Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 9781463216115

Table of contents :
Table of Contents
FROM THE EDITOR
SEVERUS, PATRIARCH OF ANTIOCH (512-538), IN THE GREEK, SYRIAC, AND COPTIC TRADITIONS
THE JEWS IN EPHREM’S COMMENTARY ON THE DIATESSARON
EAST MEETS EAST: BYZANTINE LITURGICAL INFLUENCES ON THE RITE OF THE CHURCH OF THE EAST
“INSIGHT WITHOUT SIGHT”:1 WONDER AS AN ASPECT OF REVELATION IN THE DISCOURSES OF ISAAC THE SYRIAN
THE “MONASTIC CHURCH” OF B􀆖ZY􀆖N IN IRAQI KURDISTAN
REPORT ON THE XTH SYMPOSIUM SYRIACUM AND THE VIIITH CONFERENCE ON ARAB CHRISTIAN STUDIES: GRANADA, SPAIN SEPTEMBER 22ND -27TH , 2008
THE CANADIAN SOCIETY FOR SYRIAC STUDIES

Citation preview

JOURNAL OF THE CANADIAN SOCIETY FOR SYRIAC STUDIES

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies/ de la Société Canadienne des Etudes Syriaques The JCSSS is a refereed journal published annually, and it contains the transcripts of public lectures presented at the Society and possibly other articles and book reviews

Editorial Board General Editor

Amir Harrak, University of Toronto

Editors

Sebastian Brock, Oxford University Marina Greatrex, University of Ottawa Sidney Griffith, The Catholic University of America Adam Lehto, University of Toronto Lucas van Rompay, Duke University

Publisher Gorgias Press 180 Centennial Ave., Suite 3 Piscataway, NJ 08854 USA www.gorgiaspress.com

The Canadian Society for Syriac Studies La Société Canadienne des Etudes Syriaques

Society Officers 2007-2008 President: Amir Harrak Vice-President and Secretary-Treasurer: Khalid Dinno Members of the Board of Directors: Samir Basmaji, Marica Cassis, Khalid Dinno, Geoffrey Greatrex, Amir Harrak, Antoine Hirsch, Robert Kitchen, Adam Lehto, Albert Tarzi

The aim of the CSSS is to promote the study of the Syriac culture which is rooted in the same soil from which the ancient Mesopotamian and biblical literatures sprung. The CSSS is purely academic, and its activities include a series of public lectures, one yearly symposium, and the publication of its Journal. The Journal is distributed free of charge to the members of the CSSS who have paid their dues, but it can be ordered by other individuals and institutions through Gorgias Press (www.gorgiaspress.com).

JOURNAL OF THE CANADIAN SOCIETY FOR SYRIAC STUDIES

Volume 8 2008

GORGIAS PRESS

Copyright © 2008 by The Canadian Society for Syriac Studies. All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. Published in the United States of America by Gorgias Press LLC, New Jersey ISBN 978-1-60724-053-2 ISSN: 1499-6367

GORGIAS PRESS 180 Centennial Ave., Piscataway, NJ 08854 USA www.gorgiaspress.com

Cover Picture The “monastic” church of BĆzyĆn near SulaymĆniyyĆ in Iraqi Kurdistan; see inside the article by Narmen Muhamad Amen Ali, pp. 74–84. The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standards. Printed in the United States of America

The Canadian Society for Syriac Studies

Table of Contents

From the Editor

1

Lucas Van Rompay, Severus, Patriarch of Antioch (512-538), in the Greek, Syriac, and Coptic Traditions

3

Craig E. Morrison, The Jews in Ephrem’s Commentary on the Diatessaron

23

Cor-bishop David Royel, EAST MEETS EAST: Byzantine Liturgical Influences on the Rite of the Church of the East

44

Mary T. Hansbury, “Insight Without Sight”: Wonder as an Aspect of Revelation in the Discourses of Isaac the Syrian

60

Narmen Muhamad Amen Ali, The “Monastic Church” of BƗzyƗn, in Iraqi Kurdistan

74

Khalid Dinno,

Report of the Xth Symposium Syriacum and the VIIIth Conference on Arab Christian Studies

Members of the CSSS for 2007-2008

85 87

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

FROM THE EDITOR

T

his is the 8th year in the life of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies, and we are able to publish JCSSS 8 (2008) thanks to the generous contributions of scholars of Syriac and Eastern Christianity, whom I warmly appreciate and thank. The first three articles were presented at the 5th (North-American) Syriac Studies Symposium, held in Toronto on June 25-27, 2007. Since the main theme of this symposium was “Syriac as a Bridge Culture,” these articles reflect this theme. Professor Lucas van Rompay, Duke University, discusses the life and career of a crucial figure in Syriac Christianity in a key period in the history of Christianity as a whole: Severus of Antioch (5th to 6th century). Severus managed to bring together under one christological position (Miaphysitism) Syrian Christians of different linguistic and cultural backgrounds as well as Egyptians. His influence on all these different peoples is reflected in the various tongues in which his writings have survived: Greek, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, and Arabic. While Severus was thus a unifying figure, he also helped to widen the rift between Miaphysites and followers of other christological traditions. Dr. Craig Morrison, Pontifical Biblical Institute (Rome), tackles a sensitive aspect of Ephrem’s writings with regard to Jews.

(Much has been written recently about Ephrem and Jews, some labeling him an “anti-Semite,” a term that hardly fits Ephrem, who himself was a Semite. There appears to be a general confusion between the anti-Judaic polemics in which Ephrem was engaged in furthering his biblical interpretation, with the anti-Jewish practice which is abhorable.) Going through Ephrem’s Commentary on the Diatessaron, Morrison does indeed notice anti-Jewish rhetoric, most of which, he writes, “involves the language of debate”. In the multicultural society of Edessa during the 4th century, the Christian community needed to define itself as distinctive. In claiming that the Christian interpretation of the Scriptures is more accurate that that of the Jews, Ephrem sets aside the Christians from all other communities, and this explains why his anti-Jewish rhetoric is mostly for his Christian audience. Nonetheless, the terminology used in the debate suggests that Jews and Christians actually discussed theological issues in their society. The christological controversies divided Christendom, and some churches, as in the case of the Assyrian Church of the East, are believed by modern Church historians to have lived in isolation. Dr. Cor-bishop David Royel proves that this was not so when it came to liturgy, where theological and political boundaries are easily crossed.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 1

From the Editor

___________________________________________________________________________________

Thus some key elements in the liturgy of the Church of the East were actually borrowed from the Byzantine liturgy. He discusses two cases of borrowing: the diaconal litanies with which all of the major hours of prayer end, and the Trisagion. These were taken from Byzantium from the mid to late 6th century, a time of intense relations between the Church of the East and Constantinople. Thus, “East meets East” as the title of his article proclaims! Our next paper was presented in this year by Dr. Mary Hansbury at the CSSS Annual Symposium VII. She turns her attention to the most important figure in Syriac mysticism, the 8th century Isaac of Nineveh, whose writings have been very influential even outside of his own tradition. She concentrates on such key terms as tehra “wonder,” temha “the state of wonder,” gelyana “revelation,” šelya “state of stillness,” etc., searching for their meanings and connotations in Isaac’s understanding of the Scriptures, and in the writings of Evagrius and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who exerted a great influence on him. She also investigates these technical words in early Syriac writers

such as Ephrem and Jacob of Sarug, and in John Daliatha. The last article is by Professor Narmen Muhamad Amen Ali, Salahuddin University in Iraq, discussing the very interesting church unearthed in a site near the large city of Sulaymaniyya in Iraqi Kurdistan. There are many archaic features in this church, including the bema and its accessories, the ornamental crosses, and the incense burner. I was fortunate to be able to visit the site with Prof. Ali in June 2008, taking numerous photographs and benefiting from her comments on the archaeological digs. Dr. Kahlid Dinno gives us a short but interesting report on two major conferences, the 10th Symposium Syriacum and the 8th Conference on Arab Christian Studies, both held at Granada Spain at the end of September 2008. Judging from the number of participants and the number of presented papers, Syriac Studies are indeed thriving! This issue of JCSSS could not be produced without the help of the Editorial Committee and the Publisher, whose editorial contributions and physical production of this publication are greatly appreciated. A. H. November 2008

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 2

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

SEVERUS, PATRIARCH OF ANTIOCH (512-538), IN THE GREEK, SYRIAC, AND COPTIC TRADITIONS

LUCAS VAN ROMPAY DUKE UNIVERSITY

F

or Severus of Antioch, the twentieth century has been a good century. The 125 homilies which he delivered as patriarch between 512 and 518 were all published and translated by a cohort of mainly French scholars between 1906 and 1977.1 Around 240 of his letters were published and translated in the first two decades of the century by Ernest W. Brooks, who also provided an edition of several hundred hymns composed by Severus. Severus’ theological treatises were published by the Belgian scholars Joseph Lebon and Robert Hespel. Historical and hagiographical accounts of his life were published as well, in Syriac, Coptic, Arabic, and Ethiopic.2 In spite of the fact that in the twentieth century Severus’ legacy was rediscovered and published not in his own words, but in languages in which he never wrote and which in all likelihood he did not master—Syriac, Coptic, Arabic, and Ethiopic—these modern publications, in particular the Syriac ones, led to a positive reappraisal of his theological position. In his 1909 study, Joseph Lebon, who was the first scholar to use all the relevant Syriac manuscript resources in the Vatican Library and in the British Museum, came to the conclusion, first, that there really is one coherent

“Monophysite” (as he called it) Christology of which Severus was the main representative,3 and second, that there is no difference between this Christology and the Christology of Cyril of Alexandria.4 For the first time in fifteen hundred years, this new approach paved the way for a fair treatment of Severus’ theological views by theologians of the Chalcedonian traditions,5 and eventually, towards the end of the century, for the recognition that there is compatibility between Severus’ orthodoxy and their orthodoxies.6 Severus, therefore, nearly fifteen hundred years after his death seems to be closer to us than he has ever been. There may be sufficient reason, then, to go back to the sixth and seventh centuries, when the different images of Severus were being shaped and began to be transmitted. Unencumbered by the negative biases of the past—when he was viewed as the one who more than anyone else sealed the final separation between Chalcedonians and anti-Chalcedonians— we may attempt to see him within his own cultural and ecclesiastical contexts, with all their complexities. It is a remarkable fact, indeed, that Severus, a Pisidian with a Greek linguistic and intellectual background, became such a dominant figure within ecclesiastical traditions that were linguistically and

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 3

Severus, Patriarch of Antioch (512-538) _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

culturally identified with Syriac, Coptic, Arabic, or Ethiopic. Rather than try to retrieve the “original” or “authentic” Severus speaking and writing in Greek, and ignore the fact that we only have translations—sometimes of a later date—I would like to focus on the translations themselves and to see in them the reflection of the ways in which Severus was received, perceived, and interpreted within various communities. My focus will be on Syriac and Coptic, with only a few occasional references to the other languages.7

SEVERUS’ GREEK LEGACY A first remark, however, concerns the Greek legacy of Severus. The fact that so little of his work survives in Greek seems to suggest that he was nearly completely erased from Greek ecclesiastical and literary history, and given hospitality only by what later became the eastern traditions of Christianity. This view needs to be qualified. There can be no doubt that throughout his tenure as patriarch, not only between 512 and 518, when he resided in Antioch, but also during the remaining twenty years of his life which he spent as an exile in Egypt, Severus used Greek for a Greek audience and readership. The patriarchate of Antioch, which was divided throughout Severus’ life between those who accepted and those who rejected the Council of Chalcedon, consisted of Greek and Syriac speaking Christians. Syriac must have been more common in the easternmost dioceses of the patriarchate, but there is no indication, at that point in time, that the rejection of Chalcedon was more widespread among Syriac-speaking Christians than among those who spoke Greek. In other words, there is no indication that the

Greek-speakers were Chalcedonian and the Syriac-speakers anti-Chalcedonian.8 Even though the process of translating Severus from Greek into Syriac and into Coptic must have started during Severus’ years as patriarch, in Syria and in Egypt, a significant number of his followers must have had Greek as their first language. The rejection of the Council of Chalcedon was expressed as much in Greek as it was in Syriac or in Coptic. Resistance to the Council was found as much in Constantinople and Alexandria as in the patriarchate of Antioch. When using such dichotomies—Chalcedonian vs. non-Chalcedonian, Greek vs. Syriac, Greek vs. Coptic—we should always realize that these distinctions were much less clear cut in the sixth century than they seem to be to us today. Boundaries were still in the process of being created and consolidated, and they should not be retrojected onto a situation in which there was still much fluidity and interchange—even if in the mind of some ecclesiastical and political leaders the categories of orthodoxy and heresy were already firmly established. It is generally assumed that Justinian’s condemnation of Severus in the summer of 536 caused the disappearance of his Greek works. Certainly, the destruction of Severus’ writings was ordered, and measures were taken to prevent their further distribution, threatening potential copyists with the amputation of their hand.9 There is evidence, however, that Severus’ works were available well into the sixth century and beyond. As is well known, the exegetical catenae on both the Old and the New Testament are an important source for extracts from several of Severus’ Greek works, including homilies, letters, theological treatises, and hymns. The Catena on the Pentateuch and

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 4

Severus, Patriarch of Antioch (512-538) _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

on the historical books of the Bible—with its various ramifications—has been studied and published in recent years by the Belgian scholar Françoise Petit.10 From her research it has become clear that the numerous Severus fragments11 did not belong to the earliest layer of the catena tradition but were inserted at a later stage.12 The fragments are found in some, but not in all, of the main catena manuscripts, and they alternate between the different branches of the tradition according to the biblical books. We may assume that they were inserted into the existing catena at a relatively early stage in the transmission, possibly in the sixth or seventh century. Now, the insertion of the Severus fragments into the catena was a major undertaking.13 Since none of Severus’ works are biblical commentaries that systematically follow the biblical text, ad hoc interpretations of biblical passages needed to be carefully located and excerpted. We must be dealing with a person, or rather a group of persons, who were intimately familiar with Severus’ works and sufficiently motivated to carry out this painstaking work. In most cases they provide precise information on the number of the homily in question, or on the addressee of the letter, thus not only greatly facilitating the identification, but also giving us precious insight into the ways in which Severus’ literary corpus was organized in their day. Presumably they had access to the entire corpus. As already noted, the situation with regard to Severus’ presence in the exegetical catenae varies from one biblical book to the other. For the Catenae on Psalms, at least in some branches of the tradition, extracts from Severus’ works seem to have been added at a later stage in the tradition, just as was the case for the Pentateuch and the historical

books—even though Severus is less prominent in the Catenae on Psalms. The addition of extracts from Severus to what Gilles Dorival calls “the second Palestinian Catena” may be dated to the second half of the sixth century.14 Marcel Richard had already noted that this particular catena was an extension of an earlier work to which quotations from, among others, Severus had been added. Richard termed this extended version of the catena “chaîne monophysite,” because “seul un Monophysite militant a pu avoir le zèle nécessaire pour entreprendre … (de) grappiller dans les œuvres de cet évêque toutes les allusions au Psautier.”15 Dorival is right in rejecting Richard’s doctrinal characterization, which ignores the non-doctrinal nature of the exegetical catenae. Exegetical catenae are different from dogmatic florilegia: the extracts included were not selected for their dogmatic content.16 The only conclusion one can draw is that in the second half of the sixth century Severus’ Greek works still were available to be excerpted and inserted into an existing catena, not in Egypt, as Richard would have it, but more likely in Palestine or Constantinople, as Dorival suggested.17 The existence of Severus’ Greek works well beyond the sixth century is evidenced in our Syriac sources. Many of Severus’ works were translated into Syriac in the sixth century, a number of them even during the patriarch’s lifetime. Some translations were made or revised at a much later date. The translation of Severus’ Hymns can be attributed to Paul, bishop of Edessa (602619), when he was a refugee in Cyprus, between 619 and 629. When Jacob of Edessa revised Paul’s translation – a task completed in 674/75—he had s̞h̞oh̞ê yawnoyê “Greek manuscripts” (plural!) for collation at his

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 5

Severus, Patriarch of Antioch (512-538) _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

disposal.18 Similarly, when the same Jacob of Edessa revised the earlier, sixth-century Syriac translation of Severus’ Cathedral Homilies (completed in 700/01), he had the original Greek text available to him in more than one, occasionally even in three Greek copies.19 During Jacob’s lifetime, in 668/69, a priest in Nisibis by the name of Athanasius dictated his translation of the “Sixth Book” of Severus’ letters to a scribe, whose work did not survive but was copied in two eighth-century manuscripts.20 It is clear, therefore, that throughout the seventh century, Severus’ Greek works could be found, in Cyprus and as far east as Nisibis, as well as in Edessa, or in the monasteries in which Jacob of Edessa worked. In the generation of Maximus Confessor and John of Damascus, there still were Greek readers of Severus’ works, whether of Syrian or of different background. Severus was still a Greek author! A very interesting additional piece of evidence came to light not long ago. One isolated folio of papyrus, preserved in Vienna, inscribed on one side only, was identified by its first editors, Kurt Treu and Johannes Diethart, in a 1993 publication, as containing an extract from a previously unknown work by Severus of Antioch.21 Closer inspection allowed subsequent scholars to recognize in it the original Greek of one of Severus’ hymns,22 known to us in the collection that Paul of Edessa translated into Syriac in the 620s and Jacob of Edessa revised fifty years later. Since the text on the papyrus opens and closes with a cross and is written to fill exactly one side of the papyrus, it should not be regarded as a fragment of a larger work, but as an independent piece which circulated separately. This means that some of Severus’ hymns were

copied separately, probably for private devotion. The editors dated the papyrus, the provenance of which is unknown, to the sixth or seventh century. The hymn of the Vienna papyrus also exists in the Greek Catena on the Gospel of Matthew, published by Jonathan A. Cramer in 1844,23 in which work one more hymn can be found.24 A third Greek hymn was recently published by Françoise Petit in the Catena on the second Book of Kings (2 Kgs 23:15-17),25 and one further hymn was identified by Enzo Lucchesi among the Vienna papyri.26 From what has been said so far, it is clear that a number of Greek extracts from Severus’ works have been identified and studied in recent years, allowing us, to a certain extent, to rediscover the Greek profile of Severus and to bring him back to the realm of Greek patristics, to which he indeed originally belongs.

THE SYRIAC SEVERUS TRADITION These identifications, of course, were possible only with the help of Severus’ Syriac works, into which language his entire oeuvre appears to have been translated. Not everything has been preserved, but it is amazing how many of Severus’ works were transmitted within the Syrian-Orthodox tradition throughout the centuries. Several factors must have contributed to Severus’ lasting success and status as one of the main authorities of the Syrian-Orthodox tradition, over against other figures that played a crucial role in the formative period of the tradition, such as Philoxenus of Mabbog, John of Tella, Theodosius of Alexandria, Jacob Baradaeus, and others.27 The prestige of the

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 6

Severus, Patriarch of Antioch (512-538) _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

patriarchal throne which he occupied for six years in Antioch obviously was of great significance. More important, though, than his actual tenure in Antioch was his ability to keep that prestige and standing in the subsequent twenty years, when he was living in Egypt, restlessly traveling around, sometimes hiding, forced to keep a low profile, coping with difficulties and divisions, writing letters to his faithful in Syria, and yet not losing control, nor showing signs of weakness. The fact that Severus, after having lost his home and his throne in Antioch as well as much of the political support he enjoyed, still was able to maintain and consolidate his position and power is truly remarkable. That Severus’ literary legacy had such a profound and lasting impact on the SyrianOrthodox tradition also has to do with the fact that many of his works were efficiently made available for literary consumption. This did not happen for all his works to the same degree. His Cathedral Homilies, the corpus of his letters, and his hymns became particularly popular, while other works were translated into Syriac but did not make it into the literary canon of the SyrianOrthodox tradition. This is true for many of his theological works, often of a polemical nature, such as the Philalethes, the writings to Nephalius, to Sergius, against John the Grammarian, and last but not least against Julian of Halicarnassus. These works were translated into Syriac and do survive in early manuscripts, but they were copied only rarely and were not often quoted. For interested readers there was, of course, theology in the Cathedral Homilies as well as in the letters and the hymns; the long systematic theological treatises, written in specific historical contexts, may have lost some of their

immediate relevance and were probably seen as less attractive by later generations. The collection of 125 Cathedral Homilies, pronounced by Severus between 512 and 518, and known in Syriac as Epitronion, must have been translated at an early date.28 The homilies were numbered according to the chronological order in which they were pronounced.29 These numbers are found throughout the Syriac tradition—in the two successive translations—as well as in the quotations of the Greek exegetical catenae. The earliest translators and scribes must have realized, however, that the corpus was too huge for normal use. They divided it, therefore, into four or five “books,” which were copied separately. Four sixth-century manuscripts are preserved as well as the remains of a fifth, which may perhaps be slightly later. One, ms. British Library Add. 14,599, is entitled the “second volume” (penqito dtartƝn) and it has Hom. 31 to 59. Two others, mss. Vat. Syr. 143 and 256, are called the “fourth book” (ktobo d-’arbco) and contain Hom. 101 to 125. Ms. Vat. Syr. 142, does not have any specific title, and contains Hom. 73 to 100. The data of these four manuscripts cannot easily be reconciled, and they may reflect two different divisions, one in four books, and the other in five books. A different approach may be found in our fifth manuscript, ms. Trinity College Dublin 1511 (I), of which unfortunately only 35 successive folios survive. Here we seem to be dealing with a selective collection of the homilies which includes Hom. 10 (incomplete at the beginning); 38, 15, 18, 20, 22 (all complete); and 31 (incomplete at the end).30 What all these manuscripts have in common is that they are in a handy format,31 conveniently opening with the table of contents, and beautifully written. Sadly enough, the three

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 7

Severus, Patriarch of Antioch (512-538) _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Vatican manuscripts also have in common that they were on the bottom of the Nile32 when on their furtive journey from Deir alSurian to the Vatican, in the late Spring of 1707, Elias Assemani’s boat capsized. The severe and irreparable water damage on these precious manuscripts still cries out today! The translation provided in these five sixth-century manuscripts is anonymous. Some scholars are inclined to attribute it to Paul, bishop of Callinicus, whose name is found in a lengthy Syriac inscription, dated to August 509, excavated a few years ago by German archaeologists at Tall Bica, near Raqqa.33 Paul is known as the translator of Severus’ anti-Julianist writings, which he must have completed by 528.34 The possibility that he also was involved in the translation of the Cathedral Homilies cannot be ruled out, but there is no positive evidence. We may even not be dealing with one homogeneous translation. For homilies 101 to 125, which exist in two manuscripts (mss. Vat. Syr. 143 and 256), there is considerable variation between the two witnesses, which seems to point to some revision work, already in the sixth century.35 The sixth-century translation is a solid piece of work. While being a faithful and fairly literal translation, it does not yet exhibit the excessive imitation of Greek language and style found in some later translations. Reflecting the linguistic and literary standards of its day, it still can be read as idiomatic Syriac. We may speculate that the quality of the translation and its accessibility contributed to the popularity of the homilies, in addition to the convenient and elegant form of the manuscripts and, of course— above anything else—the relevant content of the texts themselves.

A century and a half later, Jacob of Edessa carried out a revision of the sixthcentury translation, which he completed in 700/01.36 Within the Syrian-Orthodox tradition Jacob’s revision largely supplanted the earlier translation; there is little evidence that the sixth-century translation continued to be used or copied. It also is Jacob’s revision that was published in Patrologia Orientalis and that has come to be regarded—by Syriac and non-Syriac scholars alike—as the only source for our knowledge of Severus of Antioch’s homilies. Is this entirely justified? Jacob of Edessa is arguably the best Hellenist Syriac literature ever produced. A revision by him of an existing Syriac translation almost by definition means an improvement on the earlier version. We expect Jacob to get closer to the Greek original, to render all possible elements of the source language into Syriac, without, however, forcing the Syriac into a mirror of the Greek. Rather, he makes creative use of the resources provided by the Syriac language itself. It is obvious, for example, that Jacob had his own ideas about word formation in Syriac, and made creative use of it. He also explored new ways to render Greek perfects and pluperfects, and to develop new ways of rendering Greek compounds. He fully understood the pragmatic functions of Greek word order and tried to match them in Syriac in creative ways. Jacob also, however, has “a passion for accuracy” (I borrow this phrase from C.J.A. Lash),37 which often leads him to double translations—in an attempt at catching all possible shades of meaning of the original—or even to paraphrases or explanatory comments, occasionally showing him stepping out of his role of translator and assuming that of interpreter. Such interventions within the text some-

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 8

Severus, Patriarch of Antioch (512-538) _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

times obscure the syntax and the clarity of the sentence. In the absence of the Greek it is mostly impossible to assess the quality of Jacob’s translation. This being so, I think we should use all available evidence, i.e., the two existing translations, in our study of Severus’ homilies. On the basis of some first soundings, I am convinced that the comparative study of the two translations will show, (1) that the sixth-century translation is a valuable work in its own right;38 (2) that Jacob respected it to a large extent and most often did not change it drastically; (3) that it provides us with a very welcome control in the cases in which Jacob did change it. So far the sixth-century translation has been published for two homilies only.39 It definitely deserves more scholarly attention. In contrast with some of Jacob’s other projects, which failed to be widely accepted —such as his new Bible translation— Jacob’s revision of Severus’ homilies carried the day and, as already mentioned, largely replaced the earlier translation. It was in Jacob’s revision that many of Severus’ homilies were incorporated into liturgical manuscripts, either the comprehensive H̒udro (or Fenqito) manuscripts, or the more specific liturgical homily collections. It is from such liturgical codices that some lacunae in the main manuscripts could be filled, most notably Hom. 2, which was lost in the direct tradition, and which the late Monsignor Joseph-Marie Sauget was able to retrieve from two liturgical homily collections kept in the Syrian-Orthodox Patriarchate at Damascus.40 These liturgical collections, starting in the ninth century, helped canonize Jacob’s edition of Severus’ homilies. Does this mean that once Jacob of Edessa had updated and upgraded the translation, no

one ever looked again at the sixth-century manuscripts, which then were forgotten until Elias Assemani took them to Rome in the eighteenth, and Henry Tattam to London in the nineteenth century—with one stray manuscript ending up in Dublin? Not quite so! First, four of our manuscripts, which were all written in Syria, traveled to the Monastery of the Syrians in Egypt, probably in the ninth or tenth century. They must have caught the attention of some of the monks. A few centuries later, one of the manuscripts—the present ms. British Library Add. 14,599—was due for another important journey. Patriarch Michael requested it—in an early case of Inter-Library Loan—to be brought to the Monastery of Barsauma near Melitene, where he normally resided,—in 1189/90. This information can be derived from a note on the last folio of the manuscript written by Patriarch Michael himself.41 We should keep in mind that a few years earlier, in July or August 1183, the whole monastery of Barsauma, including its library, had been destroyed by a fire. There may have been the need, therefore, to borrow books from elsewhere.42 Michael kept the manuscript in his patriarchal cell and made it available to the monks for reading.43 He himself not only read it, but also added some notes in the margins.44 Some time later the manuscript must have been sent back to Deir al-Surian in Egypt, because that is where Tattam found it in 1842. Our main conclusion from this interesting episode is that by Michael’s time the sixth-century translation of Severus’ homilies had not completely fallen into oblivion. Exactly what the patriarch had in mind during his reading and annotation of the manuscript remains an intriguing question. Not unlike the Cathedral Homilies, many hymns of Severus found their way

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 9

Severus, Patriarch of Antioch (512-538) _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

into liturgical manuscripts, which contributed to their survival and popularity within the Syrian-Orthodox tradition up to the present day. The H̝udro (or Fenqito) manuscripts normally contain a great number of the hymns of Severus, called macnyoto. More specific hymn collections also exist, explicitly attributed to Severus, even though not all the hymns go back to Severus himself.45 More study is needed to elucidate how Jacob’s revised text of the hymns fared in the liturgical manuscripts, and how later scribes dealt with Jacob’s technical annotations. It also would be worthwhile to know how much of the unrevised text of the hymns, i.e., the text translated by Paul of Edessa or by others, made it into the liturgical manuscripts. Next to the Cathedral Homilies and the Hymns, the third corpus of Severus texts that enjoyed great popularity in the SyrianOrthodox tradition is that of the Letters. I already mentioned the translation, by Athanasius of Nisibis, of the Sixth Book of the Selected Letters, which was completed in 668/69. Many of Severus’ letters, however, existed in Syriac much earlier. As a matter of fact, the more than 100 letters, complete or fragmentary, that E.W. Brooks published in two fascicles of the Patrologia Orientalis (12.2 and 14.1), were culled from a great number of manuscripts, some of them going back to the sixth century. Many of the manuscripts used by Brooks contain florilegia, or collections of testimonies in the fields of doctrine, ecclesiastical law, or church discipline. Severus is quoted among other authorities; quite often he is among the most prominent ones. Although there is evidence, both in Greek and in Syriac, that collections of Severus’ letters were put together at an early date, classified in a number of “books”

and further arranged chronologically according to three periods: “before the episcopacy” (i.e., prior to 512), “during the episcopacy” (i.e., 512-518), and “after the expulsion” (i.e., 518-538), nothing of these early collections has survived, apart from Athanasius’ work, which in all likelihood was modeled on a Greek collection with exactly the same content and structure. The sixthcentury collections in which extracts from Severus’ letters were incorporated may have been based on pre-existing Syriac translations, or they may have been translated ad hoc from Greek into Syriac. In spite of the massive loss of letters by Severus, those that survive are sufficient to demonstrate how important Severus’ voice was in the articulation of the identity of the Miaphysite community in the sixth century and beyond. Not only in matters of doctrine, but in all kinds of questions of a juridical,46 pastoral, or practical nature – the validity of certain actions, sacraments, or ordinations; how to deal with dissenting Christians, or with those who were wavering between Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian allegiance—Severus had advice to offer, not only to his addressees, but also to later readers. One more comment needs to be made with regard to Severus’ correspondence. Among the Greek extracts from Severus’ works that are preserved in the catena tradition, quite a number are taken from his letters. It is indeed the case that Severus often discusses in his letters the meaning of biblical passages, frequently at the specific request of the addressee. This biblical dimension of Severus’ correspondence—showing the patriarch’s keen interest in biblical typology and in allegoric reading—may be seen in a number of letters that exist in Syriac; it emerges even more clearly from

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 10

Severus, Patriarch of Antioch (512-538) _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

the newly retrieved Greek fragments, many of which are unparalleled in Syriac. Those who were adding these fragments to the Greek catena must have been sifting the hundreds, or thousands, of letters in search of passages that contain biblical interpretation. Now, this was done not only for the Greek, but also for the Syriac letters. The result can be seen in at least two different manuscripts. The first is ms. Vat. Syr. 103, a three-volume commentary on both the Old and the New Testament. In its main text this manuscript contains the work of the monk Severus (the so-called “Catena Severi”), which was completed in the neighborhood of Edessa in 861 and consists of extracts from Ephrem and Jacob of Edessa. Complementing this original compilation, Simeon of HҙisҚn MansҚur, the scribe of the manuscript, added in the margins a great number of extracts from various authors. While Severus of Antioch is absent from the “Catena Severi,” he is among the authors from whom Simeon of HҙisҚn MansҚur added extracts in the margins; most extracts are from Severus’ correspondence.47 The second manuscript that is relevant here is the Milan manuscript that contains a large portion of the Syro-Hexapla.48 Here it is the Book of Ezekiel in particular which received about 15 quotations carrying Severus’ name.49 Although there is some overlap between the Severus fragments preserved in the Greek catenae and those that were written in the margins of ms. Vat. Syr 103 and in the Syro-Hexapla manuscript, we do not know at present whether there is any connection between the Greek and Syriac projects, or whether they were carried out independently from one another. Whatever the answer to this question, it is through the effort of people like these that Severus, who never wrote

a biblical commentary, became an important authority in the Syrian-Orthodox tradition of biblical interpretation. And not only in the Syrian-Orthodox tradition, as we will see shortly.

