of his death spurious Greek works were already being attributed to Ephraim. The early circulation of such spurious texts is also attested by citations in Greek writers from the 6th century on, as well as in several papyri. Returning to the Greek vita tradition of St. Ephraim, I think it is now possible, given the nature of the Ephraim Graecus corpus, to suggest that the increasing emphasis on his ascetic and monastic lifestyle (following of course the Greek rather than the native Syrian pattern) is not just the result of writers conforming his life to familiar and expected models, but may actually reflect the nature of the corpus of Ephraim Graecus itself. The portrait was drawn and elaborated on the basis of the concerns and interests of the writings attributed to him. In other words, a human Ephraim Graecus has been produced who would be a credible author of the literary Ephraim Graecus. Both the Greek vita tradition and the Greek Ephraim corpus would thus appear to have early achieved an independent, self perpetuating existence. Although sparked off by Ephraim’s reputation, in reality they had very little to do with him, and so it would be rather forced to argue that they represent Ephraimic influence on the Greeks. Of course, to the extent that Ephraim (like the seventh-century Isaac of Nineveh) was an archetypical Syrian ascetic for the Greeks and so was credited with numerous texts of Syriac origin which achieved great popularity, even becoming part of the prescribed readings during Lent, it is quite reasonable to claim that Ephraim Graecus represents a significant Syrian (even Syriac) influence upon the Greek church. Ironically, just as Ephraim Graecus was created artificially from Greek ascetic works and the writings of minor Syriac authors as a result of the genuine Ephraim’s reputation as the Syrian theologian par excellence, it seems quite possible that its continued authority and influence was in part bolstered by the honoured place that Ephraim Syrus and his genuine works continued to hold in the hearts of the Syriac-speaking churches. Thus the Palestinian born Sozomen, who grew up in a bilingual culture, is fulsome in his praise;

192

David G.K. Taylor “His style of writing was so replete with the splendid oratory and sublimity of thought that he surpassed all the writers of Greece. If the works of these writers were to be translated into Syriac, or any other language, and divested, as it were, of the beauties of the Greek language, they would retain little of their original elegance and value. The productions of Ephraim have not this disadvantage: they preserve much of their original force and power, so that his works are not less admired when read in Greek than when read in Syriac.” 29

[9]

[10]

The Egyptian Palladios, writing a couple of decades earlier (c. 420), is rather more reserved; “Also he left some writings, most of which deserve to be studied.” 30 (The Syriac reads “Now he left behind him many books, and writings of various kinds, which were worthy of being preserved with the greatest care.” 31) With Photios, however, there is no hiding his puzzlement at reconciling the reverence of the Syriac-speakers for Ephraim’s works with the poor quality Greek texts open before him: “As for the words and figures, there is nothing surprising in seeing them slip towards rather common expression and colloquial laissez-faire; for responsibility for this does not lie with him who gave birth to these thoughts, but with him who translated them, for those who have a good appreciation of the Syriac language know that he excels in the use of words and figures to such a degree that one can hardly tell whether it is due to them or the Spirit that there is such a grace and power flowing from his writings. There is therefore, nothing surprising in the baseness of style, but what is surprising is that despite such vulgarity of expression, there is still for his adherents such a salvific and practical virtue to be found in them.” 32

[11]

As book reviews go, this is distinctly barbed, and one cannot help but conclude that were it not for the praise of the Syrians Photios would have been deeply sceptical of the literary merits of Loc. cit. Op. cit., 40.4. 31 E.A.W. Budge, The Paradise of the Holy Fathers (London, 1907) Vol. I, 183. 32 Op. cit., 91 line 38ff. 29 30

St. Ephraim’s Influence on the Greeks

[12]

[13]

193

Ephraim Graecus. On the other hand, it may have been precisely this tendency towards “common expression” and “baseness of style” rather than literary finesse that increased his popularity amongst his monastic readership. It would thus appear that the influence of Ephraim Syrus on the Greeks is not to be found either in the Greek vita tradition nor in the Greek works circulated under his name. Nevertheless the interest and respect for St. Ephraim to which they bear witness encourages the thought that the theology and symbolism found in his genuine writings may have had an influence on Greek writers just as they did on his Syriac-speaking successors. A number of likely candidates immediately come to mind. For example, Pseudo-Macarius, a fascinating figure who is no longer identified with the desert father St. Macarius of Egypt, but is thought to have written his fifty spiritual homilies in Mesopotamia, or possibly Asia Minor, in the 380s. 33 Columba Stewart, in his detailed study of texts and terminology relating to the Messalian controversy, 34 has clearly demonstrated the Syrian, and more specifically Syriac, background to many key items of vocabulary and imagery found in Pseudo-Macarius. Although, as might be expected, many parallels were found with the text of the Liber Graduum, numerous parallels were also found specifically in the writings of Ephraim. In addition to the ideas discussed by Stewart one might also mention the leitmotif of the robe of glory which covered Adam and Eve in Paradise, which is within Christians now, and which will finally be realised externally. 35 Again, one

33 Cf. H. Dörries, Symeon von Mesopotamien. Die Überlieferung der messalianischen ‘Makarios’ Schriften (TU 55; Leipzig, 1941); H. Dörries, Die Theologie des Makarios-Symeon, (AAWG III.103; Göttingen, 1978); & V. Desprez, “PseudoMacaire (Syméon),” DSp 10 (1977): 20–42. 34 C. Stewart, “Working the Earth of the Heart:” The Messalian Controversy in History, Texts, and Language to AD 431 (Oxford, 1991). 35 Cf. Homily 2.10–11, 5.8ff, 12.7–8, 20, 32.2, 34.4, 49.1, and compare the examples cited in S.P. Brock, “Clothing metaphors as a means of theological expression in Syriac tradition,” in M. Schmidt (ed.), Typus, Symbol, Allegorie bei den östlichen Vätern und ihren Parallelen im Mittelalter (Eichstätter Beiträge IV; Regensburg, 1982) 11–38; and A. Kowalski, “Revestiti di gloria: Adamo ed Eva nel commento di S.Efrem a Gen2:25,” Cristianesimo nella Storia, 3 (1982).

194

[14]

[15]

David G.K. Taylor

might look at Pseudo-Macarius’ developed spirituality of the heart and the parallels with this in Ephraim. 36 Now, obviously, despite the impression to be gained from theological handbooks, Ephraim was not the only active Syriac theologian of the fourth century, and neither does he have a peculiar copyright on these ideas and imagery, but the possibility of actual influence on Pseudo-Macarius, rather than common heritage, needs to be explored. After all, it is clear that there were few barriers to theological contact in the region, for not only is it well known that Gregory of Nyssa reworked Macarius’ Epistola Magna and circulated it in his De instituto christiano, 37 but one of the leading Macarian scholars, Vincent Desprez, has argued convincingly that Macarius was strongly influenced by the Cappadocians. 38 Indeed, having mentioned the Cappadocians, they would make a particularly interesting subject of study. I have argued elsewhere that Basil of Caesarea had strong political contacts with Syriacspeaking Christians in Syria and Mesopotamia, 39 and it is well known that he twice explicitly cites the theological views of anonymous Syrians in his major writings 40 (needless to say, tradition rapidly identified these with Ephraim, although few 36 Cf. Homily 6.1, 8, 43, and compare S.P. Brock, “The prayer of the heart in Syriac tradition,” Sobornost/Eastern Churches Review, 4:2 (1982): 131–42, and S.P. Brock, “The spirituality of the heart in Syrian tradition,” The Harp, 1 (1988): 93–115. 37 Cf. R. Staats (ed.), MakariosSymeon: Epistola Magna. Eine messalianische Mönchsregel und ihre Umschrift in Gregors von Nyssa “De instituto christiano“ (AAWG III.134; Göttingen, 1984). 38 V. Desprez, “Les Relations entre le PseudoMacaire et Saint Basile,” in J. Gribomont (ed.), Commandements du Seigneur et libération évangélique (StAns 70; Rome, 1970) 20921. Cf. R. Staats, Gregor von Nyssa und die Messalianer (PTS 8; Berlin, 1968). 39 “Basil of Caesarea’s Contacts with Syriac-speaking Christians,” in E.A. Livingstone (ed.), Studia Patristica XXXII (Leuven, 1997) 204–10. 40 In the Hexaemeron II.6 he refers to “a Syrian who was as ignorant in the wisdom of this world as he was versed in the knowledge of Truth,” and in the De Spiritu Sancto XXIX.74.44 he mentions “a certain Mesopotamian, a man at once well skilled in the language and of unperverted opinions.” On the former cf. J.R. Pouchet, “Les rapports de Basile de Césarée avec Diodore de Tarse,” BLE 87 (1986): 26268, and L. van Rompay, “L’informateur syrien de Basile de Césarée: à propos de Genèse 1.2,” OCP 58 (1992): 245–51.

St. Ephraim’s Influence on the Greeks

[16]

[17]

195

contemporary scholars accept this). Together with Gregory of Nyssa, and later, most dramatically, Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (who may well have been a Syrian of non-Chalcedonian origin and whose writings would also bear examination and comparison 41) he also shares with Ephraim an interest in the theology of divine names. Since it was long thought impossible that an Athenian-educated sophisticate of Basil’s calibre could have had anything to learn from the barbarous Syrians to the South, scholars have been reluctant to consider the possibility of Syrian influence, but I believe strongly that this does now need to be examined thoroughly. An even stronger case can be made for examining Gregory of Nyssa’s writings. Mention has already been made of his use of Pseudo-Macarius’ Epistola Magna, and Staats has drawn attention to his reference to Mesopotamian ascetics in his homily In suam ordinationem. 42 Sebastian Brock has also listed a number of shared themes and points of emphasis in common between Ephraim and Gregory (such as an emphasis on free-will, a sacramental view of the world, his use of light, mirror, and bridal imagery) although he does not go so far as to suggest that direct influence is at work here. 43 This possibility does, however, in my opinion, need to be considered seriously. That such studies can bear real, and not just hypothetical, fruit is shown by Bill Petersen’s excellent monograph on Romanos the Melodist, 44 the great sixth century Byzantine hymnographer who was also probably of bilingual Syrian stock. Not only did he demonstrate, as others have before, 45 that Ephraim had a great influence on the development of the kontakion, but he also produced 22 examples of direct literary dependence—not just Cf. P. Rorem, Biblical and Liturgical Symbols within the Pseudo-Dionysian Synthesis (Toronto, 1984). 42 R. Staats, “Die Asketen aus Mesopotamien in der Rede des Gregor von Nyssa In suam ordinationem,” VC 21 (1967): 165–79. 43 S.P. Brock, The Luminous Eye: the Spiritual World Vision of St. Ephrem (Kalamazoo, 1992) 145ff. 44 W.L. Petersen, The Diatessaron and Ephrem Syrus as Sources of Romanos the Melodist (CSCO 475; Louvain, 1985). 45 Cf. S.P. Brock, “Syriac and Greek Hymnography: Problems of Origin,” in E.A. Livingstone (ed.), Studia Patristica XVI (Berlin, 1985) 77– 81. and the references therein. 41

196

David G.K. Taylor

‘similar ideas’ or expressions—of Romanos on the Syriac works of Ephraim. Even if all other attempts at detecting Ephraim’s influence on the Greeks were to fail, this literary bequest would by itself ensure that Ephraim Syrus’ influence on Greek theology could never be overlooked. It should also encourage us to examine more closely the writings of such familiar authors as the Cappadocians, Pseudo-Dionysius, and Pseudo-Macarius and see whether beneath the overlay of Greek rhetoric there is a stratum that is dependent upon Ephraim, and not just the product of a common culture.

Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies, Vol. 1.2, 197–220 © 1998 [2010] by Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute and Gorgias Press

A SPIRITUAL FATHER FOR THE WHOLE CHURCH: THE UNIVERSAL APPEAL OF ST. EPHRAEM THE SYRIAN

SIDNEY H. GRIFFITH INSTITUTE OF CHRISTIAN ORIENTAL RESEARCH THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA

I [1]

In an encyclical letter issued on 5 October 1920, Pope Benedict XV proclaimed St. Ephraem the Syrian a Doctor of the Universal Church. 1 This accolade may be seen as in some ways the culmination in Rome of a new fame in the twentieth century for Syria’s ‘Harp of the Holy Spirit,’ already widely acclaimed in east and west in medieval times. It was due to efforts exerted already for some two centuries by a number of scholars in the west to bring out modern editions of Ephraem’s works. One thinks initially of the publication in the eighteenth century of the six-volume Roman edition of the works attributed to Ephraem in Greek, Syriac, and Latin. 2 While the Greek and Latin texts had long been known in the west, the publication of Ephraem’s works in Syriac, 1 See Benedict XV, “Principi Apostolorum Petro,” Acta Apostolicae Sedis 12 (1920), pp. 457–453. 2 See J.S. Assemani (ed.), Sancti Patris Nostri Ephraem Syri Opera Omnia quae exstant Graece, Syriace, Latine, 6 vols. (Rome, 1732–46).

197

198

[2]

Sidney H. Griffith

the only language in which he is known to have written, brought the first glimpse of the poet’s true genius to western Christians. The Syriac works, with Latin translations, were included in volumes IV to VI of the Editio Romana. They are largely the work of Étienne Awad Assemani (1709–82) and Pierre Mobarak, S.J. (1660–1742), Maronite scholars who worked in close association with J.S. Assemani (1687–1768) and others in the Maronite College in Rome and the Vatican Library. 3 While later scholars have sometimes been scathing in their comments about the quality of this edition, the fact remains that for all practical purposes it offered the first glimpse of the genuine works of Ephraem the Syrian to Europeans who had hitherto known only the works of Ephraem Graecus and their numerous translations and adaptations in other languages. It is surprising that in the nineteenth century the Abbé Migne did not include any of the published works of Ephraem in either the Patrologia Graeca or the Patrologia Latina. In subsequent years, beginning in the nineteenth century, and reaching well into the twentieth century, scholars in England, Belgium, and other parts of Europe, making use of the numerous manuscripts recently acquired in the west, made major strides in publishing the rest of the Syriac works attributed to Ephraem. 4 T.J. Lamy’s edition of his Hymns and Homilies 5 at the turn of the century brought Ephraem’s works in Syriac into the mainstream of religious discourse in Europe, and arguably led directly to Pope Benedict XIV’s proclamation in 1920. But already it was becoming clear that the first publications of Ephraem’s Syriac works left much to be desired in terms of the quality of the editions of the texts; many of them were not based on the best available manuscripts, and the work of many of the editors did not satisfy the requirements of truly critical editions. To remedy this situation, Dom Edmund Beck, O.S.B. (1902–91) began in 1955, 3 See Pierre Raphael, Le rôle du Collège Maronite Romain dans l’orientalisme aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles (Beyrouth: Université Saint Joseph, 1950), esp. pp. 123–36, 137–9, 145–8. 4 See the details in Joseph Melki, “S. Ephrem le Syrien, un bilan de l’édition critique,” Parole de l’Orient 11 (1983): 3–88; S.P. Brock, “A Brief Guide to the Main Editions and Translations of the Works of St. Ephrem,” The Harp 3 (1990): 7–29. 5 T.J. Lamy, Sancti Ephraem Syri Hymni et Sermones, 4 vols. (Malines, 1882–1902).

A Spiritual Father for the Whole Church

[3]

199

and continued for the next quarter century, to publish critical editions and German translations of the genuine, Syriac works of Ephraem in the Louvain series Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium. 6 While Beck has not been alone in the task of editing and publishing Ephraem’s works in the twentieth century, the sheer volume of his output in this enterprise makes his name almost synonymous with the production as it were of the ‘complete works’ of Ephraem the Syrian. The modern publication of the Syriac works of Ephraem has been accompanied by a crescendo in the number of studies devoted to them, and to his life and thought more generally. 7 The effect of all this attention has been gradually to bring Ephraem’s Syriac works into the mainstream of modern patristic scholarship, although one can even now consult the index of too many studies of early Christian thought in areas on which he wrote extensively and still not find a mention of his name. 8

II [4]

Well within the patristic period itself Ephraem’s reputation as a holy man, poet, and theologian of note was widely proclaimed, well beyond the borders of his native Syria and the territories where Syriac was spoken. Within fifty years of his death, Palladius included a notice of Ephraem among the ascetic saints whose memory he celebrated in the Lausiac History. 9 Sozomen, the early fifth century historian, celebrated Ephraem’s memory as a popular ecclesiastical writer. He said of Ephraem’s works, “They were 6 Beck published his last edition in 1979 (CSCO 412 & 413). In the end, in addition to numerous other studies, he produced 19 volumes of editions and translations of Syriac works attributed to Ephraem. 7 The surest way bibliographically to control what is being published in Ephraem studies is to consult the on-going classified bibliography in Syriac studies compiled by Sebastian P. Brock in Parole de l’Orient: 1960–70 — 4 (1973): 393–465; 1971–80 — 10 (1981–82): 291–412; 1981–85 — 14 (1987): 289–360; 1986–90 — 17 (1992): 211–301, now compiled in one separately published volume: Syriac Studies: A Classified Bibliography, 1960–1990 (Kaslik: Parole de l’Orient, 1996). 8 A notable case in point is R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1988). 9 See C. Butler, The Lausiac History of Palladius, 2 vols. (Texts and Studies 6; Cambridge, 1898 & 1904), vol. II, 126–7.

200

Sidney H. Griffith

translated into Greek during his lifetime, ... and yet they preserve much of their original force and power, so that his works are not less admired when read in Greek than when read in Syriac.” 10 Even Saint Jerome, a man not always ready with praise for the work of others, claimed to recognize Ephraem’s theological genius in a Greek translation he read of a book by Ephraem on the Holy Spirit. 11 Later, in Byzantium, so important a monastic figure as Theodore of Stoudios (759–826) held up the example of Ephraem for the inspiration of his monks. In a sermon he put forward the ascetical example of John Chrysostom and of “Ephraem, famous in song.” 12 In his Testament, Theodore confessed his acceptance of the example of the oriental monks, especially Barsanuphius, Antony, Ephraem and others. 13 But surely the most striking testimony to the Syrian saint’s popularity in patristic and medieval times is the fact that in the Clavis Patrum Graecorum, the number of pages it takes to list the works in Greek attributed to Ephraem is second only to the number of pages devoted to listing the works of the ever popular John Chrysostom! 14 In medieval Europe, these ascetical homilies, translated into Latin, found a home in many monastic J. Bidez & G. H. Hansen (eds.), Sozomenus, Kirchengeschichte (Griechische Christliche Schriftsteller, no. 5.; Berlin, 1960) 127–30. 11 See E.C. Richardson (ed.), Hieronymus, Liber de Viris Inlustribus (Texte und Untersuchungen 14.; Leipzig, 1896) 51. 12 See S. Theodori Studitae Parva Catechesis, Sermon 42, in A. Mai (ed.), Nova Patrum Bibliotheca, vol. IX (Typis Collegii Urbani, Rome, 1888) 102. 13 See S. Theodori Studitae Testamentum, in Patrologia Graeca 99, col. 1815. 14 See M. Geerard, Clavis Patrum Graecorum, vol. II (Turnhout: Brepols, 1974) 366–468. On the texts of Ephraem Graecus, see the pioneering studies of Democratie Hemmerdinger-Iliadou, “L’authenticité sporadique de l’Éphrem grec,” in Akten des XI. internationalen ByzantinistenKongresses (München, 1960) 232–6; “Les doublets de l’édition de l’Éphrem grec par Assemani,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 24 (1958): 371–82; “Vers une nouvelle édition de l’Éphrem grec,” in Studia Patristica 3 (1961): 800– 19; “Les citations évangéliques de l’Éphrem grec,” Byzantina 4 (1973): 315–73; “Éphrem: versions grecque, latine et slave: addenda et corrigenda,” Epeteris Hetairesias Byzantinon Spoudon (1975–76): 320–59. See also J. Kirchmeyer & D. Hemmerdinger-Illiadou, “Saint Éphrem et le ‘Liber Scintillarum’, Recherches de Science Religieuse 46 (1958): 545–50. Selected works of Ephraem Graecus, and their relationship to Syriac works of Ephraem, are the subject of a forthcoming Ph.D. dissertation at Princeton Theological Seminary by Wonmo Suh. 10

A Spiritual Father for the Whole Church

201

libraries. 15 In the monasteries of the Holy Land after the Arab conquest, some of these same Greek works attributed to Ephraem were among the earliest texts translated into Christian Arabic by the ‘Melkites’ who lived in the world of Islam. 16 In Kievan Rus’, the Greek works of Ephraem were especially dear to the influential monk Abraham of Smolensk, whose principal disciple even adopted the religious name Ephraem. From these beginnings Ephraem’s name and fame spread widely in Russia. 17

III [5]

One notices immediately, however, that these testimonies to Ephraem’s great popularity throughout the medieval Christian world all refer to works in Greek. In spite of the fact that Sozomen testifies that Ephraem’s works were translated into Greek during the Syrian’s lifetime, one of the effects of the modern recovery of his genuine works in Syriac is that scholars have come to recognize that there can be only a spiritual relationship between the writers of the works attributed to Ephraem in Greek and those attributed to For studies of Ephraem Latinus see August C. Mahr, Relations of Passion Plays to St. Ephrem the Syrian (Columbus, Ohio: Wartburg Press, 1942); G. Bardy, “Le souvenir de saint Éphrem dans le haut-moyen âge latin,” Revue du Moyen Âge Latin 2 (1946): 297–300; Daniel Verhelst, “Scarpsum de Dictis Sancti Efrem prope Fine Mundi,” in R. Lievens et al., (eds.), Pascua Mediaevalia; Studies voor Prof. Dr. J.M. De Smet (Leuven, 1983) 518–28; T. S. Pattie, “Ephraem the Syrian and the Latin Manuscripts of ‘De Paenitentia’,” The British Library Journal 13 (1987): 1– 24; idem, “Ephraem’s ‘On Repentance’ and the Translation of the Greek Text into Other Languages,” The British Library Journal 16 (1990): 174–5. 16 See W. Heffening, “Die griechische Ephraem-Paraenesis gegen das Lachen in arabischer Übersetzung,” Oriens Christianus 3rd series, 2 (1927): 94–119; J. M. Sauget, “Le dossier éphrémien du manuscrit arabe Strasbourg 4226 et de ses membra disiecta,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 42 (1978): 426–58; Samir Khalil, “L’Éphrem arabe, état des travaux,” Symposium Syriacum 1976 (Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 205; Rome, 1978) 229–40. See also Delio Vania Proverbio, “Auctarium au dossier copte de l’Éphrem grec,” Orientalia 66 (1997): 78–85. 17 See G. P. Fedotov, The Russian Religious Mind: Kievan Christianity, the 10th to the 13th Centuries (New York, 1960) 158–75; G. Podskalsky, Christentum und theologische Literatur in der kiever Rus’ (988–1237) (Munich, 1982) 50, 101–4, 140; I. Ogren, The Paraeneses of Ephraem the Syrian: History of the Slavonic Translation [Russian] (Uppsala, 1989). 15

202

[6]

[7]

Sidney H. Griffith

him in Syriac. What is more, in the biographical tradition, an examination of the Greek and Syriac sources for the saint’s life reveals two very different personae. For convenience, one might style the two images of the saint as the ‘icon of Ephraem Byzantinus’ and the ‘portrait of Ephraem Syrus.’ 18 They depict saints of very different character. The icon of Ephraem Byzantinus owes its main features to writers in the Graeco-Syrian monastic communities of the fifth and sixth centuries. They transmitted Ephraem’s works in both Greek and Syriac, even composing new hymns and homilies in his style and under his name. They also composed the Syriac Vita Ephraemi and a Syriac work attributed to Ephraem and presented as his Testament, two works that together are the principal sources for the literary icon of Ephraem Byzantinus. 19 According to the Vita, Ephraem lived in a cave on a mountain near Edessa, from which he emerged only at the end of his life to help victims of the plague in that city. Incidentally, he is said to have composed some doctrinal hymns and exegetical homilies in Syriac, and then only to combat the popular heresy of Bar Daysćn (154–222), a native of Edessa. In this account, Ephraem even ensured the authenticity of his style of monastic life by a visit to the deserts of Egypt, where he is said to have met the Macarian hero, Bishoi. 20 Afterward, according to the Vita, he guaranteed his See Edward G. Mathews, Jr., “The Vita Tradition of Ephrem the Syrian, the Deacon of Edessa,” Diakonia 22 (1988–9): 15–42; Sidney H. Griffith, “Images of Ephraem: the Syrian Holy Man and his Church,” Traditio (1989–90): 7–33; Joseph P. Amar, “Byzantine Ascetic Monachism and Greek Bias in the Vita Tradition of Ephrem the Syrian,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 58 (1992): 123–56. 19 See Joseph P. Amar, “The Syriac Vita Tradition of Ephrem the Syrian,” (Ph.D. dissertation; Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America, 1988). A convenient summary in Latin of the traditional lives of St. Ephraem is readily available in “De S. Ephrem Syro Edessae in Mesopotamia,” Acta Sanctorum February 1 (Paris, 1863) 49–78. On the Testament of Ephraem, its inauthenticity, and its debt to the tradition that produced the Vita, see Amar, “The Syriac Vita Tradition,” and “Byzantine Ascetic Monachism and Greek Bias.” See also E. Beck, Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Sermones IV (CSCO 334 & 335; Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1973), vol. 335, xi–xiv. 20 On this incident in the Vita, see H. J. Polotsky, “Ephraems Reise nach Aegypten,” Orientalia 2 (1933): 269–74; M. J. Blanchard, “The Coptic 18

A Spiritual Father for the Whole Church

[8]

203

orthodoxy for the emperor’s church by an ad limina visit to St. Basil of Caesarea, even fleeing priestly ordination at Basil’s hands, in good monastic style, although accepting the diaconate. 21 Parallel to this account, Ephraem’s Testament reflects the world-view of a monastic hero, a desert solitary of the type whose stories John of Ephesus or Cyril of Scythopolis might have told. This literary, or verbal icon, in fact must lie behind the best-known artistic presentation of St. Ephraem, the composition known as the ‘Dormition of Ephraem Syrus’, in which Ephraem’s body, lying on a funeral slab, surrounded by mourners, is the focal point of a tableau made up of other scenes from a cycle of hermits, stylites, and recluses. Exemplars of this composite scenario are in both the Vatican Gallery and the monastery of Dokheiarious on Mt. Athos. It is a perfect presentation of the profile of Ephraem Byzantinus. 22 The portrait of Ephraem Syrus, which the recovery of Ephraem’ s genuine works in Syriac and other texts in Syriac allow the modern scholar to project, leaves behind the testimony of the monastic hagiographers in Byzantium. From the Syriac texts Ephraem emerges as a ‘teacher’ (malpćnâ) and a poet, who for the majority of his almost seventy years served the bishops of Nisibis as a catechist, biblical exegete, and liturgical composer. For the last ten years of his life he served the bishop of Edessa in the same capacity. He was not a monk, although, as an unmarried man, he was probably a ‘single’ person (ihîdćyâ) dedicated to God’s service. 23 He refers to himself as a ‘herdsman’ (callćnâ), a member of the shepherd-bishop’s pastoral staff. In the last of his Hymns against Heresies he wrote of himself when he prayed, O Lord, may the works of your herdsman (callćnâ) not be cheated. Heritage of St. Ephrem the Syrian,” in T. Orlandi & D. J. Johnson (eds.), Acts of the Fifth International Congress of Coptic Studies, Washington, 12–15 August 1992, 3 vols. (Roma: C.I.M., 1993), vol. II, 37–51. 21 See O. Rousseau, “La rencontre de saint Ephrem et de saint Basile,” L’Orient Syrien 2 (1957): 261–284; 3 (1958): 73–90. 22 See John R. Martin, “The Death of Ephraim in Byzantine and Early Italian Painting,” The Art Bulletin 33 (1951): 217–25. 23 On the significance of this title see Sidney H. Griffith, “Asceticism in the Church of Syria: the Hermeneutics of Early Syrian Monasticism,” in Vincent L. Wimbush & Richard Valantasis (eds.), Asceticism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995) 220–45.

