ABOUT THIS SITE

More Monastic Origins: The Syrian Orthodox Tradition in Turkey Today Michael Kelly OSB

Thu, 29 Dec 2011 14:51:31 -0500

A recompense for the disadvantage of distance in travelling from Australia to Europe is the ability to stop en route in any number of fascinating places. I thus took the opportunity in September, 1998, while going to Italy for a meeting of the formators of our Congregation, to fulfil an ambition to visit Turkey with its rich early Christian associations. A further incentive was my learning the previous year of extant Syrian Orthodox monasteries in the country dating back to the fourth century (1).
Turkey today, with a population of around sixty million, is 99% muslim. Syrians account for around one fifth of the 100,000 or so Christians in the country, but only about 2,000 remain in the south-east. It is within this area, on the plateau of Tur Abdin, that an ancient bastion of Chritian monasticism survives in a handful of monasteries. The Tur Abdin lies in the Taurus Mountains, between the Tigris and Euphrates, in what was Upper Mesopotamia. As once it was the site of the boundary between the Roman and Persian empires, so today it is only a little above the Syrian border, not far from the border with Iraq. The two best known monasteries are Dayr el Zafaran (the saffron monastery), seven kilometres south-east of Mardin and Mor Gabriel, 120 kilometres north-east of Mardin. It was to the latter that I paid a brief visit.
Owing to its position near the border, in an area of Kurdish insurgency, Tur Abdin is to be approached with appropriate caution and a number of military check points will be encountered when travelling by bus. On the journey across I took the two hour flight from Istanbul to Diyarbakir, returning in stages by road. From Diyarbakir it is possible to travel by dolmus, a popular form of Turkish transport for small numbers - in this case a mini-bus - to Midyat, via Mardin, a distance of 150 kilometres. On this occasion the two and a half hour journey took six hours as the dolmus broke down near Mardin. From Midyat a taxi is the only public transport for the final thirty odd kilometres.

The entrance to the Monastery of Mor Gabriel
The foundation of the monastery of Mor Gabriel is attributed to Mor Samuel and his disciple, Mor Simeon in 397. It has been known as Deyrulumur, "The Monastery of the Abode" (of Mor Simeon) and also as Qartmin, from the nearby village. The present name comes from the seventh century abbot, Bishop Gabriel. It received imperial benefactions from the emperors Honorius and Arcadius, Theodosius and Anastasius and these are reflected in some of the existing buildings.
The main church of Mor Gabriel was built in 512. It is representative of the monastic style of church of the area (broad from north to south), as distinct from the parochial style (long from east to west)(2). It was beautifully restored on the occasion of the commemoration of the sixteenth centenary of foundation in 1997. The massive walls are of stone and the barrel vault of brick. On the east is the sanctuary with an apse, flanked by two small rectangular rooms. Access to the three of these is by doorways which pierce the thick east wall of the nave. The nave is entered from an arcaded narthex on the west side. The sanctuary is decorated with the remains of mosaics unique because of their antiquity and of interst owing to the lack of any animate figures. In the vault are three crosses surrounded by vines. The upper walls are are adorned with representations of domed ciboria over altars bearing the eucharistic cup and bread. At the entrance to the sanctuary the Scriptures are enthroned in an elaborate metal binding.

The nave of the church

The Narthex                                                        The sanctuary door                                    The sanctuary

The exterior of the narthex
To the left, facing the church, a covered passage leads to an unusual structure known as the Dome of Theodora. This domed octagon, 10.5 m in diameter, open at the apex and with eight niches around the walls, is dated to the same period as the church and is thought to have been a baptistery(3). Further along the passage is a courtyard and on the left side of this is the entrance to the Church of the Mother of God, believed to be from the reign of Theodosius II (408-450). This is no longer used and plaster disguises its great antiquity. The chamber to the right of the sanctuary gives access to what appears to have been a hermit�s cell. On the opposite side of the courtyard is the House of Martyrs, another part of the early complex and seemingly used as burial place also for abbots and dignitaries.
Outside the present complex are two structures known as the Dome of the Egyptians and the Dome of the Departed built, like the Dome of Theodora, on eight arches. However, a square surround and flat roof over the dome disguises the true shape of each building. Early sources refer to one such building, presumably the Dome of the Egyptians. The legend behind this is that eight hundred Egyptian monks came to the monastery and were buried in this sepulchre. The foundations and ruins of other buildings, some even earlier, are to be found surrounding the present monastery.

The "Dome of the Egyptians"
The present community consists of two monks, the abbot and bishop of Tur Abdin, Archbishop Timotheos Aktas, and Raban Tuma Aksoy; fourteen nuns; a teaching staff of five and around thirty students. These are trained to take leadership in local churches, their secular education being completed at public schools in Midyat. The liturgy, in which all participate, begins around 5.30am. Those present gather again at midday, and finally around 5.30pm. The Liturgy of the Hours consists of the seven traditional hours celebrated at the three times mentioned above and is comprised mainly of texts from the Fathers of the early Church. The liturgical language is ancient Syriac while the spoken language is a local dialect of Syriac. Eucharist is celebrated on Sunday, Wednesday, Friday and feasts and communion is taken about once a month. Meals follow the prayer times with monks, teachers and students eating together. There seemed to be a healthy diet of meat, vegetables, salad and fruit. The monastery has cattle, goats, poultry and a vegetable garden. There is artesian water and the electricity supply is supplemented by a generator. The property seemed to extend in each direction around the monastery for about 500 m. The guest area contained several rooms with multiple beds and a well appointed common bathroom.
Little remains by way of manuscripts, owing to the numerous raids over the centuries and again today there are difficulties(4). There are restrictions on the use of Syriac and the work of renovation has been stopped. The Tablet, on the 19 September, 1998 quoted a report in the Los Angeles Times that there was police pressure on Mor Gabriel to prevent children being taught the faith and traditional language. An appropriate celebration of the sixteenth centenary was not possible. Many Syrian Orthodox Christians have emigrated, including monks who have founded communities in The Netherlands, Germany and Switzerland. An association, the "Friends of Tur Abdin" is based in Linz and issues a quarterly periodical(5). Number 9, June 1997, contained historical articles in English, German, Turkish and Syriac on the occasion of the sixteenth centenary.
Mor Gabriel represents not only a rich cultural patrimony but is a unique witness to Syriac monasticism which, with the Egyptian and Palestinian traditions, has passed on the ideals of the earliest Christian monks and nuns. It would be a loss - and a reproof - to contemporary Christianity should this tradition not be allowed to flourish in the place where its history is so long.
________________
Footnotes:
1. E. Picucci, "Witness to an Intense Spirituality", L�Osservatore Romano (Weekly Edition in English), n.33/34 - 13/20 August 1997, p.9.
2. Gertrude Bell, The Churches and Monasteries of the Tur Abdin, (London: Pindar Press, 1982) p. viii.
3. Andrew Palmer, Monk and Mason on the Tigris frontier, (Cambridge: University Press, 1990) p. 147.
4. cf. William Dalrymple, From the Holy Mountain, (London: Harper Collins, 1997) pp. 88-129.
5. Freunde des Tur Abdin, Bethlehemstrasse 20, A-4020 Linz. Tel/Fax: 0043 732 773578; http://members.nextra.at/fturabdin
(Since this was written a further monograph on the Turabdin has been published:   Hans Hollerweger, Turabdin: Living Cultural Heritage, (Linz: Freunde des Tur Abdin, 1999)
  (This article appeared in Tjurunga n.56, May 1999, pp.83-88, and in Inter Fratres 49(1999) pp.1-8: English & Italian)                            __________________________________

NEW LIGHT ON OUR NUMERALS JEKUTHIAL GINSBURG

Thu, 29 Dec 2011 14:05:32 -0500

366 NEW LIGHT ON OUR NUMERALS. [May,

Introductory Note.—It is interesting to see how much new
light is constantly being thrown upon chapters in the history
of mathematics which have always been more or less obscure.
We know, for example, with reasonable certainty the original
habitat of our numerals; we know approximately the century
in which they were perfected; we have rather positive information
as to the century in which they first appeared in European
manuscripts; and we are well advised, through the work of
Mr. G. F. Hill, as to their variations in form for the last
thousand years. It is true that we do not know when or
where the zero of our system was first conceived, although
we now have some valuable information as to the one that
was used by the Mayas, nor do we know the origin of six of
the primitive forms of the digits. Furthermore we do not know
with any certainty the date of the first appearance of our
numerals on the Mediterranean littoral, but we are not without
hope that all this information will sometime be forthcoming,
at least to some degree.

Our hope that such further knowledge is not beyond our
reach is strengthened by a discovery recently made by M. F.
Nau, no report of which seems as yet to have appeared in
English. Because of the importance of this discovery, I
have asked Mr. Ginsburg to make it known to the readers of
the BULLETIN and to supplement the simple statement of the
discovery by searching out such information as is available
concerning the interesting scholar and teacher, Severus Sebokht,
in whose writings the first positive trace of the numerals,
outside of India, is found. This he has done, and his
article is to my mind particularly valuable because of these
features: (1) It shows us that these numerals reached the
Arab lands a century earlier than was formerly supposed;
(2) it shows that the zero was probably not in the system as
then mentioned, showing at least that its value was not generally
comprehended in the seventh century and possibly
confirming the impression that the symbol had not yet been

1917.] NEW LIGHT ON OUR NUMERALS. 367

invented; (3) it reveals something of the life of a man hitherto
unmentioned in the histories of mathematics.
It is to be hoped that this valuable information may prove of
such interest to readers that Mr. Ginsburg may be encouraged
to tell American scholars, in the near future, something of
Sebokht's notable contributions to the study of the astrolabe.

DAVID EUGENE SMITH.

THAT our common numerals are of Hindu origin seems to
be a well-established fact,* and that Europe received them
from the Arabs seems equally certain, but how and when these
numerals reached the Arabs is a question that has never been
satisfactorily answered. It is the object of the present article
to call the attention of students of the history of mathematics
to newly discovered evidence showing that the Hindu
numerals were known to and justly appreciated by the Syrian
writer Severus Sebokht who lived in the second half of the
seventh century; that is, about a hundred years before the
date of the first definite trace that we have hitherto had of
the introduction of the system into Bagdad. It will also be
shown, on the basis of such information as is available respecting
his life and works, that Sebokht was in the most
favorable position for getting information of this kind, and
that he furthermore had in his possession the most powerful
means for the propagating of such knowledge.

Severus Sebokht of Nisibis, bearing the title of bishop,
lived in the convent of Kenneshre on the Euphrates in the
time of the patriarch Athanasius Gammala (who died in 631)
and his successor John.|| He distinguished himself in the
studies of philosophy, mathematics, and theology, and in his
time the convent of Kenneshre became the chief seat of Greek
learning in western Syria. Of his astronomical and geograph-

* Smith and Karpinski, The Hindu-Arabic Numerals, Boston, 1911.
By the French orientalist M. F. Nau in the Journal Asiatique, series 10,
vol. 16 (1910).
Smith and Karpinski, The Hindu-Arabic Numerals, p. 92.
W. Wright, Short History of Syriac Literature, London, 1894, pp.
137-139.
Sebokht took part, together with the Jacobite patriarch Theodorus,
in a public dispute against the Maronites in the year 659. We have also a
letter written by him in the year 665. From these details we may conclude
that he flourished in the beginning of the second half of the seventh century.
(M. F. Nau, in the Journal Asiatique, series 9, vol. 13, p. 60.)

368 NEW LIGHT ON OUR NUMERALS. [May,

ical works there are a few fragments in a manuscript now in
the British Museum.* These fragments consider such questions
as whether the heaven surrounds the earth in the form
of a wheel or of a sphere; the habitable and uninhabitable
portions of the earth; the measurement of the heaven, the
earth, and the space between them; and the motion of the sun
and the moon. His treatise on the plane astrolabe was
published with a French translation by M. F. Nau in the
Journal Asiatique, series 9, volume 13. Sebokht also wrote a
short treatise on eclipses, in which he ridicules the then accepted
belief in a celestial dragon as the cause of all such
phenomena.!

But the most interesting of Sebokht's writings for the student
of history is undoubtedly a fragment of a manuscript^ published
by M. F. Nau, in the Journal Asiatique (series 10, volume
16, page 225) in which he directly refers to the Hindu numerals.
He seems to have been hurt by the arrogance of certain Greek
scholars who looked down on the Syrians, and in defending
the latter he claims for them the invention of astronomy.
He asserts the fact that the Greeks were merely the pupils of
the Chaldeans of Babylon, and he claims that these same
Chaldeans were the very Syrians whom his opponents condemn.
He closes his argument by saying that science is
universal and is accessible to any nation or to any individual
who takes the pains to search for it. It is not therefore a
monopoly of the Greeks, but is international.

It is in this connection that he mentions the Hindus by way
of illustration, using the following words: " I will omit all
discussion of the science of the Hindus, a people not the same
as the Syrians; their subtle discoveries in this science of
astronomy, discoveries that are more ingenious than those of
the Greeks and the Babylonians; their valuable methods of
calculation; and their computing that surpasses description.
I wish only to say that this computation is done by means of
nine signs. If those who believe, because they speak Greek,
that they have reached the limits of science should know these
things they would be convinced that there are also others
who know something." This fragment clearly shows that
not only did Sebokht know something of the numerals, but
* Add. 14, 538, pp. 153-155.
See Notes d'Astronome Syrienne, Journal Asiatique, series 10, vol. 16
(1910). Ï Ms., Syriac, Paris No. 346.

1917.] NEW LIGHT ON OUR NUMERALS. 369

that he understood their full significance, and may even have
known the zero as Rabbi ben Esra did, in spite of the fact
that he, too, speaks of nine numerals. There are two questions
that may immediately arise: (1) How could Sebokht
have obtained any information about the Hindu numerals?
and (2) What are the chances that Sebokht was instrumental
in introducing the numerals to the Arabian scholars?
The first of these questions may be answered very easily.
Nisibis, the place where Severus lived, was the chief city* of
Mygdonia, a small district in the northeast part of Mesopotamia.
It was situated in a rich and fruitful country, was
long the center of a very extensive trade, and was the great
northern emporium for the merchandise of the east and the
west. Since the exchange of goods is always accompanied
by the exchange of ideas, it is only reasonable to surmise that
the different systems of numeration were known in Nisibis,
where they could hardly escape the attention of a man like
Sebokht, who would surely have been looking for just such
information.

The second question is more difficult to answer. It may
be said, however, that the weight of the evidence is in favor of
Sebokht's work being at least one of the agencies by means of
which the knowledge of the numerals was transmitted to the
Arabs. He was the head of his convent and occupied a commanding
position in the literature of his country. He had
many pupils, one of whom, Athanasius of Balad,, was the
patriarch of the Jacobites, while such others as Jacob of EdessaJ
and probably George, Bishop of the Arab Tribes, were well
known as translators and polygraphers. We may be certain
that the knowledge of the numerals possessed on the banks
of the Euphrates by Severus was transmitted by him to his
numerous pupils and through them to other scholars all over
Syria. Since we know that Syrian scholars were employed by
the caliphs as translators and educators, || it would be only
natural that these Syrians should impart to the Arabs, among
other facts relating to the sciences, the knowledge of the Hindu
numerals.

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY.

* See Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography,
W. Wright, Short History of Syriae Literature, pp. 154-155.
Ibid., pp. 141-154.
Ibid., pp. 156-159; M. F. Nau in the Journal Asiatique, series 10,
vol. 16.
Ernest Renan, Islamisme et la science, p. 9.

BAR HEBRAEUS ܒܪ ܥܒܪܝܐ

Mon, 28 Nov 2011 10:13:25 -0500

One of the major motifs of my poetry, is the exploration of the historical evolution, adoption and transformation of elements of Hellenic culture in literary traditions of non-Hellenic areas that have been touched somehow by Greek civilization. For while it is often claimed that ours is the parent of Western civilization, I would argue that in fact it is the Middle Eastern civilizations that are united closer to us in kinship and which have drawn more heavily on the corpus of our tradition, whereas with the West, it is more precise to refer to an adoptive, rather than a sanguinary relationship. Indeed, various Middle Eastern cultures including the Jewish, Syriac and Arabic exist in a historic dialectic and continuous process of emancipation from Greek culture. The process through which elements of Greek civilization are adopted by, inform and ultimately are subsumed into other cultures on the margins of the Greek world is instructive and act as a parallel and commentary to similar processes unfolding here in Australia. Furthermore, the fact that a good number of the Western oriented first generation fail to identify or understand the inferences to Middle Eastern acculturation in my poems provides a most telling and satisfying parallel to the phenomenon of a large number of the first generation failing to see the level of assimilation and/or acculturation of the latter generations is Australia. If there is one historical persona who inspires me in my delusion of poetical aspiration, then undoubtedly that is Grigorios Bar Ebroyo, known as Bar Hebraeus, an Assyrian bishop, philosopher, poet, grammarian, physician, biblical commentator, historian, and theologian, who lived in Melitene, in Arab territory, on the borders of Byzantine territory in the thirteenth century. A polymath, and scholar, through his works addressing philosophy, poetry, language, history, and theology, he has been called "one of the most learned and versatile of men.” It is through his Syriac translations and discussions of ancient and contemporary Greek writings, real or imagined, that one can gauge the permeation and high esteem of Greek culture into the Middle East. Born in the village of Ebro in 1226, he began as a boy the study of medicine at the great centre of Hellenic knowledge at Antioch and Tripoli. In 1246 he was consecrated bishop and finally was made primate, or maphrian, of the East in 1264. In this task, he was responsible for keeping alive a millenium old Christian tradition in the face of Muslim intolerance, engaging in a dangerous and delicate balancing act between the Byzantines and the Caliphs. His episcopal duties however did not interfere with his studies. He took advantage of the numerous visitations, which he had to make throughout his vast province, to consult the libraries and converse with the learned men whom he happened to meet. Thus he gradually accumulated an immense erudition, became familiar with almost all branches of secular and religious knowledge, and in many cases thoroughly mastered the bibliography of the various subjects which he undertook to treat. Just how erudite and all pervasive he cast his eye in search of intellectual stimulation can be evidenced by a perusal of my favourite of his works, the Kethabha dhe-Thunnaye Mighaizjzikhanl, or Book of Entertaining Stories. This is in effect a joke book, something quite surprising for a clergyman. One chapter, proving how important Greece and Greek philosophy is to the Easter world, is entitled “Profitable Sayings of the Greek philosophers,” lists reputed sayings that are profound, such as this attributed to Socrates: “A certain disciple of Socrates said unto him, "How is it that I see in thee no sign of sorrow?" Socrates replied, "Because I possess nothing for which I should sorrow if it perished. " It also is a repository of sayings that are rather wicked, such as: “Diogenes saw a harlot's child throwing stones at people, and he said to him, "Throw not stones, lest thou smite thine own father without knowing it." In the authoritative English translation by Wallis Budge in 1897, some of the more racier stories, are rendered in Latin for the sake of offending readers’ tender morals. His legacy today survives in the equally compendious and prolific prelate of the Church of the East in India, Mar Aprem, who has also published a joke book among his many writings. Bar Hebraeus’ love of Greek philosophy led him also to write the Kethabha dhe-Bhabhatha or Book of the Pupils of the Eyes, a treatise on logic or dialectics based on the writings of Greek philosophers, which he comments on extensively. This was at a time when the West, in the form of refugees fleeing Byzantium, was only just experiencing a taste of long lost Greek works. In Syria however, these works had been adopted wholesale into the local Aramaic and Arabic cultures for generations. Thus, the prolific prelate continued with his Hewath Hekmetha or Butter of Wisdom, an exposition of the whole philosophy of Aristotle, Sullarat Haunãnãyã or Ascent of the Mind, a treatise on astronomy and cosmography, various commentaries on the medical works of the ancient Greek Galen, explaining how medicine had advanced since his time, as well as a collection of quite remarkable Syriac poems.As if this were not enough, his great encyclopedic work Hewath Hekhmetha, "The Cream of Science", deals with almost every branch of human knowledge, and comprises the whole Aristotelian discipline, after Avicenna and other Arabian writers – a remarkable synthesis which shows the permeation and interpretation of Greek philosophy throughout the East. A further work Teghrath Teghratha, or "Commerce of Commerces", also revisits similar themes, while the Kethabha dhe-Bhabhatha, or Book of the Pupils of the Eyes is an amazing compendium of Greek philosophic thought on logic and dialectics and the Kethabha dhe-Sewadh Sophia, or Book of Speech of Wisdom, a compendium of Greek thought on physics and metaphysics. Bar Hebraeus’ theological works are also significant, coming at a time when the Christians of the Arab world were largely cut off from Byzantium. His Aucar Raze, or "Storehouse of Secrets", is a vast commentary on the entire Bible, both doctrinal and critical. Before giving his doctrinal exposition of a passage, he first considers its critical state. Although he uses the Syriac Peshitta, as a basis, he knows that it is not perfect, and therefore controls it by the Hebrew, the Septuagint, the Greek versions of Symmachus, Theodotion, Aquila, by Oriental versions, Armenian and Coptic, and finally by the other Syriac translations, Heraclean, Philoxenian and especially the Syro-Hexapla. The work of Bar Hebraeus is of prime importance for the recovery of these versions and more specifically for the Hexapla of the great theologian Origen. His exegetical and doctrinal portions are taken from the Greek Fathers and previous Syrian Jacobite theologians, preserving works that would otherwise have been lost to us. How he could have devoted so much time to such a systematic study of the Greek world, in spite of all the vicissitudes incident to the ensuing Mongol invasion, an extemely traumatic event for the Middle East, is almost beyond comprehension. The main claim of Bar Hebraeus to my admiration is not, in his original productions, but rather in his having preserved and systematized the work of his Greek predecessors, either by way of condensation of by way of direct reproduction. The obscurity that writers of his ilk have endured by a Greek nation obsessed with establishing or ‘proving’ western roots in its vain attempt to obtain legitimacy is decidedly underserved. Give me a prelate who writes jokes such as “Another fool...when his son was being circumcised said to him that was making the cutting, "Cut him little by little, for he hath never before been circumcised," compared to a stuffy Korais any day. Bar Hebraeus’ remains lie today in Mar Mattai monastery in Northern Iraq, a most ancient place that has been virtually abandoned due to the dangerous conditions existing in that country for its native Christians. I should feel my debt to him as one of my personal heroes to be partially discharged, should I be able to discover a Greek rendering of his title, maphrian. Μαφριανός, to my taste, sounds decidedly cool.
DEAN KALIMNIOU

ALYSIS OF SYRIAN ORTHODOX ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE IN THE TUR ABDIN FOR CONSERVATION AND RESTORATION Elif Keser Kayaalp

Mon, 28 Nov 2011 10:06:59 -0500

ANALYSIS OF SYRIAN ORTHODOX ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE IN THE TUR ABDIN FOR CONSERVATION AND RESTORATION  Elif Keser Kayaalp
Turkish Cultural Foundation Fellow Ph.D. in Archaeology, University of Oxford (Exeter College), UK (2009)  Current Position: Senior Fellow at Research Center for Anatolian Civilizations, Koç University, Turkey
The Tur Abdin is a limestone plateau to the east of Mardin in south-eastern Turkey. Its landscape is dotted with numerous villages and monasteries dating to various time periods. According to some Syriac texts, church and monastery building activity started in the region as early as the 4th century. However, the earliest-securely dated archaeological evidence for churches can be traced to the early 6th century. Some churches from that period, especially the main churches of Deir Zafaran and Mor Gabriel monasteries, the two best-known and most-visited monasteries in the region, have remarkable architectural decoration which make them very important examples of Early Christian architecture. The architectural sculpture of the church of Deir Zafaran is highly classical in character reflecting the tradition that can be seen in the wider region of Northern Mesopotamia, especially in Amida and Rusafa. The conservatism in the sculpture of the region is remarkable given that by the mid 6th century there was already a break with the classical tradition even in Constantinople.
The main church of Mor Gabriel, on the other hand, has wall mosaics in the vault and lunettes of its apse, which is one of the very few wall mosaics that have survived to the east of Constantinople. The floor of the same space is covered with an opus sectile marble pavement, which incorporates marble from Proconnesus (Marmara Island), indicating an imperial involvement in its construction. In fact, a later Syriac text mentions the patronage of the Emperor Anastasius for the construction and decoration of this church.
Not all Byzantine emperors were sympathetic to the Syrian Orthodox. In fact, most of the time Syrian Orthodox suffered from persecution as a result of their Christological positions. They did not agree with the Council of Chalcedon (451) which accepted that Christ had two natures inseparably united. The Syrian Orthodox eventually established their own church hierarchy and their population concentrated in certain areas, the Tur Abdin being one of them. Starting from the 6th century, they also created different architectural forms that can be associated solely with them, such as the transverse-hall type church, which was almost exclusively used in the monastic churches of the Tur Abdin. In no other place in the Byzantine Empire could, a certain type of plan be associated with monastic church architecture.
The region was conquered by the Muslim Arabs in 640. Besides its impressive early Christian remains, what makes Tur Abdin an interesting area for research is the abundance of Christian church construction in the region in the first century of the Arab rule. Gertrude Bell, who first studied the church architecture of the region, dated only four churches to the 8th century. However, recent studies suggest an Early Islamic date for at least twenty-eight structures. Coupled with remarkable 6th century architecture from the same area, these structures present important evidence for the study of the architecture and topography of a transitional period from Byzantium to Islam in the region.
The main evidence dating the structures to the 8th century is the architectural sculpture, the peculiar ways of using brick, and some epigraphic material. The architectural sculpture of these churches presents a stylized version of the earlier classical decoration in the region. The majority of the churches with these features are hall-type churches located in the villages. This may indicate that by the 8th century, villages flourished as the situation of the region improved due to the more secure conditions under the Arabs as a result of the shifting of the frontier, as during the Byzantine rule, the region was a battle zone between the Byzantines and the Sasanians and suffered from destruction.
Churches from the 8th century contain some features that have been faithfully repeated. The appearance of new forms and the attachment to them seems to be a search for an architectural vocabulary that would distinctively be associated with the Syrian Orthodox. Information related to construction between 9th and 12th centuries is considerably rare. There are also no architecturally distinct features in the churches of the region that would suggest such a dating. The 12th century saw a revival in the Syriac culture. Syriac texts mention considerable building and rebuilding in that period and a few inscriptions record rebuilding of monasteries. However, to securely date the medieval churches in the region is a very difficult endeavor. Up until the middle of the last century, there was still a considerable number of Syrian Orthodox living in the Tur Abdin. Thus, these buildings have been in continuous use and have undergone considerable repairs over the centuries. Some of which have damaged the archaeological evidence that would have made their dating possible.
Although there is a very small permanent community in the region today, the well-being of these monuments has great importance for both the local community and the diaspora as the region today is considered to be the homeland of the Syrian Orthodox community, making its buildings into modern pilgrimage centres, attracting many visitors. Especially in recent years, there is a considerable increase in the quantity and the sensibility of restoration projects undertaken. Some of these restorations have revealed crucial material for understanding some important architectural features. For example, in the church of el ‘Adhra at Hah (modern Anitli), the removal of the plaster uncovered an octagonal dome with a peculiar brick construction. This dome is rare amongst its contemporaries but it is a predecessor of many brick domical vaults in the Artukid architecture of the region. Similarly, the arcade on the west facade of this church is the only example of a decorated facade amongst the 8th century churches of the region.
In addition to the restoration of the existing buildings, new structures were added to the churches and monasteries. Village churches were converted into multi-purpose building complexes. Similarly, monasteries received additional buildings built with ashlar stone facings adorned with architectural sculpture. The most remarkable examples can be seen in the monasteries of Mor Gabriel, Deir Zafaran and Mor Yakup at Salah. In Mardin and its environs, there is still an active masonry workshop that continues the local traditions of wall building and decoration. The continuity of this practice is essential for repair and restoration, as well as for the local economy.
This is a very brief introduction to the churches and monasteries of the Syrian Orthodox in the Tur Abdin which are part of a large and vulnerable architectural heritage. This heritage, which is very important on many different levels, is evolving through appropriation of spaces for new functions, rebuilding and restoration, the addition of new structures and sometimes destruction. All these make this heritage even more interesting and in need of more attention and correct cultural heritage policies.
Some selected examples (please click on pictures to enlarge):
•
•
•
•
•
•

Identity and Christian-Muslim Interaction: Medieval Art of the Syrian Orthodox from the Mosul Area, Bas Snelders

Mon, 28 Nov 2011 09:57:14 -0500

Identity and Christian-Muslim Interaction: Medieval Art of the Syrian Orthodox from the Mosul Area, by Bas Snelders. (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta). Peeters, dist, by David Brown Book Company, 2010. 591 p. ISBN 9789042923867 (cl.), $124.00.

It is possible to negate the existence of an entire culture simply by omission. This has been the case with an ethnic group known as the Syrian Orthodox (referred to in English as the Syriac Orthodox), who played a vital role in the early development and dissemination of Christianity. The Syriac Orthodox rejected the Council of Chalcedon in 451 and emerged as an ethnic people with their own distinct identity and culture. For centuries, the West has ignored this tenacious tradition but more recently European scholars are addressing the issues of Syriac literature, music and art, as exemplified in publications emanating from Leiden University, in the Netherlands and Oxford University, England. The sudden interest may have been heightened by today’s political and military upheavals which have threatened the Christian patrimony of what was once Mesopotamia. Snelders’ book is one of the fruits of a pioneering project entitled, The Formation of a Communal Identity among West Syrian Christians (451-1300) funded by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research.