SEVERUS IN COPTIC I would like to turn now to the impact of Severus’ presence in Egypt on Egyptian or Coptic Christianity.50 When it comes to the literary legacy of Severus in Egypt, one has to take into account not only Coptic, but also Arabic, the main language of Coptic Christians since the eleventh century. Given the general state of preservation of Coptic literary texts and the fact that early manuscripts—prior to the eleventh or twelfth century—are rare, we cannot expect the number of Severus texts preserved in Coptic to be at all near to what we have in Syriac. As for the Cathedral Homilies,51 two homilies are preserved in a complete Coptic translation: nos. 1 and 27, both existing in beautifully written and relatively early Sahidic manuscripts.52 Since Hom. 1 is missing from the main manuscript containing Jacob of Edessa’s Syriac revision, the Coptic is a very welcome addition.53 For Hom. 27, Gérard Garitte argued that the Coptic text is more complete and that the Syriac is an abridged version, which left out, among other things, an autobiographical section which according to Garitte is “sans nul doute authentique.”54 In addition to these two complete homilies, a great number of fragments exist, in particular from Hom. 2, 7, 14, 24, 27, 28, 50, 60, 77, 103, and 115. Two fragments, taken from Hom. 2 and 115, were recently identified by E. Lucchesi. They were found at the end of the nineteenth century, written or painted on the plastered

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 11

Severus, Patriarch of Antioch (512-538) _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

walls of a vestibule in the Epiphanius Monastery near Thebes.55 Of special significance are extracts from Hom. 77, the only homily to survive in Greek (in which Severus refutes the idea that there is disagreement between the evangelists on the chronology of the events surrounding Jesus’ resurrection).56 Comparison of the Coptic with the Greek may provide us with important information on the nature and the quality of the Coptic translation. But the fragments have not yet received a proper edition. Here, as well as in other cases,57 there are significant differences between the Syriac and the Coptic versions, a fact that has not yet received sufficient scholarly attention. As for Severus’ letters, here again we have a number of early pieces.58 Fragments of at least three letters exist on ostraca59—at least two are from the neighborhood of the Monastery of Epiphanius. The ostraca are early (around 600) and are in Sahidic. The edition of one ostracon, by W.E. Crum, was included in Brooks’ edition of Severus’ letters.60 It appears to be a well-chosen extract from a letter to Soterichus, containing antiChalcedonian polemic. In addition, a number of fragments survive in manuscripts. They do not allow us to draw any conclusions on the number of letters translated into Coptic or on the nature of the translation. In his study of one letter to Thomas, bishop of Germanicia, which is documented in five languages, E. Lucchesi asserted that the Coptic was closer than any of the other witnesses to the original.61 A final Coptic text I would like to draw attention to is a complete and perfectly preserved Catena on the four Gospels, written in Bohairic and preserved in one single manuscript dated to the year 605 of the Martyrs, which is AD 888/89. This manuscript,

now in the British Library (Or. 8812),62 is one of the earliest texts to be written in literary Bohairic. Not unlike the Greek and Syriac catenae that were mentioned earlier, we find here a number of extracts from patristic writings. The name quoted most often is that of Cyril of Alexandria, while John Chrysostom and Severus of Antioch hold a shared second place. We have here several dozen Severus quotations in Bohairic Coptic, mainly from the Cathedral Homilies. The Coptic text was published by Paul de Lagarde in 1886,63 but in the absence of any modern translation or study, it did not receive much scholarly attention.64 Only a few years ago, Youhanna Nessim Youssef published the Severus fragments from the section on Matthew, along with an English translation and, where possible, the identification of the texts. It remains unknown at present whether the work was composed in Coptic, based perhaps on existing Coptic translations of Greek writings, or whether it was translated from Greek in its entirety. The story of this important text does not end here. In 1969, the Spanish scholar Francisco Javier Caubet Iturbe published, translated, and studied an Arabic Catena on the Gospel of Matthew, preserved in ms. Vat. Ar. 452, which—as he was able to prove— is basically an Arabic translation of the Bohairic Catena.65 All the Severus quotations of the Coptic Catena exist here in Arabic! Among the 53 scholia carrying Severus’ name (either Sawiros or Sawiros alBatriyark), Caubet Iturbe was able to identify only 26 in the published works of Severus, mostly in the Cathedral Homilies, and in three cases in the hymns.66 The Coptic manuscript of the catena was written in the Monastery of Saint Macarius, in the Egyptian Wadi al-Natrun.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 12

Severus, Patriarch of Antioch (512-538) _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Some time later, it must have been transferred to the nearby Monastery of the Syrians.67 That is where Robert Curzon bought it in 1838 (the work is sometimes referred to as the “Curzon Catena”). Ms. Vat. Ar. 452, the Arabic Catena, was written in the beginning of the thirteenth century in the Monastery of John the Little, again in the Wadi alNatrun, at a short distance from the Monastery of the Syrians and having close relations with it. It is very likely that this manuscript too, at one point, was transferred to Deir al-Surian.68 Not only were the folios of this manuscript, at a later stage of its history, numbered in Syriac, but Syriac marginal annotations were added as well, marking the feasts on which certain passages were to be read.69 These annotations most likely were added in the Monastery of the Syrians. The use of Severus’ works for exegetical purposes, which we have witnessed in the Greek catena tradition, in the marginal notes of the Syriac ms. Vat. Syr. 103, and of the Syro-Hexapla thus has its parallel in Coptic and Arabic.

SEVERUS BETWEEN THE GREEK, SYRIAC, AND COPTIC WORLDS In order to understand Severus’ interaction with the hierarchy and the faithful of the patriarchate of Alexandria, we should consider some passages, mainly in his letters, in which he speaks about the connection which he saw between the Church of Antioch and the Church of Alexandria. The context, of course, was Severus’ belief that the very survival of Miaphysite Christianity, particularly in Syria, was in danger. For most of the time when Severus was in Egypt, the Miaphysite hierarchy of the patriarchate of

Alexandria was left undisturbed. Severus and the many bishops from the patriarchate of Antioch who chose Egypt as the land of their exile after their expulsion from Syria must have had friendly relations with patriarch Timothy IV (518-535), without, however, associating themselves with him too openly. On the practical level, Severus and his co-workers conducted the affairs of the Syrian Miaphysite community quite independently from the Alexandrian patriarchate. The contacts were between Severus, the other Syrian Miaphysites in Egypt, the faithful in Antioch and in the main Miaphysite monasteries of the Syrian inland (which served as support centers for the communities, which mostly were without bishops), and last but not least important individuals in Constantinople. On a higher level, of theological and ecclesiastical reflection and of rhetoric, Severus saw the importance of stressing the unity between the Churches of Antioch and Alexandria. In one of his letters, written between 525 and 531 in response to those who were a bit reluctant to hold full communion with the Egyptians, he writes as follows:70 … that you must not recognize any distinction between those who are banished from the East, and made illustrious by the combat of confessorship, and the saintly bishops in Egypt, and that you must reckon that to be one church which is compacted together in the orthodox faith, and confession and communion, and is most pure and serene through the nonassociation with the heretics …

This language certainly paved the way for closer cooperation between the two churches after 536, when Theodosius, the

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 13

Severus, Patriarch of Antioch (512-538) _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Miaphysite patriarch of Alexandria, was deposed, and replaced with the Chalcedonian Paul of Tabennisi. As both Miaphysite communities, the Syrian and the Egyptian, were now victim to the same repressive measures by Justinian and the Imperial Church, their collaboration became more urgent. One might speculate that two factors contributed to Severus gaining authority in the eyes of the Egyptian Miaphysites. One may be the fact that Severus, while representing the patriarchate of Antioch, with its different languages and cultures, at the same time transcended linguistic and cultural boundaries. He had studied in Alexandria— an episode in his life which, as Father Poggi pointed out, may have been of crucial importance for his later career as bishop and theologian.71 He was fully Greek in education and intellectual outlook, he was known as an admirer and staunch defender of both Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria and their theology—more than once he compared his own situation to the tribulations Athanasius had to undergo from the hands of the Arians, when they had imperial support. Severus, therefore, personified not so much the patriarchate of Antioch, but the traditional orthodoxy of the Christian Roman Empire with its strong Egyptian roots. The other factor that may have increased and strengthened Severus’ standing in the eyes of many Egyptians is the controversy with Julian of Halicarnassus. It is in response to Julian’s views that Severus fully articulated his position on the Incarnation and on the nature of Christ. It is well-known that the Julianists had much support in Egypt and even succeeded in occupying the patriarchal throne for a few months with Gaianus, who was deposed by Justinian (535). Eventually, however, it was the anti-

Julianist party that came out victorious and was able to permanently mark Coptic Orthodox Christianity. No wonder that they saw Severus, who spoke out so strongly against Julian, as their man and identified themselves with him. The relations between the Antiochene and Alexandrian Miaphysite Churches would have their ups and downs. But the rhetoric would stick! Echoing the sense of unity which Severus expressed in a letter that I just quoted is the following statement, preserved in the Arabic History of the Patriarchs of Alexandria, and attributed to the Alexandrian patriarch Anastasius (605-616). He was the successor of patriarch Damian who had been involved in a long and bitter struggle with the Antiochene patriarch Peter of Callinicus. Peter’s successor, Athanasius Gammolo, who took office in the same year as Anastasius, was determined to bring this painful period to a close and made the journey to Egypt to meet and make peace with his confrere. Following their reconciliation, Anastasius addressed the crowd with the following words—as recorded in the History of the Patriarchs of Alexandria:72 At this hour, O my friends, we must take the harp of David, and sing with the voice of the Psalm, saying: ‘Mercy and truth have met together’ (Ps. 85:10). Athanasius and Anastasius have kissed one another. The truth has appeared from the land of Egypt, and righteousness has arisen from the East. Egypt and Syria have become one in doctrine; Alexandria and Antioch have become one Church, one virgin-bride of one pure and chaste bridegroom, who is the Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-Begotten Son, the Word of the Father.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 14

Severus, Patriarch of Antioch (512-538) _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

The author of the History then adds to this the following comment:

POSTSCRIPT: SEVERUS IN ARMENIAN TRADITION

Then Athanasius returned to his province in peace and great honor; and from that day there has been agreement between the see of Antioch and the see of Alexandria to this day.

Several extracts from Severus’ works (including the Cathedral Homilies, the letters, and the anti-Julianist writings) exist in an Armenian Catena on the Catholic Epistles, which was published in recent years by Ch. Renoux: on the Epistle of James, in PO 43[193] (1985); on the Epistles of Peter, in PO 44.2[198] (1987); on 1 John, in PO 46.12 (1994); on 2-3 John and on Jude, in PO 47.2 (1996). Since we are dealing here with the twelfth-century translation of a Greek catena rather than with an original Armenian composition, these extracts—which are important for the study of the transmission of the Greek text of the catena—should not be regarded as direct evidence of Severus’ authority within the Armenian tradition. As is well-known, the official position of the Armenian-Orthodox Church was close to Julian of Halicarnassus’ Christological views, and Severus even was condemned at the Council of Dwin (553-555).74 This would preclude Severus from obtaining a status comparable to the one described above for the Syrian-Orthodox and the Coptic-Orthodox Churches. Here also, however, the rhetoric may have been stronger than the situation on the ground. Echoes of Severus’ views may indeed be found in later Armenian theology. See in particular I. Dorfmann-Lazarev, Arméniens et Byzantins à l’époque de Photius: Deux débats théologiques après le triomphe de l’orthodoxie (CSCO 609/Subs. 117; Louvain: Peeters, 2004) esp. 139 and 202-206.

Even if it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between rhetoric and reality, this unity may help us to understand the close interaction and the mutual interest that existed between the Coptic-Orthodox and the Syrian-Orthodox Churches, at various moments of their history. This also is the background against which we should view the creation, in the early ninth century, of the Syrian Monastery in the Egyptian Wadi alNatrun, the monastery where so many of the manuscripts we have discussed today were preserved and which played such an important role in the relationship between the two churches.73 As for Severus himself, this Greekspeaking and Greek-writing Pisidian, he may have lost the battle against imperial orthodoxy of the age of Justinian, but he took his revenge by transmitting his interpretation of the orthodoxy of the imperial church to the Christian communities of Syria and Egypt. Once the Greek language and Greek culture receded from the Middle East after the rise of Islam, it was Severus’ Greek legacy—now in Syriac, Coptic, and Arabic dress—that embodied among these communities the pure faith of the Christian Roman Empire and their vital link to it.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 15

Severus, Patriarch of Antioch (512-538) _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

NOTES 1

For full references to the homilies as well as to Severus’ other works, see M. Geerard, Clavis Patrum Graecorum III (Turnhout: Brepols, 1979) nos. 7022-81, with updates in M. Geerard and J. Noret, Clavis Patrum Graecorum. Supplementum (1998) and in J. Noret, Clavis Patrum Graecorum, Volumen III A (2003). 2 The Syriac Life by John of Beth Aphthonia (d. ca. 538): ed. M.A. Kugener (PO 2.3; 1904); the Syriac Life by Zacharias Scholasticus: ed. M.A. Kugener (PO 2.1; 1904); the Ethiopic “Conflict of Severus,” attributed to Athanasius: ed. E.J. Goodspeed (PO 4.6; 1907), with Coptic fragments ibid. by W.E. Crum; the Syriac Homily on Severus by George, Bishop of the Arabs: ed. K. McVey, CSCO 530-531/Syr. 216-217 (Louvain: Peeters, 1993); the Arabic version of the “Conflict”: ed. Y. Nessim Youssef (PO 49.4; 2004); the Arabic Homily on Severus by a Bishop of Asiut: ed. Y. Nessim Youssef (PO 50.1; 2006). A Syriac Homily on Severus, by Patriarch Cyriacus (d. 817) is still unpublished, see A. Vööbus, “Discovery of the Biography of Severus of Antioch by Qyriaqos of Tagrit,” Rivista di studi bizantini e neoellenici, N.S. 12-13 (XXII-XXIII) (1975-1976) 117-24 (preserved in ms. A. 12,008 of the Oriental Institute at Chicago). For Coptic fragments of the Life of John of Beth Aphthonia, see E. Lucchesi, “La version copte de l’homélie LX de Sévère d’Antioche. Appendice I,” Aegyptus. Rivista italiana di egittologia e di papirologia 84 (2004) 213-14. On the Vita tradition and its significance, see V. Poggi, “Severo di Antiochia alla Scuola di Beirut,” in M. Pavan and U. Cozzoli (eds.), L’eredità classica nelle lingue orientali, Acta Encyclopædica 5 (Firenze: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, 1986) 57-71 (with many useful comments and references). 3 J. Lebon, Le monophysisme sévérien. Étude historique, littéraire et théologique sur la résistance monophysite au concile de Chalcédoine jusqu’à la constitution de l’église jacobite

(Louvain, 1909), XIX: “Il y a vraiment un type de christologie monophysite, avec un ensemble de principes communs à tous les docteurs de la secte, malgré les particularités accidentelles qui laissent à chacun d’eux une certaine originalité.” 4 Ibid., XXI-XXII: “Toutefois, nous ajouterons qu’une conclusion nous a paru jouir déjà de toute la certitude désirable: La doctrine monophysite de l’incarnation même et surtout dans la forme scientifique qui lui fut donnée par Sévère, n’est rien d’autre que la christologie cyrillienne. Sévère en lutte contre les Grammairiens, c’est Cyrille s’expliquant et se défendant après l’union de 433. Un fait cependant était intervenu, dont il eût fallu de tenir compte. Le saint archevêque d’Alexandrie ne le pouvait, étant antérieur au Concile; le patriarche d’Antioche et les siens ne le voulurent pas: c’est toute la raison qui mérite aux Sévériens le nom de «monophysites», auquel S. Cyrille échappe.” (italics as in the original edition). 5 Important publications include: A. Grillmeier, Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche, 2/2. Die Kirche von Konstantinopel im 6. Jahrhundert (Freiburg etc.: Herder, 1989) esp. 20-183 and I.R. Torrance, Christology after Chalcedon. Severus of Antioch and Sergius the Monophysite (Norwich: The Canterbury Press, 1988). English translations (by P. Allen, R. Hayward, Y. Nessim Youssef, I. Torrance, and W. Witakowski) of several extracts from Severus’ writings along with introductory essays are available in P. Allen and C.T.R. Hayward (eds.), Severus of Antioch (London: Routledge, 2004). 6 E.g., J. Behr, “Severus of Antioch. Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Perspectives,” St Nersess Theological Review 3 (1998) 23-35; A. Louth, “Severus of Antioch: An Orthodox View,” Sobornost 28:2 (2006) 6-18. 7 The first elements for the study of Severus in Arabic are in G. Graf, Geschichte der Christlichen arabischen Literatur I, Studi e Testi 118 (Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana,

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 16

Severus, Patriarch of Antioch (512-538) _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

1944), 418-20. A recent treatment of the Ethiopic materials can be found in W. Witakowski, “Severus of Antioch in Ethiopian Tradition,” in V. Böll a.o. (eds.), Studia Aethiopica. In Honour of Siegbert Uhlig on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2004) 115-25. 8 A similar point is made for the period between the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon by F. Millar, A Greek Roman Empire. Power and Belief under Theodosius II (408-450) (Berkeley etc.: University of California Press, 2006) 115-16. 9 Lebon, Le monophysisme sévérien, 76-77. The Greek text of Justinian’s Novella is quoted in M.-A. Kugener, Vie de Sévère par Jean, supérieur du Monastère de Beith-Aphthonia avec divers textes syriaques, grecs et latins (PO 2.3; 1907) 358-61. 10 See, in particular, F. Petit, La chaîne sur la Genèse. Édition intégrale, 1-4, Traditio Exegetica Graeca 1-4 (Louvain: Peeters, 19911996); La chaîne sur l’Exode, I. Fragments de Sévère d’Antioche, TEG 9 (1999); Sévère d’Antioche. Fragments grecs tirés des chaînes sur les derniers livres de l’Octateuque et sur les Règnes, TEG 14 (2006). 11 A first provisional inventory of the Severus fragments was made by R. Devreesse, Les anciens commentateurs grecs de l’Octateuque et des Rois (Fragments tirés des chaînes), Studi e Testi 201 (Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1959) 186-201. Devreesse calls Severus “l’un des auteurs le plus souvent cités dans l’ensemble des chaînes” and the only one to share with Cyril of Alexandria the laudatory introduction “the most holy” (186). 12 The Severus fragments were not known to Procopius of Gaza (d. ca. 538) who, at the moment of composing his Epitome, knew an early form of the Catena. 13 Petit, La chaîne sur l’Exode, XII, note 6: “ … le signe d’une introduction massive et délibérée.” 14 G. Dorival, “Nouveaux fragments grecs de Sévère d’Antioche,” in ANTIǻȍȇON. Hulde

aan Dr. Maurits Geerard bij de voltooiing van de Clavis Patrum Graecorum. Hommage à Maurits Geerard pour célébrer l’achèvement de la Clavis Patrum Graecorum (Wetteren: Cultura, 1984) esp. 104-05. 15 M. Richard, “Les premières chaînes sur le Psautier,” Bulletin d’information de l’Institut de Recherche et d’Histoire des Textes 5 (1956) 97 [reprinted in Id., Opera Minora 3 (Turnhout: Brepols and Leuven: University Press, 1977) no. 70]. 16 Comp. Petit, La chaîne sur l’Exode, I, xxv-vi: “Les fragments sévériens incorporés à la chaîne n’ont pas été choisis pour leur valeur dogmatique mais en raison de leur ancrage biblique dans le livre de l’Exode.” This does not imply, however, that there is no theology or Christology in the texts. 17 Dorival, “Nouveaux fragments,” 120. 18 Ed. E.W. Brooks, The Hymns of Severus and Others in the Syriac Version of Paul of Edessa as Revised by James of Edessa II (PO 7.5; 1911) 801,7. 19 Cf. C.J.A. 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 a.o. (eds.), Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen, Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur 125 (Berlin: AkademieVerlag, 1981) 372. 20 Ed. E.W. Brooks, The Sixth Book of the Select Letters of Severus, Patriarch of Antioch, in the Syriac Version of Athanasius of Nisibis, 4 vol. (London and Oxford: Williams & Northgate, 1902-04). For a general introduction, see vol. II.2, V-XI. 21 K Treu† and J. Diethart, Griechische literarische Papyri christlichen Inhaltes II, Mitteilungen aus der Papyrussammlung der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek, Neue Serie, XVII. Folge (Vienna: Verlag Brüder Hollinek, 1993), Textband: 26-27 (“Severos von Antiocheia: Heilung des Knechtes des Hauptmannes von Kapernaum (Mt. 8,5-13) und anschließendes Gebet”); Tafelband: Tafel 8.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 17

Severus, Patriarch of Antioch (512-538) _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

22

Ed. Brooks, The Hymns of Severus (PO 6.1) 80-81 (no. 39). The identification was made independently by F. Petit, Sévère d’Antioche, TEG 14 (2006) XXVIII, with note 54, and E. Lucchesi, “La version copte de l’homélie LX de Sévère d’Antioche. Appendice II,” Aegyptus. Rivista italiana di egittologia e di papirologia 84 (2004) [published in December 2006] 215-16 (“Une hymne de Sévère d’Antioche sur le Centurion dans un papyrus grec de Vienne”). 23 J.A. Cramer, Catenae Graecorum Patrum in Novum Testamentum I (Oxford, 1844) 59, 1-11. 24 Ibid., 235,6-11 = Brooks, The Hymns (PO 6.1) 112-13 (no. 69). 25 Petit, Sévère d’Antioche, 120-23 (no. 35) = Brooks, The Hymns (PO 7.5) 631-32 (no. 171). 26 Lucchesi, “La version copte,” 216: Encomium on Anthony, preserved in P. Vindob. G. 19.934 = Brooks, The Hymns (PO 7.5) 605-06 (no. 148). 27 Severus has appropriately been called “Hauptkirchenvater” of the Miaphysite church(es), see W. de Vries, Sakramententheologie bei den syrischen Monophysiten, OCA 125 (Rome: Pont. Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1940) 19; and H. Kaufhold, “Welche Kirchenrechtsquellen kannte Patriarch Severos von Antiocheia (512-518)?,” in H. Zapp, A. Weiss, S. Korta (eds), Ius Canonicum in Oriente et Occidente. Festschrift für C.G. Fürst zum 70. Geburtstag (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2003) 259. 28 A general introduction to the Syriac tradition of Severus’ Cathedral Homilies can be found in M. Brière, “Introduction générale aux homélies de Sévère d’Antioche” (PO 29.1; 1960) 7-72. 29 Cf. Brière, “Introduction générale” (PO 29.1) 50-67. 30 The grouping together of Hom. 10 and 38 may be due to these homilies having the same topic (the Feast of Epiphany). The scribe of the ms. was familiar with the regular numbering, to which he explicitly refers at the beginning of Hom. 38.

31

The four manuscripts from the British and Vatican Libraries have a similar format and size. Three manuscripts are 25/26 x 16/17 cm and are written in one column (Vat. Syr. 256) or in two columns (Brit. Libr. Add. 14,599 and Vat. Syr. 143), with ca. 30 lines on each page (Vat. Syr. 143 has ca. 36 lines). One ms. (Vat. Syr. 142) is slightly bigger (27 x 21 cm) and is written in three columns (33-39 lines on each page). The Dublin ms. is 23.3 x 16.3 cm, two columns, and 32 lines, and “elegant Estrangelo,” cf. I. Bcheiry, Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in Trinity College, Dublin, Patrimoine syriaque 5 (Kaslik: Parole de l’Orient, 2005) 27-32. The Dublin manuscript, the provenance of which is unknown, was never used in previous scholarship. F. Graffin knew about its existence, but thought that it belonged to the 16th century (!) and did not use it, see PO 36.4 (1974) “Avertissement”. 32 Or, in Brière’s words: “(ils) eurent la malchance de séjourner un peu dans l’eau du Nil;” and: “le manuscrit (i.e., Vat. Syr. 142) a souffert un peu par suite de son contact avec l’eau du Nil”! (PO 29, 21-22 and 23). Brière seems intent on minimizing the Nile incident and its grave consequences, as if this catastrophe should not be allowed to put the legitimacy of Assemani’s mission into question. 33 Cf. M. Krebernik, “Schriftfunde aus Tall c Bi a 1990, I. Funde aus dem byzantinischen Kloster,” Mitteilungen der Deutschen OrientGesellschaft zu Berlin 123 (1991) 41-57; G. Kalla, “Christentum am oberen Euphrat. Das byzantinische Kloster von Tall Bica,” Antike Welt 30 (1999) 131-42. 34 This information can be derived from a note in ms. Vat. Syr. 140, our main source for these writings. Cf. J.S. Assemanus, Bibliothecae Apostolicae Vaticanae Codicum Manuscriptorum Catalogus I,3 (Rome, 1759) 232; and R. Draguet, Julien d’Halicarnasse et sa controverse avec Sévère d’Antioche sur l’incorruptibilité du corps du Christ (Louvain, 1924) 13, with note 6. 35 Lash, “Techniques,” 379-81; L. Van Rompay, “Jacob of Edessa and the Sixth-

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 18

Severus, Patriarch of Antioch (512-538) _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Century Translator of Severus of Antioch’s Cathedral Homilies,” in R.B. ter Haar Romeny (ed.), Jacob of Edessa and the Syriac Culture of His Day, Monographs of the Peshitta Institute Leiden (forthcoming). 36 For what follows, see L. Van Rompay, “Les versions syriaques,” in Petit, La chaîne sur l’Exode, 111-31; Id., “Jacob of Edessa”. 37 Lash, “Techniques,” 375. 38 M.-A. Kugener and E. Triffaux, who published the two Syriac translations of Hom. 77 (the only homily existing in Greek) express a rather negative judgment on the quality of the sixth-century translation (as well as on the abilities of the scribe of ms. Vat. Syr. 142). At the same time they recognize that Jacob of Edessa mostly followed the earlier translation very closely. Cf. PO 16.5, 786 and 788. 39 One is Hom. 77, which survives in Greek (due to its having been transmitted under the name of Hesychius of Jerusalem or Gregory of Nyssa) and was published in Greek as well as in the two Syriac translations by M.-A. Kugener and E. Triffaux (PO 16.5); the other is Hom. 52, on the Maccabean martyrs, published in R.L. Bensly and W.E. Barnes, The Fourth Book of the Maccabees and Kindred Documents (Cambridge, 1895) 76-88 (sixth-century translation) and 90-102 (Jacob’s revision). In addition, the PO editors occasionally used the sixthcentury translation to fill lacunae of the Jacob of Edessa manuscripts. 40 J.-M. Sauget, “Une découverte inespérée: L’Homélie 2 de Sévère d’Antioche, sur l’Annonciation de la Théotokos,” in R.J. Fischer (ed.), A Tribute to Arthur Vööbus. Studies in Early Christian Literature and its Environment, primarily in the Syrian East (Chicago: The Lutheran School of Theology, 1977) 55-62 [reprinted in J.-M. Sauget, Littératures et manuscrits des chrétientés syriaques et arabes. Recueil d’articles publié par L. Duval-Arnould et F. Rilliet, Studi e Testi 389 (Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1998) 57-64]. 41 Cf. Brière, “Introduction générale” (PO 29.1) 21 (where the text of the note is quoted in

Syriac and in French translation). For the wider context, see F. Nau, “Sur quelques autographes de Michel le Syrien, patriarche d’Antioche de 1166 à 1199,” Revue de l’orient chrétien 19 (1914) 378-97, esp. 394-95. 42 See D. Weltecke, Die «Beschreibung der Zeiten» von Mǀr Michael dem Grossen (26-

1199). Eine Studie zu ihrem historischen und

historiographischen Kontext, CSCO 584/Subs. 110 (Louvain: Peeters, 2003) 121-22. 43 Brière, l.c. : ‹û⃠ÀûâÍïÁƒ çæÙãÏÿâ J Àûùå ¾Á–ƒ á܆ ûØûÒ½ñƒ ¿ÿÙàùÁ ûÓåÿå ¾Ć↖ûÁ .ÀûâÍïÁ ÌÁ ÌÁ “We determine that in the Monastery of Mar Barsauma it will be kept within the cell of the patriarch and everyone who wants may read in it within the monastery”. 44 Brière, ibid. 45 For some general remarks on these manuscripts, see S.P. Brock, “Manuscrits liturgiques en syriaque,” in F. Cassingena-Trévedy and I. Jurasz (eds.), Les liturgies syriaques, Études syriaques 3 (Paris: Geuthner, 2006) 276-77. 46 For interesting insight into the juridical texts that were available to Severus, see Kaufhold, “Welche Kirchenrechtsquellen kannte Patriarch Severos von Antiocheia (512-518)?” (as in footnote 27) 259-74. On Severus’ juridical background, see also Poggi, “Severo di Antiochia alla Scuola di Beirut” (as in footnote 2). 47 Ms. Vat. Syr. 103 may be dated to the late ninth or early tenth century. Although Brooks lists this manuscript among the sources from which he collected the letters published by him, he did not include in his edition all the Severus quotations found in it. For some general information on the exegetical collection of ms. Vat. Syr. 103, see R.B. ter Haar Romeny, “The Peshitta of Isaiah: Evidence from the Syriac Fathers,” in W.Th. van Peursen and R.B. ter Haar Romeny (eds.), Text, Translation, and Tradition. Studies on the Peshitta and its Use in the Syriac Tradition Presented to Konrad D. Jenner on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday, Monographs of the Peshitta Institute Leiden 14 (Leiden: Brill) esp. 154-59.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 19

Severus, Patriarch of Antioch (512-538) _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

48

Ms. Biblioteca Ambrosiana, C 313 inf; facsimile edition in A.M. Ceriani, Codex SyroHexaplaris Ambrosianus, Monumenta sacra et profana 7 (Milan, 1874). On this manuscript, which once belonged to Deir al-Surian, see C. Pasini, E. Vergani, Ph. Luisier, “Per la storia della siro-esaplare ambrosiana (alla luce delle annotazioni siriache e copta recentemente rinvenute sul codice),” OCP 71 (2005) 21-58. 49 In this manuscript the name of Severus is not followed by the title of a specific work or the addressee of a letter. Several of these quotations are also found in the margins of ms. Vat. Syr. 103, again without indication of their provenance, in contrast with the other Severus passages in this manuscript that normally do have this information. The monk Severus may have borrowed some of the Severus quotations from a Syro-Hexapla manuscript. 50 Cf. W.E. Crum, “Sévère d’Antioche en Égypte,” Revue de l’Orient chrétien 23 (192223) 92-104. For a recent and well-documented overview essay, see A. van der Meer, “Het verblijf van Severus van Antiochië in Egypte,” Het Christelijk Oosten 48 (1996) 49-72. No later than the sixth or seventh century Severus’ name was included with the names of the Coptic patriarchs in the diptychs, see H. Brakmann, “Severos unter den Alexandrinern,” Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 26 (1983) 54-58 (on a seventh-century diptych in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston). For Severus in the Coptic Synaxarium and in other liturgical texts, see L. Farag, “Coptic-Syriac Relations beyond Dogmatic Rhetoric,” Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies 11.1 (Winter 2008) esp. par. 5-8. 51 A useful overview is provided by D.V. Proverbio, “Un frammento copto dell’omelia cattedrale L di Severo di Antiochia (In Leontium II),” Augustinianum 41 (2001) 517-20. 52 Hom. 1 exists in ms. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, copte 131; Hom. 27 in ms. Pierpont Morgan M585, cf. L. Depuydt, Catalogue of Coptic Manuscripts in the Pierpont Morgan Library, Corpus of Illuminated Manuscripts 4 (Louvain: Peeters, 1993) 335-

37; Album, pl. 159-60 (beginning and end of the homily). 53 Ed. C.J.A. Lash, in PO 38.2 (1976) 254-69. 54 G. Garitte, “Textes hagiographiques orientaux relatifs à saint Léonce de Tripoli, II. L’homélie copte de Sévère d’Antioche,” Muséon 79 (1966) 335-86, esp. 352-53. 55 See W.E. Crum and H.G. Evelyn White, The Monastery of Epiphanius at Thebes II, The Metropolitan Museum of Art Egyptian Expedition (New York, 1926) 338-40 (texts E and F). For the identifications, see E. Lucchesi, “L’homélie cathédrale CXV de Sévère d’Antioche en copte,” AB 124 (2006) 14; Id., “L’homélie cathédrale II de Sévère d’Antioche en copte,” AB 125 (2007) 7-16. 56 For the Coptic fragments, see S. Voicu, “Un frammento copto dell’omelia cattedrale 77 di Severo d’Antiochia,” Augustinianum 32 (1992) 385-86 (identification of one single folio in the Pushkin Museum in Moscow). See also E. Lucchesi, Répertoire des manuscrits coptes (sahidiques) publiés de la Bibliothèque Nationale de Paris, Cahiers d’Orientalisme 1 (Genève: Patrick Cramer, 1981) 73 (no. 1312, 161-164), 81 (no. 1316, 79), 88 (no. 1323, 142); A.I. Elanskaya, The Literary Coptic Manuscripts in the A.S. Pushkin State Fine Arts Museum in Moscow, Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 18 (Leiden: Brill, 1994) 372-77 (no. 17 = PO 16.1, 796,8-800,3). The parchment folio, the provenance of which is unknown, is said to be of the tenth century; the language is Sahidic. 57 Comp. Graffin a.o., in the introduction to the edition of Hom. 1 (PO 38.2) 253: “On remarquera que les deux versions, syriaque et copte, ne sont pas identiques, mais qu’il n’y a pas entre elles de différence notable pour le sens.” 58 Cf. Y. Nessim Youssef, “Coptic Fragment of a letter of Severus of Antioch,” OrChr 87 (2003) 116-22; to be complemented with E. Lucchesi, “Une lettre de Sévère d’Antioche à Thomas, évêque de Germanicie, en version copte,” Muséon 118 (2005) 327-31. 59 Lucchesi, “Une lettre,” 328, with footnote 8, and 329, with footnote 12.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 20

Severus, Patriarch of Antioch (512-538) _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

60

See W.E. Crum, in E.W. Brooks, A Collection of Letters (PO 14.1), 290-291; same text in W.E. Crum and H.G. Evelyn White, The Monastery of Epiphanius at Thebes II, The Metropolitan Museum of Art Egyptian Expedition (New York, 1926) 15 (no. 59); transl. 164-65. 61 Lucchesi, “Une lettre,” 330: “Cependant, parmi les langues orientales, c’est le copte qui serre de plus près l’original, ce qui n’est pas pour surprendre, vu que l’archétype est égyptien.” The Syriac version (i.e. Letter no. 107 in Brooks’ edition, PO 14.1, 260-264) is said to have been “fortement retouchée, à l’instar de l’ensemble.” (329). 62 See the description in B. Layton, Catalogue of Coptic Literary Manuscripts in the British Library Acquired Since the Year 906 (London: The British Library, 1987) 389-94. One separate leaf of the same manuscript (BM 14,740) was published by A. Hebbelynck in Muséon 41 (1928) 111-13. 63 P. de Lagarde, Catenae in Evangelia Aegyptiacae quae supersunt (Gottingen, 1886). 64 Y. Nessim Youssef, “The Coptic catena on the four Gospels according to Severus of Antioch. I, The Gospel of Matthew,” Bulletin de la Société d’archéologie copte 43 (2004) 95120. 65 F.J. Caubet Iturbe, La cadena arabe del evangelio de San Mateo, I. Texto; II. Versión, Studi e testi, 254-255 (Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1969-1970). On the relationship with the Coptic Catena, see I, LI-LIV. A further publication by Caubet Iturbe remained inaccessible to me: La cadena copto-arabe de los evangelios y Severo de Antioquía (Madrid, 1975). 66 Id. II , XVIII-XIX. 67 Layton, Catalogue, 393. 68 Caubet Iturbe, I, XXV. This transfer must have taken place some time after 1269, the year in which the manuscript came in the possession of a monk who had links with the Monastery of Macarius; see ibid., XXIV. 69 For Matthew, see the edition of Caubet Iturbe, II, 273-75.