204

Sidney H. Griffith I will not then have troubled your sheep, but as far as I was able, I will have kept the wolves away from them, and I will have built, as far as I was capable, enclosures of madrćshê for the lambs of your flock. I will have made a disciple of the simple and unlearned man. And I will have given him a strong hold on the herdsmen’s (callćnê) staff, the healers’ medicine, and the disputants’ armor. 24

[9]

Ephraem is not more specific about his own position in the church. It is not impossible that he was in fact a deacon, although no early Syriac text explicitly identifies him as such. Clearly it was the renown of his teaching, and of the holiness of his life, that inspired Syriac writers to celebrate the fame of Ephraem the Syrian, the teacher par excellence, and that prompted the monastic hagiographers in the Greek-speaking world, and those under their influence, to fashion the image of Ephraem Byzantinus.

IV [10]

Ephraem’s works in Syriac are almost all metrical compositions, or Kunstprosa, that is to say poetry, in some sense of the word. It is true that he wrote some works in more straightforward prose as well, such as his commentaries on Genesis, Exodus and the Diatessaron, 25 along with the collection of polemical texts which Edmund Beck, Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen contra Haereses (CSCO 169 & 170; Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1957), vol. 169, 56:10&11, pp. 211–2. 25 See R.M. Tonneau, Sancti Ephraem Syri in Genesim et in Exodum commentarii (CSCO 152 & 153; Louvain: Peeters, 1955); Edward G. Mathews, Jr., & Joseph P. Amar, St. Ephrem the Syrian: Selected Prose Works; Commentary on Genesis, Commentary on Exodus, Homily on our Lord, Letter to Publius (Kathleen McVey, ed., The Fathers of the Church 91; Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1994). See also Louis Leloir, Saint Ephrem: Commentaire de l’évangile concordant; texte syriaque (MS Chester Beatty 709) (Chester Beatty Monographs 8; Dublin, 1963), idem, Saint Ephrem: Commentaire de l’évangile concordant; texte syriaque (MS Chester 24

A Spiritual Father for the Whole Church

[11]

205

generally goes under the title given them by the editor of many of them, the so-called Prose Refutations. 26 But there is no doubt that his particular genius comes to full flower in the poetic mêmrê and madrćshê that he penned, or the ‘homilies’ and ‘hymns’ as they are conventionally called in the west. 27 Here we meet the real Ephraem, who expressed his thoughts in measured lines of verse, usually in isosyllabic cola, which, in the madrćshê, are arranged in stanzas, after each one of which a response (cunîtâ) is usually repeated. 28 Ephraem seems to have been genuinely proud of his madrćshê; he sometimes ‘signed’ them by the acrostic device of beginning each successive stanza with words whose first Syriac letters in sequence spell out his name. 29 Ephraem’s hymns and verse homilies often had a liturgical setting. St. Jerome says that in some churches they were recited after the scripture lessons in the divine liturgy. 30 The recitation was chanted to the accompaniment of the lyre (kennćrâ), on the model of David, the Psalmist. 31 Beatty 709), folios additionnels (Leuven/Paris: Peeters, 1990); Carmel McCarthy, Saint Ephrem’s Commentary on Tatian’s Diatessaron; an English Translation of Chester Beatty MS 709 with Introduction and Notes (Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement 2; Oxford: Oxford University Press on Behalf of the University of Manchester, 1993). See also Louis Leloir, Éphrem de Nisibe: Commentaire de l’évangile concordant our Diatessaron, traduit du Syriaque et de l’Arménien (Sources Chrétiennes 121; Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1966). 26 See C. W. Mitchell, S. Ephraim’s Prose Refutations of Mani, Marcion, and Bardaisan, 2 vols. (London/Oxford: Williams and Norgate, 1912 & 1921). 27 See the convenient presentation of the titles of Ephraem’s Syriac works listed by genre in Brock, “A Brief Guide to the Main Editions and Translations,” 17–28. 28 For a discussion of the madrćshâ as a literary form see Michael Lattke, “Sind Ephraems Madrćse Hymnen?” Oriens Christianus 73 (1989): 38–43. 29 See Andrew Palmer, “St Ephrem of Syria’s Hymn on Faith 7: an ode on his own name,” Sobornost 17 (1995): 28–40. 30 “Ephrem, Edessenae ecclesiae diaconus, multa Syro sermone conposuit, et ad tantam venit claritudinem, ut post lectionem Scriptuarum publice in quibusdam ecclesiis eius scripta recitentur.” E. C. Richardson, Hieronymus, Liber de Viris Inlustribus (Leipzig, 1896) 51. 31 See Andrew Palmer, “‘A Lyre without a Voice,’ the Poetics and the Politics of Ephrem the Syrian,” ARAM 5 (1993): 371–99.

206 [12]

Sidney H. Griffith

We learn from Jacob of Sarug’s verse homily on Ephraem, ‘the Teacher’, how important the correct performance of his madrćshê was for the busy malpćnâ of Nisibis and Edessa. He reportedly spent time and energy rehearsing the singers who would perform them in church. And what is more, according to Jacob, he insisted that women take their rightful place in the church’s choirs. On this subject, Jacob spoke of Ephraem as “a second Moses for women,” 32 and he addressed Ephraem as follows: In you, even our sisters were encouraged to sing [God’s] praises, although it was not permissible for women to speak in church. (1 Cor. 14:34) Your teaching opened the closed mouth of the daughters of Eve, and now the congregations of the glorious [church] resound with their voices. It is a new sight that women would proclaim the Gospel, and now be called teachers in the churches. The object of your teaching is the wholly new world, where, in the kingdom, men and women are equal. Your work put the two sexes together as two lyres, and you made men and women at once equal to sing [God’s] praises. 33

[13]

Here Jacob of Sarug echoes Ephraem’s own thought, as we find it expressed in one of his Hymns on Paradise. In Hymn VI:8 he speaks of the church, “the assembly of the saints,” where each day “the medicine of life" is available, and there too he goes on to say: The serpent (ʚewyâ) is crippled and bound by the curse, while Eve’s (hawwâ) mouth is sealed with a silence that is beneficial (Gen. 3:14) Joseph P. Amar, “A Metrical Homily on Holy Mar Ephrem by Mar Jacob of Sarug; Critical edition of the Syriac Text, Translation and Introduction,” Patrologia Orientalis 47, fasc. 1, no. 209 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1995) #48, p. 37. 33 Amar, “A Metrical Homily on Holy Mar Ephrem,” ## 40–4, pp. 34–5. 32

A Spiritual Father for the Whole Church

207

—but it also serves once again as a harp to sing the praises of her Creator. 34

V [14]

[15]

The universal appeal of Ephraem’s madrćshê began already in the Syriac-speaking milieu in which he composed them. They were gathered into collections by theme, and also by melody, by his disciples, and by later users and transmitters of his compositions. 35 In certain instances his work was even expanded by others, the better to serve some more immediate liturgical or memorial purpose. Sometimes verses and whole stanzas were rearranged to suit new situations. 36 Some followers and imitators also wrote entire compositions in Ephraem’s name and included them among his genuine works; others corrected or brought up to date earlier, more surely genuine pieces. 37 All of this activity is testimony not only to Ephraem’s popularity and authority in the Syriac-speaking churches, but also to the essentially public-service character of much of his writing. He did not write primarily tracts for scholars or meditation pieces for monks, or even literary homilies intended for circulation among the theological trend-setters. His texts were used for the most part by busy churchmen like himself, who had liturgies to celebrate or catechetical classes to teach. They often had no compunction about adapting his compositions to their own pressing purposes, or even about borrowing the authority of his name to commend a certain point of view in compositions of their own. While it remains uncertain just how much Ephraem himself was involved in the collection of his works, it is clear that by the E. Beck, Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen De Paradiso und Contra Julianum (CSCO 174 & 175; Louvain: Peeters, 1957) VI:8. The English translation is from Sebastian Brock, Saint Ephrem the Syrian; Hymns on Paradise (Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1990) 111. 35 See the remarks of G.A.M. Rouwhorst, Les hymnes pascales d’Ephrem de Nisibe, 2 vols. (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1989), vol. I, 24–5. 36 See, e.g., B. Outtier, “Contribution à l’étude de la préhistoire des collections d’hymnes d’Éphrem,” Parole de l’Orient 6 & 7 (1975–76): 49–61. 37 See, e.g., the case of the interpolated stanzas in some of the Hymns on Faith, as studied by Andrew Palmer, “Words, Silences, and the Silent Word: Acrostics and Empty Columns in Saint Ephraem’s Hymns on Faith,” Parole de l’Orient 20 (1995): 129–200. 34

208

[16]

Sidney H. Griffith

sixth century, the date of the earliest and best manuscripts, the compilations were essentially in the form in which we know them today. The evidence for the production of comprehensive volumes of Ephraem’s hymns is found in remarks which occur in a number of manuscripts which transmit his works. But the principal document which has given scholars an insight into the final form taken by these volumes is Sinai Syriac MS 10, a text which in the judgment of the late and much lamented André De Halleux may have its own roots as far back as the sixth century. From this source, which is meant to be a register of the forty-five melodies used in the whole collection of Ephraem’s hymns, one learns of nine volumes of the author’s collected madrćshê. 38 In the sixth century the appeal of these uniquely Syriac compositions already reached beyond the immediate milieu of their origins. For Ephraem’s Syriac madrćshâ bears an uncanny resemblance in many formal details to the Byzantine Greek Kontakion. In fact, a good case can be made for the suggestion that the most famous composer of Kontakia, Romanos the Melode (d. after 555), a native of Emesa in Syria, was actively influenced by Ephraem’s madrćshê. 39 In this development one can see an important dimension of the appeal of Ephraem’s poetry beyond his own time and place. But this appeal was not always universal.

See André De Halleux, “La transmission des Hymnes d’Éphrem d’après le MS. Sinai Syr. 10, f. 165v–178r,” in Symposium Syriacum 1972 (Orientalia Christiana Analecta 197; Rome, 1974) 21–36; idem, “Une clé pour les hymnes d’Éphrem dans le MS. Sinai Syr. 10,” Le Muséon 85 (1972): 171–99. 39 See J. Grosdidier de Matons, Romanos le Mélode et les origines de la poésie religieuse à Byzance (Paris: Beauchesne, 1977); William L. Petersen, “The Dependence of Romanos the Molodist upon the Syriac Ephrem; its Importance for the Origin of the Kontakion,” Vigiliae Christianae 39 (1985): 171–87; idem, The Diatessaron and Ephrem Syrus as Sources of Romanos the Melodist (CSCO 475; Louvain: Peeters, 1985); idem, “The Dependence of Romanos the Melodist upon the Syriac Ephraem,” in E. A. Livingstone (ed.), Studia Patristica XVIII, 4 (Kalamazoo, Mich.: Cistercian Publications / Leuven: Peeters, 1990), pp. 274–281; S.P. Brock, “From Ephrem to Romanos,” in E. A. Livingstone (ed.), Studia Patristica XX (Leuven: Peeters, 1989) 139–51. 38

A Spiritual Father for the Whole Church

209

VI [17]

When Ephraem’s madrćshê were first translated into English, some early readers did not in fact find them all that appealing. 40 For example, early in the present century F.C. Burkitt wrote: Ephraim is extraordinarily prolix, he repeats himself again and again, and for all the immense mass of material there seems very little to take hold of. His style is as allusive and unnatural as if the thought was really deep and subtle, and yet when the thought is unraveled, it is generally commonplace. ... Judged by any canons that we apply to religious literature, it is poor stuff. 41

[18]

More recently, J.B. Segal echoed the same sentiment. While admitting that Ephraem was a master of Syriac style, Segal went on to say that “his work, it must be confessed, shows little profundity or originality of thought, and his metaphors are laboured. His poems are turgid, humourless, and repetitive.” 42 But in stark contrast to these negative judgments, Robert Murray has described Ephraem “as the greatest poet of the patristic age and, perhaps, the only theologian-poet to rank beside Dante.” 43 And now, as if in testimony to Murray’s judgment, the English composer/singer, John Tavener, has set several of Ephraem’s stanzas in English translation to music and has issued a popular CD featuring them in performance. 44

See Koonammakkal Thoma Kathanar, “Changing Views on Ephrem,” Christian Orient 14 (1993): 113–30. See also the remarks of Sebastian Brock, “The Poetic Artistry of St. Ephrem: an Analysis of H. Azym. III,” Parole de l’Orient 6 & 7 (1975–76): 21–8. 41 F. Crawford Burkitt, Early Eastern Christianity; St. Margaret’s Lectures on the Syriac-Speaking Church (London: John Murray, 1904) 95 & 99. 42 J.B. Segal, Edessa, ‘the Blessed City’ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970) 89. 43 Robert Murray, “Ephrem Syrus,” Catholic Dictionary of Theology, vol. II (London, 1967) 220–3. Murray reaffirmed this opinion in his landmark book, Robert J. Murray, S.J., Symbols of Church and Kingdom; a Study in Early Syriac Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975) 31. 44 John Tavener, “Thunder Entered Her,” Virgin Classics, VC 5 45035 2, 1994. Ephraem’s compositions, entitled “Thunder Entered Her,” and “Hymns of Paradise,” both in translations by Sebastian P. Brock, are pieces no. 4 & no. 5 on the CD. 40

210 [19]

Sidney H. Griffith

Undoubtedly there are many reasons behind this wide divergence of judgments in the Anglophone world about the attractiveness of Ephraem’s verses, ranging from poor translations based on poor editions, to the vagaries of personal taste. But it may also be the case that readers have in some instances failed to make the distinction that Robert Murray noted some years ago between the speculative theology one expects in the works of some major patristic writers in Greek, and what many call the ‘symbolic theology’ of Ephraem. Murray put the point memorably when he wrote: Ephrem refuses to answer the Arians by developing speculative theology on the orthodox side, as both Athanasius and the Cappadocians did; he sticks to his symbolism and demands that the mystery remain veiled. Not fides quaerens intellectum but fides adorans mysterium! 45

[20]

In fact no small part of the universal appeal of St. Ephraem the Syrian, especially in more recent times, has been his distrust of human rationalism as a sufficient guide to religious truth. In this connection, commentators have been fond of quoting Ephraem’s words in connection with the ‘Arian’ controversies of his day. He wrote in his Hymns on Faith: Blessed is the one who has not tasted the bitter poison of the wisdom of the Greeks. Blessed is the one who has not let slip the simplicity of the apostles. 46

[21]

Ephraem rejected the idea that the articles of faith could be determined by academic research, or by intellectual scrutiny that put dialectic ahead of believing. It was this position that put him on a collision course with some of the more academically inclined theologians of his day, especially in the Greek-speaking world. He spoke of the “accursed dialectic (drćshâ)” as “a hidden worm from the Greeks.” 47 But by ‘Greeks’ (yawnćyê) Ephraem did not mean contemporary churchmen who wrote in Greek such as Athanasius Murray, Symbols of Church and Kingdom, 89. E. Beck, Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen de Fide (CSCO 154 & 155; Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1955) II:24. 47 Beck, Hymnen de Fide, LXXXVII:4. 45 46

A Spiritual Father for the Whole Church

211

(c. 300–73) or Basil (330–79). He meant those who would measure the disclosures of biblical revelation solely by the logic of the ‘Hellenic’ canons of reason, men such as the followers Arius (c. 260–336) or Aetius (c. 300–70), whom Greek Christian writers themselves would be inclined to call ‘Hellenes’. 48 Ephraem, for his part, thought that the proper posture for a Christian was an attitude of prayer and praise, arising from the contemplation of the mysteries God has strewn in both nature and scripture to lead the human mind to divinity. This line of thinking has endeared Ephraem to many generations of Christians, and it found its most beautiful and fetching expression in the poetry of his madrćshê, the “teaching songs,” to use Andrew Palmer’s apt phrase for them, 49 which have found a welcome reception in the post-modern world, so tired of rationalism, but deeply drawn to the revelatory power of metaphor and symbol.

VII [22]

According to Ephraem, what one finds in Nature and Scripture are the types and symbols, along with the names and titles, by means of which the invisible God reveals himself to the eyes and minds of persons of good faith, and which prepare them to recognize the incarnate Word of God in Jesus of Nazareth. In one stanza from his Hymns on Virginity he says the following about the incarnate Son and his symbols and types: In every place, if you look, his symbol is there, and wherever you read, you will find his types. For in him all creatures were created and he traced his symbols on his property. When he was creating the world, he looked to adorn it with icons of himself.

See A. Garzya, “Visages de l’Hellénisme dans le monde byzantin,” Byzantion 55 (1985): 463–82. 49 See Palmer’s insightful study of a selection of Ephraem’s hymns De Fide in Andrew Palmer, “The Merchant of Nisibis; Saint Ephrem and his Faithful Quest for Union in Numbers,” in J. Den Boeft & A. Hilhorst, Early Christian Poetry; a Collection of Essays (Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae XXII; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1993) 167–233. 48

212

Sidney H. Griffith The springs of his symbols were opened up to run down and pour forth his symbols into his members. 50

[23]

Similarly, in one of his hymns for the liturgy of Maundy Thursday Ephraem speaks of the symbols and types of God’s Son and Messiah to be found in the scriptures. He says, in allusion to the ‘Arianism’ which he combats in so many of his texts: Those doctrines are put to shame which have alienated the Son. See, the Law carries all the liknesses of him. See, the Prophets, like deacons, carry the icons of the Messiah. Nature and Scripture together carry the symbols of his humanity and of his divinity. 51

[24]

What Ephraem commends to the spiritually starved is nothing less than the prayerful practice of lectio divina, allied with an appropriate sense of intellectual humility. In one stanza of the Hymns on Faith he gives this advice: Let us not allow ourselves to go astray and to study our God. Lest us take the measure of our mind, and gauge the range of our thinking. Let us know how small our knowledge is, too contemptible to scrutinize the Knower of All. 52

[25]

The fact is, according to Ephraem, there is a deep chasm (pehtâ) between God and his creatures, which human knowledge cannot bridge, but which love crosses. 53 God, for his part, as a 50 E. Beck, Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen de Virginitate (CSCO 223 & 224; Louvain: Peeters, 1962) XX:12. 51 E. Beck, Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Paschahymnen; (de Azymis, de Crucifixione, de Resurrectione) (CSCO 248 & 249; Louvain: Peeters, 1964), De Azymis, IV:22–4. 52 Beck, Hymnen de Fide, XV:3. 53 See Beck, Hymnen de Fide, LXIX:11–2. See also the study of this facet of Ephraem’s thought in Thomas Koonammakkal, “The Theology

A Spiritual Father for the Whole Church

213

function of His love for us, has provided for us, in human language, the symbols and types, the names and metaphors, culminating in the Incarnate Son, by which we may cross over to Him. Ephraem makes this point clearly in a prayer he addresses to Jesus as the final strophe in an acrostic madrćshâ which ends with the middle letter of the Syriac alphabet, yodh, which is also the first letter of the name ‘Jesus’ (Yeshûc). He says, O Jesus, glorious name, hidden bridge which carries one over from death to life, I have come to a stop with you; I finish with your letter yodh. Be a bridge for my words to cross over to your truth. Make your love a bridge for your servant. By means of you I shall cross over to your Father. I will cross over and say, ‘Blessed is the One who has made his might tender in his offspring.’ 54

[26]

The scriptures too are a bridge over the chasm that separates man from God, and in one of his Hymns on Paradise, as he describes his reading of the book of Genesis, Ephraem provides the perfect paradigm for the contemplative Christian at prayer, Bible in hand. He says, I read the opening of this book and was filled with joy, for its verses and lines spread out their arms to welcome me; the first rushed out and kissed me, and led me on to its companion; and when I reached that verse wherein is written the story of Paradise, it lifted me up and transported me

of Divine Names in the Genuine Works of Ephraem,” (D. Phil. thesis presented to the University of Oxford, Oxford, 1991). 54 Beck, Hymnen de Fide, VI:17. For a discussion of the full range of ‘bridge’ imagery in Ephraem’s writing see E. Beck, “Zwei ephrämische Bilder,” Oriens Christianus 71 (1987): 1–9.

214

Sidney H. Griffith from the bosom of the book to the very bosom of Paradise. The eye and the mind traveled over the lines as over a bridge, and entered together the story of Paradise. The eye as it read transported the mind; in return the mind, too, gave the eye rest from its reading, for when the book had been read the eye had rest but the mind was engaged. Both the bridge and the gate of Paradise did I find in this book. I crossed over and entered; my eye remained outside but my mind entered within. I began to wander among things indescribable. This is a luminous height, clear, lofty and fair: Scripture named it Eden, the summit of all blessings. 55

VIII [27]

While Ephraem was thus a master poet of the spiritual life, a biblical exegete, and even a religious polemicist of considerable acumen, 56 he was also a spiritual father, psychologically astute,

E. Beck, Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen De Paradiso und Contra Julianum (CSCO 174 & 175; Louvain: Peeters, 1957) V:2–5. The English translation is from S. Brock, Saint Ephrem the Syrian; Hymns on Paradise (Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1990) 102–4. 56 See Sidney H. Griffith, “Setting Right the Church of Syria: Saint Ephraem’s Hymns against Heresies,” in William E. Klingshirn & Mark Vessey (eds.), The Limits of Ancient Christianity: Essays on Late Antique 55

A Spiritual Father for the Whole Church

[28]

215

whose counsels were widely esteemed. It was this quality, as much as any other, that contributed to his universal appeal. For in the texts attributed to Ephraem that circulated so widely outside of the Syriac-speaking milieu, in almost all the languages of the late antique and medieval Christian world, especially in the monastic communities where the icon of Ephraem Byzantinus was cherished, advice for spiritual direction predominated. A case in point is the so-called Sermo Asceticus, one of those works ascribed to Ephraem Graecus, which, in the form in which it survives in Greek, is to be found translated into almost all the languages of early and medieval Christianity. As has been remarked, it is “one of Ephraem’s most read and most abused writings” 57—abused in the sense that many writers in many languages have made it their own by adding to it, shortening it, and even moving its paragraphs around. There are Latin, Coptic, Georgian, Arabic, Armenian, Ethiopic, and Slavonic versions of the Sermo Asceticus known to scholars, and in what seems to be its original Greek, almost twenty passages from it have so far been found included in other texts attributed to Ephraem Graecus. 58 Latin sources from as early as the seventh century can be cited in attestation of the Sermo Asceticus as a work of Ephraem. The late seventh century monk of Ligugé, Defensor, quotes from it some nine times in his Liber Scintillarum, an ascetical compilation which had a very wide circulation in monasteries in the west throughout the Middle Ages. 59 In addition to the Greek text, and the Latin translation, the Sermo Asceticus has also been published in its Coptic version, from a manuscript of the tenth century, together with an English translation. 60 The manuscript was written in the year 973 A.D. at the Monastery of Saint Macarius of Idfu in Egypt. But its Coptic version includes only about twothirds of the original Greek text. Thought and Culture in Honor of R.A. Markus (University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, 1999) (Forthcoming). 57 J. Kirchmeyer & D. Hemmerdinger-Iliadou, “Saint Éphrem et le ‘Liber Scintillarum’,” Recherches de Science Religieuse 46 (1958): 549. 58 See Geerard, Clavis Patrum Graecorum, 370–3. 59 See Kirchmeyer & Hemmerdinger-Iliadou, “Saint Éphrem et le ‘Liber Scintillarum’,” 546–9. 60 E.A. Wallis Budge, Coptic Matryrdoms Etc. in the Dialect of Upper Egypt (London: British Museum, 1914) 157–78 (Coptic); 409–30 (English).