This latest title in the series challenges the notion that a distinct division existed between Christian and Muslim in the multicultural Medieval East; Snelders attempts to establish the idea of a shared visual vocabulary among Christians and Muslims alike in the Middle East of the twelve and thirteenth centuries. Working essentially with two similar thirteenth-century Syriac illuminated manuscripts, (Syriac 7170 presently in the British Library and Syriac 559 in the Vatican Library) Snelders suggests that because of the prevalent syncretism, particularly in the Mosul area, it is sometimes virtually impossible to establish the religious background of an artist based on style. Snelders proposes as identity-markers three factors: style, iconography and inscriptions. Making his case slowly and dealing with much of the previous literature on the topic of Syriac art, Snelders discounts arguments in favor of a distinct Syriac iconography and style while, on the other hand, acknowledging Christian superiority in the areas of education, craftsmanship, and trade in medieval Mesopotamia.

The argument for an Islamic style in Christian art of the Mosul area is somewhat compelling; however, Snelders does not present us with enough visual information to clearly make his case. He stipulates the importance of assessing this art contextually but when discussing the two manuscripts in question, that together contain more than one hundred illuminations, Snelders provides us with fewer than ten illustrations. The reader is thus left at a disadvantage. More illustrations of these and other extant Syriac manuscripts would have further enlightened the reader and may have convinced some of Snelders’ “shared style” theory rather than the prevalent and widely-accepted theory of “regional style” that has been promulgated by such art historians as Jules Leroy and André Grabar.

Other than a comprehensive bibliography (despite the lacunae of the significant work of Sylvie Merian in Syriac and Armenian bookbinding) the supplementary material of the book is lacking; for most Westerners a good map of medieval Mesopotamia would have been enlightening, and a less cumbersome system of indexes, would have facilitated easy access to the book’s lengthy text. These are minor inconveniences that should not overshadow Snelders’ success in addressing a complex cultural history and investigating a visual and material culture that has been neglected for far too long.
Lamia Doumato, Head of Reader Services, National Gallery of Art, l-doumato@nga.gov

Genocide Statement & Description

Sat, 15 Oct 2011 07:38:11 -0400

massacre in Sasun (August 1894)

The effects of the 1915 massacres have profoundly touched all of us, and together we mourn the terrible loss of so many innocent lives.

--U.S. President Bill Clinton, April 24, 1994

more U. S presidential statments:

http://www.armenian-genocide.org/current_category.4/affirmation_list.html

***

massacre in Constantinople, 30 September 1895

It is not understandable in human terms. God’s ways are not our ways. It’s all a very great mystery now, but in Heaven we will find the answers to our many why?

--Survivor

***

The Attack by Softas (Theological Students)

...Probably one of the greatest tragedies that ever befell any group. And there weren’t any Nuremberg trials.

--U.S. President Jimmy Carter, May 16, 1978

***

"The Police Taking Prisoners to the Grand Zaptie Prison, Stambul

We had become like animals, without much feeling. We had been reconciled to crying, being hungry, walking. We knew this way was our fate. After awhile I was no longer afraid because no feelings remained in me. We were concerned only about where we were walking and where we could get food and water.

--Survivor

***

Sketch by an eye-witness of the terriblemassacre of Armenians by Softas

...I feel confident that the people of the United States will be moved to aid these people stricken by war, famine, and disease...the stricken Syrian and Armenian people.

---US President Woodrow Wilson, August 31, 1916

***

Burial of the victims of the October 30, 1895
massacres of the Armenians during the region of Sultan Abdul Hamid II.

It is not possible to erase the memory of the genocide that has afflicted you. It must be inscribed in the human memory, and this sacrifice must serve as a lesson to young people. At the same time, it is a lesson in the will to survive. So that everyone will know...that these people do not belong to the past, but they are part of the present and have a future.

Francois Mitterrand, President of France, January 6, 1984

more

http://www.genocide-museum.am/eng/refuges_album.php

***

the Great Gregorian Church at Urfa, where 3.500 Christians were
butchered; 1500 of them slaughtered in the Church where they had taken refuge

...There is no doubt that this crime was planned and executed for political reasons. The opportunity presented itself for clearing Turkish soil of a Christian race.

--Sir Winston Churchill, Excerpts from memories of Winston Churchill ‘ The Aftermath “.

***

These left-overs from the former Young Turkey Party, who should have been made to account for the lives of millions of our Christian subjects who were ruthlessly driven en masse, from their homes and massacred, have been restive under the Republican rule. They have hitherto lived on plunder, robbery and bribery, and become inimical to any idea or suggestion to enlist in useful labor and earn their living by the honest sweat of their brow.

--Kemal Ataturk, President and Founder of the
Republic of Turkey, June 22, 1926

***

Massacres of Christians in Turkey
"Le Petit" journal, May 2 1909

When the Turkish authorities gave the orders for these deportations, they were merely giving the death warrant to a whole race; they understood this well, and, in their conversation with me, they made no particular attempt to conceal the fact... I am confident that the whole history of the human race contains no such horrible episode as this.

--Henry Morgenthau, US Ambassador to Turkey (1913-1916)

***

The gathering of the corpses of victims, streets of Galata
"Le Petit Parisien" journal, September 13, 1896

***

Armenian Massacre in Constantinople
"Il Secolo Illustrato" journal, October 27, 1895

We succeeded in conquering many places but spiritually we were conquered in all of them.

Heyed, Gokalp

***

What is requested of you is to protect and to take good care of everyone from the Syrian and Armenian community living in your territories and frontiers and among your tribes; to help them in all of their affairs and defend them as you would defend yourselves, your properties, and your children, and provide everything they might need whether they are settled or moving from place to place, because they are the Protected People of the Muslims about whom the prophet Muhammad said: Whosoever takes from them even a rope, I will be his adversary on the Day of Judgment.

--Al-Husayn Ibn Ali, in a letter to Prince Faisal and Prince Abd al-Aziz al-Jarba

***

On a certain date in whatever town or village it might be...the public crier went through the streets announcing that every male Armenian must present himself forthwith at the Government Building. In some cases, the warning was given by the soldiery or Gendarme who were slaughtering every male Armenian they encountered in the streets...but usually a summons to the Government Building was the preliminary stage. The men presented themselves in their working clothes...When they arrived, they were thrown without explanation into prison, kept there a day or two, and then marched out of the town in batches, roped man to man, along some southerly or southeasterly road. They were starting, they were told, on a long journey to Mosul or perhaps to Baghdad...But they had not long to ponder over their plight, for they were halted and massacred at the first lonely place on the road. The same process was applied to those other Armenian men...who had been imprisoned during the winter months on the charge of conspiracy or concealment of arms...This was the civil authorities part.

Arnold Toynbee, a British historian of high academic distinction.
Excerpts from his book “ Armenian Atrocities, the murder of a nation “.

***

Three great massacres took place after 1916...Men, women, and children from Constantinople and the surrounding districts, from the Anatolian railway line and Cilicia, were driven into the desert, where they met people from the six Armenian provinces and from the shores of the Black Sea, but this latter contingent consisted only of women, girls and boys of seven and under, as every male over seven had been slaughtered. All these were the victims of the three massacres. The first massacre was that of Res-ul-Ain, in which 70,000 people were killed; the second took place at Intilli, where there were 50,000 people assembled, most of them working on a tunnel of the Baghdad railway; and the third, which was the most fearful of all, at Der Zor, where Zia Bey slaughtered nearly 200,000...These figures only give the numbers of people killed by massacre. If we add to their numbers the victims of misery, sickness and hunger, especially in Res-ul-Ain and Der Zor, the number of Armenians who were slain or died in the desert will exceed a million.

Aram Andonians, Armenian auther.

***

Execution of Armenians in the Constantinople, June 1915

One day Talaat made what was the most astonishing request I had ever heard. The New York Life Insurance Company and the Equitable Life of New York had for years done considerable business among the Armenians...I wish, Talaat now said, that you would get the Armenian life insurance companies to send us a complete list of their Armenian policy holders. They are practically all dead now and had left no heirs to collect the money. It of courses all [goes] to the States. The Government is the beneficiary now. Will you do so?

Henry Morgenthau, U.S. Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire (1913-16)

***

Syria - Aleppo - Armenian woman kneeling beside dead child in field "within sight of help and safety at Aleppo"

Late in July, 1915, when the thermometer registered from 105 to 115 degrees, as a group or more than l,000 women and chlldren from Harput [Kharpert] was being conducted southward near Veren Chiher, East of Diarbekir, they were turned over to a band of savage Kurds who rode among them, selecting the best looking women, girls and children. Terrified by the fears of their fate should chey fall into the hands of such ferocious brutes, the women resisted as best they could, thereby enraging the Kurds, who killed a number of their intended victims. Before carrying off those finally selected and subdued, they stripped most of the remaining women of their clothes, thereby forcing them to continue the rest of their journey in a nude condition. I was told by eyewitnesses to this outrage that over 300 women arrived at Ras-el-Ain, at that time the most easterly station to which the German-Baghdad railway was completed, entirely naked, their hair flowing in the air like wild beasts, and after travelling six days afoot in the burning sun. Most of these persons arrived in Aleppo a few days afterwards, and some of them personally came to the Consulate and exhibited their bodies to me, burned to the color of a green olive, the skin peeling off in great blotches, and many of them carrying gashes on the head and wounds on the body as a result of the terrible beatings inflicted by the Kurds.

***

Deportation in the Baghdad railway

One of the most terrible sights ever seen in Aleppo was the arrival early in Augusr, 1915, of some 5,000 terribly emaciaced, dirty, ragged and sick women and children, 3,000 on one day and 2,000 the following day. These people were the only survivors of the thrifty and well to do Armenian population of the province of Sivas, carefully estimated to have originally been over 300,000 souls! And what had become of the balance? From the most intelligent of those that miraculously reached Aleppo it was learned that in early Spring the men and the boys over 14 years old had been called to the police stations in the province on different mornings stretching over a period of several weeks, and had been sent off in groups of from 1,000 to 2,000 each, tied together with ropes, and that nothing had ever been heard of them thereafter. Their fate has been recorded by more than one eyewitness, so it is needless to dwell thereon here.
Survivors: An Oral History of the Genocide, by Donald E. Miller and Lorna Touryan Miller, .

***

Dead of exhaustion: a deported Armenian child (Kharberd, 1915) Maria Jacobsen, Diary 1907-1919. Kharput-Turkey, Translated into Armenian from the Original Manuscript by Nerses Pakhdikian, Mihran Simonan, Antelias-Lebanon, 1979

On the 52nd day they arrived at another village, here the Kurds took from them everything that they had, even their shirts and drawers and for five days the whole caravan walked all naked under the scorching sun. For another five days they did not have a morsel of bread, neither a drop of water. They were scorched to death by thirst. Hundreds over hundreds fell dead on the way, their tongues were turned to charcoal and when at the end of the fifth day they reached a fountain, the whole caravan, naturally, rushed on it, but the policemen stood in front of them and forbade them to take even a drop of water, for they wanted to sell the water, from one to three liras the cup, and sometimes not giving the water, after getting the money. At another place where there were some wells, some women threw themselves into it, as there was no rope and pail to draw water but these were drowned and in spite of that the rest of the people drank from that well, the dead bodies still staying and stinking in it. Sometimes, in other shallow wells, when the women could enter and come out, the other people would rush and lick and such [sic] the wet dirty clothes, to quench their thirst. This source said that by the seventieth day, only 35 women and children remained from the original group of 3,000 exiles from Kharpert, and only 150 women and children survived from the entire caravan that arrived at Aleppo.

***

Armenian refugees in Relief Committee tents, Aintab

For six weeks we have witnessed the most terrible cruelties inflicted upon the thousands of Christian exiles who have been daily passing through our city from the northern cities. All tell the same story and bear the same scars: their men were all killed on the first days march from their cities, after which the women and girls were constantly robbed of their money, bedding, clothing and beaten, criminally abused and abducted along the way. Their guards forced them to pay even for drinking from the springs along the way and were their worst abusers but also allowed the baser element in every village through which they passed to abduct the girls and women and abuse them. We not only were told these things but the same things occurred right here in our own city before our very eyes and openly on the streets
Rev. F.H. Leslie, an American missionary in Urfa

***

Among the ruins Maria Jacobsen, Diary 1907-1919. Kharput-Turkey,

A more pitiable sight cannot be imagined. They are almost without exception ragged, filthy, hungry and sick. That is not surprising in view of the fact that they have been on the road for nearly two months with no change of clothing, no chance to wash, no shelter and little to eat....
As one walks through the camp mothers offer their children and beg one to take them. In fact, the Turks have been taking their choice of these children and girls for slaves, or worse. In fact, they have even had their doctors there to examine the most likely girls and thus secure the best ones.
There are very few men among them, as most of them have been killed on the road. All tell the same story of having been attacked and robbed by the Kurds. Most of them were attacked over and over again and a great many of them, especially the men, were killed....
The system that is being followed seems to be to have bands of Kurds awaiting them on the road to kill the men especially and incidentally some of the others. The entire movement seems to be the most thoroughly organized and effective massacre this country has ever seen.
-- eye witness
**

Children waiting in the snow for admission into the 'Orphan City', a daily spectacle from the early morning until late at night

On Monday many men were arrested both at Harput and Mezreh and put in prison. At daybreak Tuesday morning they were taken out and made to march towards an almost uninhabited mountain. There were about eight hundred in all and they were tied together in groups of fourteen each. That afternoon they arrived in a small Kurdish village where they were kept overnight in the mosque and other buildings. During all this time they were without food or water. All their money and much of their clothing had been taken from them. On Wednesday morning they were taken to a valley a few hours' distance where they were all made to sit down. Then the gendarmes began shooting them until they had killed nearly all of them. Some who had not been killed by bullets were then disposed of with knives and bayonets.
-- eye witness
***

Armenian deportees sleeping in the street, 1915
Politisches Archiv des Auswartigen Amtes,
Bonn, Turkei 183, Armenien

***

Outside the door Maria Jacobsen, Diary 1907-1919

They had been on the road for from three to five months; they have been plundered several times over, and have marched along naked and starving; the Government gave them on one single occasion a morsel of bread--a few had it twice. It is said that the number of these deported widows will reach 60,000; they are so exhausted that they cannot stand upright; the majority have great sores on their feet, through having to march barefoot.
-- eye witness
***

Politisches Archiv des Auswartigen Amtes, Bonn, Turkei Archivbestand Abotschaft

***

Armenian children, the victims of the Turkish atrocities
# 44, 27 November, Front page, 1916, Moscow

In this group, Father Essayan saw no men or boys over eleven years old, the latter having all been slaughtered on the way. His letter also states, "one does not see a single pretty face among the survivors," implying that all such women had been abducted. In addition, Father Essayan said that one thousand Armenians were deported from one city, and only four hundred arrived in Aleppo. Of these survivors, he estimated that 60 percent were sick, and all were suffering from serious malnutrition.
-- eye witness
***

Because Germany and Turkey were allies during the war, this document was particularly incriminating, and the German censor immediately moved to confiscate the publication:
Between the 10th and the 30th May [1915], 1,200 of the most prominent Armenians and other Christians, without distinction of confession, were arrested in the Vilayets of Diyarbekir and Mamouret-ul-Aziz [Kharpert]... On the 30th May, 674 of them were embarked on thirteen Tigris barges, under the pretext that they were to be taken to Mosul. The Vali's aide-de-camp, assisted by fifty gendarmes, was in charge of the convoy. Half the gendarmes started off on the barges, while the other half rode along the bank. A short time after the start the prisoners were stripped of all their money (about L6,000 Turkish) and then of their clothes; after that they were thrown into the river. The gendarmes on the bank were ordered to let none of them escape.

A living skeleton "Story of Near East Relief"
by James L. Barton, New York, 1930, p. 262

***

other atrocities had observed or heard of
For a whole month corpses were observed floating down the River Euphrates nearly every day, often in batches of from two to six corpses bound together. The male corpses are in many cases hideously mutilated (sexual organs cut off, and so on), the female corpses are ripped open.... The corpses stranded on the bank are devoured by dogs and vultures. To this fact there are many German eyewitnesses. An employee of the Baghdad Railway has brought the information that the prisons of Biredjik are filled regularly every day and emptied every night--into the Euphrates. Between Diyarbekir and Ourfa a German cavalry captain saw innumerable corpses lying unburied all along the road.

Children taken in by Near East Relief

***

In addition to reporting incidents of mass slaughter, this statement also gives examples of individual suffering. For example, a woman who gave birth to twins while being deported was allowed no time for recovery and was forced to start walking the next day. In despair, she placed the newborns under a bush and collapsed herself a short time later.
***

Among the 149 documents contained in the Bryce/Toynbee volume, it is possible to find, almost at random, equally graphic passages detailing the deportations. Two final examples will suffice, both describing events in the city of Moush:
The leading Armenians of the town and the headmen of the villages were subjected to revolting tortures. Their finger nails and then their toenails were forcibly extracted; their teeth were knocked out, and in some cases their noses were whittled down. . . . The female relatives of the victims who came to the rescue were outraged in public before the very eyes of their mutilated husbands and brothers....
Among the ruins Maria Jacobsen, Diary 1907-1919. Kharput-Turkey,***

***

Group of Near East Relief orphan girls at summer camp. Below: Alexandropol: "Hands up", Polygon orphanage massed drill, October, 1925 "Story of Near East Relief"
by James L. Barton, New York, 1930, p. 21

The shortest method for disposing of the women and children concentrated in the various camps was to burn them. Fire was set to large wooden sheds in Alidjan, Megrakom, Khaskegh, and other Armenian villages, and these absolutely helpless women and children were roasted to death.
-- eye witness

Armenian deportees, 1915 Armin T. Wegner Wallstein Verlag, Germany.

***

In 1922-1923 Near East Relief evacuated 22.000 children from orphanages in interior Turkey to Syria and Greece

The above account, offered by an Armenian, is substantiated by Alma Johannsen, a German missionary eyewitness to events in Moush:
" When there was no one left in Bitlis to massacre, their attention was diverted to Moush. Cruelties had already been committed, but so far not too publicly; now, however, they started to shoot people down without any cause, and to beat them to death simply for the pleasure of doing so."
Alma Johannsen, a German missionary eyewitness to events in Moush

***

This picture shows part of the 5.000 children from Kharput en route on donkey back and foot. "Story of Near East Relief" by James L. Barton, New York, 1930, p. 152

***

Before admission to the orphanage Maria Jacobsen, Diary 1907-1919. Kharput-Turkey, Translated into Armenian from the Original Manuscript

We all had to take refuge in the cellar for fear of our orphanage catching fire. It was heartrending to hear the cries of the people and children who were being burned to death in their houses. The soldiers took great delight in hearing them, and when people who were out in the street during the bombardment fell dead, the soldiers merely laughed at them....
I went to the Mutessarif and begged him to have mercy on the children at least, but in vain. He replied that the Armenian children must perish with their nation. All our people were taken from our hospital and orphanage; they left us three female servants. Under these atrocious circumstance Moush was burned to the ground.

Orphaned Armenian children, 1915
Armin T. Wegner Wallstein Verlag, Germany.

***

This German missionary left Moush for Kharpert, where, she reported conditions were no better: "In Harpout and Mezre the people have had to endure terrible tortures. They have had their eyebrows plucked out, their breasts cut off, their nails torn off; their torturers hew off their feet or else hammer nails into them just as they do in shoeing horses."

***

Misfits but welcome Maria Jacobsen, Diary 1907-1919.
Kharput-Turkey

These selected accounts are representative of the statements contained in the Bryce/Toynbee volume presented to the British Parliament. Because they are arranged by city, it is possible to corroborate statements by witnesses who did not know one another and could not have collaborated in concocting a story. This volume is extremely important not only because it provides detailed information but also because it was published within months of the time eyewitnesses wrote their accounts. Additionally, the report concludes with a summary of the genocide written by Arnold Toynbee, which continues to be a valuable overview of the events that occured in 1915 and 1916.

***

Armenian refugee family
"Story of Near East Relief" by James L. Barton, New York, 1930

Whether the gendarmes were responding directly to government orders to annihalate the Armenians or were commiting atrocities of their own accord, our interviews provide substantial documentation of actions that resulted in the deaths of thousands of deportees. The lowest level of involvment was complicity between gendarmes and local Kurds, Turks, and soldiers. For example, a survivor from Konia stated:
The soldiers would come and give us a bad time. Others from the hills and mountains would come and snatch girls and baggage, or whatever they could. You scream, "Gendarme, Gendarme," but there was no help, because they [the soldiers and abductors] were all together in this. I saw all of this myself. I saw them snatch girls or goods right from the horses or wagons, dragging them by force. I can still picture the whole thing right now. They would kidnap more of the older girls. They had brought some deportees on the cliff. They would tie them, shoot them, and throw them in the river. There were gendarmes among them, civilians and soldiers. Sometimes it would be the turn of a pregnant woman. They would look at each other and say, "boy or girl," and pierce her belly with the sword. Violence was also perpetrated in the very act of herding the caravans. Several survivors indicated that anyone who lagged behind the caravan was shot. For example, a survivor from Mezre recalled how the donkey on which her mother was riding kept dropping behind the rest of the caravan. This little girl repeatedly urged her mother to leave the donkey behind, but she refused because all their money was sewn into the bedding that was loaded on the donkey. The girl left her mother to catch up with her brother and the rest of the caravan. A short time later she heard a shot and then saw her mother's donkey, without its rider, being led behind the horse of a gendarme.

***

... A survivor from Aintab recalled his father's being struck by gendarmes after he had grown very weak: "The next morning, very early, the gendarmes got up the deportees to continue. They came and said, "Get up," and he wouldn't. So they beat him up so very badly. They beat him with their whips until his body was bleeding, and he fell down as though he were dead. Thinking that he was dead, the gendarmes left. I saw this with my own eyes."
There is also indication that gendarmes engaged in extortion from members of the caravans they were deporting. For example, a survivor from Gurin recalled this scene: "On the way, a few gendarmes-a few of them were taking us-wanted money. They spread a sheet on the ground, and the women, one by one, threw down what they had. They filled a whole bag." From the testimony that we heard, it appears that such greed was often mixed inseperably with violence.

Skulls of deportees

***

An Armenian Mother on the heights of the Taurus Mountains, 1915
Armin T. Wegner Wallstein Verlag, Germany.

For example, Talaat does not challenge the fact that deportations occurred. However, he blames the victims for their own deaths, a theme that recurs in most justifications by perpetrators of genocide. He states that the Armenians collaborated with the Russians on the Caucasian front. In response, the government took the following actions:
The Porte, acting under the same obligation, and wishing to secure the safety of its army and its citizens, took energetic measures to check these uprisings. The deportation of the Armenians was one of these preventive measures.
I admit also that the deportation was not carried out lawfully everywhere. In some places unlawful acts were committed. The already existing hatred among the Armenians and Mohammedans, intensified by the barbarous activities of the former, had created many tragic consequences. Some of the officials abused their authority, and in many places people took preventive measures into their own hands and innocent people were molested. I confess it. I confess, also, that the duty of the Government was to prevent these abuses and atrocities, or at least to hunt down and punish their perpetrators severely. In many places, where the property and goods of the deported people were looted, and the Armenians molested, we did arrest those who were responsible and punished them according to the law. I confess, however, that we ought to have acted more sternly, opened up a general investigation for the purpose of finding out all the promoters and looters and punished them severely.

***

Talaat divided the "looters" into two categories: those who pillaged out of personal hatred and for individual profit, and those who sincerely believed that they were serving the common good by punishing the Armenians for their allegedly traitorous acts. Regarding this latter group, Talaat states: "The Turkish elements here referred to were shortsighted, fanatical, and yet sincere in their belief. The public encouraged them, and they had the gcneral approval behind them. They were numerous and strong."

Talaat offers the following justification for his government's unwillingness to punish these individuals: "Their open and immediate punishment would have aroused great discontent among the people, who favored their acts. An endeavor to arrest and to punish all these promoters would have created anarchy in Anatolia at a time when we greatly needed unity. It would have been dangerous to divide the nation into two camps, when we needed strength to fight outside enemies."

***

Euphrates near Deir-el-Zor, where so many of the deported were murdered.
The river hides dark memories Collection of Bodil Biorn

What is noteworthy in Talaat's reflections is that he does not deny the deportations, nor does he deny that crimes were committed against the Armenians. But he distances himself from the abuses by blaming the Armenians for the necessity of deporting them, implying that any atrocities that occurred in the process of deportation were carried out by fanatical local Turks who were pursuing a personal vendetta, and he excuses himself from punishing these Turks because it would have been policically divisive.

Yet Talaat's remarks do not answer several significant questions: (1) why it was necessary to deport Armenians who were far from the Russian front; (2) why women and children had to be deported; (3) why the government armed the Special Organization and encouraged them to attack Armenian caravans; and (4) why events were orchestrated to make Armenian resistance practically impossible. (As discussed previously, some of the preliminary actions included disarming Armenians serving in the Turkish army, arresting Armenian political and religious leaders, seizing all weapons at a local level, creating hysteria among the local Turkish population toward the "traitorous" Armenians, and removing valis [regional officials] who refused to carry out abuses against the Armenians.) In Talaat's version of the events, the government did what was required, but the local Turkish population got out of hand.
***

Bertolt Brecht (1898-1956)
    We walked for many days, occasionally running across small lakes and rivers. After awhile we saw corpses on the shores of these lakes. Then we began seeing them along the path: twisted corpses, blackened by the sun and bloated. Their stench was horrible. Vultures circled the skies above us, waiting for their evening meal.

National feast, dancers at St. Garabed (4-17th centuries, fully destroyed in 1915)
Collection of Bodil Biorn

***

At Igdir, Armenian children eating their dole of boiled rice supplied by the American Committee Volume XXXVI, Number Five, November 1919, p. 412

At one point, we came upon a small hole in the ground. It was a little deeper than average height and 25-30 people could easily fit in it. We lowered ourselves down into it. There was no water in it but the bottom was muddy. We began sucking on the mud. Some of the women made teats with their shirts filled with mud and suckled on them like children. We were there for about a half hour. If we hadn't been forced out, that would have been our best grave.
Many days later we reached the Euphrates River and despite the hundreds of bodies floating in it, we drank from it like there was no tomorrow. We quenched our thirst for the first time since our departure. They put us on small boats and we crossed to the other side. From there we walked all the way to Ras-ul-Ain.
Of a caravan of nearly 10,000 people, there were now only some of us 300 left. My aunt, my sisters, my brothers had all died or disappeared. Only my mother and I were left. We decided to hide and take refuge with some Arab nomads. My mother died there under their tents. They did not treat me well—they kept me hungry and beat me often and they branded me as their own.

***



We had already been deported once, in 1915, sent towards Der-Zor. But, my uncle's friend had connections in the government and he had us ordered back to Izmir.           Orders came again that everyone must gather in front of the Armenian church to be deported. My father refused to go and told us not to worry. He didn't think the Turkish government would do anything to him, since he was a government employee himself.            Twelve Turkish soldiers and an official came very early the next morning. We were still asleep. They dragged us out in our nightgowns and lined us up against the living room wall. Then the official ordered my father to lie down on the ground… they are dirty the Turks… very dirty… I can't say what they did to him. They raped him! Raped! Just like that. Right in front of us. And that official made us watch. He whipped us if we turned away. My mother lost consciousness and fell to the floor.           Afterwards, we couldn't find our father. My mother looked for him frantically. He was in the attic, trying to hang himself. Fortunately, my mother found him before it was too late.           My father did eventually kill himself—later, after we escaped.

***

They took us from Hüsenig, to Mezre, to Kharpert to Malatia and then, after a couple of days walk, to the shores of the Euphrates River. It was around noon when we got there and we camped. For a while, we were left alone. Sometime later, Turkish gendarmes came over and grabbed all the boys from 5 to 10 years old. I was about 7 or 8. They grabbed me too. They threw us all into a pile on the sandy beach and started jabbing us with their swords and bayonets. I must've been in the center because only one sword got me… nipped my cheek… here, my cheek. But, I couldn't cry. I was covered with blood from the other bodies on top of me, but I couldn't cry. If had, I would not be here today.            When it was getting dark, my grandmother found me. She picked me up and consoled me. It hurt so much. I was crying and she put me on her shoulder and walked around.            Then, some of the other parents came looking for their children. They mostly found dead bodies. The river bank there was very sandy. Some of them dug graves with their bare hands—shallow graves—and tried to bury their children in them. Others, just pushed them into the river, they pushed them into the Euphrates. Their little bodies floated away.

***

The crowds were huge in Meskeneh. We were in the middle of a vast sandy area and the Armenians there were from all over, not only from Marash. We had no water and gendarmes would not give us any. There were only two gendarmes for that huge crowd. Just two. Wasn't there a single man among us who could have killed them? We were going to die anyway. Why did we obey those two gendarmes so sheepishly?           The word was that from Meskeneh, we were going to be deported to Der-Zor. My father had brought along a tent that was black on one side and white on the other. Each time gendarmes approached us to send another group to Der-Zor, my father would move the tent. He would pitch it on the other side of the crowd—as far away as possible. We were constantly moving. He bought us quite a bit of time that way.
Eventually, we crossed the Euphrates River to Rakka where we found an abandoned house—with no doors or windows—and we squatted there. But we still had no food. We used to eat grass. We used to pick grains from animal waste, wash them and then in tin cans fry them to eat. We used to say: "Oh, mommy, if we ever go back to Marash, just give us fried wheat and it will be enough."