70

Ed. E.W. Brooks, The Sixth Book of the Select Letters of Severus, Patriarch of Antioch, in the Syriac Version of Athanasius of Nisibis, I.1 (London and Oxford, 1902) 182,20-183,1: J Í ¾òàÏÍü ÊÏ ¾Ćàñ~ƒ çâ çÙò؃˜ƒ Í元 K ¾Ùéσ† v¿šÍæ؃Í⃠¾åÍĽÁ çÙÏ÷åÿ↠v¾ÐåÊâ K ¿šÊî ÀÊσ† u‘ÍÓñÍÅؽÁƒ Íå…J ¾ñÍùéÙñ~ J š÷ؘš ¿šÍæãØÌÁ ¾ĆãÐà⃠‹Ìß ÍÂýϚ ÃÒ ¾Ù܃ƒ† v¿šÍñšÍü† ¿ÿ؃†š† v¾ÐÁÍü J .ÍùÙÒÅ šÍ߃ ¾æÓßÍÏ ¾Ćàß Ìß ÿØ~ ¾Ùòü† (transl. II.1, 1903, 165). Comp. L. Van Rompay, “Society and Community in the Christian East,” in M. Maas (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Justinian (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005) 245. 71 V. Poggi, “Soggiorno alessandrino e reminiscenze classiche di Severo d’Antiochia,” in G. Fiaccadori and G. Pugliese Carratelli (eds.), Autori classici in lingue del Vicino e Medio Oriente, Istituto italiano per gli studi filosofici (Roma: Libreria dello Stato, 2001) 357-72. The exact duration of Severus’ stay in Alexandria is not known, but it may have been four years or more. From Alexandria Severus left for Beirut, to continue his studies there, between 486 and 491. On his stay in Beirut, see V. Poggi, “La Scuola di Beirut secondo testi greci e orientali,” ibid., 57-68. Poggi suggests that Severus’ student years in Alexandria may have had a decisive impact on some of the concepts he developed later, and that a deeper study of those years “forse farà comprendere meglio la lotta che Severo ha condotto senza compromessi per affermare la sua concezione, che probabilmente, ne fosse egli cosciente o no, aveva le sue ultime radici negli anni trascorsi ad Alessandria;” (“Soggiorno alessandrino,” 372). For a convincing attempt at contextualization of Zacharias Scholasticus Life of Severus in Egypt in the 520s, see E. Watts, “Winning the Intracommunal Dialogues: Zacharias Scholasticus’ Life of Severus,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 13 (2005) 437-64. 72 Ed. B. Evetts, History of the Patriarchs of the Coptic Church of Alexandria, II. Peter I to Benjamin I (66) (PO 1.4; 1907) 482-83. Comp. J. den Heijer, “Relations between Copts and

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 21

Severus, Patriarch of Antioch (512-538) _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Syrians in the light of recent discoveries at Dayr as-SuryƗn,” in M. Immerzeel and J. van der Vliet (eds.), Coptic Studies on the Threshold of a New Millennium. Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Coptic Studies. Leiden, 27 August – 2 September 2000, OLA 133 (Louvain: Peeters, 2004) II, 933.

73

See L. Van Rompay and A.B. Schmidt, “Takritans in the Egyptian Desert: The Monastery of the Syrians in the Ninth Century,” Journal of the CSSS 1 (2001) 41-60. 74 Cf. N.G. Garsoïan, L’Église arménienne et le grand schisme d’Orient, CSCO 574/ Subs. 100 (Louvain: Peeters, 1999) esp. 212-20.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 22

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

THE JEWS IN EPHREM’S COMMENTARY ON THE DIATESSARON1

CRAIG E. MORRISON PONTIFICAL BIBLICAL INSTITUTE, ROME2

E

I. INTRODUCTION

phrem the Syrian claimed the Old Testament for his own theological enterprise. He wrote commentaries on it and, when interpreting the New Testament, he quarried it to explain puzzling gospel passages. One of the objectives of his Commentary on the Diatessaron was to show that the Bible is a single unity made up of two Testaments.3 For Ephrem, the New Testament, or what he calls the “Second Testament” (çؚ˜š; cf. VI,11b and VI, 12), flows from the Old Testament, or the “First Testament” (¿ÿÙâÊø, cf. VI,11b). In turn, the First Testament illuminates and explains events in the Second. It was the First Testament, sacred to both Christians and Jews, that was a source of Ephrem’s dispute with the Jews in his fourth century Syriac speaking world. He wanted his Christian audience to accept his interpretation of this shared patrimony as the correct interpretation against Jewish opinions to the contrary. The study of Ephrem’s anti-Jewish rhetoric usually focuses on his hymns as they offer a more brazen polemic, while his Commen-

tary on the Diatessaron receives practically no attention at all.4 But his more sober approach to the Jews in the Commentary may offer insights into the source and content of Ephrem’s arguments with the Jews.5

II. EPHREM’S ANTI-JEWISH RHETORIC Early Christian writings are characterized by an anti-Jewish polemic. The tension between those inside the Jesus’ group and those outside of it is already evident in the gospels, but with Melito of Sardis (Peri Pascha) and Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho) the polemic becomes more pronounced as Christian self-identity is crystallizing (often referred to as “the parting of the ways”).6 One of the central issues of Christian identity was the “correct” interpretation of the Old Testament (against Jewish interpretation), a central theme in the Dialogue with Trypho.7 In the fourth century at the edge of the Roman Empire that debate continued in Ephrem’s Commentary on the Diatessaron. Much of Ephrem’s writings manifest a vitriolic hatred for the Jews. Robert Murray’s pithy remark sums up the schol-

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 23

The Jews in Ephrem’s Commentary on the Diatessaron _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

arly judgement on Ephrem’s anti-Jewish rhetoric: “It must be confessed with sorrow that Ephrem hated the Jews.”8 In a recent article, Karl H. Kuhlmann condemns Ephrem’s most flagrant anti-Jewish polemic which, he writes, “sinks almost as low as anything produced by modern antiSemites.”9 A. P. Hayman suggests that Ephrem’s “intense detestation of the Jews is…in direct proportion to the intensity of his faith.”10 Ephrem is judged more harshly than his predecessor, Aphrahat,11 whom Jacob Neusner compliments as the “worthiest participant in the Jewish Christian dialogue put forward in antiquity by either side.”12 With regard to the Commentary on the Diatessaron, Carmel McCarthy noted that it “includes a distinct anti-Jewish bias.”13 But some of Ephrem’s anti-Jewish rhetoric may not have been directed at the Jews. Christine Shepardson has complained that “Ephrem’s antiJewish language has too often been taken solely at face value, as referring to contemporary Jews, without recognizing its role against ‘heretical’ Christian Opponents.” She argues that, in the Sermons on Faith III, Ephrem employed anti-Jewish language, “to draw his Arian audience into his own Nicene orthodoxy by describing Christians who have wandered from the orthodox fold as physically and theologically threatened by the Jews, and also as a threat themselves, like the Jews, to orthodox Christians.”14 Ephrem appealed “to Jews and Judaism as a rhetorical foil with which to frighten and to chastise his [Christian] audience.”15 Shepardson’s insights temper a facile historical reconstruction of the relations between Jews and Christians in Ephrem’s fourth century worlds of Nisibis and Edessa on the basis of his writings. And this is the

heart of the problem. Understanding the historical and social world within which Ephrem preached and wrote is critical to interpreting his anti-Jewish rhetoric. But how? J. Lieu has pointed out that social realities in the ancient world are mediated through the texts that survive and bridging between texts and social realities is a precarious task. While scholars want to reconstruct the historical context in which these texts were written, “this can never be more than an exercise in imaginative recreation, subject to challenge.”16 Lieu’s cautionary advice provides a point of departure for examining whether the anti-Jewish rhetoric in the Commentary on the Diatessaron can witness to the social relations between Christians and Jews in Ephrem’s fourth century Nisibene/Edessene world.

III. EPHREM’S FOURTH CENTURY WORLD 1. A Jewish-Christian Community Ephrem was born ca. 306 at Nisibis, a town along the Silk Road. He immigrated to Edessa when, after Julian’s defeat in 363, Rome ceded Nisibis to the Sassanians. Nisibis was home to a significant Jewish community that J. Neusner has described in his A History of the Jews in Babylonia.17 Ephrem’s writings suggest that his experience at Nisibis was more Jewish-Christian than Gnostic-Christian: “If the frequency with which Ephraem argues against his opponents serves as a measure of their influence, then Jews and “Arians” dominated the religious scene at Nisibis.”18 It was after his transfer to Edessa that, according to Christian Lange, Ephrem “wrote” the Commentary on the Diatessaron.19 Edessa was a city

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 24

The Jews in Ephrem’s Commentary on the Diatessaron _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

characterized by religious diversity that included Jews (perhaps twelve per cent of the population),20 Marcionites, adherents of Mani, other Gnostic groups and pagans. From about the second century, “people started stressing the boundaries” between the various communities. “However, the reality of everyday life in the small and bustling towns did not allow these boundaries to be kept.”21 H. J. W. Drijvers imagines that by the fourth century Edessene society was a blending of Gentiles, Jews and Christians who shopped at the same markets and also exchanged their ideas.22 Though the market place of fourth century Edessa was ecumenical, the Christian texts that emerged from that Edessene world were not.23 Ephrem, like other Christian authors, was interested in defining Christian identity as distinct from other groups, including the Jews, since Jews and Christians were often indistinguishable. John of Ephesus, a sixth century historian and hagiographer, “reports that a monk visiting a mountainous village east of the Euphrates asks the people he meets: “Are you Christians or Jews?”24 As late as the eight century, ordinary Syrian Christians “could still not distinguish clearly between Judaism and Christianity.”25 The debate with the Jews in the Commentary, suggests that Ephrem wanted his Christian audience to recognize its character as distinct from the Jews.26 The probable Jewish roots of Edessene Christianity only increased Ephrem’s drive to describe Christian self-identity as distinct from Judaism.27 The Doctrina Addai reports that the apostle Addai, coming from Jerusalem, arrived at Edessa and lodged with Tobia, a Jew from Palestine.28 While its historical details cannot be taken at face value, the Christian tradition in the Doctrina Addai

looks to Jerusalem for its origin and remembers that the first missionaries found hospitality among Jews. The emergence of the Peshitta (the Syriac Bible) may provide further evidence of the Jewish roots of Edessene Christianity. Weitzman submits evidence that the Peshitta was translated in Edessa by nonrabbinic Jews. They were part of a Jewish community that converted to Christianity, “bringing with it a version of the Hebrew Bible.”29 This theory offers further evidence that the Christian community at Edessa has some Jewish roots.30 Converts to Christianity from Judaism continued to feel the appeal of Jewish tradition: Jewish converts would have been troubled by the continued Jewish expectation of a future messiah, by the Jews’ confidence that they were chosen by God and would be redeemed by him, and by the appeal of those religious rites and habitual practices given up on adherence to the new faith. Such rites not only must have been earlier rooted in their own personal lives, but also were practiced everywhere around them.31

Aphrahat confronted this question in his Demonstrations.32 His Christian community was particularly disturbed by the notion that the Jews were the proper “heirs of the promises of Scripture.”33 Thus, Aphrahat focused his attention on the “Scriptures in order to prove on Scriptural foundations that by the Jews’ own holy books Christianity is vindicated.”34 Ephrem seems to have a similar agenda in his Commentary. Was the relationship between Jewish and Christian communities in Edessa antagonistic?35 Drijvers argues that Ephrem’s writings reflect a polemic not a social situation:36

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 25

The Jews in Ephrem’s Commentary on the Diatessaron _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ephrem Syrus does not address himself to the Jews as a separate community in the city but deals with members of the Christian church who were attracted to Jewish customs and frequented the synagogue. From that viewpoint, Jews were on a par with Arians, Marcionites, Bardaisanites, Manichaeans, and even pagans insofar as Christians still clung to pagan practice.37

Aware of J. Lieu’s caution about creating the social world behind a text, what do Ephrem’s references to the Jews in the Commentary suggest about his contact with the Jewish community and, more importantly, his audience’s contact with Jews? Given that his comments about the Jews in the Commentary are less malicious than in his other writings, we might be able to hear in them some of the content of the discussions that took place between Christians and Jews in that “common market-place.” 2. Jewish hope for a Messiah, a rebuilt Temple and a return to the land For Christian authors the Temple in ruins was a testimony to Christian triumph over Judaism.38 Thus, when Emperor Julian, having abandoned the program for a Christianized Roman Empire, announced that he would rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem (361),39 “two of the Church’s most powerful ‘empirical’ arguments against the Jews and Judaism” were threatened: Rome’s defeat of Judaea in AD 70 and 135 proved incontrovertibly that God had repudiated Israel because of their rejection of his Son; and that the “fleshly” (that is, Jewish) observance of the Law was in any case impossible, since the biblically mandated

sacrifices could be performed only at the Temple in Jerusalem.40

Moreover, messianic expectations among Jews may have been on the rise as the fourth century drew to a close: A number of rabbis calculated the coming of the Messiah for the fifth century, because it was four hundred years from the destruction of the second temple in 70 C.E. They reasoned that the first exile, i.e. the captivity in Egypt, lasted for four hundred years and hence, deliverance could be expected in approximately the same period of time.”41

Wilken finds in the writings of Jerome and Theodoret traces of a Christian reaction to these messianic expectations. The hope for restoration to the land of Israel also endured: “As late as the fifth century, five hundred years after the destruction of the city of Jerusalem by the Romans, Jews continued to believe in a redemption that would take place in the realm of history and politics, in this world. They had not given up their national aspirations.”42 Perhaps Ephrem’s remarks about the Jews in the Commentary trace his reaction to these Jewish aspirations. 3. Proselytizing Jews M. Simon adduced evidence that Jewish proselytism was the primary threat to early Christian communities and it was particularly extreme in the eastern part of the Roman Empire, as Chrysostem’s homilies against the Jews reveal. Simon argues that Christian attraction to Judaism was the result of persistent Jewish proselytism.43 Kazan too explains that the anti-Judaism in several of Ephrem’s Hymns “reflect a situation in which the Jews were proselytising

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 26

The Jews in Ephrem’s Commentary on the Diatessaron _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

among the members of the Syriac Church in Nisibis. Their success apparently posed a serious threat to the Church.”44 “While there is no direct evidence to indicate the Jews proselytised among the Christians, this historical situation makes this a possibility, and the bitterness and vindictiveness with which Ephreaem wrote of the Jews, makes this a strong probability.”45 McVey argues that the context of Ephrem’s anti-Jewish polemic in the Hymns of the Nativity may have been “Jewish proselytism among Christians in the face of full-scale Sassanian persecution.”46 (The Sassanian persecution of Christians began under the rule of Shapur II.) P. Fredriksen and O. Irshai have called this theory of Jewish proselytism into question. They note that Jewish texts “speak only of Gentile inclusion, not conversion.”47 They find nothing in Jewish theology that would justify proselytism of Gentiles and they propose that Jews would not have wanted to upset the “religious ecosystem” by drawing Gentiles from the state religion. According to Wilken, Jewish proselytism continued into the fifth century: “as late as 415 C.E., the emperors were passing laws prohibiting proselytization of slaves by Jews, a sure sign that the practice continued.”48 Miriam Taylor has taken direct aim at M. Simon’s theory characterizing it as “an attempt to account for the origins of the church’s antiJudaic teachings through a defence of the vigour and vitality of ancient Judaism.”49 She argues that where close attention is paid to the context, substance, spirit, tone and orientation of the Christian texts, the inward rather than outward apologetic focus of the anti-Jewish passages is revealed. To the fathers fell the task of interpreting salvation history, and

of defining the movement to which they belonged, and the anti-Jewish argumentation of the church formed part of this endeavour.50

The anti-Jewish rhetoric in pre-Constantinian Christian writers is not in response to a rival Jewish community, as Simon would have it. The “Jews” are “symbolic figures who play an essential role in the communication and development of the church’s own distinctive conception of God's plans for His chosen people, and in the formation of the church's cultural identity.”51 Taylor concludes that anti-Judaism is really a “theological antiJudaism.” Taylor’s interests lie in demonstrating that attempts to explain Christian antiJewish rhetoric on the basis of historical conflicts between Christians and Jews is unfounded. She carefully analyzes the arguments of scholars such as David Efroymson, who argued that the Jews in Tertullian’s writings are “Scriptural Jews”, they are the Jews of his imagination.52 But, when Efroymson appeals to historical conflicts between Christians and Jews, Taylor writes, “In the true tradition of the ‘conflict theory’, he engages freely in suppositions about the attitudes of both groups.”53 Taylor is particularly attentive to scholars who maintain “the idea of Judaism as adversary of the church.”54 She argues that to describe ancient Judaism using Christian texts should be regarded with suspicion. She focuses on the pre-Constantinian period, noting that Judaizing was a phenomenon in the postConstantinian period especially in the east. Chrysostom, Aphrahat and Ephrem reacted to this new situation.55 Simon’s use of the term “proselytizing” is perhaps unhelpful in this discussion as it gives the impression that a monolithic Jew-

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 27

The Jews in Ephrem’s Commentary on the Diatessaron _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

ish community had developed a scheme to convert Christians. In contrast to Simon’s theory, Drijvers and Kazan argue that Christians were drawn to Jewish customs and frequented the synagogue (thus, no need for any “proselytizing” Jews). These theories seek to reconstruct an historical situation of contact between Jews and Christians and they presume that Ephrem’s anti-Jewish rhetoric looks outward, towards the Jewish community. In contrast, Taylor argues that the anti-Jewish rhetoric looks inward and is a function of Christian self-identity. Her approach does not require contact between Jews and Christians as the backdrop for anti-Jewish rhetoric. She argues:

Jews in his Commentary on the Diatessaron and imagine the social context in which they were written.

IV. THE JEWS IN THE COMMENTARY ON THE DIATESSARON 1. Argumentative Language When Ephrem makes reference to the Jews in the Commentary, it is as if he is in a debate with them. In V,4b he accuses the Jews of having no argument (¿ÿàî) for their unbelief:

The Judaism which the Christian fathers negated was not a formidable community, or a powerful religious group which was feared and resented. The church’s theological vision left no room for the recognition of any other tradition, and Judaism in particular was robbed of its legitimacy in the church’s supersessionary arguments.56

He [Jesus] acted discreetly in every place [he went], being careful not to give an argument (¿ÿàî) for the Jews’ lack of faith. Thus, when he was invited to the banquet he did not tell his disciples to pour water into containers rather [he told] the servants of the banquet [to do so]. Again, when he came to give life to Lazarus, he did not tell his disciples to open the tomb. Instead, [he told] the Jews [to do so].

Taylor’s provocative study has created some stir and several scholars have raised questions. Alan Davies rejects the notion that Christian anti-Judaism has no basis in Jewish-Christian conflicts.57 As for Taylor’s dispute with practically all recent scholarship, Efroymson explains that most of Taylor’s adversaries saw “themselves as historians, dealing with people rather than (primarily) with texts.”58 Despite these critiques, Taylor illustrates how the study of Christian anti-Judaism must consider how that anti-Judaism is a function of Christian identity. We will return to this question of inward or outward looking anti-Jewish rhetoric at the conclusion of this article. We now turn to Ephrem’s remarks about the

Ephrem recalls two New Testament scenes: the story of the wedding at Cana (John 2:111) and the raising of Lazarus (John 11:144). He interprets two gestures in these scenes as indications that Jesus had consciously tried to convince the Jews that he was the Messiah: in John 2:7 Jesus ordered the servants, not his apostles, to fill six jars with water (that was to become wine) and in John 11:39 he told the Jews to remove the stone over Lazarus’ tomb. In neither passage are the “Jews” specifically mentioned, nor is there anything in the Gospel of John to support Ephrem’s claim that Jesus was trying to avoid furnishing the Jews with arguments (¿ÿàîK) against his messiahship. Ephrem’s point: his Christian audience should know

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 28

The Jews in Ephrem’s Commentary on the Diatessaron _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

that Jesus gave the Jews no argument. Are they to carry this instruction into the common market-place of Edessa? Ephrem labels the New Testament Pharisees as “persons who were looking for pretexts” against Jesus (XV,6): ÍÐÝýãß ¿ÿàî ¿ÿàîK ÚÙïÁK ¾ÙýØăñ ††… çÙïÁ The Pharisees, seekers of pretexts, were looking to find a pretext…

This charge comes as Ephrem is about to interpret the story of Jesus’ encounter with a man who asks what he must do to inherit eternal life (Mark 10:18). There is nothing in this passage to suggest that this man was trying to “test” Jesus or that he approached Jesus with a “pretext.” Jesus opponents in the Gospels are sometimes presented as “testers” (Matt 16:1; 19:3; Mark 8:11; Luke 10:25), but nowhere in the NT are the Pharisees or any other Jewish characters called “seekers of pretexts.” Ephrem’s accusation, foreign to the gospel, may trace his own fourth century world that involved debate with the Jews. Aphrahat also employs the term “pretext,” ¿ÿàî, as he debates with the Jews in the Fifteenth Demonstration, “On the Distinction of Foods.”59 He questions Jewish dietary traditions (728.10-729.2): With regard to these [questions], my friend, I will offer a brief argument to you, as much as I am able, that [the distinction of] foods is of no benefit for those who observe it, though it does not harm those who are following it. Because the mouth of the Holy One testified, “It is not that which enters a person that defiles him but that which comes out from a person that defiles him.” Our Saviour said this in order to cut off the argument

(¿ÿààîK úéñ) of the Pharisees and the Sadducees who were boasting in lustrations, purity, the washing of the hands and the distinction of foods.

The notion that Jesus intended to “cut off the argument” (¿ÿàî úéñ) of the Pharisees and Sadducess is not in the gospels. The expression does not appear anywhere in the NT. The phrase appears again in this Demonstration (732.8: úéñ ¾ÐØ÷å ¾ÐÙàü ”~† ¿ÿàî and 733.8) when Aphrahat argues that Paul “cut off” the arguments of the Jews. Thus, the term ¿ÿàî, translated “argument” or “pretext,” and used by Ephrem and Aphrahat, belongs to the debate vocabulary for arguing with the Jews. In VIII,1b Ephrem interprets the account of Jesus sending his disciples out on mission (Matt 10:5): the disciples are not to travel among the Gentiles or the Samaritans. They are to tend to the lost sheep of the House of Israel. This prescript captures Ephrem’s attention (VIII,1a-b): “Do not take the way of Gentiles and do not enter Samaritan villages. But go to the lost sheep of Israel.” [He said this] to keep the promise made to Abraham and, moreover, to confute (¥êÜ) the resourcefulness of the Jews, lest they would say “because he associated himself with Gentiles we crucified him.” For this reason he blocked his disciples from preaching to the Gentiles. But after they crucified him, he commanded his disciples to go throughout the world: “preach my Gospel through all creation and baptize all Gentiles.”

There is no indication in the Gospel of Matthew that Jesus’ order (Matt 10:5) was intended to anticipate future debates with the Jews. The argument Ephrem lends his Jew-

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 29

The Jews in Ephrem’s Commentary on the Diatessaron _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

ish opponents is, of course, impossible. (How would the Jewish community know the text of Matt 10:5?) But Ephrem’s interpretation suggests a world of confutation between Christians and “resourceful” Jews. Another example of debate language in the Commentary appears in XXI,24. Ephrem is dealing with Matt 28:11-15 which recounts that Jewish leaders bribed the Roman guards to say that Jesus’ body was stolen by his disciples: They convinced [them] with money [to say] “his disciples stole him while we were sleeping.” He advised them by his voice that he had led out the dead from Sheol. Moreover, there was no need for thieves to be witnesses to his resurrection, just as he had shut the mouth of demons, as his truth would not be believed from liars. If Adam had not sinned, how would people live? Let the Jews explain that to us! Thus, if they had not killed the messiah, in another manner, God would have been able to save the [Jewish] people and the Gentiles.

Ephrem explains why the soldiers at Jesus tomb are not witnesses to his resurrection: just as Jesus silenced demons who identified him as the “Son of God,” so Jesus had no need for the soldiers at his tomb to act as witnesses to his resurrection. Then he poses a theological question to the Jews of his day regarding how salvation could have occurred without Adam’s sin. “Let the Jews K explain that to us” (¾Øƒ†ÌØ çß Íùýòå) he demands! Ephrem’s question is for his Christian audience. But his rhetorical address to his opponents suggests that there were discussions with the Jews over theological questions.

2. The Debate over the “Accurate” (¿ÿØÿÏ) Interpretation of the OT In the Commentary, much of Ephrem’s argument with the Jews focuses on the “accurate” interpretation of the OT. Ephrem shares the concern of Christian commentators who “complained that Jews took the predictions of the prophets to refer to the Jews alone.”60 The Christian claim to the Hebrew Bible had to contend with Jewish interpretations of the same text.61 Ephrem enters into this debate for the first time in II,21b as he interprets the story of Jesus’ birth in the Gospel of Matthew. He recalls how King Herod gathered Jewish leaders to learn where the Messiah would be born (Matt 2:4-5). “‘In Bethlehem,’ they answered.” Then Ephrem turns to the Jews (II, 21b): Then Herod gathered the scribes and Pharisees and asked them where the Messiah would be born. They answered him, “Bethlehem.” Therefore, what justification (¾Ï†ûÁ úò⃠¿ÿàî; lit: argument of excuse) remains for the Jews. They informed Herod, who feigned uprightness, of the location of his birth and accurately (¿ÿØÿØÿÏ) confirmed, against themselves, by the testimony of prophecy, that in Bethlehem he would be born, just as it is written. When the Messiah came to them, they [the Jews] took refuge in a profound lack of knowledge when they said, “as for this one, we do not know where he is from.” They dishonoured the Saviour’s coming. The star convinced (êÙñ~) the Magi, but the Jews and Herod were not [convinced] by the coming of the Magi, nor by the prophecy of the prophets, nor by the fulfilment of the fact.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 30

The Jews in Ephrem’s Commentary on the Diatessaron _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ephrem notes that Herod gathered the scribes and Pharisees, reading Matthew 2:4 differently from what is preserved in the Vetus Syra: “He [Herod] gathered the chief priests and the scribes of the people.”62 While it is possible that Ephrem knew of a different text of this verse, there is nothing in the Syriac or Greek MSS that would support the reading “Pharisees.” It is more plausible that Ephrem preferred to read “Pharisees” instead of “chief priests.” The Pharisees, the religious ancestors of the Jews of Ephrem’s day, testified accurately (¿ÿØÿØÿÏ) as to the location of the Messiah’s birth on the basis of the Hebrew Bible. Then, blurring the lines between the Pharisees in the gospel and the Jews of his own day, Ephrem announces to his audience that the Jews have no defence or justification (¾Ï†ûÁ úò⃠¿ÿàî) for refusing the Christian interpretation of the Old Testament, since their ancestors identified the place where the Messiah was to be born. The Pharisees whom Herod consulted knew how to interpret the Bible. Ephrem wants to know why the Jews of his own time cannot do the same. Ephrem then turns to John 9:29b in which the Jews, confronting the parents of the blind man, say to him (Vetus Syra [Sinaiticus]): †… ¾ÝãØ~ çâ çæÐå~ çÙîÊØ ¾Ćß ç؃ ¾åÌß But as for this one [Jesus] we do not know where he is from.

ignorance as to Jesus’ origins. By implication, Ephrem accuses the Jews of his own day of ignoring, or “conveniently forgetting,” the accuracy of his Christian interpretation of the Old Testament with which their Jewish ancestors agreed. This explains Ephrem’s earlier statement that the Jews of the New Testament “accurately, against themselves, confirmed the testimony of the prophets.”63 Though the phrasing is odd, by means of the expression “against themselves,” Ephrem underscores that the New Testament Jews interpreted their Bible against their own belief that Jesus is not the Messiah. None of this is germane to the meaning of Matt 2:4-5. Ephrem exploits this detail to assert his claim to the correct interpretation of the Old Testament. His argument presupposes that in his fourth century context the “accurate” interpretation of the Old Testament, namely, the Christian interpretation, was the subject of debate. He hopes to win that debate with the Jews, writing that the Jews of the gospel should be “convinced” (êÙñ~) by three things, the coming of the Magi, the prophecy of their Bible and the final outcome of Jesus’ life. Ephrem’s point: so should the Jews of his own day. As Ephrem continues to press for his “accurate” interpretation of the Old Testament, he pretends to address the Jews, accusing them of being blind and failing to perceive (III,2):

By means of this citation, Ephrem illustrates how the Jews of Jesus time preferred to forget (¿ÿùÙãî ¿ÿîÊØ ¾ĆàÁ) how earlier in the life of Jesus they had offered an accurate interpretation of the Scriptures, that Jesus was from “Bethlehem,” just as it is written (and therefore the Messiah). Now they feign

When he [Herod] saw that the magi had tricked him, he became angry. O Israel, blind, not perceiving (¥áÝè), and deaf, not hearing! Have you not yet awoken to the voice of Isaiah that says: “The Lord God will give you a sign”? Had the sign been given through another person, it [the Old

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 31

The Jews in Ephrem’s Commentary on the Diatessaron _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Testament] would have said as much. But it was given to you in that one who is “from a virgin.” This indeed is for all of you. For it was given to Moses, that he alone might be secretly persuaded. And to Gideon and to Hezekiah it was given individually. Was it not a visible event that was sent to you through the Magi along with an accurate interpretation [¿ÿØÿÏ ¾ùüÍñ] of the allegories that are in your law? How did you not perceive (¥áÝè) the time of salvation and not believe in the child of the virgin. Or perhaps, with your king, you were sitting in amazement, hoping that the Magi would return to you again and a second time they would inform you about him.