216 [29]

Sidney H. Griffith

The Sermo Asceticus is an extended homily addressed to the monastic estate at large. There are no specifics in it which might identify either the author or the particular community to whom he spoke, or for whom he wrote. The author speaks in the first person, and addresses the audience in the plural as ‘brethren’ (DGHOIRϟ), or ‘beloved’ (DJDSKWRϟ), or occasionally as ‘monks’ (PRQDFRϟ). He talks of monastic garb, of night vigils with Psalms and hymns, and of extended prayer and penance. A typical, exhortatory passage is the following one: O brethren, let us humble our souls with fasting and with sorrow, and with vigils by night, and let us walk in the truth. ... Let us mourn, so that the Holy Spirit may comfort us ... especially we who have been made to be worthy of the conversation of the angels. 61

[30]

[31]

The author is concerned about what he regards as the decadent situation of the life of the monks of his day. He complains that “the word of instruction has ceased to prevail in our time, and that inasmuch as we are in a state of ignorance our sins have multiplied.” 62 The Sermo Asceticus exhorts the monks to return to the teachings of the fathers. Several times the readers are reminded that “we are spiritual business men (HPSRURϠ SQHXPDWLNRϟ),” who should be concerned solely to seek the pearl of great price. The ‘habit does not make the monk,’ the writer maintains, but only the work of the truly moderate on who has learned to enjoy the gifts of nature in the measure the Creator intended, and not according to the appetites instilled in humans by habits of sin. Of the thirty columns of Greek text which it takes for the printing of the Sermo Asceticus in Assemani’s edition, 63 only ninetytwo lines of it can be found to be translated from a Syriac original. 64 That is to say, there was a Syriac Vorlage for only a small part of it. Moreover, the nine translated passages are for the most part brief, containing only a few lines; the longest continuous passage, however, includes forty-three lines, almost half the total. The translated passages are distributed throughout the work, and hence, with the exception of the long one, they are not Wallis Budge, Coptic Martyrdoms, 413. Wallis Budge, Coptic Martyrdoms, 409. 63 Assemani, Ephraem Opera Omnia, vol. I, 40–70. 64 See the citations given in Geerard, Clavis Patrum Graecorum, 371. 61 62

A Spiritual Father for the Whole Church

[32]

[33]

217

concentrated on a single point. They are in no way set apart, but are completely integrated into the discourse. It is only the discerning eye of the modern scholar, searching for evidence of the Syriac Vorlagen of the work, which has discovered them and set them apart. The Syriac works attributed to Ephraem the Syrian from which the translated passages in the Sermo Asceticus come are two: the so-called Sermo de Reprehensione and the Sermo de Confessoribus et Martyribus. Both of these texts are available in modern editions. 65 In a couple of instances the same passage quoted in the Sermo Asceticus appears in more than one Syriac work attributed to Ephraem. This circumstance recalls the somewhat fluid state of some texts attributed to Ephraem in the fifth and sixth centuries, when in the Graeco-Syrian monastic communities in the Syriac-speaking world the major collections of the Syriac works of Ephraem were being assembled. In some instances editors and compilers somewhat arbitrarily shifted verses by Ephraem from collection to collection, and sometimes they completed one compilation with lines by other writers done in the style of Ephraem and on themes favored by him. This kind of activity is testimony not only to Ephraem’s popularity and authority in the Syriac-speaking churches, but also to the essentially public-service character of much of his writing. Later people who used his work saw no reason why they should not adapt it to their immediate purposes; some of them composed whole works in the style of Ephraem. In regard to the two Syriac works from which quotations are drawn in the Sermo Asceticus, it is the current scholarly opinion that the portions of the De Reprehensione quoted in the text do in fact come from the pen of Ephraem. 66 On the other hand, it seems that the hymns De Confessoribus attributed to Ephraem in the manuscript 65 The Sermo de Reprehensione is published in T. J. Lamy, Sancti Ephraem Syri Hymni et Sermones, vol. IV (Mechliniae, 1902) 265–356; E. Beck, Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Sermones I (CSCO 305 & 306; Louvain, 1970), vol. 305, 12–49 (Syriac), vol. 306, 17–65 (German). The Sermo de Confessoribus is published in T. J. Lamy, Sancti Ephraem Syri Hymni et Sermones, vol. III (Mechliniae, 1889) 643–750; E. Beck, Nachträge zu Ephraem Syrus (CSCO, 363–4; Louvain, 1975), vol. 363, 1–19 (Syriac); vol. 364, 1–25 (German). 66 So the opinion of Beck: “So finde ich auch hier keine Schwierigkeiten, die die Echtheit dieses handschriftlich sehr gut bezeugten Sermo in Frage stellen könnten.” Beck, Sermones I, vol. 306, viii.

218

[34]

Sidney H. Griffith

tradition were actually composed in the generation after his lifetime by writers consciously working on the model of his style and concerns. 67 So it turns out that for the most part the Sermo Asceticus has nothing much literally to do with the authentic Syriac works of Ephraem, with the exception of several phrases quoted in Greek translation from the Sermo de Reprehensione. And yet, the work often breathes with the spirit of Ephraem, sometimes using words and phrases with a distinctly Ephraemian ring to them, although the composition as a whole is cast in a monastic framework that would have been unfamiliar to Ephraem. This does not mean that the Sermo Asceticus is simply a forgery and that the Ephraem known in the monastic communities of the east and west in the Middle Ages and in modern times has no connection at all with the Syriac-speaking ‘teacher’ (malpćnâ) and melodist of Nisibis and Edessa. Rather, it seems more reasonable to see the Greek compositions and their many versions as a natural outgrowth of the tendency that began already in Ephraem’s lifetime for those deeply affected by him not only to collect his work and make compilations of it in the original language, but to adapt his insights and teachings to ever new settings and new languages, often preserving only the acuity of his spiritual insights, clothed in a completely unfamiliar idiom. In other words, one can see in the numerous productions of Ephraem Graecus, the beginnings of the universal appeal of St. Ephraem the Syrian, filtered through a new fashion of Christian spirituality, which grew steadily from its origins in the Egyptian deserts and elsewhere in the fourth century, until the point when expressions attributed to Ephraem in the new mode, and often encapsulating his insights, reached virtually a canonical status by their not infrequent quotation in texts included in the Philokalia, in the work of Peter Damaskenos (fl. c. 1156/7). 68 In this way St. Ephraem the Syrian became in fact a spiritual father for the whole church. Even Pope Benedict XV, who declared him 67 Beck says, “die nicht wenigen sachlichen Abweichungen von Ephräm gegen seine Autorschaft sprechen. ... Die Schrift für eine Fälschung der ersten Generationen nach Ephräm zu halten.” Beck, Nachträge, vol. 364, vii. 68 See G.E.H. Palmer, Philip Sherrard, Kallistos Ware (eds. et trans.), The Philokalia; the Complete Text Compiled by St Nikodimos of the Holy Mountain and St. Makarios of Corinth, 3 vols. (London: Faber & Faber, 1979–84), vol. III, 70–281.

A Spiritual Father for the Whole Church

219

a Doctor of the Universal Chruch, marvelled that “holy and orthodox fathers and doctors, from Basil, Chrysostom and Jerome, to Francis de Sales and Alphonsus Liguori,” could sing Ephraem’s praises in one voice. 69

IX [35]

It is not appropriate to end these reflections on the universal appeal of St. Ephraem the Syrian without ourselves asking for a word of advice from so widely esteemed a spiritual father. For this purpose I have chosen a passage from his second mêmrâ “On Reproof,” from the same material that so inspired the composer of the Greek Sermo Asceticus. Ephraem wrote: Let us be builders of our own minds into temples suitable for God. If the Lord dwells in your house, honor will come to your door. How much your ‘honor’ will increase if God dwells within you. Be a sanctuary for him, even a priest, and serve him within your temple. Just as for your sake he became High priest, sacrifice, and libation; you, for his sake, become temple, priest, and sacrificial offering. Since your mind will become a temple, do not leave any filth in it; do not leave in God’s house anything hateful to God. Let us be adorned as God’s house, with what is attractive to God. If anger is there, lewdness abides there too; if rage is there, fumes will rise up from there. Expel grudges from there, and jealousy, whose reek is abhorent. Bring in and install love there, 69

Benedict XV, “Principi Apostolorum Petro,” 459.

220

Sidney H. Griffith as a censer full of fragrant incense. Gather up and take the dung out, odious liaisons and bad habits. Strew good fellowship around it, like blossoms and flowers. But instead of roses and lilies, decorate it with prayers. 70

70

Beck, Sermones I, II:93–124.

Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies, Vol. 1.2, 221–226 © 1998 [2010] by Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute and Gorgias Press

EPHRAIM IN CHRISTIAN PALESTINIAN ARAMAIC ALAIN DESREUMAUX CHARGE DE RECHERCHE AU CNRS (CENTRE D’ETUDES DES RELIGIONS DU LIVRE INSTITUT DES TRADITIONS TEXTUELLES) PARIS [1]

Christian Palestinian Aramaic was a language used in Palestine, Transjordan and Egypt during the Roman, Byzantine and Arab periods till the thirteenth century. It was the language spoken by the people to such an extent that it became necessary to translate Christian texts from Greek into Aramaic for the use of the Melkite Church. Documents in Christian Aramaic appeared in or just before the Justinianic period. They are written in a kind of uncial Estranghelo till the ninth century onwards (I call these documents “texts of the ancient period”), then in a cursive handwritting (I call them “mediaeval texts”). Places where these documents have been elaborated are not exactly known; one can say only that some parchment leaves have been found in the Byzantine laura of Khirbet Mird in the Judean desert and that books have been kept and probably written in Saint Catherine’s monastery in Sinai. It is also probable that some books were written in the area of Jerusalem and in Samaria. Because all of the texts in the so-called Christian Palestinian Aramaic were written and used by the Melkite Christians, I have proposed to call the language and the writing “Melkite Aramaic” to distinguish the language clearly from the Syriac, which is a very near cousin but another language. Some Melkite Aramaic texts have survived, most of them in fragments. 221

222

[2]

Alain Desreumaux

They consist mainly of biblical books of the Old and New Testament, liturgical lectionaries, liturgical rituals (marriage, ordination, benediction of the waters, hymns, prayers, with the exception of anaphoras), Christian apocryphal and hagiographical books. There are also few fragments from the patristic litterature since from this last category, some texts of only three Fathers have been preserved in Melkite Aramaic, by Athanasius (Vita Antonii), Cyril of Jerusalem (Katecheses) and fragments of homilies (Mimre) by Ephraim and Pseudo-Ephraim. My aim here is not to give a full critical study on the texts by Ephraim preserved in Melkite Aramaic. This duty would be better done by Andrew Palmer and Bernard Outtier who are the specialists in Ephraim. I wish only to give a little contribution to the conference and congratulate Palmer for his work in the field. I think it is worth making known to the admirers of this enlightening and holy figure of the Syriac culture—I mean Ephraim—that he was translated also into Melkite Aramaic. So I limit my contribution and give the evidences, for the sake of further studies.

EPHRAIM MIMRO DE POENITENCIA [3]

[4]

The only text in Melkite Aramaic surely attributed to Ephraim was published by P. Kokowzoff in 1906, Nouveaux fragments syropalestiniens de la Bibliothèque impériale publique de Saint-Pétersbourg. 1 Kokowzoff presents a manuscript bought by the Imperial Library in 1883, from the collection of Mgr Porphyrius Ouspenski. According to a handwritten note, this manuscript came from Sinai. It is composed of two leaves and now bears the reference, ‘Saltikov Shchedrin Library, syr. ns. 21.’ Kokowzoff gives a detailled description of the folios, makes a comparative study of the use of the punctuation of some letters and of the orthographical peculiarities and a lexicon. He gives an account of the text identifying one passage on folio 2 r–v with a mimro de poenitencia by Ephraim, according to the explicit statement of the text. This text 1 P. Kokowzoff, Nouveaux fragments syropalestiniens de la Bibliothèque impériale publique de Saint-Pétersbourg (Imprimerie de l’Académie impériale des Sciences; Saint-Pétersbourg, 1906) 39 p. & 4 pl. A review of this book has been made by F. Schulthess in Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft 61 (1907): 206–7.

Ephraim in Christian Palestinian Aramaic

223

corresponds to the Greek text edited by J.S. Assemani 2 During Bernard Outtier’s seminar in the Section des sciences religieuses, École pratique des hautes études, we have studied this passage known also in Georgian, Armenian, Old-Slavic, Arabic and pre-Carolingian Latin. The comparison made by B. Outtier leads to the conclusion that all the versions were translated from a versified heptasyllabic Greek text, itself translated from a now lost original versified Syriac text. The Melkite Aramaic text is a very tight version which follows the Greek text word for word; it is thus very helpful in ascertaining the original Greek readings. At the end of the Ephraim mimro, on the foot of vb, begins a text called “Doctrine from the Egyptian fathers.” The Ephraim mimro belonged to a manuscript containing various ascetic sayings. The dating of this Aramaic manuscript cannot be precise. According to the script, it must be situated during the “ancient period” (sixth to ninth century); I would be inclined to place it in the eighth century, but one knows the uncertainty of paleographical dates. It would be important to find other leaves of the manuscript; long enquiries are required in comparing the folio to other Melkite Aramaic manuscripts. I have been happy to discover other leaves from the same original manuscript. As a matter of fact, measurements of the Ephraim folio show the same codicological characteristics as the five fragments of the manuscript Göttingen, Niedersächsische Staatsund Universitätsbibliothek, Syr. 17a–e, and the fragment of Princeton, codex Garrett 24, which contain also texts of the vitae. patrum edited by Hugo Duensing 3 in 1906 and revised by Duensing 4 in 1944. One can see that the Ephraim mimro in Melkite Aramaic was transmitted together with other sayings of ascetic literature. Nethertheless, the study realised during B. Outtier’s seminar confirms the general characteristics of nearly all the Christian Palestinian Aramaic texts: they belonged to a translated 2 J. S. Assemani, S. patris nostri Ephraemi Syri Opera omnia, t. I, graece et latine (Rome, 1732) (CPG 3915) 153. 3 H. Duensing, Christlich-palästinisch-aramDzische Texte und Fragmente nebst einer Abhandlung über den Wert der palästinischen Septuaginta (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1906) 40–1. 4 H. Duensing, Neue christlich-palästinisch-aramDzische Fragmente, (Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen. Philologisch-historische Klasse Jahrgang 1944, Nr. 9; Göttingen, Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1944) 223–7.

224

Alain Desreumaux

literature from Greek, used in the Byzantine Greek church, for the sake of people whose vernacular language was Aramaic. Liturgy was performed in Greek, but lessons from the Holy Scripture and Hymns were translated into the vernacular. Mimre by Ephraim have been used in that way, translated not from the Syriac (another dialect of Aramaic), but from the Greek.

TWO MIMRE ATTRIBUTED TO EPHRAIM [5]

[6]

In the same 1906 edition, Hugo Duensing published some palimpsest fragments 5 that he completed and reconstructed in 1955, 6 as passages of Ephraimian literature. Three folios and one upper part and one lower part of cut folios contain fragments of a mimro de timore animarum and two folios and half contain fragments of a mimro de antichristo. The first one is identified with the Greek text in Assemani, series graeca I, 183 sq. The upper Georgian text indicate that the leaves have been re-used in the so-called codex sinaiticus zosimi rescriptus and measurements of the folios show also the same codicological characteristics as the CSZR IV 7 whose text has remained unidentified till now! It seems also that both writings are from the same hand. This has to be confirmed by a new examination. My studies in Melkite Aramaic paleography are actually in progress ... If this hypothesis is confirmed, that means that the text of CSZR IV could be identified with Ephraimian or pseudo-Ephraimian literature. In any case, all these folios that we have presented are good testimonies of the success of Ephraim's work among the Aramaicspeaking people of the Palestinian Melkite church in the postJustinianic period.

Duensing, Christlich-palästinisch-aramäische Texte und Fragmente, 63–71. H. Duensing, Nachlese christlich-palästinisch-aramäischer Fragmente, (Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen 1. Philologisch-historische Klasse; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1955) 120–45. 7 A. Desreumaux, Codex sinaiticus Zosimi rescriptus (Lausanne: Éditions du Zèbre, 1997). New edition, including all codicological characteristics. 5 6

Ephraim in Christian Palestinian Aramaic

225

APPENDIX I: Codicological description of the Ephraim leaf: Saint-Pétersbourg, Public Library Saltikov Shtchedrin, Syr. NS 21, f. 2. Catalogue: H. Goussen, Über die syrischen Handschriften in Leningrad-Petersbourg (Oriens Christianus, 3. Ser., Bd. I; Leipzig, 1927) 169–73, no. 21. N. Pigulevskaya, “Katalog Sirijskikh Rykopisei Leningrada,” Palestinskij Sbornik 6 (1960): 109, fig. 5, p. 111.

Dimensions: haut. : 25,8 Ǯ gauche; 25,4 Ǯ droite x larg. : 19,6 cm. 2 colonnes mal justifiées Ǯ gauche; 22 lignes r côté chair: col. a: haut. 19,4 x larg. 6,5 Ǯ 7 cm col. b: haut. 19 x larg. 6,3 Ǯ 8 cm réglure: chacune des 22 horizontales et les 4 verticales distance des verticales: 6,6 cm (col. a) et 6,3 cm (col. b) traçage de la premiǶre réglure: Ǯ 3 cm du bord supérieur ; traçage de la dernière réglure: Ǯ 4 cm du bord inférieur ; marge droite (ie interne) = distance entre la première réglure verticale et la pliure de la feuille: 1,1 cm; marge d’intercolonnement: 1,9 cm; marge gauche (ie externe) = distance entre la dernière réglure verticale et le bord de la feuille: 2,8 cm. interligne moyen: 8,8 mm. v côté poil: col. a: haut. 19,3 x larg. 6,5 Ǯ 6,9 cm col. b: haut. 19,3 x larg. 6,3 Ǯ 7,2 cm Ǯ la ligne 18, le premier mot commence par une lettrine (de même taille que les autres lettres, mais écrite dans la marge d’intercolonnement et de couleur orangé).

226

Alain Desreumaux

APPENDIX II: Codicological description of the leaves containing two mimre attributed to Ephraim Göttingen, Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek, Syr. 23, f. 1; 2+3; 4; Syr. 22, f. 1+5; 8; 7+6; 2. Catalogue: J. Assfalg, 1963, no. 89, 90, p. 191–3. Dimensions: 23,5 x 15,5 cm 2 col.: haut. 17,3 cm x larg. 5,5 Ǯ 6 cm 22 lignes / col. interligne: 8 mm marge sup.: 3,4 cm au moins marge inf.: 3,5 cm au moins marge d’intercolonnement: 1,5 Ǯ 1,8 cm module de l’écriture: 4 mm réglure côté chair; toutes les rectrices horizontales

Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies, Vol. 1.2, 227–251 © 1998 [2010] by Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute and Gorgias Press

ST. EPHRAIM THE SYRIAN’S THOUGHT AND IMAGERY AS AN INSPIRATION TO BYZANTINE ARTISTS† ZAGA GAVRILOVIC INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED RESEARCH IN THE HUMANITIES THE UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM UNITED KINGDOM [1]

[2]

For students of Byzantine art, St. Ephraim the Syrian is linked with the iconography of the Last Judgment. This paper gives an account of the previous research concerning his part in the development of that theme, although it is usually accepted that all previous conclusions were in fact based on pseudo-Ephraimic writings. However, in this article, a genuine text by St. Ephraim, which confirms that link, is introduced into the discussion. It is pointed out that, thanks to a great number of modern studies and the wider availability of St. Ephraim’s works, it is becoming possible to establish a more general connection between his thought and imagery and the art of the Byzantine world. This article includes a brief survey of the representations of St. Ephraim in Byzantine portraiture and of the iconography of his death and funeral. One of the earliest preserved representations of St. Ephraim the Syrian in Byzantine art is on a small 10th century icon at St. Catherine’s Monastery, Mount Sinaï. 1 The icon is divided into two † The General Editor acknowledges the assistance received from Eileen Wilson in scanning the images from slides. 1 K. Weitzmann, “The Mandylion and Constantine Porphyrogenetos,” CahArch XI (1960): 163–184. A photograph in colour, in id., The

227

228

[3]

Zaga Gavrilovic

registers. The upper part illustrates the legend of Abgar, the king of Edessa. On the left, sitting on a throne, is the apostle Thaddaeus, one of the Seventy, who, according to tradition, brought Christianity to Edessa. He is turning towards King Abgar, also enthroned, on the right. The king is holding on his lap the miraculous image of Christ on a cloth, the Mandylion, which has just been brought to him by a messenger. The lower zone is reserved for four standing saints: St. Paul of Thebes, St. Antony the Abbot, St. Basil of Caesarea and St. Ephraim. Wearing episcopal dress, St. Basil is holding a large book, while the two Desert Fathers, as well as St. Ephraim, wear monastic clothes: a light brown tunic and a dark brown cloak. However, St. Paul and St. Antony also wear the analabon whose long frontal piece shows under the mantle, thus denoting their megaloschema monastic status. 2 In addition, St. Antony has his head covered with a koukoulion. Like St. Basil, St. Ephraim holds a large book. 3 It is perhaps a coincidence, but it is worth observing that these four saints are all commemorated in the month of January. 4 It is easy to explain the presence of St. Ephraim on an icon whose main subject concerns Edessa, the city to which he came around the year 363, after being forced to leave his native Nisibis. St. Ephraim spent the last years of his life in Edessa, teaching, writing, taking an active interest in the issues of faith and a resolute stand against heresies. He died in 373. The fact that on the Sinai icon he is depicted next to St. Basil recalls his legendary association Monastery of Saint Catherine at Mount Sinai: The Icons, vol. 1 (Princeton, 1976) 94–98, Pl. XXXVI. 2 On distinctions in monastic dress, see The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium (1991), s.v. schema. 3 It should be noted that St. Ephraim usually wears monastic garb, although he was not a monk. On St. Ephraim’s asceticism, which was typical of the earlier Syrian tradition of the consecrated life, or “protomonasticism,” and the literary sources, which from the 5th century onwards confuse that tradition with Egyptian monasticism and portray St. Ephraim as a monk, see S. Brock, The Luminous Eye: The spiritual world vision of St. Ephrem the Syrian (Cistercian Studies 124; Kalamazoo, 19922), 131– 41; id., St. Ephrem the Syrian, Hymns on Paradise (Crestwood/New York: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1990) 25–33. R. Murray, “Ephrem Syrus, Saint,” in A Catholic Dictionary of Theology (1967). 4 St. Basil, 1st January; St. Paul of Thebes, 15th January; St. Antony, th 17 January; St. Ephraim the Syrian, 28th January.

St. Ephraim the Syrian's Thought and Imagery

[4]

[5]

[6]

229

with the Cappadocian father, first mentioned by the 5th century church historian Sozomenos. 5 The unhistorical meeting of the two was represented on a fresco (now destroyed) at the Tokali New Church in Göreme, Cappadocia (10th century), where it was part of a cycle of the Life of St. Basil. 6 The choice of St. Paul of Thebes and St. Antony in company with St. Basil and St. Ephraim on the Sinai icon, is a clear indication of St. Ephraim’s high rank amongst the teachers of the ascetic life as practised in monasteries such as St Catherine’s (for which the icon was presumably prepared. 7 A fine miniature illustrating St. Ephraim’s death and funeral heads the one-page lection in the Menologion of Basil II (cod. Vat. gr. 1613), dating from the end of the 10th century. The scene is a simple event taking place in a stony landscape: the saint, whose feet are bare, is lying on his mat. One monk officiates, waving a thurible, while two other monks stand in prayer. 8 From the 11th century onwards, the extant representations of St. Ephraim are more frequent, especially in monumental churchdecoration, where he usually appears as an individual figure, amongst other holy monks. 9 A different example occurs in an

S. Brock, St. Ephrem the Syrian: Hymns on Paradise (1990) 21. G. de Jerphanion, Une nouvelle province de l’art Byzantin: Les églises rupestres de Cappadoce I/2 (Paris, 1932) 363–4. According to de Jerphanion, the frescoes, with the inscriptions, followed the episodes of St. Basil’s Life by Pseudo-Amphilochios of Iconion. 7 For Weitzmann (see n. 2), the presence of the three holy monks and St. Basil indicates that the icon was intended for a monastery, possibly Sinaï itself. As the icon consists of two smaller panels inserted in a frame, he supposed that they originally formed the two side-panels of a triptych whose middle piece is missing. The central panel would have had a larger representation of the Mandylion, and of some other saints in the lower register. This means that the series of monastic teachers would have included perhaps four others between St. Paul of Thebes and St. Basil of Caesarea. 8 Il Menologio di Basilio II (Turin, 1907), 354. 9 On representations of monks in monumental art, including St. Ephraim, see S. Tomekovic, “Le ‘portrait’ dans l’art byzantin: exemple d’effigies de moines du Ménologe de Basile II à Decani,” in V. J. Djuric (ed.), Decani et l’art byzantin au milieu du XIVème siècle (Belgrade, 1989) 121– 136; ead., “Ermitage de Paphos: décors peints pour Néophyte le Reclus,” 5 6

230

[7]

[8]

Zaga Gavrilovic

illustrated Psalter copied and illuminated in 1066 at the Stoudios monastery in Constantinople. 10 On the margin of fol. 97, St. Ephraim is represented standing with his arms raised in prayer, looking up towards Christ who is blessing him. As usual, St. Ephraim wears a monastic habit, this time with the analabon of the megaloschema. The miniature accompanies the verse from Ps. 74(75): 2: “We will give thanks to thee, O God, we will give thanks and call upon thy name: I will declare all thy wonderful works.” The Psalm continues by warning the sinners that “God is the judge: he puts down one and raises up another.” In view of the general character of the illustrations in the London Psalter, which interpret the meaning of the text in a subtle and often symbolic way, 11 the inclusion of St. Ephraim in this place may be understood as significant. It allows us to grasp the manner in which the beauty of St. Ephraim’s poetry and his spirituality were appreciated by the 11th century artists and their patrons. In later periods, as on a fresco in a small Serbian church at Psacha (ca. 1360), St. Ephraim was almost invariably given a serious, even an austere expression (Fig. 1). 12 At the same time, one can recognize in this face a theologian and an inspired poet, of whose talent the painter was well aware. This artistic interpretation of St. Ephraim’s personality seems to correspond perfectly to the meaning of the hymns sung on his feast: they praise St. Ephraim’s teaching and refer to him as “The Harp of the Holy Spirit.” The artist who painted this portrait must also have had in mind the profound sense of St. Ephraim’s soul-searching prayer, which is pronounced with prostrations at the weekday-offices during Lent. 13 In art-historical studies St. Ephraim is mostly associated with the representations which interpret the belief in Christ’s Second Coming and his Judgment. Although St. Ephraim’s writing is in C. Jolivet-Lévy, M. Kaplan, J.-P. Sodini (eds.), Les saints et leur sanctuaires à Byzance (Paris, 1993) 151–71. 10 S. Der Nersessian, “L’Illustration des psautiers grecs du Moyen Âge II. Londres Add.19.352,” Bibliothèque des Cahiers Archéologiques (Paris, 1970) 40, Fig. 158. 11 Der Nersessian, “L’Illustration des psautiers grecs,” 77f. 12 On the church of St. Nicholas, Psacha, see V.J. Djuric, Vizantijske freske u Jugoslaviji (Belgrade, 1975) 75–6 and 216–7. 13 The Lenten Triodion, tr. Mother Mary and Archimandrite Kallistos Ware (London/Boston, 1977) 48 and 69–70.