***

   There was a girl, a girl who I had befriended on the road, earlier. Her name was Satenig. I remember her very well. She was not too strong. I saw her again in that basement. In the basement of the school where they had thrown us. She was there. She had a little bit of money and she gave it to me. "Don't let them take me," she said. "Don't let them take me." They would come around everyday and take whoever was dead or very weak. She was not in good shape, she was very weak. I stood her up and leaned on her. Held her up, so. They came. I was holding her up, leaning her up against the wall. But they saw her and took her… took her…

***

I do not remember how many days our decimated caravan marched southward toward the Euphrates River. Day by day the men contingent of the caravan got smaller and smaller. Under pretext of not killing them if they would hand over liras and gold coins, men would be milked by the gendarmes of what little money they had. Then they would be killed anyway.           Days wore on. We marched through mountain roads and valleys. Those who could not keep up were put out of their misery. Always bodies were found strewn by the wayside. The caravan was getting smaller each day. At one place, my little grandmother, like Jeremiah incarnate, loudly cursed the Turkish government for their inhumanity, pointing to us children she asked, "What is the fault of children to be subjected to such suffering." It was too much for a gendarme to bear, he pulled out his dagger and plunged it into my grandmother's back. The more he plunged his dagger, the more my beloved Nana asked for heaven's curses on him and his kind. Unable to silence her with repeated dagger thrusts, the gendarme mercifully pumped some bullets into her and ended her life. First my uncle, now my grandmother were left unmourned and unburied by the wayside.
We moved on.

***


A photo by an eyewitness of the terrible massacre of Armenians
Nubarian Collection

In 1915, we were the last to be deported out of Kessab because we were Protestant. The American Ambassador in Bolis had apparently secured guarantees for our safety, but we were deported anyway. They took us toward Der-Zor—the interior Syrian desert. Our whole family: my father, mother, four brothers, two sisters. I was 20-21, at the time. We loaded everything we had on mules and horses and set out under armed guards. They took us to Meskeneh on the Euphrates river. Meskeneh was a huge outdoor camp where ten of thousands of Armenians had been deported—bit by bit they were sent to Der-Zor, to their death. We were there for awhile. We lived under tents along with a lot of others from Kessab. Most of the time we had nothing to eat. Sometimes my father would buy bread from the soldiers but they had mixed sand with the flour—so we ate this hard bread and sand crunched under our teeth.           Meskeneh was a horrible, horrible place. 60,000 Armenians had been buried under the sand there. When a sandstorm hit, it would blow away a lot of the sand and uncover those remains. Bones, bones, bones were everywhere then. Wherever you looked, wherever you walked.

***

My brother-in-law was American Consul Davis' body guard in Mezre and the consul himself saved my father's life. There was a Turkish gendarme by the name of Shadhe who wanted to kill my father. Consul Davis came all the way to our door in Pazmashen. My father was hiding in the back, in the wood shed. He came on his horse and took my father back with him to the consulate.           When the deportations began, I went to Mezre to say goodbye to my father. He cried. The consul saw him and told me to stay. Later, my mother escaped from the deportation and also came to the consulate. We were in the American consulate during the deportations. Consul Davis saved us. Everybody else, my sisters, my maternal aunt—all of them, all of them—were deported. Our whole village was wiped out.           We lived in the consulate until 1922. On September 7, 1922, our family left Kharpert along with 250 Armenian orphans on horses and wagons. My father was asked by the Near East Relief to oversee the transportation of these orphans from Kharpert to Aleppo.           From Aleppo we went to Beirut, then to Marseille and then by ship we came to Providence, Rhode Island.

***



When the massacres began, I was 12 years old. I remember, they first took all the men of our village and kill them. The rest of us were deported. I don't know how many hundreds we were. Everyone according to his ability rented a donkey or a horse and we left.           We went from Albistan to Zeitun to Marash to Aintab. We camped on a farm behind Aintab College, near some newly dug foundations for houses. They were simply large holes in the ground. You understand? An epidemic had broken out in our caravan and people were dying all around us. They started filling those foundations with dead bodies. Two, three, four, five bodies on top of each other.
                  From Aintab, orders came that everyone over the age of 12 was to be sent to Deir-El-Zor. A friend of mine and I escaped, but we were caught later and this time they sent us to Bizib then toward Biredjig. Biredjig is on the shores of the Euphrates. You understand? It is on the other side of the river. We stayed in a khan (an inn) on this side. Caravans would come through there and be sent off toward the desert; hundreds and hundreds of Armenians. We used to see dead, bloated bodies floating in the river.

***

***

Massacres of Syrian Christians In N. W. Persia and Kurdistan Paul Shimon of Urmi Persia

Thu, 13 Oct 2011 20:12:38 -0400

FOREWORD

For twenty-nine years the Archbishop's Mission has worked among the Syrian Christians in Persia and Turkey. Those of us whose privilege it has been to labour for the spiritual and temporal welfare of this interestirig people, are filled with dismay at the horrors of massacre and persecution which have fallen upon them during the past few months.
I desire to commend Mr. Paul Shimmon's pamphlet to the many sympthisers and friends which this ancient Christian nation numbers in England and America. Never has a nation been called upon to pass through so terrible a persecution, as that which has fallen upon this unhappy people, during the early months of this year (1915). These pages deal for the most part with the troubles in Persia; since it was written, news has come to hand that something like the same horrors have over taken their brethren, who live on the Turkish side of the frontier. Some thousands of these Turkish Syrians have I fled to Persia, but the larger part, driven from their ruined homes, are now wanderers in the inhospitable mountains of Kurdistan.
This pamphlet is an appeal to the liberty loving people of Great Britain and America to see that substantial help is sent to this ancient Christian nation in their sorrow and desolation. Some considerable sum of money has already been sent this year to Persia, and wisely distributed under the direction of the British and American Consuls at Tabriz. Much more help will be required in the Spring, when the task of restoring villages must be undertaken, and an effort made to replace the people in their ruined homesteads.

November, 1995.                                                                                  F.N.H.

With a Forewordby R ev. F. N. Heazeil, M.A. Orgamung Secretary of the Archbishop’s Assyrian Mission. London: Wells Gardner, Darton & Co., Ltd. Milwaukee: The Young Churchman Company.

Massacres of
Syrian (Nestorian) Christians

The scene of the Assyrian massacres is the plain of Urmi (or Urumia) on the west side of the lake of that name in N.W. Persia. The city of Urmi is situated on the western side of the lake; further west are the mountains of Kurdistan, forming the frontier between Turkey and Persia. These mountains give shelter to the wild bands of Kurds (ever ready to descend on the plain of Urmi), who can easily retire to their inaccessible homes with their ill-gotten spoil. For some years past a Russian force has been stationed in the Urmi plain, with the object of keeping the Kurds under control. These troops were distributed between Khoi, Salmas, Urmi, and Soujbulak, at the extreme south of the lake. Urmi is an isolated spot, and, from a military point of view, ill suited for defence against a strong attacking force. It is easily accessible to the Kurds from the west, while the two high passes on both north and south, and the lake on the east, seal up a besieged army in a very dangerous locality.
The plain of Urmi has a charm for all travelers in the spring and early summer it is a veritable paradise. Its running waters, its gardens, its vineyards, orchards, and melon fields, its tobacco plantations and rice fields, give a variety of colour and a beauty of scene seldom met with in the East.

The plain of Urmi is the home of some thirty-five thousand of the Assyrian (or East Syrian Christians), part of whom dwell in the city, and the rest are distributed among seventy villages scattered over the plain. These people are cultivators of the soil and keepers of vineyards. Away to the west, united to them by religion and language, live the mountaineer Syrians. First, we have many villages in the districts of Tergawar and Mergawar, both in Persia; then comes Nochea, the seat of the Metropolitan Bishop, Mar Khananishu. StilL further west, over the frontier into Turkey, in the very heart of the mountains, dwells the Patriarch, Mar Shimun, at once a civil and ecclesiastical ruler, who is responsible to the Turkish Government for the independent tribes of Baz, Jilu, Tkhuma, and Tyari, who are spread over the tract of country which stretches from Julamerk to Amadia and then down towards Mosul.
The proverbial calm before the storm was literally true in the case of the massacre of The Syrian Christians. In the Urmi plain, the presence of Russian troops for many years past brought security and prosperity. Raiding on the part of the Kurds was stopped, and highway robbery was no longer heard of. It did not mean that the Moslems were any more friendly disposed towards the Christians: they feared them, that was all. The old hatred for the Christian race slumbered for a time, and dare not show itself, so long as the Russian troops were there to see that the peace was not disturbed.

Events began to take a different turn with the outbreak of war in Europe. The Kurds, always ready for a fight, began to plunder the rich districts of Tergawar and Mergawar; the Christian inhabitants fled to Urmi, and were distributed among the villages of the plain. In October, 1914, the Kurds made a determined effort to capture the city. A violent assault was made by them, and for a time they withstood the fire of the Russian artillery. They sacked and burned the villages of Anhar and Aiwach, and advanced within gunshot of the city. Reinforcements arrived, and with the help of Syrians, armed by the Russians, the Kurds and Turks were driven back. Then it was that the Russian officers found that the Syrians could do great service in scouting, and they employed trained Syrians to keep open the lines of communications.

Such was the condition of affairs before the declaration of war between the Allied Powers and Turkey. After the declaration of war the curtain was withdrawn and the drama was played, the like of which has not yet been seen, even in this most cruel war.
The Turks had become aggressive on the Russian frontier near the Caucasus. In December they amassed troops at Sary-Kamish, near Kars, and sought to cut the railway to Tiflis. This created a scare in the Caucasus which was serious enough to cause a withdrawal of the Russian forces from N.W. Persia. Orders reached Urmi on December 30th for the withdrawal of the Russian troops, but these were not made known to the European missionaries and Syrians until three days later. The news came like a thunderclap. The Christian inhabitants were entirely unprepared: when they awoke to the fact of the danger they were in, they found that the roads were all blocked, the Russian protectors had left, means of transport were wanting; the Kurdish and Turkish armies were almost at the city gates: they were caught in a trap. A large number of the Syrians outside the city and many Armenians were able to get away ; most of these were from the Nazlu district, others were refugees from the Turkish frontier, some ten thousand in all. Two English missionaries then left, also the Belgian officials of the Persian Government, and some prominent Syrians of Urmi. All the rest remained behind. The Russian army left on Saturday, January 2nd, and on the next day the Persian Moslems plundered the village of Charbash, and Dilgusha, the two districts which contained the houses of the well-to-do Christian population. It was a painful sight to see the notable Moslems of the city was out, 'blessing each other's feast,' as they termed it, and carrying off everything that came to hand. Houses were stripped of furniture, and even doors and windows carried away. There was also ah attempt to plunder some of the houses within the city, but this was frustrated by the efforts of the French and American missionaries.
There is no doubt that the presence of the American missionaries, and of Mr. Neesan, who remained in the English Mission-house, prevented matters from taking a worse turn. The American flag, which was flying over the American and English houses, had some influence in restraining the brutal savagery of the mob.
In the villages, however, the reign of terror had begun. The Kurds had been informed of the Russian retirement, and were soon at work plundering and massacring the Christians in the Barandus district (S. Urmi). Dizateka, S&tlui, Alyabad, Shimshajcan1 Babarud, Darbarud, Sardarud, Teka, and Ardishai were already in their hands. Looting, plundering, massacre, and rape were the order of the day. In one village, half Moslem and half Christian the Syrians took shelter in the houses of their Moslem neighbours, and hid themselves under the heaps of snow in the yards. In Ardishai, Qasha Ablakhat the Syrian priest, was escaping on horseback with his daughter he was and the girl carried off to Kurdistan, where she was married by force to a Kurd. Four months later came the sad news that she had died. During her illness she had as companion another Syrian giri1 also a captive. This other girl relates that the Moslem women came and turned the sick woman's bed towards the south, the direction to which all Moslems look on their deathbed. The invalid begged her companion to turn her face to the east, that she might die a Christian.

In another village all the male population, but three, were killed, or died of typhoid fever. One young man had 1st arrived from the United States after an absence of nine years; he had come home to be married. The next morning, he, his mother, sister, and an uncle were all killed. Their property was carried off and 500 tumans in cash. Most of the people were killed in their flight; their bodies were not buried, for no one dared to go and perform this office. Many of the bodies were eaten by dogs.
There is one large village - Geogtapeh - some five miles from the city of Urmi. To this place many people from the south of Urmi plain fled for safety, as they thought the inhabitants were well 'able to defend' themselves. But on January 4th, a messenger from the Kurds came, saying that if the people surrendered and paid a large sum of money, their village would be spared. The villagers sent to Urmi to consult the village master, but long before the messenger returned the Kurds had commenced their attack on the place. The Christians put up a magnificent fight, but could not hold out long before overwhelming numbers. The Kurds were also assisted by the Persian Moslems, who were eager to pay off old scores against their Christian neighbours. As the day wore on the situation grew desperate. The cries of women and children, who had gathered in the churches, were heart-rending. The smoke of the burning buildings from four sides overcame the defenders. Finally all took refuge in the two churches on the brow of the hill, which dominates the village. Late in the afternoon, by God's providence, a rescue was made. Dr. Packard, the American missionary, with three Syrian attendants, came with the American flag and made terms of capitulation. The men, women, and children were to be allowed to go out alive, and the village and all the firearms were surrendered. Late that night, Dr. Packard, with some two thousand people, reached Urmi, where with difficulty shelter was found for them in quarters already crowded, in which they passed four months of untold horrors and suffering.

In Geogtapeh, one elderly woman was left behind because she could not move on account, of infirmity; her husband and daughter decided to stay with her. The Kurds killed the two old people, and on the daughter refusing to become Moslem, she also was killed.
Another pathetic case was that of an old priest and his wife, who thought if they gave up everything to the Kurds their lives would be spared. These people were visited. by five different parties of Kurds in succession. They helped themselves to the property of the house, and took all the money they could find. Then came another party and asked for money ; they were told there was nothing left. Then the old man, with the Bible in his hands, was murdered in the presence of his wife. They decided to kill the woman also, but in some mysterious way she avoided them and hid herself. After six days of hiding she crawled out and got to a neighbouring village, where she found shelter with some Moslems, who sent her to the city.

NAZLU DISTRICT

The Barandus river villages and Geogtapeh are south of the city of Urmi, and so were the first to fall a prey to the Kurds as they advanced from the south. The villages of the Nazlu district, such as Ada, Superghan, Mushawa, Sherabad, and Karajalu, some of the wealthiest, not being in the line of advance, should have escaped the horrors of the other villages; but their turn came later, and their story of their woes is equally heartrending.

Ada, one of the largest villages, had been a place of refuge for many Syrians and Armenians late in the year 1914. Then when the Russian army passed that way many of the people followed them, to the number of sixty. The rest, however, all remained. Sunday, January 3rd, passed off quietly, but the next day their troubles commenced. The Persian Moslems began to plunder the Syrian Christians. They broke open the houses, carried off the doors and windows, and emptied the buildings. No one was however killed, although some shots were fired too intimidate the people.   The Syrians exercised great restraint, as they feared a general massacre if they opposed the Moslems who came against them. The elders of the village, while this was going on, sent to the city to ask for protection. The messengers returned with a Turkish and Persian flag and a few soldiers, thinking this would be security for them; but they were deceived. For almost at once the Kurds attacked the village' from all points. They stripped every man they found, I took his money, and then killed him. As the others fled to the vineyards, they were followed by the Moslems, who killed them there. It is said that one Persian Moslem had killed twenty-five persons, and said, 'I am not satisfied yet.' Some eighty bodies lay about unburied; many, who had been wounded, were left to die of their wounds, as there was no one to tend them after they fell. The women and children, who had climbed to the roofs to avoid the fury of the Kurds, were afterwards brutally treated by their attackers, who behaved with' the greatest barbarity. The churches were polluted and the carried off, and forced to become Moslems, and afterwards sold or married to their enemies.

A pathetic case is reported from Karajalu. A woman, fleeing with her two children - her husband was abroad - met a Moslem mullah in her flight. He took the children, stripped them of their clothing, and threw them all into a stream, which was on the point of freezing. He then offered to marry the woman. On her refusal he left the woman on the road to her fate. She returned to the stream, and, taking her children from the water, carried them to a vineyard near by, where she placed them in a hollow place with some straw over them to try and warm them; both children died in the morning. Later the sorrowing woman found her way to Urmi, and five months afterwards the Russians caught this inhuman brute and made him suffer for his crime.

THE FLIGHT TO URMI

The city of Urmi became a veritable city of refuge for the Syrians and Armenians from the villages of the whole plain. - By far the larger number found shelter in the American Mission premises, and some more in the compound of the English Mission, where Mr. Neesan was living. We have read of the flight from Antwerp in the Times, but it is a fairy tale compared with what happened in Urmi. Women arrived at the city in a bleeding condition. Some had been stripped of part of their clothes on the way, and arrived in one tunic shivering in the bitter cold of January; some told us how they had been stopped by four different bands of robbers; many were carried off, made captives, and forced to become Moslems.

The French Mission also afforded another place of refuge, where the French Lazarists, with Monseigneur Sontag and the Sisters of Charity, live. The crowded state of all the houses in the city quickly bred disease, which, combined with semi-starvation, made life unbearable. The Americans threw open their College and Hospital outside the city, and these were soon overcrowded. The Archbishop of Canterbury's Mission premises and the American yard close by formed one great quadrangle, and over this block the American flag was flying. In normal times these buildings could accommodate five hundred people; now there were some ten thousand crowded into this same area. After the first rush was over, the missionaries went to the villages, to search for this or that person who was missing. In this way many young women were restored to their families and delivered from Moslem captivity. But many of the less fortunate had to remain in the Moslem houses to which they had been carried. Many were ill and could not move; other were enceinte, and were ashamed to return to their homes. A young Moslem was carrying his Syrian 'wife' to another village when he met Dr. Packard on the road. The girl threw herself at his feet and asked to be freed from her captor. She was taken to Urmi, only to die after a few weeks of typhoid fever.

The problem of feeding so large a number of people was a great one, and only half a pound of bread a day could be provided. But the worst suffering was caused by the over-crowding. Every available space was filled rooms, churches, corridors, cellars, and stables, all alike were crowded with human beings.

Under these conditions, combined with the bad water supply and the lack of sanitary arrangements in an oriental city, it is not surprising that typhoid fever soon broke out and carried off thousands of people. More than four thousand lost their lives from this disease, while a thousand were killed by the Kurds in the villages. An accurate statement, prepared by the European missionaries, shows that 20 percent of the Urmi Christians perished in four months.

At the beginning of this reign of terror which we have described, the Kurds of Mamash, Mangur, Zarza, in the south, poured into the city. The Herki and the Begzadi from the west poured in at the same time. The son of one prominent Sheik from Shamsdinan came from Nochea and established himself in Dilgusha just outside the city gates. On the arrival of the Turkish army, a few days later, order was for a time restored, and the Kurds and Moslems restrained from the bigger acts of violence. But as soon as the Turkish officers got hold of the reins of government the lives of the Christians became unbearable. For a time a Jehad - a Holy War - was spoken of on all sides, and the Christians gave up all hopes of being allowed to live. The Turks made it quite clear that they had come to serve Turkey, and did not conceal their desire to get 'rid of all Christians.' They also set to work to fill their own pockets; 66oo tumans were taken from the shop and store owners, and other well-to-do people. They prepared a list of 'suspected persons,' who were to be put to death if not ransomed by the payment of a sum of money. In many cases the money was not forthcoming, and the prisoners were put to death.
It was in this way that Mar Dinkha, Bishop of Tergawar, met his death. Mar Elia, the Russian Bishop, was ransomed after a payment of 5500 tumans had been made to the Turks.

THE TRAGEDY OF GULPASHAN

The case of the treatment of the village of Gulpashan is without parallel in the history of the Urmi massacres. It is the most wealthy and prosperous of all the villages of the plain) and its inhabitants are quiet and law-abiding people. When the sister village of Geogtapeh was plundered and burnt, by an ominous fate Gulpashan was spared. Karani Agha, a Kurdish Chief, well spoken of as a man of high principle, had announced that the village was his property and that it was to be spared. For two months the people were left in peace. It was said to be due to a friendship which existed between the Christian village masters, one of whom was related to the German Consular Agent at Urmi, and the Moslems. A servant of the German Agent was there, and Turkish soldiers were placed to guard the village. On February 24th, a band of Persian Fedais, who had been un- successful in an attempt on Salmas, returned to Urmi and attacked the village. They feigned friendliness at first, untild they had got the men of the place in their power. Then they tied them together with ropes and drove them to the cemetery, where they butchered them in a barbarous and cruel way Then the men, still wild with blood, turned on the women, and after treating them in an unseemly manner, put some of thern to death. The American missionaries went afterwards and buried the dead, which they did in many other places also. This was the last of the massacres in the Urmi plain.The awful deeds that were perpetrated here were telegraphed to America, whereupon such strong representations were made by the United States Government that an order was made for their cessation.

THE MASSACRE IN SALMAS.

In the plain of Salmas, to the west of Lake Urmi, there are many large and beautiful villages inhabited by Syrians and Armenians. For the most part these people had fled to Russia before the flight from Urmi took place; but their homes and fields shared the same fate as those in Urmi. The Turks found on their arrival there that a good number of Christians had hid themselves in the houses of friendly Moslems The Moslem Hadjis were ordered to prepare a letter, which every Chrjstian must sign, stating that they had received kind consideration at the hands of their protectors. This was only a t?ick on the part of the Turks, for in this way they got to know the names and dwelling-places of about 725 Armenians and Syrians in Salmas. A few days later all these men, roped together in gangs, were marched to the fields at night between Haftevan and Khusrawa, and some were shot, others were hacked ~o pieces, in one way and another, in the most horrible fashion. This happened in March, only three days before the return of the Russian troops. This timely arrival of help prevented the women of the place from sharing a like fate.


THE ATTACK ON THE SYRIANS IN
THE TURKISH MOUNTAINS.

The rest of the awful story comes from the Turkish side, where the Patriarch and the larger number of the Syrians live in the mountains of Kurdistan. It was many months before news reached their brethren in Urmi as to what had been happining some hundred miles away. The Patriarch, Mar Shimun, was driven from his home in Qudshanis. He fled to Tyari with all the members of his household. The Patriarch's house was burnt, together with many other houses, including the house of the English Mission. Mar Shimun, writing to England a few days ago, tells us that for four months he has been a wanderer with his people, carrying on a war with the Turks and Kurds. They only gave up fighting when Turkish artillery was brought against them, which rnade it impossible for them to offer an effective resistance. Tyari and Tkhuma, both of which districts embrace many Chnstian villages, have been entirely destroyed. In August last, 35,000 mountaineers fled to Salmas, Persia, but the larger part of the Syrians are still in the mountains wandering about from place to place, without food and with. no hope of any one coming to their relief. The most pathetic part of the story is this. Surma, the Patriarch's sister, with Esther, her sister-in-law, and three small children, went down to Chumbar in Tyari in June last for safety. With the approach of tile Turkish Army they soon had to flee to Dadush, and from there to the great Church of Mar Audishu, in the Tal country. They always had to travel on foot with just the clothes they could carry. ‘Oftentimes,’ Surma writes, 'we were hungry, and the little children, who were with us, would fall asleep on the road, as we always had to travel at night.' Surma spent three months in Mar Audishu, expecting to leave at any moment, when the enemy drew near. During that time there was food but almost no water, and none at all could be spared for washing or bathing. Occasionally they walked to a stream to bathe and wash their clothes.

The last day of their stay there was the saddest of all. On that day their brother Ishaya'died of fever. Mar Shimun, hearing of his illness, ha come over the day before. The enemy was then very near, and they could hear the sound of the guns in Tkhuma. Just when the funeral of their brother was to take place, Surma, Rome, and Esther with her children were compelled to: leave the place, lest they should be caught by the enemy. Mar Shimun, two priests, and a few laymen remained behind at this time danger to bury their brother. The burial service was quickly said, and the body hastily interred, and Mar Shimun hastened after the fugitive women and children. They were only just in time, for a few hours after their departure, the Turks arrived and made straight for the church, having heard that the Patriarch's household was there. When writing to us on October 6th, Mar Shimun says he is in a village in Salmas, Persia, with his sisters and one or two members of his filmily. At the present moment there are 'with him 35,000 Syrians camped out in the plain of Salmas (4000 feet above sea-level), sleeping in the fields with no clothes to cover them at night, clad in the rags which they have worn for many months, without food or shelter. The British Consul has telegraphed to England to that unless these people are helped by charitable folk at home, two-thirds of them 'will die; No Christian nation has ever.suffered for their religion as these people; and none has so great a claim on us as this unhappy Syrian remnant.

The Archbishop of Canterbury's appeal in The Times of November 10th has brought a good response, but much more money is needed.
The pathetic accounts of the condition of the people in the field of the Archbishop's Mission constitute an overwhelming appeal to all Christians, especially to those who, like ourselves in England, are entirely free from the horrors of war in our midst. A fund has been opened for the assistance of the starving Christians of Kurdistan, and we earnestly beg for a generous response. Cheques may be sent either to Mr. F. W. Pittman, Church House, Westminster, or to the Rev. F. N. Heazell, The Rectory, Letchworth.

The Treasurer in the United States is Woodbury G. Langdon, Esq., Le Chalet, 151 Madison Avenue, Morristown, N.J.

Massacres

HISTORIA DEL PRIMER GENOCIDIO MODERNO El Imperio Otomano, los sirios y los armenios (1914-1918)

Thu, 13 Oct 2011 11:47:33 -0400

HISTORIA DEL PRIMER GENOCIDIO MODERNO
El Imperio Otomano, los sirios y los armenios (1914-1918)

SyriacStudies
www.syriacstudies.com

HISTORIA DEL PRIMER GENOCIDIO MODERNO
El Imperio Otomano, los sirios y los armenios (1914-1918)

© The American Foundation of Syriac Studies
Titulo original: The Syrian-Armenian Tragedy (1914-1918)

Todos los derechos reservados, incluidos el derecho de reproducir este libro o partes de él por cualquier medio, incluidos la reprografía y el tratamiento informático, sin permiso previo de la Fundación.