Ephrem adopts a rhetorical address to “Israel” as he argues for his interpretation of Isa 7:14: ¿Ìß~ ¾Øû⠐ÍÝß Žÿå ¾å… áÓâ J J ¿ÿ߆ÿÁ ¿… ¿š~ ÀûÁ ÀÊà؆ ÿæÓÁ áØ~Íæãî Ìãü Àûøÿå† Because of this, the Lord will give to you a sign: behold the virgin will conceive and will bear a son and he will be called Immanuel.

He accuses the Jews of being deaf and blind to the “accurate” interpretation of this Isaiah text. For Ephrem, the virgin about whom Isaiah spoke is Mary, the mother of Jesus. The Jews fail to perceive (¥ áÝè) the proper interpretation of this Isaiah passage. Moreover, he interprets the Magi in Matt 2:1-12 as messengers who were sent to the Jews to make them see the “accurate interpretation” (¿ÿØÿÏ ¾ùüÍñ†) of their law, a reference to the Hebrew Bible. Still the Jews fail to perceive. Ephrem’s conclusion touches on the question of Jewish messianic expectations. Are the Jews still expecting ( çÙÝè) that the Magi will return to

them to tell them about the Messiah? Perhaps Ephrem was aware of the increasing messianic expectations among the Jews at the end of the fourth century. Later in his Commentary Ephrem calls the Jews blind and deaf again in XIII,2 as he interprets the healing of the lame man. He focuses on the confrontation between the lame man and the Jews (John 5:10): The Jews, upon seeing him, said to him, “who told you to carry your mat?” For they avoided asking him, “Who healed you?” They said to him, “who ordered you to carry [something] on the Sabbath?” O blind [Jews] who do not perceive, O deaf who do not listen. Why it is that one question you avoided while another question you asked? Because they asked blindly, the one who was healed returned them a plain answer for he was a clear advocate who was sent by the wise healer as a “straightener for the crooked.” “Who commanded you to carry your bed?”

Ephrem borrows the language for his accusation, “blind and deaf,” from Isaiah: Isa 6:10

¾å… ¾Ćãîƒ ÌÂß ûÙÄ Ìß ÚÂîš~ K K ¾Ć߃ ÷ãî ‹…ÍæÙî† ûø†~ ‹…Íåƒ~† K K ‹…Í僽Á ðãýå† ‹…ÍæÙïÁ ¿ÎÐå Ìß úÁÿýå† €†ÿå† ÌÂàÁ áÜÿéå† For the heart of this people is thick and they have made heavy their ears, they have shut their eyes so as not to see with their eyes and hear with their ears and perceive with their heart and repent and be forgiven. Isa 43:8

K ÀûØÍî ¾Ćãî úñ~ †Ìß ÿØ~ ¾æÙîƒ K çÙüûφ †Ìß ÿØ~ ¾åƒ~† Bring out a people who are blind though they have eyes, who are deaf though they have ears.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 32

The Jews in Ephrem’s Commentary on the Diatessaron _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ephrem cites the Old Testament against its Jewish interpreters of his own day: they are the blind and deaf about whom Isaiah spoke. And Jesus is “the straightener” for the “crooked” Jews (¾ĆàØÿñK ƒ ¿–†˜ÿß), an allusion to Isa 40:3-4: ¾Ï˜†~ Íæñ ÀûÁÊãÁ Àûøƒ ¾Ćàø K ¾ĆàÙÂü ¿ÿïùòÁ †–†˜š† ¾Øûãß K Íàâÿå ¾ĆàÐå †ÌàÜ [4] HÌß½Ćß ÍÝÝâÿå ¿ÿâÆ ÀĂÍÒ †Ìà܆ ¾ùéî À˜š~† ¾Ùòýß ¾Ćâûî ¿†Ìå† ¿ÿïùòß The voice that calls out: “In the desert prepare a way for the Lord and make straight in the plain highways for our God. [4] Every valley will be filled and every mountain and hill will be made low. The steep places will become level ground and the rough place a plain.

Ephrem’s audience should trust that he, not the “blind” Jews, has the right interpretation of the Old Testament. In Matt 12:39-41 (cf. Luke 11:29-32) Jesus interprets the story of Jonah. Ephrem exploits this New Testament citation of the Old Testament to argue with the Jews: This evil generation seeks a sign. But no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah the prophet. Just as Jonah was three days in the sea, thus the son of man will be in the heart of the earth. Jesus did not say this because he was concerned about the number of days, rather because he healed their illnesses and he raised their dead. But after these signs that are beyond discussion and are testimonies that cannot be proven false, the blind, who cannot see, said, “We want to see a sign from you.” He [Jesus] set aside kings and prophets, his witnesses, and he came to the Ninevites, who did not see the sign from Jonah, but, in the end, they will condemn those who

after the many signs that they saw, denied the creator of the signs. Jonah announced the overthrow of the Ninevites. He cast terror upon them and sowed fear among them. But they stretched out to him a handful of remorse and the fruits of repentance. Gentiles were chosen and the uncircumcised came near. Pagans were saved and sinners repented to the shame (¿ššÌÂß) of the circumcised. Therefore, they will condemn the apostates (À˜ÍòÝß) who did not believe.

Ephrem works this passage, in which Jesus cites the story of Jonah, into an anti-Jewish interpretation. First, he rewrites the New Testament so that the Old Testament reference to Jonah better coordinates with the New Testament. He cites Matthew 12:39-40 (the text does not appear in Luke 11:30). There are no witnesses to the NT that preserve Ephrem’s reading, namely, that Jonah was “in the sea” for three days.64 His adjustment to the Matt 12:40 text draws out the similarities between the two traditions: just as Jonah was “in the sea,” Jesus will be “in the earth.” This rewriting serves his overall argument that the Old Testament is properly read with the New Testament. Ephrem’s language continues to be argumentative as he insists that Jesus’ “signs” cannot be debated (çààâÿâ ¾Ć߃) or falsified (çÁÊÜÿâ ¾Ć߃). It is as if he is talking through his audience to his Jewish opponents. Despite Jesus’ signs, Ephrem accuses “the blind,” now an obvious reference to the Jews of his own day, of still wanting more signs. (In the NT passage, it is the scribes and the Pharisees who want a sign.) Their blindness is not only in failing to recognize Jesus as the messiah, but also in failing to grasp the proper interpretation of their Bible.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 33

The Jews in Ephrem’s Commentary on the Diatessaron _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

In his interpretation of the parable of the Good Samaritan, Ephrem debates with his Jewish opponents about their “Law” and he puts words in their mouth (XVI,24): The one who was wounded was a Jew. By means of the Samaritan, [the parable] reproaches the priests and the Levites who did not have pity on one from their own people. He [Jesus] said to him [the lawyer], “Do likewise regarding this Jew, a member of your own people.” He did not say: “Become a Samaritan.” Thus, he [the lawyer] asked, “Who is my neighbour, my friend?” Our Lord showed him the wounded Jew. Now the Samaritan is an enemy of the Gentiles. Why did he not tell his parable about one of the Gentiles? Did he not shame (¥˜½Ü) the priests and the Levites who showed no favour to one of their own? For if he [the wounded man] had been a Gentile, he would have introduced something strange into [his parable]. For they [the Jews] would not have pity on Gentiles. But to him he said, “Do Likewise.” They will say to us thus, “Did the Law command priests and Levites to show mercy to that wounded Jew, or not?” Therefore our Lord, came to vindicate the Samaritan. Moreover he said to him [the lawyer], “Do not act like those who showed no mercy.”

Ephrem proposes that the wounded person in the parable was a Jew, a detail that is, in fact, implicit in the parable (Ephrem notes that Jesus locates the parable on the road from Jerusalem to Jericho). But the purpose of the parable becomes to shame (¥˜½Ü) the priests and Levites because they failed to come to the assistance of their fellow Jew, which they should have done according to their own “Law” (the theme of “shaming the

Jews” is discussed below). Then, as if he is in dialogue with the Jews of his own time, he imagines them responding to his polemic: “will they not say to us thus” ( çß †ûâ½å áÙ܅). He makes the Jews confess that their own law teaches them to help the wounded “Jew” lying on the side of the road. Ephrem’s point for his Christian audience: the Jews are not faithful to their own law. If they are not faithful to the Bible, how can they be faithful interpreters of it? Finally, Ephrem lends an anti-Jewish twist to the parable, putting into the mouth of Jesus the phrase, “Do not act like those who showed no mercy.” The Gospel text reads: “Go and do likewise” (Luke 10:37). In XIV,10-11 Ephrem interprets Jesus’ transfiguration (Mark 9:2-10; Matt 17:1-9 and Luke 9:28-36). In this scene Moses and Elijah appear with Jesus. He writes (XIV,9): ¾Ùß~† ¾üÍâ çÝØ~ †… ¾ØûÜÍå ~† Ìãî çÙààãâ Were he [Jesus] someone strange, why were Moses and Elijah speaking with him?

Ephrem argues that if Jesus were not the legitimate messiah, Moses and Elijah, major Old Testament figures, would not have validated him by their appearances. He continues (XIV,10): As they were descending the mountain, he commanded them that they should tell no one what they had seen. For what reason, if not because he knew that they would not believe them, rather they would consider them as madmen [saying]: “You know where Elijah is from? See Moses is buried. No one has stood by his tomb.” There would be blasphemy and scandal in this. He said, “Wait until you receive power that when you will have recounted and they will

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 34

The Jews in Ephrem’s Commentary on the Diatessaron _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

have not believed, then you will raise the dead to life to their confutation (¾åûèÍÁ) and for your glory. Wait as well until the tombs are rent and the just ones, new and old, come forth and head for Jerusalem, the city of the great king. Then they will believe that he who raised them also raised Moses. “Let’s see if Elijah comes and takes him down.” Many just persons came forth at the sound from within Sheol, at the sound of his voice; for the sake of one, many just ones went forth. And if the dead heard him and came forth, how much more is Elijah alive. Therefore, in this, that [the just] are coming forth from the tombs, they [the Jews] will learn about Moses and Elijah. Because of this [argument, he said] do not reveal it until the Son of Man has risen from the dead.

Ephrem pretends to debate with the Jews over the appearances of Elijah and Moses at the transfiguration. The presenting issue is Jesus’ order at the end of the transfiguration that its witnesses should remain silent. But why? Ephrem explains that they would be considered crazy. There is no basis in the NT for this explanation. Ephrem’s argument presumes a Jewish interlocutor (Leloir adds “Iudaei”)65 since only a Jewish rival could raise objections to the appearances of Elijah and Moses. But Moses and Elijah represent, for Ephrem, conclusive evidence that the Old Testament looks to Jesus as the Messiah.66 They confute (¾åûèÍÁ) any Jewish objection. In the end, the Jews will learn (çÙòàØ) that the appearances of Moses and Elijah confirm Jesus as the Messiah. 3. The Jews Should be Ashamed Ephrem often tells the Jews that they should be “ashamed” (¥˜½Ü) (see Ephrem’s comment

on the parable of the Good Samaritan discussed above). This “shaming” may be a sub-category of Ephrem’s debate language—his way of declaring the Jews, the losers, and himself, the winner. In XV,20, Ephrem considers the story of Zacchaeus in Luke 19:1-10. As he finishes his interpretation, he addresses himself to the Jews, whom he again refers to as an “apostate people”: Let the apostate people (À˜ÍòÜ ¾Ćãî) be ashamed (˜½Üÿå) by this sudden discipleship. The one who yesterday was an extortioner and today is a benefactor; yesterday a tax collector, today a disciple.

The Jews, according to Ephrem, should be ashamed (¥˜½Ü) for their lack of conversion.67 The label, “apostate people,” does not appear in the NT.68 It is a term that Ephrem applies to the Jewish people of his own day (they are not the only group he labels “apostates” in the Commentary).69 In IV,18, Ephrem reminds his audience that Jesus put to shame the docK ). Such tors of the Law (˜½Ýå ¾èÍãå ÚîÊÙ߃ language does not appear in the NT. Ephrem turns to 1 Cor 1:27: K ¾åÿàÙÐß šÌÂåƒ ¾Ćãàîƒ ‹…†ÌØăÜ ¾ÂĆ He [God] chose the weak of the world to shame the powerful.

In XIII,1 Ephrem again insists that the Jews should be ashamed. He is commenting on the healing of the lame man in John 5:1-9: There was a man who had been sick for thirty-eight years. Our Lord said to him: “Do you want to be made well?” But he did not want it. He explained to him: “there is no one to let me down once the waters are disturbed.” He asked him one thing, he answered him another: “there is no one to lower me down; before I arrive another goes

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 35

The Jews in Ephrem’s Commentary on the Diatessaron _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

in ahead of me.” For thirty-eight years no one was found [to assist] him. Let the Jews who do not believe that baptism forgives sins be put to shame (¥˜½Ü). For if they believe that an angel, through the waters of Siloam, could heal infirmities, how much more the Lord of angels will whiten blemishes through baptism.

While, in this example, the “Jews” are a rhetorical figure for Ephrem to develop his theology of baptism, the “shaming” language is his way of declaring his victory in the debate with the Jews. 4. The Jews Lack Faith On one occasion, Ephrem levels a common Christian accusation against the Jews: they lack faith in Jesus. In VII,27b, Ephrem discusses a problem that has puzzled readers of the New Testament, “Why did our Lord order those who were healed to be silent and not to speak and in another place he ordered the one healed to proclaim his healing?” Jesus wanted to teach his disciples to avoid self-importance. But why were others allowed to announce their healing? This command, according to Ephrem, was for the Jews: And, secondly, so that he might reprove (¥êÜ) the Jews’ lack of faith. Those who were healed, though he ordered them to stay silent, they were not persuaded. Instead they announced it, lest the grace that had happened in them remain hidden. The Jews then, when they saw the signs, they doubted and did not believe.

The lack of faith in Jesus is a theme of the gospels that Ephrem exploits against the Jews.

5. Other Anti-Jewish Remarks Finally, in a few cases Ephrem digresses from his argument to attack the Jews. For example, in X,6 Ephrem tackles a difficult text in Matt 12:32. The Sinaiticus reads: úÁÿýå ¾ýå~ƒ …ûÁ áî ¿ÿàâ ûâ½åƒ á܆ ¾Ćß ”ÊÅå ¾üƒÍøƒ ç؃ ¾Ï†˜ áîƒ áÜ Ìß ¾ĆãàïÁ ¾Ć߆ ¾Ćãàî ¾åÌÁ ¾Ćß Ìß úÁÿýå ÊØÿîƒ Everyone who says something against the Son of Man will be forgiven. Anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, not in this world and not in the world to come.

Ephrem cites this passage as follows (X,4): Ìß úÁÿüš ŽÌß ¾Ć߆ çåš äß ¾Ć߃ ‹… …that not here nor in the time to come will it be forgiven him.

He then interprets this difficult passage as applying to Jesus’ time only, exonerating persons who blasphemed without knowledge (X,6): K ¾Ćãàü ¾æÁ‡ †ÌÁƒ ¾æñÊÅ⠐Íå… áî† ¿ÿîÊØ ¾ĆàÁ ¾æâÍ؃ ûÙÄ Íå… ƒÍÐàÁ ‹… ¾Ø÷â áÙ܅ ÊÙà؃ áÝß çÙñÊÅâ ¿šÍÂؚ ¿†…šƒ This happens only to those blasphemers at that time. For today they blaspheme without knowledge. Therefore for everyone born repentance is possible.

Thus, everyone can be forgiven. Jews too? Ephrem seems to anticipate the question. He takes up Matt 12:24 the accusation by the Pharisees that Jesus cooperates with the devil to cast out demons. Ephrem declares this charge blasphemous and he argues that because it comes with knowledge, it is beyond forgiveness (X,6): Because [they declared] his share with the demons, he portioned to them a share with the demons. For a demon

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 36

The Jews in Ephrem’s Commentary on the Diatessaron _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

is not pitied in this world nor in the world to come. The demon said, “You are the holy one of God.” Then they said: “He has an unclean spirit.” Thus, it is fitting that they be cursed more than demons. Every sin and blasphemy can have some sort of necessity. But with this blasphemy comes debauchery with knowledge. For they knew and because of [their] knowledge, it will not be forgiven them. Indeed the Jews decided as follows: not that the one who called him a demon, but the one who called him Messiah, should be excluded so that you might know that this blasphemy was beyond the boundaries of necessity. Therefore, this blasphemy is also beyond the boundaries of forgiveness.

one takes the bread of sons and throws it to the dogs. He filled up her ears with extraordinary reproach so that her faith might be revealed.

This anti-Jewish interpretation cannot be derived from the New Testament. After Jesus heals the Canaanite woman’s daughter, who was possessed with a demon, he writes that the evil spirit in the girl passed from the Canaanites to “Israel” (XII,14): When the unclean spirit went out from the seed of Canaan…that spirit turned and went into Israel…. When the true Jesus came, through the faith of the Canaanites he drove out the spirit from the girl, who symbolizes the race of Canaan. For they [unclean spirits] from every religion went forth to encounter the name [of Jesus]. If you gaze at Israel today, you will find that all the anger and rebellion of the Gentiles dwell in them.

Ephrem’s interpretation goes beyond the plain meaning of the Gospel passage. He submits that the Jews of the Gospel should be cursed more than demons because they allowed Jesus to be called a devil while rejecting him as the Messiah. This remark supports Murray’s conclusion (noted above) that Ephrem hated the Jews. Another anti-Jewish remark appears at the end of Ephrem’s interpretation of the story of the Canaanite woman (Mark 7:2430 and Matt 15:21-28). When Jesus refuses the Canaanite woman’s request (“It is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs”) she responds with the famous retort: “even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.” The term “dogs” captures our attention just as it did Ephrem’s (XII,13):

Ephrem’s point is that the unclean spirit from the Canaanite’s daughter passed from the Canaanite people to the people of Israel. Though distasteful to modern ears, this is his interpretation of the passage. But then he adds that “today” (¾æâÍØ) those unclean spirits continue to dwell in Israel. This closing, acrid remark adds nothing to his argument and witnesses to Ephrem’s contempt for the Jews of his own day. Among the more common accusations against the Jews in Christian literature is that they rejected Jesus. Ephrem joins this chorus in II,21b:

He called them [the Gentiles] dogs but Israel he called sons. The persistence of dogs and the love of dogs the Gentiles acquired, symbolized in the dogs. The rabidness of dogs Israel acquired, symbolized in the sons. No

When Herod heard, he was troubled and all Jerusalem with him [Matt 2:3]. If Herod, who was a Gentile, was rightly disturbed by the “king of the Jews,” who was born because he would eliminate his kingdom, he was

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 37

The Jews in Ephrem’s Commentary on the Diatessaron _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

justly driven out as he ruled without law. But as for the Jews–why were they troubled? Rather, it was proper for them to rejoice and be glad that they were rescued from a king of foreign Gentiles and would receive their king from the descendents of David. But this is not unusual for the Jews who are faithless at all times. They rejected our Lord and chose Caesar; they crucified the messiah and asked for Barabbas.

Ephrem provides his Christian audience with another argument for why the Jews should have recognized Jesus as the Messiah: God was rescuing them from Herod, a foreign king. But here Ephrem goes beyond this argument to accuse the Jews of unfaithfulness at all times. He then reprises the charge that they rejected Jesus.

V. CONCLUSION Much of Ephrem’s anti-Jewish rhetoric involves the language of debate: TçÙÁÊÜÿâ ¾Ć߃ çààâÿâ ¾Ć߃ T¥êÜ. T¥êÙñ T¾Ï†ûÁ úòâ .¿ÿàî and ¾åûèÍÁ. Ephrem even imagines that Jesus shared his own objective, namely, to avoid furnishing the Jews with antiChristian arguments (V,4b). He accuses the Pharisees of being “seekers of pretexts,” a charge foreign to the New Testament and perhaps more at home in Ephrem’s own world. Ephrem employs this debate language to establish that the Christian interpretation of the Old Testament is the “accurate interpretation” (¿ÿØÿÏ ¾ùüÍñ) against Jewish interpretations to the contrary. What does this reveal about Ephrem’s world? At the very least, he knows that the Old Testament, what he calls the “First Testament,” is not his sole property. He shares

it with the Jews who have competing interpretations for their Holy Book. Much of what he says about the Jews in the Commentary can be understood within the Sitz im Leben of a Christian community coming to define its own identity. Central to that identity was the Christian interpretation of the Old Testament. When Ephrem asserts that the “Jews” should be ashamed because they do not accept the theology of Christian baptism (XIII,1), his argument is for Christian consumption. When he puts arguments into the mouth of his Jewish opponents, as in the case of his interpretation of the Good Samaritan parable, the Jewish “objections” (seemingly impossible in the mouth of a Jew) serve his theological purpose. His caricature of the Jewish response guarantees his victory in the debate with the Jews before his Christian audience. Ephrem was not trying to convince Jews to accept his biblical interpretation, rather, he wanted his Christian audience to appreciate that their interpretation of the Old Testament separates them from Jews (and, in some cases, from their Jewish roots). But does this argumentative language only look inward? Is it only a function of Christian identity? Are the Jews merely a rhetorical figure to advance Ephrem’s argument? The ubiquitous use of debate terminology in the Commentary suggests that this text emerged from a world in which there were theological discussions between Christians and Jews. Among the reasons that Shepardson argues that the Jews are a “rhetorical foil” in the Sermons on Faith III, is the fact that “Ephrem addresses his audience in the intimate second-person singular, in stark contrast to the distant third-person plural with which he consistently refers to the Jews.”70 Efroymson draws a similar ar-

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 38

The Jews in Ephrem’s Commentary on the Diatessaron _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

gument on the basis of Tertullian’s writings: the “Jews” in Tertullian are scriptural Jews. Tertullian addresses his opponents in the second person, while Jews are addressed in the third person.71 By contrast, in the Commentary, Ephrem often addresses the Jews directly (second-person). In III,2 he calls them blind and deaf and poses a question to them: “Have you not yet awoken…?” He questions them again in XIII,2 (“Why it is that one question you avoided while another question you asked?”). In II,2 he again addresses them in the second person to argue for the correct interpretation of Isa 7:14. Ephrem’s regular use of second person address for the Jews suggests that ChristianJewish encounters in the shared Edessene market place included some theological discussions. In XXI,24, Ephrem pretends to interrogate the Jews before his Christian audience: “Let the Jews explain that to us?” The question is, of course, rhetorical. But underlying his argument is an awareness that the Jews

did not accept the Christian claim to their Holy Book. Particularly instructive here is Ephrem’s debate with the Jews over the “accurate interpretation” (¿ÿØÿÏ ¾ùüÍñ†) of Isa 7:14 (III,3). That argument presumes that his audience is aware that Jews would not accept his interpretation of this verse. Thus, without wading into imaginative historical reconstructions, the Commentary appears to have emerged from a world of debate over the Christian claim to the Old Testament. For the nascent Christian community at Edessa and for Ephrem, its spokesperson, the shared biblical traditions in the Old Testament bridged Christianity to Judaism. It was a bridge that Ephrem crossed but only to retrieve the Old Testament for his Christian audience. He was not interested in retrieving Jewish biblical interpretation. Instead, he endeavoured to convince his audience that he, not the Jews, had the correct interpretation of the “First Testament,” and that his interpretation of that Testament was constitutive to their Christian identity.72

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 39

The Jews in Ephrem’s Commentary on the Diatessaron _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

NOTES 1

A portion of this article was given as the annual Brenninkmeijer-Werhahn Lecture (2007) at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem under the auspices of its Center for the Study of Christianity. 2 This article was written with the assistance of the participants in the Syriac Seminar at the Biblical Institute, Rome (2006-7). 3 Craig E. Morrison, “Strangers No More: St. Ephrem’s Use of the Old Testament in his Commentary on the Diatessaron,” Colloque international Ephrem le Syrien, 7-9 June, 2006, Ligugé (forthcoming). 4 Does the Commentary belong to the authentic writings of Ephrem? Christian Lange’s recent study offers a nuanced response to this question; Christian Lange, The Portrayal of Christ in the Syriac Commentary on the Diatessaron, CSCO 616, Subs. 118 (Leuven: Peeters, 2005). The Commentary may be properly attributed to Ephrem, though redactional evidence within it suggests that its final form was the work of Ephrem’s students. Thus, Lange prefers the title: the Syriac Commentary on the Diatessaron. For convenience, I will continue to refer to Ephrem as the author aware of how Lange has nuanced a naive view of Ephrem’s authorship. 5 The text of Ephrem’s Commentary on the Diatessaron is cited according to the chapter and paragraph numbers of Leloir’s edition: L. Leloir, Saint Ephrem. Commentaire de 1‘Évangile Concordant. Texte syriaque (Ms Chester Beatty 709), Chester Beatty Monographs 8 (Dublin: Hodges Figgis & Co., 1963); Saint Ephrem. Commentaire de 1‘Évangile Concordant. Texte syriaque (Ms Chester Beatty 709), Folios additionels, Chester Beatty Monographs 8 (Leuven: Peeters, 1990). 6

See: Raymond Brown, The Gospel According to John (New York: Doubleday, 1966) vol. 1, lxx-lxv; Craig Evans and Donald Hanger (eds.), Anti-Semitism and Early Christianity: Issues of Polemic and Faith (Minneapolis: For-

tress Press, 1993); David Efroymson, et al. (eds.), Within Context: Essays on Jews and Judaism in the New Testament, (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1993). 7 See, for example, chapters 33-34, where Justin Martyr argues for the Christian interpretation of Pss 72 and 110. 8 Robert Murray, Symbols of Church and Kingdom. A Study in Early Syriac Tradition (Piscataway NJ: Gorgias Press, 2004) 68. 9 K. H. Kuhlmann, “The Harp out of Tune: The anti-Judaism/anti-Semitism of St. Ephrem,” The Harp 17 (2004) 177-183. 10 A.P. Hayman, “The Image of the Jew in the Syriac Anti-Jewish Polemical Literature,” in J. Neusner and E.S. Frerichs (eds.), “To See Ourselves as Others See Us”: Christians, Jews, “Others” in Late Antiquity (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985) 429. 11 See K. E. McVey, “The anti-Judaic Polemic of Ephrem Syrus’ Hymns on the Nativity”, in H. W. Attridge, J. J. Collins, T. H. Tobin (eds.), Of Scribes and Scrolls: Studies on the Hebrew Bible, Intertestamental Judaism, and Christian Origins (Lanham/New York/London: University Press of America, 1990) 230. Murray points out that Aphrahat has an understanding of Judaism that Ephrem’s writings do not exhibit (Murray, Symbols, 67). 12 J. Neusner, Aphrahat and Judaism: the Christian-Jewish Argument in Fourth-Century Iran, Studia Post-Biblica 19 (Leiden: Brill, 1971) 244. 13 C. McCarthy, “Gospel exegesis from a Semitic Church: Ephrem’s Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount,” in G. Norton and S. Pisano (eds.), Tradition of the Text. Studies offered to D. Barthélemy, OBO 109 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: 1991) 116, note 36. 14 C. Shepardson, “Anti-Jewish Rhetoric and Intra-Christian Conflict in the Sermons of Ephrem Syrus,” Studia Patristica 25 (Peeters: Leuven, 2001) 502.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 40

The Jews in Ephrem’s Commentary on the Diatessaron _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

15

Shepardson, “Anti-Jewish Rhetoric,” 505. See also C. Shepardson, “‘Exchanging Reed for Reed’: Mapping Contemporary Heretics onto Biblical Jews in Ephrem’s Hymns on Faith,” Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies 5/1 (2002), http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol5No1/ index.html. 16 J. M. Lieu, Christian Identity in the Jewish and Graeco-Roman World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004) 300. 17 He writes: “Jews in Adiabene, including the newly-acquired Nisibis, though a minority, could not have been inconsequential.” See J. Neusner, A History of the Jews in Babylonia 1. The Parthian Period, Studia Post-Biblica 9 (Leiden: Brill, 1969) 65. 18 Lange, The Portrayal of Christ, 19. 19 Lange, The Portrayal of Christ, 170. 20 H. J. W. Drijvers, “Syrian Christianity and Judaism,” in J. M. Lieu, J. North, T. Rajak (eds.), The Jews among Pagans and Christians in the Roman Empire (London/New York: Routledge, 1992) 138. 21 B. ter Haar Romeny, “Hypotheses on the Development of Judaism and Christianity in Syria in the Period after 70 C.E.,” in Huub van de Sandt (ed.), Matthew and the Didache: Two Documents from the Same Jewish-Christian Milieu? (Assen: Van Gorcum, 2005) 31. 22 H. J. W. Drijvers, “Syrian Christianity and Judaism,” 128. Wilken has a similar description of the world of Jews and Christians in Antioch. After presenting passages from the Apostolic Constitutions (probably written in Syria around 380) that would band certain kinds of Christian contact with the religiosity of Jews, he writes: “From these ecclesiastical canons, one gains a picture of Christians and Jews living side by side, owning shops and stores on the same streets, drifting in and out of each other's religious rites. Anxious leaders, unable to stop the casual intercourse, could only plead with their followers to keep to themselves.” See R. L. Wilken, John Chrysostom and the Jews: Rhetoric and Reality in the Late 4th Century, Transformation of the Classical Heritage 4 (Berkeley: University of California, 1983) 71.