St. Ephraim the Syrian's Thought and Imagery

[9]

[10]

[11]

231

nowadays well known and its importance duly acknowledged, his name is still only sporadically mentioned in connection with any other theme of Byzantine iconography, or with Byzantine art in general: above all, he is still regarded as one of the main sources of inspiration for artistic descriptions of the dramatic events which are expected to happen at the end of days. 14 In addition to presenting St. Ephraim as he is still best known in art-historical circles, my aim in this paper is to point out some other instances which suggest that his thought, his views on the position of humanity in relation to God, and his abundant and original imagery, may have played a considerable role in the creation of other iconographic themes, influencing in some cases even the stylistic manner in which they were executed. 15 In 1844, writing on the representations of the Last Judgment on the stained-glass windows of the cathedral at Bourges, two French historians, Cahier and Martin, were apparently the first to connect some of the texts from the corpus attributed to St. Ephraim with the scenes which they were studying. 16 In 1945 the French Byzantinist Gabriel Millet published a study of an ecclesiastic vestment preserved in the Vatican treasury and traditionally known as the “Dalmatic of Charlemagne.” This magnificent dalmatic, or sakkos, embroidered in gold on blue silk, is in fact a Byzantine work, dating from the 14th century. 17 On one of A summary of the bibliography concerning the Last Judgment in Byzantine art, with a particular reference to the question of St. Ephraim’s influence, is included in a recent study by A. Davidov-Temerinski, “Cycle of the Last Judgment” (in Serbian with an English summary), in V.J. Djuric (ed.), Mural Paintings of the monastery of Decani (Belgrade, 1995) 192–211 (see below, notes 23 and 24). 15 My own information on St. Ephraim’s writing has been gleaned from a selection of the otherwise impressive number of modern studies which have opened up an entirely new field of research. For the bibliography, see especially S. Brock’s works, quoted in note 2. I wish to thank Dr. Andrew Palmer for letting me see his translations of St. Ephraim’s Hymns of Faith which he is preparing for publication. 16 The same connection was made by G. Voss, Das Jüngste Gericht in der bildenden Kunst des Mittelalters (Leipzig, 1883). See D. HemmerdingerIliadou, “Les données archéologiques dans la version grecque des sermons de saint Éphrem le Syrien,” CahArch XIII (1962): 29–37. 17 G. Millet, La dalmatique du Vatican. Les Élus: images et croyances (Paris 1945). The photographs of the dalmatic were published in id., Broderies 14

232

[12]

Zaga Gavrilovic

its sides, within a large circle, is represented Christ Emmanuel in a mandorla of light, sitting on a rainbow, with his feet resting on fiery wheels, as in the vision of the prophet Ezekiel. The four beasts, understood as symbols of the four evangelists, are placed around Him. The inscription in Greek, on each side of Christ’s head, reads “Jesus Christ, the Resurrection and the Life” (John 11: 25). Christ is blessing with his right hand and is holding a book of the Gospels in his left, open at the words from the Gospel of St. Matthew, 25:34: “Come ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.” Christ’s mandorla is surmounted by a Cross, with lance and nails. The blue background of the sky is studded with gold stars and the Cross is flanked by the sun and the moon. The Mother of God and St. John the Baptist are in prayer on either side of Christ, with archangels and angels behind them. In the lower portion of the circle, two groups of the just, men and women, are converging towards the centre. In the lower left corner, outside the circle, is represented “Abraham’s bosom” (Luke 16: 22): Abraham with Lazarus on his lap and a few other souls standing at his side. In the right corner is the Good Thief, holding a large Cross. This composition, which represents an abbreviated version or the first part of the event, was Millet’s starting point in his research concerning the theme of the Last Judgment in Byzantine art. According to the preserved examples, its main characteristics were fully established by the 11th century. 18 Based on Scripture (Matthew 16:27; 24:30), the Book of Revelation (chapters 4 and 20), the Psalms and the Book of Daniel (chapter 7), its iconography was enriched from the writings of later Christian authors. Amongst these Gabriel Millet recognized in particular St. Ephraim the Syrian. He considered sermons in Greek and Syriac published under St. Ephraim’s name by J.S. and S.E. Assemani, P.B. Mobarek and T.J. Lamy, especially those on The Second Coming, De magis and de fine extremo. 19 religieuses de style byzantin (Paris, 1945), Pl. CXXXV–CLI. See also E. Piltz, “Trois sakkoi byzantins,” Acta Upsaliensia N.S. 17 (1976): figs. 5–7, 9–10. 18 B. Brenk, “Die Anfänge der byzantinischen Weltgerichtsdarstellung,” BZ 57/1 (1964): 106–26; id., “Tradition und Neuerung in der christlichen Kunst des ersten Jahrtausends,” Studien zur Geschichte des Weltgerichtsbildes (Wien, 1966). 19 Millet, La dalmatique, 14–8.

St. Ephraim the Syrian's Thought and Imagery [13]

[14]

[15]

233

On the basis of her research concerning the authenticity of the Greek and Slavonic translations of St. Ephraim’s writings, Democratia Hemmerdinger-Iliadou announced a monograph on the Last Judgment. Unfortunately, she died before completing that study. Sermons which went under St. Ephraim’s name and were used by Gabriel Millet, are now known not to be genuine, although Iliadou herself admitted that the whole situation, at least for works of St. Ephraim in Greek and Slavonic, was still fluid. 20 In the mean time, a very important text containing references to the Last Judgment has been brought to light. 21 It is a genuine Ephraim, a text of great beauty, whose profound thought can contribute a great deal to the study of the subject, textually as well as art-historically. To my knowledge, it has not yet been used by art historians. As is well known, in his research on Byzantine iconography, Gabriel Millet relied to a great extent on the monuments of medieval Serbia, which he explored during his field-work in the Balkans, before and after the First World War. 22 He soon became aware of the closeness of the Serbian wall-paintings to their Byzantine models, so he made good use of the great wealth of themes he found in them. The relatively good state of preservation of some of those frescoes facilitated his task. In his study of the Last Judgment, with the Vatican dalmatic and the writing of St. Ephraim—or pseudo-Ephraim—as a starting-point, he took into consideration most particularly the Last Judgment in the Serbian church of the Pantokrator, at the monastery of Dechani, in the region of Metohija-Kosovo, built and decorated between 1327 and 1348 (Fig. 2). 23 D. Hemmerdinger-Iliadou, “Les données archéologiques;” ead., in Dictionnaire de Spiritualité 4 (1960): 800–19; ead., “L’Éphrem grec et la littérature slave,” Actes du XIIe Congrès international d’études byzantines (Ochrid, 1961) II (Beoograd, 1964) 343–6. 21 S. Brock, “Ephrem’s Letter to Publius,” Le Muséon. Revue d’Études orientales 89 (1976): 261–305. 22 See A. Frolow’s Introduction to G. Millet, La Peinture du Moyen Âge en Yougoslavie, I (Paris, 1954) V–VII; D. Couson, Catalogue des documents photographiques originaux du fonds Gabriel Millet: Monuments mediévaux de Yougoslavie. Missions 1906–1935 (Louvain/Paris, 1988). 23 The church was founded by King Stefan Uroš III (1321–31). The fresco decor was completed during the reign of his son, King and later 20

234 [16]

[17]

[18]

Zaga Gavrilovic

The huge composition at Dechani starts in the groin-vault above the west bay of the naos and is then deployed in the upper zones of the west wall, as well as on some parts of the adjoining walls and pillars. The inscriptions are in Old Serbian (Fig. 3). 24 The north, east and south segments of the groin-vault are reserved for monumental figures of angels who are blowing trumpets, carrying large candlesticks with candles lit (Fig. 4), or rolling up the heavenly vault, which is like a large sheet of parchment, studded with golden stars (Fig. 5). More stars and the personifications of the Sun and of the Moon are depicted in the background (Figs. 4 and 5). 25 One particularity distinguishes the Last Judgment at Dechani from so many of the usual compositions structured around Christ of a mature age, enthroned and identified as a Judge. It is the representation of the event in two stages: the Coming of Christ in glory, followed by the solemn scene of his Judgment. Placed in the west segment of the groin-vault, the adolescent Christ Emmanuel on a throne—a representation akin to the one on the Vatican dalmatic—is being carried down by two angels. Dressed in a yellow-ochre tunic originally covered with gold leaf (there are still traces of gold on many of the frescoes at Dechani), He blesses with both hands (Figs. 6 and 7). Just below the enthroned Emmanuel, there is a representation of the hetoimasia, or the prepared throne, mentioned in the Psalms and in the Book of the Revelation of St. John. It is a regular feature in the iconography of the Last Judgment. In Dechani, it is flanked by groups of angels and by the Emperor, Stefan Uroš IV Dušan (1331–46; 1346–50). There is an extensive bibliography on Dechani. See especially V. Petkovic and Dj. Boškovic, Manastir Decani, 2 vols. (Belgrade, 1941); V.J. Djuric (ed.), Decani et l’art byzantin au milieu du XIVème siècle (Belgrade, 1989); V.J. Djuric (ed.), Mural painting of monastery of Decani (Belgrade, 1995). This last is a collection of studies by 13 scholars (with English summaries), published after a new investigation of wall-paintings (between 1988–90). It contains architectural drawings of the programme’s setting, a complete list of subjects and a great number of photographs. 24 See the excellent article by A. Davidov-Temerinski, in the above publication, already quoted in n. 14, whom I thank for her kindness and help in obtaining some of the photographs. 25 V. Kepetzi, “Quelques remarques sur le motif de l’enroulement du ciel dans l’iconographie byzantine du Jugement Dernier,” DChAE IV/17 (1994): 99–112.

St. Ephraim the Syrian's Thought and Imagery

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

235

Virgin Mary and St. John the Baptist. The inscription reads: “The Second Coming.” Immediately below are Adam and Eve, prostrate and in prayer. Beneath them are two intertwined fiery wheels and two seraphs (Figs. 3 and 8). Further down, a monumental representation of the Cross, with lance and sponge, within a brilliant mandorla of light, is surrounded by angels (Fig. 9). The inscription reads: “The lifegiving and venerable Cross.” On each side is a tetramorph: the four apocalyptic beasts, considered as symbols of the four Evangelists. They are nimbed, which suggests the unity of the four Gospels, a common theme. It is only in the register next below this that Christ as Judge, surrounded by angels, occupies the central panel. As on the Vatican dalmatic, the text on the large book which he is holding is from Matthew 25: 34. Interceding on each side, are the Mother of God and St. John the Baptist; in other words, it is a large Deesis. Around them are the just: hierarchs on the left and kings and princes on the right (Figs. 3 and 10–14). Other figures are deployed on the adjoining south and west walls and pillars, including the twelve apostles, the prophets, kings and priests of the Old Testament, bishops, martyrs, military saints, monks, anchorites, nuns and holy women among the just (Fig. 15). 26 There are panels representing the rising of the dead (Fig. 16), the entrance to Paradise, the gate guarded by the cherub with the fiery sword, and, in a hilly white landscape within the walls of the heavenly Jerusalem, are Abraham on a golden throne, holding the souls of the just in his bosom (Fig. 17), the Good Thief (Fig. 18) and the Virgin Mary, also seated on a golden throne. 27 On a series of smaller panels one can see the earth and the sea returning the dead, 28 while two classical figures, the personifications of the Earth 29 and the Sea (Fig. 19), are represented separately. In addition we find a scene of the weighing of souls (Fig. 20), as well as scenes of various torments and punishments, including a group of sinners banished to the “outer darkness’ (Fig. 21) and Davidov-Temerinski, “Cycle of the Last Judgment,” Fig. 8. Ibid., Fig. 11. 28 Ibid., Fig. 9. 29 Ibid., Fig. 5. 26 27

236

[23]

[24]

[25]

Zaga Gavrilovic

“the worm which sleepeth not.” 30 A personified Hades sitting on a monster is calling to sinners to approach. 31 The Archangel Michael with his sword is pushing the damned deeper into the fiery river, where the rich man, Dives, is already kneeling (Fig. 22). A standing figure of Christ holding a sword is represented in the bottom register. The inscription reads: “With this sword sins will be smitten" (Fig. 23). 32 As mentioned earlier, Gabriel Millet and other scholars after him have noted the correspondence between St. Ephraim’s (or Pseudo-Ephraim’s) writings and this iconography, to which elements from other sources were added, too. One should remember that many of these descriptions were first incorporated in the Liturgy, in this case especially in the Liturgy of the Sunday of the Last Judgment, which is celebrated in the pre-Lenten period. Expressions of Christian awareness, piety, fear, resignation and hope in this Liturgy were subsequently interpreted by the artists, often in a quite remarkable way. In Millet’s opinion, the detail of Christ Emmanuel on the Vatican Dalmatic, on the one hand, and, on the other, of Christ Emmanuel descending in glory at Dechani, accompanied by the luminous Cross, expressing in such a splendid way the idea of the salvation of humanity through Christ’s Incarnation, suffering and death, brought these two works of art even closer to the theology of St. Ephraim. 33 For my part, I would like to underline the fact that the contents of St. Ephraim’s letter to Publius (which was unknown to Millet) can greatly contribute to that conclusion. 34 Using one of his favourite metaphors, St. Ephraim recommends to his correspondent to look into the polished mirror of the holy

Davidov-Temerinski, “Cycle of the Last Judgment,” Fig. 17. ibid., Fig. 14. 32 I. G. Passarelli, “Nota su di una raffigurazione del Pantocrator a Decani,” OCP XLIV (1978): 181–9. 33 This has been emphasized by Davidov-Temerinski, “Cycle of the Last Judgment,” 208, who has also pointed out the proximity of the tomb of King Stefan Uroš III in that context. See also D. Popovic, The Royal Tomb in Medieval Serbia (in Serbian with English summary) (Belgrade, 1992) 109–10. 34 Brock, “Ephrem’s Letter” (see note 21). 30 31

St. Ephraim the Syrian's Thought and Imagery

[26]

237

Gospel 35 and says: “Look at the judge of righteousness ready seated; look at the Word of his Father, at the wisdom of his nature, at the arm of his glory, at the right hand of his mercy, at the ray of his light, at the manifestation of his rest ... and further: the stretcher out of the heavens, the adorner of the luminaries...” 36 Then he continues: “Look then on that divine child, [we have to remember here the picture of Emmanuel on the throne] whose names exceed what creation can count ... calling to his blessed ones, “Come inherit the kingdom—that was prepared for them from of old in his knowledge and was made ready for them from the beginning of creation...” 37 Enumerating the names of Christ, Ephraim reminds his friend that Christ is the “gate of salvation” and the “way of truth.” 38 It is interesting to observe that in the narthex, on the other side of the wall on which the Last Judgment is depicted at Dechani, a large bust of Christ is represented above the main entrance door, leading into the naos. On the open book held by Christ, one reads words from John 10: 9: “I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved and shall go in and out and will find pasture.” Immediately below, two kings, father and son, founders of the church who commissioned these paintings, are imploring grace and wisdom from Christ, who is the “gate of salvation” and “the way of truth:” a scroll is handed to each of them by the cherub (Fig. 24). Higher up, the Biblical parallel is underlined by the representation of Kings David and Solomon, father and son. 39 As if to confirm the link, there are depictions of St. Ephraim in the church at Dechani, too: within a monumental Menologion for the whole year which starts with the 1st September, right above this panel, and is deployed clockwise around the whole narthex, thus forming the “crown of the year” (Psalm 64(65): 11), St. Ephraim is represented on the south side, for the day of the 28th January. 40

Brock, “Ephrem’s Letter,” 271–74. Ibid., 278. 37 Ibid., 280. 38 Ibid., 278. 39 Z. Gavrilovic, “Kingship and Baptism in the Iconography of Decani and Lesnovo,” in Decani et l’art byzantin, 297–306. 40 S. Kesic-Ristic and D. Vojvodic, “Menologion,” in Mural painting, 377–434. 35 36

238

[27]

[28]

Zaga Gavrilovic

There is also a standing figure of St. Ephraim in the bottom register on the north side, but it is not very well preserved. From the tremendous fund of imagery transmitted through St. Ephraim’s works, artists and their patrons were able to choose and combine details as they found it appropriate. Although the Last Judgment at Dechani is considered a unique case in monumental Byzantine painting, because of the dual representation of Christ’s Parousia, we must remember that other examples may contain details from St. Ephraim’s writing which are not included at Dechani. For instance, in his letter to Publius, St. Ephraim treats at some length the parable of the Rich man and Lazarus from the Gospel of St. Luke (16: 24) 41 which at Dechani is illustrated separately, within the cycle of Christ’s parables. The Rich man, Dives, does appear in the scene of Hell (see above), but Lazarus is not identified in the general scene of Abraham’s bosom. Similarly, the Parable of the Wise and Foolish Virgins, to which St. Ephraim often refers in his other works, and particularly in the letter to Publius, 42 is sometimes included in the scene of the Last Judgment; at Dechani, it is represented just outside it, above the throne of the king. 43 This in itself has a particular significance. In his second kontakion on the Ten Virgins, Romanos the Melode states that this parable is a model for those who govern the people, as it points the road to humility and teaches compassion. 44 I mentioned a little earlier St. Ephraim’s favourite metaphor of the mirror. It so happens that at Dechani, one finds a rather unusual representation of Christ’s Descent into Hades, a theme which also holds an important place in St. Ephraim’s theology. 45 A unique detail in the Anastasis at Dechani are the discs held by two angels who are accompanying Christ as he raises Adam and Eve from Hades. Within each of those discs is depicted a bust of a Brock, “Ephrem’s Letter,” 275–6. Ibid., 285–6. 43 M. Radujko, “Fresco Program around the King’s Throne,” in Mural painting, 305–7. 44 J. Grosdidier de Matons (ed., Fr. tr.), Romanos, Hymnes III (Sources Chrétiennes 114; 1965) 303–65, esp. 334; cf. Z. Gavrilovic, “Divine Wisdom as part of Byzantine imperial ideology. Research into the artistic interpretations of the theme in Medieval Serbia,” Zograf 11 (1980): 44–53. 45 J. Teixidor, “Le thème de la Descente aux enfers chez Saint Éphrem,” L’Orient Syrien 6 (1961): 25–40. 41 42

St. Ephraim the Syrian's Thought and Imagery

[29]

[30]

239

small figure in royal clothes, wearing a crown (Figs. 25 and 26). In a recent article I have suggested that these discs may represent actual mirrors in which Adam and Eve, freed from the clutches of death, are now able to perceive the future royal status of the saved humanity. 46 Although I had referred to St. Ephraim’s well known predilection for the metaphor of the mirror, with all its poetical qualities and refined spirituality which it contains, I have also mentioned other authors in whose writing the symbolism of the mirror held a prominent part. However, in Dechani, it looks as though St. Ephraim’s influence may have played an even greater part than it has so far been acknowledged. One should bear in mind, for instance, the cycle of Genesis in the fresco-programme of the church, with some unique representations of the tale of Lamech, of Noah and the Flood and of some other Old Testament scenes. 47 They all found their place in the astonishing wall-painting ensemble at Dechani. One perceives a marked tendency on the part of the patrons and of their theological advisors to express the perfect harmony between the Old Testament and the New, so important in Christian teaching in general and in St. Ephraim’s typological theology in particular. 48 There is no doubt that in Byzantium and in the lands of its sphere of influence the memory of St. Ephraim, an author so profoundly engaged in discovering the marvel of God’s creation, Z. Gavrilovic, “Discs held by angels in the Anastasis at Decani,” in C. Moss, K. Kiefer (eds.), Byzantine East, Latin West. Art-historical studies in honor of Kurt Weitzmann (Princeton, 1995) 225–30. 47 J. Markovic and M. Markovic, “Genesis Cycle and Old Testament figures in the Chapel of St. Demetrius,” in Mural Painting, 323–52; M. Gligorijevic-Maksimovic, “Le Tabernacle à Decani, origine et développement du thème,” in Dechani et l’art byzantin, 319–37. 48 A manuscript containing a text attributed to St. Ephraim (Paraenesis) was copied and decorated in 1337 for the first abbot of Dechani, Arsenije (Belgrade, SANU 60). See I. Djordjevic, “La représentation de Stefan Decanski tout près de la cloison du sanctuaire à Decani,” Saopštenja 15 (1983): 35–43, with earlier bibliography. Among other preserved works by St. Ephraim (or attributed to him) in Serbian literary tradition, one should mention a manuscript dating from the 15th– 16th centuries (Belgrade, SANU 146), containing a sermon on the Coming of the Lord and the Judgment. See S. Radojcic, “Mileševske Freske Strašnog Suda,” Glas SAN CCXXXIV/7 (1959): 69–79. 46

240

[31]

Zaga Gavrilovic

made a great impact on artists and on all those responsible for providing a milieu for artistic expression. St. Ephraim was known as “the Harp of the Holy Spirit;” and he himself refers to the three “harps” on which God plays, those of the Old Testament and the New, and that of the Creation. 49 Over the centuries, all aspects of his theology, including his thoughts on Christian Baptism and the Mother of God, were certainly absorbed into the complex system of Byzantine art: the field of research is still wide open. 50 The affection and respect for St. Ephraim are manifested also in the representation of his death and funeral, a theme which became popular in wall-painting and on icons in the post-Byzantine period (Fig. 27). I touched on this at the beginning of this article. The scene is set in a landscape within which one recognizes hermits writing or meditating in their caves; monks are busy carving spoons or weaving baskets. In the centre of the picture St. Ephraim’s body is surrounded by clergy and monks (some of them infirm), who have come to pay their respects. This monk or that is riding on the back of a bear or a lion, as the paradisiacal atmosphere of the occasion has made the wild animals tame. (In Hymns on Faith 21–3 Ephraim compared the lyre on which Christ plays implicitly to that of Orpheus, who tamed the wild beasts with his music.) According to monastic practice, a monk is sounding a wooden board, or semantron (a substitute for a bell, used in Orthodox monasteries in preference to bells). There is usually a pillar-saint in the background and one finds charming representations of small animals, birds and plants, reminiscent of the poet’s close observation of “the small things’ of nature by which the Creator “baffles the wise.” 51

49 Hymns on Virginity, 28, 29 and 30. See Ephrem the Syrian, Hymns, transl. and introd. by K.E. McVey (New York/Mahwah, 1989) 385–97. R. Murray, art. cit., 222. 50 For instance, an interesting suggestion for a connection between the fifteenth Hymn of the Nativity (recording included in this issue) and the depiction of Mary as Hodegetria, is made by A. Palmer, “‘A Lyre Without a Voice:’ The Poetics and the Politics of Ephrem the Syrian,” ARAM 5 (1993): 371–99. 51 J. R. Martin, “The ‘Death of Ephrem’ in Byzantine and early Italian Painting,” Art Bulletin 33 (Dec. 1951): 217–25.

St. Ephraim the Syrian's Thought and Imagery

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Fig. 1: St. Ephrem. Church of St. Nicholas, Psacha.

Fig. 2: Dechani, View.

241

242

Zaga Gavrilovic Fig. 3: Dechani, Naos, West Wall. General View.

Fig. 4: Dechani, Last Judgment. Angels with Candles and the Personification of the Sun.

St. Ephraim the Syrian's Thought and Imagery

243

Fig. 5: Dechani, Last Judgment. Angels Rolling up the Heavens and the Personification of the Moon.

Fig. 6: Dechani, Last Judgment. Emmanuel on the Throne.

244

Zaga Gavrilovic Fig. 7: Dechani, Last Judgment. Emmanuel on the Throne and Hetoimasia.

Fig. 8: Dechani, Last Judgment. Adam and Eve.

St. Ephraim the Syrian's Thought and Imagery Fig. 9: Dechani, Last Judgment. The Luminous Cross.

Fig. 10: Dechani, Last Judgment. Central Panel.

245

246

Zaga Gavrilovic Fig. 11: Dechani, Last Judgment. Christ the Judge with Kings and Princes.

Fig. 12: Dechani, Last Judgment. St. John the Baptist.

Fig. 13: Dechani, Last Judgment. Kings.

St. Ephraim the Syrian's Thought and Imagery Fig. 14: Dechani, Last Judgment. Princes.

Fig. 15: Dechani, Last Judgment. Apostles and Holy Women.

Fig. 16: Dechani, Last Judgment. Raising of the Dead.

247

248

Zaga Gavrilovic Fig. 17: Dechani, Last Judgment. Abraham’s Bosom.

Fig. 18: Dechani, Last Judgment. The Good Thief.

St. Ephraim the Syrian's Thought and Imagery Fig. 19: Dechani, Last Judgment. The Personification of the Sea.

Fig. 20: Dechani, Last Judgment. The weighing of Souls.

Fig. 21: Dechani, Last Judgment. The Outer Darkness.

249

250

Zaga Gavrilovic Fig. 22: Dechani, Last Judgment. Archangel Michael and the Fiery River.

Fig. 23: Dechani, naos. View of the South-Western Pillar with Scenes of the Last Judgment and Christ holding the Sword.

Fig. 24: Dechani, Narthex, East Wall. Christ Pantokrator and Two Royal Founders.

St. Ephraim the Syrian's Thought and Imagery Fig. 25: Dechani, Naos. Anastasis.

Fig. 26 Dechani, Naos. Anastasis, Detail.