Impreso en Estados Unidos de América
Traducción y notas de Daniel Santacruz

INTRODUCCIÓN
Doctor Admer Gouryh

Ningún campo del conocimiento ha sido tan importante e indispensable como la historia, y probablemente ningún otro ha sido tan controvertido como ésta. La importancia de la historia radica en que nosotros, como seres históricos, creemos firmemente que hay una intrincada relación dialéctica entre el pasado y el presente, y cuánto mejor comprendamos el pasado —con todos sus altibajos— mejor preparados estamos para entender las complejidades del presente y así cerciorarnos de que el futuro sea estable. En otras palabras, aunque somos el resultado de la historia, consciente o inconscientemente hacemos todo lo posible por determinar el curso de ella. Sin embargo, la controversia que rodea a la historia radica en el acto de escribirla, el cual con frecuencia es manipulado, ya por la clase dominante o ya por el estado. Y este último puede modificar o distorsionar hechos históricos con el fin de proteger sus intereses o legitimar su dominio.
Ciertamente, el valor de la historia radica no solamente en el registro objetivo de eventos pasados —aunque esto tiene su importancia también—, sino que consiste mayormente en establecer puentes entre las generaciones presentes y sus antepasados, y entre el estado de ánimo existente y el de grupos que existieron en el pasado. Ese conocimiento del pasado arrojará luz sobre el presente y dejará ver si nuestra forma de pensar actual y nuestras actitudes han cambiado o han permanecido atadas a la misma vieja mentalidad. De ahí que nuestra reacción a los hechos históricos, así sean negativos o positivos, se base en cómo fue percibido o interpretado el pasado. Cuando nosotros, los que vivimos en el presente, nos preocupamos por las generaciones futuras, necesitamos tener un conocimiento objetivo e integral del pasado para que, por un lado, podamos liberarnos de mitos destructivos que probablemente —y sin que estos lo quisieran— ataron a algunos grupos del pasado y por el otro podamos preservar y atesorar sus enriquecedores ideales. Si no hacemos frente a nuestra historia pasada y a nuestra herencia de forma crítica, tal vez terminemos idolatrando ideologías políticas, raciales o religiosas engañosas que pueden desencadenar intolerancia, racismo, discriminación y genocidio en el presente o en el futuro.
Nuestro interés en examinar el pasado no es el resultado de un encaprichamiento con éste como tal o una mera exaltación de audaces hazañas pasadas. Surge, más bien, de nuestra experiencia actual de que la historia humana ha sido testigo de atrocidades cometidas contra minorías étnicas y religiosas, y existe siempre la creciente preocupación de que actos tan viles y destructivos como esos puedan repetirse en el futuro. Esa preocupación por la seguridad de las minorías es legítima y debe tenerse en cuenta porque todavía vivimos en un mundo infectado por divisiones sociales, prejuicio, discriminación, racismo e intolerancia. La masiva exterminación de miles de inocentes musulmanes en Bosnia (1) a manos de cristianos serbios es un claro ejemplo de que el racismo y el odio religioso todavía prevalecen en algunas partes del mundo.
Por fortuna, el exterminio de esos musulmanes recibió un inmenso cubrimiento periodístico en el mundo entero, el cual mostró compasión con su causa y se apresuró a poner fin a las atrocidades cometidas contra ellos. Sin embargo, los medios de prensa de Estados Unidos están todavía ajenos a cómo más de un millón de armenios y no menos de 250.000 cristianos sirios fueron masacrados por fuerzas otomanas y mercenarios en 1915. Esos medios han prácticamente dejado a su público en la oscuridad. Incluso los estadounidenses mejor educados desconocen cómo, cuándo y dónde ocurrió la masacre.
Turquía, los Balcanes, el mundo árabe y Occidente estaban gestándose cuando sucedió esa tragedia. Algunos países europeos buscaban nuevos aliados entre pueblos subdesarrollados y colonizados que estaban dispuestos a cooperar, incluso a colaborar, con Occidente contra el Imperio Otomano (2) y sus aliados. Tales sucesos, que fueron políticos y estratégicos, coincidieron también con el auge del nacionalismo, el cual movilizó rápidamente no sólo a los armenios contra la ocupación otomana, sino también a los árabes, a las naciones de los Balcanes y a los griegos. Por lo tanto, la prioridad de árabes, griegos, armenios y otras naciones oprimidas fue independizarse del Imperio Otomano, ya fuera por medios políticos pacíficos o militares.
Es obvio que el imperio se enfrentaba a fuerzas que lo desafiaban por dentro y por fuera, y tenía que responder a ellas de una forma u otra. Era de esperar que el ejército turco sofocara la revuelta armenia. Sin embargo, después de destruir la estructura política y militar de los armenios y desarmar a la toda la comunidad, las autoridades turcas no tuvieron razón alguna para usar su ejército y azuzar a la población para aniquilar a más de medio millón de armenios, la mayoría de los cuales eran gente pacífica, sin ningún interés en política.
Si se quiere entender la “ cuestión armenia “ seriamente, hay que tener en cuenta no sólo los temores nacionales y políticos del establecimiento turco, sino también la ideología subyacente del sistema turco de entonces. La razón para hacer énfasis en el papel destructivo de esa ideología radica en que la mayoría de los armenios no fueron masacrados por el ejército turco sino por ciudadanos turcos, lo cual es una clara indicación de que quienes cometieron crímenes tan brutales ya habían sido indoctrinados con etnocentrismo, prejuicio e intolerancia. Y una vez la población adopta una ideología etnocéntrica tiende a idealizarse a ella misma y a idealizar esa ideología, y quienes no son parte de su grupo étnico son estereotipados, o sea, son despojados de sus valores humanos, y considerados inferiores, corrompidos y pertenecientes a una raza maléfica. Mostrar a otros como una amenaza justificaría su destrucción. Según la ideología etnocéntrica del sistema turco, los armenios eran “ los otros ”, porque étnicamente no eran turcos ni musulmanes. Así pues, para los turcos intolerantes de esa época, su eliminación era legítima y justificada para que la sociedad turca se mantuviera etnocéntrica.
Los turcos de las décadas de 1910 y 1920 hicieron creer deliberadamente que el pueblo armenio era su principal rival, cuyo objetivo era dividir la tierra turca y socavar su soberanía para azuzar a los armenios contra otros grupos étnicos. Los turcos dijeron que la guerra contra los armenios tenía justificaciones políticas y nacionales. Sin embargo, nunca explicaron sus razones para matar a no menos de 250.000 pacíficos sirios cristianos, que habían vivido en suelo turco por casi dos mil años sin atentar contra el interés nacional o la integridad de Turquía. Es más, se consideraban ciudadanos turcos. Se conocían principalmente por ser una secta cristiana y sus instituciones —iglesias y academias— eran de naturaleza religiosa y educativa.
Durante la era bizantina los cristianos sirios se dedicaron a estudiar las ciencias y filosofía griegas, y durante las invasiones árabes a Siria, Irak y partes de Asia Menor no sólo se ocuparon de esas disciplinas sino que hicieron invaluables contribuciones al desarrollo de la filosofía árabe islámica. Impresionado por el constructivo papel que jugaron para educar a los musulmanes árabes en el siglo XVIII, Ahmed Amen, destacado historiador egipcio, llamó a los cristianos sirios “mentores de los árabes”.
Los académicos occidentales, estadounidenses y del Medio Oriente no le han dado la importancia que merece a la masacre de los cristianos sirios en Turquía. Incluso los escritores armenios, que están bien enterados del exterminio de estos, se muestran reacios a veces a mencionar las atrocidades. El genocidio de 1915 parece haberse vuelto un monopolio armenio, en vez de ser un problema humano.
Creemos que la brutal masacre de aquellos merece ser tratada y examinada detenidamente por sirios, armenios, estadounidenses, occidentales, árabes y turcos sin importar su raza y religión. Primero que todo, la exterminación de esa comunidad, que hablaba siriaco (3), es esencialmente un problema humano. A los sirios que les interese en examinar más de fondo el problema deben dejar de lado sus sentimientos nacionales, políticos y religiosos y ver la masacre desde una perspectiva puramente humana.
El presente estudio intenta investigar el contexto histórico, nacional y político de las relaciones turcas y armenias de comienzos del siglo XX. También tiene por objetivo examinar algunos importantes factores históricos que condujeron a la tensión que causó las hostilidades entre turcos y armenios, y que culminaron luego en la inconcebible masacre, o saferbalik (4). Aunque el autor de este estudio se ha basado en documentos históricos —algunos de autores occidentales, otros de académicos turcos y armenios— no ha agregado interpretaciones ni comentarios personales con el fin de que los lectores tengan fácil acceso a algunos hechos de los cuales pueden deducir cuáles fueron los factores negativos que existieron antes de 1915 que causaron y justificaron posteriormente la exterminación en masa de armenios inocentes y de un pueblo de lengua siriaca.

_________________
(1) Entre 1992 y 1995. (N. del T.)
(1) El Imperio Otomano existió entre 1299 y 1923 y, en su apogeo, abarcó gran parte del sur de Europa, Asia occidental y Norte de Africa. Con Constantinopla como capital, el imperio lo formaron 29 provincias y numerosos estados vasallos. Dejó de existir como tal el 24 de julio de 1923 y fue reemplazado por la República de Turquía. (N. del T.)
(1) Idioma perteneciente a las lenguas semíticas. Dialecto del arameo, fue un lenguaje litúrgico y en el que se escribieron importantes obras cristianas entre los siglos III y XVII d.C. Antes de que el árabe ser convirtiera en el lenguaje dominante, el siriaco era el predominante entre los cristianos del Medio Oriente, Asia Central y el sur de India. Hoy se habla en pueblos de Siria, Turquía, Irán, Irak y Azerbaiyán. Existen comunidades de lengua siriaca en otras regiones del Medio Oriente, Europa, Australia, y Norte y Sudamérica. (N. del T.)
(4) Palabra turca que significa genocidio. Con ella se describen las masacres de las que se habla en este estudio. (N. del T.)

EL GENOCIDIO

Hanna Issa Touma

Las masacres que ocurrieron entre 1894 y 1896, en las cuales murieron unas 200.000 personas, fueron el primer contacto real que la mayoría de cronistas cristianos tuvieron con la brutalidad otomana y prácticamente una preparación para el verdadero genocidio, que se inició en 1915. Los cronistas no dejaron de responder al horror y tanto testigos como diplomáticos, corresponsales y humanitarios de muchas nacionalidades abordaron el tema en cientos de artículos y libros.
Luego, en 1909, ocurrió otra masacre, esta vez en Adana, al sur de Turquía, en la cual murieron aproximadamente 30.000 personas, pero la reacción que se expresó en las crónicas fue, nuevamente, un despliegue de tristeza y problemas. No hubo una reacción política internacional, aunque los embajadores de varios países ya le habían informado de lo sucedido a los líderes de naciones occidentales. Las indefensas víctimas que quedaban todavía en Turquía no podían hacer nada, y los que huyeron tenían que hacer frente a los retos que se les presentaron en los países que les abrieron las puertas. Esto puede explicarse, en parte, por qué durante años la generación que se fue al exilio concentró sus energías en adaptarse a un nuevo entorno, a dedicarse al cuidado de los miembros de la familia que de alguna forma habían sobrevivido, y a organizar escuelas e iglesias para perpetuar, en lo que fuera posible, un legado cultural en ambientes diversos y frecuentemente ajenos.
Los líderes otomanos organizaron las deportaciones y las masacres de las poblaciones cristianas para deshacerse de la Cuestión Armenia y crear así un orden homogéneo. A través de muerte y destrucción eliminaron a la mayoría de los armenios del Imperio Otomano, incluso de las tierras que históricamente les eran suyas, y alteraron radicalmente el carácter racial y religioso de la región.
Nuestro objetivo aquí es examinar tres preguntas: ¿Qué sucedió? ¿Por qué sucedió? y ¿Qué lecciones ha dejado el caso armenio que se puedan aplicar a casos similares? Muchos historiadores argumentan que la razón del genocidio fue a causa de la provocación de los armenios. Otros sugieren que las razones se hallan en el contexto de las relaciones entre armenios y turcos, y en los motivos del Comité de Unión y Progreso (CUP), el partido político dominante en esa época. Si había una condición necesaria para el genocidio, puede haberse debido a los desastres militares y políticos que ocurrieron entre 1908 y 1915, que aislaron a los armenios y alentaron el nacionalismo turco.
Fue este nuevo nacionalismo que no sólo transformó la identidad turca sino que también cambió la imagen de los armenios de millet (1) leal a minoría amenazadora y foránea. En ese sentido se puede decir que el desastre y la ideología separaron a los armenios de los turcos y facilitó su exterminación.
Muchos de los académicos que se han ocupado de estudiar a los Jóvenes Turcos y al CUP, que encabezaron la revolución de 1908 contra el sultán Abdul-Hamid II y que gobernaron a Turquía de ese año a 1918, estarían de acuerdo que el régimen de los Jóvenes Turcos, especialmente en sus fases finales, fue un desastre absoluto para los armenios y los cristianos sirios. Es de destacar que el CUP, dirigido por Talaat Pasha, Ministro del Interior, y Enver Pasha, Ministro de Guerra, fue responsable por las deportaciones que llevaron al genocidio de 1915.
Las matanzas empezaron ese año. Las primeras medidas que se tomaron contra los armenios y otros cristianos se iniciaron con la deportación de toda la población de las provincias de Oriente al desierto sirio y a Alepo, en Siria. Sin embargo, el destino de los sirios se hizo aparente en febrero de ese año cuando las tropas armenias que servían junto a las fuerzas otomanas fueron despojadas de las armas, desmovilizadas y asignadas a cuadrillas de trabajo. A la misma vez, los civiles armenios y cristianos sirios fueron despojados de las armas y a cada comunidad se le pidió que entregara un número específico de éstas. La búsqueda de armas, sin embargo, fue una oportunidad para destruir el liderazgo. Cuando los líderes comunitarios no pudieron entregar el número requerido, fueron arrestados por ocultarlas. Pero cuando las entregaron, fueron arrestados por conspirar contra el gobierno.
Las deportaciones, coordinadas entre el Ministerio del Interior, institución a cargo de la población civil, y el Ministerio de Guerra, encargado de las cuadrillas de trabajo —ahora sin armas—, comenzaron el 8 de abril de 1915 en Zeitun, al sur de Turquía, y en otras poblaciones. Las cuadrillas fueron detenidas por el ejército y masacradas, y los civiles en capacidad de trabajar fueron asesinados y los demás deportados.
Han pasado muchos años después de la tragedia, pero aún queda por escribir un sumario detallado del genocidio. Una de las mejores fuentes en Occidente es todavía el historiador estadounidense Arnold Toynbee, que resumió así la situación:

En cierta fecha en un pueblo o en una aldea cualquiera . . . el pregonero del pueblo iba por las calles anunciando que todo hombre armenio debía presentarse de inmediato al Edificio de Gobierno. En algunos casos el anuncio era hecho por los mismos soldados o gendarmes que estaban matando a todo armenio que encontraban en la calle . . . pero generalmente una llamada al Edificio de Gobierno era el paso preliminar. Los hombres se presentaban en su ropa de trabajo . . . Al llegar eran arrojados en la prisión sin ninguna explicación, dejados ahí un día o dos, y luego sacados del pueblo en grupos, un hombre atado al otro, marchando en dirección al sur o al sureste. Se les decía que estaban iniciando un largo viaje a Mosul (2) o quizás a Bagdad (3) . . . Pero no tenían mucho tiempo para pensar en su situación porque se les hacía detener y se les masacraba en el primer paraje solitario del camino. Lo mismo se hacía con los otros hombres armenios que habían estado prisioneros durante los largos meses de invierno, acusados de conspirar o de esconder armas . . . De esto estaban a cargo las autoridades civiles . . .

Con la excepción de Bitlis, Mush y Sassun (4), donde toda la población fue seleccionada por el ejército para ser exterminada, las mujeres, los niños y los hombres que habían sobrevivido en otros pueblos fueron deportados. Al pasar por pueblos y aldeas, las columnas de indefensos armenios y cristianos eran atacadas una y otra vez por asaltantes, pero más frecuentemente por turcos y kurdos. Los gendarmes del Ministerio del Interior, que estaban para proteger a los deportados, se unieron a la violencia, en vez de tratar de aplacarla. Fue un intento deliberado y sistemático para eliminar a la población cristiana del Imperio Otomano el cual, en cierta forma, cumplió su objetivo con algo de éxito.
Una masacre o un genocidio siempre dan lugar a una controversia sobre el número de víctimas. Los que niegan que tales hechos ocurrieron minimizan las cifras. Los que los afirman, las aumentan. Ciertamente, no se pueden citar cifras exactas. Si uno acepta las cifras del Patriarca Armenio como referencia, la población armenia de mediados del siglo XIX era de 2.5 millones. Toynbee, sin embargo, es más cauto y sugiere que el número es de unos 1.6 millones.
Toynbee estima que para 1915, 600.000 personas de esos 1.6 millones habían sido muertas. En 1916 solamente, 320.000 más cayeron víctimas. Esto deja un total de más de un millón, además de los que murieron de hambre, miseria y enfermedad. A eso hay que agregarle medio millón de cristianos que murieron en el genocidio. Aram Andonias escribe:

Tres grandes masacres tuvieron lugar después de 1916 . . . Hombres, mujeres y niños de Constantinopla (5) y los distritos cercanos a la línea del tren de Anatolia y Cilicia (6) fueron llevados al desierto, donde encontraron gente de las seis provincias armenias y de las riberas del Mar Negro. Este último grupo, sin embargo, consistía solamente de mujeres, y niños y niñas de siete años y menos, pues todos los varones de mayores de siete habían sido masacrados. Todos ellos fueron las víctimas de las tres masacres. La primera fue la de Res-ul-Ain, en la cual 70.000 personas murieron; la segunda fue en Intilli, donde había unas 50.000 personas, la mayoría de las cuales trabajaba en un túnel del ferrocarril a Bagdad; y la tercera, la más feroz de todas, fue en Der Zor (7), donde Zia Bey (8) masacró casi 200.000 . . . Las cifras sólo indican el número de gente que fue masacrada. Si le agregamos a esas cifras la cantidad de los que fueron víctimas de miseria, enfermedad y hambre, especialmente en Res-ul-Ain y Der Zor, el número de armenios que fueron muertos o murieron en el desierto excederá el millón.

Apenas la población cristiana fue físicamente desplazada, liquidada y reemplazada por turcos o armenios, todos sus símbolos culturales, como iglesias y nombres de lugares, fueron destruidos o desaparecidos. Era como si el CUP hubiera querido borrar incluso el recuerdo de la existencia de armenios y cristianos.
En la Turquía contemporánea, según dijo el autor y ensayista de origen armenio Michael Arlen, toda conexión con los armenios han sido borrada como si fuera un acto voluntario. Esto nos convence de que lo que se hizo contra los armenios y cristianos fue genocidio. La pregunta que debe hacerse es por qué.
Un número de historiadores está de acuerdo que la razón del genocidio armenio deriva de la provocación de los armenios, o sea de la intolerable amenaza que estos presentaban para Turquía y el CUP. Un argumento a favor de la provocación viene del historiador estadounidense Bernard Lewis. Dice éste del auge del nacionalismo armenio en la segunda mitad del siglo XIX:

Para los turcos, el armenio era la más mortal de las amenazas. Podían retirarse, aunque a regañadientes, de las tierras que conquistaron a serbios, búlgaros, albanos y griegos, y abandonar provincias distantes y reducir el [tamaño del] imperio. Pero los armenios, que habitaban en toda Turquía, desde la frontera del Cáucaso a la costa del Mediterráneo, vivían en el mismo corazón de la patria turca. Renunciar a esas tierras hubiera significado no solamente el truncamiento sino la disolución del estado turco. Poblados turcos y armenios, inextricablemente mezclados, habían vivido como buenos vecinos durante siglos. Una desesperada lucha entre ellos empezó ahora por la posesión de una patria única que terminó con el terrible holocausto de 1915, cuando perecieron un millón y medio de armenios.

Para Lewis, entonces, el genocidio parece ser un caso claro de dos nacionalidades en conflicto. Los armenios eran una minoría de religión cristiana que vivía tanto en Turquía como a lo largo de la frontera de ésta con Rusia. Como otras minorías del Imperio Otomano, se vieron atrapados en el nacionalismo, tan común en el siglo XIX y a comienzos del XX. De aquí que, como serbios, búlgaros, albanos y griegos, era de esperar que se separaran. Aunque la secesión de esas nacionalidades hubiera sido un golpe al poder y prestigio del imperio, la separación de Armenia hubiera marcado la desaparición de aquél, pues los armenios eran parte del alma de Turquía.
Lewis dice que las dos naciones, Armenia y Turquía, estaban trabadas en una lucha desesperada por la posesión de una sola patria. Claramente, si no se conoce mejor la situación, uno estaría bajo la impresión de que los armenios, como los turcos, estaban armados y eran poderosos. Pero la verdad es que los armenios no estaban unidos bajo un partido político y no contaban con un fuerza militar para conquistar a los turcos o para defenderse de ellos. El sentimiento nacionalista armenio era, en cierta forma, parecido al de los turcos. El nacionalismo turco no se había definido como lo definiría Mustafá Kemal (9), conocido después como Ataturk, pero si existía al estilo de Ziya Gokalp (10), de quienes se hablará más adelante.
¿Qué era el nacionalismo armenio? ¿Qué fronteras y poderes reclamaba para sí mismo? ¿Y en qué se diferenciaba del de otras nacionalidades, incluido el de los turcos, que habitaban en el tambaleante Imperio Otomano? Decir que el movimiento armenio era la más mortal de las amenazas es ser extremista. ¿Pero qué significa esto? ¿Significa que los turcos percibían a los armenios como una amenaza mortal o eran estos ciertamente una amenaza? Si se cree lo primero, entonces no habría discusión. Taalat y Enver, ministros del Interior y de Guerra, respectivamente, habían dicho que temían a los armenios por ser una amenaza a la integridad de Turquía. Dada la drástica situación de los Jóvenes Turcos, para quienes la secesión de minorías iba de la mano con derrota militar a gran escala, uno podría asumir que sus percepciones y juicios no eran claros. La pregunta es, sin embargo, si el temor de los Jóvenes Turcos a los armenios fue causado por las acciones y capacidades de estos o por otras razones, entre ellas la desesperada situación de aquel partido político y su nueva fe en el nacionalismo turco.
Dos partidos políticos armenios, el Hishnak y el Dashnak (11), tenían buenas relaciones con los Jóvenes Turcos, especialmente después de las masacres de 1894 a 1896 y, por lo tanto, pudieron haber representado una amenaza para el régimen del sultán Abdul-Hamid, como se vio antes. En cuanto al argumento de que eran una amenaza para los Jóvenes Turcos, en 1908, cuando ocurrió la revolución, ni la población armenia ni ninguno de los partidos armenios eran considerados como tal. Al contrario, los armenios se alegraron cuando el ejército y los comandantes del CUP triunfaron. La caída del sultán y la restauración de la Constitución de 1876 era todo lo que querían los armenios y sus partidos, principalmente el Dashak. Los largos años de participación activa en el ala liberal del movimiento de los Jóvenes Turcos habían dado fruto por fin. Lewis describe el entusiasmo de esa hora: La larga noche del despotismo de Hamid había terminado; la aurora de la libertad había llegado. La Constitución había sido proclamada otra vez y se había dispuesto tener elecciones. Los armenios y los turcos se abrazaron en las calles. Uno asume, pues, que en 1908 los armenios, en general, y los miembros del Dashnak, en particular, no eran una amenaza mortal para el Imperio Otomano. ¿Qué hizo, pues, que los armenios aparecieran como tal?
Aunque es discutible que el régimen deba ser culpado por las masacres ocurridas en Adana en 1909, se cree que unos 30.000 armenios murieron. Estas masacres, más la creciente dureza del CUP y la continua inseguridad de los campesinos armenios frente a los deportaciones de los kurdos, afectaron las relaciones entre los Jóvenes Turcos y los armenios. Como escribe Roderic H. Davison, un erudito en el tema:

La desilusión de los armenios tuvo su causa en las masacres de 1909, las llamadas “vísperas de Cilicia”, en la Baja Armenia, por las cuales los Jóvenes Turcos deben compartir gran parte de responsabilidad. Problemas duraderos vinieron con las deportaciones de los turcos en la Gran Armenia . . . Kurdos itinerantes, o muhajirs, se apropiaron de las tierras de muchos armenios que habían sido masacrados o que habían huido en 1895. Cuando algunos de los refugiados regresaron en 1908, los kurdos no devolvieron las tierras . . . A partir de 1909 el vice cónsul francés describió la situación como “una guerra real entre los dos pueblos”.

La respuesta de los armenios fue pedir más autonomía en asuntos internos y más protección del gobierno contra las deportaciones de los kurdos. Rusia tomó nota de la situación, la cual revivió la Cuestión Armenia en 1912. Puesto que en 1907 la Gran Bretaña y Rusia habían llegado a un acuerdo para resolver disputas coloniales, Rusia tuvo la tentación, nuevamente, de extender su influencia. Para ello encontró apoyo entre el liderazgo armenio en la Asamblea Nacional, la cual quería usar a Rusia como ventaja estratégica contra el CUP. En febrero de 1914 se llegó a un acuerdo entre los Poderes Centrales (12) y el CUP, el cual pedía el nombramiento de un Inspector General europeo en las provincias orientales para que supervisara las relaciones intercomunitarias.
Uno puede imaginar la humillación e ira que sintieron los nacionalistas turcos con la propuesta interferencia. Parece que para 1907, el Dashnak, el principal partido político armenio, que decía tener 165.000 miembros, no había apoyado el separatismo o la ocupación rusa. Según escribe Davison, para ellos el problema se trataba de un reforma en el Imperio Otomano. No creían que la ocupación rusa les traería más libertad. Por el contrario, agrega, creían que era imposible que Armenia se separara por completo, tanto etnográfica como geográficamente, de Turquía.
Algo en las acciones de la víctima hace que el victimario, o sea el que ha sido provocado, reaccione con violencia. Si los armenios se hubieran portado de forma diferente o hubieran actuado de manera menos amenazadora, el CUP no hubiera optado por el genocidio en 1915. Si hubiera habido menos comunistas, banqueros, tenderos, periodistas o mendigos judíos, no hubiera habido un Holocausto. No se puede sugerir que la víctima fue un chivo expiatorio cuyos motivos y acciones no jugaron un papel en la violencia. Son tanto el victimario y la víctima, y las relaciones entre los dos, que deben ser examinads para lograr una explicación completa.
Nos acercamos a la verdad de por qué los armenios fueron vistos como una amenaza mortal, lo cual llevó al genocidio, cuando nos alejamos de las intenciones y supuestas provocaciones de las víctimas y examinamos, por un lado, el contexto de las relaciones entre armenios y turcos, y por el otro, las experiencias y el punto de vista de los victimarios. Tanto el contexto de las relaciones y los puntos de vista del CPU se vieron alterados drásticamente cuando, entre 1908 y 1915, los Jóvenes Turcos no pudieron tolerar más derrota en batallas o la secesión de minorías. El repliegue del imperio de Europa a Anatolia (13) no fue menos que un desastre militar y político para los turcos, pero tuvo consecuencias para los armenios. No solamente el repliegue aisló a esta minoría, sino que más serias produjo un cambio crucial que fue del pluralismo otomano a un estrecho nacionalismo turco en la perspectiva ideológica y la visión del mundo del partido dominante. Estas dos consecuencias dieron lugar a la creencia de que los armenios eran una amenaza mortal para la cual una respuesta mortífera se consideraba apropiada.
La pérdida de las provincias europeas destruyeron el carácter multinacional y multirreligioso del Imperio Otomano. El desastre empezó el 5 de octubre de 1908, unos tres meses después de la revolución de los Jóvenes Turcos, cuando Bulgaria proclamó su independencia, y al día siguiente, el 6, Austria anexó Bosnia y Herzegovina, la cual había ocupado desde 1878. En 1911, los italianos capturaron Libia y al año siguiente los estados de los Balcanes dejaron a Turquía fuera de Europa.
Para 1911 los turcos habían perdido unos 424.000 kilómetros cuadrados, de una área de aproximadamente 1’855.570 kilómetros cuadrados, y 5 millones de habitantes, de una población de unos 24 millones. Para 1913, Talaat y Enver ya estaban en el poder y el gobierno otomano había perdido el territorio que tenía en suelo europeo, excepto por una franja para proteger los estrechos de Estanbul.
Los griegos, y luego los cristianos de los Balcanes, se habían separado, lo que hizo que los armenios quedaran como una de las grandes minorías cristianas todavía bajo dominio otomano. Pero los armenios no eran cualquier minoría. Durante el siglo XIX pasaron por un desarrollo social, económico y político que se calificó de “renacimiento”. Se ha especulado que este desarrollo fue el factor que contribuyó a las masacres de 1894 a 1896, ocurridas bajo el régimen del sultán Abdul-Hamid.
Nuestra hipótesis es que el régimen del sultán cometió o toleró las masacres no para exterminar a los armenios sino para darles una lección, para que permanecieran en el lugar que les correspondía en el millet, para obstaculizar su renacimiento y para restaurar el antiguo orden. El arribo de los Jóvenes Turcos, con su énfasis en renovación y modernización, se mostraba como una oportunidad para los armenios, y estos pusieron sus energías en el nuevo régimen. Trágicamente, sin embargo, para 1912, a medida que el nuevo régimen se hizo menos tolerante y más nacionalista, la aptitud de los armenios para la modernización debió hacerlos aparecer como una amenaza para el CUP.
En resumen, la desastrosa pérdida de territorio y población que el imperio sufrió entre 1908 y 1912 aisló a los armenios e hizo que fueran más prominentes y se hicieran más visibles de lo que deseaban. Su continua movilidad social fue un reto a la supremacía turca y musulmana, aunque eso no fue todo.
Debe tenerse en cuenta que después de los desastres turcos, la mayoría de la población armenia no habitaba en cualquier parte de las regiones otomanas. Muchos de los campesinos armenios vivían al oriente de Anatolia, una región considerada el corazón de Turquía, colindante con Rusia, el enemigo tradicional de Turquía. Una población considerable de armenios vivia al otro lado de la frontera rusa. Estas circunstancias arrojan una preocupante mirada en dirección a los armenios.
Como dijo Lewis, los Jóvenes Turcos, en parte en respuesta a la crisis se vivió de 1908 a 1912, experimentaron y contribuyeron a engendrar un cambio en identidad e ideología que vino a reemplazar el otomanismo con el nacionalismo.
Así pues, hace notar al comienzo de su magistral libro:

Los turcos son un pueblo que habla turco y vive en Turquía. A primera vista, esto no parece ser algo de gran originalidad, ni de ningún contenido revolucionario. Sin embargo, la presentación y propagación de esta idea en Turquía, y su consiguiente aceptación por el pueblo turco como expresión de su identidad y estadidad, ha sido una de las mayores revoluciones de la era moderna, la cual ha implicado un rompimiento radical con las tradiciones sociales, culturales y políticas del pasado.