23

Drijvers writes: “Religious texts stress ideological differences.” See H. J. W. Drijvers, “Syrian Christianity and Judaism,” 129. 24 Guy G. Stroumsa, “Cultural Dynamics between Christians and Jews in Late Antiquity.” Lecture given at the Gregorian University, Nov. 15, 2006. 25 A. P. Hayman, “The Image of the Jew in the Syriac Anti-Jewish Polemical Literature,” 440. 26 Shepardson’s study of Ephrem’s anti-Jewish language demonstrates “how Ephrem's language constructs for his audience new social boundaries for ‘Christianity,’ as well as for ‘Judaism,’ narrates particular politically advantageous histories for each community, and presents his narrative as scripturally supported historical ‘truth.’” See C. Shepardson, In the Service of Orthodoxy: Anti-Jewish Language and IntraChristian Conflict in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian (Ph.D. diss. Duke University, 2003) 34. 27 If Christianity came from Antioch, it would have had a more Hellenized character. If from the East, it would have had a more Jewish character, see Lange, The Portrayal of Christ, 23. 28 H. J. W. Drijvers, “Jews and Christians at Edessa,” JJS 36 (1985) 92-93. 29 M. Weitzman, The Syriac Version of the Old Testament. An Introduction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999) 259. 30 Ephrem and Aphrahat knew some Jewish traditions, but “there appear to be no clear means for judging just how these traditions were transmitted;” S. Brock, “Jewish Traditions in Syriac sources,” JJS 30 (1979) 225. 31 J. Neusner, Aphrahat and Judaism, 126. 32 Recently Simon C. Mimouni has raised important methodological considerations regarding the Jewish-Christian character of Syriac speaking Christianity, see Simon Mimouni “Le JudéoChristianisme Syriaque: Mythe Littéraire ou Réalité Historique?” in René Levenant (ed), VI Symposium Syriacum, 1992 (Rome: Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 1994) 269-279. He focuses on the shifting fortunes of Aramaic speaking Christians who were under both Persian and Roman Empires: “De plus, les frontières ont varié au

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 41

The Jews in Ephrem’s Commentary on the Diatessaron _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

cours du temps. La ville d’Édesse et la région d’Osroène se sont trouvées tour à tour vassalisées ou/et provincialisées par les perses puis par les romains et enfin de nouveau par les perses…. Nul doute que les événements politiques et militaires ont joué un certain rôle dans la diffusion du christianisme” (p. 277-8). 33 Neusner, Aphrahat and Judaism, 124-5. 34 Neusner, Aphrahat and Judaism, 125. 35 Neusner writes: “the local Christian population and Jewish communities hated one another.” See J. Neusner, A History of the Jews in Babylonia 4. The Age of Shapur II, Studia Post-Biblica 14 (Leiden: Brill, 1969) 34. 36 H. J. W. Drijvers, “Jews and Christians at Edessa,” 99. Lieu agrees: texts “tend to be more exclusive than social experience; individuals and groups interact socially who textually are denied such intercourse;” J. M. Lieu, Christian Identity in the Jewish and Graeco-Roman World, 9. 37 H. J. W. Drijvers, “Jews and Christians at Edessa,” 87. 38 R. L. Wilken, “The Restoration of Israel in Biblical Prophecy: Christian and Jewish Responses in the Early Byzantine Period,” in J. Neusner and E.S. Frerichs (eds.), “To See Ourselves as Others See Us”: Christians, Jews, “Others” in Late Antiquity (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985) 403-4. 39 See Michael B. Simmons, “The Emperor Julian’s Order to Rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem: A Connection with Oracles”, ANES 43 (2006) 68-117. He reviews the various hypotheses to explain Julian’s motives and then argues that anti-Christian oracles motivated Julian. 40 P. Fredriksen and O. Irshai, “Christian AntiJudaism: Polemics and Policies,” in Steven Katz (ed.), The Cambridge History of Judaism, v. 4, The Late Roman-Rabbinic Period (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006) 1004. 41 Wilken, “The Restoration of Israel in Biblical Prophecy,” 453. 42 Wilken, “The Restoration of Israel in Biblical Prophecy,” 468.

43

Marcel Simon, Verus Israel: étude sur les relations entre chretiens et juifs dans l'Empire Romain (135-425): post-scriptum (Paris: De Boccard, 1964) 432. 44 S. Kazan, “Isaac of Antioch’s Homily against the Jews,” OrChr 47 (1963) 89. 45 Kazan, “Isaac of Antioch’s Homily against the Jews,” 92. 46 K. McVey, “The anti-Judaic Polemic of Ephrem Syrus’ Hymns on the Nativity”, 232. 47 P. Fredriksen and O. Irshai, “Christian AntiJudaism: Polemics and Policies,” in The Cambridge history of Judaism, v. 4, 993. 48 Wilken, John Chrysostom and the Jews: Rhetoric and Reality in the Late 4th Century, 89. 49 M. S. Taylor, Anti-Judaism and Early Christian Identity: A Critique of the Scholarly Consensus, Studia Post-Biblica 46 (Leiden: Brill, 1995) 1. 50 Taylor, Anti-Judaism and Early Christian Identity,” 4. 51 Taylor, Anti-Judaism and Early Christian Identity,” 4-5. 52 D. P. Efroymson, Tertullian’s Anti-Judaism and its Role in his Theology (Ph.D. Dissertation, Temple University, 1976) 63. 53 Taylor, Anti-Judaism and Early Christian Identity,” 147. 54 Taylor, Anti-Judaism and Early Christian Identity,” 149. 55 Taylor, Anti-Judaism and Early Christian Identity,” 29-30. 56 Taylor, Anti-Judaism and Early Christian Identity,” 166. 57 A. Davies, “Review of Anti-Judaism and Early Christian Identity: A Critique of the Scholarly Consensus by Miriam Taylor,” Studies in Religion 16 (1997) 235-36. 58 D. P. Efroymson, “Review of Anti-Judaism and Early Christian Identity: A Critique of the Scholarly Consensus by Miriam Taylor,” The Jewish Quarterly Review 87 (1997) 382. 59 References to the Demonstrations follow the section and/or column and line number from I.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 42

The Jews in Ephrem’s Commentary on the Diatessaron _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Parisot (ed.), Aphraatis Demonstrationes, PS 1 (Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1894). 60 Wilken, “The Restoration of Israel in Biblical Prophecy,” 449. 61 Wilken, “The Restoration of Israel in Biblical Prophecy,” 466-7. 62 The Vetus Syra (Matt 2:4) reads: þæ܆ .¾Ćãîƒ Àăòè† ¾åÌÜ ÚÁ˜ †ÌàÜ 63 ¿šÍÙÂåƒ ¿š†ƒÌè ç⠐†ÌàÁÍùß ¿ÿØÿØÿφ çØûýâ 64 Matt 12:40 (Curetonensis): ûÙÄ ¾æÝØ~ K ¿ÿߚ ¾åÍåƒ ÌèûÝÁ çåÍØ ¿†…ƒ ¿ÿߚ†K çÙâÍØ K ¾î˜~ƒ ÌÂàÁ ¿†Ìå ¾ýå~ƒ …ûÁ ”~ ¾æ܅ ÍàÙß K K K K ÍàÙß ¿ÿߚ† çÙâÍØ ¿ÿߚ “for just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a fish, so also the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” Matt 12:40 (Sinaiticus): ¾ÙÂå çåÍØ ¿†…ƒ ¾æÝØ~† K K ¿ÿߚ ¿šÍàÙ߆ ¿ÿߚ ¾ĆããØ~ ¾åÍåƒ ÌèûÝÁ ¿ÿߚ ¾î˜~ƒ ÌÂàÁ ¾ýå~ƒ …ûÁ ¿†Ìå ¾æ܅ ÍàÙß ¿ÿߚ† çÙâÍØ “Just as Jonah the prophet was three days and three nights in the belly of a fish, so also the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.”

65

“Eo ergo quod exeunt (iusti) e monumentis, discunt (Iudaei) illud Moysis et Eliae…” 66 The term ¾åûèÍÁ is rare, not appearing in the Bible or in Aphrahat, but appearing once in Clement of Rome. 67 This theme that the Jews should be shamed also appears in his hymns. See C. Shepardson, In the Service of Orthodoxy, 85-6. 68 The term À˜ÍòÜ only appears once in the witnesses to the Vetus Syra, in Luke 6:35 (À˜ÍòÜ áî† ¾ýÙÁ áî) but it does not refer to the Jews. 69 He applies the term to his heretical adversaries as well, see VI,6. 70 C. Shepardson, “Anti-Jewish Rhetoric and Intra-Christian Conflict in the Sermons of Ephrem Syrus,” 504. 71 D. P. Efroymson, Tertullian’s Anti-Judaism and its Role in his Theology, 63. 72 I benefited greatly from the helpful insights of Lucas Van Rompay to whom I express my thanks.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 43

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

EAST MEETS EAST: BYZANTINE LITURGICAL INFLUENCES ON THE RITE OF THE CHURCH OF THE EAST*

Cor-bishop David Royel SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA

S

INTRODUCTION

cholars today, whether Church historians or ecclesiologists, have often stressed the ecclesiastical isolation of the Assyrian Church of the East down through the centuries, most particularly since the period of the great christological controversies of the third and fourth ecumenical councils. When it comes to the development of the liturgy, however, theological and political boundaries are easily crossed, and often go unnoticed, except by the scrutinizing eye of the diligent student of liturgy. With the development of what liturgiologists have referred to as the ‘East Syrian’ rite in the Semitic context of northern Mesopotamia, one notices not only the indigenous characteristics of the region that helped to shape the rite, but also the influence of other liturgical rites. No liturgical rite ever really grows or develops in a vacuum, and many times features that the various Eastern (and non-Eastern) Churches hold as being particularly their own have actually been imported or adapted from other liturgical traditions.

Two classic examples of this ‘liturgical borrowing’ may be seen in the rite of the Assyrian Church of the East, especially with regard to the diaconal litanies and the Trisagion—a liturgical unit with which all of the major offices and rites are concluded.

THE LITANY (KƖRƿZNjTHƖ) The litany, or KƗrǀznjthƗ,1 has its roots in the New Testament scriptures. Paul instructs his disciple Timothy that prayers and intercessions should be offered for all men, especially those in authority, so that peace may reign. The Pauline injunction in I Tim 2:1-4 commands: Therefore, I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 44

East Meets East: Byzantine Liturgical Influences on the Rite of the Church of the East _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

The importance of the litany, therefore, is seen in the fact that it derives its raison d’être from the Pauline exhortation to Timothy. The litany is already mentioned by Egeria in her Journal (24:4-6) in the course of the lucernare prayer (Lychnicon) which takes place at four o’clock in the afternoon. Egeria mentions the following sequence for the evening service: 1) lucernare; 2) entrance of bishop, sitting of the clergy; 3) hymns and antiphons; 4) bishop moves to the holy grotto; 5) the deacon commemorates the individuals; 6) collect by bishop with the ‘prayer for all’; 7) blessings of catechumens; and 8) dismissal. The recitation of the litany or ‘commemorations,’ as Egeria calls them, is described in some detail: “One of the deacons makes the normal commemoration of individuals, and each time he mentions a name a large group of boys responds Kyrie eleison (in our language, “Lord, have mercy”). Their voices are very loud. As soon as the deacon has done his part, the bishop says a prayer and prays the Prayer for All.”2 The Diaconal Litany in the East Syrian Rite It seems that at one point all three of the Syrian rites (East, West and Maronite) had an extended litany by the deacon, at least during vespers. The West Syrians chant the bǀ‘njthǀ, in the meter known as that of ‘St. Jacob,’ before the Gospel reading; the Maronites chant it after the Gospel reading. The West Syrians still have a kǀrǀznjthǀ before the Gospel, whereas the Maronites have lost it altogether.3 In the East Syrian rite, the diaconal litany is found in the following places: at the end of the night office (lelyƗ); at the end of the vesperal office (after the Trisagion); and after the Gospel reading in

the eucharistic liturgy. The Byzantine rite, on the other hand, has augmented the number of diaconal litanies. Originally, the ektene (the ‘Great Kyrie Eleison’), known as the ‘Litany of Fervent Supplication’—responded to with a triple Kyrie eleison—proceeded the reading of the Gospel; this is also attested to by the Codex Barberini. According to the evidence of the Barberini codex, the ektene was added before the end of the eighth century. During the ninth century, the so-called synapte litany was added after the Little Entrance before the Trisagion.4 The Synod of Mar Isaac in 410 already stipulated in Canon 13, that the deacons are to proclaim the litany (KƗrǀznjthƗ) in the cities. In Canon 15 of the same synod, the archdeacon is to proclaim the ‘litany of the deacons’ on the bema whenever the bishop is present—albeit before the reading of the Scriptures!5 Later, the synod of Mar Ezekiel (567-581), held in 576, ordered that the name of the reigning patriarch be proclaimed in the litanies (KƗrǀzwƗthƗ) of all of the churches in the empire of the Persians. Canon 14 of this synod states: There are certain things that are especially exalted by the entire community, and are also greatly venerated, and there is a certain honor in which these things are held by the entire community. It is right that these should be carefully established and observed, one of which is this: since the title ‘patriarch’ is translated ‘father of rulership,’ and all ecclesiastical authorities are beneath him and from him receive the power and authority to become heads and rulers, it is right that in all the churches in the land of this exalted and glorious kingdom of our victorious lord, Kosrau,

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 45

East Meets East: Byzantine Liturgical Influences on the Rite of the Church of the East _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

the King of Kings, his [= patriarch’s] name should be proclaimed in the litanies of the liturgy. No one of the metropolitans and bishops shall be allowed to neglect establishing this canon in all the churches of his see and administration…6

Similarly in Canon 30 of the so-called Apostolic Canons (73 in number) which are found in the Syriac Didascalia Apostolorum, it is stipulated that the name of the bishop is to be declared at all times during the service; this canon has the force of the ‘general [= ecumenical] synod.’ Furthermore, this canon states that that “…on Sunday and on the festival, the deacon shall remember in his proclamation [= litany] at the altar the patriarch, the metropolitans and the archdeacons and the chorepiscopus. For it is right that at these holy days (the names) of the leaders of the church (shall be proclaimed) at the altar. For through them every ecclesiastical order shall be complete and fulfilled.”7 The East Syrian litany is constituted of three parts, namely the BƗ‘njthƗ, the KƗrǀznjthƗ (properly called so) and the Angelus pacis. These litanies are attested to by the early seventh-century writers Gabriel Qatraya and Abraham bar Lipeh (of the early and late seventh century, respectively), and the existence of the East Syrian litany certainly preceded their époque. First Part of the Diaconal Litany— the BƗ‘njthƗ The first part of the litany is called the BƗ‘njthƗ and consists of the supplicatory petitions or ‘intentions.’8 The name ‘BƗ‘njthƗ’ probably comes from the fact that the deacon recites after every intention, ‘we beseech (ƎƍƀƖŨ) thee.’ This first litany resembles the

Byzantine ıȣȞĮʌIJȒ or ‘litany’ known as the İȓȡȘȞȚțȐ in the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.9 Although this litany resembles that of the Byzantine, in its two-part petition and the ‘we beseech thee,’ the East Syrian litany has characteristics of its own. It is basically a supplication or request of God’s many mercies. The response to the petitions is simply ‘Our Lord, have mercy on us’ (ȀȪȡȚİ ™ȜȑȘıȠȞ) The first part of this litany begins recalling the divine attributes of God as ‘Father of mercies,’ and other qualities of the Father as provider and caretaker of his children. This litany continues then to properly ask for our everyday needs as creatures. Fundamental needs recorded in the petitions are: a favorable climate, for peace and tranquility, and the sustenance of the Church and her members, for those in government and earthly powers and for all orthodox clergy and the brotherhood in Christ. The Second Part of the Litany— the KƗrǀznjthƗ The second part, known as the KƗrǀznjthƗ properly speaking, “is longer with developed intentions explaining in a concrete way the mission of each category for which we pray.”10 The deacon exhorts the people in the opening part of this litany, ‘Let us pray and beseech God, the Lord of all, Amen; so that he may hear the voice of our prayer and receive our supplication and may have mercy on us,’ recalling the words of Ps. 129 (130).11 The response of the people to the deacon’s biddings is simply ‘Amen.’ This litany is proper to the East Syrian rite, and each petition is composed of the following components: 1) intention or object for prayer; 2) exhortation to prayer by the deacon; and 3) the request according to the

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 46

East Meets East: Byzantine Liturgical Influences on the Rite of the Church of the East _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

various categories of the Church for which we are praying. Some of these requests are: 1) the Church Militant: for the bishops and all the clergy, and for the world in which the Church exists—for the poor, ill, needy—that they may all form one kingdom of God; and for 2) the Church Triumphant: for the blessed memorial of the Virgin Mary and all the saints, as well as for the remembrance of the departed who have gone before us. There is a great resemblance of the East Syrian KƗrǀznjthƗ to the intercessions contained in Book VIII:10, 1-22 of the Apostolic Constitutions, written sometime before 380 at Antioch, which concerns the common prayers of the Church. This document may in fact be a source for the East Syrian litany, which nonetheless exhibits characteristics of its own. The following points are held in common: 1) the invitation by the deacon to genuflect at the beginning of the proclamation; 2) the diaconal exhortation to pray and supplicate God (ƈƃƢƉ ŦųƆĥ ƎƉ ťƖũƌĭ ťƆƞƌ); 3) the petitions concern the needs of the Church and the whole world; 4) a strophic structure which consists of the intention and the ‘Oremus’; 5) the bidding: “Rising up, bow down before God through his Christ, and receive the blessing” [VIII:9,6]; 6) a collect by the presider (bishop) that concludes the proclamation.12 Of further interest is the fact that the Constitutions prescribes that the deacon is to recite the litany (‘Common Prayers of the Church’) at the bema: “I Andrew, brother of Peter, prescribe that, when he [= bishop] has concluded his sermon, all standing up the deacon shall ascend the bema, and proclaim [let] none of the hearers [remain]! [Let] none of the unbelievers [remain].”13 We already saw, in the synod of Mar Isaac of 410 (canon 15), that the East Syrian

litany was to be proclaimed at the bema in the presence of the bishop by the archdeacon. This was the only litany in existence at the time of the synod of 410, and it may have been moved from before the Gospel reading to afterwards once the first and third part of the present-day diaconal litany were borrowed from Byzantium. Thus, the KƗrǀznjthƗ portion of the litany is purely East Syrian; we have seen it mentioned by name already in the synod of 410 under the Catholicos Isaac. With regard to their differences we note that the East Syrian litanies, in general, are not connected with the dismissal of the catechumens and the penitents per se, but rather are intended for the faithful. Further, their structure is bipartite, i.e. a petition followed by the deacon’s bidding ‘Oremus.’ The East Syrian litany ends with the collect by the presider, and the deacon’s bidding to ‘bow the head and receive the blessing.’ The presider would bless the various categories of the Church, and then the dismissal of the catechumens would follow. The Third Part of the Litany— the Angelus Pacis The third part of the East Syrian litany constitutes the fourth-century Angelus Pacis, and is modeled on the ĮȣIJȘıİȚȢ of the Byzantine rite. Each of the deacon’s petitions ends with ‘we ask’ (in the Byzantine rite ʌĮȡȐ IJȠȣ˾ ȀȣȡȓȠȣ ĮijIJȘıȫμİșĮ), after which the people respond ‘from Thee, O Lord’ (ťſƢƉ ĴŁŴƆ ƎƉ); this is the same response given in its Byzantine counterpart (ʌĮȡȐıȤȠȣ ȀȪȡȚİ).14 This litany is also to be found in the West Syrian QƗthǀlƯqƯ, to which the people respond— contrary to the Byzantine and East Syrian practice—Kyrie eleison.15 It is also to be

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 47

East Meets East: Byzantine Liturgical Influences on the Rite of the Church of the East _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

found in the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (on behalf of the catechumens) and in the liturgy of St. James. In contrast, this litany is not on behalf of the catechumens, as in the Byzantine rite, but for God’s people as a whole.16 Gabriel Qatraya mentions that it is the deacon alone who recites this final part of the long diaconal litany, and that at its conclusion the ‘proclaimer’ (deacon) invites the people who have already been genuflecting since the beginning of the second part to rise. It is interesting to note that in addition to the Byzantine rite, the Apostolic Constitutions also mention the Angelus Pacis. Somehow, it might have made its way from Antioch to Constantinople between the 380’s to 390’s, possibly during the time when John Chrysostom was archbishop of the royal city. With regard to the litany of the evening office, Apostolic Constitutions VIII:36,1-3 prescribes:17 After they have been dismissed, the deacon shall say: All we, the faithful, let us pray to the Lord. Then after the biddings of the first prayer, he shall say: Save us and raise us up, O God, by your Christ. Standing up, let us ask for the mercies of the Lord, his compassion, for the Angel of peace, for what things are good and profitable, for a Christian end, for an evening and night of peace and free from sin, and let us ask that the whole time of our life may be without reproach. Let us commend ourselves and one another to the living God through his Christ.

The Angelus Pacis, or Petitio, is the prayer for the Christian community present in the celebration and is offered on their behalf; it is not for the catechumens as it once was during the time of Chrysostom. Peace,

love, harmony, the remission of sins and God’s abundant mercy are asked for in the litany. According to V. Pathikulangara, “The third set of Karozutha takes up the theme of St. Paul’s captivity epistles, and prays for a life of peace and tranquility in the Church. Special prayer is offered for concord of charity and perfection of peace, which are the gifts of the Holy Spirit.”18 Also, ‘continual peace for the Church, and life without sin’ are among the petitions as well. The Litany of Sunday Vespers Pseudo-George of Arbel comments on the recitation of the litany, or KƗrǀznjthƗ at the vespertine service of Sundays. After the second alleluiatic psalm, the first of the officiating deacons—the one denoted as ‘Michael’— ascends the bema to begin the BƗ‘njthƗ portion of the litany, “while the deacon who holds the service which is in place of Gabriel does not ascend.”19 Once the deacon ‘Michael’ has finished the first part of the litany, he descends the bema, the other officiating deacon ‘Gabriel’—who says the Pax nobiscum during the service—ascends, and they both salute each other with a ‘hug.’ Pseudo-George continues: “And as he [‘Michael’] greets this one [‘Gabriel’], then he ascends [the bema]…and says… ‘Let us pray. Peace be with us; bend the knee…But pray in your hearts; how? Let us pray and beseech God the Lord of all…”20 He next goes on to mention that the same deacon bids the people to rise up from their genuflection bidding, ‘Rise up by the strength of the God.’ Pseudo-George further notes that during the liturgy, certain portions of the first portion of the litany—the BƗ‘njthƗ—are not repeated by the deacons. They recite the litany just as they did during the festive vespers service.21

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 48

East Meets East: Byzantine Liturgical Influences on the Rite of the Church of the East _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Gabriel Qatraya interprets the three parts of the diaconal litanies thus:21

ing [saprƗ] and in the evening [ramšƗ].

But because there are many who are diligent concerning prayer, while they come they do not know what to say, on this account the BƗ‘njthƗ was arranged so that by it the whole community may participate by [way of] the response with which they respond with he who stands up and asks for mercy on their behalf. For there is no one who does not know how to respond ‘Our Lord, have mercy on us,’ and for this reason the whole community—together with the women and children—participate in this BƗ‘njthƗ, while asking mercy of God together with those priests who pray for the whole community. And as the deacon sets in order each one of the requests—those which we are most in need of in this world—and the whole people cries out after him ‘Our Lord, have mercy on us;’ that is, ‘Hear O Lord of all the voice of the request of thy Church which begs of you on our behalf, and have mercy on us all—this is [the meaning of] ‘on us.’

But that it is he [= deacon] who says this KƗrǀznjthƗ by himself, and that the whole people is silent as each one prays inwards makes known that the priesthood perpetually prays for all mankind, according to the divine commands given her. But that after this KƗrǀznjthƗ ends, the proclaimer [= deacon] commands the people to rise from their genuflection is a demonstration of our rising up from the fall of sins, and a sign of the acceptance of prayers. Then after this, he continues and says ‘With rogation and supplication we ask for an angel of peace and mercies,’ and the people answer ‘From thee, O Lord…22

But as to why we continue the KƗrǀznjthƗ after the BƗ‘njthƗ, which contains diverse requests, we say, for the sustenance of the world and for peace, and for the Church and her children, and for governors and for representatives, and for kings and for those in power, and for those that err from the truth that they may repent; and for those that are ill that they may be healed, and for those that are poor that they may be provided for, and for those that traverse on long journeys that they may be preserved [from harm], and for those that are in captivity that they may be saved, and for these and for the like, the priesthood diligently prays everyday in the morn-

The East Syrian Litany— A Synthesis The first part of the diaconal litany, or the BƗ‘njthƗ, is most likely an import from Byzantium borrowed by the East Syrian rite, most probably during the sojourn of the patriarch Mar ƖbƗ I (540-552) in the West. Sometime in the early part of the first half of the sixth century (ca. 536-540) he went to Constantinople, according to tradition, with Thomas of Edessa in order to learn Greek. According to other traditions, he was sent to the royal city, along with other Persian doctors of the School of Nisibis, on account of his refusal to anathematize Diodore, Theodore and Nestorius. However, this cannot be said for certain. The second part of the litany, or the KƗrǀznjthƗ, was already mentioned by name in the first synod of the Church of the East (410), and is in all likelihood authentically East Syrian. The last part, or the Angelus

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 49

East Meets East: Byzantine Liturgical Influences on the Rite of the Church of the East _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Pacis seems to be of Byzantine origin with modifications to suit the faithful gathered for prayer, rather than for the catechumens. Several other diaconal proclamations which the East Syrian rite categorizes as kƗrǀznjthƗ—in the general sense of the term—are to be found all throughout the eucharistic liturgy; these will not be discussed here.

THE TRISAGION The ‘liturgical Sanctus,’ or thrice-holy hymn, inspired by Is 6:3 and possibly also Ps 41:3 and Rev 4:8, is generally addressed to the Trinity in the liturgical usage of the Church of the East; in the West Syrian and the Alexandrine rites it is considered to be christological. However, S. Jammo has carefully noted: “The Chaldean liturgical texts surpass the polemic between ‘Orthodox’ and ‘Monophysite’ concerning the trinitarian or christological meaning of our hymn, and they make usage of this magnificent song to the glory be it of the divine nature, of the Trinity or of Christ.”26 The Trisagion was first chanted by the fathers of the Council of Chalcedon in their first session, on October 8, 451: “The Oriental metropolitans and the most pious bishops which were with them said: ‘Long live the Senate; Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal; have mercy on us. Long live the emperor…Christ has deposed Dioscorus…This is the real synod.”27 Later, with the declaration of the Feast of the Council of Chalcedon on July 16, 518, we have the first explicit mention of the use of the Trisagion in the eucharistic liturgy, instituted by Patriarch Menna during the reign of Justinian.28 In the same year, we have the attestation of Patriarch Severus in his cathedral homily of April 11, 518 (delivered on Holy Thursday). In this homily of Severus of Antioch, the justifica-

tion is given for the addition of the ‘Who was crucified for us’ ƎƀƙƇŶ ƦũƇŹĽĥĪ ĭĬñ in the Trisagion, just shortly before the writing of his letter.29 In the Byzantine rite, the first part of the Trisagion is recited as an acclamation in the third person (‘ȐȖȚȠȢ ‘Ƞ ĬİȩȢ, ‘ȐȖȚȠȢ ijıȤȣȡȩȢ, ‘ȐȖȚȠȢ ’ĮșȐȞĮIJȠȢ), while the second part—a petition—is in the second-person (’İȜȑȘıȠȞ ‘ȘμĮѺȢ). The various traditions following the Byzantine tradition, such as the Slavic and Romanian, have solved the problem of translating the Greek text by placing the first part in the vocative, while the original Greek is actually declarative. The Orientals, for the most part, have made use of the same manner—among them the East Syrian rite. The West Syrian and Maronite traditions, on the other hand, have placed the first part of the chant in the second person (by use of the pronoun ‘you’) in the declarative rather than the vocative sense, hence: ( ƦƤſűƟ ŦųƆĥ ƦƤſűƟ ƎƀƇƕ ƋŶĿŁĥ :ŦŁŴƀƉ ťƆ ƦƤſűƟ ťƌƦƇƀŶ).30 The Armenian and Latin rites have actually preserved the original Greek sense of the chant. The Armenians use the third person of the present form of the verb ‘to be’ between the ‘Holy’ and the attributes listed in the chant, hence: ‘God (is) Holy, etc.’ The Latin text adheres perfectly to the Greek: ‘Sanctus Deus, sanctus fortis, sanctus immortalis; Miserere nobis.’31 The Trisagion, or ‘Thrice-holy’ hymn, was first chanted by the ‘Eastern’ (Antiochene) fathers of the Council of Chalcedon (451) to honor Flavian the archbishop of Constantinople and to condemn the christological position of Dioscorus of Alexandria more as a hymn than as a constitutive element of a rite, though it most probably entered the liturgy shortly after the council.32 However, according to Byzantine sources the Trisagion was first chanted

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 50

East Meets East: Byzantine Liturgical Influences on the Rite of the Church of the East _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

in 437, when an earthquake in the royal city prompted its recitation by a miraculous deed. According to the tradition, it was taught to a young boy by an angel, as a means of ceasing the tremendous quake.33 This commemoration later made its way into the Byzantine Menologian and was commemorated on September 25.34 From thenceforth, it appeared in the ‘processional rogations,’ of the stational liturgies of the capital, and was inserted in the eucharistic liturgy sometime at the beginning of the sixth century.35 It gradually came to be accepted in the Churches of the East, and in the Persian Church certainly by the time of Patriarch Išo‘yahb I. Nonetheless, it seems to be the fact that the original sense of the Trisagion was actually christological rather than trinitarian. In the Roman rite, the Good Friday Adoratio Crucis—which was imported from the Orient by the year 700—was accompanied by the chant of the Trisagion.36 In the Byzantine rite, the association of the Trisagion to Christ is seen in regards to the ‘burial rite’ (İѴʌȚIJȐijȚȠȢ) of Christ which takes place on Good Friday. In this tradition, Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus are the ones who bury the Holy Body, accompanied by the chant of the Trisagion on the part of the angelic choirs. What is more, we see this theme of Christ’s burial and the accompaniment of the angelic hosts and their three-fold hymn of praise in the very Byzantine ‘Great Entrance.’ Employing the theme mastered by Theodore of Mopsuestia (d. 428) that the procession and deposition of the Gifts upon the altar is a re-enactment of Christ’s burial and the procession of the clergy represents the burial cortège of the Lord, the Cherubicon alludes to the three-fold singing of

‘Holy’ by the angelic hosts. This same theme is highly present in the East Syrian (and Armenian chant) of the procession of Gifts as well.37 The East Syrian procession antiphon proclaims: “The Body of Christ and his precious Blood are upon the holy altar; in awe and in love let us all draw near unto him; and with the angels let us cry aloud unto him: Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God.” The Trisagion in the East Syrian Rite The earliest mention of the Trisagion in the East Syrian rite is contained in the tractate of Patriarch Išo‘yahb I of Arzǀn (582/3595/6),38 entitled ¿Ìß~ ¾ýØÊøƒ ¿ÿàî.39 This tractate is the oldest written commentary on the seraphic hymn, which attests to its antiquity and traces its origins back to the fifth century.40 It was most probably this patriarch who established its usage in the Church of Persia, borrowing it from Constantinople, though it is also possible that it was imported much earlier by Mar ƖbƗ I who sojourned in Constantinople in the first half of the sixth century.41 According to Išo‘yahb’s treatise, the Trisagion was introduced during the time of the Byzantine Emperor Anastasius (491518), who allowed the introduction ‘Who was crucified for us’ to be said at the end of the Trisagion—on which account a huge riot erupted in the royal city in November of 512 by the followers of Chalcedon.42 This later addition is traditionally attributed to Peter the Fuller (476-488), the anti-Chalcedonian patriarch of Antioch.43 According to Išo‘yahb, the Churches of Jerusalem and Rome follow the usage of Constantinople, that is, the addition to the Trisagion by the

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 51

East Meets East: Byzantine Liturgical Influences on the Rite of the Church of the East _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

anti-Chalcedonians was never accepted. Of a later date, Abraham bar Lipeh recounts more or less the same story concerning the origin of the Trisagion. He also states: But Anastasius the Caesar persisted in his impudence, and commanded that it should be altered in all the Churches under his authority, and in place of ‘Holy Immortal, have mercy on us’ he commanded that it should be said thus: ‘Holy Immortal, Who was crucified for us.’ That rebellious one was not ashamed nor did he fear to change the wondrous saying which was handed down to men by the holy angel. But Constantinople, the royal city, did not heed to change this canon, neither Jerusalem nor the Western lands; rather they say it just as we do.44

The commentary of Gabriel Qatraya45 on the office of vespers provides a somewhat different account of the origin of the Trisagion: As the history of this canon ‘Holy’ recounts, during the time of the emperor Theodosius the Younger, he who on account of his negligence allowed corruption to enter into the true faith by the sedition of the wicked Cyril, the sons of the city of Constantinople were given over to the angel [of death]. For when the nation of the Romans shut their ears to the teaching of the true faith, and the priests, doctors and kings of that time agreed together, and by their praises they ascribed passion to the divine Nature, and the ‘passion of God’ was chanted by everyone, God allowed them to be disciplined by way of diverse chastisements so that they might be mindful of their offence and repent of their blasphemy. While being chastised by many [ways], they did not take notice of their offence, an awful punishment

was sent to their metropolis and to the locale of their palace, which there had never been before like unto it.46