Fig. 27 Monastery of Iviron, Mount Athos, Icon: Death and Funeral of St. Ephraim the Syrian (15th century)

251

Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies, Vol. 1.2, 253–272 © 1998 [2010] by Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute and Gorgias Press

EPHRAIM THE SYRIAN IN ANGLO-SAXON ENGLAND JANE STEVENSON CENTRE FOR BRITISH AND COMPARATIVE STUDIES THE UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK UNITED KINGDOM [1]

The Anglo-Saxon church was of complex origin: it owed much to Christian Ireland, and much to informal and semi-formal contact with Frankia. But above all (especially as presented by that great mythographer, Bede), it owed its beginnings to Rome, and in particular, to that most Roman of early Popes, Gregory the Great. The Christianisation of the Anglo-Saxons got under way in the late sixth century, and was consolidated in the seventh: the period in which the Eastern and Western halves of Christendom went their separate ways, and the West almost entirely stopped using Greek. The seventh century is also the century of Mohammed, in which most Syriac-speaking Christians found themselves forcibly separated from their Byzantine neighbours. So there is a whole series of good reasons why we would not expect to find Syriac influence on this young church in the distant West. But despite all this, there is one father of the Syrian church who was known in England, both by name, and for his actual work; it was, of course, St. Ephraim, the only early Syriac church father to have some of his works translated into Greek, and from Greek, into Latin. Quite a number of works attributed to Ephraim, sometimes wrongly, circulated in the West in the early middle ages. The interesting thing about Ephraim in Anglo-Saxon England, as we shall see, is that not only did pseudo-Ephraimic texts circulate there, there is a very real possibility that some genuine works of Ephraim came to this island. 253

254 [2]

[3]

Jane Stevenson

The idea that Ephraim’s work might have influenced the literary culture of Anglo-Saxon England was first raised with respect to vernacular Anglo-Saxon literature, which is also, of course, the area in which the influence of texts which originated in so different a language is hardest to demonstrate. 1 I will discuss something of the evidence for knowledge of Ephraim in Old English texts later, for now, I want to turn to a more demonstrable, and just as important area of possible influence: the evidence which we have for the presence of a variety of Ephraimic and pseudoEphraimic writing in the library of Canterbury in the seventh century. This is the obvious place to start, since the presence of a number of Syriac and Greek works in this library, the contents of which formed part of a syllabus taught to an unknown number of Anglo-Saxon students, offers a clear and plausible avenue of transmission for such material into the far West. The background to this Syriac influence on the teaching of Canterbury must be sought initially in Rome, and requires a brief outline of early Anglo-Saxon religious history. The year 667 was one of crisis for the young English Church. After the Roman missionary Augustine himself, the archbishopric was held by a series of those who had accompanied him on the English mission, Laurentius, Mellitus, Justus and Honorius. The sixth abbot, Deusdedit, was the first to be Anglo-Saxon by race, and was consecrated in 655. He ruled the Church—or at least, that part of it which considered a bishop in Kent relevant to its concerns—for nine years, and then died. In 664, a man called Wigheard, who had been one of Deusdedit’s own clerics, was sent to Rome to be consecrated bishop, but while he was there, he died of the plague. Vitalian, who was Pope at the time, gave the problem his deep consideration. Clearly, he would have to send the English back an archbishop. The English church was in disarray and division: when the tempestuous and strong-willed future Archbishop of York, Wilfred, sought ordination in 664, there was only one bishop surviving in England, Berhtgisl/Boniface of East Anglia, who could not be objected to on either moral or orthodox grounds. Such a situation could not be allowed to continue. Vitalian’s first choice was Hadrian, was then abbot of Hiridanum near Naples, T.H. Bestul, “Ephraim the Syrian and Old English poetry,” Anglia 99 (1981): 1–24. 1

Ephraim the Syrian in Anglo-Saxon England

[4]

[5]

255

whom Bede describes as “a man of African race, well versed in the Holy Scriptures, trained both in monastic and ecclesiastical ways, and equally skilled in the Greek and Latin tongues.” He was selected for these obvious virtues, and also because he had twice travelled in Frankia on various missions, and so had some sense of how to deal with people of Germanic culture. Hadrian demurred, and suggested two other names. The first, a monk called Andrew, was dismissed from consideration on grounds of his frail health. The second person he suggested, a friend of his, was something of a paragon: a learned monk from Tarsus in Cilica, learned in Greek and Latin literature, both secular and divine, whose name was Theodore. The only possible problem which he presented was that, being an Eastener by birth and upbringing, he might possibly teach doctrines accepted by the Greek Orthodox church, but not by the Catholics. This misgiving was solved by co-opting Hadrian to keep an eye on him. Theodore was consecrated by Vitalian in 668: he was then sixty-six years old. Hadrian was to be abbot of the monastery at Canterbury, then dedicated to Peter and Paul, which later became St. Augustine’s. 2 It is reasonable to assume that this elderly and distinguished Greek was appointed as a caretaker ministry. The most reasonable forecast which could have been made was that if the work did not kill him, the climate would. But, as it happened, he was proof against both. Theodore made a circuit of the whole of England shortly after his arrival, and became, says Bede, “the first of the archbishops whom the whole English Church consented to obey.” In the years that followed, Theodore completely tranformed the church entrusted to his care. He instructed clerics and monks throughout England in their chosen way of life, introduced the knowledge of sacred music to English churches, and consecrated bishops wherever this was appropriate. He ruled the English church, as it had never been ruled before, for more than twentyone years, dying only in 690. It is this learned pair, Byzantine Christians by origin and formation, who were almost certainly responsible for bringing the knowledge of Ephraim to Anglo-Saxon England. It is probable, though not certain, that Theodore knew Syriac. Antioch, the 2 This account is paraphrased from our principal source for Theodore’s life in England, Bertram Colgrave and R.A.B. Mynors (eds.), Bede, Historia Ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum IV.1 (Oxford, 1969) 328–33.

256

Jane Stevenson

nearest school of any importance to Theodore’s native city of Tarsus, is the most likely place where the young Theodore may have begun his extensive education, and it was a city where both Greek and Syriac were in daily use in the sixth and seventh centuries. He may even have been to Edessa: a gloss on Numbers XI.5 from the Canterbury biblical commentaries notes: cucumeres et pepones unum sunt, sed tamen cucumeres dicuntur pepones cum magni fiunt; ac saepe in uno pepone fiunt .xxx. librae. In Edissia ciuitate fiunt ut uix potest duo portare unus camelus. Cucumbers and melons are the same thing, but cucumeres are called pepones when they get large; often, a single pepon will weigh thirty pounds. In the city of Edessa, they get so large that one camel can hardly carry two of them.

[6]

The fact that the Persian saint Milus of Susa, whose life was not translated into Greek, is included in the Old English Martyrology, with the place names in corrupt Syriac forms suggests that this text, for one, might actually have come to England in its original language: if it did, Theodore is the most likely person to have brought it. 3 It would hardly be surprising if Theodore knew Syriac. In his later life, he was clearly a man with a gift for languages: besides his native Greek, and the Latin he acquired in his middle years, he learned Old English in his old age, and a complicated pun in a work which I have suggested was written by him, suggests that he may even have picked up a little Irish. 4 But if anyone is reluctant to concede this hypothesis, it is in any case, likely that many of Ephraim’s works had acquired Greek Christopher Hohler, “Theodore and the Liturgy,” in M. Lapidge (ed.), Archbishop Theodore (Cambridge, 1995) 222–35, p. 225, and discussion by Günter Kotzor, Das altenglische Martyrologium (Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Klasse, Abhandlungen ns 88; Munich, 1981) II, 370. 4 In the Laterculus, he refers to “Scottorum scolaces:” the twisty reasoners of the Irish, if we read scolaces as a substitution of the plural of scolax, “twisted,” for scholares—or “Irish whelps,” if the play is on Greek skȈlax, pl. skȈlakes, “puppy”—or “babbling Irishmen,” if it is on Irish scǷlach: gossiping, prattling. Or all three. Jane Stevenson, The “Laterculus Malalianus” and the School of Archbishop Theodore (Cambridge, 1995) 163. 3

Ephraim the Syrian in Anglo-Saxon England

[7]

257

translations by the seventh century, and that he knew Greek is beyond any possibility of doubt. The use of Ephraimic texts at Canterbury is witnessed in a number of ways. I want to start with the most extensive, the several sets of glosses on parts of the Bible which emanate from the Canterbury school. These appear to be notes made from Theodore and Hadrian’s exposition of Biblical texts in the monastery school: they can be thus identified, because the names of Theodore and Hadrian occur throughout. For example, the “Leiden Glossary,” which is a member of this family of glossaries, contains an explanation of the word cyneris (“harps”) in Ecclesiasticus 39: 20, as follows. Cyneris. nabla. idest citharis longiores quam psalterium. Nam psalterium triangulum fit. Theodorus dixit. Harps: nabla. That is, citharas. [They are] longer than a psaltery, for a psaltery should be triangular. Theodore said so.

[8]

[9]

In St. Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek 913, another member of this family of glosses, the bird larum, which occurs in Leviticus 11: 16, is glossed as follows: “Larum. hragra. Adrianus dicit meum esse.” “Larum, a heron. Hadrian says it is a mew”—that is, a seamew, or seagull. This particular gloss is also interesting since it makes it clear that Hadrian used Old English in the classroom, and had a fair command of that language: Meus is not a Latin substantive (to translate the phrase as “Hadrian said it is mine” is to create obvious nonsense), but the Old English word for gull is mæw. 5 The biblical exegesis practised at Canterbury, as witnessed by these glossaries, was based mainly on Greek authorities. The tendency of the glosses is well witnessed by the examples quoted: they are for the most part historical, literally informative about things, actions, events and places unfamiliar to Anglo-Saxons, or philological, rather than allegorising—which is to say, they belong to the Antiochene school. 6 At a number of points, the Biblical E. Steinmeyer and E. Sievers, Die althochdeutschen Glossen, 5 vols. (Berlin, 1879–22) IV, 460. 6 Antiochene exegesis is by no means common in the early medieval West: for an overview, see M.L.W. Laistner, “Antiochene Exegesis in Western Europe during the Middle Ages,” Harvard Theological Review 40 (1947): 19–32. 5

258

[10]

Jane Stevenson

Commentaries draw, whether directly or indirectly, on ideas which are first found in Ephraim. Perhaps the best place to start in the Biblical Commentaries is with the one place where Ephraim is cited by name. Ev. II,29 [Matth. 13: 46] Margarita grece, latine gemma. Effrem dicit quod in Mari Rubro concae a profundo natantes super aquas quae, facto tonitruo et fulgore intranteque ictu fulgoris, ita se concludentes concipiant et efficiant margaritam. Ita et Maria concepit sermonem Dei. “Pearl” in Greek, in latin, “a gem.” Ephraim says that in the Red Sea there are shellfish which swim from the bottom to the surface of the water, which, when there is thunder and lightning, are struck and entered by the lightning-bolt. Then they close themselves up, conceive, and produce a pearl. Thus did Mary conceive the Word of God.

[11]

As is so often the case with texts attributed to Ephraim in Greek and Latin, this cannot be located in any of his actual works. It appears to derive from a Greek Sermo adversus haereticos loosely based on one of Ephraim’s Syriac hymns On Faith, thought to have been produced at the time of the Henotikon in the late fifth century by an adherent of the Chalcedonian party. 7 Ephraim himself gives some thought to pearls, in his great hymns on the pearl. Pearls were of course loved by both the Romans and the Jews, and had acquired an enormous weight of symbolic significance by his day. In Ephraim’s account, he specifically avoids making any kind of scientific explanation for the renowned lustre of orient pearls from the Red Sea: he is content to leave a mystery as a mystery: I give here the version in Assemani, and a translation. 8 Attendite margaritae, et nolite errare... Fulgur et aqua in unum consenserunt, et duo se contraria complexa sunt... Ex igne fulgur et ignis unde et illuminat, et inflammat. Conchae ex aqua, et per aquam crescunt... Quomodo substantialiter atque essentialiter conveniunt 7 Michael Lapidge and Bernhard Bischoff, Biblical Commentaries from the Canterbury School of Theodore and Hadrian (Cambridge, 1994) 514. 8 In G.S. Assemani et al. (eds.), Sancti Ephraim Syri Opera Omnia (Graece), 6 vols. (Rome, 1732–46) II, 268.

Ephraim the Syrian in Anglo-Saxon England

259

aqua et ignis, ac se invicem non corrumpunt? Non potes dicere: sed cogeris credere quod vides et tangis. Consider the pearl, and do not misinterpret... Lightning and water come together in one, and two contraries are embraced in it... From lightning-flash and fire it takes its lustre, and burns. Shellfish come from the water, and grow by water... How may water and fire come together, both in substance and in essence, and not mutually destroy one another?—you cannot say; but you are compelled to believe what you can see and touch.

[12]

[13]

Ephraim is more concerned with typological depth than with natural science; though he does make the point, found in the Biblical Commentaries, that the genesis of pearls is analogous to the conception of Christ, and therefore a symbol of it. 9 But it is clear that Theodore and Hadrian are in this passage drawing on the Greek homily not the Syriac original, where the resemblance is much clearer. The very confident attribution to Ephraim in the gloss might derive from a false attribution in the copy of the sermo adversus haereticos which they possessed: alternatively, it is not impossible that in addition to the Greek text before him (or in his recent memory), Theodore might have read Ephraim’s Hymns on the Pearl in Syriac early in his career, perhaps at Antioch or even Edessa, and been convinced, on that basis, that Ephraim was the ultimate source. Though Ephraim is not otherwise cited by name, his work is clearly relevant at a number of other points in the Biblical Commentaries. For example, Ephraim’s Commentary on Genesis was not so far as is known, translated into Greek, and certainly not into Latin. We need therefore to look at passages apparently dependent on this work with particular care. In discussing God’s command “Let there be light,” in Gen. 1: 3, the Commentator distinguishes between this light of three days duration, and the light which only later came into existence with the sun and moon (PentI, 23): a distinction which appears to originate in Ephraim’s Commentary on

9 E. Beck (ed.), Des heiligen Ephraim des Syrers hymnen de fide, 2 vols. (CSCO 154–5, Script. Syr. 73–4; Louvain, 1955) II, 214 (= Hymni de margarita, no. lxxxii, strophes 1–2).

260

[14]

Jane Stevenson

Genesis. 10 The Commentary on Genesis may be relevant elsewhere in the Biblical Commentaries: note that in PentI, 29, the creation of man in the image of God is felt to square poorly with the Bible’s subsequent statement that the “image of God” was twofold: that of man and woman. This point is made by Ephraim: “Man/Adam, who was made one, and two: he was made one when Adam was made, and he was made two when ‘male and female created he them’.” 11 There is an interesting overlap between the Biblical Commentaries and part of the pseudo-Ephraimic corpus. A Syriac homily attributed to Ephraim, written in the sixth century, is unusual in conflating the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the same way that the Commentator does in PentI 36, and in closely parallel wording. 12 This is an unusual bringing together of ideas: though a number of Greek theologians link God with the Tree of Life; they do not identify him with the Tree of Knowledge. PentI 36 [Genesis 2: 9] Et Deus est lignum vitae et scientiae boni malique; si bene sentimus et intellegimus de eo, hoc est de sancta trinitate, nobis erit lignum vitae. God is the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil: if we think and understand about him properly, that is, about the holy trinity, he will be a tree of life for us.

The Syriac homily offers the following perception: Deus enim arbor scientiae boni et mali recte dicitur, idemque est arbor vitae; et siquidem parentes nostri paruissent, utique arborem scientiae boni, et lignum vitae, sibi Deum fuissent experti; atque ad iucundissimam contemplationem provecti fuissent, in 10 Ephraim, Commentarius in Genesim I.9, in R-M. Tonneau (ed.), Sancti Ephraim Syri in Genesim et in Exodum Commentarii (CSCO 152–3, Scriptores Syri 71–2 ; Louvain, 1955) 9. 11 “Adam, qui unus factus est et duo: unus fuit qui Adam fuit, duo fuit qui masculus et femina creatus est.” Commentarius in Genesim II.12, Tonneau, p. 24. 12 “De paradiso terrestri, et arbore scientiae boni et mali,” Assemani, Sancti Ephraim Syri Opera, I, 129.

Ephraim the Syrian in Anglo-Saxon England

261

ligno vitae repositam, quod est ipse Deus unus et trinus. God is rightly called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which is the same as the tree of life, and if only our parents had conceded [this], then certainly God would have given the experience of the tree of the knowledge of good and the tree of life to them, and it would have brought them to the most delightful contemplation, found in the tree of life, which is God himself, both three and one.

[15]

The Canterbury text seems here to be a highly compressed summary of the Syrian homily (which is not known to have existed in a Greek version, let alone a Latin one): the two trees are identified, and thinking about them is identified with contemplating the Trinity. Note that the Syriac text also mentions God as “both three and one.” Another minor point which may support the thesis that Ephraim’s works were among Theodore and Hadrian’s reading is that in PentI 62, Enoch is said to have been transported to Paradise which, according to some commentators, was located on a high mountain. Ephraim is one of these commentators, since his first Hymn on Paradise states that Paradise was situated on a high mountain.

LATERCULUS [16]

I now want to turn to another text which I have argued emanates from Canterbury, and was actually written by Theodore himself, unlike the Biblical Commentaries, which are redactions of his teaching based on lecture notes. Known as the Laterculus Malalianus, this work is a study of the historical life of Christ, which translates the relevant part of the Chronicle of the sixth-century Antiochene, John Malalas, and then offers an exegesis of it in the Antiochene style: if this thesis is accepted, it would strengthen the evidence for Lapidge’s suggestion that Theodore received part of his education in Antioch. 13 As with the Biblical Commentaries, the majority of the sources on which its author (presumably Theodore) draws are Greek.

The Laterculus Malalianus and the School of Archbishop Theodore (Cambridge, 1995). 13

262 [17]

[18]

Jane Stevenson

In this text, as in the Biblical Commentaries, Ephraim is quoted once by name, in a chapter which examines the concept of the Ordines Christi—that is, the idea that Christ, in his own lifetime, experienced, and therefore consecrated, all the orders of the church, from minor to major. The Laterculus gives seven grades, though it claims to give six: doorkeeper, gravedigger, reader, subdeacon, deacon, priest, and bishop, ending the passage with the comment: “Et haec quidem etiam sanctus Ephraim commemorat similiter.” “And saint Ephraim comments similarly on this subject.” Ordines Christi texts vary considerably. While everyone was sure that priests and bishops belonged in it, minor grades such as exorcists, doorkeepers and gravediggers were added or omitted depending on the judgment of the individual writer, and almost no two lists are quite the same. For example, a fourth-century pseudepigraphic “letter of Ignatius to the Antiochenes’ lists presbyter, deacon, subdeacon, lector, cantor, doorkeeper, gravedigger, exorcist and confessor: the list given by Epiphanius, late in the same century, is of bishop, presbyter, deacon, subdeacon, lector, exorcist, interpreter, gravedigger and doorkeeper. 14 The version of the Ordines Christi in the Laterculus should therefore give some indication of where it came from, which it does: the grades and their sequence given in the Laterculus are most like the sequences preserved in the Ethiopic version of Didascalia Apostolorum and in the interpolated Didascalia in the Constitutiones Apostolorum (which originated in Antioch or there abouts in the late fourth century). 15 The reference here to an Ephraimic version of the Ordines Christi cannot be traced to a surviving work of Ephraim, but the origin of the text which lies behind this passage in the Laterculus was certainly Eastern, and probably Syriac. There are several Syriac witnesses to the ordinals of Christ, similar, though not identical to the version before us. It is not hard to believe that the text before the author of Laterculus bore an attribution to Ephraim. In any case, even though respect for the authority of Ephraim is all that is witnessed by the “ordinals of Christ” episode, actual knowledge of his works is found elsewhere in the Laterculus. For example, “it was the opinion of Mar Ephraim that the Magi came 14 R.E. Reynolds, The Ordinals of Christ from their Origin to the Twelfth Century (Berlin, 1978) 15. Epiphanius’s list is in his Expositio fidei, an addendum to his Panarion (Patrologia Graeca 42, 824). 15 See Reynolds, Ordinals of Christ, 11–3.

Ephraim the Syrian in Anglo-Saxon England

[19]

263

to Bethlehem two years after the birth of Christ’ according to the fragments of his commentary on the Gospels collected by Rendel Harris. 16 This is the opinion held by the author of the Laterculus, § 5. The story of the spontaneous destruction of the idols of Egypt as Christ entered that country with his parents, fleeing Herod, is mentioned in Laterculus, § 7 and appears twice in the collected works of Ephraim. 17 This was an infancy tale widely known in the East (it also appears in the Akathistos hymn, for example), but the first version of Ephraim is the closest to that in the Laterculus: it includes the phrase, “virginis ulnis Aegypto invectus est” “He was carried to Egypt in the arms of the Virgin,” equivalent to the formulation in the Laterculus, “ad adventum enim salvatoris sedentissuper gremium virginis matris” “at the arrival of the Saviour seated on the lap of his virgin mother...” That is a small point. It is perhaps more interesting that the concept that the virgin earth from which the protoplasts were made, should be typologically paralleled with the Virgin, appears in the Laterculus, and is found several times in Ephraim. 18 The virginal earth bore that Adam/man, the head of the earth The Virgin bore today [the second] Adam, the head of heaven Thou, O my Lord, teach me how and why it pleased thee to appear from a virginal womb,

16 J. Rendel Harris, Fragments of the Commentary of Ephrem Syrus upon the Diatessaron (London, 1895) 37: see now C. McCarthy, St. Ephrem’s Commentary on Tatian’s Diatessaron (Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement 2) and for the text, L. Leloir, Saint Ephraim, Commentaire de l’Evangile Concordant: Texte syriaque (MS Chester Beatty 709) (Dublin, 1963) and Saint Ephraim, Commentaire de l’Evangile Concordant: Texte syriaque (MS Chester Beatty 709), Folios additionels (Chester Beatty Monographs 8; 1990). 17 Assemani, Sancti Ephraim Syri Opera, II, 49–50, and 144–5. 18 Hymni de nativitate I.xvi and II, xii,1–4, E. Beck (ed. & trans.), Des heiligen Ephraim des Syrers Hymnen de nativitate (CSCO 186–7, Script. Syr. 85–3; Louvain, 1959) 3 and 14: translations here from T. Kronholm, Motifs from Genesis 1–11 in the Genuine Hymns of Ephrem the Syrian, with Particular Reference to the Influence of Jewish Exegetical Tradition (Uppsala, 1978) 55. See further R. Murray, “Mary, the Second Eve in the Early Syriac Fathers,” Eastern Churches Review 3 (1970/1): 372–84.

264

Jane Stevenson was its typos that of the pure/glorious Adam/man, who from the ground the virginal, not yet tilled, received his form?

[20]

[21]

[22]

This elaboration of the ancient parallelism between Eve and Mary appears to belong both to the Greek and Syrica patristic traditions: it is, for example, found in Chrysostom 19 so it is not peculiar to Ephraim, though it is an idea he returns to several times. The opposition of Eve and Mary, Adam and Christ, is worked out in similar terms in Laterculus § 12. The idea that it was Christ who made man in his own image, not God the Father, is important to Ephraim, and in Laterculus: 20 “as the First-born imago Dei invisibilis and primogenitusomnis creaturae, Christ functions as the mediator, voice and hand of the divine Majesty in every aspect of the creation of the world and the living creatures. However, he acts above all as the creating agent of the triune God in forming Adam/man into imago imaginis Dei.” Similarly, in Laterculus § 12, it is Christ who forms Adam, and “makes him in his own image:” “ad suam fecit imaginem.” Ephraim’s favourite metaphor for Christ, “The Physician,” 21 is implied in Laterculus § 14, and found in the letter of Archbishop Theodore to Æthelred in 686, 22 and in the preface to the Penitential of Theodore’s discipulus Umbrensium. 23 Theodore himself, of course, was passionately interested in medicine: many of the Canterbury texts bear witness to this, and so does Bede. A more interesting, and more decisive instance of connection between Canterbury and Ephraim is the treatment of the “cornerstone” in the Laterculus. Ephraim’s exegesis of this image in his Exposition of the Gospel is rather unusual. 24 ‘And David was not the corner, for one wall of the buildings was made in him, only circumcision. Now De mutatione nominum II.3, Patrologia Graeca 51, 113–56, at 129. Kronholm, Motifs from Genesis, 51. 21 Robert Murray, Symbols of Church and Kingdom (Cambridge, 1975) 200. 22 A.W. Haddan and W. Stubbs (eds.), Councils and Ecclesiastical Documents relating to Great Britain and Ireland, 3 vols. (Oxford, 1869–78) III, 171. 23 P.W. Finsterwalder (ed.), Die Canones Theodori Cantuarensis und ihre Ǫberlieferungsformen (Weimar, 1929) 287. 24 Ephraim’s Exposition of the Gospel, ch. 6 (Saint Ephraim: an Exposition of the Gospel, trans. G.A. Egan (Louvain, 1968) 4). 19 20

Ephraim the Syrian in Anglo-Saxon England

265

since Christ preached circumcision and uncircumcision, two walls were made from him, and he became the head/chief [i.e. the corner-stone?].”

[23]

Ephraim thus extends the metaphor of the corner stone in a most ingenious way, by considering the point that if there is a corner, it must be the corner of something. He therefore visualises two walls shooting off at different angles from him: Christ is the source of both, but they are tending in different directions. Exactly this point is made in Laterculus: “cui iuncti duo parietes e diverso venientes condidit in semetipsocopulavit, scilicet populorum conexio Iudaeorum atque gentiliumpacem in utrosque perficiens” (§ 14) [Christ] from whom there are two conjoined walls, going in different directions, joined and originating in he himself, that is, a connection between the Jewish people and the gentiles, bringing peace between them.

[24]

Again, Ephraim’s Commentarius in Genesim, a text which on the evidence of the Biblical Commentaries, seems to have been known at Canterbury, 25 discusses the original kingly authority of Adam and its relationship to his free will: “if they had been made as infants, as the profane say, they would not have blushed to find themselves naked. Nothing is said about Adam and his wife which does not suggest they were young adults. The names given by Adam (to the animals) suffice to persuade one of his wisdom, and that he is said to work and look after the garden is enough to indicate his vigour: the law imposed on him is a witness of his adult status.”

[25]

This view is firmly endorsed in Laterculus, § 17. Et sic quippe credendum est quia homo in primordio factus a Domino aetate legitimus et mente plenus et capacem rationis in qua uictoriam caperet, si mortis superasset auctorem. Et ideo namque pena mortis incurrit, quia non sub paruoli motu et infirmior sensui, sed plenus ratione, homo in paradysu deliquid [sic]...

25

Commentarius in Genesim, Tonneau, p. 24.

266

Jane Stevenson It should be believed that man was made in the beginning by God appropriate in age and capable in mind and full of understanding with which he could have captured victory, if he had been able to overcome the author of death. And accordingly, he incurred the penalty of death, since he was not under the motion of a child and deficient in sense, but a person full of intelligence offending in paradise...