El argumento de Lewis aquí es que los herederos del Imperio Otomano —los Jóvenes Otomanos, los Jóvenes Trucos y el mismo Mustafá Kemal— tuvieron que presidir sobre una gran revolución no sólo de percepción e identidad sino política para crear una Turquía moderna. El genocidio de los armenios, el primero de la era moderna, fue un producto de esta revolución nacionalista y, a la misma vez, un paso en su desarrollo.
Para entender el nacionalismo turco y cómo pudo haber contribuido a gestar el genocidio, necesitamos verlo en contraste con dos tendencias que competían con él a la misma vez y que no germinaron: el otomanismo y el panislamismo. Durante el Tanzimat, el período de reforma del siglo XIX, la ideología dominante fue el otomanismo, cuyas doctrinas fueron plasmadas en la reforma constitucional de Midhat Pasha. El otomanismo aspiraba a mantener la integridad del imperio al permitirle más autonomía a los millets minoritarios y al incorporar ciertas reformas liberales y derechos para beneficio de todos los otomanos, sin importar su religión u origen nacional. Debe recordarse que bajo el sultán Abdul-Hamid el otomanismo tuvo que pasar a la clandestinidad, donde encontró apoyo entre minorías como los dashnaks armenios y el ala liberal del movimiento de los Jóvenes Turcos, que lideraba el sultán Sabahaddin.
El sultán había fracasado ya en su intento de preservar el imperio al apelar el panislamismo. Después de 1908, sin embargo, el panislamismo volvió a ponerse en boga, pero con la exitosa revuelta y la secesión de las nacionalidades musulmanas, especialmente en Albania y Macedonia, la esperanza de que el islam pudiera servir de base para una unidad imperial sufrió un serio revés. El golpe final al panislamismo, como dice Davison, fue la actitud de los árabes en el imperio. Cuando estos, que estaban del lado de la Gran Bretaña, empezaron a atacar a los goberantes turcos, se hizo claro que la unidad árabe era apenas un espejismo y que el panislamismo no tenía ningún valor como doctrina política. Los Jóvenes Turcos abandonaron el otomanismo y el panislamismo en 1914 y gravitaron hacia el nacionalismo turco.
Aunque sería Mustafá Kemal quien finalmente estableció las fronteras del estado turco, definiendo así el ámbito territorial y social del nacionalismo turco, esta doctrina, al principio, tomó la forma de ideología rebelde. Fue ésta una especie de panturquismo, llamado turanismo, que creía que todas las personas de habla turca tienen una cultura común y que deben unirse bajo una entidad política. Puesto que había gentes de habla turca en el Cáucaso ruso, Asia Central y Crimea, el turanismo, en teoría, aspiraba a convertirse en el Imperio Otomano, pero sin los molestos problemas que creaban las minorías que habitaban en él. En la práctica, el turanismo tenía pocas posibilidades de éxito, aunque su principal logro fue inculcarles a los turcos otomanos el orgullo de ser turcos. Por otro lado, sin embargo, quería hacerles ver a minorías como los armenios que tenían poco derecho a existir en una nueva entidad política.
Para ilustrar cómo el nacionalismo vino a ser usado en el contexto turco, sería constructivo citar a Gokalp. Uri Heyed, su biógrafo, observó que Gokalp esbozó en sus obras los cimientos de un estado nacional y moderno, que sería establecido después por Mustafá Kemal. Además de su influencia intelectual sobre Talaat y Enver, Gokalp fue miembro del Consejo Central y nombrado —cuando el CUP asumió el poder— para que investigara las condiciones de las minorías, especialmente los armenios. Heyed dice que una parte considerable de las ideas de Gokalp fueron aceptadas por el partido y puestas en práctica por el gobierno durante la Primera Guerra Mundial. En 1919, cuando las fuerzas aliadas entraron a Constantinopla, fue arrestado con otros miembros del CUP. Al ser llevado a juicio por su participación en el genocidio:

Gokalp negó que hubo masacres y explicó que los armenios habían sido muertos en una guerra entre ellos y los turcos, a quienes traicionado. No dudó para admitir, sin embargo, que había aprobado la expulsión de los armenios. El Tribunal Militar lo sentenció al exilio, junto con sus amigos.

En su análisis del pensamiento de Gokalp, Heyed dice que la República Turca trató de hacer realidad el ideal del pensador de una nación turca y homogénea. La mayoría de la población griega fue canjeada por turcos, y la mayoría de los armenios se fueron gradualmente de Turquía.
El nacionalismo turco reflejaba un paralelo con la doctrina de un nacionalismo integral, enunciada en Europa por figuras como Fichte y Herder. Según esa doctrina, las unidades primarias de acción histórica y política no son fuerzas sociales y económicas, como las clases, ni tampoco dinastías o personajes heroico, sino naciones que tienen sus orígenes en un tenue pero glorioso pasado. O sea, en una época de oro.
Por su parte, Gokalp vio en el pasado turco, no en el pasado otomano, una época de oro que antecedía a los orígenes del islam. Se jactaba de las hazañas militares de conquistadores turcos como Atila, Gengis Khan y Timur Babur. Comparó la era en que estos vivieron con la debilidad del presente. Hizo énfasis en las afinidades nacionales entre turcos y pueblos como los escitas (14), los sumerios (15) y los hititas (16), entre quienes encontró las mismas cualidades morales que distinguían a los turcos de otros pueblos: hospitalidad, modestia, lealtad, coraje y rectitud. Digna de mencionarse fue la actitud de los turcos hacia los pueblos dominados por estos. Aunque el amor de los turcos por su propio pueblo fue fuerte, no oprimieron a otras naciones. Agregó, sin embargo, que la espada del turco, así como su pluma, ha regocijado a los árabes, los chinos y los persas. El turco ha creado historia y un hogar para cada pueblo. Se engañó por el beneficio de otros. En un poema, Gokalp escribió:

Tuvimos éxito en conquistar muchos lugares, pero espiritualmente fuimos conquistados en todos ellos.

De acuerdo con Heyed, Gokalp definió a una nación como:

. . . una sociedad de gentes que hablan el mismo lenguaje, han tenido la misma educación, y están unidos por su ideal religioso, moral y estético. En resumen, tienen una cultura y religión comunes.

A primera vista esta definición es claramente inocua pero, en el contexto del pluralismo otomano —y teniendo como base religión, historia y ascendiente— excluye a los armenios y a otras minorías de la nueva entidad turca. Los griegos, los armenios, los sirios y los judíos que vivían en Turquía eran turcos de ciudadanía, pero no de nacionalidad. Seguían siendo un cuerpo extraño en el estado nacional turco.
Para Gokalp, la nación no es solamente una teoría analítica, sino un principio básico de acción moral. Como observa Heyed, según Gokalp, si se reemplaza la creencia en Dios por la creencia en nación, el nacionalismo se ha convertido en religión. Dicho en forma sencilla, el bien sin límite es el bien de la nación y, por lo tanto, todo está permitido.
Dada la identificación de Gokalp con el bien de la nación y la exclusión de los armenios de ella, se desprende entonces que él excluyó a los armenios de sus inquietudes morales. Es de destacar que esta clase de nacionalismo era bastante diferente al otomanismo, el cual no solamente les dio a las minorías un lugar en el imperio, sino que también definió ciertas responsabilidades morales y políticas que debían tener las clases gobernantes hacia ellas y todos los millets. Desde la novedosa perspectiva del nacionalismo, armenios, sirios y griegos vinieron a ser considerados como extraños. En este sentido puede decirse que los enunciados de Gokalp contribuyeron a la separación de los turcos de los armenios y de otras minorías, y prepararon el terreno para su destrucción.
En el momento más crítico de las deportaciones y las matanzas, el embajador estadounidense Henry J. Morgenthau le preguntó a Talaat por qué, supuestamente, los armenios que habían sido desleales no podían ser separados de los que habían sido leales. Talaat contestó: “Nos han reprochado por no distinguir entre el inocente y el culpable, pero eso fue totalmente imposible dado que los que fueron inocentes pueden ser culpables mañana”.
Morgenthau revela la actitud de Talaat en un fragmento aun más aterrador:

Un día Talaat hizo la petición más asombrosa que he oído. Por muchos años [las compañías aseguradoras] New York Life Insurance Company y Equitable Life of New York habían tenido clientes armenios. Talaat dijo: “Me gustaría que usted hiciera que las compañías aseguradoras americanas nos envíen una lista completa de los armenios que tienen pólizas de seguro. Prácticamente todos ya están muertos y no han dejados herederos para que cobren el dinero. Todo, por supuesto, va a Estados Unidos. El gobierno [turco] es el beneficiario ahora. ¿Puede hacerlo?”

El embajador se negó. El cambio fue sorprendente. Del tradicional concepto que tenían los musulmanes y los otomanos de los armenios como “pueblo del libro” —el millet que había jugado un papel vital incluso bajo el sultán Abdul-Hamid y el más leal—, se pasó al de Talaat, según el cual aquellos se habían convertido en un ente foráneo cuya única función, aun en la muerte, era explotarlos por su dinero.
La observación de Lewis de que los turcos eran un pueblo que habla turco y vive en Turquía tuvo profundas consecuencias para los que no eran turcos, especialmente, los armenios, pues ahora estos podían considerarse turcos también. La transformación de identidad en el grupo mayoritario implica un cambio en cómo éste considera a las minorías. Una vez los turcos se convierten en turcos, los nacionalistas como Gokalp, Talaat y Enver vieron a los armenios bajo un nuevo prisma, no como un millet antiguo, sino como extraños que no debían vivir entre ellos. Además, esos extraños eran considerados parte de un peligroso contexto: eran la última de las minorías cristianas que todavía permanecían dentro de las nuevas y preciosas fronteras. Había habido un despertar nacionalista entre los armenios, y en medio de la guerra se dijo que simpatizaban con el lado ruso. En 1896, el Dashnak confiscó el Banco Central de Turquía y en 1905 sus miembros trataron de matar a Abdul-Hamid. Con razón se consideraban a los armenios una amenaza mortal.
El genocidio de los armenios y otros cristianos, sin embargo, no puede ser visto como una reacción a la provocación armenia, sino como una respuesta a los drásticos cambios que se llevaron a cabo en el Imperio Otomano a finales del siglo XIX y al auge de la revolución nacional turca. Como muchos historiadores han observado, ésta tuvo éxito al crear una nueva Turquía, pero en su paso estuvo a punto de destruir a los armenios y a otros cristianos.

Genocide/Statement & Description

_____________________
(1) Millet es una palabra árabe que se refiere a las cortes que requerían minorías del Imperio Otomano, como cristianos y judíos, para manejar sus asuntos comunitarios de acuerdo a sus leyes religiosas. Se usó, también, para referirse a grupos religiosos minoritarios protegidos legalmente. (N. del T.)

(1) Ciudad al norte de Irak, sobre el río Tigris. (N. del T.)

(1) Capital de Irak. (N. del T.)

(1) Provincias al oriente de Turquía. (N. del T.)

(1) La ciudad, sobre el Mar de Marmara, se conoce como Estanbul desde 1930. (N. del T.)

(1) Al sur de Turquía. (N. del T.)

(1) Al norte de Siria. (N. del T.)

(1) Jefe de espías del sultán Abdul-Hamid. También se cree que fue director de la policía secreta turca. (N. del T.)

(1) Fundador de la República de Turquía. (N. del T.)

(1) Sociólogo, escritor, activista político y poeta nacido en 1876 y muerto en 1924. Su verdadero nombre era Mehmed Ziya. Adoptó su nombre de pluma, Gokalp (“héroe del cielo”), en 1908. Escribió varias obras de poesía, e historia y civilización turcas. (N. del T.)

(1) Hishnak son las siglas del Partido Democrático de Armenia. Dashnak son las siglas del Partido Revolucionario de Armenia. (N. del T.)

(1) Los Poderes Centrales fueron Alemania, Bulgaria, el Imperio Otomano y Austria-Hungría. (N. del T.)

(1) Término geográfico e histórico que designa la parte de Asia más cercana a Europa y que comprende la mayoría de la República de Turquía. La limitan el Mar Negro por el norte; Georgia por el nororiente; el Mediterráneo por el sur; y el Mar Egeo por el occidente. La región era conocida como Asia Menor en latín y como Mikrá Asia en griego. Su nombre turco es Anadolu. (N. del T.)

(1) Habitantes de Escitia, una antigua región que se extendió de la desembocadura del río Danubio, en el Mar Negro, hasta la frontera con China. Los escitios, que florecieron del siglo XVIII al IV a.C., fueron nómadas y diestros jinetes. Su idioma es el escitio, y se cree que se originaron al oriente de Siberia y luego se desplazaron hacia el sur de Rusia. (N. del.)

(1) Un pueblo no semita que habitó Sumeria, una región al sur de Mesopotamia en lo que es el actual Irak. Los sumerios existieron, aproximadamente, emtre el año 3500 a.C y el 2000 a.C. Fundaron ciudades-estados, de la cual la más famosa es Ur, y fueron conocidos por su cultura, arte y artesanías. (N. del T.)

(1) Un pueblo no semita que estableció un reino al norte de Anatolia a partir del siglo XVIII a.C. En su apogeo, en el sigo XIV, el reino se extendió hacia el sur de Siria, Palestina y la Alta Mesopotamia. Fueron una de las siete naciones que vivieron en Canaan en época de Moisés. Sus orígenes están rodeados de misterio. (N. del T.)

* * *

Apéndice

Armenia en la historia

Armenia fue una de las primeras civilizaciones en el mundo. Algunos especialistas consideran que Armenia es una de las primeras regiones donde se fundieron hierro y bronce, y donde se cree también que se cultivaron por primera vez cereales como centeno. Durante la mayoría de su historia estuvo bajo control, u ocupada, por fuerzas asirias, persas, romanas, mongoles, otomanas y rusas. Existieron estados independientes armenios por cortos períodos de tiempo, de los cuales el más grande —bajo control del rey armenio Tigranes el Grande— se extendió del Mar Caspio al Mediterráneo y partes de lo que es hoy Siria. Perdió su independencia con la invasión de los romanos en el año 69 a.C.
En varias épocas de su historia Armenia fue tratada severamente por los poderes extranjeros que la tenían sometida. La invasión de turcos nómadas de la dinastía selkuj en el siglo XI tuvo como consecuencia la primera emigración de armenios en gran escala. Otros períodos de emigración siguieron, especialmente durante el siglo XIX, cuando aquellos fueron perseguidos por gobernantes rusos y otomanos por exigir reformas políticas. Entre 1894 y 1896, cientos de miles de armenios fueron masacrados por fuerzas turcas. El gobierno ruso, aunque no tan represivo como el de los Jóvenes Turcos (1908-1918), clausuró escuelas armenias y ordenó la confiscación de propiedades de la Iglesia armenia. Una masacre de mayores proporciones ocurrió en el siglo XX, cuando el gobierno de los Jóvenes Turcos quiso trasladar a los armenios a Mesopotamia. Se estima que entre 1915 y 1923 más de un millón murió a consecuencia de esas medidas.
Armenia se declaró estado independiente en 1918, después del fracaso de la Federación Trascaucásica, que formó con Georgia y Azerbaiyán, la cual tuvo una corta existencia. En 1922, fue incorporada a la Unión de Repúblicas Socialistas Soviéticas (URSS) como parte de la República Socialista Soviética Transcaucásica y en 1936 se convirtió en una de las Repúblicas Socialistas Soviéticas.
A finales de la década de los ochenta el deseo de Armenia de independizarse se expresó en manifestaciones populares, a pesar de medio siglo de gobierno soviético. Los armenios aprovecharon la política de glasnost (1) del gobierno del presidente Mikhail Gorbachev para protestar públicamente por el estado del medio ambiente y exigir la anexión de Nagorno-Karabakh, un enclave armenio en Azerbaiyán (2). En 1988, un terremoto en Armenia mató unas 25.000 personas y dejó unas 400.000 sin hogar. Al año siguiente, el Soviet Supremo de Armenia declaró que Nagorno-Karabakh era parte de Armenia y proclamó la soberanía de la república sobre él. Los armenios votaron abrumadoramente el 21 de septiembre de 1991 para separarse de la URSS y dos días después el Parlamento armenio declaró la independencia de Armenia. En octubre, Levon Ter-Petrosyan, ex presidente del Supremo Soviet Armenio, se convirtió en el primer mandatario elegido popularmente al haber obtenido 80 por ciento de los votos. La nueva república se hizo miembro de las Naciones Unidas en 1992.
Las tensiones políticas aumentaron en el país en los primeros años de la independencia. Las dificultades surgidas después del terremoto de 1988, la guerra en Nagorno-Karabakh y el bloqueo económico que inició Azerbaiyán contra Armenia resultaron en una creciente oposición política al gobierno. El partido dominante, el Movimiento Nacional Armenio, que promueve un moderado programa de reforma económica y delimitación territorial, se vio retado por varios partidos políticos. El principal fue la Federación Armenia Revolucionaria (FAR), que ha existido durante más de cien años y que fue el partido dominante durante el breve período de independencia, que duró de 1918 a 1922. La FAR, que ejerce un gran dominio sobre las fuerzas militares armenias en Nagorno-Karabakh, rechaza las reformas económicas al mercado y aboga por un acercamiento con Rusia. El primer ministro Kosrov Arutyunyan fue forzado a renunciar en 1993 a causa de la presión política ejercida por la FAR y otros grupos de oposición. Un primer ministro interino, Hrant Bagratyan, fue nombrado en su lugar. También en 1993 las fuerzas armenias derrotaron al ejército azerbaiyani en varios enfrentamientos armados, que tuvieron como resultado que Armenia ganara control de Nagorno-Karabakh. Al año siguiente, Azarbaiyán inició una nueva ofensiva contra las fuerzas armenias allí, pero el número de víctimas y refugiados fueron mayores que los logros. Se acordaron varios ceses de fuego, algunos con Rusia actuando como intermediario, que fueron violados después. Mientras tanto, Armenia seguía siendo víctima de un embargo por parte de Azerbaiyán, a la vez que continuaba la escasez de electricidad, alimentos y combustible. En noviembre de 1994, el presidente Ter-Petrosyan anunció nuevas reformas para estabilizar la economía. Como respuesta a éstas, el Fondo Monetario Internacional aprobó el retiro de $25 millones de dólares en diciembre. Ese mes también, Ter-Petrosyan suspendió del Parlamento a la FAR, a la cual acusó de terrorismo, tráfico de drogas y asesinatos políticos.
A comienzo de 1995, Armenia controlaba 20 por ciento de territorio de Azerbaiyán. Fuerte presión para poner fin al conflicto vino de las compañías petroleras occidentales interesadas en construir un oleoducto del Mar Caspio a Turquía. El proyecto no podía iniciarse sin que se resolviera el conflicto en Nagorno-Karabakh, así pues, a mediados de 1996 la Organización de Seguridad y Cooperación en Europa (OSCE), con el apoyo de Estados Unidos, medió en la disputa. También a comienzo de 1995, el Parlamento empezó a trabajar en la ratificación de la nueva Constitución y en julio del mismo año, Armenia, como nación independiente, celebró las primeras elecciones legislativas y un referendo constitucional. Los ciudadanos emitieron dos votos: uno para elegir un diputado para uno de los 150 distritos electorales y el otro para votar por candidatos de listas de partido, de donde se eligieron 40 miembros adicionales. Los escaños parlamentarios se asignaron proporcionalmente a partidos que recibieron un mínimo de 5 por ciento del voto. El bloque republicano, del cual el Movimiento Nacional Armenio es el miembro más influyente, se llevó la mayoría de los escaños. La OSCE supervisó que las elecciones fueran limpias, pero fueron criticadas por los miembros de los partidos de oposición a los cuales se les negó participación en ellas. Después de las elecciones Ter-Petrosyan volvió a nombrar primer ministro a Hrant Bograytan.
La nueva Constitución fue aprobada por más de las dos terceras partes. Aunque los críticos decían que el nuevo documento le dio demasiado poder al presidente, los funcionarios del gobierno los refutaron con el argumento que, por el contrario, limitaba sus poderes a la vez que fortalecía una rama judicial independiente.

* * *

Los años de los Jóvenes Turcos

Los primeros años de la era de los Jóvenes Turcos, de 1908 a 1918, fueron el período más democrático de la historia otomana. Se restauraron la Constitución y el parlamento, y se formaron partidos que competirían por el liderazgo político. El más prestante de estos fue el CUP, fundado y apoyado por los Jóvenes Turcos, aunque también florecieron otros partidos. El Tanzimat (3) se democratizó, y la industria y la agricultura se desarrollaron y se crearon técnicas presupuestarias modernas. Sin embargo, la Primera Guerra de los Balcanes, en 1912, condujo a una revuelta dentro del CUP y a que un triunvirato, encabezado por Enver Pasha, intentara tomarse el gobierno. El triunvirato se aprovechó del desacuerdo que hubo entre los triunfantes estados de los Balcanes para controlar nuevamente a Edirne (4) en la Segunda Guerra de los Balcanes, en 1913. Inicialmente, el triunvirato trató de evitar participar en la Primera Guerra Mundial, que se inició en 1914, pero hubo varios factores que resultaron en que se hiciera una alianza con los Poderes Centrales y que Turquía entrara a la guerra ese año. Esos factores fueron: la oferta que hizo Alemania de recuperar provincias perdidas, la confiscación de navíos de guerra por parte de Gran Bretaña que estaban siendo construidos en ese país y las manipulaciones de Enver Pasha. Las fuerzas turcas tuvieron un buen desempeño en la campaña de Galipoli (5) y rechazaron y capturaron una fuerza expedicionaria en Al Kut, Iraq. Una campaña en la Península del Sinaí, cuyo objetivo era capturar el Canal de Suez y Egipto, fue infructuosa y condujo a que los británicos organizaran un revuelta en la Península Arabe. Con ayuda de los árabes, una fuerza británica apostada en Egipto invadió Siria y llegó al sur de Anatolia para cuando la guerra terminó. La derrota de una campaña militar al Caúcaso al comienzo de la guerra, encabezada por Enver Pasha, se debió más a mala organización y revueltas en las provincias orientales que a los rusos. Estos invadieron las regiones orientales y centrales de Anatolia en 1915 y 1916, hasta que la Revolución Rusa de 1917 puso fin a la campaña. Los efectos destructores de esas invasiones se vieron complicados por revueltas internas, hambruna, inanición y enfermedades. Unos 6 millones de personas de todas las religiones, o sea la cuarta parte de la población turca, murió o fue muerta, y la economía quedó destrozada.
Al final de la Primera Guerra Mundial, en 1918, y tras la rendición de Turquía, el gobierno turco fue colocado bajo la autoridad de las fuerzas Aliadas de ocupación, encabezadas por Gran Bretaña. En la Conferencia de Paz de París, celebrada en esa ciudad en 1919, participaron las naciones vencedoras de la contienda —Estados Unidos, Gran Bretaña, Francia, Italia y Japón— e impusieron sanciones a las derrotadas: los Poderes Centrales. Las provincias de los Balcanes y árabes serían cedidas y las áreas ocupadas por poblaciones predominantemente turcas en Anatolia oriental y central estarían bajo control extranjero o minoritario. Un ejército griego de considerable tamaño ocupó Izmir en 1922 e invadió el suroccidente de Anatolia, pero las masacres de la población turca a manos de los griegos hicieron que los Aliados les retiraran su apoyo a aquellos. En reacción al propuesto acuerdo de paz y a la invasión griega, el movimiento nacionalista turco surgió en Anatolia bajo el liderazgo de Mustafá Kemal. Durante la Guerra de Independencia Turca, entre 1918 y 1923, éste puso resistencia a las condiciones de los Aliados, expulsó a los griegos y a las fuerzas de ocupación británicas, francesas e italianas, e impuso varios términos, que se incluyeron en el Tratado de Lausana. En el tratado, firmado en esa ciudad suiza en 1923, se estipuló que las áreas turcas de Tracia y Anatolia oriental formarían su propio estado. Tras esta victoria se proclamó una república turca, con Ankara como capital. El gobierno del sultán, con sede en Estanbul, dejó de existir en 1923.
* * *
¿Quiénes son los kurdos?

Los kurdos son una tribu seminómada que habita en la región de Kurdistán, que bordea con Irán por el oriente, con Turquía por el norte, con Siria por el occidente y con el resto de Iraq por el sur. Su lengua es el kurdo, que pertenece a la rama de los idiomas indoeuropeos. La mayoría son sunitas —musulmanes ortodoxos— y viven en pueblos pequeños. Muchos se dedican a la cría de ovejas y su principal manufactura son alfombras finamente tejidas. Se dedicaron a la agricultura apenas recientemente, al integrarse a las sociedades de las regiones donde viven. Se estima que, a mediados de la década de los noventa, su población era de 26 millones. La mitad vive en Irán, Iraq y en varias de las repúblicas que pertenecieron a la Unión Soviética, incluyendo Armenia, Azerbaiyán, Georgia, Kazajstán, Kirguistán y Turkemenistán. Es difícil obtener una cifra exacta del total de la población kurda.
Los kurdos, que no son árabes, resistieron las invasiones de muchos pueblos guerreros, pero fueron subyugados por los seljuks en el siglo XI e integrados al Imperio Otomano en el XIV. En el siglo XIX muchos kurdos abogaron por un estado independiente. El Tratado de Sevres (6), que los Aliados firmaron con Turquía en 1920, le prometió a los kurdos un estado autónomo, pero la promesa no se cumplió. Mustafá Kemal se esforzó, por un lado, por forjar una identidad nacional turca fuerte pero, por el otro, reprimió la cultura e identidad kurdas, lo que llevó a una serie de alzamientos. Desde 1925 ha habido revueltas kurdas en Turquía, Irán e Iraq.
En 1970, después de más de ocho años de guerra casi continua, el gobierno iraquí le prometió a los kurdos autonomía en una región al noreste de Iraq. La puesta en práctica de esta promesa, en 1974, no satisfizo las expectativas de los kurdos y la contienda continuó. La rebelión de los kurdos fracasó en 1975, después de que Irán les retiró su apoyo, como parte de un acuerdo fronterizo con Iraq. En 1988 miles de kurdos fueron muertos, algunos con armas químicas, y cientos de pueblos kurdos fueron destruidos por tropas iraquíes después de que guerrillas kurdas apoyaron a Irán en la guerra de éste contra Iraq. En marzo y abril de 1991, inmediatamente después de la Guerra del Golfo Pérsico, hubo un levantamiento contra el régimen del presidente iraquí Saddan Hussein, en su mayoría de kurdos, pero los rebeldes kurdos, pobremente armados y sin experiencia, fueron fácilmente derrotados por fuerzas del gobierno. Más de un millón de kurdos se refugiaron en Turquía, Irán y las regiones montañosas del norte de Iraq. Se cree que muchos civiles murieron en la rebelión o al huir de Iraq. Los kurdos le exigían a Hussein que cumpliera la promesa de crear una región autónoma en ese país, pero las negociaciones con el gobierno no produjeron resultados. Para 1992, unos 600.000 kurdos permanecían en campos de refugiados en el norte de Iraq, bajo protección de la ONU. A pesar de que existe una región kurda en el norte de Iraq, que tiene la protección de ese organismo internacional, Irán, Siria y Turquía han tomado la posición de Iraq respecto a la región —éste tiene el derecho a ella— y, por lo tanto se oponen a que los kurdos tengan su propio estado. Los conflictos entre los grupos kurdos, el principal de los cuales es el Partido de los Trabajadores de Kurdistán, y el gobierno de Turquía, donde los partidos políticos kurdos se consideran separatistas, continuaron en la década de los noventa. En marzo de 1995, Turquía envió 35.000 soldados al norte de Iraq para acabar con los rebeldes kurdos y repelerlos hacia la frontera sureste con Turquía. El conflicto entre este país y las guerrilas kurdas empezó en 1984 y para 1995 había cobrado unas 150.000 víctimas.
_________________
(1) Vocablo ruso que significa “apertura” o “trasparencia”. Fue usado por frecuencia por Gorbachev para referirse a las actividades del gobierno soviético durante la segunda mitad de la década de los ochenta. (N. del T.)

(1) Azerbaiyán y Armenia sostuvieron una guerra por el territorio entre 1992 y 1994 en la cual murieron unas 30.000 personas. La mayoría de los habitantes del territorio eran cristianos. (N. del T.)

(1) Palabra turca que siginifica “reorganización” y que se refiere a una serie de reformas hechas en el Imperio Otomano que tuvieron como objetivo llevar a éste de un estado teocrático a uno moderno. (N. del T.)

(4) Ciudad situada cerca a la frontera con Grecia y Bulgaria que fuera capital del Imperio Otomano de 1365 a 1453. Se conoció en la antigüedad como Adrianópolis. Constantinopla, llamada luego Estanbul, la reemplazó como capital. (N.del T.)
(5) Se conoció también como la Campaña de los Dardanelos y se peleó en la península de Galipoli entre el 25 de abril de 1915 y el 9 de enero de 1916. Las tropas británicas y francesas se unieron para capturar a Constantinopla y así abrir una ruta marítima hacia Rusia. La batalla resultó en desastre para los Aliados, que sufrieron más de 52.000 bajas. Turquía tuvo unas 22.000. (N. del T.)
(6) El tratado también creó las naciones de Iraq, Siria y Kuwait. (N. del T.)

* * *
Mustafá Kemal Ataturk
(1881-1938)
Soldado, líder nacionalista y estadista que fundó la República de Turquía y fue su primer presidente, cargo que ocupó de 1923 a 1938. El nombre de Ataturk (“padre de los turcos”) le fue dado en 1934 por la Asamblea Nacional como tributo por su servicio a la nación turca. Hijo de un oficial de menor rango que luego se hizo comerciante de madera, Mustafá Kemal nació en Salónica (1) el 12 de marzo de 1881. A los 12 años fue enviado a academias militares en Salónica y Monastir (2), que eran focos de nacionalismo antiturco encabezados por griegos y eslavos. En 1899 entró a la academia militar en Constantinopla, de donde egresó con el grado de capitán en 1905.