Some traditions hold that the Trisagion was taught by an angel around 430 AD, during the time of Proclus, to one of the presbyters of Constantinople during a series of earthquakes; others held that the tradition goes back to Joseph of Arimathea.47 Pseudo-George of Arbel states that in the year 748 A. Gr. (436/37 AD), and in the twenty-fifth year of the reign of Theodosius I (and four years after the Council of Ephesus), there was an earthquake in Constantinople. According to this tradition, the seraphic hymn was taught to one Proclus, a presbyter of the city, who heard this hymn from the mouth of angels in the Greek tongue and set this prayer at the end of the liturgy.48 He states: According to what the inspired Doctors and the ecclesiastical chronicles hand down, this is what they have written: in the year 748 of the Greeks, and in the twenty-fifth year of the emperor Theodosius, four years after the uncanonical synod of Ephesus had gathered under Cyril, and the holy Nestorius was cast out in the year that the ‘Sons of Ephesus’ were resuscitated [the Seven Sleepers], a great quake occurred in Byzantium, rocks broke off from amidst the city wall and hovered above the city. And as people began to panic, flee and exit [the city], for they thought that the city was going to be demolished, angels appeared to the presbyter of the city of Byzantium, whose name was Proclus, praising in the Greek tongue and saying: ‘Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, have mercy upon us.’ And the angel cautioned him to gather the people in church and to say the

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 52

East Meets East: Byzantine Liturgical Influences on the Rite of the Church of the East _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

words which he heard. And the presbyter gathered the people in the church and cried out before them, and they cried out after him three times, and the city was calmed and the quake ceased. And when this was heard in every land, it was seen to this blessed one [= Proclus] that this canon should be said at the end of the liturgy. For just as they were had mercy upon in the time of distress, God visits mercy upon us at all times when we say this canon. Peter the Fuller, a heretic after the mind of Severus, who was the patriarch at Antioch, added to this canon ‘Who was crucified for us;’ this is the reason why the canon is said here. And that the deacon commands ‘Lift up your voice and glorify’ [is] just as this same canon was heard from the angels…49

In fact, the primary source after the acta of the Council of Chalcedon (451) that records the earthquake at Constantinople is the Bazaar of Heracleides written by Nestorius (or a follower of his) in exile sometime around 450-451. Nestorius writes “that he who was doing these things was immortal and had authority over them,” so God “shook the earth until his people adopted the Trisagion prayer.”50 Later, in his letter to Peter the Fuller (the non-Chalcedonian patriarch of Antioch), Pope Felix III (483-492) explains that Proclus the patriarch of Constantinople led the people of Constantinople in prayer on account of the earthquake and recited the Trisagion which was taught miraculously to a boy of the city.51 Thus, the prayer gained the approval of both God and the Church of Constantinople. There is yet another tradition concerning the origins of the Trisagion—the feast of which was celebrated on September 25 in the illuminated Menologion of Basil II.52 It recounts that the earthquake of a particular

September 25 was caused to cease when a child was taught the Trisagion without the addition of Peter the Fuller (‘Who was crucified for us’), which the people of Constantinople were making use of in their prayer in order to stop the earthquake. Once they recited this prayer without the addition, the earthquake ceased but the child fell dead to the ground.53 In fact, there are two earthquakes noted by the chroniclers, one which occurred in 438 (celebrated on September 25) and the second during the reign of Theodosius II in 447 (celebrated on January 26). It seems that Gabriel Qatraya, Abraham bar Lipeh and Pseudo-George of Arbel have conflated both these stories into one account. The conflict revolving around the understanding of the Trisagion—that is, whether it is trinitarian or christological—is based on geography, to a great extent. The hymn was understood as addressing the Trinity at Jerusalem, Constantinople, the West and also by the ‘Nestorians’ of Persia.54 Contrarily, in Syria, Egypt and some parts of Asia Minor it was understood as addressing Christ.55 There is another historical account that associates the use of the Trisagion with an earthquake taking place at Constantinople. The so-called Easter Chronicle (Chronicon Paschale)—which gives a history of the Roman emperors from 284 to 628 AD— mentions that an earthquake took place at Constantinople in 533 during the reign of Justinian in which the ‘monophysite’ party of the royal city publicly chanted the Trisagion with the addition of Peter the Fuller as a condemnation of the Council of Chalcedon. The Chronicon narrates: In this year [533 AD] in the month of Dius, November according to the Romans, in the 12th indiction, there was

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 53

East Meets East: Byzantine Liturgical Influences on the Rite of the Church of the East _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

a great earthquake in Constantinople without damage, late in the evening, so that all the city gathered in the Forum of Constantine, and chanted litanies and said, ‘Holy God, holy and mighty, holy and immortal, who was crucified on our account, have mercy on us.’ And remained all night in vigil, praying. But when morning came, the entire people who had been chanting litanies cried out, ‘Victorious is the fortune of the Christians. Crucified one, save us and the city; Augustus Justinian, may you be victorious. Destroy, burn the document issued by the bishops of the Synod of Chalcedon.56

We know that though Justinian was a supporter of the Council of Chalcedon (451), he tried to placate the ‘monophysite’ partisans that held sway in Egypt, Syria, the western provinces and those in the royal city itself. In order to forge a reconciliation with the ‘Theopaschites,’ Justinian had the ‘fathers of Nestorianism’—the so-called ‘Three Chapters—condemned at the second Council of Constantinople (553).57 It is quite interesting how this hymn came to be the battle cry of the Chalcedonian and nonChalcedonian camps respectively. S.P. Brock remarks to this regard: Eventually, because Constantinople represented the centre of chalcedonian orthodoxy in the East, and Syria the stronghold of opposition to the chalcedonian definition that ‘the Incarnate Christ is one in two natures,’ this division of opinion, originally a purely geographical matter, took on ecclesiastical overtones, and a trinitarian interpretation of the Trisagion came to be seen as a hallmark of chalcedonian orthodoxy.58

Some hold that the christological interpretation is in fact much older than the trinitar-

ian; however, this is difficult to say with any high degree of certitude. Probably, since the vision of Isaiah contained in Is 6:3 came to be interpreted in a christological sense, the same concept was applied to the Trisagion; this is certainly the case in Egypt. It is interesting to note that the churches which have a trinitarian understanding of the Trisagion interpret the Sancta sanctis in a christological sense, and vice-versa.59 Celebration of the Trisagion in the East Syrian Rite The foremost importance of the Trisagion in the East Syrian ambiance is that its main purpose serves to officially close all of the hours of prayer, whether within or outside the Lenten season. This particularity is shared with the Armenian rite, which makes use of the Trisagion to close the morning and evening cathedral offices.60 The practice of the ‘thrice-holy hymn’ in the East Syrian rite is particular in that there is an invitatorial acclamation by the deacon who has recited the litany which precedes it: “Lift up your voice all ye people, and glorify the living God.”61 On ferial days, including those of the ‘Weeks of Mysteries’ of Lent, it is not chanted. On the vespers of all feasts, Sundays and commemorations it is chanted antiphonally. In the eucharistic liturgy of the Assyrian Church of the East, the original introit hymn is the LƗkhnj MƗrƗ ( ŧƢÿƉ ŴÿƄŔ Ɔ), probably introduced by Mar Šem‘ǀn bar SabbƗ‘e (d. ca. 341) in the early half of the fourth century. With this hymn, the clergy make their procession out from the altar to the bema in the middle of the nave. When introduced in the liturgy, the Trisagion was appended immediately to the older, original East Syrian

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 54

East Meets East: Byzantine Liturgical Influences on the Rite of the Church of the East _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

introit hymn.62 The West Syrians, on the other hand, recite the Trisagion immediately after the introit hymn of the eucharistic liturgy; it is intoned by the celebrant, and then completed by the servers and/or choir. In fact, not only the West Syrians but the Maronites, Armenians, Copts and Ethiopians do not use the doxology intercalated in the Trisagion. The East Syrian rite, on the other hand, makes use of the Gloria Patri and the A saeculo as an intercalation; in the Byzantine rite the doxology is intercalated only in the eucharistic liturgy and at the end of orthros, whereas in the other services there is a simple three-fold recitation.63 This intercalation of the Gloria Patri further strengthens the trinitarian sense of the Trisagion in the East Syrian tradition. According to Išo‘yahb’s tractate, we know for certain that the Trisagion hymn was used during vespers, as well as matins; he states: “[…] the canon ‘Holy God’, which the Church of God in every region under the sun recites, at evening and morning [ŧƢƘĽĭ ťƤƉƢŨ].”64 This indicates that at first, the Trisagion was only recited in the divine office of the East Syrian rite, and probably made its way into the eucharistic liturgy a bit later. This would mean that by the time of the writing of Išo‘yahb’s tractate at the end of the sixth century, the LƗkhnj MƗrƗ continued to be the introit hymn. The Trisagion is concluded with a collect, which is the same throughout for vespers; it varies in the eucharistic liturgy. We may safely conclude that the Trisagion was introduced in the East Syrian rite sometime during the middle of the sixth century and

not later than 595, i.e. during the period between the patriarchates of ƖbƗ I and Išo‘yahb I.65 Furthermore, the liturgical unit of litany followed by the Trisagion was most certainly adopted from the Byzantine processional (or rather, ‘stational’) liturgies, which almost always included the usual prayers of the ‘insistent litany’ (ektene), followed by a three-fold recitation of the Trisagion.66

CONCLUSION In the theme of cultural and ecclesiastical exchanges between the Syriac and Greek East, we surveyed two important liturgical units in the rite of the Assyrian Church of the East which have almost certainly come from the Byzantine liturgical usage of the capital city of Constantinople. The encounters between the ‘Church of Persia’ and the Church of the Oikoumene gave rise to liturgical adaptations in the East Syrian rite borrowed from Byzantium in the late sixth century. We saw that the two parts of the East Syrian diaconal litany and the three-fold Sanctus hymn (or, the ‘liturgical sanctus’) have found their way into the East Syrian rite from Constantinople. In the discipline of liturgy, and more concretely in liturgical practice, cultural, linguistic and doctrinal barriers are often times easily crossed. The exchanges between the Church of Persia and Byzantium, especially in the mid fifth and early seventh centuries, allowed for a facilitated ‘liturgical borrowing.’ In a word, in the East Syrian rite—as demonstrated in the diaconal litany and the Trisagion, East does in fact meet East.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 55

East Meets East: Byzantine Liturgical Influences on the Rite of the Church of the East _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

NOTES 1

The Syriac ¿š†‡†ûÜ most probably comes N from the Greek țȘȡȪııİȚȞ, meaning ‘to proclaim.’ 2 P. Maraval, Égerie: Journal de voyage, Sources chrétiennes 296 (Paris, 1982) 238-241; J. Wilkinson, Egeria’s Travels, 3rd ed. (Warminster 1999) 143. 3 Cf. P.-E. Gemayel, “La structure des vêpres maronites,” OrSyr 9 (1964) 132-133. However, the West Syrians have altogether lost the ancient litany after the Gospel reading, which seems to have existed in the rite of Tikrit even after the reforms of Jacob of Edessa in the mid-eighth century; a litany after the Gospel survives, however, in the West Syrian burial rite. 4 Cf. H. Wybrew, The Orthodox Liturgy. The Development of the Eucharistic Liturgy in the Byzantine Rite (Crestwood, 1996) 113. 5 J.-B. Chabot (editor & French translation), Synodicon orientale ou recueil des synods nestoriens (Paris 1902) 27. S.Y.H. Jammo, La structure de la messe chaldéenne: du début jusqu’à l’anaphore. Étude historique, OCA 207 (Rome, 1979) 140. This litany probably entered the East Syrian rite through the influence of MƗrnjthƗ of Maipherqat (Martyropolis), during his sojourn at Seleucia-Ctesiphon around the year 410, and reflects the usage of Antioch. 6 Chabot, Synodicon, 121/381; M.J. Birnie, The Eastern Synods (Synodicon Orientale), pro manuscripta ([no place]: 1999) [= English translation of Chabot, Synodicon], 80. Cf. Jammo, La structure, 141. 7 Vööbus, The Canons Ascribed to MƗrnjtƗ of Maipherqat̞ and Related Sources, CSCO 139140 (Lovanii: E. Peeters, 1982) 67-68. 8 P. Yousif, “The Divine Liturgy According to the Rite of the Assyro-Chaldean Church,” in J. Madey (ed.), The Eucharistic Liturgy in the Christian East (Kottayam-Paderborn, 1982) 208. For the English translation of the litany see: F.E. Brightman, Liturgies Eastern and Western. Being the Texts Original or Translated of the Prin-

cipal Liturgies of the Church, edited with Introductions and Appendices, vol. I (Oxford 1896) 262-266; A.J. Maclean, East Syrian Daily Offices (London, 1894) 6-10. The Greek form of the Syriac BƗ‘njthƗ is ȜȚIJȒ, from which derives our form of ‘litany.’ 9 Jammo, La structure, 148. 10 Yousif, “The Divine Liturgy,” 175-237, 208. 11 V. Pathikulangara, Divine Praises and Liturgical Year, Denha Services 61 (Kottayam, 2000) 49. 12 Jammo, La structure, 146. Cf. W.J. Grisbrooke, The Liturgical Portions of the Apostolic Constitutions: A Text for Students, Grove Liturgical Studies 13-14 (Bramcote, 1990) 27-28. 13 Apostolic Constitutions VIII:6, 1-2; cf. Grisbrooke, Apostolic Constitutions, 22. With regard to the Constitutions’ mentioning of the bema, see II:57, 2-4. 14 See L. Clugnet, Dictionnaire Grec-Français des noms liturgiques en usage dans l’Église Grecque (Paris 1895) 4. Cf. J. Madey, “The Deacon’s Proclamations in Oriental Liturgies: With Special Reference to the Syro-Maronite Liturgy,” The Harp 3 (1990) 151. 15 Madey, “The Deacon’s Proclamations,” 151. 16 Yousif, “Divine Liturgy,” 208; Idem, “La Messe chaldéenne,” 408. By the eighth century, the dismissal of the catechumens would have only been a ‘meaningless survival’ in the Byzantine rite; cf. H. Wybrew, The Orthodox Liturgy. The Development of the Eucharistic Liturgy in the Byzantine Rite (Crestwood: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1996) 114. 17 Grisbrooke, Apostolic Constitutions, 58. 18 Pathikulangara, Divine Praises, 50. Cf. Eph. 4:3. 19 R.H. Connolly (editor & Latin translation), Anonymi Auctoris Expositio Officiorum Ecclesiae Georgio Arbelensi vulgo adscripta, I & II. Accedit Abrahae Bar LIpheh Interpretatio Officiorum, CSCO 64, 72-71, 76 = SS 25, 29-28, 32

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 56

East Meets East: Byzantine Liturgical Influences on the Rite of the Church of the East _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

(Paris-Rome 1913, 1915); repr. (Louvain, 19601961), vol. I, 179-180. 20 EOE I, 183-184. 21 Connolly, Anonymi Auctoris, vol. II, 28. 22 Brit. Mus. Or. 3336, ff. 20v-22r. 23 See E. Tisserant, “L’Église nestorienne,” in Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, vol. XI/I (Paris, 1931), col. 179. Cf. Jammo, La structure, 149. 24 Cf. Madey, “The Deacon’s Proclamations,” 151-153. 25 H.J. Schulz, The Byzantine Liturgy: Symbolic Structure and Faith Expression, trans. by M.J. O’Connell (New York, 1986) 162: “The text of the Trisagion was derived from the Sanctus and was evidently given its form with the aid of an insert from Psalm 41:3 (LXX).” Cf. H. Engeberding, “Zum formgeschichtlichen Verständnis des Trisagion,” Jahrbuch für Liturgiewissenschaft 10 (1930) 168-174; J. Mateos, La célébration de la parole dans le Liturgie byzantine. Étude historique, OCA 191 (Rome, 1971) 100. 26 Jammo, La structure, 96. Cf. Mateos, Célébration de la Parole, 101-102. 27 E. Schwartz (editor), Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, Tome II, vol. I: Concilium universale Chalcedonensis (Berlin-Leipzig 1933). Cf. V. Janeras, “Les Byzantins et le Trisagion christologique,” in (eds.), Miscellanea Liturgica in onore di Sua Eminenza Il Cardinale Giacomo Lercaro, vol. 2 (Rome 1967) 471. 28 Janeras, “Le trisagion christologique,” 471; cf. Idem, “Le Trisagion: une formule brève en liturgie comparée,” in R.F. Taft & G. Winkler (eds.), Comparative Liturgy Fifty Years After Anton Baumstark (872-948), OCA 265 (Rome, 2001) 495-562. Cf. S. Salaville, “La fête du concile de Chalcédoine dans le rite byzantin,” in A. Grillmeier & H. Bacht (eds.), Das Konzil von Chalkedon, vol. 2 (Würzburg, 1953) 667-695. 29 M. Brière (ed. and French trans.), Les Homélies Cathedrales de Sévère d’Antioche (traduction syriaque de Jacques d’Édesse): Homélies CXX a CXXV, PO 29 (Paris, 1960) 62. Interestingly, Severus notes that the Trisagion

was first chanted by the fathers from Antioch (at the Chalcedonian council), and at Antioch the addition of ‘Who was crucified for us’ was added; cf. Janeras, “Trisagion liturgique,” 476; 494-497 [partial French translation of the Syriac text]. 30 Cf. Mateos, Célébration de la Parole, 99. 31 Mateos, Célébration de la Parole, 99. According to the recension of Leo of Toscany, for example there is a conjunction added in the third phrase, thus: ‘sanctus et immortalis.’ 32 J.D. Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collection, 58 vols. (Florence, 1759; reproduced Paris-Leipzig, 1901-1927), vol. VI, 936 I. Cf. S. P. Brock, “The Thrice-Holy Hymn in the Liturgy,” Sobornost 7 (1985) 28; Jammo, La structure, 92; Pathikulangara, Divine Praises, 50-51. 33 Cf. C. De Boor (ed.), Theophanes the Confessor, Chronographia (Hildesheim, 1963) 93. 34 J. Baldovin, “A Note on the Liturgical Processions in the Menologion of Basil II (Ms. Vat. Gr. 1613),” in E. Carr et al. (eds.), Eulogema: Studies in Honor of Robert Taft, S.J., Studia Anselmiana 110 = Analecta Liturgica 17 (Rome 1993) 30-31. 35 Robert F. Taft, Byzantine Rite, A short History (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1992) 38 note 2. 36 The Trisagion entered Rome via the Gallican rite sometime between 850 and 900, and for a short period it was made use of in the Gallican mass itself. 37 V. Janeras, “Les byzantins et la trisagion christologique,” 481 et passim. Cf. Schulz, The Byzantine Liturgy, 161-163. For the use of the Trisagion in the Byzantine Little and Great Entrances, see J. Mateos, La celebration de la Parole. 38 Išo‘yahb I was originally from BƝth‘ArabƗye, and became master and ‘Interpreter’ (¾æùýòâ) of the School of Nisibis in 569, succeeding Mar Abraham of BƝth-Rabban (d. 569)—the nephew of Narsai—whose student he was. He was later made bishop of Arzǀn in 571 and elected patriarch of Seleucia-Ctesiphon in

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 57

East Meets East: Byzantine Liturgical Influences on the Rite of the Church of the East _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

582. Bar HadbšabbƗ ‘ArbƗyƗ mentions Išo‘yahb K I in his (¾ßÍÝè~ƒ ¿ÿè~ÿüƒ ¿ÿàî): ç؃ çâN ÿÙÁƒ …ûÁ~ ‹ûâ] ¾ÝØûÁ ¾Á~ ¾ýØÊø ¾å… ”~ƒ N N N N K K úéâ ÞØ~ :¾æÙãü ¾ÙÏ ˜–†½Ćß þæܚ~ [çÁ˜ N N €ÌÙîÍýØ ‹ûâ ÌåûîÍéß ÌàÂø ÌæÁÎÁ ¾ýØÊÄ N N I K çØÊ؅† .çÙæü çؚ˜š ÿØ~ûÂæÄ ÌÁ Ñàñ† ¾Ù冇˜~ N N ç↠.  ‡˜½Á ¾ñÍùéñ~ ¿†… Ž‡~ Ìæâ áòü~ N O N .¿šÍÜûØûÓñƒ ÀÊÂïß ÚÂĚ~ çܘÿÁ See: A. N N N Scher (ed. & French trans.), La Cause de la Fondation des Écoles (écrit de Mar Hadbšabba Arbaia, évêque de Halwan), in R. Graffin & F. Nau (eds.), PO IV (Paris, 1908) 389-390, especially 390 note 1. 39 See the Abbreviated Bibliography under G. Furlani, “Il Trattato di Yešo’yahb d’Arzon sul ȉȇǿȈǹīǿȅȃ,” Revista degli Studi orientali 7 (1917) 687-715. Though the ms. Syriac 9 of the India Office Library, London, attributes the tractate to Išo‘yahb I, the famous Catalogus of Abdišo‘ does not attribute any such work to this author; cf. BO III/1, 108-111. Išo‘yahb addresses his tractate to one ‘Mar Abraham of Deir GazrƗthƗ.’ I am presently working on an English translation and introduction of this Syriac text. 40 Furlani, “Il Trattato di Yešo’yahb d’Arzon sul ȉȇǿȈǹīǿȅȃ,” 689. 41 It was most probably inserted in the Byzantine liturgy sometime in the middle of the fifth century, placed after the introit; cf. D. Placide de Meester, “Grecques (Liturgies),” in F. Cabrol & H. Leclercq (eds.), Dictionnaire d’Archéologie chrétienne et de Liturgie vol. VI/2 (Paris 1921), col. 1613. 42 The information that it was the Byzantine emperor Anastasius who wanted to introduce the ‘Monophysite’ addition to the Trisagion is corroborated by Evagrius Scholasticus in his Historia Ecclesiastica (3:44). See M. Whitby (ed. & trans.), The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus, Translated Texts for Historians 33 (Liverpool, 2000). In fact, the addition to the traditional (Chalcedonian) Trisagion was added by the non-Chalcedonian patriarch of Antioch, Peter the Fuller, possibly in 470 AD. 43 Cf. PG 86:2697-2700.

44

Interpretatio Officiorum, 167. For a more complete and recent study of Gabriel Qatraya’s interpretation of the Trisagion, see: S.P. Brock, “The Origins of the Qanona ‘Holy God, Holy Might, Holy Immortal’ According to Gabriel of Qatar (Early 7th Century),” The Harp 21 (2006) 173-185. Brock attributes the treatise on the Trisagion to Išo‘yahb II (628-645) of GdƗlƗ, when in fact the author is Patriarch Išo‘yahb I of Arzǀn (582-596). This treatise is in fact one of the earliest mentioning the liturgical use of the Trisagion. 46 Brit. Mus. Or. 3336, f. 23r passim. 47 Brock, “Thrice-Holy Hymn,” 28. S. Brock conjectures that this attribution to Joseph of Arimathea came about on account of the recitation of the Trisagion during the Good Friday liturgy. 48 EOE I, 187. 49 EOE I, 187-188. 50 G.R. Driver & L. Hodgson, The Bazaar of Heracleides (Oxford, 1925) 364. Cf. B. Croke, “Two Early Byzantine Earthquakes and their Liturgical Commemoration,” Byzantion 51 (1981) 123. 51 Croke, “Two Early Byzantine…,” 127. 52 The other ‘earthquake commemorations’ contained in the Menologion are January 26 (earthquake of 450) and October 26 (earthquake of 740). 53 Croke, “Two Early Byzantine…,” 128. 54 Brock, “Thrice-Holy Hymn,” 29 (cf. 30 note 25). 55 Brock, “Thrice-Holy Hymn,” 29, especially note 18. It seems that the addition of Peter the Fuller has survived in the Maronite rite (markedly Chalcedonian!), in the Great Saturday services. 56 Whitby, Chronicon Paschale, 127-128. 57 Whitby, Chronicon Paschale, 128 note 373. 58 Brock, “Thrice-Holy Hymn,” 29. Because the Church of the East imported this hymn into its own liturgy from Byzantium, for them too it took on a trinitarian interpretation. 59 Cf. Brock, “Thrice-Holy Hymn,” 30-31. The Armenian rite, it seems, has come under Byzantine influence in this regard. 45

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 58

East Meets East: Byzantine Liturgical Influences on the Rite of the Church of the East _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

60

Cf. G. Winkler, “The Armenian Night Office I: The Historical Background of the Introductory Part of the Gišerayin Žam,” Journal of the Society for Armenian Studies 1 (1984) 104. 61 Cf. J. Vellian, East Syrian Evening Services (Kottayam, 1971) 13. 62 In the Byzantine tradition, the Trisagion recited in the eucharistic liturgy is introduced by the deacon’s words to the celebrant, ‘Bless, master, the moment of the Trisagion,’ approaching the main doors of the altar and extending his stole with the right hand and concluding with the doxology of the celebrant’s

‘ecphonesis’ prayer; cf. Mateos, Célébration de la Parole, 92. 63 Mateos, Célébration de la Parole, 106. 64 Furlani, “Il Trattato di Yešo’yahb d’Arzon sul ȉȇǿȈǹīǿȅȃ,” 690; 698. Cf. Jammo, La structure, 90. The reason why the Trisagion is called a ‘canon’ (¾åÍæø) and not a hymn is because it is seen as a sort of ‘refrain,’ in the sense that it follows the deacons’ invitation to ‘Lift up your voice,’ and it follows the Gloria Patri and the A saeculo. 65 Cf. Jammo, La structure, 93. 66 Baldovin, “Liturgical Processions,” 31.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 59

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

“INSIGHT WITHOUT SIGHT”:1 WONDER AS AN ASPECT OF REVELATION IN THE DISCOURSES OF ISAAC THE SYRIAN

MARY T. HANSBURY PHILADELPHIA, PA

V

ery little is known about the life of Isaac. He was a native of Bêth Qatrâyê, the region of Qatar on the Persian Golf. After studying Scripture and scriptural commentaries, he became a solitary and a teacher near his home.2 Patriarch George consecrated him as bishop of Nineveh (ca. 676) at the monastery of Bêt ‘Ɩbê. However after only five months as bishop he asked to withdraw and to live again as a solitary in the region of Bêt Huzâyê. He eventually became blind and had to dictate his writings which explains certain difficulties of his style. He was elderly when he died and was buried in the monastery of Rabban Shabur.3 Paradoxically, in contrast to the relative hiddenness of his life, his writings are very well known having been translated into at least twelve languages. The writings are of great interest, not only for their historical value, but also ecumenically in the current quest for Church unity.4 His universality is perhaps due to how through the labour of reading (‘amlâ d-qeryânâ) he was able to transcend human categories, entering the gate to the divine mysteries and from there perceiving God’s providence (mdabbrânûtâ) which allowed him to stand in wonder.5 And

so he returns again and again to the importance of Scripture for the spiritual life: what is required, the form it should take and the fruits to be procured. For Isaac, deep knowledge of Scripture requires an authentic ascetical life. To hear the profound resonances of the Word of God necessitates a radical detachment and renunciation: Let thy recitation (qeryânâ) take place in complete rest (šelyâ), while thou art free from to great a care for the body and from the disturbance of practice (sû‘rânâ). B.48

The other requirement is prayer: Do not approach the mysterious words in the scriptures without prayer (s̞lôtâ) and without asking help from God, saying: Lord, grant me to perceive the power (h̞aylâ) that is in them. Deem prayer as the key to the insight of truth in scripture. B.329

The fruits of this qeryânâ, which Isaac seems often to consider even more important than prayer itself, lead precisely into this study of wonder temhâ / tehrâ: Read in the two Testaments which God has destined for the instruction of

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 60

“Insight Without Sight”: Wonder as an Aspect of Revelation in the Discourses of Isaac the Syrian _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

the whole world, so that it should be dazzled by the power of His Providence (mdabbrânûtâ) in every generation and be enveloped in wonder (temhâ). B.48

Writing about Dadisho, a contemporary of Isaac who also originated from Bêt Qatrâyê and later lived in the monastery of Rabban Shabur as did Isaac, Paolo Bettiolo examines this anthropological dimension of qeryânâ and how it leads to purity of heart and to the vision of the spiritual meaning hidden in scripture and in nature. Bettiolo alludes to Evagrian influence as he sketches this itinerary in Dadisho of how one is led by qeryânâ to personal integrity and to the light of the Trinity.6 One might inquire where this influence of Scripture on the spiritual life originated. In his comprehensive study of Isaac, Sabino Chialà describes the dependence of Syriac monks on Scripture.7 The Syriac Church of the East early on developed schools of exegesis not only for clergy and monastics but also for the laity in village schools where learning to read and write was done through biblical texts and the psalms. In addition to the psalms and biblical material in their liturgical office, canonical monks, at least as novices, spent most of the morning in biblical study.8 Even in the School of Nisibis with its semi-monastic framework the first year was dedicated to the book of Psalms and the second year to Old and New Testaments with heavy emphasis on the commentaries of Ephrem and Theodore of Mopsuestia whose writings were thus major components in the development of East-Syrian exegesis. Before looking more closely at temhâ and tehrâ in Isaac, a few words are needed about Ephrem (d.375) and Jacob of Serug

(d. 52) and their use of Scripture. Although Isaac does not quote them directly he was influenced by Ephrem9 and by Jacob who certainly were rooted in a scriptural view of reality. Ephrem sketches the itinerary of divine initiative and human response throughout his writings as he searches the Scriptures for the inner spiritual meaning, its ‘hidden power’ (h̞aylâ kasyâ).10 As to Jacob, most of his homilies are concerned with subjects of the Bible. And like Isaac he sees the necessity of prayer to gain spiritual insight from the reading of Scripture.11 Relevant to this study, it is of interest to note that the terms temhâ and tehrâ occur frequently in Ephrem and perhaps even more frequently in Jacob of Serug. In Ephrem, first of all, wonder is indicative of the correct method of doing theology as involved and participating in the mysteries of faith and not being passive or aggressively inquiring into them. This sense of wonder usually leads to praise and thanksgiving. In his Hymns on the Nativity alone, there are many examples, mostly tehrâ.12 Also in Jacob of Serug the examples are predominately of tehrâ.13 Whereas subsequent to Isaac in John of Dalyatha (8th century), one finds examples closer to the use which is found in Isaac although seemingly less grounded in Scripture, at least referring to it less and taking more of a systematic approach. Tehrâ, being an aspect of what is marvelous, is more spontaneous and able to be exhorted: “… marvel at God’s love for us;” (Letter 24.). As noted by Beulay, temhâ seems to occur at a deeper level and does not depend on human initiative, being as it were without desire or movement. The passage from tehrâ to temhâ in John is described as ravishment (h̢t̜îpûtâ).14 The goal here is ecstasy, which

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 6

“Insight Without Sight”: Wonder as an Aspect of Revelation in the Discourses of Isaac the Syrian _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

in the Greek sense of separation or withdrawal does not occur in John or Isaac but in John can be seen reflected in “going out from one’s order (nâpeq men t̜akseh) where one no longer has a sense of personal existence becoming: “... the Person of Him who dwells in him in His mercy” (Homily  V.327a).15

ISAAC I Isaac was primarily interested in the inner meaning of Scripture: insights into the world which lead one to be “aroused...to wonder (tehrâ)” (B.7). In Isaac I, there are at least thirty occurrences of temhâ / tehrâ and a few of dumârâ. The following occur with direct relation to Scripture: recitation (tenyâ) of the Psalms and reading in general (qeryânâ): When the impulses are immersed in delight after having tasted the wisdom contained in the divine words...then everyone will leave the body behind...and the soul and its thoughts during ecstasy (temhâ) will desist from the use of wonted deliberations. B.5 Be constantly occupied with recitation (qeryânâ) in solitude (šelyâ), then you will be drawn towards ecstasy (tehrâ) at all times. B.43 Constant meditation upon the holy scriptures will perpetually fill the soul with incomprehensible ecstasy (tehrâ) and joy (h̢adûtâ) in God. B.25

Here the aspect of joy is introduced which occurs very frequently throughout the writings especially in Isaac I and Isaac III. Joy that exists in God: h̢adûtâ dabalâhâ takes away all other sensations. No tongue can express it. It can cause the solitary to give up reading the psalms because

of the irruption of h̢adûtâ in the soul: Constant solitude (šelyâ), with recitation and moderate food, easily arouse in the spirit a state of ecstasy (tehrâ). B.39

Here to recitation is added the aspect of fasting which he discusses at length (B.2384). While never suggesting harsh measures he is quite emphatic about its necessity, calling it the “teacher of quiet” malpânâ d-šelyâ: When of a night I stand til dawn and take rest after the recitation (tenyâ) of Psalms ...no single earthly thought arises in my heart...but all day I am in ecstasy (temhâ). B.389

Wonder can actually last for three days, tehrâ (B.388); or during prayer (s̞lôtâ) for four days, temhâ (B.26). Even during sleep, after reading (qeryânâ), the soul may be overwhelmed by wonder, tehrâ ( B.492). In Isaac I, there are twelve references to Evagrius.16 Here are noted the references to temhâ even when not directly linked by Evagrius to Scripture though for him experience and exegesis are never far apart.17 BarhҚadbešabbâ ‘Arbâyâ suggests an interesting possibility that Evagrius may have studied with Theodore of Mopsuestia under Diodore of Tarsus. The influence of Evagrius in Isaac is very strong to which all who have written about him testify.18 This prayer that gives place to thanksgiving... in the heart which is filled with joy (h̢adûtâ) and ecstasy (temhâ) ... B.06 (Chapters on Prayer, 5) Prayer namely is steadfastness of mind, which is terminated only from the light of the Holy Trinity through ecstasy (tehrâ). B.74 (Capita Cognoscitiva, 30)

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 62

“Insight Without Sight”: Wonder as an Aspect of Revelation in the Discourses of Isaac the Syrian _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

And there is no longer prayer, but gazing in ecstasy (temhâ) at the unattainable things which do not belong to the world of mortals...this is the well known ignorance concerning which Evagrius says: Blessed is he who has reached, during prayer (s̞lôtâ), unconsciouness which is not to be surpassed. B.75 (Kephalaia Gnostika 3.88) From there one is easily moved onwards toward what is called solitary knowledge (îdaǥtâ îh̢îdâytâ) which is according to a clear interpretation, ecstasy (tehrâ) in God...in that way of life which will be after the resurrection. B.304 (Kephalaia Gnostika II.3; III.22.