[26]

[27]

Ephraim is also interested in the paradox between God’s mercifulness to man and man’s mercilessness to God: the theme is found in Ephraim’s hymns: “he who gives drink to all entered and experienced thirst;” 26 “Christ came as a slave to liberate freedom. He even endured being stricken on the face by servants so that ‘he broke the yoke that was on the free’.” 27 An exploration of this theme is found in Laterculus § 20. To sum up: the evidence for the knowledge of Ephraim at Canterbury is naturally variable in quality. Some points of congruence are such that they could have come from Ephraim, or from a number of other sources, others are probable going on certain. What is most striking is that some of the most interesting parallels are from genuine works which were not, so far as we know, translated into Latin.

OTHER EVIDENCE FOR EPHRAIM IN ANGLO-SAXON ENGLAND [28]

The only Ephraimic text to appear in pre-Conquest English manuscripts is the so-called Sermo asceticus. There is a copy in London, Lambeth Palace 204, written in the first half of the eleventh century, and perhaps from Christ Church, Canterbury, or from Ely. 28 This contains the Dialogues of Gregory the Great, and a copy of the Sermo asceticus, under the title “liber beati Efrem” (ff. 119v–129v). This work, originally in Greek, is based partly on some of Ephraim’s hymns, and partly on two Syriac sermons of 26

244.

S. Brock, “The Poet as Theologian,” Sobornost 7 (1977): 243–53, at

27 S.J. Beggiani, Early Syriac Theology, with special reference to the Maronite tradition (New York, 1983) 66. See also Kronholm, Motifs, 102. 28 Helmut Gneuss, “A Preliminary List of Manuscripts written or owned in England up to 1100,” Anglo-Saxon England 9 (1981): 1–60, p. 33 (no. 510).

Ephraim the Syrian in Anglo-Saxon England

[29]

[30]

267

doubtful attribution. It was translated into Latin as early as the sixth century, and regularly attributed to Ephraim in the earliest manuscripts. 29 Clearly, a manuscript so late can tell us very little about the history of this text in England: since the sermo asceticus was very popular throughout Europe, and survives in a very large number of manuscripts from the late sixth century onwards, it could have come to England at any time from the Conversion to the Norman Conquest. It is probably appropriate to subdivide other evidence for the knowledge of Ephraim and his work by language. Texts written in Latin are, with only a few exceptions, attributable to monks or clerics, thus, to individuals who might conceivably, at whatever remove, have benefited from the introduction of real or pseudepigraphic writings by Ephraim into seventh-century Canterbury, or might have come across Latin works attributed to Ephraim such as the Sermo asceticus. Texts written in Old English are of less certain origin. Probably everything that we have was redacted by clerics—or it could not have survived—it is less certain that everything was composed by Latinate clerics. The Christian poems which I will mention seem likely products of a monastic or clerical culture, and it is probable that most of the anonymous authors read Latin, but not certain. Let us begin with Latin texts. The so-called Book of Cerne (CUL Ll.1.10), a prayer-book written in Northumbria early in the ninth century, contains a Latin version of a section of the Sermo asceticus, 30 is copied with the title “Oratio ad Dominum sancti Effremis.” 31 The rubric is affixed to item 46 in the collection, but Sims-Williams has shown it should properly pertain to item 45. The context of this prayer in the manuscript is late-eighth-century, and specifically English: it precedes two prayers attributed to Alchfrith the anchorite. 32 This would seem to suggest that it when it was 29 Patrick Sims-Williams, “Thoughts on Ephraim the Syrian in AngloSaxon England,” in M. Lapidge and H. Gneuss (eds.), Learning and Literature in Anglo-Saxon England (Cambridge, 1985) 205–26, p. 206, and see D. Hemmerdinger-Iliadou, “Éphrem grec — Éphrem latin,” Dictionnaire de spiritualité, IV (1960) 800–19, col. 802. 30 A.B. Kuypers (ed.), The Prayer Book of Aedeluald the Bishop commonly called the Book of Cerne (Cambridge, 1902) 141–2. 31 Ibid. 32 Sims-Williams, “Thoughts on Ephrem,” 209–10.

268

[31]

Jane Stevenson

copied into Cerne, it had already circulated for some time in England. Three Continental copies of the same Latin version survive: in the so-called Officia per ferias from a mid-ninth-century St. Denis MS, 33 in the Fleury prayer-book (Orléans, Bibliothèque municipale 184), and in a MS of Saint-Bertin dated to AD 99, the Psalter of Odbert, Boulogne-sur-Mer, Bibl. mun. 20) In the first and last of these, the prayer is attributed by name to Ephraim. 34 It probably also appeared in an eighth-century English prayer book, the Book of Nunnaminster (London, BL Harley 2965): at the foot of f. 33v, just before a lost leaf, is the heading Sancta oratio, and an incipit: “Deus meus et saluator meus quare me dere...” Since the “Ephraim” prayer opens “Domine deus meus et saluator meus, quare me dereliquisti?” it seems very probable that this was the same prayer. Another early, semi-liturgical book of a similar type (London, BL Harley 7653, written somewhere in Southumbria, probably Mercia, c. 800) contains a prayer, incompletely preserved, which is a Latin version of the conclusion of a Greek metrical text De penitentia, attributed to Ephraim. 35 The Syriac original of this text, if it ever existed, does not appear to survive. Versions of this Latin prayer occur in continental prayer books under the rubric oratio sancti Effrem, e.g. in a prayer book from Tours datable to c. 800, 36 and in an eleventh century Italian prayer book from the Beneventan region, where it has the rubric Oratio S. Ephraim ad postulandum fontem lacrimarum. 37 Thus, we have evidence for more than one prayer travelling under the name of Ephraim, and genuinely deriving from texts which were at least Greek, if not Syriac, in origin, found both in Anglo-Saxon England and on the Continent. There is also some evidence of a more indirect kind for the knowledge of these prayers. In the Royal prayer-book, BL Royal 2 A xx, the prayer on f. 32 addresses “lover of men, most kind God” (amator hominum, benignissime deus): this appears to echo a prayer beginning “Philanthrope, agathe...” in Greco-Latin Ephraimic Patrologia Latina 101, 510–612, from Paris, BN lat. 1153, ff 1–98. Sims-Williams, “Thoughts on Ephrem,” 223–4. 35 Assemani, Sancti Ephraim Syri Opera, I, 148–53. 36 Troyes, BibliothǶque municipale 1742, ed A. Wilmart, Precum libelli quattuor aevi karolini (Rome, 1940) 14. 37 Now Vatican City, Biblioteca apostolica vaticana Barberini lat. 497, see P. Salmon, Analecta liturgica (Studi e Testi 273; Vatican City, 1974) 143. 33 34

Ephraim the Syrian in Anglo-Saxon England

[32]

[33]

269

literature, 38 or perhapsthe Sermo asceticus, 39 which also uses the phrase. The prayer as a whole is not a redaction of Ephraim, but the phrase, it seems, had been encountered by its author, and had stuck with him. Patrick Sims-Williams has observed that the personified deeds which reproach the monk of Wenlock in the vision reported by Boniface are an unusual element in the extensive literature of otherworld journeys, but may be paralleled by those that appear in the pseudo-Ephraimic opusculum De beatitudine animae. 40 In this text, when the angels come to take the dying man’s soul from his body, all its good and evil deeds committed by day and night appear, and stand by. The sinful soul is frightened both to see and to hear them, and begs for an hour’s respite, but they reply, “you did us. We are your deeds. We will always accompany you. We will go to God together with you.” 41 The monk of Wenlock similarly found himself confronted by his own personified sins, backed up by demons: he is defended by his virtues, supported by angels. This letter was written in the eighth century: so if Sims-Williams is correct in thinking that either the monk of Wenlock’s experiences themselves, or the way they were written up, owed something to this opusculum, it was in Anglo-Saxon England from an early date. Now I want briefly to discuss vernacular literature. It has been suggested in various contexts for the last century, most notably with respect to the so-called “Soul and Body” poems (which are Old English versions of an Ephraimic prototype, redacted through an unknown set of intermediaries) that Ephraim is an influence on

Assemani, Sancti Ephraim Syri Opera, I, 53, and III, 362. The text in BL Harley 3060, f. 168r, headed “Oratio Donni Effrem,” also includes the phrase “Amator hominum benignissime” (Sims-Williams, “Thoughts on Ephrem,” 221–2). 40 Sims-Williams, “Thoughts on Ephrem,” 207–8, n. 15: see M. Tangl (ed.), Die Briefe des heiligen Bonifatius und Lullus (MGH, epist. select. I; Berlin, 1916), ep. 10, pp. 9–10, and BL Harley 3060, f. 129 (quoted by SimsWilliams). This ninth-century manuscript contains the opuscula and a number of Spanish works: it cannot be used as evidence in itself for the knowledge of these texts in England since there is nothing to show that it entered the country any earlier than the seventeenth century. 41 Patrick Sims-Williams, Religion and Literature in Western England, 600–800 (Cambridge, 1990) 258–9. 38 39

270

[34]

Jane Stevenson

vernacular Old English literature. 42 It has also been suggested that the poem known as “Christ III,” on the theme of the Last Judgment, is in some fashion indebted to a metrical homily surviving in Greek, but accepted as a version of an original homily by Ephraim himself, De iudicio et compunctione. 43 Arguments have also been made for an Ephraimic influence on Elene and Guthlac. 44 Patrick Sims-Williams has commented, additionally, that “it may be wondered whether it is only the relative inaccessibility of the Latin ‘Ephrem’ that has prevented students of late Old English prose from finding sources there.” 45 Bestul, who has made the fullest investigation of the Old English evidence, has concluded in the negative. He very properly points out that earlier investigators have tended to treat the Latin text in Assemani (which is actually a careless redaction of the seventeenth-century translation by Gerard Vossius) as if it represented “Ephraim:” that is, that it was available to AngloSaxon scholars in something like that form. This is obviously unsatisfactory. He therefore concludes that: 46 While further study of the Latin text of Ephraim and Old English poetry may yield new information, for the 42 T. Batiouchkof, “Le Débat de l’âme et du corps,” Romania 20 (1891): 1–55, 513–78: a likely intermediary is the Latin homily on this theme in Paris, BN nat 2096 (52) printed by Batiouchkof on pp. 576–8 and discussed by Louise Dudley, “An Early Homily on the ‘Body and Soul’ Theme,” Journal of English and Germanic Philology 8 (1909): 225–6. See also Eleanor K. Heningham, “The Precursors of the Worcester Fragments,” Proceedings of the Modern Language Association 55 (1940): 291– 307. 43 Assemani, Sancti Ephraim Syri Opera, II, pp. 50–6. It appears as Kilianus Piscator (ed.), Libri Sancti Effrem de Compunctione cordis, (Freiburg im Breisgau, ca. 1491–2), sig. L6r–L7v. The attribution to Ephraim is strengthened by internal evidence: it opens, “Dearest brothers, come and take my advice; always remember the counsel of sinful, ignorant Ephraim.” See A.S. Cook, The Christ of Cynewulf (Boston, 19092) xlv and 189–90 (ref. to lines 1084ff); D.G. Calder & M.J.B. Allen, Sources and Analogues of Old English Poetry (Cambridge and Totowa, NJ, 1976), and F.M. Biggs, The sources of Christ III: a Revision of Cook’s Notes (Old English Newsletter subsidia 12; Binghamton, NY, 1986) 2–3 and passim. 44 Noted by Bestul, “Ephraim,” 17. 45 Sims-Williams, “Thoughts on Ephrem,” 207. 46 Bestul, “Ephraim,” 22.

Ephraim the Syrian in Anglo-Saxon England

271

present, taking into account the quality of Grau’s parallels and his reliance upon works without a well established Latin textual tradition, it is reasonable to state that that there is little in favour of the view that Ephraim was a direct source for any Old English literary text.

[35]

The trouble with seeing this as the end of the story is that my own investigations of the Laterculus have led me to suggest that Theodore brought at least one Greek text into Canterbury, and created an ad hoc, literal, running Latin translation for classroom use. Carmela Franklin has put forward another, by suggesting that Theodore is a very possible author for the word-by-word translation of the Greek Passio Sancti Anastasii which circulated in Anglo-Saxon England and was rewritten by Bede. 47 So we have at least a basis for suggesting that some Christian texts first entered England in the Greek language. Bestul simply dismisses the possibility that Theodore brought with him “a library of Greek authors.” 48 Obviously, he could not know about Laterculus, or the Passio S. Anastasii, which have been studied only very recently, but it is very far from clear to me why he assumed an objection in principle. It took about two years to get Theodore on the road to Canterbury. The Pope was well aware that the Anglo-Saxon Church was so understaffed it was hovering on the verge of implosion: if there was ever a moment when funds might have been made available for such purposes as copying books, I would suggest that this was it. The Northumbrian Benedict Biscop was in Rome, and is unlikely to have left his superiors under any illusions about what they were to expect—and that ardent early English bibliophile and passionate educationalist will surely have stressed the point that the young English church was in dire need of intellectual ballast. I think that to dismiss the possibility that Theodore and Hadrian arrived with a substantial library quite so

P. Meyvaert and C. Franklin, “Has Bede’s version of the Passio S. Anastasii come down to us in BHL 408?” Analecta Bollandiana 100 (1982): 373–400. 48 Bestul, “Ephraim,” 13: “It is not improbable that Eastern ascetic materials passed from Italy, to a center such as Corbie... and then to Anglo-Saxon England. This is altogether more likely than presuming... that Archbishop Theodore brought with him a library of Greek authors.” 47

272

[36]

[37]

Jane Stevenson

cavalierly is to misinterpret the concept of an authorised mission. 49 Theodore was not a Patrick: not a man with a private, impelling vision who browbeat his superiors into letting him sort out the English Church, he was a distinguished elderly theologian who was entrusted with the task after considerable negotiation and sent on his way at a pace which permitted proper organisation. That being said, I think that with vernacular texts, even more than with Latin, we have to be very careful to recognise the distinction between a source and an influence. I can quite see that Bestul’s common sense revolts at the thought of the author of Christ III or Elena sitting sucking his quill at a desk piled high with Latin redactions of works by Ephraim the Syrian: so does mine. But it is not, therefore, impossible that some part of the education the poet in question had received derived, perhaps at second or third hand, from Ephraim. From the time of Theodore to that of King Alfred, there is some degree of continuity in Anglo-Saxon education. The Canterbury school taught men, such as Tobias of Rochester, who taught others in their turn. Classroom notebooks such as that of the Discipulus Umbrensium were treasured and copied—if they had not been, they would not survive to this day. Unsystematic, partial bits and scraps, a mere bricolage of the great tradition of Syriac poetry, could have found its way by this means into the miscellaneous lore which stocked the minds of poets such as Cynewulf and his anonymous colleagues. Insofar as I can offer any conclusions, they are of a very interim nature. I am convinced that some texts wrongly attributed to Ephraim came to various parts of England in the seventh century in Greek dress, and perhaps, that some rightly so attributed also came to Canterbury. I also think it just plausible that some Syriac texts came to England in Syriac, and were translated, ad hoc and on the spot, into Theodore’s vigorous, demotic Latin. It also seems clear that Latin versions of prayers attributed to Ephraim formed part of the common stock of material circulating between private prayerbooks in Western Europe around the year 800. Beyond that, almost everything is debatable. 49 See Jane Stevenson, “Christianising the Northern Barbarians,” in Jens Flemming KrȆger and Helge-Rolf Naley (eds.), NordsjȆen — Handel, Religion og politikk. KarmȆy-seminarene 1994 og 1995 (Stavanger, 1996) 162– 84, e.g. p. 169.

Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies, Vol. 1.2, 273–286 © 1998 [2010] by Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute and Gorgias Press

JOHN WESLEY AND EPHRAEM SYRUS GORDON WAKEFIELD UNITED KINGDOM [1]

[2]

[3]

I must begin with an acknowledgement: I am deeply indebted to Sebastian Brock’s The Luminous Eye: The Spiritual World Vision of St. Ephraim. 1 I must note at the outset that this paper brings in John Wesley’s brother, Charles, and that it is somewhat speculative. Like all great men—and in all the Churches there are those who would not dispute his title to that name, though he had plenty of faults—John Wesley had something enigmatic and elusive about him. It is not easy to describe his spirituality, which was marvellously comprehensive and ecumenical, though highly selective, drawing, as it did, only from the sources that appealed to him. But in trying to do so, we must not forget his origins as the son of Samuel and Susanna, Rector of Epworth and his wife. She bore nineteen children in twenty years, only seven of whom survived, John was the third baby to be so named. We never escape what we have learned at our mother’s knee, or through our paternity, which may not be only biological. There was always something of post-restoration high churchmanship about John Wesley with an affinity through his mother with the Non-Jurors, and a preference through the whole family for the Eastern Fathers. Samuel, who expected a curate to read more than the average don 1 S. Brock, The Luminous Eye: The Spiritual World Vision of Saint Ephrem the Syrian (Cistercian Studies Series 124; Kalamazoo, 19922). [The author of this article cites the 1st ed., published by the C. I. I. S., 294, Corso Vittorio Emmanuele, IV Piano, 00186 Rome, in 1985.]

273

274

[4]

Gordon Wakefield

would be capable of, just as John was to make similar demands on his assistants, thought Ignatius of Antioch and his epistles next to the Bible and wished he could have got them by heart. Origen received the highest accolade, though Irenaeus and Basil were lauded and Samuel said “If I were to preach in Greek, St. Chrysostom would be my master.” John Wesley as a theologian came to be in the Augustinian tradition, though he could be scathing about the Latin Fathers. He translated the hymns of German pietists and mystics and succeeeded in empathising with the persecuted Puritans of the previous century, amongst whom had been his grandparents on both sides. But the influence of the Eastern Fathers remained. His interest never flagged and may even have increased as the years wore on, when his evangelicalism, though not his evangelism, was somewhat modified. The “strangely warmed heart” of May 24th 1738—a phrase with an echo of the Cambridge Platonist, John Smith (1673) 2—represented a decisive moment at the beginning of his “second journey,” to use Fr. O’Collins’ terminology. He certainly regarded the period around 1738 as the beginning of his distinctive mission, but the Aldersgate Street experience may have been given undue prominence by Methodists. It was hardly referred to again and as his life went on, Wesley did not repudiate his pre-Aldersgate and Oxford years, emphasising his total dedication to God as a young man of twenty-two in 1725. He believed (wrongly) that the Church of The New Testament and immediately after, showed a pattern of Christian life near to perfection and that this was unsullied in the pre-Nicene Fathers. His attitude to Constantine was not far removed from the repudiation of Alistair Kee in our own time and he felt that there was a deterioration from the fourth century as what we call Caesaropapism held sway, but there remained pockets of true Christianity, particularly in the East. In 1756, in his “Address to the Clergy,” he writes: Can any who spend several years in those seats of learning (the universities) be excused if they do not add to that of the languages and the sciences, the knowledge of the fathers—the most authentic commentators on Scripture as being both nearest the 2

John Smith, Selected Discourses (1673).

John Wesley and Ephraem Syrus

275

fountain and eminently endued with that Spirit by whom “all Scripture was given” [cf. 2 Timothy 3:16]… I speak chiefly of those who wrote before the Council of Nicea. But who would not likewise desire to have some acquaintance with those that followed then— with St. Chrysostom, Basil, Jerome, Austin, and, above all the man of a broken heart, Ephraim Syrus? 3

[5]

[6]

In another list in one of his sermons, he omitted Jerome and “Austin” (Augustine) and included Macarius, whom we must call “pseudo-Macarius.” In his letter of 1749 to the Cambridge deist Conyers Middleton, who asserted that “miraculous powers” ceased with the Apostolic Age, he recognises the Fathers’ limitations and mistakes. He does not regard them as powerful intellectuals, but they were Christians and describe “true, genuine Christianity.” He writes “I mean particularly Clemens Romanus, Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, Clemens Alexandrinus, Cyprian, to whom I would add Macarius and Ephraim Syrus.” In that letter, marred by his careless garbling of Middleton’s text, he has sixty pages of analysis of patristic authors to refute his antagonist, though Middleton had not written specifically against Wesley. He then turns to his insistence that actual Christian faith and life is as possible now as in apostolic times. The real miracle is not signs and wonders in the natural world so much as Christian life which has “subsisted in the church” in all ages. There is no diminution of the action of the Spirit. The experience of the first Christians, what they knew and felt of Christ may be ours. 4 He felt that there were few Christians in his own time, or indeed in any time. But these “burning and shining lights shone in a dark place in a world full of darkness and benighted habitations.” 5 John Wesley first read Ephraim in Oxford as a Fellow of Lincoln College in 1732 and continued in Georgia in 1736 and, as we have seen, thereafter. We must never forget that he was a proficient linguist in classical and biblical languages as well as in French and German. It is not easy to deduce which of Ephraim’s

Works, ed. Thomas Jackson, X, 484. Works, X, 1–79. 5 Preface to John Wesley, translated and edited, Concise Ecclesiastical History from the Birth of Christ to the Beginning of the Present Century, 4 vols. (London, 1781). 3 4

276

[7]

Gordon Wakefield

writings he had studied and read and, as he says read aloud 6 to his congregations. He read from him to Sophy Hopkey, the eighteenyear-old with whom he fell in love in Georgia—he always longed to share his books with those to whom his susceptible heart drew him. One wonders what the young girl made of Ephraim. Wesley did not publish Ephraim in The Christian Library, his fifty volumes of wide-ranging extracts from the Fathers to the Puritans via some counter-reformation worthies, which was a disastrous publishing venture in his lifetime, but became popular when reduced to thirty volumes in the next century. An extract from Macarius is included. Wesley read Ephraim in sermon preparation. He was too inclined to be influenced by the latest book he had read, but Ephraim was a permanent guide and he included him with authors ancient and modern in his required reading for his assistants. He once said that Ephraim was “the most awakening writer among all the ancients” and translated one of his stories. While there are not as many references to him in his writings as to many other Fathers, and modern interpreters of Wesley do not say much about him, I would single out three particular instances of what is best called by the term sobornost, the fellow-feeling of kindred spirits. As well as these we must note that both Ephraim and Wesley agreed on the freedom of the human will; though Wesley had to assert it in controversy with Calvinists. God’s glory is greater if we respond to him of our own free will than if he forces his will upon us and gives us no choice. And both believed that the Eucharist should be celebrated daily. They were both interested in medicine, John Wesley issuing a book of Primitive Physic. But we must turn to the three principal points. Wesley’s devotion to Ephraim was one of his links with the Cappadocian Fathers, which influenced his idea of perfection. Sebastian Brock tells us of the legendary visit of Ephraim to St. Basil. He is repelled by Basil’s rich vestments but “recognises him to be the pillar of fire he had seen previously in a vision, for as Basil preached Ephraim beheld the Holy Spirit proceed from his mouth in the form of a dove.” Basil is the representative of the Cappadocians of whom Gregory of Nyssa is closest to Ephraim. 7 And it is Gregory of Nyssa, who, Albert Outler claimed, influenced 6 7

Journal, I, 416. Sebastian Brock, The Luminous Eye (1985) 199ff.

John Wesley and Ephraem Syrus

[8]

[9]

277

Wesley through “Macarius” (who was no Egyptian desert Father of the fourth century, as Wesley believed, but a fifth-century Syrian monk, according to the researches of Werner Jaeger). His spirituality was derived from Gregory of Nyssa, as was Ephraim’s in part. They saw perfection as a process rather than a state. Says Gregory in his Life of Moses: “This truly is the vision of God, never to be satisfied in the desire to see him.” Another metaphor, possibly of relevance to Ephraim, is that one is perfect when after ascending one peak one longs to scale further ranges stretching ahead. Albert Outler believed that this “gave Wesley a spiritual vision quite different from the static perfectionism envisaged in Roman spiritual theology of the period and the equally static quietism of those Protestants and Catholics whom he deplored as ‘the mystic writers’.” The Christian “Gnostic” of Clement of Alexandria became Wesley’s model of the ideal Christian. Thus it was that the ancient and Eastern tradition of holiness as disciplined love became fused in Wesley’s mind with his own Anglican tradition of holiness as aspiring love and thereafter was developed in what he regarded to the end as his own most distinctive doctrinal contribution. 8 Outler has not wholly convinced other scholars. In a recent paper Frances Young has emphasised parallels between Wesley and the Eastern doctrine of God. They share the distinction, for instance, between the essence and the energies of the Divinity, which is certainly adumbrated in Ephraim’s emphasis on the intellect’s inability to cross the ontological “chasm.” 9 Ephraim and Wesley share an implacable Trinitarianism. Wesley does in his teaching on perfection have too narrow a view of sin, as “the voluntary transgression of a known law,” which discounts our unconscious sins which may be worst of all and our involvement in all humankind, so that perfection would seem to be impossible as an individual state or disposition apart from a perfect society. But his definition of Christian perfection as perfect love is a dynamic concept, and he does lay great emphasis on the apostolic “I press on" and says of the soul that dies to sin that the change, like that of our mortal passage, “is of a different kind and far greater than any before and than anyone can conceive till he experiences it.” Yet he 8 9

Albert C. Outler (ed.), John Wesley (Oxford, 1964) 9.10. Brock 1985, 13.