Soldado y revolucionario

Después de graduarse, Ataturk fue enviado a Siria debido a las actividades secretas que llevó a cabo a nombre de los Jóvenes Turcos contra el gobierno autocrático del Imperio Otomano, del cual Turquía formaba parte. En 1906 fundó en Siria una sociedad secreta llamada Patria y Libertad, y al ser transferido a Salónica el año siguiente se hizo miembro del CUP, el cual encabezó la revolución de los Jóvenes Turcos, en 1908, contra el sultán Abdul-Hamid II. Sin embargo, no era parte del círculo íntimo del CUP y, por lo tanto, no jugó ningún papel en la revolución.
Ataturk luchó en Libia contra Italia en 1911 y 1912, y fue ascendido a mayor en noviembre de 1911. Organizó la defensa de los Dardanelos durante la Guerra de los Balcanes, que duró de 1912 a 1913, y sirvió de agregado militar en Bulgaria en octubre de 1913. Durante la Primera Guerra Mundial, en la cual Turquía se alió con Alemania, Ataturk ganó renombre como militar en la campaña de Galipoli, en 1915, cuyo papel crucial para rechazar la invasión de los Aliados. En 1916 sirvió en el Cáucaso y en Siria, donde se le puso al mando de una división del Segundo Ejército. El armisticio entre el Imperio Otomano y los Aliados se firmó en octubre de 1918 en la isla griega de Lemnos y Ataturk regresó en noviembre a Constantinopla, la capital, que se hallaba ocupada por tropas francesas y británicas.
El 15 de mayo de 1919 una división del ejército griego ocupó Izmir, en la costa sur de Anatolia, y Ataturk, que había sido nombrado inspector del Tercer Ejército en esa región, llegó el 19 (3) a Samsun, un puerto sobre el Mar Negro al nororiente de Ankara. Inmediatamente se dedicó a unir el movimiento nacionalista turco y a crear un ejército para la defensa. Primeramente, sin embargo, los nacionalistas tenían que combatir el régimen del sultán, con sede en Constantinopla, que parecía dispuesto a permitir la partición del territorio nacional. El 22 de junio Ataturk proclamó la Declaración de Amasya (4), en la cual llamaba a la resistencia nacional contra la invasión de fuerzas extranjeras. Para 1920, el gobierno había perdido credibilidad por estar de acuerdo con que los aliados ocuparan Constantinopla y haber firmado el Tratado de Sevres, el cual reconocía el control de los griegos sobre partes de Anatolia. Ataturk, mientras tanto, organizó un gobierno provisional en Ankara en abril de 1920. Después de derrotas iniciales, ganó batallas decisivas contra las fuerza griegas en Sakarya en agosto de ese año y en Dumlupinar en agosto de 1922. En septiembre de ese mismo año volvió a ocupar a Izmir.

Líder nacional

Una vez hizo frente a las amenazas externas, Ataturk dedicó su atención a las fuerzas conservadoras que rodeaban al sultán. El 1 de noviembre de 1922 fue abolido el sultanato y la república se proclamó el 19 de octubre de 1923, con Ataturk como su primer presidente. Fundó el Partido Popular en agosto de 1923, cuyo nombre fue cambiado a Partido Republicano Popular en 1924. Estableció también un régimen de un solo partido que, con la excepción de dos breves experimentos con partidos de oposición —de 1924 a 1925, y en 1930— existió hasta 1945.
Ataturk creó un estado moderno y secular, e hizo uso de su gran prestigio y carisma para llevar a cabo un vasto programa de reformas. Algunas de ellas fueron abolir el califato, que representaba la autoridad religiosa de los sultanes, así como otras instituciones islámicas; imponer códigos de leyes, vestido y calendarios al estilo occidental; usar el alfabeto latino; y abolir los estatutos que declaraban que el islam era la religión del estado. En 1926 se descubrió un complot para asesinarlo y, tras un juicio, 15 de sus rivales políticos, incluyendo varios líderes del CUP, fueron hallados culpables y ahorcados. Los demás fueron enviados al exilio.
Para 1931, la ideología del régimen, conocida como kemalismo, o ataturkismo, se definió en seis principios: republicanismo, nacionalismo, populismo, centralización de los poderes estatales en asuntos sociales y económicos, secularismo y la difusión de principios revolucionarios. Aunque gobernó como autócrata, su régimen se basó en una alianza entre las burocracias civiles y militares, la nueva burguesía y los propietarios de tierras. El principal objetivo de Ataturk había sido salvar a su pueblo de la humillación y transformar a Turquía en una nación moderna y para el siglo XX, lo cual persiguió con determinación total y delicadeza política. Su característica más esencial, quizás, fue su realismo político, con el cual pudo llevar a cabo reformas sin aventuras desastrosas y permitir que Turquía viviera en paz con sus vecinos.
Falleció de cirrosis hepática el 10 de noviembre de 1938 debido a su afición por el alcohol. Al día siguiente, la Asamblea Nacional eligió como segundo presidente del país a Ismet Inonu.
________________________
(1) Hoy se halla en Grecia y se conoce como Thessalonika. (N. del T.)

(1) Hoy se conoce como Bitola y forma parte de la República de Macedonia. (N. del T.)

(1) El 19 de mayo marca el comienzo no oficial de la Guerra de Independencia. (N. del T.)

(4) Capital de la provincia del mismo nombre, al norte de Turquía. (N. del T.)

* * *
Enver Pasha
(1881-1922)
Militar y líder nacionalista turco que fue Ministro de Guerra de Turquía y Comandante en Jefe otomano durante la Primera Guerra Mundial. Conocido también como Ismail Enver o Enver Bey, nació en Constantinopla el 23 de noviembre de 1881, se graduó de la escuela militar en 1902 y prestó servicio en Macedonia, donde combatió contra guerrillas nacionalistas griegas y búlgaras. En 1906, se hizo miembro de los Jóvenes Turcos, el grupo nacionalista secreto conocido oficialmente como CUP. Emergió como el principal héroe de la revolución que acaudillaron aquellos en 1908, la cual restauró el Parlamento, que el sultán Abul-Hamid II había suspendido en 1878.
Fue enviado como agregado militar a Berlín en 1909, pero regresó ese mismo año a aplastar la contrarrevolución. Luchó con distinción contra Italia en Libia entre 1911 y 1912, y regresó a Constantinopla durante la desastrosa Guerra de los Balcanes, para participar en un segundo golpe de estado encabezado por el CUP en enero de 1913. Ese golpe de estado derrocó la coalición de la Unión Liberal. En 1913 volvió a capturar Edirne, que Bulgaria ocupó ese mismo año durante cuatro meses. Nombrado Ministro de Guerra en 1914, Pasha tuvo la misión de reformar el ejército, que se hallaba desmoralizado. En agosto de ese año ayudó a negociar la alianza de Turquía con Alemania y durante la Primera Guerra Mundial concibió un plan que benefició la estrategia de Alemania. Sin embargo, sus sueños de un imperio que incluiría a todos los pueblos turcos o a todos los pueblos musulmanes terminaron en fracaso. Después de la victoria Aliada al final del conflicto, en 1918, huyó a Alemania y luego a Asia Central, donde trató de organizar la resistencia musulmana contra los soviéticos. El 4 de agosto de 1922, a los 40 años de edad, fue muerto en Tayikistán en un combate con fuerzas soviéticas. Sus restos fueron llevados a Turquía en 1996.
* * *
Sultán Abdul-Hamid II
(1842-1918)

Sultán otomano de Turquía entre 1876 y 1909, hijo de Abdul-Majid I. Sucedió a su hermano Murad V, que había sido declarado mentalmente incompetente. Durante el segundo año de su gobierno Rusia le declaró la guerra a Turquía en respuesta a las acciones de ésta en los Balcanes. En 1876, promulgó la primera Constitución otomana. Sufrió desastrosos reveses militares y, según los términos del tratado de San Stefano (1), firmado en 1878 entre Rusia y el Imperio Otomano, se le privó de la mayoría de sus posesiones en Europa.
Aficionado a la ópera, fue el trigésimotercer sultán del imperio y el útimo en gobernar con poder absoluto. Su gobierno vio la decadencia de éste. A pesar de las masacres de armenios que ocurrieron en Turquía entre 1895 y 1896, Abdul-Hamid no intervino, haciendo caso omiso a las protestas internacionales. El descontento interno con su despótico gobierno llevó a que los Jóvenes Turcos adquirieran influencia y en 1909 fue depuesto por este gobierno y enviado al exilio a Salónica, decisión que fue bien recibida por la población. Su hermano Mehmed V fue nombrado sultán. Regresó a Constantinopla en 1912, donde pasó sus últimos días escribiendo sus memorias y dedicado a la carpintería, su pasión de toda la vida. Murió en febrero de 1918 en el palacio de Beylerbeyi, en aquella ciudad, donde aún se pueden ver los muebles que hizo.
______________________
(1) Pueblo al occidente de Estanbul conocido hoy como Yesilkoy. (N. del T.)
* * *
Declaraciones

Durante los últimos ochenta años, muchos líderes mundiales, así como organizaciones gubernamentales e internacionales, han emitido declaraciones sobre el genocidio de los armenios y cristianos en 1915. En 1916, el presidente estadounidense Woodrow Wilson fue uno de los primeros en pronunciarse al respecto. El Congreso de los Estados Unidos, y otros mandatarios de ese país, han emitido también varias declaraciones desde esa fecha y han conmemorado el aniversario de la tragedia.
Mustafá Kemal Ataturk, fundador de la República de Turquía, condenó también a los autores de las atrocidades. Otras entidades que han emitido resoluciones y comisionado reportes han sido el Parlamento Europeo, las Naciones Unidas, el Congreso Mundial de Iglesias y la Duma rusa (1).
En 1919, un tribunal militar turco juzgó y sentenció a los líderes que organizaron la destrucción de las poblaciones armenias y cristianas del Imperio Otomano. Se ha dicho que esos juicios han servido de precedente a los de Nuremberg (2). El genocidio ha sido reconocido como un “crimen contra la humanidad”. Que estas atrocidades jamás se olviden y, lo que es más importante, que nunca ocurran otra vez.

* * *
Las masacre de 1915 nos han afectado profundamente a todos y juntos lloramos la pérdida de tantas vidas inocentes.
Presidente estadounidense William Jefferson Clinton, 24 de abril de 1994

[La tragedia] no se entiende en términos humanos. Los designios de Dios no son nuestros designios. Todo ahora es un misterio, pero en el cielo encontraremos las respuestas a nuestros muchos porqués.
Sobreviviente de la masacre

. . . Es probablemente una de las peores tragedias que le ha podido ocurrir a un grupo. Y no hubo juicios como los de Nuremberg.
Presidente estadounidense Jimmy Carter, 29 de mayo de 1978

Nos habíamos vuelto como animales y, como animales, no teníamos muchos sentimientos. Nos habíamos resignado a llorar, a tener hambre, a caminar. Sabíamos que ese era nuestro destino. Después de un tiempo ya no tenía miedo porque no me quedaban sentimientos. Sólo nos preocupaba hacia dónde caminábamos y dónde podíamos encontrar comida y agua.

. . . Tengo confianza de que el pueblo de Estados Unidos se conmoverá para ayudar a esas comunidades, que han sido afligidas por la guerra, el hambre y las enfermedades . . . las afligidas comunidades siria y armenia.
Presidente estadounidense Woodrow Wilson, 31 de agosto de 1916

No es posible borrar de la memoria el genocidio del cual ustedes han sido víctimas. Debe grabarse en la memoria humana y este sacrificio debe servir de lección a la juventud. A la misma vez, es una lección en la voluntad para sobrevivir. Así todos van a saber . . . que esos pueblos no pertenecen al pasado, sino que son parte del presente y que tienen un futuro.
Presidente francés Francois Mitterand, 6 de enero de 1984

. . . No hay duda de que este crimen fue planeado y ejecutado por razones políticas. Se dio la oportunidad de deshacerse de la raza cristiana del suelo turco.
Sir Winston Churchill

Estos remanentes del antiguo partido de los Jóvenes Turcos, que debieron haber respondido por las vidas de millones de ciudadanos cristianos que fueron expulsados despiadadamente de sus hogares en masa y masacrados, han vivido intranquilos bajo el gobierno republicano. Hasta la fecha han vivido del saqueo, el robo y el soborno, y han hecho caso omiso a la idea o la sugerencia de dedicarse al trabajo útil y ganarse la vida con el honesto sudor de la frente.
Mustafá Kamal Ataturk, 22 de enero de 1926

Cuando las autoridades turcas dieron las órdenes para esas deportaciones, estaban dando simplemente la orden de ejecución a toda una raza. Ellos entendieron bien esto y, en conversaciones conmigo, no hicieron ningún esfuerzo para ocultarlo . . . Creo firmemente que en la historia de la humanidad no existe un episodio tan horroroso como éste.
Henry Morgenthau, embajador de los Estados Unidos en Turquía (1913-1916)

Lo que se les pide a ustedes es que protejan y cuiden a cualquiera de las comunidades sirias y armenias que vivan en sus territorios y fronteras y entre sus tribus, y que las ayuden en todos sus asuntos y las defiendan como ustedes se defenderían y defenderían sus propiedades y sus hijos, y que les den todo lo que necesiten, ya se hayan radicado allí o vayan de lugar en lugar, pues son los pueblos protegidos por los musulmanes, de quienes dijo el profeta: “Quien les quite siquiera una soga, yo seré su adversario el Día del Juicio”.
Al-Husayn Ibn Ali, en carta dirigida a los príncipes Faisal y Abd al-Aziz al-Jarba (3).
____________________
(1) La Cámara Baja del Parlamento ruso. (N. del T.)

(1) Ciudad alemana donde, entre 1945 y 1949, se juzgaron a los oficiales y funcionarios nazis que participaron en la masacre de judíos durante la Segunda Guerra Mundial. (N. del T.)

(3) Al-Husayn Ibn Ali fue sharif de Mecca de 1908 a 1917, cuando escribió el documento. (N. del T.)

BIBLIOGRAFÍA

- Ahmed, Feroz. The Young Turks. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969.
- Andoian, Aram. The Memoirs of Naim Bey. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1920.
- Arlen, Michael J. Passage to Ararat. New York, New York: Ballantine Books, 1975.
- Armenian National Committee. The Armenian Genocide 1915-1923. Glendale, California. Armenian Educational Foundation, 1988
- Davison, Roderic H. Turkey. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1968.
- Heyd, Uriel. Foundations of Turkish Nationalism. London: Luzac, 1950.
- Hovannisian, Richard. The Armenian Genocide in Perspective. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 1986.
- Hovannisian, Richard. Armenia on the Road to Independence. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1967.
- Hovannisian, Richard. Reform in the Ottoman Empire, 1856-1876. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1963.
- Lewis, Bernard. The Emergence of Modern Turkey. London: Oxford University Press, 1961.
- Melson, Robert “Provocation Or Nationalism,” in The Armenian Genocide in Perspective, ed. Richard Hovannisian, New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 1986.
- Morgenthau, Henry. Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story. Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1918.
- Sassounian, Harut. The Armenian Genocide: Documents and Declarations, 1915-1995. Los Angeles, California: Abril Printing, 1996.
- Toynbee, Arnold J. The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire. London: H.M.S.O., 1916.
-Toynbee, Arnold J. A Summary of Armenian History. London: H.M.S.O., 1916.

Please Click here Statment @ Discriptione

* * *

The Gospel of Thomas and Early Stages in the Development of the Christian Wisdom Literature Alexei Siverstev