A synthesis of Isaac’s theory of revelation (gelyânâ) may be found in ch.9 (B.54-6). Here Isaac quotes Theodore of Mopsuestia directly, referring to his analysis of revelation “especially in the three volumes in Genesis and in the two volumes on Job and in the last one concerning the Twelve Prophets, and in the commentaries on the Acts and the Gospel of Matthew.” Isaac then describes six kinds of revelations which he finds in Scripture: by the senses, by psychic sight, by rapture (h̢t̜îpûtâ) of the spirit, by the rank of prophecy, in some intellectual way, as it were by a dream. As to the biblical prophets, Isaac asserts that they did not perceive reality in a normal way since they were in ecstasy (temhâ). In the Commentary on the Twelve Prophets, Theodore of Mopsuestia in his comments on Nahum . says: It was by ecstasy, therefore, that in all likelihood they all received the knowledge of things beyond description since it was possible for them in their minds to be quite removed from their normal condition and thus capable of

devoting themselves exclusively to contemplation of what was revealed... This is the way Scripture says Peter was in an ecstatic state and saw the cloth let down from heaven...20

It seems significant that for his understanding of temhâ / tehrâ Isaac may have referred to this key passage in Theodore of Mopsuestia.21 And while here (B.55,58) he simply touches upon Peter (Acts 0.), in Isaac III he elaborates on the revelatory aspects of Peter’s ascent as well. Ch.9 begins by saying that “revelation is silence of intellect. And by zealous efforts and human thoughts no one can imagine that he has found knowledge.” To emphasize this transcendency he concludes the chapter with an exhortation to come to God’s revelation as children to whom many things are made known without their having “the truth and the exact knowledge concerning God.”

ISAAC II Isaac II consists of three parts. In part one as found in Sobornost,22 ch. is significantly entitled: “Concerning aspects of the way of life of stillness (šelyâ).” This highlights the importance of a comment of Prof. Brock, which he makes concerning Isaac II. XII., where he cites the close relationship of šelyâ and temhâ referring to the Centuries on Knowledge 4.95: here Isaac in reference to Gen. 2: 2 and Gen.5:2 explains how the Greek known through Theodore of Mopsuestia uses temhâ (i.e. ekstasis) whereas the Peshitta has šelyâ for the “deep sleep” of both Adam and Abraham.23 In the Centuries, as found in Bettiolo’s Discorsi Spirituali, over thirty five examples of šelyâ occur, far more than temhâ and more than šelyâ in other writings of Isaac.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 63

“Insight Without Sight”: Wonder as an Aspect of Revelation in the Discourses of Isaac the Syrian _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

In the second part of Isaac II, the Centuries, attention may best be focused on 4.63: We should realize this too: the consolation (buyâ’â) given to someone in prayer (s̜lôtâ) and in the Office (tešmeštâ) is better than the consolation that comes in reading (qeryânâ) or in contemplating the created world (brîtâ) – even though these are important activities. Belonging to a separate category of their own amongst the consolations which give joy to those at an intermediate stage are those consolations which people of an advanced stage also receive from Scripture and the verses which cause them wonder (mettaharîn). But you should understand that the consolation which a solitary receives from external sources—through the movement of the tongue, or by sight or by hearing—is inferior to the consolation which stems solely from the heart, without any mediator (mes̢‘âyâ). This may occur either by means of prayer which is more interiorized than any prayer on the lips or it may suddenly occur in the mind (mad‘â), manifesting itself without any material vehicle (mlâ’â). Such a revelation belongs to the Spirit, and is a kind of prophecy (nbiyyûtâ), for the heart is in fact prophesying, in that the Spirit is revealing to it hidden matters (kasyâtê), over which not even the Holy Scriptures have authority (šallît̜în). What Scripture was not permitted to reveal, the pure mind is authorized to know – something that goes beyond what was entrusted to Scripture! Nevertheless the fountainhead (mabbô‘â) for all these things is the reading of Scripture: from it comes the mind’s beauty (šûprâ d-re‘yânâ).24

Isaac takes Scripture very seriously, ar-

guably more than other Syrian monastic writers, with perhaps the exception of Dadisho or Sahdona, and yet here he acknowledges a form of revelation which goes beyond Scripture. In the third part of Isaac II, ch.4-4,25 there are 3 occurrences of tehrâ and 9 of temhâ. Some of the more significant passages are the following as included in Brock’s Annotated Index: XII.: “...remain in wonder (temhâ) at the vision of the majesty of that ineffable glory (of the Trinity).” XIV.5: “... wonderful mode of life of solitaries (dubbârâ thîrâ d-îh̢îdâyê)...” XVIII.6: “...wonder at his mysteries (temhâ d-râzaw(hy))…,” which Isaac considers here to be a cause of tears. Alfeyev, dedicates a whole chapter to ‘tears of repentance’ and then ‘tears of compunction’ which result from receiving revelations.26 XX.7: “...continual wonder at God (tehrâ ammînâ da-lwât alâhâ)…,” used here by Isaac to describe the condition of the angels in which they are already and which will be ours at the resurrection from the dead. XX.0: “...state of wonder at God (tehrâ dab-alâhâ)...” This occurs when one “has been raised above the ministry on the level of the soul (pulh̞ânâ nafšânâyâ)... to the mode of life of the spirit.” In Isaac I, B.304 this is equated with “solitary knowledge” which according to Brock corresponds to Evagrius’s îdaǥtâ îh̢îdâytâ (Keph. Gnos. II..3, III.22), see also Isaac Cent. III.57. See John the Solitary, On the Soul IV.87-8. XXX.7: “...wonder at (God’s) dispensation (tehrâ da-mdabbrânûteh)...” Cent. IV .47 XXXV.3: “...the apperception of the

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 64

“Insight Without Sight”: Wonder as an Aspect of Revelation in the Discourses of Isaac the Syrian _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Kingdom of heaven … is a symbol of that future wonder at God (temhâ dab-alâhâ)... by means of things in the (world) the intellect is raised up, as though on a ladder (sebeltâ), to Him who is the Kingdom of the saints, and it abides in wonder (temhâ).” See Isaac III, Discourse 9, where the ladder is understood as prayer (s̞lôtâ). In Isaac II a key to understanding wonder may be found in ch. XVI on ‘overshadowing’.27 The mysterious variety of overshadowing (maggnânûtâ) such as takes place with an holy person, is an active force (h̢aylâ) which overshadows (maggen) the intellect, and when someone is held worthy of this overshadowing the intellect is seized (meth̢t̞ef) and dilated with a sense of wonder (temhâ), in a kind of divine revelation (gelyânâ alâhâyâ). As long as this (divine) activity overshadows the intellect, that person is raised above the movement of the thoughts of his soul (h̢uššâbê nafšânâyê) thanks to the participation of the Holy Spirit.

And Isaac’s proof-text is from Ephesians: This is what the Apostle speaks of, in the form of a prayer, (in his letter) to the Ephesians, wanting to indicate this mystery to them, saying, ‘May the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of Glory, grant to you the Spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of Him, and may the eyes of your heart be illumined. And what is the aim of this? ‘So that you may realize what the hope of His calling is, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance among the saints, and what is the exceeding greatness of His might in us who believe’. (Eph.:7-8,8-9)

Since in the above, wonder seems to be

tied directly to overshadowing it is helpful to review the remarks of Prof. Brock on maggnânûtâ28 where he outlines the two very different forms of overshadowing found in Isaac. Basically they describe sanctification and protection. As noted by Brock, the fullness of the term applies only to Mary but is shared in by the saints. He also notes that the same form of maggnânûtâ occurs in the Eucharistic Liturgy, though not mentioned by Isaac. In his conclusion, he suggests that probably Isaac as well as Dadisho “… are innovating when they apply the noun to the sanctifying action of the Spirit in the context of the spiritual life.”

ISAAC III The text to be considered here is the most recently discovered of the Isaac corpus, so called Isaac III (palgûtâ da-tlât), copied ca. 900 in Urmia and conserved in a private collection in Teheran under the title Issayi 5 after the Chaldean Archbishop Yuhannan Samaan Issayi who acquired the manuscript from a book dealer in Teheran.29 There are seventeen discourses. Two are already found in Isaac I and one in Isaac II. In the fourteen remaining, of interest to this discussion, there are at least 32 examples of tehrâ; 24 of temhâ; 7 of dumârâ and 8 of šelyâ.30 Several pertinent examples: p.99: a life of wonder (temhâ) and hope makes one similar to the angels. p.4: during the night receive our soul in Your wonder (temhâ), in it is stillness (šelyâ). p.82: His love fills me with wonder (temhâ). p.80: wonder (temhâ) which searches the thoughts and brings them beyond dispersion.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 65

“Insight Without Sight”: Wonder as an Aspect of Revelation in the Discourses of Isaac the Syrian _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

p.87: seeing the greatness of God as in wonder (temhâ)… knowledge which feels what is in God, gazing as in wonder (temhâ). p.88: stillness (šelyâ) and wonder (temhâ) which occur in moments of personal prayer or during the Liturgy and result from overshadowing (maggnânûtâ). Most of ch. 9 is given over to Scripture and its relation to prayer and to wonder. #5: after life at the level of the body and prayer at the level of the soul, Isaac reflects here on the level of the spirit as revelation of hidden realities which receive strength (h̢aylâ) from reading (qeryânâ). #7: reading (qeryânâ) done on a portion [of Scripture] is the ministry (pulh̢ânâ) of meditation (hergâ), and this [reading] sustains us in marvelous realities so as to persevere there. #9: reading (qeryânâ) stirs the senses to search the hidden mystery of divine wisdom. #0: not necessary a prolonged meditation (hergâ) as long as Scripture is always in one’s hands. #2: from reading (qeryânâ) comes continual prayer and this prayer becomes a ladder (sebeltâ). And here he mentions the ascent of Peter on the roof in Acts 0.9- which is in fact found in the commentary of Theodore of Mopsuestia on Nahum ., as previously noted.31 This is the way Scripture says blessed Peter was in an ecstatic state and saw the cloth let down from heaven: since the grace of the Spirit first distanced his mind from reality, then it caused him to be devoted to the contemplation of the revelations and so, just as we are

beyond our normal condition as though asleep when we receive the contemplation of what is revealed, so in some fashion they were affected by a transformation of mind from the Holy Spirit and became beneficiaries of the contemplation of the revelations.32

This paragraph from Theodore’s commentary on Nahum could seemingly have been written by Isaac. It resembles his thinking or rather it follows Theodore’s, either by direct borrowing (puššâqâ) or indirect transmission (mašlmânûtâ). And it shows to what degree that a life of prayer sustained by qeryânâ leads the soul to the vision of hidden mysteries as the prophets were led to the knowledge of things beyond description: The energy of God is called by the prophet “word of the Lord,” because by this energy the prophets received the revelations of the things to come through a spiritual grace. This sacred revelation also is called by the prophet “vision” because through this they were receiving knowledge of obscure things. Since the prophets were accepting in the depth of their own souls unspoken thoughts and images through a spiritual energy, and they understood the instruction of what they learned as if it were someone speaking to them—during the energy of the divine spirit in their inner soul—for this reason the prophet calls it both “vision” and “word of God.”33

It seems for Isaac that through the reading of Scripture one becomes participant in this same “energy of God” as the prophets themselves, receiving like them revelations of things to come—bearing in mind what distinctions must be made concerning revelation (gelyânâ) in Isaac. As noted by Alfeyev: “‘Revelation refers to the inner

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 66

“Insight Without Sight”: Wonder as an Aspect of Revelation in the Discourses of Isaac the Syrian _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

contiguity of a person with an unearthly reality; it does not necessarily presuppose seeing a visible image.” And again: “‘Revelations’, in Isaac’s vocabulary, are the experience of participation in the kingdom of heaven during one’s earthly life.”34 Having said above that prayer is the ladder (sebeltâ / four times), Isaac specifies by saying that prayer without qeryânâ and hergâ cannot raise up the mind (hawnâ) to the celestial realities. He concludes with an extended reflection on the role of angels as mediators in this process. What issues forth is temhâ / tehrâ not simply as emotions brought on by what surpasses expectation and experience or that which seems inexplicable. Rather it is a way of seeing, perceiving and feeling the realities of the New World. It is an integral part of revelation (gelyânâ) which has its roots in Theodore of Mopsuestia.35 A. Becker, in his important study which looks comprehensively and in depth at East Syrian monastic thought, says of Isaac: “this is the ultimate goal of Isaac’s whole monastic practice: the revelation of the divine.”36

THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA’S INFLUENCE All who have worked closely with Isaac have noted the influence of Theodore in his writings. According to P. Bettiolo, the framework of Isaac’s work derives from Theodore: the “two ages” doctrine (tuqqânê, Gr. Katastàseis), this world and the eschatological one, the first as pedagogy for the second, i.e. the world as school; angelology; questions of incorruptibility and immortality; Christological discourse, but in Isaac always pastoral and not academic; many interpretations of Scripture taken directly

(puššâqê) or indirectly (mašlmânûtâ) from Theodore.37 S. Chialà has found fifteen explicit citations from Theodore in the Isaac corpus. He explores several key concepts of Theodore with obvious connections to Isaac, noting how the “two ages” doctrine of Theodore yields an eschatological thrust, all creation aimed at a perfection to come rather than a “paradise lost,” from imperfection of the first age to the perfection of the second.38 R. Beulay examines general issues concerning the influence of Theodore on the East Syrian mystical tradition, including Isaac. He looks in particular at the “two ages” doctrine of Theodore which Beulay considers to be of biblical origin. First age: mortality, corruptibility, passibility, mutability. Second age: immortality, incorruptibility, impassibility, immutability. Beulay works this comparison out in relation to Joseph HҞazzaya but the discussion underpins Isaac as well.39 R. Macina, though not directly referring to Isaac, speaks of the legacy of Theodore and considers him as a gentle solitary in his monastery who held school but did not found a school as did ‘the fiery Narsai,’40 and who commented on all of Scripture, organizing a way of interpretation of Scripture which had such an impact on later generations. According to Macina, Dadisho quotes Theodore thirty times. Macina also asks why the influence of Theodore and not of Diodore, for example, who actually began the historical exegetical approach to Scripture had such a lasting effect? Macina goes on to analyze the “two ages” doctrine and projects this as the basis for further research.41 A. Becker suggests in a recent article that what Guillaumont did for Origen needs to be done for Theodore.42 Certainly

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 67

“Insight Without Sight”: Wonder as an Aspect of Revelation in the Discourses of Isaac the Syrian _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Becker’s own work takes a big step in this direction. In his Fear of God he analyzes the Cause of BarhҚadbešabbâ commenting on how it seems to be dependent on Theodore’s idea of divine paideia “in which divine providence directs the present age until the future age of immortality and endows us with rational minds to make decisions, laws to guide us and bodily existence to develop and test our virtues.”43 Divine paideia becomes even more important in someone like Narsai. It is also very significant in Isaac. For now a simple distinction has proved helpful in coming to terms with Theodore in Isaac, that is, the fifteen direct quotes as noted by Chialà, and the general sense of an underlying presence of Theodore throughout the Isaac corpus. A distinction is made in the Cause of BarhҞadbešabbâ between kinds of interpretation.44 In one passage he says of Qiyore (5th cent.), director of the School of Edessa, that he was commenting on Scripture according to the traditions (mašlmânwâtâ) of Mar Ephrem. Traditions here must not be understood as from the hand of Ephrem but the tradition (mašlmânûtâ) which preceded him and was then handed down. Likewise he says of Theodore: For as to that which we call the tradition of the school, we do not mean by it the Commentary (puššâqâ) of the Interpreter, but those other traditions (mašlmânwâtâ) that from mouth to ear were transmitted from the beginning.45

Most of Theodore’s corpus was translated into Syriac in the fifth century within the School of Edessa. The names usually mentioned as translators include Hiba, Qiyore, Kumi and Maǥna of Rewardasir. But at Theodore’s death (ca.428), his works had not been completely translated.46 As noted

by van Rompay, when Rabbula burned his works after his death not included were his commentary on John and on Qoheleth because they had not yet been translated. But even before there was a complete translation of his works, these works influenced the teaching in the Schools, together with other Antiochene authors, by means of the mašlmanwâtâ. So that after the destruction of his commentaries (puššâqê) this tradition of the school (mašlmânûtâ) enriched subsequent generations including Isaac as noted by P. Bettiolo.47

MEDIATION OF THE ANGELS Throughout the writings of Isaac angels are constantly mentioned and their primary function seems to be the mediation (mes̞‘âyûtâ) of divine revelations: … when by the influence of grace, suddenly, mighty emotions and amazement (temhâ) of the intellectual vision of what is above nature fall on the soul as the holy Evagrius says: when the holy angels approach us filling us with spiritual sight, then all those [things which]… were in opposition to us vanish, and there comes peace and unspeakable stupefaction (bulhâyâ) ... B.497

Alfeyev notes how Isaac was influenced by Dionysius in this understanding that divine revelations are transmitted from God to the angels through the mediation of Jesus, and then from the angels to human beings:48 We have them as teachers, as they have each other, namely those who are lower [are taught by] those who are more instructed and enlightened than themselves... up to the one who has as teacher the Holy Trinity. And even he [does not receive instruction]

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 68

“Insight Without Sight”: Wonder as an Aspect of Revelation in the Discourses of Isaac the Syrian _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

of his own, but he has as teacher Jesus the Mediator (mes̞‘ âyâ) through whom he receives instruction and transmits it to those who are at the same level and lower. Then again, as we naturally do not all possess the force (h̢aylâ) to be moved by divine contemplation, and we share in this deficiency with all heavenly beings, it is only by grace, without exercise or computation on our part, that we are moved by something which naturally is foreign to the human and to the angelic mind (hawnâ). ... without their mediation (mes̞‘âyûtâ) our mind (hawnâ) could not be conducted as our mind does not possess a strength (h̢aylâ) like that of those high and exalted beings who receive all revelations (gelyânê) and contemplation from the Essence, without an intermediary (mes̞‘âyâ). But even they receive these revelations through an image of the Essence, not from the Essence itself. So that our mind also is in the same degree as the other classes, not able to receive revelations and contemplation on their own, without an intermediary, but only from Jesus who sways the sceptre of the Kingdom. B 97-99

Alfeyev concludes by saying that according to Isaac: “In the age to come, the saints will contemplate God face to face, while in this present life contemplation is possible only through the mediation of angels.”49 In Isaac II, in the Centuries of Knowledge, there are three main sections relevant to this discussion. In Cent. 2.69 -76, #72 stresses communion with angels in the revelations of one’s mind; #76 stresses becoming worthy of the mystery of angelic revelations and worthy to receive revelations of

incomprehensible realities. In Cent.3.55- 60, #55 speaks of movements of revelations produced in us by the angels and those which are from the Holy Spirit. In #59 Isaac specifies how revelations manifested by angels are, as noted in Scripture, either during sleep in dreams or through the senses in a vision or a voice: Jacob, Joshua, Isaiah, Daniel, the minor prophets,50 Zechariah the priest and other saints. Whereas in #60 he says that revelation from the Holy Spirit arises apart from the senses as occurred to Samuel, Elisha, Peter (Acts 0.0). In Cent. 3, 9-92, he makes another important distinction that angelic revelations purify whereas the Holy Spirit sanctifies with its revelations. He also quotes Evagrius (Praktikos 76) that the angels fill us with spiritual visions of every kind while according to Isaac the order (t́eksâ) and the manner (znâ) of the Holy Spirit’s revelation are one (h̢ad). In Isaac II, 4-4, ch. XVIII has the most references to the role of angels. #9: “… wonder (temhâ) at the insights...set in motion from the proximity of the angels (metqarbânûtâ d-mal’âkê).” #20: “insights which do not (come) as a result of investigation or will, but … through the mediation (mes̞‘âyûtâ) of the holy angels.” #22 “… thoughts that originate from the angels...” which Brock refers to Evagrius, Praktikos 24, 80. In Isaac III there are two significant passages. Disc. 8 . Isaac concludes a previous discussion of revelation and Scripture by saying that all revelations (gelyânê) come by means of angels until one arrives at the divine vision (h̢zâtâ alâhâyâ). He then reminds that angelic revelations precede divine revelations which are the work of the Holy Spirit. As noted by Chialà, a fuller dis-

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 69

“Insight Without Sight”: Wonder as an Aspect of Revelation in the Discourses of Isaac the Syrian _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

cussion of this order of things already occurs in Isaac II Cent.2.59-60.51 In Disc. 9.8- 3, after a discussion of revelation in general Isaac continues to speak about the role of angels. He distinguishes again between angelic revelations and those of the Holy Spirit. He mentions OT interventions, e.g. Moses, Exod. 3:-2. As proof text he gives Heb.2:2 and Acts 7: 35-37. All the OT economia (mdabbrânûtâ), concerning the people of Israel and the glorious realities that were revealed in their midst, was entrusted to an angel. In #25, as to Sinai, all the commandments given to Moses that are narrated in the Law are as coming from God while the words of the Law given to the people are angelic revelations. Finally, the OT economia had been revealed by the angel at the Lord’s command, but only after Pentecost (Acts 3) and the Holy Spirit’s descent on the Apostles came the fullness of the grace of the Spirit. Quoting Heb. 2:2-3, Isaac continues to emphasize how these later revelations lead to a knowledge of the future world, and to a place more excellent than prayer but to which one arrives at by prayer receiving there a mirror (mah̢zîtâ) of the New World. This distinction between angelic revelations and those of the Holy Spirit seems important and may in fact reflect Theodore of Mopsuestia. In Isaac II, Cent.3.55 he had spoken about distinctions between angelic revelations and those of the Spirit. But in this section he says that in the O.T., all revelation was by mediation (mes̞‘âyûtâ) of the angels. This may derive from Theodore, directly or indirectly, who did not accept awareness of a separate hypostasis of the Holy Spirit in the O.T. In his commentary on Joel:

The people in the time of the O.T. did not understand the Holy Spirit to be a unit as a person distinct from the others, being both God and from God; by “spirit of God,” “holy spirit” and every other such name at the time they referred to his grace, care, and affection...52

And again in his commentary on Haggai: The people of the OT were unaware of a distinct hypostasis of a Holy Spirit identified as a person in its own right in God, since everyone before the coming of Christ the Lord knew of God but nothing further...angels and powers carried out the divine decisions...Consequently, they were not in a position to know of a Holy Spirit as a distinct hypostasis in God...the OT...did not come to knowledge of a Holy Spirit as a distinct person (prosopon) and distinct hypostasis.53

According to R. Greer: “There is no question in Theodore’s mind that the Spirit existed as an eternal hypostasis, and as such was in operation, ‘speaking by the Prophets.’ But that this operation is not to be found recognized as separate from God in the O.T.”54 For Theodore, the N.T. reveals that God exists in three prosopa but that the O.T. contains only the revelation that God is in the ousia, “.... thus the full revelation of God’s being is reserved for the N.T.”55 What is attempted here is not an analysis of angelic mediation in Theodore but simply to illuminate this important aspect of Isaac’s theology and indicate how it may in fact be another example of indirect influence (mašlmânûtâ) by the Interpreter (mpašqânâ) on the East Syrian monastic tradition including Isaac, concerning aspects of revelation.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 70

“Insight Without Sight”: Wonder as an Aspect of Revelation in the Discourses of Isaac the Syrian _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

NOTES 1

As found in Isaac, ch. 5, Bedjan 377. All quotations used here for Isaac I are from Bedjan (hereafter B.) as translated in A.J. Wensinck, Mystic Treatises by Isaac of Nineveh (Amsterdam, 923), with some syntactical adjustments. A fine translation, with a different chapter sequence, may also be found in The Ascetical Homilies of Saint Isaac the Syrian, D. Miller, trans. (Boston, Massachusetts: Holy Transfiguration Monastery, 984). 2 By the early seventh century there was a school movement within the Church of the East. Becker describes the type of village school where Isaac probably studied before becoming a solitary and a teacher. See A. Becker, Fear of God and the Beginning of Wisdom (Philadelphia PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006) 63-66. 3 Bibliographical indications as found in J.B. Chabot, “Le Livre de la chasteté, composé par Jésusdenah, Evêque de Basrah,” in Mélanges d’Archéologie et d’Histoire 6 (896) 277-78; I.E. Rahmani, Studia Syriaca (Lebanon: Charfet Seminary, 904) 33. 4 See article of S.P. Brock, “Crossing the Boundaries: An Ecumenical Role played by Syriac Monastic Literature,” StAns 40 (2004) 22-38. 5 This is a paraphrase of his own writings, see Isaac II XX.3. 6 See P. Bettiolo, “Esegesi e purezza di cuore. La testimonianza di Dadiso’ Qatraya (VII sec.), nestoriano e solitario,” Annali di Storia dell’ Esegesi 3 (986) 20-3. 7 See S. Chialà, Dall’ascesi eremitica alla misericordia infinita. Ricerche su Isacco di Ninive e la sua fortuna (Florence, 2002) 89-92. 8 See J.M. Fiey, “La Bible dans la vie de l’église Syrienne Orientale ancienne,” Bible et Vie Chrétienne 67 (966) 35-42. 9 Becker gives a nuanced view of this influence, including as mediated through liturgical collections. See Becker, Fear of God, 27.