278

[10]

[11]

[12]

Gordon Wakefield

still “grows in grace and in the knowledge of Christ” [cf. 2 Peter 3: 18] in the love and image of God and will do so not only till death but to all eternity.” 10 This supports Outler’s thesis, but Wesley may be thought too eclectic to be bound by any one school or period. 11 His main preoccupation was not so much with any of his authors as with the Christianity of the eighteenth century. He was not seeking to undertake scholarly research into the spirituality of those to whom he was drawn, but to discover within it what was going to be practical in his own day and what conformed to his own convictions and experience. He was a logician but not a philosopher and his preoccupation was with saving souls, with making it possible for “the vilest offender to turn and find grace,” rather than with the study of images and symbolism and poetic philosophy. This I would concede. But Ted A. Campbell writing of the Macarian literature says that Wesley “omitted references to ascetic life and to the notion of theosis ‘divinisation’ or ‘deification’—perhaps the most distinctively Eastern note in the Macarian literature.” 12 Ephraim strikes these notes. Is a kindred asceticism and doctrine of theosis in fact absent from Wesley? This brings me to my second point. Sebastian Brock takes Ephraim as an example “of a native Syrian tradition of the consecrated life which may be termed ‘proto-monasticism’.” He was not a monk but lived an intensely devout life in the world. The key term is ihidaya which means single in the sense of unique, as was Christ (though none-the-less he is to be imitated), singleminded, concentrated upon Christ; with an undivided heart; like Adam when first created; and celibate. Some of this we find in Wesley. Singleness of heart and eye in total devotion to God-in-Christ above all else. And Wesley was much influenced in his first conversion and quest for holiness by Thomas à Kempis’s The Imitation of Christ, which he edited and issued for his people, though he thought à Kempis too severe and lacking in his own belief that holiness is happiness. Wesley believed that Christianity was essentially a social religion and to turn it into a solitary one was to destroy it. 13 “The bible knows nothing of Thoughts on Christian Perfection (1759); quoted Outler 1964, 294. Henry D. Rack, Reasonable Enthusiast (1989) 101f. 12 John Wesley and Christian Antiquity (Kingswood Books, 1991) x. 13 Works, V, 296. 10 11

John Wesley and Ephraem Syrus

[13]

279

solitary religion. There is no holiness but social holiness.” 14 Yet there was need for withdrawal, to commune with God in secret. He would have approved of silent retreats. He wrote Thoughts on a Single Life in 1764, which gathered up his previous teaching. He does not think that the single life is essential to ministry or that marriage is not a holy estate instituted by God, but is clear that a celibate can devote his whole time to God without distractions and endorses the beatitude on those who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He oscillated between thinking that the single life was his vocation and then becoming convinced that it was God’s will that he should marry, unfortunately as it turned out. His attitude was psychologically affected by his belief that he would never find a woman of his mother’s quality, but there is some truth in Ronald Knox’s belief that “his bent, if Providence had not seen fit to order his career otherwise, was towards a solitary, contemplative life.” 15 There was a streak of asceticism in him. He lived by rule in Oxford and Knox again is right when he says that “his ideal did not fall short of persuading 70,000 people to adopt, for all practical purposes, the rules of the Holy Club.” 16 He contemplated a distinctive dress for Methodists and they were to eschew adornments. He believed in fasting on Fridays and on Wednesdays too, a strict moderation of pleasure, and in eating and drinking, though he recognised the need for some relaxation and the healthgiving properties of wine, in spite of those dangers which led some to counsel total abstinence. He said at one stage “I never myself bought a lottery ticket; but I blame not those that do.” Later he had a share in one. But in his Oxford days he enjoyed the society of attractive young women in the Cotswolds. They talked much on serious subjects, though this does not preclude amorous affection by any means; and although somewhat distanced from it, he needed the very different society of those whom he made Methodists after 1738. But he became more serious, more concentrated on holiness as he entered the 1730s and I would say that the authentic Ephraim, like the Gnostic of Clement of Alexandria, represented something of his ideal Methodist. Introduction to Osbron (ed.), Poetical Works. Ronald Knox, Enthusiasm (Oxford, 1950) 431. 16 Knox 1950, 430. 14 15

280 [14]

Gordon Wakefield

The doctrine of theosis or deification is much misunderstood and misrepresented. It depends on that distinction I have mentioned, of which Frances Young is so well aware, between the essence and energies of God. Ephraim maintains that God intended the human person to become the likeness of God but that humanity “grabbed at divinity out of arrogance” and “lost the reward of divinity which God had intended if free will had properly been exercised. So great, however, is God’s love for humanity that, not only does he endeavour to bring Adam/humanity back to Paradise,” but “sent his Son who put him on in order to grant him his desire.” But “humanity’s destined potential of divinity belongs to the eschaton.” This status of divinised humanity is achieved solely through grace. There is still what Kierkegaard called “the infinite qualitative difference between God and man.” The doctrine of theosis or divinisation, as Ephraim understands it, is just a way of making explicit what it means to become “children of God,” seeing that in the Semitic languages, the term bar, “son of,” may have the sense of “sharing in the attributes of,” or “belonging to the category of.” There is an exchange through the Incarnation: He gave us divinity We gave him humanity.

[15]

[16]

That is a quotation from Ephraim. It might just as well have been his contemporary, Athanasius, who wrote: “God became man so that man might become god.” 17 Now John Wesley opened his Bible at 5 am on May 24th 1738 on 2 Peter 1: 4, that through “the great and precious promises” we may become “partakers of the divine nature,” a passage which though some dismiss as late and hellenised is identical with the future imperative of Matthew 5: 48, “Be ye perfect as your father in heaven is perfect,” which Luke replaces by “merciful.” Wesley insists that perfection, perfect love, is all of grace, just as Ephraim does with divinisation. And it is to be made children of God. “Adopt me by thy grace into thy family.” It is above all in the hymns that theosis has its place in Methodism. And is related to the incarnation: He deigns in flesh to appear Widest extremes to join; 17

Brock 1985, 123–8.

John Wesley and Ephraem Syrus

281

To bring our vileness near, And make us all divine And we the life of God shall know. For God is manifest below.

[17]

Benjamin Drewery has argued that in the last two lines, Charles Wesley “hastens to make clear that this is not theosis.” 18 Is to know God’s life “very different from sharing his being.” This is disputable. Is not knowledge, particularly in the Hebrew sense, participation, union? And in other Wesley hymns there is constant prayer for Christ’s likeness, “Give me thyself,” and that the Christian may attain, “Fullness of love—of heaven—of God.” Be it I no longer now Living in the flesh but thou.

[18]

Wesley prays to be made “all like God.” Christians are to be “transcripts of the Trinity,” mirrors of the Deity, temples filled with God, Plunged in the Godhead’s deepest sea And lost in thine immensity.

[19]

It must be admitted that as well as Ben Drewery, John Burnaby, dependent at this point on Frank Weston, questioned the literal truth of Irenaeus’s version of theosis. “Because of his immeasurable love he became what we are in order that we may become what he is.” “Our love of God will never be past measuring and if we can never reach identification with another human being, far less can we enter into the being of God.” The incarnation, he says, is God being taken out of himself to share our humanity and that “the union with God which that knowledge (i.e. through incarnation) gives is the closest union possible here and now between Creator and creature.” 19 There is a dispute here between East and West, of which Wesley may have been innocent, though he is pragmatically somewhat athwart the two. His brother, Charles, however, is even more with the East. There has been a change since Burnaby and Drewery wrote, for instance the rediscovery of the importance of the doctrine of deification in

Peter Brooks (ed.), Christian Spirituality (London, 1975) 58. John Burnaby, Christian Words and Christian Meanings (London, 1956) 65f. 18 19

282

[20]

Gordon Wakefield

Martin Luther, which is indebted to Lutheran-Orthodox dialogue. The old controversy may be dead or dying. 20 Ephraim has a poem on Virginity in which he contrasts outward and inward circumcision: With a circumcised heart Uncircumcision becomes holy in the bridal chamber of such a person’s heart the Creator resides. 21

[21]

[22]

On January 1st 1733, John Wesley preached a university sermon which, though so early and before Aldersgate Street, encapsulates the doctrine of his whole life. It was on “The Circumcision of the Heart" (Romans 2: 29). Outward forms and observances are not the marks of the true followers of Christ, but rather “a right state at soul, a mind and spirit renewed after the image of him that created it.” This is attained by humility, by faith in God, by joyful assurance, but also by “a constant and continual course of general self-denial” and above all by love, “cutting off both the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life, engaging the whole person in the ardent pursuit of God.” “Let your soul be filled with so entire a love of him that you may love nothing but for his sake.” Thirdly, for both the Wesleys as for Ephraim, poetry was the vehicle of their theology. I would want to claim with Donald Davie and against Lord David Cecil, for instance, that hymns are poetry, certainly in the best examples of the Wesleys. As Sebastian Brock points out poetry “serves as a much needed antidote to that tradition of theologising which seeks to provide theological definitions, Greek horoi or boundaries. To Ephraim, theological definitions are not only potentially dangerous, but they can also be actually blasphemous." In Methodism “our hymns” balance John’s perpetual prose arguments with their aim to show the essential Christian truth, orthodoxy and reasonableness of Methodism. In poetry the words point beyond themselves: it is not at the clothing of the words that one should gaze but at the power hidden in the words.

20 21

Cf. A. M. Allchin, N. F. S. Grundtvig (1997) 325, n. 12. Brock 1985, 104.

John Wesley and Ephraem Syrus [23]

283

Poetry, says Seamus Heaney, brings human existence into fuller life. It seeks to express the inexpressible by use of images and can represent something of the limitless immensity of God, and the wonder of his being, says Brock. Such a sense of wonder is all pervasive in Ephraim’s writings. “Blessed is he who has astounded our thought by the simple things of life” he exclaims. 22 But it is wonder above all at the supreme manifestation of God’s love for humanity when he “put on humanity;” 23 “it is a matter of wonder that God has bent down to dust.” 24 There is much of this in the Wesley hymns, for instance in the one entitled “Free Grace:” Amazing love! How can it be? That thou my God shouldst die for me! ‘Tis mystery all! The Immortal dies: Who can explore his strange design? In vain the first born seraph tries To sound the depths of love divine. ‘Tis mercy all! Let earth adore Let angel minds enquire no more! He left his father’s throne above, So free, so infinite his grace, Emptied himself of all but love And bled for Adam’s helpless race.

[24]

The very phrase “The Immortal died” (with the impassable suffered) has been used in the exposition of Ephraim. There is a nativity hymn which, whether consciously or not, echoes Ephraim: Being’s source begins to be And God himself is born! Stand amazed ye heavens at this, See the Lord of earth and skies Humbled to the dust he is, And in a manger lies.

[25]

It is important that hymns are to be sung, as well as with Methodists, used in private devotion. John Wesley, and in our own century, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, both stressed the spirituality of hymn singing, though the music would be very different from the Syrian, 22 23

35: 7. 24

Hymni de fide (ed. Beck 1955), 43, response. Hymni de Ieiunio (ed. Beck) 3: 45; Hymni contra Haereses (ed. Beck) Hymni de fide, 46:11; Brock 1985, 30.

284

[26]

[27]

Gordon Wakefield

or any from the East. Ephraim has been called “the real father of Christian hymnography.” There seem to be hymns quoted in the New Testament and apart from Psalms and charismatic outpourings (“spiritual songs”) they belong to the origins of Christianity, while “Hail gladdening light” was regarded as ancient by St. Basil. Bardesanes of Mesopotamia (154–222) composed 150 psalms and Nepos of Alexandria wrote hymns that were a source of comfort to many in the middle at the third century. There was always a danger that hymns might mean that Christians sang heresy, as with Paul of Samosata whose hymns glorified himself. Ephraim wrote hymns to secure the victory for Nicene orthodoxy, as did Wesley. Ephraim “composed metrical homilies (memre) using the same rhythms as Bardesanes with each verse having the same number of syllables and a set number of accents. They became extremely popular, for when divided into stanzas, they allowed the congregation to participate by singing a refrain (madrosho); sometimes they took the form of acrostic poems (soghyoto).” 25 John Wesley calls Ephraim, “the man of a broken heart.” He lived at a time of the bitter Arian controversy and when he had to spend the last ten years of his life in Edessa, he found himself surrounded by fierce exponents of conflicting heresies and also gave himself to the victims of famine, rather as the octogenarian Wesley went begging for the poor in the London snow. He was by nature a man at peace whose life was above all, with God and this could not exempt him from some of the sufferings of the incarnate. Eavan Boland has said that “the origins of poetic time must always be in a suffering world rather than in a conscious craft” and maybe there is something of heartbreak in all poetry. But it is Ephraim’s Exhortations, which so moved Wesley. He read them, for instance, on Ash Wednesday 1747 and wrote in his Journal, “Surely never did any man since David, give us such a picture of a broken and contrite heart.” There are other images in common—fire for instance. Ephraim frequently describes the divinity as fire. John Wesley wrote of fire as the symbol of love “But truth surpasses figure; and the fire of Divine love has this advantage over material fire that it can re-ascend to its source and raise thither with it all the good 25

A. G. Martimort, The Liturgy and Time (London, 1986) 212f.

John Wesley and Ephraem Syrus

[28]

[29]

[30]

285

works which it produces.” 26 One of the greatest and most frequently sung of Charles Wesley’s hymns prays that “the flame of sacred love [may burn] on the mean altar of my heart” (Leviticus 6: 113) may “trembling to its source return in humble love and fervent praise.” The Lord’s words in Luke about him coming to cast fire on earth are interpreted in this and other hymns as referring to Divine love rather than judgement, though the two are not separable. There are concepts in Ephraim not found in Wesley. Their use and exegesis of scripture would demand another paper, but I do not think Wesley was so much into the spiritual meaning of scripture as into what he thought was its plain, historical sense. He avoids allegory and typology. Nor had he Ephraim’s ecological concerns or nature imagery. His movement did result in a certain feminism, the use of women in Methodism, though more in some branches than others. Dinah Morris from George Eliot’s Adam Bedehas has only just come into her own. There has been a legend of Wesley, though not to the extent of Ephraim for obvious reasons. He has been made in the image of those who revered him. Aspects have been exaggerated to conform to the predilections of his interpreters. He has been seen as one who threw off all “rags of popery” after 1738, while others have presented him as essentially the high churchman and in our own time have sought to trace his affinities with Rome, which exist in his love of holiness. There is perhaps more evidence of links with orthodoxy as shown in the little symposium Donald Allchin edited: We Belong to One Another (1965). It would be interesting to compare the legend of Ephraim’s dormition with the story of Wesley’s deathbed as the evangelicals who crowded it believed they saw the translation of their saint to glory. I have not gone into the question as to whether Wesley’s reading was in Ephraim or Pseudo-Ephraim. That Methodists tended to ignore Ephraim was due to the increasing emphasis on revival rather than nurture, contrary to Wesley, the belief that God would do again what he had done through his Methodist people under Wesley and, spasmodically later on. There was also the fear aroused among evangelicals by the Oxford Movement and its opposition to Methodism as vulgarizing and cheapening the 26

Works, XI, 441.

286

Gordon Wakefield

Gospel, which prevented the unity in common understanding of the Fathers which there ought to have been and could be now. But it is moving to imagine that some of the early nineteenth-century preachers, miners, factory workers and fishermen, may have had their sermons shaped by reading on their founder’s instructions this Syrian Father of so long before. It is an example of catholicity, or sobornost, which reaches across time, geography and culture and binds all Disciples of Christ in one.

REFERENCES Allchin 1997 Allchin, A. (Donald) M. N. F. S. Grundtvig (London, 1997). Brock 1985 Brock, Sebastian. The Luminous Eye (C. I. I. S., 294, Corso Vittorio Emmanuele, IV Piano, 00186; Rome, 1985). Brock 1992 Brock, S. The Luminous Eye: The Spiritual World Vision of Saint Ephrem the Syrian (Cistercian Studies Series 124; Kalamazoo, 1992). Brooks 1975 Brooks, Peter. Christian Spirituality (London, 1975). Burnaby Burnaby, John. Christian Words and Christian Meanings 1956 (London, 1956) 65f. Campbell, E. (Ted) A. John Wesley and Christian Antiquity Campbell 1989 (Nashville, Tennessee, 1989). Curnock Curnock, Nehemiah, ed. Journal of John Wesley, 8 vols. 1909–16 (London, 1909–16). Jackson 1831 Jackson, Thomas, ed. Works of John Wesley, 14 vols. (London, 1831). Knox 1950 Knox, Ronald. Enthusiasm (Oxford, 1950). Martimort Martimort, A. G. The Liturgy and Time (London, 1986). 1986 Osborn Osborn, George. The Poetical Works of John and Charles Wesley, 1868–72 13 vols. (London, 1868–72). Outler 1964 Outler, Albert C., ed. John Wesley (Oxford, 1964). Rack 1989 Rack, Henry D. Reasonable Enthusiast (London, 1989). Smith 1673 Smith, John. Selected Discourses (London, 1673). Wesley 1759 Wesley, John. Thoughts on Christian Perfection (London, 1759). Wesley 1781 Wesley, John. Concise Ecclesiastical History from the Birth of Christ to the Beginning of the Present Century, 4 vols. (London, 1781).

CONFERENCE REPORT Syriac Session at The North American Patristic Society Annual Meeting, May 28–30, 1998 JOSEPH AMAR, UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME

[1]

The North American Patristic Society held its annual meeting at Loyola University (Chicago) May 28–30, 1998. The meeting, which was attended by a record number of scholars, also saw an especially impressive representation of papers related to different aspects of Syriac studies. The Syriac Session took place on Saturday afternoon from 1:30–4:15. A total of six papers were read. A listing of authors and titles follows: Susan Meyers, University of Notre Dame. “‘Come, hidden Mother:’ Initiatory Spirit Epicleses in Syriac-Speaking Christianity (Acts of Thomas).” Paul S. Russell, Chevy Chase, MD, USA. “Ephraem the Syrian on the Utility of Language and the Place of Silence.” Ute Possekel, Woburn, MA, USA. “Hellenism in the East: Evidence of Greek Philosophical Concepts in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian.” Hieromonk Dr. Alexander Golitzin, Marquette University. “The Image and Glory of God in Jacob of Serug’s Homily ‘On the Chariot that Ezekiel Saw:’ Some Reflections on a ‘Monophysite Christology.’” Abdul Massih Saadi, Lutheran School of Theology. “Contextualization of Christian Theology: Moshe bar Kepha’s Writings.” John C. Lamoreaux, Duke University. “The Dialogue of John of Edessa and Phineas the Jew.”

[2]

The session was chaired by Joseph P. Amar, University of Notre Dame. Owing to the number of papers presented, comments were limited to one or two respondents.

287

PROJECT REPORT Recent Discoveries of Wall-Paintings in Deir Al-Surian KAREL C. INNEMÉE, LEIDEN UNIVERSITY

1. INTRODUCTION [1]

[2]

[3]

The Sketis, now known as Wadi al-Natrun, is one of the oldest centres of monastic settlements in Egypt. This region of salt-lakes is situated west of the Nile-delta, half-way between Cairo and Alexandria. Of the many monastic settlements in this area, four monasteries have survived and are still inhabited: Deir (“Monastery”) Abu Maqar, Deir Anba Bishoi, Deir al-Surian and Deir al-Baramus. The origin of these monasteries lies in the period between the 4th and the 6th century and they have known an almost uninterrupted habitation. Their architecture and collections of icons and manuscripts reflect the traditions of fifteen centuries of Christian history of Egypt. Deir al-Surian, or “The Monastery of the Syrians,” occupies a special position among the Coptic monasteries. Built by monks from the neighbouring Deir Anba Bishoi in the sixth century, it passed into the hands of Syrian monks, probably during the eighth or ninth century. Syrians have been visiting Wadi al-Natrun as pilgrims, merchants or as refugees in times of trouble. From the ninth century onward the monastery was inhabited by mainly Syrian monks, although contacts with neighbouring monasteries and the local population were maintained. During the ninth and tenth centuries an exceptionally rich library of Syriac (and later also of Arabic) manuscripts was collected in the monastery. Many manuscripts of this library can now be found in libraries in London, Rome, St. Petersburg and Paris. In the course of the sixteenth and seventeenth century the Syrian population of the monastery gradually died out and Coptic monks took possession of the monastery once again. The more than 100 monks that inhabit the monastery nowadays are all Egyptians, but the Syrian history of the monastery lives on in its name and its treasures of art. The oldest church of the monastery is dedicated to the Holy Virgin (Al-ȨAdrć‚). Its original construction dates back to the middle of the 7th century. In 1991, after a fire that destroyed most 288

Project Report

[4]

289

of a painting in the western half-dome of the church, an older layer of painting was uncovered of which the existence was expected already by Jules Leroy. 1 Only after the removal and conservation of the heavily damaged layer of painting by a French-Netherlands team, headed by Prof. Paul van Moorsel, it was shown that the underlying painting represented the Annunciation, executed in a style and technique so far unknown in Christian art in Egypt. 2 So far there is no certainty concerning the dating of this painting, the identity or origin of the painter. 3 Between 1991 and 1994 in several other parts of the church plaster fell off or was removed, showing traces of older painting. The questions surrounding the Annunciation-painting and the need to preserve the fragments found later were the main reasons to undertake a short campaign in September 1995. 4 It had a two-fold purpose: preserving the (fragments of) paintings uncovered before and investigating the possible existence of more paintings under later layers of plaster. More than 50 test patches (‘windows’) were opened and revealed the presence of at least three painted layers of plaster on almost all walls of the building. A second mission was undertaken in September 1996 with the purpose of further uncovering and consolidating of a number of paintings and inscriptions discovered in the previous season. The architectural context of the paintings was also a subject of investigation. In 1996, Dr. Peter Grossmann of the German Archaeological Institute in Cairo (DAI) was able to draw a number of conclusions concerning the original shape of the church after the removal of plaster in certain parts of the walls. In November 1997 work was continued and in January 1998 a fourth campaign was undertaken. This report presents some of the

J. Leroy, Les peintures des couvents du Ouadi Natroun (Cairo, 1982) 69, pl. 128. 2 P. van Moorsel, “La grande annonciation de Deir es Sourian,” Bulletin de l’Institut Francais d’Archeologie Orientale 95 (1995): 517–37. 3 The proceedings of a symposium on this subject, reflecting the diversity in opinions, are published in Cahiers ArchǷologiques 43 (1995): 117 sqq. 4 This and following campaigns were undertaken under responsibility of the Netherlands Institute in Cairo (NIAASC) by Karel Innemée (Leiden University) and Mrs. Ewa Parandowska (restorer at the National Museum, Warsaw). 1

290

Project Report

most important paintings uncovered and conserved during these campaigns.

2. STRATIGRAPHY OF THE LAYERS OF PLASTER [5]

In the present state of the research the following layers of plaster and painting can be distinguished: 1.

The first layer of plaster, most probably applied shortly after the building was finished (i.e. approx. 645 A.D.). It consists of a coarse, yellow layer of mortar, covered with a white limewash. The first traces of decoration on this layer consist of (probably decorative) patterns in yellow and red ocre. Before applying a more sophisticated layer of painting, the paintings in ocre were in some places white-washed with a layer of light grey limewash. This can be seen most clearly on the separation-wall between the nave and the khurus (the part of a Coptic church that corresponds roughly to the transept in western architecture), left of the door between both spaces. Where no previous painting was present, this second layer of painting was applied directly on the first plaster. The paintings belonging to this layer have most probably not been executed in the same period, but over a span of several centuries, between the 7th and the 12th. Apart from paintings, this layer contains several inscriptions, both in Coptic and Syriac. At least in one place, again left of the doorway leading into the khurus, this layer was partially plastered over with a grey plaster, in order to add an inscription. This Syriac inscription was dated to the 12th century (1155/6 A.D.?). Most of the inner surface of the church was plastered over at a certain moment with a white lime-sand plaster. This layer carries paintings which have been dated to the 13th century on the basis of their style. The paintings in the half-domes belong to this layer, but also in several other places paintings or remains of paintings in the same style have been found. It seems that both plastering and painting were done in the 13th century by one artist or one group of artists in order to re-decorate the church with one coherent decoration. In 1498 A.M., i.e. 1781/2 A.D. 5 the interior of the church was re-plastered with a pinkish-grey plaster. By then several of the paintings on the columns were completely or partially covered

2.

3.

4.

5.

According to a document in the archives of the monastery (oral information from Father Martyros al-Souriani). 5

Project Report

291

by the masonry piers that had been constructed (in the 14th or 15th century?) to support the barrel-vault over the nave. Before this re-plastering, loose plaster from previous centuries was removed from the walls. Much of this debris was dumped in the space between the seperation wall between nave and khurus and a wall built in front of it later.

3. WALL-PAINTINGS UNCOVERED 3.1. Decorative Lower Zone [6]

In 1995 investigations were started on the northern wall of the khurus, where in recent times fragments of painting became visible after loose plaster had dropped off. Further removal of plaster brought to light part of a decoration, consisting of a painted imitation of columns, carrying and architrave. This lower zone reaches up to a height of approx. 2 meters. Window 7, on the north wall of the khurus, revealed the lower part of a standing figure, probably that of a saint, on top of this architrave. This decorative lower zone must have been present on all the walls of the church, running along the walls of the nave and the khurus. This could be deduced from that fact that in all cases where a window was opened at approximately 2m from the floor, remains of the painted architrave were found. This lower zone has served as a basic decoration of the interior of the church and in the following centuries paintings and inscriptions were added on the higher parts of the wall. One of these inscriptions, a Syriac text on the southern wall of the nave (window 30, text I) is dated three hundred and twenty (...) A.H., i.e. 932/940 A.D. 6 This gives us a terminus ante quem for the decorative lower zone. Given the fact that the dated Syriac text is written over an older and faded inscription, the decorative painting might date back to the 9th or even the 8th century. 7 6 This and other texts discovered in the church will be published in K.D. Jenner & L. Van Rompay, “New Syriac texts on the walls of the Al-‘Adra Church of Dair al-Suryan, first notes,” in Mitteilungen zur Christlichen ArchDzologie (Vienna). 7 A comparable iconography can be found in the 13th century painting of the three Patriarchs in the old church of St. Anthony’s monastery near the Red Sea; P. van Moorsel, Les Peintures du monastǶre de Saint-Antoine prǶs de la Mer Rouge (Institut Francais d’Archeologie Orientale; Cairo, 1995) 95–8.

292

Project Report

3.2. The Three Patriarchs (Fig. 1) [7]

In 1995 one of the windows on the same wall of the church revealed the face of an old man with a grey beard (window 59). In 1996 this window was enlarged in order to uncover the complete painting, measuring approximately 2 x 2 meters. The composition shows the three Old Testament patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, enthroned in paradise with the souls of the blessed, represented as small naked figures, on their laps. They are dressed in brown and reddish brown tunics and pallia. Only the middle one wears a white pallium. All three have almost identical, severe faces and long, white hair. A peculiar detail is that the three arch-fathers are feeding the blessed fruits. In the background there are four trees from which similar naked figures are picking fruits. The tree in the upper left corner is still covered by plaster and painting supposed to be from the 13th century. There are no inscriptions in the painting mentioning the names or the subject, which suggests that the representation must have been easily recognizable to the viewers. This is hardly suprising, since the daily evening prayer in the Coptic Church contains a prayer for the dead, saying “Graciously, O Lord, repose all their souls in the bosom of our holy fathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.” 8 The theme of the three patriarchs enthroned in paradise occurs in iconography only since the 9th/10th century 9 and this is the first example in Coptic wallpainting known so far. An exact dating for the painting is hard to give, but since it is partially covered by a painting supposed to be from the 13th century and considering its style it might be dated to the 11th century.