Wed, 5 Oct 2011 21:14:39 -0400

Abstract: This work addresses the theological background of the Gospel of Thomas and its relationship to personified wisdom tradition on the one hand, and to the Syriac Christian tradition of the divine redeemer on the other. The Gospel of Thomas shares a number of unique characteristics with the Syriac literature of the second and third centuries C.E., such as interest in personal asceticism as a means to attain divine wisdom, personal deification, and view of Christ as a state of being most clearly expressed in the man Jesus, but also accessible to his followers. All of these characteristics distinguish the Gospel of Thomas from the personified wisdom tradition, which in some cases explicitly rejects them (the Gospel of John). On the other hand, the Gospel of Thomas is organized as a collection of independent sayings (logoi sophon) pronounced by Jesus, while the third-century Syriac writings usually have a poetic or semipoetic form (The Hymn of the Pearl, the Odes of Solomon). In addition, despite significant similarities, the theological message of the Syriac literature appears more "mature" and articulated than the doctrine of the Gospel of Thomas. One may conclude that the Gospel of Thomas belongs to the early stages in the development of Christian doctrine that would eventually evolve into a full-fledged theology in the later Syriac texts. Its message was either redefined in Syriac tradition of the divine redeemer or rejected as a result of adaptation of personified wisdom tradition by the mainstream church.
Introduction
The attempt to analyze early Christian writings as a part of the wider genre of wisdom literature has led to a major breakthrough in the field during the last several decades or so. The idea that at least some of the earliest parts of the gospels belong to the genre of wise sayings now has [End Page 319] considerable support among scholars and has already been used as a methodological tool in a number of form-critical studies. 1 Among other texts, the Gospel of Thomas has received a great deal of attention precisely because its genre has been recognized as that of wisdom sayings (logoi sophon). 2
On the whole, there is a strong tendency in modern scholarship to distinguish between at least two stages in the formation of sayings traditions in early Christianity, and their respective theological backgrounds. The best summary of the first stage can be found in Helmut Koester's words about the theological message of the Gospel of Thomas:
Faith is understood as belief in Jesus' words, a belief which makes what Jesus proclaimed present and real for the believer. The catalyst which caused the crystallization of these sayings into a "Gospel" is the view that the kingdom is uniquely present in Jesus' eschatological preaching and that eternal wisdom about man's self is disclosed in his words. 3
In general this first stage can be characterized by the absence of explicit identification of Jesus with personified Wisdom, as well as by the lack of apocalyptic or judgmental pronouncements against "this generation." It tends to be edifying in its content, using moral admonitions as the major means of conveying its religious message. The "mythological" stratum of this stage is somewhat undeveloped, at least in comparison with the second one.
During the second (polemical) stage, a number of sayings were introduced that imply identification of Jesus with Sophia, thus developing a functional unity between the two of them which had already existed in potentia at the first stage. The overall tendency of this layer would be towards the creation of a "mythological" image of a supernatural Jesus, who is identified with the heavenly Wisdom rejected by "this generation." This tendency is accompanied in turn by a much more bitter and pointed [End Page 320] polemic against society, the polemic heavily loaded with apocalyptic overtones and directly connected to the rejection of Jesus and his disciples. 4
In other words, the second stage exemplifies one of the variations of the so-called wisdom myth widely attested in other writings of the Second Temple period and early rabbinic Judaism. This theology, however, appears to be secondary in our particular case, and largely resulted from the unfavorable circumstances in which early Christian communities found themselves. This leaves us with the obvious question as to the nature of the original theology of the first layer of the Christian sayings tradition. Unfortunately in most of the studies there is no clear sense of what exactly this theological message could have been. One has the sense that the first stage did not have any particular "mythological" background comparable to that of the second stage, but rather is to be viewed as merely a radical preaching of moral values.
The goal of this paper is to show that the Christian sayings tradition in itself had a profound "mythological" significance. This mythology was, however, significantly different from what we call "the personified wisdom theology," and had a life and history of its own. It would be useful to refer now to another group of writings which has striking similarities with the Gospel of Thomas and which is often used as a decisive proof for its later provenance, namely, the Syriac Christian texts of the second-third centuries C.E.
Recent decades have witnessed significant leaps in the study of Syriac Christianity. While some of the most daring expectations proved to be unjustified, the pool of Syriac literature still remains a gold mine for the student of early church history. It had been noticed long ago that, until well into the fourth century, the area of eastern Syria (meaning first and foremost Edessa and its neighborhood) remained out of the scope of "mainstream" orthodox Christianity. The predominant influence in that area came from such "heretical" groups as Gnostics, Manicheans, Encratites, and Jewish Christians. A considerable number of Syriac Christian texts stem from this very period, roughly confined between the late [End Page 321] second and early fourth centuries C.E. Hence there is reasonable hope that one can find in this literature early theological vestiges, otherwise purged from the main body of Christian writings. 5
The likelihood of finding interesting data significantly increases when one approaches the Gospel of Thomas. According to the dominant scholarly view, the Gospel of Thomas in its present form was composed in Syria, while the exact place or even region still remains an enigma. Thomas appears to be the apostolic figure particularly revered in the churches of Syria, while the name Judas Thomas or its redundant form Didymos Judas Thomas is attested only in the East. It seems that the very identification of the disciple named Thomas with Judas occurs only in Syriac tradition, but holds there with remarkable persistence. 6
In addition to these general considerations, G. Quispel was able to identify parallels between the Gospel of Thomas and the Diatessaron of Tatian, conventionally dated around the end of the second century C.E. In a number of readings, the two works agree with each other against the canonical gospels, thus pointing to a common source or mutual influence. 7 While the Diatessaron remains the most convincing source for Syriac parallels to Thomas, Quispel also found traces of the gospel in several other Syriac texts of the third and fourth centuries. 8 In addition, there have been various attempts to prove that the original language of Thomas' composition was Syriac. As a whole they have not been successful, but there is still a possibility that some expressions in the text are borrowed from Semitic languages. 9
Indeed the similarities between the Gospel of Thomas and Syriac Christian writings are so significant that they are often considered to provide [End Page 322] grounds for a late dating of the former (third century C.E.). 10 Without going into the details of the whole debate, there is at least one indication that demonstrates a diachronic rather than synchronic relationship between these ideas and theological notions. The similarities between the Gospel of Thomas and the Syriac literature lay in the realm of content, rather than in their formal characteristics. In terms of form, in fact, the Gospel of Thomas is absolutely distinctive when viewed against the background of the Syriac literary output.
The Gospel of Thomas represents a collection of random sayings strung together without any single unifying plan underlying the composition as a whole. The closest parallels are, of course, the biblical book of Proverbs and the mishnaic tractate Pirke Avot. Similar collections appear in the book of Ben-Sira, the Wisdom of Ahiqar, and recently published Qumran sapiential texts. However, this genre, which is amply attested in Hebrew and early Aramaic literary tradition, is virtually unknown in Syriac literature. The only exception is the so-called Letter of Mara bar Serapion. 11 Still, this document has always stood somewhat apart from the "mainstream" of the Syriac literary tradition. It is conventionally dated to the second century C.E., thus serving as one of the earliest examples of Syriac literary production (the bulk of which stems largely from the late second-fourth centuries C.E.). On the other hand, this genre is never attested again later on. Thus the "Letter of Mara bar Serapion" shows that, first, collections of random sayings were not unknown in the Syriac Orient during the second century C.E., and, second, that they were relatively quickly replaced by other more elaborated genres.
The most prominent of these genres was poetry. Its earliest examples (the Hymns of Solomon, and the Hymn of the Pearl) are dated to approximately the third century C.E., and thus possibly reflect the next stage in the development of Syriac literature. While no considerable research has been done so far in respect to the antecedents of Syriac poetry per se, studies of contemporary Hebrew poetry have demonstrated its considerable indebtedness to earlier wisdom texts to such a degree that one can speak of direct continuity between them. 12 We can easily imagine that much the [End Page 323] same development took place in Syriac literature at approximately the same period of time. This would explain in turn both the similarities in content and the differences in structure between the Gospel of Thomas and later Syriac works. They stood on a direct chronological line in terms of formal literary development, while displaying significant conservatism in terms of their content. Based on these observations, it would be probably safe to maintain that the Gospel of Thomas took its final shape in the second century C.E. in about the same time when the "Letter of Mara Bar Serapion" was written.
Thus we have basically two traditions whose affiliation with the Gospel of Thomas have been recognized already in modern scholarship. One of them is the Personified Wisdom tradition, which first had been developed in the Second Commonwealth Jewish literature and later accepted by mainstream Christianity. The origins of an "impersonal divine Redeemer" tradition are not so clear, but it is abundantly reflected in the Syriac Christian writing stemming from the second-third centuries C.E. 13 The goal of what follows is to find an appropriate place for the Gospel of Thomas vis-à-vis both of them.
The Image of the Human Body
Early Syriac Christianity has long been credited as a cradle of later monasticism in some of its most extreme forms. 14 Tatian, who is the earliest representative of the Syriac tradition known to us, appears in the patristic literature as a founder of the Encratite heresy, famous for its practices of self-mortification. While it is not altogether clear whether he indeed started any significant movement of his own, Tatian definitely should be seen as one of the typical examples of Syriac ways of thinking, shocking as they were to his Western "orthodox" neighbors.
In his apologetic treatise Oratio ad Graecos, Tatian gives the following [End Page 324] explanation of the ultimate function of human bodies: "The bond of flesh is soul, but it is the flesh which contains the soul. If such a structure is like a shrine, God is willing to dwell in it through the spirit, his representative" (or. 16.21-24). In other words, the function of the human body is to become a dwelling place for God, to accept God inside.
A similar approach and terminology can be found in another Syriac text of the third century C.E., the Acts of Thomas. In his sermon addressed to a woman of high standing, Thomas summarizes his message in the following words: "Acquire purity, and take unto you temperance, and strive after humility, for by these three cardinal virtues is typified this Messiah, whom I preach. For purity is the temple of God, and everyone who guards it, guards His temple, and the Messiah dwells in him." 15 Predictably enough, the woman asks Thomas to pray so that God "may come upon me, and that I may become a holy temple and He may dwell in me." 16 Severe mortification of the body and asceticism become the main practical implications of this quest for holiness for both "Thomas" and Tatian. According to the church fathers, Tatian was famous for his repudiation of wine and any kind of sexual union between men and women. The dissolution of marriages and condemnation of what are considered to be lawful sexual relations becomes the predominant (to the point of obsession) theme of the Acts of Thomas.
The physical means for turning one's body into God's "dwelling place" presupposed a belief in physical bodily transformation. At the same time, they presupposed the belief in some kind of realized eschatology, in which the bodily transformation should occur here and now, and not in some indefinite eschatological future preached by the mainstream church. Determined asceticism of this kind was deemed to bring an immediate redemption of a personal nature. It is interesting that, in Syriac literature, the idea of communal eschatology remains undeveloped pretty much through the end of the fourth century, and is completely replaced by the theme of immediate salvation through practices of individual self-mortification.
The other imagery which bears exactly on the same theme of bodily transformation deals with the idea of "stripping down" one's old body. In his article, "The Garments of Shame," J. Z. Smith has persuasively argued for the baptismal setting of this motif. 17 It seems, however, that the [End Page 325] baptismal application of this image presupposed some deeper theological explanation.
When Tatian describes his conversion to Christianity, he uses a remarkable phrase to describe his final decision to become a Christian: "Now that I have apprehended these things I wish to strip myself just as children" (or. 30.16-17). 18 For Tatian the desire to "strip myself just as children" came as a result of his intellectual conversion, when his soul was "taught from God" upon reading the Bible. He talks about his conversion in terms of obtaining divine wisdom: "I was persuaded because of . . . the easily intelligible account of the creation of the world, the foreknowledge of the future, the remarkable quality of the precepts and the doctrine of a single ruler of the universe" (or. 30.7-11). One cannot fail to notice that "stripping down one's body" becomes the final stage in the process of intellectual quest for divine wisdom. Understanding of the divinely ordained universal order was traditionally one of the main goals in wisdom literature, and as such it is reflected in Tatian's words. Thus the wisdom roots of his behavioral experience of "stripping himself down" become all the more obvious. 19
The same blend of the quest for divine wisdom and the imagery of "stripping oneself down as a child" constitutes one of the most prominent themes in the Gospel of Thomas: [End Page 326]
His disciples said: "When will you become revealed to us and when shall we see you?"
Jesus said: "When you disrobe without being ashamed and take up your garments and place them under your feet like little children and tread on them, then [will you see] the son of the living one, and you will not be afraid." (Thom. 37)
The double parallelism between this saying and Tatian's phrase (disrobing and children imagery) is obvious. In both cases "garments" apparently refer to human bodies which are to be changed in order to reach a new level of intimacy with God. For Tatian, however, this act stands as a part of the ascetic rendering his body into a suitable temple for God on the one hand, and as a result of true understanding of God's wisdom on the other. The negative attitude towards the body lurks behind another saying from Thomas, which exhibits various similarities to saying 37:
Mary said to Jesus, "Whom are your disciples like?"
He said, "They are like children who have settled in a field which is not theirs. When the owners of the field come, they will say, 'Let us have back our field.' They undress in their presence in order to let them have back their field and to give it back to them." (Thom. 21)
The same basic imagery of children and undressing is present here, as in the saying above, but now we have a conflict between children (disciples of Jesus) and the owners of the field. No matter how much one would like to read Gnostic tendencies into this story (owners as archons, etc.), it is clear that disrobing here means giving away the regular human body to the one to whom it belongs, i.e., to the rulers of this world. In saying 37 the "disrobing just as children" was required for seeing Jesus without fear, meaning that the revelation is conditional upon physical change of oneself. It seems that we are very close to Tatian's idea of converting one's body into a pure temple through stripping away the old one by mortification of the flesh.
For Thomas as well as for Tatian, bodily transformation comes as a significant part of the quest for wisdom. The revelation of Jesus which the disciples seek in saying 37 apparently means revelation of wisdom. But in saying 4 the notion of wisdom is even more explicitly connected to a child: "Jesus said, 'The man old in days will not hesitate to ask a small child seven days old about the place of life, and he will live. For many who are first will become last, and they will become one and the same.'" In other words, becoming a child is crucial for obtaining divine wisdom, and as we have seen "to become a child" means for Thomas [End Page 327] "to strip away one's body" or "to disrobe." 20 The same holds true for Tatian.
One can find a kind of synthesis for everything that has been described here in Ode 25 from the Odes of Solomon, originating from third-century Syria:
And I was covered with the covering of thy (God's) spirit;  And I removed from me the garment of skins.
For thy right hand lifted me up,  And removed sickness from me.
Here the "garment of skins" is replaced by "the covering of God's spirit," signifying the dwelling of God in a purified human body. Two systems of images, disrobing oneself and rendering oneself into a pure temple, are thus correlated. There is no mention of wisdom in this poem, but in other odes of the same cycle the quest for God's wisdom plays a paramount role.
It seems that at this level all these texts share the same theological pattern. The human body is seen as a potential temple for God. The procedure of rendering it a temple is symbolically designated as "disrobing" and "becoming a child." The quest for God is paralleled by the quest for God's wisdom, the two of them being different sides of the same coin. Thus, accepting God inside oneself means automatically partaking of God's wisdom. It is not clear, however, whether the demands for rigid asceticism which were so prominent for Tatian had been already present in the Gospel of Thomas, or represent a secondary development of earlier ideas.
The position of the Gospel of Thomas vis-à-vis asceticism is not easy to determine. On the one hand, there are a number of sayings that discourage the disciples from following conventional ascetic practices (Thom. 6 and 14). On the other hand, an equal number of sayings endorse fasting, even if only under certain circumstances (Thom. 27 and 104). The famous saying about becoming "passers-by" (Thom. 42) can be read as also referring to some sort of asceticism and/or itinerancy. As a whole, the sayings of Thomas may already reflect two stages in the development of one and the same tradition. At the first stage, fasting was frowned upon as a conventional means of common piety (like prayer and giving alms), while at the second stage it became increasingly viewed as a means of [End Page 328] bringing down the divine presence and fulfilling realized eschatology on the individual level. With Tatian and his followers the latter tendency reaches its acme. It advocates ascetic destruction (or radical transformation) of this world on the scale of individual human beings in pretty much the same way as the second layer of Q envisions and prophesies its apocalyptic destruction on the scale of human society. This, however, means that ascetic practices were read into the original tradition, rather than presupposed by it. I believe that here we have a clear example of the development of this basic theological notion over the course of two centuries. We see how the more "primitive" theology of Thomas develops in the early Syriac literature without, however, losing its original kernel, but rather being interpreted in new terms. 21
The difference between this motif and the view of Jesus as personified wisdom needs to be stressed. Our texts are much more interested in the followers of Jesus than in Jesus himself. The personality of Jesus is very blurred, while the main goal of all of these texts is to provide readers with the means to attain divine wisdom and accept God inside themselves. Jesus is important as long as he can give his followers instructions about how to achieve this realized eschatology. He becomes the perfect example of a pure temple in which God dwells, and the goal of his disciples is to follow this example. On the other hand, it is the individual uniqueness of Jesus which is crucial for "Jesus as personified wisdom" tradition. He actually is the personified wisdom of God, and the goal of his followers is to hearken to his teachings, not to become his alter ego. 22
Jesus is not Unique: Twins of Jesus
One of the most striking characteristics of the Acts of Thomas is that it develops in some detail the idea of Thomas as Jesus' twin. Most clearly the relationship between the two of them is highlighted in the description [End Page 329] of Thomas' first successful attempt at ruining a marriage on his way to India. The story runs like this:
And when all had gone out and the doors were shut, the bridegroom lifted up the veil of the bridal chamber, that he might bring the bride to himself. And he saw the Lord Jesus in the likeness of the apostle Judas Thomas, who shortly before had blessed them and departed from them, conversing with the bride, and he said to him: "Did you not go out before them all? How are you now found here?" But the Lord said to him: "I am not Judas who is also Thomas, I am his brother." 23
Afterwards Jesus preaches abstention from sexual intercourse to the couple and converts them to Christianity. In this story he is almost explicitly identified with Thomas. The identification becomes even more pronounced if we recall that, in all other cases, it is Thomas who carries out similar tasks, and Jesus is never explicitly mentioned again. At the same time, the preaching of Jesus is not different in its content from that of Thomas, while one could reasonably expect it to be so, if the rigid distinction between Jesus and his disciple were indeed maintained. It seems that Jesus in particular is introduced in the way he is during the first mission of Thomas to foreshadow the following missions and to suggest that also in them he is present behind Thomas' preaching. At any rate, the literary ambiguity in the interactions between these two main characters speaks for itself, and it is intended at the very least to prevent the reader from drawing clear borders between the two of them.
The theme of Jesus' twin becomes even better articulated in the so-called Hymn of the Pearl, included in the Acts, but apparently predating it as an independent composition. The hymn describes in a highly symbolic way the whereabouts of a messenger (Jesus? Thomas?), having been sent by his royal parents to find and capture the pearl, held by a snake. The messenger, however, forgets his royal origins and gets captured in the low world. His family sends him a letter which awakens him and allows him to fulfill his mission. Upon capturing the pearl, the messenger makes his way back, and is welcomed by his parents and their court, and gets back royal robes that he left at home when he departed.
The symbolic significance of changing one's garments is obvious in light of what we have said above about stripping down one's clothing. But in the Acts of Thomas it becomes an event of crucial importance. Before the messenger left his parents they made an agreement with him: "if you go down into Egypt and bring the one pearl, which is in the midst of the sea [End Page 330] around the loud-breathing serpent, you shall put on your glittering robe and your toga [...] and with your brother, who is next to us in authority, you shall be heir in our kingdom." Now, if we assume that the messenger stands for Thomas, as he apparently does, who is his brother? The latter is never explicitly mentioned again in the hymn, but one wonders if he is Jesus. If so, according to the plot, Jesus and Thomas are equal as sons of royal parents. Jesus does not appear to have any special function as a redeemer or the unique son of God. He is one among many, who make their way from this world (Egypt) to their true home in heaven.
But this is just the beginning. When Thomas (or whoever the messenger is) fulfills his mission, he gets back his heavenly robe. The story runs as follows:
And because I did not remember its fashion, for in my childhood I had left it in my father's house, on a sudden, when I received it, the garment seemed to me to become like a mirror of myself. I saw it all in all, and I too received all in it, for we were two in distinction and yet again one in one likeness [...] And it was skillfully worked in its home on high [...] and the image of the king of kings was embroidered and depicted in full all over it [...] And I saw too that it was preparing to speak. I heard the sound of its tones, which it uttered [...]: "I am the active in deeds, whom they reared for him before my father; and I perceived myself that my stature grew according to his labors." And in its kingly movements it poured itself entirely over me, and on the hand of it givers it hastened so I might take it.
The only reasonable conclusion from this somewhat enigmatic speech is that the garment in fact is Jesus (or the heavenly brother of the messenger). If we accept this conclusion, it means that, first of all, the personality of Jesus is significantly blurred, or, more precisely, is not important. Jesus appears as a state of being rather than a historic figure or even the personified Logos. He is a garment (no more, and no less) which the believer can put on himself upon completion of his earthly mission.
The believer in turn is seen as a real "brother of Jesus" or his twin. 24 He [End Page 331] recognizes himself in the robe as in a mirror, and puts the robe on. Thus the distinction between the two of them totally disappears. The messenger (Thomas) becomes Jesus and the son of God (royal father in the hymn). In fact, the notion of Jesus' twins (Thomas, and theoretically everybody who partakes of "real wisdom") not only does away with the uniqueness of Jesus as personified wisdom, or the son of God, but it calls into question the importance of Jesus as a historical character. Those who are able to partake of the divine wisdom are born from above, and in this respect they are equal to Jesus, who, as I have said, represents a state of being rather than a personal entity.
The image of disrobing thus receives additional significance. The royal robe which the messenger puts on at the end of his journey was left for him in his father's house in his childhood. Thus his change of clothes almost exactly parallels the idea of "disrobing as a child" in Tatian and the Gospel of Thomas. The messenger returns to his proper heavenly mode of existence which he left in order to get the pearl and which is symbolized by his childhood. As a result, the overall symbolism of disrobing or bodily transformation can be understood from a new perspective. The putting on a new body or the acceptance of God into oneself should be understood verbatim. The believer indeed transforms his body through deification. He is able to do it precisely because Jesus is not unique, having twins, or "multiple personalities," since the historical personality of Jesus is only vaguely defined. All this comes as a result of the quest for true wisdom, which the believer can now embrace. 25
Saying 84 in the Gospel of Thomas constitutes almost a commentary on the scene of self-recognition by the messenger in the robe offered to him. In fact, the whole significance of this saying can be grasped only in the light of the hymn: "Jesus said, 'When you see your likeness, you rejoice. But when you see your images which came into being before you, and which neither die nor become manifest, how much more you will have to bear.'" Does he mean here, that he is the real image of a believer, as it is explained in the Acts? It seems that the saying becomes fully understandable if we bear in mind the significance accorded to finding one's true self in the Hymn of Pearl. Here Jesus tells his followers that they should see their preexisting images in apparently the same way as the messenger did when he saw himself in the robe/Jesus. This in turn could [End Page 332] lead to the conclusion that the idea of heavenly twins stands behind the otherwise enigmatic message of this saying.
On the whole, it seems that the Gospel of Thomas owes much to the concept of Jesus' twins as it is reflected in the later Syriac tradition. As well as with the "disrobing," the parallels exist not merely on the level of content but even on the level of shared imagery and language. Sometimes incomprehensible sayings of the Gospel make perfect sense as soon as we juxtapose them with the theological perspective of the Acts. It is then fair to suggest that the Gospel of Thomas would maintain that Jesus was not unique, and even more, that his historical personality is not what really matters. The real importance of Jesus is that he serves as an example of how one can become the son of God in the most plain sense of the word. Jesus symbolizes a state of being and he encourages his followers to reach this state themselves.
On the other hand there are unmistakable indicators that in the Hymn of the Pearl we are dealing with a more advanced mythology (if not theology) than in the Gospel of Thomas. Instead of the separate and seemingly disconnected sayings of the Gospel we encounter an elaborated myth coined in the form of a didactic poem (saga?). Its symbolism becomes much more abundant and excessive, compared to that of the sayings. Little remains from the previous genre of wisdom sayings. The overall enigma of the message persists, but now it is expressed through the convoluted interplay of the symbolic narrative, rather than through mysterious sayings of the sage which need to be interpreted. As a whole, while the basic message and most essential imagery are preserved in both cases, the Hymn of the Pearl represents a new "mythological" elaboration of the earlier tradition in a way comparable to that of the personified wisdom tradition. Unlike the latter, however, it appears to preserve the core of the message relatively untouched. 26
Personal Deification: Christ as a State of Being
The Acts of Thomas are not unique in seeing in personal deification the ultimate goal of the seer who seeks divine wisdom. Even more explicitly, this idea is articulated in the so-called Odes of Solomon and in Tatian's [End Page 333] Oratio ad Graecos. In both cases the notion of deification is tightly bound up with the acquisition of wisdom, and, in fact, equated with the latter. 27 In a most succinct way this idea appears in the third ode:
I have been united (to the Lord), because the lover has found the beloved,  Because I love him that is the Son, I shall become a son.
Indeed he who is joined to him who is immortal,  Truly will be immortal.
While the language (and especially the idea of love as the main attribute of relationships between God and man) of this passage may to a certain extent remind one of the Gospel of John, as well as of the Johanine epistles, its theology is somewhat different. Nowhere in John would one find the idea of a believer becoming Jesus himself to a degree that erases any difference between two of them. The opposite is true, and the Fourth Gospel is especially remarkable for its consistent emphasis on the rigid boundaries of Jesus' identity, clearly different from that of his disciples. 28 It is also interesting that the idea of immortality here becomes derivative of individual deification. Basically it sounds as though "you yourself will become god, and that is why you will not die." In fact, this type of theology may shed additional light on the peculiar stand of Paul's opponents in 1 Corinthians on resurrection as something that has been already accomplished (in connection with supreme wisdom as something that has been already achieved). The same line of reasoning could have perplexed and discouraged the recipients of 1 Thessalonians when some from their community died prior to the second coming (1 Thess 4.13-18).
In a number of odes, the author who recites them, at a certain point, starts speaking with the Christ's voice. 29 I doubt whether we can find any other similar phenomena in early Christian literature. There is not any formal sign in the text that would mark a transition from one person to another. In fact, it is presupposed that it is actually one and the same [End Page 334] person, who, up until this verse, was a human being, and now continues speaking in his divine capacity. In modern English translations, Christ's speeches are introduced with the words "Christ speaks," but nothing in the original text parallels this insertion, which somewhat misleads the reader and blurs the original point made by the text. Apparently this very moment is seen by the author as the culmination of his quest for divine wisdom, which has been finally achieved.
Tatian gives a less poetical account of basically the same concept, coined now in philosophical terms: "The celestial Word, made Spirit from the Spirit and Word from power of the Word, in the likeness of the Father who begot him made man an image of immortality, so that just as incorruptibility belongs to God, in the same way man might share God's lot and have immortality also" (or. 7.6-10). Again, immortality becomes a result of individual deification achieved in this life, and thus wholly pertains to realized eschatology. Salvation and/or damnation become matters of the here and now, not of the Pauline unspecified future "resurrection from the dead." 30 The idea about humanity's participation in God's nature is explicitly stated. In fact, the distinction between the divine Logos and human beings is deliberately blurred by using the same terminology in order to describe two of them. The Word is said to be made , "in the likeness of the Father," and immediately afterwards humankind is described as , "the image of immortality," which means basically the same thing. Both thus are created in the image of God and humanity is supposed "to share God's lot." In other words, while it is not explicitly stated, humankind is virtually identified with the Logos in a way that runs contrary to the main theological notions of the Gospel of John, which is especially noticeable because of the (deliberately?) shared terminology.
Another passage from Tatian elaborates his idea of individual deification and provides a further link to the Gospel of Thomas. According to [End Page 335] Tatian: "we have knowledge of two different kinds of spirits, one of which is called soul, but the other is greater than the soul; it is the image and likeness of God (). The first men were endowed with both, so that they might be part of the material world, and at the same time above it" (or. 12.18-21). Here the same thesis about the divine part of human beings is repeated, but now it is associated with the human condition prior to the Fall. According to this statement (and to what follows) Adam had possessed the qualities of God before he committed sin. Then they were taken from him, and the quest for wisdom implies claiming them back. 31
One can compare the following saying: "Jesus said, 'Adam came into being from a great power and a great wealth, but he did not become worthy of you. For had he been worthy, [he would] not [have experienced] death'" (Thom. 85). This statement is enigmatic and deliberately obscure, but if we agree that "a great power and a great wealth" mean basically the same as "the image and likeness of God" in the more philosophically oriented rendering of Tatian, then its theological basis becomes more transparent. Unlike Adam, who lost his original semidivine status, the disciples of Jesus (and the followers of Tatian) are expected to get it back and keep it, and that is why they are more "worthy" than Adam. It is also remarkable that for both Tatian and Thomas immortality becomes a kind of trademark of divinity. As we have seen in the earlier example from the Oratio, it is precisely immortality that renders humans participants "in God's lot." Again with Thomas immortality becomes the main definition of the exalted condition of humans, lost by Adam but reclaimed by Jesus' disciples. Such a degree of parallelism not merely in major theological concepts, but even in the technical means of their expression, is hardly incidental, and it points at the very least to a shared cultural/social setting and school of thought. 32 [End Page 336]
More direct and clear examples of individual deification are not lacking from the Gospel of Thomas as well. I will start with one of the most extensive, as well as obscure, passages from the Gospel:
Jesus said to his disciples, "Compare me to someone and tell me whom I am like."
Simon Peter said to him, "You are like a righteous angel."
Matthew said to him, "You are like a wise philosopher."
Thomas said to him, "Master, my mouth is wholly incapable of saying whom you are like."
Jesus said, "I am not your master. Because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated from the bubbling spring which I have measured out."
And he took him and withdrew and told him three things. When Thomas returned to his companions, they asked him, "What did Jesus say to you?"
Thomas said to them, "If I tell you one of the things which he told me, you will pick up the stones and throw them at me; a fire will come out of the stones and burn you up." (Thom. 13)
The question posed by other disciples to Thomas is obviously one which anybody who reads this saying is likely to wonder about, and the answer to it can be found again in the Gospel of Thomas.
Thom. 108 is decisive for our argument. It reads: "Jesus said, 'He who will drink from my mouth will become like me. I myself shall become he, and the things that are hidden will be revealed to him.'" One immediately recalls "because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated from the bubbling spring of which I have measured out" in Thom. 13. The same imagery of drinking water is central in both cases and it most probably conveys the same message of deification. The latter is stated explicitly in Thom. 108 and it is implied in the words said by Jesus in the middle of the conversation in Thom. 13: "I am not your master," the plain meaning of which is "we are equal to each other." 33
Moreover, in both cases deification represents the means to acquire divine wisdom. In Thom. 13 it is coined in the typical Gnostic fashion of esoteric wisdom revelation for the elect, adding suspense to the narrative. In Thom. 108 Jesus plainly states that "the things that are hidden" (a common designation for wisdom in at least the Qumran sapiential [End Page 337] literature) will be revealed to the one who becomes him. Thus in Thomas individual deification becomes a final step in one's quest for wisdom in essentially the same way as it does for Tatian or the author of the Odes of Solomon.
At the same time the first text contains one important definition missing from the second one. While in Thom. 108 Jesus is the main (and the only) source of revelation, in Thom. 13 he is merely the one who "has measured out the bubbling spring," definitely not the spring himself. This seeming trifle actually represents another challenge to the idea of Jesus as personified Wisdom. He is not personified wisdom himself, but he is rather the one through whom divine wisdom pours out into this world. He is the vehicle of revelation rather than revelation itself. This picture of Jesus fits perfectly with the somewhat impersonal vision of Christ in the Acts of Thomas (and especially in the Hymn of the Pearl). It also corresponds to the overall reluctance of Tatian to personify Christ--a reluctance so marked that it is not always clear if he speaks of the personified or impersonal Logos (let alone Jesus as a historical character). As a matter of fact, two sayings in the Gospel of Thomas directly attest to this particular theological perspective:
His disciples said to him, "Show us the place where you are, since it is necessary for us to seek it."
He said to them, "Whoever has ears, let him hear. There is light within a man of light, and he lights up the whole world. If he does not shine he is darkness." (Thom. 24)
Here the distinction between Jesus as a man and a somewhat impersonal state of being is made very explicitly. It is not the historical personality of Jesus that matters and that is to be sought after, but rather the impersonal divine presence that makes Jesus who he is, but which is equally available to his disciples if, of course, they are ready to accept it. 34 According to this type of theology, the man Jesus became a pure temple [End Page 338] for God, accepted God in himself (deification), and, as a result, turned into a channel for communicating God's wisdom. This, however, is very different from the idea of Jesus as personified wisdom (while one can easily follow the line of development between these two types of theology). The major difference is again the notion that Jesus was not unique. He showed his followers an example of how one should build oneself up in order to reach the depths of God's wisdom, but essentially he was a man like anybody else, and so anybody else can become God.
Conclusion
We can now summarize the results of this paper in a more or less coherent way. The Gospel of Thomas perfectly fits the theological agenda of early Syriac literature of the second-third centuries C.E., sharing with it not only an overall theological perspective but also technical language and symbolism. In both cases Jesus is perceived as a human being, who was inhabited by God and thus deified. The essence of his message is that his disciples can reach the same state of existence. The divine part of Jesus is usually understood impersonally and it is by no means identified with Jesus as a historical character. As a result, the interest in the historical Jesus by proponents of this theology was secondary at best. It was the message about Jesus' experience that was really important, and his wise sayings could fulfill this role. In a sense, their status was indeed the one of traditional wisdom pronouncements, if we agree that the goal of, e.g., the book of Proverbs was to supply one with instructions for behavior in everyday life. The difference was that, in traditional wisdom literature, the goal of this life was a sober existence in agreement with God's laws about the universe, while in Thomas the goal was individual deification. How and when this shift in the understanding of wisdom occurred is another question, and deserves a separate study.
At the same time one should always bear in mind that the Gospel of Thomas and early Syriac literature represent consecutive stages in the history of a single theological idea. The Syriac writings represent the [End Page 339] second and the more mature stage in the development of the notion of personal deification. Among the most prominent formal changes, the shift from collections of wise sayings to poetry (or, in the case of Tatian, to philosophical treatise) should be mentioned. In some respects, changes in content corresponded to those in form. The creation of more or less cohesive poetic texts led to the shaping of more or less elaborated mythology about the itinerant redeemer, most fully developed in the Hymn of the Pearl. The story became more "mythopoetic" both in its form and content. Simultaneously, the theology of personal deification was developed in the direction of ascetic practices, quite in agreement with the overall spiritual tendencies of late antiquity. Thus, while the third-century Syriac writings preserved a considerable part of the early theology, they also reflect significant developments which occurred since the Gospel of Thomas had been written down.
The idea of Jesus as personified wisdom could exist in parallel with, or be an early attempt at taming, personal deification theology. It is important, however, to see that originally the two of them were clearly different if not directly opposed to each other. The very emphasis on the significance and uniqueness of wisdom as personified in the historical Jesus ran contrary to the major postulate of the deification theology, namely, that the heavenly Jesus is a state of being, which was most fully displayed in the historical Jesus, but which is by no means limited to him. As a result, the whole notion of discipleship had to be changed from following the example of Jesus through self-deification, to the more modest quest for heavenly wisdom uniquely revealed in Jesus. It seems that at least in the Gospel of John the idea of Jesus as personified Logos developed as a direct response to and rebuttal of deification theology.
If we accept the hypothesis of Thomas' early provenance, it gives us a key to understanding what could be labeled "prepersonified wisdom" mythology in early Christianity. It remains to be seen whether the same cluster of ideas can be discerned in other branches of the early Christian movement (I have specifically in mind the Pauline churches and their theology). However, it seems fair to maintain that, prior to the development of the personified wisdom tradition, early Christian groups had already possessed a theological doctrine with a clearly articulated mystical kernel. If accepted, this conclusion could significantly contribute to our understanding of the genre of saying traditions and its theological setting.

Alexei Siverstev is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Hebrew and Judaic Studies at New York University
Notes
1. J. Robinson, "Jewish Wisdom Literature and the Gattung, LOGOI SOPHON" in The Shape of Q: Signal Essays on the Sayings Gospel, ed. J. Kloppenborg (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), 51-58. For methodological use of this approach, see J. Kloppenborg, The Formation of Q: Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987).
2. For a summary of the discussion about the relationship between the Gospel of Thomas and the canonical gospels, see F. Fallon and R. Cameron, "The Gospel of Thomas: A Forschungsbericht and Analysis," ANRW II.25.6 (1988): 4213-24. See also S. Patterson, The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus (Sonoma: Polebridge Press, 1993).
3. H. Koester, "The Synoptic Sayings Source and the Gospel of Thomas" in Shape of Q, 50.
4. This type of two-stage approach has been most fully developed by J. Kloppenborg in respect to the Q Sayings Gospel in his Formation of Q (for the summary of major points see his "The Formation of Q and Antique Instructional Genres" in Shape of Q). There is a considerable tendency, however, to discern a similar two-stage process in the formation of the Gospel of Thomas. See, for example, W. Arnal, "The Rhetoric of Marginality: Apocalypticism, Gnosticism, and Sayings Gospels," HTR 88 (1995): 471-80 and S. Patterson, Gospel of Thomas and Jesus, 198 (cf. Helmut Koester, who seemingly avoids any stratification attempts in his works on Thomas).
5. For a discussion of various aspects of early Syriac Christianity, see R. Murray, Symbols of Church and Kingdom: A Study in Early Syriac Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975). J. Segal, Edessa: "The Blessed City" (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970).
6. For a summary of the discussion and bibliography, see Fallon and Cameron, "Gospel of Thomas," 4227.
7. G. Quispel, "L'évangile selon Thomas et le Diatessaron" in Gnostic Studies II (Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaelogisch Instituut te Istanbul, 1975), 31-55. Idem, Tatian and the Gospel of Thomas: Studies in the History of the Western Diatessaron (Leiden: Brill, 1975).
8. G. Quispel, Makarius, das Thomasevangelium und das Lied von der Perle, NovTSup 15 (Leiden: Brill, 1967). See also the articles in his Gnostic Studies II.
9. A. Guillaumont, "Les semitismes dans l'Evangile selon Thomas: Essai de classement" in Studies in Gnosticism and Hellenistic Religions Presented to Gilles Quispel on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday (Leiden: Brill, 1981), 190-204; contrast K. Kuhn, "Some Observations on the Coptic Gospel According to Thomas," Mus 73 (1960): 317-23.
10. For a summary of this approach see H. Drijvers, "Facts and Problems in Early Syriac-Speaking Christanity" in East of Antioch (London: Variorum Reprints, 1984), 157-75.
11. For publication and English translation see Spicilegium Syriacum Containing Remains of Bardesan, Meliton, Ambrose, and Mara bar Serapion, ed. W. Cureton (London: Rivingtons, 1855), 70-76.
12. See Cecil Roth, "Ecclesiasticus in the Synagogue Service," JBL 71 (1952): 171-78 (cf. A. Mirsky, Piyute Yose ben Yose [Jerusalem: Mosad Byalik, 1977], 27-29). See also M. Weinfeld, "Traces of Qedushat Yotser and Pesuke de-Zimra in the Qumran Literature and in Ben-Sira," Tarbiz 45 (1975-76): 15-26 (Hebrew).
13. During recent years the somewhat naïve fascination with the Jewish roots of Syriac Christianity has become much more sober and balanced. See H. Drijvers, "Syriac Christianity and Judaism" in The Jews among Pagans and Christians in the Roman Empire, ed. J. Lieu et al. (London: Routledge, 1992), 124-46. I believe that it would be premature at this point to assert Jewish origins for the wisdom tradition of early Syriac Christianity (contrast J. Charlesworth, "Les Odes de Salomon et les manuscrits de la mer morte," RB 77 [1970]: 522-49).
14. A. Voobius, A History of Asceticism in the Syriac Orient (Louvain: CSCO, 1958).
15. Acts of Thomas 86.
16. Acts of Thomas 87.
17. Jonathan Z. Smith, "The Garments of Shame" in Map Is Not Territory: Studies in the History of Religions (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1978), 1-23.
18. The phrase in question reads as following: . In her recent edition of the Oratio M. Whittaker translates it as "therefore now that I have apprehended these things I wish to 'strip myself' of the childishness of babyhood," taking as accusative singular (Tatian: Oratio ad Graecos and Fragments, ed. and tr. Molly Whittaker [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982], 55 and explanation of the translation on pp. 84-86). The translation seems very problematic to me, since it is not altogether clear how she translates the preposition which is crucial for the correct rendering of the phrase. The usual meaning of it in Koine Greek would be "just as," and I do not see any compelling reason not to follow this translation in our case. My own translation then would be: "Now that I have apprehended these things I wish to strip myself just as little children."
19. The whole passage from Tatian is coined in terminology strikingly similar to that of some Jewish sapiential texts from Qumran. Cf. for example 4Q417 2 i 6-12. The most remarkable parallel here exists between the "foreknowledge" of Tatian and the "mysteries to come" (raze nihyeh) of the Qumran text. In both cases behavioral precepts are seen as part of divinely revealed wisdom and divinely ordained universal order.
20. Cf. also Thom. 46 where "becoming a child" is a condition for acquaintance "with the Kingdom" and apparently presupposes possession of heavenly wisdom as well.
21. For a detailed treatment of this development see P. Brown, The Body and Society: Men, Women and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity (New York: Columbia University Press, 1988), 33-121. The fact that the theology advocated by the Gospel of Thomas became very early ascetically oriented is amply attested by the so-called Gospel of the Egyptians, known from excerpts in Clement of Alexandria. In most cases one can closely follow the development of relatively more neutral sayings in Thomas into clearly ascetic pronouncements in "Gospel of the Egyptians": Strom. 3.63 (cf. Thom. 114), Strom. 3.64 and 66 (cf. Thom. 79), Strom. 3.92 (cf. Thom. 37 and 21-22, also 2 Clem. 12.1-2).
22. See for example Q 10.22 and its interpretation in Kloppeborg, Formation of Q, 197-203.
23. Acts of Thomas 11.
24. Cf. the following two verses from Ode 7.4-5 (the Odes of Solomon):
He became like me, that I might receive him.  In form he was considered like, that I might put him on.
And I trembled not when I saw him,  Because he was gracious to me.
The last sentence of verse 5 especially makes sense if we compare it to the conclusion of Thom. 37, when Jesus says: "when you disrobe without being ashamed and take up your garments and place them under your feet like little children and tread on them, then [will you see] the son of the living one, and you will not be afraid."
25. For a general treatment of clothing metaphors in Syriac literature see S. Brock, "Clothing Metaphors as a Means of Theological Expression in Syriac Tradition," in Typus, Symbol, Allegorie bei den ostlichen Vatern und ihren Parallelen im Mittelalter, ed. M. Schmidt (Regensburg: Verlag Friedrich Pustet, 1982), 11-38.
26. As a whole this literary development corresponds to the process of the gradual replacement of the sayings genre by narratives as attested elsewhere. See Robinson, "Jewish Wisdom Literature," 57-58. The "mythologizing" tendency of this process is also reflected in the personified wisdom tradition. See for example Prov 1-9 (esp. 8); Sir 24.1-23; Psalm 154 (=11Q5 xviii 1-16); Sap. Sol. 7.15-8.1; 1 Enoch 42.1-3.
27. The idea of wisdom is especially well articulated in odes 7, 16 and 18. For the decisive role of the search for wisdom in this kind of theology see H. J. Drijvers, "The Peshitta of Sapientia Salomonis," Scripta Signa Vocis: Studies Presented to J. H. Hospers, ed. H. Vanstipout et al. (Groningen: Egbert Forsten, 1986), 15-30, and idem, "Solomon as Teacher: Early Syriac Didactic Poetry," OCA 229 (1987): 123-34.
28. For obvious connections between the Gospel of John and the Odes of Solomon see J. Charlesworth and R. Culpepper, "The Odes of Solomon and the Gospel of John," CBQ 35 (1981): 298-322. The polemical emphasis of John on the uniqueness of Jesus is discussed in W. Meeks, "The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism," JBL 91 (1972): 44-72.
29. Odes 8, 10, 17, 28, 30, 36, 41, 42.
30. One should constantly bear in mind the individualistic nature of the message conveyed in these texts. The issue at stake is an individual deification, not a communal one. The message is addressed to a small intellectual elite, searching for divine wisdom, and apparently it was never deemed appropriate for wide dissemination. Tatian in his intellectual arrogance is anything but a democrat. All those converted by Thomas in his Acts belong to the royal court, and he himself appears to be sometimes an aristocratic salon preacher. The Gospel of Thomas praises solitary ones as the most worthy candidates for the heavenly kingdom (Thom. 49 and 75). Apparently the whole theology we are dealing with here was deeply rooted in the idea of individual search for God and his wisdom, and was profoundly aristocratic in its nature.
31. The divine nature of the primordial man is reflected also in the rabbinic tradition, which however showed considerable ambivalence about this notion. See Bereshit Rabbah 20.12 and 21.5.
32. The early Syriac Christian literature had clear scribal characteristics (cf. Tatian's redaction of the gospels). This may at least to a certain degree justify the position of those who claim scribal origins for the Gospel of Thomas against those who see it as created by itinerant charismatics. See W. Arnal, "Rhetoric of Marginality," 471-79 and S. Patterson, Gospel of Thomas and Jesus. On the other hand, these two points of view are by no means mutually exclusive. For the scribal characteristics of the Syriac tradition see S. Brock, "From Antagonism to Assimilation: Syriac Attitudes to Greek Learning," in East of Byzantium: Syria and Armenia in the Formative Period, ed. Nina Garosian et al. (Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks, 1982), 17-34.
33. For the development of the same theme coined in almost the same language in the canonical gospels see John 4.14 and 7.37-38. One can notice however the same tendency of John to pinpoint the uniqueness of the historical Jesus as a redeemer, which is especially poignant since the two texts share remarkably similar language. For the comparative study, see H. Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development (London: SCM Press; Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990), 113-24.
34. This peculiar view of Jesus' personality can be defined with the following saying: "Jesus said, 'It is I who am the light which is above them all. It is I who am the all. From me did the all come forth, and unto me did the all extend. Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there'" (Thom. 77). Here, unlike in Thom. 24, Jesus is directly associated with the light. However, if we recall the identification between man and Christ in the Odes of Solomon, to the degree that the former is speaking with the latter's voice, we will see that these two ideas do not contradict each other. The man (like Jesus) really becomes deified, but this does not mean that the divine presence is exclusively confined in him. The contrary is true.
Thom. 77 is remarkably similar to John's prologue in terms of seeing Jesus as the primary source of everything, but in fact the two of them sound almost like direct polemic against each other. While in John the divine Logos is clearly identified with the historical Jesus, in Thomas the impersonal nature of the divine component of Jesus is pinpointed as strongly as possible. In fact, John sounds like a later adjustment of a theology somewhat close to that of the Gospel of Thomas to a new theological taste. Cf. also John 11.9-10, 12.35-36, and 8.12. In all of them the Johannine tradition sounds like editorial elaboration of what we have in Thom. 24 and 77.