10

See S.P. Brock, “St. Ephrem the Syrian on Reading Scripture,” Downside Review 25 (2007) 37-50. 11 See S.P. Brock, “Three Syriac Fathers on Reading the Bible,” to appear in Sob, 2009. Here the author sketches a comparison of Ephrem, Jacob and Isaac in their approach to Scripture. 12 Ephrem, Hymns on the Nativity (CSCO 867): 2.9 dumârâ 2x; 6.0, 8 tehrâ; .6 tehrâ; 2. tehrâ; 9. temhâ, tehrâ; 2.7, 8,6 tehrâ, temhâ, temhâ; 27.5 tehrâ; 28.5 tehrâ, dumârâ. 13 Jacob, “On the Nativity of Our Lord,” S. Martyrii qui et Sahdona quae supersunt omnia, P. Bedjan ed. (Paris 902), 790-808. For tehrâ, lines: 28, 46, 82, 85, 90, 56, 58, 204, 228, 235, 236, 274, 324. For dumârâ, lines: 203, 222, 224, 236, 228, 229 23, 234, 235, 236, 238, 24, 248. 14 Robert Beulay, La Lumière sans forme. Introduction à l’étude de la mystique chrétienne syro-orientale (Belgium: éditions de Chevetogne, 987) 46-55. 15 Khayyat’s fine edition of the Homilies includes many examples of temhâ, tehrâ, h̢t̜îpûtâ and nâpeq men t̜akseh in the Glossary. See Nadira Khayyat, Jean de Dalyatha Les Homélies IXV (Lebanon: CERO/UPA, 2007). The Homily quoted here is according to the numbering in Beulay, different from that found in Khayyat. 16 Chialà has found thirty references to Evagrius throughout the corpus. See Dall’ascesi, 87. 17 See Columba Stewart, “Imageless Prayer and the Theological vision of Evagrius Ponticus,” JECS 9:2 (200) 99-20. 18 See BarhҚabešabbâ’s Cause de la fondation des écoles, ed. and trans. A. Scher, PO 4:4, 37778. Macina comments on this hypothesis, see R. Macina, “L’homme à l’école de Dieu. D’Antioche à Nisibe: profil herméneutique, théologique et kérygmatique du mouvement scolastique nestorien,” POC 32 (982) 86-24, 263-30; 33 (983) 39-03. For his comment on Evagrius, see POC 32 (982) 265.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 7

“Insight Without Sight”: Wonder as an Aspect of Revelation in the Discourses of Isaac the Syrian _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

19

For example see P. Bettiolo, Isacco di Ninive Discorsi Spirituali e altri opuscoli (Comunità di Bose: Edizioni Qiqajon, 990) 3637. See also P. Bettiolo, “Povertà e Conoscenza. Appunti sulle Centurie gnostiche della tradizione evagriana in Siria,” ParOr 5 (988-989) 0725. 20 Robert C. Hill, trans., Theodore of Mopsuestia: Commentary on the Twelve Prophets (Washington: The Catholic University of America Press, 2004) 249-250. 21 Devreese analyzes the aspects of ecstasy in Nahum .. See R. Devreese, Essai sur Theodore de Mopsueste Studi e testi, 4 (Città del Vaticano: Biblioteca apostolica vaticano, 948) 78-82. And Jean Kirchmeyer suggests that this sense of ecstasy in Theodore (Nahum ..) influences Theodoret, Gregory of Cyprus (early 7th cent.), Isaac, Isho‘dad of Merv (mid 9th cent.) and Dionysius Bar Salibi (d.7), see his article in DSpir 4:2 (960) 2097-23. John of Dalyatha also uses this motif of Peter’s ascent to the roof in his discussion of temhâ, see his Letter 2.4. See note #28 on Theodore’s exegesis. 22 S.P. Brock, “St. Isaac the Syrian: two unpublished texts,” Sob 9 (997) 7-33. See also his “Isaac of Nineveh: some newly-discovered works,” Sob 8: (986) 28-33. 23 Concerning Cent.4.95, Bettiolo amply comments on it, including references to Isho‘dad of Merv and Theodore bar Koni on temhâ and šelyâ, see Bettiolo, Discorsi Spirituali, 97, note #7. See also P. Bettiolo, “Prigionieri dello Spirito” Libertâ creaturale ed eschaton in Isacco di Ninive e nelle sue fonte,” Annali di Scienze Religiose 4 (999) 349-50. See Chialà, Dall’ ascesi, 4. 24 Cent.IV.63. Translation by Brock as found in S.P. Brock, The Syriac Fathers on Prayer and the Spiritual Life (Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 987) 264-65. Syriac terms used are as found in the Oxford manuscript, Bodl Syr e 7, from a copy kindly lent by P. Bettiolo. 25 See S.P. Brock, Isaac of Nineveh (Isaac the Syrian). ‘The Second Part’, Chapter IV-XVI, Syri 224-5 (Louvain: CSCO, 995). 26 Hilarion Alfeyev, The Spiritual World of

Isaac the Syrian (Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 2000) 29-42. Beulay says that after tears of repentance come ‘tears of joy and wonder,’ a term he finds in John the Solitary, and that they are a gift and not at all voluntary. See R. Beulay, L’Enseignement Spirituel de Jean de Dalyatha: Mystique syro-oriental du VIIIe siècle, Théologie historique 83 (Paris: Beauchesne, 990) 20-205. 27 This chapter is also found in Isaac I, ch.54. 28 See S.P. Brock, “Maggnânûtâ: A Technical Term in East Syrian Spirituality and Its Background,” in Mélanges Antoine Guillaumont: Contributions à l’étude des christianismes orientaux (Geneva: Cahiers d’Orientalisme 20, 988) 2-29. 29 S. Chialà, Isacco di Ninive. Discorsi ascetici, terza collezione (Comunità di Bose: Edizioni Qiqajon, 2004), see Introd. 30 The Syriac text will not be available until next year in CSCO. For the Syriac terms I have depended on a glossary provided in the Italian translation, whereas I have paraphrased from the Italian the quotes used here. 31 See note #20. 32 Translation as found in Hill, Commentary, 249-50. A discussion of Nahum . as central to Theodore’s idea of revelation may be found in D.Z. Zaharopoulos, Theodore of Mopsuestia on the Bible (Mahwah NJ: Paulist Press, 989) 7802. For Theodore’s exegesis in general, see F.G. McLeod, S.J., The Roles of Christ’s Humanity in Salvation (Washington: The Catholic University of America Press, 2005) 20-57. See also his recent article: F.G. McLeod, “Narsai’s Dependence on Theodore of Mopsuestia,” Journal of the CSSS 7 (2007) 9-24. See the previous note #7. 33 Commentary on Obadiah ., translation as found in Zaharopoulos, Theodore, 94. 34 See Alfeyev, Spiritual World , 229-36. On revelation (gelyânâ) as a way of knowledge in Isaac, see Chialà, Dall’ ascesi, 34-36. 35 Given the importance of the Psalms to both Theodore and to Isaac, a check was made of Sprenger’s Concordance showing 44 examples of tedmurtâ and none of temhâ. Whereas for the

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 72

“Insight Without Sight”: Wonder as an Aspect of Revelation in the Discourses of Isaac the Syrian _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Prophets, Strothmann’s Concordance yields 30 occurrences of temhâ but without the connotation of revelation or ecstasy. However further study might show a connection between Prophets in the Peshitta and the Targum tradition, yielding other dimensions of temhâ. For a possible approach to this , see S.P. Brock, “A Palestinian Targum Feature in Syriac,” JJS 46 (995) 27-82. 36 Becker, Fear of God, 84-88. 37 Bettiolo, Discorsi spirituali, 35. 38 Chiala, Dall’ascesi, 92-0. 39 Beulay, Lumière, 84-98. 40 Macomber suggests that it was Narsai who introduced Theodore into East Syrian theology. See W. Macomber, S.J., “The Theological Synthesis of Cyrus of Edessa, an East Syrian Theologian of the Mid Sixth Century,” OCP 30 (964) 6. 41 Macina, “L’homme à l’école…,” POC 33 (983) 79-98. 42 “Since the work of Antoine Guillaumont on the Origenism of late antiquity it has been commonly recognized that when we speak of Origenism we often mean Origen’s thought as mediated by later thinkers, such as Evagrius of Pontus. The equivalent study for Theodore of Mopsuestia, one that addresses how this influential thinker was received in the Greek, Latin, Syriac and Armenian churches, has yet to be written;” A. Becker, “The Dynamic Reception of Theodore of Mopsuestia in the Sixth Century,” in Greek Literature in Late Antiquity ed. S.F. Johnson (Aldershot, Hampshire: Ashgate, 2006) 44. The area most in need seems to be the Cate-

chetical Homilies of Theodore which the forthcoming dissertation at Princeton of Daniel Swartz promises to address. 43 Becker, Fear of God, 4 44 See L. Van Rompay, “Quelques Remarques sur la Tradition Syriaque de l’Oeuvre Exégétique de Théodore de Mopsueste,” IV SympSyr 984 (Rome: OCA 229, 987) 33-43. See also Macina, “L’homme à l’école…,” POC 32 (982) 265-67. 45 Cause, 382-383. Translation as found in L. Van Rompay, “The Christian Syriac Tradition of Interpretation,” in Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, The History of its Interpretation, ed. M. Saebo, vol. (Gottingen: 996) 633. 46 For an overview see Van Rompay, “Christian Syriac Tradition,” 62-64. 47 Bettiolo looks at Theodore’s Commentary on Genesis, Gen :-2, which Bettiolo says is clearly prototypical for Isaac’s exegesis, whether directly (puššâqâ) or indirectly (mašlmânûtâ), see Bettiolo, “Prigionieri,” 354. 48 Alfeyev, Spiritual World, 227-232. 49 Ibid., 228 50 See the previous comments on the possible use by Isaac of Theodore of Mopsuestia’s Commentary on the Twelve Prophets. 51 Chialà, Discorsi Ascetici, 25, found in his very informative chapter “Conoscenza e Stupore,” 9-4. 52 Hill, Commentary, 7. 53 Ibid., 33-4. 54 R. Greer, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Exegete and Theologian (Westminster: The Faith Press, 96) 29. 55 Ibid., 07.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 73

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

THE “MONASTIC CHURCH” OF BƖZYƖN IN IRAQI KURDISTAN1

NARMEN MUHAMAD AMEN ALI DEPARTMENT OF ART AND ARCHAEOLOGY

SALAHUDDIN UNIVERSITY, ERBIL, IRAQ

B

ƗzyƗn is a small town located in the Governorate of SulaymƗniyyƗ, some two kilometers to the west of the capital city of SulaymƗniyyƗ, and not far from the main road that links this city with Kirkuk (Map ).2 Opposite BƗzyƗn, the pass of Derbend is located, confined between two low mountains. Archaeological sites are scattered in the agricultural plain of BƗzyƗn, one of which, containing the remains of an ancient church, is located at the mouth of the pass. Already in the 9th century, Claudius James Rich visited this site, which he called a “khan”, noticing square buildings and a platform, which he compared with such structures found in “al-Haouch and Kasr i Shereen” in Iran. Almost instinctively, he dated the ruins of the khan to the Sassanian period and was not surprised to hear the claim of the guard of the pass that it was built “By Khosrau”!3 Between 987 and 990, a Kurdish archaeological team under the leadership of M. Rashid excavated part of the site, unearthing buildings taken first for a Zoroastrian temple but thought later to be a fortified Christian monastery. Coins, a bronze cross, plaster crosses, and an incense burner were recovered from the ruins, reinforcing

the belief that the site was indeed a church if not a monastery. The excavations did not include the south-west section of the site and thus the site needs to be fully unearthed. I studied the religious buildings in situ in 998, 999, and 2000, and the following are a few observations on this very important site that requires detailed study.

THE ARCHITECTURAL COMPLEX The archaeological excavations recovered the outer wall of the monastery, a church, and the monastic quarters, all clearly delineated and easily identified. The buildings, including their doors and pillars, are built with mortar and stones, which are readily available in this mountainous region.

The Outer Wall The monastery is quadrangular in plan and is heavily fortified with round towers on the three excavated corners, and in the middle of each of the three cleared sides (Plan ). The thickness of the north-east wall is considerable (nearly 5 metres!), but this is made in fact of two walls built against each other. The north-west wall is 3 metres thick, while the south-east wall is somewhat less than this. It is quite possible

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 74

The “Monastic Church” of BƗzyƗn in Iraqi Kurdistan _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

that the walls and their towers were built in different periods, though it is clear that these were also rebuilt or repaired. No gate was found to the walled complex but a gate might be buried in the unexcavated section on the south side of the site.

The Church (Plan  a-f): The church building is a basilica-type, with three naves separated by two sets of rather thick free-standing pillars. Ornamental double pillars, semi-circular in shape, rest on rectangular bases (Fig. ), decorating the façade of the sanctuary (Fig. 2), each set placed on one side of the façade, while two other sets decorate the back of the church. Between the double pillars and the gate of the sanctuary a niche is found on each side of this façade. A semi-circular bema (a) (Fig. 3) is built between the two pillars on the west side, and is accessible by three steps. The small alley (b) linking the bema with the sanctuary (c), is the šqƗqǀnƗ “alley, narrow passage” of the Syriac traditional church structure. It leads to the sanctuary, itself accessed through the required three steps clearly identifiable in situ (Fig. 2). The rectangular but small sanctuary (c) is flanked on each side by a small room (d), one serving as the baptistery and the other as the diaconicon or sacristy.4 The baptistery (d) gives access to a large room (B) to the south-east side of the site, as expected in the traditional plan of the Syriac churches. No altar was found and no trace of it could be seen on the floor, a fact suggesting that it may haven been a portable table. If this is the case, the table must have stood before the curved wall of the sanctuary, part of which is still visible (Fig. 4). Later restorations, probably not by Christians, broke the wall into section (e), confusing the structure of the sanctuary. The heap of stones in the

sanctuary area confirms this change in structure. Section (e) to the east leads through steps to a circular basin with niches (f), the function of which is not certain. Could it be a baptismal fount or a martyrion? A similar structure may be found in the church of St Vitale in Ravenna or, even better, in the monastic church of Basxenc‘ vank‘ (Bošienc‘, Sourb Xac‘) in Upper Armenia.5 Finally, the church is surrounded on its three sides by corridors (B). The south corridor, the largest, must have originally been the bƝth-s̛ lǀthƗ (‘place of prayer’), where the liturgy would have taken place during the hot summer. Here too Room (g) was built at one point confusing the architectural and liturgical purposes of this integral part of the Syriac church. The west and north corridors are more or less of the same width but the west corridor is longer than its northern counterpart.

The (Residential) Complex This complex needs a detailed investigation. The most remarkable part of it is the longitudinal Room D to the west side, with its five recesses (Fig. 5) inside which four jars were found (Fig. 6). Eight more jars were placed along the east wall of the room, suggesting that this was a cellar where grains and possibly wine were stored. Examining the residual remains inside the jars would shed some light on their exact function. The sections adjacent to Room D contains a small square room with a well (p), but this area as a whole needs a detailed study.

RELIGIOUS ARTIFACTS Several liturgical and decorative finds were uncovered in the excavated site of BƗzyƗn, leaving little doubt that the whole site was at least at one point a church, possibly for a

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 75

The “Monastic Church” of BƗzyƗn in Iraqi Kurdistan _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

small monastic community. The finds are now all stored and exhibited at the Museum of SulaymƗniyyƗ.

Incense Burner This liturgical item is small in size (about the size of a large orange), made entirely of copper, flat, and bearing no decoration except perhaps for the ring just below the rim of the container (Fig.7). The incense burner consists of a round container perforated with several holes along its upper rim just above the ring so as to hold the chain; part of a copper chain still attached to the container and ending with a small key for easier holding; a dome-like cover also perforated along its rim to hold the chain; and three legs attached to the bottom of the container. The simplistic shape of the incense burner, unlike the fancy and sophisticated ones usually found in churches and monasteries almost everywhere, suggests that it is perhaps old.

first cross (Fig. 0), which is in relief, is thin and its horizontal and vertical ends are all decorated with double knobs. Two streams flow from the bottom of the cross, and the whole sits on a mountain-shaped structure. The stylized cross is placed inside a highly decorated frame, reminiscent of such plaster crosses as those of Qusѽayr dated to the Sassanian period,6 or the Armenian stone Khachkars7 dated to the 2th-3th centuries. The second cross (Fig. ), painted but missing its lower part, is made of thick intertwined lines, orange in colour, placed inside a linear cross the arms of which end with triple knobs or buttons. The whole cross is placed inside a coloured frame while the background of the plaster is also coloured in light green. There are other painted crosses (Figs. 2, 3) that are less clear and not well-preserved, though they make an important addition to the collection of Christian remains.

HISTORICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Incense Holders Five small copper (Fig. 8) containers, round and shallow, each with a handle attached at the bottom and a tree-like part attached at the top and decorated with circles; the round container has two round ‘ears’, one on each side of the container. The purpose of these items is not entirely clear, but on account of their handles, they are tentatively taken here for incense holders.

Ornamental Cross A small copper cross of oriental shape, in that its horizontal and vertical ends are decorated with two knobs (Fig. 9).

Plaster crosses Several originally wall crosses all reflecting oriental decorative tradition. The

While no inscriptions were found in BƗzyƗn to suggest a date or dates, the archaeological remains help us make a few comments of a historical nature. The bema, šqƗqǀnƗ, and the two sets of three steps, one attached to the bema and another leading to the sanctuary, are all architectural elements of ancient date. One may suggest a date before the 3th century, given the fact that similar elements were found in a monastic church near Takrit dated to the same century.8 Nonetheless, the simplicity of the church building as a whole, the remarkable thickness of the walls, the lack of luxurious decoration, and the very modest incense burner, all suggest a date much earlier than the 3th century. The Sassanian period is not a far-fetched date, sug-

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 76

The “Monastic Church” of BƗzyƗn in Iraqi Kurdistan _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

gested also by the plaster cross in relief (Fig. 2), reminiscent of the cross of Qusѽayr in southern Iraq which is possibly dated to the Sassanian period. Interestingly, this same period was also suggested by Claudius Rich, though he did not take the archaeological remains as a church. The fact that the sanctuary does not contain any trace of an altar is also historically significant. The altar could have been a portable table and if this were the case, then the church must be truly ancient. It is quite possible of course that later changes in the church construction could have removed any traces of a permanent altar, but this possibility remains unlikely since the nave of the church with its bema, šqƗqǀnƗ, and the two sets of three steps suffered no change whatsoever.

The small size of the church (the bema occupies most of the central nave!) and the relatively restricted residential domain suggest that the Christian community that lived on this site was rather small. What this community did in this mountainous region is not exactly known but the existence of a dozen jars of quite large sizes suggests that the residents took care of wayfarers using the pass of Derbendi. After the Christian site was abandoned at an unknown date, it was reused by the locals who may well have changed its architectural structures to suit their new usages. This explains why Claudius Rich described it as a “khan” when he visited it in 820. Fortunately, the church building escaped major modifications to reach us with all its ancient characteristics.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 77

The “Monastic Church” of BƗzyƗn in Iraqi Kurdistan _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

NOTES 1

I would like to thank Mr. Hashim Hama Abdullah, Director of the Museum of SulaymƗniyyƗ, and Mr. Kamal Rashid Rahim, for allowing me to publish the photographs and for all their appreciated help to work on the BƗzyƗn site and material culture. 2 For a more detailed study of this site see Narmen Muhamad Amen Ali, Les églises et monastères du « Kurdistan irakien » à la veille et au lendemain de l’islam (Doctoral thesis, University of Versailles-Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, under the direction of Profs. George Tate and J.M. Thierry; 200). 3 C. J. Rich, Narrative of a Residence in Koordistan, and on the Site of Ancient Nineveh: With journal of a Voyage Down the Tigris to Bagdad and an Account of a Visit to Shirauz and Persepolis, vol. I (London, J. Duncan, Paternoster Row, 836; Gregg International Publishers Ltd, 972, repr.) 58-58. 4 On the traditional plan of the East Syriac Church see Jean Maurice Fiey, Mossoul chré-

tienne, Recherches publiées sous la direction de l’Institut de Lettres orientales de Beyrouth, t. XII (Beyrouth: Imprimerie catholique, 959) 65-84 and pl. II. On the same plan in the West Syriac Church see Amir Harrak, “Recent Archaeological Excavations in Takrit and the Discovery of Syriac Inscriptions,” JCSSS  (200) -40, esp. 20-2. 5 I am very grateful to Dr. J.-M. Thierry who made this suggestion to me orally with the following details: The monastery may have been founded during the 7th century; it was still functioning during the 6th and 7th centuries, though nowadays it is mostly in ruin. 6 Marica Cassis, “Kokhe, Cradle of the Church of the East: An Archaeological and Comparative Study,” JCSSS 2 (2002) 67-68 and figs. 7 and 8. 7 For a good catalogue of Khatchkar, see Khatchkar, Documents of Armenian Architecture 2 (Milano: Edizioni Ares, 977), plates 26-58. 8 Harrak, “Recent Archaeological Excavations in Takrit….,” 36 pl. 8.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 78

The “Monastic Church” of BƗzyƗn in Iraqi Kurdistan _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Map : Location of BƗzyƗn

unexcavated

Plan  ‘Monastic Church’ of BƗzyƗn (plan after A. Yusif modified by NM) ______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 79

The “Monastic Church” of BƗzyƗn in Iraqi Kurdistan _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Fig. : BƗzyƗn, Ornamental Double Pillars Inside the Church

Fig. 2: BƗzyƗn, General View of the Sanctuary ______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 80

The “Monastic Church” of BƗzyƗn in Iraqi Kurdistan _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Fig. 3: BƗzyƗn, The bema and the šqƗqǀnƗ

Fig. 4: BƗzyƗn, Curved Wall of the Sanctuary ______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 8

The “Monastic Church” of BƗzyƗn in Iraqi Kurdistan _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Fig. 6: BƗzyƗn, Jars of the Longitudinal Room D Courtesy Museum of SulaymƗniyyƗ

Fig. 5: BƗzyan, Longitudinal Room D, Place of Large Jars (see Fig. 6)

Fig. 7: BƗzyƗn, Incense Burner, Upper and Side Views Courtesy Museum of SulaymƗniyyƗ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 82

The “Monastic Church” of BƗzyƗn in Iraqi Kurdistan _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Fig. 8: BƗzyƗn, Incense Containers (?) — Courtesy Museum of SulaymƗniyyƗ

Fig. 9: BƗzyƗn, Copper Cross Courtesy Museum of SulaymƗniyyƗ

Fig. 0: BƗzyƗn, Plaster Cross () Courtesy Museum of SulaymƗniyyƗ

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 83

The “Monastic Church” of BƗzyƗn in Iraqi Kurdistan _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Fig. : BƗzyƗn, Plaster Cross (2) Courtesy Museum of SulaymƗniyyƗ

Fig. 2: BƗzyƗn, Other Plaster Crosses Courtesy Museum of SulaymƗniyyƗ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 84

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

TH

ON THE X

T

REPORT SYMPOSIUM SYRIACUM AND THE VIIITH CONFERENCE ON ARAB CHRISTIAN STUDIES: GRANADA, SPAIN SEPTEMBER 22ND -27TH , 2008

KHALID DINNO UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO

he Xth Symposium Syriacum and the VIIIth Conference on Arab Christian Studies were held in Granada, Spain in September 2008. The Symposium was held in the period from 22nd to the 24th and the Conference in the period from the 26th to the 27th, with the 25th of September being devoted to tours of the City Cathedral, the Royal Chapel and the famous Al-Hambra Palace. The theme of the two scholarly gatherings was Beyond the Frontiers. Both the scope of the topics covered and the extent of participation spoke to this theme. The two gatherings, which included approximately 250 participants, discussed the life, art and literature of the Syriac-speaking and the Arabic-speaking Christians and the environment in which they lived over the past two millennia. The Symposium included 125 papers that were delivered in three or four parallel sessions. The Conference included 46 papers that were delivered in two parallel sessions. The convening of the Symposium and of the Conference was made possible by a collaborative effort of a number of dedicated scholars, many of whom are founding mem-

bers who organized and attended the first Symposium Syriacum in 1972 and the first Conference on Arab Christian Studies in 1980. Those pioneering members have been joined over the years by scores of scholars from an ever-widening circle, who have developed an increasing interest in the history and culture of Syriac Christianity and its role as a bridge culture. The Symposium and Conference were organized by the collaboration of the Centre de Documentation et de Recherches Arabes Chrétiennes (Cedrac) and Université SaintEsprit de Kaslik (Usek) of Lebanon, and the Centro International para el Estudio del Oriente Cristiano and Universita Cattolica del Sacro Cuore of Spain. The proceedings were hosted by the Diocese of Granada and the sessions were held at the Seminario Diocesano San Ceclio. In his welcoming address, Javier Martinez, Archbishop of Granada, expressed the hope that the convening of the two scholarly events in Granada marks a renewed interest in Spain in the revival of links between Spain and the Orient. One of the highlights outside the formal sessions was celebrating Sebastian Brock’s

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 85

Report on the Xth Symposium Syriacum _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

70th birthday with a Festschrift that was dedicated to him as Malphono w-Rabo dMalphone “teacher and the greatest among the teachers”! The 846 page beautifully bound volume, entitled Studies in Honor of Sebastian Brook, contained contributions from a selected sample of Sebastian Brook’s numerous admirers. The book was edited by George Kiraz and published by Gorgias Press. The convening of the Symposium and

the Conference also provided an opportunity to view and purchase new publications that were offered by Gorgias Press, Brill, Peeters and by the Christian Arab Heritage of Lebanon. At the business meeting it was decided to accept Malta’s offer to host the XIth Symposium Syriacum and the IXth Conference on Arab Christian Studies to be held in September, 2012. An interim committee was named to prepare for the coming occasion.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 86

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

THE CANADIAN SOCIETY FOR SYRIAC STUDIES

MEMBERS OF THE YEAR 2007-2008

Honorary Members BROCK, Sebastian, Oxford, UK GRIFFITH, Rev. Sidney H., Gaithersburg MD Corporate Members GORGIAS PRESS, Piscataway NJ SALAM Social Club, Toronto ON ZINDA Online Magazine, San Jose CA Life Members BADWI, Fr. Abdo, Kasilik, LEBANON DAVID, Sargon, Scarborough ON DINNO, Khalid, Mississauga ON EMMANUEL, Mar Emmanuel, Toronto ON GREATREX, Geoffrey, Ottawa ON GREATREX, Marina, Ottawa ON MALAS, Gabriel, UK MURAD, Janan, Mississauga ON SMITH, Helen, Toronto ON Members ABBA, Rev. Yusif, Toronto ON ABDULAHAD, Raika, Thunder Bay ON ABDULWAHID, Majid, Mississauga ON AKOPIAN, Arman, Ottawa ON ALIBERTIS, Jim, Toronto ON ASTO, Sami, Scarborough ON BADOVINAC, J. & Ed. Mississauga ON BANDAK, Jean, Scarborough ON BANDAK, John, Markham ON

BASMAJI, Samir, Markham ON BASMAJI, John, Markham ON BEAULIEU, Paul-Alain, Toronto ON BENJAMEN, Alda, Maple ON BENJAMIN, Renya, Maple ON BIHNAN, Adnan, Brampton ON BOUJIKIAN, Stephen, Scarborough, ON BRIQUEL CHATONNET, Françoise, Paris, FRANCE BROWN, Kenneth, Aberdeen MD BOUTROS, Ramez, Toronto ON BUTSKA, Nina, Toronto ON CASEY, Kevin, Toronto ON CASSIS, Marica, Mississauga ON CHAMOUN, John, Scarborough ON CHAMOUN, Ramia, Scarborough ON CHAMOUN, Issa, Scarborough ON CHAMOUN, Ruba, Scarborough ON CHERRY, Ashur, Brampton ON CHERRY, Petros, Brampton ON CLARKE, Colin S., Hamilton ON COCHRANE, Steve, Weston CO CONTINI, Riccardo, Napoli, Italy CORBETT, John H., Kingston ON COX, James, King City ON DAKGI, Mike, Scarborough ON DAKGI, Abdo, Scarborough ON DAOD, Nagham, Toronto ON DAWOOD, Fadi, Thunder Bay ON DAWOOD, Issam, Thunder Bay ON

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 87

Members of the Year 2007-2008 _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

DAWOOD, Massarah, Thunder Bay ON DEBIÉ, Muriel, Paris, FRANCE DESREUMAUX, Alain, Paris, FRANCE DINNO, Deena, Mississauga, ON DODD, Erica, Victoria, BC DOHLER, Anna, Toronto ON DONABED, Sargon, Toronto ON FAIBISH, Neil, Toronto ON FATHI, Jean, Dubai FRAME, Grant, Toronto ON GEORGE, Elia, Toronto ON HANNA, Robert, Mississauga, ON HANNAWI, Abdul Ahad, Toronto, ON HARRAK, Amir, Toronto ON HEAL, Kristian, Provo UTAH HINDO, Tariq R., Toronto ON HIRSCH, Antoine, Toronto ON HUMPHRYS, Peter, Peterborough ON ISSA, Rev. Stephanos, Scarborough ON ISSAK, Rev. John, Hamilton ON JOHNSON, Nola J., Toronto ON JWAIDEH, Albertine, King City ON KEOUGH, Shawn, Leuven, Belgium KIM, Hyung Jun, Vancouver BC KIRAZ, George, Piscataway NJ KITCHEN, Rev. Robert, Regina SK LAWSON, Todd, Toronto ON LEHTO, Adam, Waterloo ON LONDES, Arlette, Thornhill ON MARMURA, Michael, Toronto ON MATHEW, Parackel, Rev. Dr. Toronto ON MATHEWS Jr., Edward G, Tunkhannock PA McDONOUGH, Scott, Fairport, NY MICHELSON, David, Princeton NJ MILLES, Kulli, Toronto ON MORRISON, Rev Craig, Rome, ITALY

MOUSSA, Helene, Toronto ON NAMISATO, Ruth, Toronto ON NAOUM, Daniel, Toronto ON ORAHA, Alhan, Toronto, ON POSSEKEL, Dr. Ute, Reading MA POIRIER, Paul-Hubert, Quebec PQ RASSAM, Suha, Surrey, UK ROMENY, R. B. ter Haar, Leiden, NEATHERLANDS ROYEL, David, San Jose CA RUSSELL, Rev. Paul S., Chevy Chase MD SAATI, Zak, Scarborough ON SAATI, Jack, Scarborough ON SAATI, Jacklin, Scarborough ON SAATI, Rema, Scarborough ON SABOUNJI, Jack, Scarborough ON SALEH, Walid, Toronto ON SHAMANI, Toma, Toronto ON SHAMOUN, Ashorina, Mississauga ON SKIL, Sonia, Toronto ON TAKAHASHI, Hidemi, Tokyo, JAPAN TALIA, Shawqi, Washington DC TARZI, Habib, Unionville ON TARZI, Albert, Unionville ON TARZI, George, Unionville ON TARZI, Salwa, Unionville ON TREIGER, Alexander, Halifax NS VAN ROMPAY, Lucas, Durham NC THEKEPARAMBIL, Rev. Jacob, SEERI, Kerala INDIA THOMAS, Rev. Mathew M, Markham ON VLEUGELS, Gie, Leuven, Belgium WEATLEY-IRVING, Linda, Chicago IL WERYHO, Jan, Montreal PQ YU, Alex, Toronto ON ZAIYOUNA, Ahsan, Thornhill ON

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 8 (2008) - Page 88

The Canadian Society for Syriac Studies La Société Canadienne des Etudes Syriaques JCSSS 1 (2001)

• • • • •

Sebastian Brock, The Dispute Poem: From Sumer to Syriac

•

Sidney H. Griffith, Christianity in Edessa and the Syriac-Speaking World: Mani, Bar Daysan, and Ephraem; the Struggle for Allegiance on the Aramean Frontier

• • • •

Paul-Hubert Poirier, Faith and Persuasion in the Book of the Laws of Countries: A Note on Bardais̛anian Epistemology

• • •

John H. Corbett, They do not Take Wives, or Build, or Work the Ground: Ascetic Life in the Early Syriac Church

Amir Harrak, Recent Archaeological Excavations in Takrit and the Discovery of Syriac Inscriptions Lucas van Rompay & Andrea B. Schmidt, Takritans in the Egyptian Desert: The Monastery of the Syrians in the Ninth Century Erica C. Dodd, Mar Tadros, Bahdeidat: Paintings in a Lebanese Church from the Thirteenth Century Wassilios Klein, A Christian Heritage on the Northern Silk Road: Archaeological and Epigraphic Evidence of Christianity in Kyrgyzstan

JCSSS 2 (2002)

Robert A. Kitchen, Becoming Perfect: The Maturing of Asceticism in the Syriac Book of Steps Amir Harrak, Trade Routes and the Christianization of the Near East Marica Cassis, Kokhe, Cradle of the Church of the East: An Archaeological and Comparative Study

JCSSS 3 (2003) Herman Teule, Gregory Barhebraeus and his Time:The Syrian Renaissance Susan Ashbrook Harvey, Women in Syriac Christian Tradition Kathleen E. McVey, Images of Joy in Ephrem’s Hymns on Paradise: Returning to the Womb and the Breast

•

Geoffrey Greatrex, Khusro II and the Christians of his Empire

• • • • • • •

Sebastian Brock, Changing Fashions in Syriac Translation Technique: The Background to Syriac Translations under the Abbasids

• • • • • •

Sebastian Brock, The Imagery of the Spiritual Mirror in Syriac Literature

• • •

Adil al-Jadir, Numbers and Dating Formulae in the Old Syriac Inscriptions

• •

Geoffrey Greatrex, Pseudo-Zachariah of Mytilene: the context and nature of his work

•

Witold Witakowski, The Ecclesiastical Chronicle of Gregory Bar‘Ebroyo

• • • •

Judith Newman, Three Contexts for Reading Manasseh’s Prayer in the Didascalia

• • •

Mat Immerzeel, Monasteries and Churches of the Qalamun (Syria): Art and Pilgrimage in the Middle Ages

JCSSS 4 (2004) John W. Watt, Syriac Translators and Greek Philosophy in Early Abbasid Iraq George Saliba, Revisiting the Syriac Role in the Transmission of Greek Sciences into Arabic Marina Greatrex, The Angelology in the Hexaemeron of Jacob of Edessa Adam Lehto, Aphrahat and Philoxenus on Faith Niu Ruji, A New Syriac-Uighur Inscription from China (Quanzhou, Fujian Province) Niu Ruji & Amir Harrak, The Uighur Inscription at the Mausoleum of MĆr Behnam, Iraq

JCSSS 5 (2005) Hidemi Takahashi, Syriac Version by H̡unain (?) of Nicolaus Damascenus’ Compendium of Aristotelian Philosophy and Accompanying Scholia Jan van Ginkel, John of Ephesus: Monk, Missionary, Martyr and Syriac Orthodox Historian In Sixth Century Byzantium Debra Foran, The Stylites of Nebo: A Syrian Tradition in the Highlands of Central Jordan NIU Ruji, Nestorian Grave Inscriptions From Quanzhou (Zaitun), China Amir Harrak, Professor David John Lane (1935-2005)

JCSSS 6 (2006) Muriel Debié, L’héritage de la chronique d’Eusèbe dans l’historiographie syriaque Richard Burgess, A Chronological Prolegomenon to Reconstructing Eusebius’ Chronici canones: The Evidence of Ps-Dionysius (the Zuqnin Chronicle) Jan van Ginkel, Michael the Syrian and his Sources: Reflections on the Methodology of Michael the Great as a Historiographer and its Implications for Modern Historians

JCSSS 7 (2007) Frederic McLeod, Narsai’s Dependence on Theodore of Mopsuestia George Bevan, The Last Days of Nestorius in Syriac Sources Sidney H. Griffith, Syrian Christian Intellectuals in the World of Islam: Faith, the Philosophical Life, and the Quest for an Interriligious Convivencia in Abbasid Times Mary Hansbury, Obituary: Professor Robert Beulay, OCS (1027-2997) George Kiraz, Report on North American Syriac Studies Symposium V