8 The Coptic Liturgy of St. Basil (Cairo: St. John the Beloved Press, 1993) 16. 9 E. Lucchesi Palli, “Abraham,” in E. Kirschbaum (ed.), Lexikon der Christlichen Ikonographie I (Rome, 1970) 30.

Project Report

293

Fig. 1: The Three Old Testament Patriarchs, represented in paradise with the souls of the blessed on their knees, ca. 1000 A.D.

294

Project Report

3.3. The Virgin Galaktotrophousa [8]

In the khurus of the church a thick layer of 18th century plaster was removed from two half-columns engaged to the pier on the right side of the entrance into the haikal (sanctuary). In 1995 a window (nr. 57) was opened in a layer of plaster, heavily damaged by nails driven into one of the half-columns. Further removal of the plaster in 1996 revealed a representation of the Virgin, breast-feeding Christ. The position of this painting is remarkable, since normally speaking a painting or icon of Christ would be expected in this position, with the Virgin and child at the left side of the entrance to the haikal. The Virgin is seated on a delicately decorated throne with a red cushion. She wears a blue tunic with red potamoi and a blueish green maphorion over it. The maphorion is decorated with crosses. Her eyes are looking straight ahead. Her head is surrounded by a yellow halo, against the background of a red halfcircle, probably meant to represent the upper part of the back-rest of the throne. With her right hand, in which she holds a mappa, she supports the infant Christ, while her left hand supports her breast, depicted unnaturally small. Left of her head there is the Greek text H A(gamma)IA, written as a monogram; the name MAPIA, which doubtlessly must have been written at the other side of her head, has been lost. The background of the painting is dark blue and it is surrounded by a black and an orange-red line. A number of characteristics of this painting indicate an early date: it has been painted by a skilled master, who worked in a technique which at least for the part of the face is very close to the style of painting in the Fayyoum-portraits. The texture of the paint is similar and although no analysis of the paint has been done, it would not be surprising if the technique used for the face of the Virgin would turn out to be encaustic. The iconographical detail of the infant Christ sitting on the right knee of His mother occurs in early paintings and becomes more and more rare in later times. 10 The same is the case for the epigraphy: H A(gamma)IA MAPIA (hǶ Hagia Maria) is the earliest inscription in representations of the 10 Most, if not all, known examples of the Virgin suckling Christ, sitting on her right knee, date from the 7th century. Cf. G.A. Wellen, Theotokos (Utrecht/Antwerpen, 1960) Beilage III: Bawit, Ch. 42, Room 30; Saqqara, Cells A, 1725, 1807; p. 192.

Project Report

295

Virgin, later to be replaced by MP (theta)Y, the abbreviation for ‘Mother of God’. In these respects the painting is comparable to a painting from room 30 in Bawit, where the same composition with the same epigraphy can be seen. 11 These factors, combined with the fact that a painting of the Virgin would be one of the first subjects to be represented in a church dedicated to her, make it likely to assume that this mural painting belongs to the second half of the 7th century. 3.4. Unidentified Military Saint (Fig. 2) [9]

On the other half-column, engaged to the same pier, a painting of a standing military saint was uncovered. Complete uncovering was impossible, since the left part of the painting was covered by the right door-jamb of the haikal-doors, constructed in 913/4 A.D. It shows a standing, beardless young man, dressed in a blue tunic, covered by a shorter, reddish-brown tunic. He wears a girdle from which a sword hangs in a red sheath. He holds its hilt with his left hand, while his left hand holds a staff. He has dark, half-long hair and his eyes look straight ahead. The head is surrounded by yellow halo, framed by a black line with white dots on it. At the right side of the head the last letters of a Greek inscription ending in ... C (gios), ... C(rios) or ... C(tios) are visible. If this is the last part of the name of the saint, it could be Sergios, Dimitrios or Georgios, all three known to be depicted as young, beardless men. Considering the space available for the inscription, it must have been a short name, which makes Sergios one of the most probable identifications. In early iconography milutary saints are often depicted standing, instead of mounted on horesback. Although the state of preservation of the face is worse than that of the Virgin, it is rather clear that the style of painting is different. Also the way of rendering the folds in the dress shows a different style. It might therefore be the work of another master, but similarities in the technique of painting make a dating in the second half of the 7th century, but maybe slightly later than the painting of Virgin, acceptable.

G. Maspero, Fouilles executǷes Ǯ Baouit = Melanges de l’Institut Francais d’Archeologie Orientale 59 (1931): pl. XLII, XLIII. 11

296

Project Report

Fig. 2: Unidentified military saint (St. Sergios?), beginning 8th cent.?

Project Report [10]

297

The same half-column carries decorative paintings below and above the painting of the unknown saint. Below, a red cross has been painted, surrounded by horseshoe-shaped wreath of green leaves. The capital of the half-column is conical in shape and it is decorated with a similar motive: a cross in two shades of red, surrounded by green branches. It would have been interesting to know what themes were represented on the counterpart of this pier, the one on the left side of the entrance to the haikal, but no traces of paintings have been found here. As remarked already, it was and still is usual in Eastern Churches to find the Virgin enthroned left of the haikal and the painting or icon of Christ at the right. The question whether Christ was depicted on the left in the case of this church and if so, for what reason the two representations were inversed, will therefore be hard to answer. 3.5. Paintings on the Upper Walls of the Khurus

[11]

On the eastern wall, just under the dome, traces of paintings were found, belonging to layer 2 (window 66). In the lower part of the dome apart of a Coptic inscription on layer 2 was found, probably running all around the inside of the dome (window 67). Of the text only the four letters ... (pani).. were uncovered, too little to translate. Later, in January, the continuation of the same text was found in the southern part of the dome. This text reads: + . (?) (E N O Y M E (theta) M H (phi) H (theta) A . (gamma) I) ...this is in truth that what the Lord has...

[12]

[13]

The remaining part of this text is expected to be found in one of the following seasons. Over this text remains of paintings were found, suggesting that the inside of the dome was painted and may be still containing paintings. Below this text, on the southern wall of the khurus, a number of paintings were found that can be called very important for Coptic painting (Figs. 3 and 4). The wall has three windows, the right one having been walled up. Between the left and the middle window in the upper zone there is a beardless man seated on a two-wheeled chariot, holding a tablet in his hand with a Coptic inscription. In a T-shape, above, right of his head there is a Coptic inscription (pi)E(theta)(omega)(sj) NKANTAKH (the black man of the Kandake). This is an illustration of the New Testament book

298

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

Project Report

of Acts 8: 27, where the conversion of the chamberlain of the Ethiopian queen by the deacon Philip is described. Of the figure of Philip nothing but his raised hand in gesture of speach is preserved. The second scene of this story was depicted on the same level between the middle and the right window. A Coptic inscription reads: (pi)ICIOYP (the eunuch). Although heavily damaged, the scene is clearly recognizable as the baptism of the eunuch, probably taking place under a sort of red canopy. A part of his bare shoulder and the hand of Philip over his head have been preserved and in the lower part of the scene two feet between wavy lines, representing water, are visible. In the lower part between the left and middle window there is a scene which was at first puzzling: a standing man with grey hair seems to adress five figures with dog-heads. The scene can be identified as St. Andrew preaching in the land of the dog-headed (kynokephaloi) cannibals. This aprocryphal story is related in the Acta Andreae et Matthiae apud anthropofagos. 12 Between the middle and the right (walled-up) window a second baptism scene was found. The same man as in the scene of the dog-heads (St. Andrew) is shown, baptising two people. This scene is probably intended to show the continuation of the missionary work of Andrew among the pagans. These scenes show themes that are rare in Christian iconography. So far there is no evidence for the reason why they were represented here, but since the subject of both is conversion and baptism of foreign people, there might have been a context connected with Pentecost. It is not to be excluded that the dome over the khurus contained such a representation. During following seasons attention will be focused on the remains of paintings in the dome and the walls just below the dome. Right of the right window and left of the left window, in the corners of the khurus, the remains of in total four crosses were found. These crosses, all different in shape, have been painted in mainly red and green and are surrounded by a frame of red with a row of white dots on a black line in it.

12

F. Blatt (trans.), Toepelman (Giessen, 1930).

Project Report

299

Fig. 3: The conversion of the eunuch of Candace, 10th–11th cent.?

300

Project Report

Fig. 4: St. Andrew preaching to dog-headed people, 10th-11th cent.?

Project Report

301

3.6. Other Paintings in the Khurus [18]

There is very clear evidence for more paintings on the walls in the khurus: several fragments of paintings representing saints have been discovered during the 1995 season. On the half-column opposite the painting of the Virgin the lower part and the face of a male saint with grey hair have been discovered (windows 18 and 19). On the wall over the entrance to the southern haikal window 53 shows the head of a horse, possibly part of a painting of a mounted saint. On the southern wall of the khurus a fragment of drapery is visible (window 54). In the northern khurus several fragments of the decorative lower zone and figures painted over it have been uncovered (windows 7–16). All these fragments seem to belong to layer 2. The presence of layer 1 underneath can be noticed in a small number of windows. 3.7. St. Dioscorus

[19]

[20]

On the easternmost column in the northern nave, two windows were opened in 1995 (nrs 42, 43). These revealed two standing figures with monk’s caps. Next to the head of one remains of an inscription were visible. This season both paintings were entirely uncovered. Both paintings are on layer 4 and are similar in style to other paintings in the church, dated to the 13th century. The inscription next to the head of one of the two became clear and readable: 6 Letters in Greek: ( ) C (O) C and an inscription in Syriac: Dioscorus the Patriarch. He is depicted in the costume of a monk with the rank of a priest. No episcopal vestments can be recognized. He wears a phelonion covered with medallions, nine originally, of which 6 are still visible. Under the phelonion a red sticharion with an epitrachelion are visible. The epitrachelion is decorated with a rectangular field covered with circles with dots inside. The lower part of the painting is missing; here the 18th century plaster is directly applied on the brick of the column. The counterpart of this painting is to be found at the opposite side of the nave, where a similar head is visible. This might be St. Severus, who is often depicted as a counterpart of Dioscorus. On the northern face of the column the second figure turned out to be in a lesser state of preservation. Apart from the vague contours of a standing figure in the dress of a monk, nothing could be distinguished.

302

Project Report

3.8. The Palimpsest Wall (Fig. 5) [21]

In the eastern part of the northern wall of the nave, where windows 39 and 40 were opened in 1995, these windows were enlarged and a large surface, covered with inscriptions, was revealed. On either sides of this surface a walled-up window was discovered under the plaster of layer 4, suggesting that these windows were closed in the 13th century or earlier. The inscriptions, most of them in Syriac and Coptic, were mainly found on layer 2, but several local overplasterings can be distinguished, indicting that for a long time inscriptions were added on this wall. On later overplasterings also Arabic inscriptions can be found. A full translation of the texts is not yet available. One fragment is a part from the Coptic liturgy, other inscriptions seem to be made by visitors as graffiti. The reason that especially this wall of the church was popular among visitors for leaving inscriptions seems to be the presence of the relic-shrine in the N–E corner of the nave. The present maqsura (shrine) cannot be much older than the 18th century, but the niche in which it stand has the same dimensions as the 11th cent. relic shrine, made in the time of abbot Moses of Nisibis, now kept in the store of the monastery. This can be taken as an indiation that from an early moment this corner of the church was the place where the relics were kept and venerated by visitors. 3.9. Various Test Patches

[22]

[23]

In the khurus a number of test patches were made to investigate the presence of paintings. On the western and northen walls no evidence for paintings underneath could be found. At the inside of the arch between the nave and the khurus no painting was found; on the western face of the same arch fragements of floral decoration were found. A test patch on the southern wall of the nave, opened in spring ‘97 (window 73), showing a fragment of a painting on layer 4, was cleaned an showed a part of a horse’s head and a hand holding a cross.

Project Report

Fig. 5: Palimpsest-Wall with Syriac and Coptic inscriptions.

303

304

Project Report

3.10. Paintings in the Haikal (Sanctuary) [24]

Under the squinches in the N–E and N–W corners of the sanctuary remains of paintings were found on the wooden beams. The clearly represent winged creatures, possibly Cherubim or apocalyptic creatures (tetramorphs), much similar to the tetramorph in the haikal of Benjamin in Deir Abu Maqar. Although these paintings were never covered by plaster, they were not noticed until now.

CONFERENCE ANNOUNCEMENT SyrCOM-99: Third International Forum on Syriac Computing In association with SYRIAC SYMPOSIUM III June 18 or 19, 1999 GEORGE KIRAZ, USA

[1]

[2]

[3]

The first forum in this series was held (in association with Syriac Symposium II) in 1995 at the Catholic University of America, Washington D.C. The second forum was held (in association with VIIum SYMPOSIUM SYRIACUM) in 1996 at Uppsala University, Sweden. SyrCOM-99 will be held in association with SYRIAC SYMPOSIUM III at the University of Notre Dame, Indiana. The aim of this series of forums is two-fold: firstly, to give academics and professionals who work on computational projects related to Syriac studies an opportunity to meet and share their work and experience; secondly, to provide scholars and computer users with presentations and talks which may be of help in practical applications such as word processing, fonts and other user-related software. Selected papers will be published (using high quality photocopying) and distributed during the conference. Papers on all aspects of Syriac computing are welcomed, including, but not limited to: — databases (lexical, bibliographical, catalogues, etc.) — word processing / fonts — desktop publishing — concordance generation — text alignment — critical editions — computational linguistics — art/images and graphics — computer aided learning/teaching — reviews of software and systems

[4]

Deadlines and Dates: January 2, 1999: Submission of abstract. January 15: Notification of acceptance for presentation. 305

306

Conference Announcement February 1: Submission of full paper for review. April 1: Notification of acceptance for publication. May 1: Submission of final paper in camera-ready form.

[5]

[6]

[7]

Two-page abstract must be submitted (preferably by email) by January 2, 1999. (However, it is appreciated if contributors send abstracts at their earliest convenience). Notification of acceptance for presentation will be sent by January 15. Five (5) copies of the paper must be submitted in hard-copy (i.e., on paper) form for reviewing purposes by February 1. Notification of acceptance for publication will be sent in April 1. Camera-ready-copy of accepted papers, incorporating reviewers' comments and guidelines, must be submitted no later than May 1 for publication. All submissions should be sent to Dr. Kiraz (address below). Contributors who find meeting a specific deadline difficult for special circumstances must contact Dr. Kiraz well in advance. Reviewing Committee: Dr. Gary Anderson, Harvard University. Dr. James Coakley, Harvard University. Dr. George A. Kiraz, Bell-Labs, Lucent Technologies. Dr. Bonnie G. Stalls, ISI, University of Southern California.

[8]

Registration: SyrCOM-99 is part of Syriac Symposium III. All matters regarding registration will be made available later on. For all matters regarding SyrCOM-99, please contact (preferably by e-mail): Dr. George A. Kiraz (SyrCOM-99) Language Modeling Research Bell Laboratories, Lucent Technologies Room 2D-446, 700 Mountain Ave., Murray Hill, NJ 07974 Fax. +1 908 582 3306 (Attn. G. Kiraz) E-mail: [email protected]

Redefining Christian Identity Christian Cultural Strategies Since the Coming of Islam April 7–11, 1999 HELEEN L. MURRE-VAN DEN BERG, UNIVERSITY OF LEIDEN

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

Next year, April 7 to 11, 1999, a symposium will take place at Groningen University (Groningen, The Netherlands), which is jointly organized by scholars of Groningen and Leiden University. Its main theme concerns the ways in which the various Christian communities of the Middle East over the ages defined their identity in an overwhelmingly Muslim environment. This overall theme will be dealt with from four different perspectives: — Christian apologetic literature vis-a-vis Islam. — Christian perception of history. — Common motifs in Christian and Islamic Literature. — Language, Literature, and Identity. These four themes will cover the period from the earliest encounters between Christians and Muslims in the seventh century till the growing influence of the Christian West on MuslimChristian relations in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Due attention will be given to the specific characteristics of the different Christian communities in the region, that is, to the Arabic-speaking, Armenian-speaking and Aramaic-speaking groups. Scholars working in these various fields will contribute to the symposium. The organizers invite those who would like to stay informed about this symposium to contact dr Jan van Ginkel ([email protected]) or dr Heleen Murre-van den Berg ([email protected]). The organizing committee of the conference consists of: Prof dr H.W.J. Drijvers, prof dr L. Van Rompay, prof dr J.J.S. Weitenberg, dr G.J. Reinink, dr J. van Ginkel, dr T.M. van Lint, drs B. Roggema, dott. A. Mengozzi, and dr H.L. Murre-van den Berg.

307

PUBLICATIONS AND BOOK REVIEWS The Old Testament in Syriac According to the Peshitta Version. Edited on behalf of the international organization for the study of the Old Testament by The Peshitta Institute, Leiden. Part V: Concordance, vol. 1: The Pentateuch, prepared by P.G. Borbone, J. Cook, K.D. Jenner, D.M. Walter in collaboration with J.A. Lund, M.P. Weitzmann. Brill, Leiden-New York-Köln 1997. ANDREAS JUCKEL, UNIVERSITY OF MÜNSTER

[1]

[2]

[3]

In 1972 the first volume of the Old Testament according to the Peshitta version, prepared by the Peshitta Institute at Leiden, was published. By 1991, twelve additional volumes followed; five remain to appear. 1 This good progress of the edition and its expected completion in the near future enabled the general editor(s) to commence work on the concordance project which is planned to appear in six volumes. The first volume of the concordance is the volume reviewed at hand comprising the books Genesis— Deuteronomy. The 2nd volume will comprise the historical books Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah; the 3rd the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Dodekapropheton, Daniel—Bel—Draco; the 4th Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Song of Songs, Qohelet, Lamentations, Esther; the 5th the deutero-canonical and apocryphal books Judith, Susanna, Tobit, Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Jesus Sirach, Epistle of Jeremiah, Epistle of Baruch, Baruch, Apocalypse of Baruch, Maccabees, III Ezra, Odes, Prayer of Manasse, Apocryphal Psalms, Psalms of Solomon; the 6th vol. will be a General Index (i.e., a summary of the vocabulary given separately in each of the concordance volumes with additional material). The decision to subdivide the concordance volumes this way (and not according to segments of the Syriac alphabet) was the only possibility to produce it before the final volume of the OT Peshitta 1 See P.B. Dirksen, “The Leiden Peshitta edition,” in: R. Lavenant (ed.), V Symposium Syriacum 1988 (Orientalia Christiana Analecta 236; Rome, 1990) 31–8, and the Peshitta progress report by A. van der Kooij in P.B. Dirksen and A. van der Kooij (eds.), The Peshitta as a Translation, (Monographs of the Peshitta Institute Leiden 8; Leiden 1995) 219–20.

309

310

[4]

[5]

[6]

Publications and Book Reviews

text is published. This limitation, as opposed to a single OT concordance subdivided according to the alphabet, is acceptable in light of the fast progress which the current volume experienced, in addition to the advantage of having all letters of the Syriac alphabet represented in each volume. The outward appearance of this quarto volume is marvelous; its material and printing is of top quality. The size is larger than the text volumes of the OT; the beautiful Estrangela script remained the same (smaller, but not too small). There are 976 pages, mostly in two columns. Prefaces and introductory matters (ix–xxvi) are followed by the main bulk of the concordance (1–853), to which 3 Appendices are added: Concordance (C.) of proper names (855–71), C. of geographical names (872–7), and C. of the prefixed particles dalath, beth, lamad (878–922). At the end, one finds a Latin-Syriac (923–32) and an English-Syriac (933–42) vocabulary, a List of Hebrew words (943–76) and a List of Syriac words arranged according to their roots (968– 76). The structure of the layout is clear and well proportioned. In principle it follows the model of the Concordance to the Septuagint ... by E. Hatch and H.A. Redpath (Oxford, 1897; reprint Graz, 1975) and does not need much explanation (nevertheless, a detailed one is given in the General Introduction xi-xviii). In a heading block, the Syriac lemma (arranged in alphabetical order), its translation (Latin, English) and the corresponding Hebrew word(s) are given. Additionally, the following information is given for each lemma: its root, grammatical category (N[oun], V[verb], O[ther]), and a frequency number. The translation of the verbs is specified according to the verbal stems (labeled with Roman numerals). An index letter (a, b, c, ...) is attached to the Hebrew correspondences for reference, and a frequency number is given here as well. The “text” of the Concordance is the quotation column with reference to the OT book-chapter-verse on the left and to the corresponding Hebrew word (according to Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia) to the right. The quotations are well delimited, a great part of them is more than one line. The lemma under consideration is exposed by underlining it in each verse. The quotation line provides the maximum information required as it includes variant readings from manuscripts previous to the thirteenth century, and the deviations of the printed editions of L[ee] (1823; 1979), M[osul] (1951) and U[rmia] (1852; 1954). These variants, taken from the

Publications and Book Reviews

[7]

[8]

311

OT Leiden edition, are placed in brackets with the Leiden sigla for the manuscript(s). If the lemma under consideration occurs only in the apparatus criticus of the edition, a full quotation including the bracketed lemma is given in the Concordance. Consequently, the frequency number of the lemma often consists of a second element indicating how many of the occurrences are recorded as a variant, e.g., 50.13 x = 13 lemmata out of 50 are variant readings in the edition. As the lemmata are arranged in alphabetical order, and not by root, it was not possible to construct the quotation block by sections according to the verb stems with all its derivations (as the OT Concordance of W. Strothmann 2 and the NT Concordance of G. Kiraz 3 present the material). The editors decided to drop nearly all information concerning the morphological analysis of the lemmata. In the General Preface (page x) they state: “In accordance with the needs of exegetes the choice was made for a Concordance, based on similar principles as the Concordance to the Septuagint, by Hatch and Redpath, and not for a printed database. In light of this consideration the editors preferred to abstain from a too detailed analysis of the Syriac verbal forms. This analysis will be provided by the Peshitta Project Database which is in progress (...) Nevertheless, the present Concordance provides a plausible analysis of the verbal forms.” For verbs, at least the Syriac stem is given (labeled by a Roman numeral) on the right side of the quotation, combined with the reference letter of the Hebrew correspondence. Additionally, the stem of the corresponding Hebrew verb is provided as well (labeled by an Arabic numeral). So sub voce Ȩbd (on page 6) w-awbed(w) in the quotation of Nm 32:39 is labeled V5g, which means that the Syriac verb stem is Aphel with a corresponding Hebrew verb (yrsh = g) in the Hiphil. Additional information concerning the morphological analysis (tenses, gender, person) are dropped as they will be provided in the 6th concordance volume with its “general list of Syriac words, arranged according to their roots with additional information regarding modes and tenses of the verbal forms” (General Preface page ix). Probably for the nouns a similar morphological analysis will be provided in the 6th volume or by the Database Project mentioned in the introduction. W. Strothmann, Konkordanz zum Syrischen Bible (Wiesbaden, 1983–). G. Kiraz, A Computer-Generated Concordance to the Syriac New Testament, vol. 1–6 (Leiden, 1993). 2 3

312 [9]

[10]

[11]

Publications and Book Reviews

Although the editors’ decisions are clear cut and well explained, not all scholars (especially linguists and philologists who are familiar with the Concordances of Strothmann and Kiraz) will be satisfied by the principle of abstaining from a very detailed analysis of the lemmata. They might feel unhappy to be referred to the Leiden Database and/or to the 6th volume of the Concordance (both in progress) for full information about morphological facts (e.g., if and how often the infinitive Peal of Ȩabd one encounters in the Pentateuch). They will have to spend a considerable amount of time to check the long articles of the Concordance to answer morphological questions. If at least some elements of the database had been introduced in the current Concordance, its usefulness would have increased considerably. The editors themselves give one of the main reasons why a detailed analysis of the words is difficult in many cases: The Concordance is founded upon the Leiden OT Peshitta, which itself is printed in unvocalized Estrangela and principally based on unvocalized (or only partly or even divergently vocalized) manuscripts. Therefore, the analysis, especially of the verbal forms, often remains ambiguous. In these cases, the Concordance has to rely upon the decisions of the editors of the Peshitta-text volumes. Here a question is asked: are the vocalization dots used for Estrangela script applied consistently and non-ambiguously through all the Peshitta volumes? The arrangement and classification of the lemmata is said to be based on the Thesaurus Syriacus of R. Payne Smith (1879–83; reprint 1981). This is the reason why on p. 140 the root of bayta (house) is said to be bna, and on p. 586 sym (to place) is classified as a root mediae waw. Additionally, due to the alliance with the Thesaurus Syriacus, homonymous roots are not classified with numerals as in Brockelmannȝs Lexicon syriacum 2nd edition 1928 (reprint 1966). Thus, the root skl is given for both sukkala (intelligence) and sakla (stupid), and the root rȨa for raȨya (shepherd) and recyana (mind). This is not wrong, but imprecise. Accordingly, the List of Syriac words arranged according to their roots (968–76) is mixing the homonymous roots. This alliance made by the editors with the Thesaurus Syriacus can be accepted, but this surely will not mean to replace the Lexicon of Brockelmann as a standard for linguistic treatment of the Syriac language, a standard which recently was confirmed by the Concordances of Strothmann and Kiraz. But this

Publications and Book Reviews

[12]

313

view cannot put in question the editors’ sound principles which gave birth to this splendid tool of study. Finally some observations: A header with the lemma on the top of every page would facilitate the use of the Concordance. Cross references help to find verbs which are not in use with Peal, e.g., p. 12 ausep see ysp. There is no reference awdy which points the user to yda (p. 338). — Greek words should be added to lemmata of Greek origin, e.g., p. 7 agursa, p. 101 asota, p. 102 eskema. — For ekl (to eat) on p. 39–43, the Aphel does not occur in the header block, but in the quotations. — Passim: All seyame placed on Aleph are fused with the letter. — When prefixed with lamad, caina (eye) is always misprinted (p. 629).