Tjitze Baarda. Essays on the Diatessaron. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis & Theology, no. 11. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1994.

Thu, 29 Sep 2011 21:53:42 -0400

1. For more than three decades, Prof. Baarda has immersed himself in what Arthur Vööbus called "one of the most difficult topics in all the field of New Testament textual criticism"--namely, Tatian's Diatessaron. A Dutchman by birth, Baarda took a doctorate in Semitic languages at the Free University of Amsterdam, where he studied under R. Schippers. After some years teaching there, he moved to Utrecht where he became the successor of W.C. van Unnik. More recently he returned to the Free University, where he is Dean of Theology and Professor of New Testament. Now nearing retirement, he has published more than thirty articles on the Diatessaron. A selection of these was collected and published on the occasion of his twenty-fifth anniversary of teaching at the Free University. It appeared in 1983 and was titled Early Transmission of the Words of Jesus: Thomas, Tatian and the Text of the New Testament. The volume under review collects fifteen additional articles, fourteen of which were published between 1986 and 1993. A lecture delivered at the 1992 Codex Bezae conference held in Montpellier, France, appears here in print for the first time. One of the fourteen previously published pieces was formerly available only in the original Dutch; it now is offered in English. Before considering the details of three of the articles and remarking on some of the noteworthy aspects of Baarda's work, it will be helpful simply to list the titles of the fifteen articles:
1. "The Diatessaron of Tatian and Its Influence on the Vernacular Versions: The Case of John 19:30"
2. "<grc>Diafwni/a-Sumfwni/a</grc>: Factors in the Harmonization of the Gospels, Especially in the Diatessaron of Tatian"
3. "<grc>A)noi/cas-a)naptu/cas</grc>: The Text of Luke 4:17 in the Diatessaron"
4. "The Flying Jesus: Luke 4:29-30 in the Syriac Diatessaron"
5. "Jesus and Mary (John 20:16f.) in the Second Epistle on Virginity Ascribed to Clement"
6. "To the Roots of the Syriac Diatessaron Tradition (TA 25:1-3)"
7. "The Sabbath in the Parable of the Shepherd (Evang. Verit. 32:18-34)"
8. "'If You Do Not Sabbatize the Sabbath ...': The Sabbath as God or World in Gnostic Understanding (Ev. Thom., Log. 27)"
9. "'A Staff Only, Not a Stick': Disharmony of the Gospels and the Harmony of Tatian (Mt 10:9f parr.)"
10. "'He Holds the Fan in His Hand ...' (Mt 3:12, Lk 3:17) and Philoxenus: Or, How to Reconstruct the Original Diatessaron Text of the Saying of John the Baptist?"
11. "Philoxenus and the Parable of the Fisherman: Concerning the Diatessaron Text of Matthew 13:47-50"
12. "'Chose' or 'Collected': Concerning an Aramaism in Logion 8 of the Gospel of Thomas and the Question of Independence"
13. "The Parable of the Fisherman in the Heliand: The Old Saxon Version of Matthew 13:47-50"
14. "Clement of Alexandria and the Parable of the Fisherman: Matthew 13:47f. or Independent Tradition?"
15. "John 1:5 in the Oration and Diatessaron of Tatian: Concerning the Reading of <grc>katalamba/nei</grc>"
Clearly these are not articles written for the beginner; indeed, they presuppose a command of half a dozen languages--including Coptic, Arabic, Syriac, Armenian, Persian, Aramaic, and Old Saxon--in addition to the usual Greek, Latin, and Hebrew, as well as the modern scholarly languages. There is no disputing it: a Continental education is not without its advantages.
2. Baarda is a particularist; that is, he searches out individual details, researches them exhaustively, marshals all of the relevant secondary literature, and then sketches the possibilities. And he is one scholar who, after having exhausted himself (and sometimes the reader) with notoriously thorough and even-handed analyses, is not afraid to say that, at the end of the day, he does not have an answer. There are no great overarching theories at work here: Baarda is far too well read, knows too many exceptions, to pawn off simple--though perhaps satisfying--answers. Rather, what one observes at work in these articles is the mind of one of the world's greatest textual scholars and philologists at work. No one can read these studies and not be humbled, enlightened, and awed. Indeed, any textual critic who thinks he or she "knows" what is going on should read these studies, for the sources at Baarda's command, both primary and secondary, make our best work pale in comparison. For some examples, let me summarize three of the articles.
3. One of the most accessible (and entertaining) of the articles is "The Flying Jesus." Baarda, whose dissertation was a two-volume study of the text of the Gospel of John in Aphrahat, noticed that Aphrahat (Dem. II.17; Aphrahat died about 350), when discussing the confrontation at Nazareth (Luke 4:16-30), states that "He showed the power of his majesty when He was cast down from the height into the depth and was not hurt" (p. 59, italics mine). According to the canonical account, however, despite the fact that the crowd has taken him to a precipice, intending to "cast him down," Jesus is not thrown from the hill, but mysteriously escapes by "passing through the midst" of the crowd (Luke 4:29-30).
4. The causal reader is inclined to dismiss Aphrahat's account as his own overly dramatic invention. But Baarda knows both the ancient and modern sources too well to fall into this trap. In 1881 Theodor Zahn had already noted the reading, when he set about reconstructing the text of the Diatessaron. Basing himself on the Armenian version of Ephrem's Commentary on the Diatessaron, Zahn determined that a similar reading probably stood in Tatian's second century harmony. Baarda then turns to Ephrem's Commentary and presents evidence from both the Armenian version and the Syriac text (discovered only in 1957 and published in 1963). In no fewer than nine instances in the Commentary Ephrem either directly states or obliges one to infer that Jesus was, indeed, cast from the precipice by the mob and "flew," unhurt, down to Capernaum. Turning then to Ephrem's Syriac hymns and metrical sermons, Baarda unearths another seven instances of the same. One theme in much of Baarda's work is his preference for reconstructing each family of the Diatessaron (Eastern and Western) separately. He does so here, offering a reconstruction of the Syriac Diatessaron's text as:
they stood up and they led Him out [from] the town and brought Him by the side of the hill, [on which their town was built,] in order to cast Him down. [When?] they cast Him down from the height into the depth [and?] He did not fall and was not hurt/harmed.... through their midst He passed [and?] He flew [in the air?] and He descended [from above] to Kapharnaum [pp. 79-80, italics omitted].
Suddenly, the odd and abrupt <grc>kathlqen</grc> of Luke 4:31 takes on a whole new meaning.
5. But this is not all, for there is also a Western Diatessaronic tradition. Here Baarda continues to unearth new evidence for the reading: among other sources, it occurs in the "Rijmbijbel" of Jakob van Maerlant (in Middle Dutch, composed in 1271), which is dependent upon Peter Comestor's "Historia Scholastica," which also has the reading and is a Diatesaronic witness. Most remarkably, Augustine preserves part of the tradition in his Contra Faustum 26.2: He quotes the Manichaean Faustus in order to refute him and in so doing reproduces the "throwing" of Jesus from the hill. Augustine does not comment on the varia lectio. Baarda notes,
The agreement between Faustus and the Syriac texts suggests that the Manichaean was acquainted with the Diatessaron or at least with traditions that took their origin in this harmony. Remarkably enough, Augustin [sic] in his refutation does not mention the fact that Faustus used an argument for which [there] was no support in the canonical gospels. We cannot, therefore, exclude the possibility that Augustin knew this very tradition from his Manichaean past [p. 78].
(Your reviewer notes that other parallels between Augustine and the Diatessaron are known; they were first detected by Louis Leloir, and others have been adduced by Gilles Quispel [most recently in VC 47 (1993), 374-378], and now by Baarda.)
6. The Diatessaron was composed c. 172, on the basis of the form in which the gospels then circulated. It evidences unique parallels with the text found in Justin Martyr's gospel citations and with variant readings in other of the very earliest gospel citations. Indeed, if Baarda has successfully reconstructed the Diatessaron's text in this passage (and any unbiased reader who examines his evidence will assent), then he has stipulated the oldest recoverable version of this passage. No other documents prior to 172 preserve it.
7. Briefly, to the other two articles. First, in "<grc>Diafwni/a-Sumfwni/a</grc>: Factors in the Harmonization of the Gospels, Especially in the Diatessaron of Tatian," Baarda brings his knowledge of antiquity and ancient Christianity to bear on the question of the stimuli which led to harmonization, especially in the second century. He notes three factors, two of which are general, and one of which is specific to Tatian. The first of the general factors was the criticism of Christianity by pagan critics, such as Celsus (fl. 180), who mocked the new religion by pointing out the inconsistencies among the gospels. One possible response was to claim only one gospel was authoritative, as Marcion had done. Another response, adopted by Tatian and others, was to reconcile the divergent accounts by conflating them into a single account.
8. The second general stimulus was the "scholarly historical method" of the period (N.B.: quotation marks in the rest of this paragraph are for conceptual clarity and are those of the reviewer; they do not mark extracts from Baarda's text), which proceeded much as we do today: when confronted with inconsistent or contradictory information, that which is judged most reliable is adopted as the "framework," and the other details, where plausible, are "fitted in" around this "Leithistorie." The creators of harmonies saw themselves as doing just what secular historians did: the early gospels were "dispatches from the field" which might well be garbled or confused. The harmonist's task, like that of a general, was to collate the reports, skillfully eliminating the erroneous, restoring the correct sense of garbled reports, and recognizing (and giving greatest weight to) the most reliable reports. Baarda cites examples of secular historians in antiquity who pursued the same goals with identical methods (e.g., Josephus).
9. The third motive, unique to Tatian, was his philosophical understanding of "truth" as unitary. He proclaimed himself to be "the herald of truth" and mocked the Greeks (in his Oratio ad graecos) for their contradictory teachings and schools; this he contrasted with the "unity" of Christian "truth"--of course, this unity was a fiction, for late second-century Christianity was already a fractured, squabbling mess of Marcionites, gnostics of all stripes (Valentinians, etc.), Jacobite Christians (= Judaic Christians), Pauline Christians, Montanists, etc.; nevertheless, it was a good rhetorical ploy on Tatian's part. Baarda therefore concludes that Tatian was driven by a combination of these motives (he gives greatest weight to the last) to create the greatest gospel harmony of all time, the Diatessaron.
10. The last article we will consider is "'A Staff Only, Not a Stick': Disharmony of the Gospels and the Harmony of Tatian (Mt 10:9f parr.)." This article analyzes Tatian's technique of harmonization and highlights one of the most striking contradictions uttered by Jesus. In Matthew 10:10 and Luke 9:3, Jesus instructs his disciples not to take a <grc>rabdos</grc> as they sally forth to preach. But in Mark 6:8, he instructs exactly the opposite: they are to take a <grc>rabdos</grc>--indeed, nothing but a <grc>rabdos</grc>. Commentators have puzzled over these parallel passages and made all sorts of suggestions to resolve the direct contradiction which, to the best knowledge of your reviewer, is not resolved in any Greek manuscript. Tatian's solution (first noted by Theodor Zahn in 1881) was to use two synonyms in Syriac. According to the Syriac Diatessaron (as found in Ephrem's "Commentary," the Arabic Harmony, Syrus Sinaiticus, and the Adysh MS [Georgian]), Jesus told his disciples to take a <syr>xw+r)</syr> ("staff"), but not a <syr>$b+)</syr> ("stick"). What is striking is that this solution could have been introduced into the contradictory Greek text as well (<grc>rabdos</grc>::<grc>bakthria</grc>), but no Greek manuscript does so. Baarda supplements the meager evidence of Zahn (who should not be criticized: most of the Diatessaronic witnesses were unknown a century ago) and uses the example to explore Tatian's sophisticated techniques of harmonization.
11. As the present review has made clear, this volume is not bedtime reading, for it places great demands upon the reader. It should surprise no one that many decades ago, upon his induction, Baarda was one of the youngest men ever to take a seat in the Royal Dutch Academy of Sciences. Similarly, it should surprise no one that his work stands as a model of classical Dutch scholarship: philologically oriented (as it has been since the time of Heinsius, Scaliger, Cassander, and Grotius), encyclopedic in its learning, attentive to minute details (recall that "god is in the details"), modest in its conclusions, and limpid in its logic. This is scholarship at the very highest level, and anyone who comes in contact with it will learn from it. Advanced scholars should use it as a model, while the aspirant can strive toward the lofty mark set by the man Sebastian Brock once called "the light from the East" (Holland is, after all, east of Oxford).
© TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism, 1996.
William L. Petersen
Department of Religious Studies, Pennsylvania State University

NEW LIGHT ON THE TEXTUAL TRADITION OF BAR BAHLUL'S BOOK OF SIGNS

Sun, 18 Sep 2011 09:52:49 -0400

NEW LIGHT ON THE TEXTUAL TRADITION
OF BAR BAHLUL'S BOOK OF SIGNS

Bar Bahlul was a tenth-century Nestorian who spent most of his life in
Baghdad1. He is primarily remembered today for his remarkable lexicon
of the Syriac language2. In the early 1970s Fuat Sezgin discovered in Istanbul
another work by Bar Bahlul, his Kitab al-Dala’il or Book of
Signs. This new text is not unlike a modern almanac3. It presents first
chronological synopses of the various feasts and festivals of the eastern
churches, as well as of the Jews, Muslims, Îarranian pagans, and others.
It then turns its attention to other matters — how to determine the health
of slaves, poisons, physiognomy, dream divination, and so on. Joseph
Habbi has now published an edition of this text4.

The only complete manuscript of the Book of Signs known to Habbi is
that discovered by Sezgin: Süleymaniye Ktp., Hekimoglu Ali Pa≥a
572.1, ff. 1a-291a, 556/1161. Another short excerpt of the text is preserved
in Süleymaniye Ktp., Fâtih 5411.4, ff. 113a-136b, 688/12895.
Habbi was aware of the existence of the latter but was unable to utilize it
in his edition6. In this note I would like to call attention to yet another,
fairly extensive excerpt of Bar Bahlul's Book of Signs.
Vatican ar. 1304 consists of a number of works on the interpretation
of dreams. Two of these are well known: the dream manuals of Ibn
Ghannam (ff. 2a-167a) and Kharkushi (ff. 230a-314b)7. Sandwiched between
these is another (ff. 174a-229b) that Giorgio Levi Della Vida has

1 Little is known of his life. For an overview, see J. HABBI, Le Livre des Signes de alÎasan
b. Bahlul, in Oriens Christianus, 68 (1984), pp. 210-12. His Book of Signs must
have been composed between 942 and 968. See J.-M. FIEY, Sur le calendrier syriaque
oriental arabe de Bar Bahlul (942/968 A.D.), in Analecta Bollandiana, 106 (1988), p. 271.
2 R. DUVAL, ed., Lexicon syriacum auctore Hassan Bar Bahlul, Paris, 1886-1903.
3 For an overview of its content, see J. HABBI, Les sources du Livre des Signes d'alÎasan
ibn Bahlul, in Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 226 (1986), pp. 193-204.
4 Kitab al-Dala’il li-l-Hasan b. al-Bahlul, Kuwait, 1987. In 1985 F. SEZGIN published a
facsimile “edition” of the text: The Book of Indications (Kitab al-Dala’il) by al-Hasan
ibn al-Bahlul (Tenth Century A.D.), (Publications of the Institute for the History of Arabic-
Islamic Science, C10), Frankfurt am Main, 1985. But cf. J.M. WITKAM, Arabic Manuscripts
in Distress. The Frankfurter Facsimile Series, in Manuscripts of the Middle East,
4 (1989), pp. 174-80.
5 Corresponding to Chapter One of HABBI's edition (pp. 57-67).
6 See the comments in the introduction to his edition (p. 24).
7 For Ibn Ghannam (d. 674/1294), see T. FAHD, La divination arabe, Leiden, 1966,
pp. 338-9. For Kharkushi (d. 405/1015), see my forthcoming study, Dream Interpretation
in the Early Medieval Near East.
188 J.C. LAMOREAUX

described as the “Ta{bir ar-ru}ya di Abu}l-Îasan Ali b. Sa{id alÎawlani”
8. It is a question here of Ibn al-QaÒÒar al-Qayrawani, a North
African jurist who flourished in the early 5th/11th century9. Qayrawani
was a prolific author of dream manuals: three others are known10, with
Vatican ar. 1304.2 now making a fourth11.
Della Vida's description of Vatican ar. 1304.2 is not entirely accurate.
He seems not to have noticed that the work of Qayrawani ended on folio
198a (not 229b). There follows Qayrawani's dream manual a miscellany
of other texts on dreams. These were drawn from a number of different
sources: (1) ff. 198a-204b, a section entitled Baqiyah min ta{bir alaÌlam,
containing a collection of traditions on dreams, the source of
which I have been unable to determine; (2) ff. 204b-206a, selections
from Baghawi's (d. 516/1122) SharÌ al-sunnah12; (3) ff. 206a-b, two

8 Elenco dei manoscritti arabi islamici della Biblioteca Vaticana. Vaticani, Barberiniani,
Borgiani, Rossiani (Studi e Testi, 67), Rome, 1935, p. 199.
9 Qayrawani seems to have escaped the notice of the medieval Muslim biographical
tradition, including that devoted to the Maliki school of jurists and to the city of
Qayrawan. Indications contained in his Mumatti{ (see next note) suggest that he flourished
in the early fifth century A.H. In particular, at fol. 169b he dates his reception of a
prophetic tradition to the year 420/1029. Qayrawani's oneirocritic labors are treated at
length in my Dream Interpretation in the Early Medieval Near East.
10 The first is an enormous dream manual arranged by subject, entitled Kitab almumatti{
fi ta{bir al-ru}ya wa-sharÌ uÒuliha, extant only in Sül., Carullah 1571, 194ff.,
1049/1640. Although the ms. is not terribly old, it has suffered much due to water,
worms, and coal dust. There are also a significant number of lacunae in the text. It is thus
fortunate that there are two anonymous dream manuals that made extensive use of
Qayrawani's Mumatti{: Sül., Hekimoglu Ali Pa≥a 590, 343ff., undated, and Sül., Bagdatlı
Vehbi Efendi 941, 121ff., 1005/1596, the latter being basically a mukhtaÒar. — The second
is a shorter dream manual arranged by subject and divided into 30 chapters, the order
of which follows closely that found in his Mumatti{. This work is extant in five mss.: (1)
Sül., Re≥it Efendi 1003.17, ff. 302b-319a, undated, (2) Top., Ah. III 1458.3, ff. 126a-154b,
868/1463, (3) Paris, BN ar. 2746, 44ff., undated, (4) Rabat, Îasaniyah 4536, 30ff.,
1159/1649, and (5) Milan, Bib. Amb. ar. n.s. 1031.7, ff. 111a-129a, 1050/1640. — The
third is another shorter dream manual that Qayrawani arranged not according to the objects
that appear in dreams, but according to their meaning, so that, e.g., all dreams meaning
that the dreamer will have political power are grouped in a single chapter. This work
is extant only in Rabat, Îasaniyah 5596, 57ff., undated.
11 This text is divided into 58 chapters, the order of which diverges sharply from that
found in his other dream manuals. Apart from a rather generic praise of God, the work
has no preface. Qayrawani begins immediately with his introduction, the themes of which
and even at times its wording closely parallel what is found in the first of his shorter
dream manuals. — There may be another copy of this work in Cairo. I have not yet been
able to examine the relevant ms., but have had to rely on F. SAYYID, Fihrist al-makh†u†at.
Nashrah bi-l-makh†u†at allati iqtanatha al-Dar min sanat 1936-1955, I, Cairo, 1961,
p. 243. SAYYID records that Dar al-kutub, Shanqi†i 57, 45ff., 1255/1839, contains a dream
manual entitled Kitab fi ta{bir al-ru}ya, which is ascribed to Abu al-Îasan {Ali b. Sa{id al-
Khawlani al-QaÒÒar. The incipit appears to be identical with that of the Vatican ms., although
SAYYID gives only the first six, rather generic words of the dibajah. SAYYID states,
however, that this dream manual contains 60 chapters (rather than 58).
12 Shu{ayb AL-ARNA}UT ed., SharÌ al-sunnah, XII, Beirut, 1983, p. 202-53 passim.
BAR BAHLUL'S BOOK OF SIGNS 189

short poetic excerpts on dream interpretation, the first treating dreams of
people, the second, dreams of marriage13; (4) ff. 206b-207a, a passage
derived from an unnamed work (not a dream manual) in which it is explained
that the interpretation of a dream can vary with the month in
which it is seen; and (5) ff. 207a-229a, an untitled and unascribed dream
manual, which is in fact a copy (nearly complete) of the last chapter of
Bar Bahlul's Books of Signs, that treating of dream interpretation14.
Although Hekimoglu 572.1 is a well written and relatively early copy
of Bar Bahlul's Book of Signs, it is not without faults. The chapter on
dreams, in particular, is often obscure. This is due in part to its extremely
laconic style. In part it also stems from what can only be scribal
errors. (These problems are compounded by occasional misprints and
misreadings in Habbi's edition). There is no need to give a complete collation
of this new manuscript witness. To establish its importance, a
small sample should suffice (corresponding to the first section of this
chapter in Habbi's edition, pp. 382-5)15.

Page 382 — 4. UFOL : om. V. — Page 383 — 2. ‰« : v « H : om. V. —
8. UNN « : ULNN « V. — 11. U : U* V. — 11. Àb : f V. — 12. Â«oe«Ë :
ÂË«oeË V. — 13. t uKF l U Ë : om. V. — 13. ÂbIM : ÂbI H : ÂbI V. —
13. Á«d : Á«d Ë V. — 15. s U «Ë : l U «Ë V. — 17. Àb : ”d V. —
17. WMHF*« : om. V. — 18. …e M*« : …d M*« H : …d *« V. — Page 384 —
3. W L : W V. — 4. nOHF « ` UB « : trans. V. — 5. w Ë : w V. —
5. q I*« : q I*« H : qOI*« V. — 5. ÂU «Ë : ÂU «Ë V. — 6. _U : ÂUM V. — 6. t U « :
t U V. — 6. …oeU “ w Ë : …oeU “Ë V. — 8. ÊU «–U : ÊU «–«Ë V. — 8. oH « «–U :
oH « «–« t U V. — 9. U d « : UNM d « V. — 15. U2 : U V. — 15. ô : ô Ê«
V. — 17. ÊUBIM «Ë : ÊUBIM « Ë« V. — 18. U dOOG : U dO F V. — Page 385 —
2. U Ëd « dO F Ë : U ËdK dO F K Ë V. — 2. d F : d F V. — 3. rN UO : rN UO HV. —
4. r oe« —«Ë : rN oe« Ë« V. — 5. post dOEM «Ë add. ·ö)« Ë bC U …d Ë V. —
5. ·dB : ·dB V. — 5. ÁdOE Ë : ÁdOE Ë« V. — 6. d F Ë : d F Ë V.

Where H and V differ in ways that affect the sense of the text, V often
offers better readings. Note, for example, the following instances: (i) in
H, at 383.15 and 17, the ordinal al-thamin is repeated, while at 383.13,
al-sadis and al-sabi{ refer to just one type of dream; V offers a consecutive
numeration; (ii) at 383.18, the reading of H and Habbi's tacit cor-

13 I have been unable to identify the provenance of these verses.
14 It corresponds to pp. 382.4-439.9 of HABBI's edition.
15 H = Hekimoglu 572. V = Vatican ar. 1304.
190 J.C. LAMOREAUX

rection make little sense; V does (“food that sends vapors to the
brain”); (iii) at 384.3, V's sittah is superior to H's khamsah (there is
an allusion here to a well-known Ìadith in which MuÌammad defined
the true dream as “one of the 46 parts of prophecy”); (iv) at 384.5,
V's ayyam is clearly demanded by the sense of the passage (“and
when the trees blossom”); and (v) at 385.4, V's adabihim appears to fit
the context better than H's iradihim. Other examples could be noted.
Enough have been cited, however, to suggest the value of V for establishing
the text of Bar Bahlul's Book of Signs.

This new witness to Bar Bahlul's chapter on dream interpretation is
valuable for yet another reason. I have argued elsewhere that this chapter
is an abbreviated, but extremely accurate rendering of the dream manual
of Ibn Qutaybah (d. 276/889), the earliest extant Muslim dream manual16.
Ibn Qutaybah's text rests on an extremely slight manuscript basis17.
The parallels between the two texts are so strong that any future
edition of Ibn Qutaybah's text would have to take into account the witness
of Bar Bahlul. This can be done with far more confidence now that
an additional manuscript of the latter has come to light.

Duke University John C. LAMOREAUX
Department of Religion
Box 90964
Durham, NC 27708-0964
U.S.A.
16 The Sources of Ibn Bahlul's Chapter on Dream Divination, in Studia patristica,
vol. 33, Louvain, 1996, pp. 553-57
17 Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Yah. ar. 196, 67ff., 845/1441, is the only complete
copy of Ibn Qutaybah's dream manual, although a version of its introduction can be
found in Ankara Üniv. Dil ve Tarih-Cografya Fakültesi Ktp., Ismail Sâib 4501.2, ff. 180a-
217b, undated.

China Review International Volume 14, Number 2, Fall 2007 Reviewed by John W. Witek

Wed, 14 Sep 2011 20:10:02 -0400

China Review International
Volume 14, Number 2, Fall 2007
Reviewed by
John W. Witek
Roman Malek, editor. Jingjiao: The Church of the East in China and Central Asia. Collectanea Serica. In connection with Peter Hofrichter. Sankt Augustin: Institut Monumenta Serica, 2006. 701 pp. Paperback $65.00, ISBN 3–8050–0534–2.
In 1623 near Xi'an, a farmer unearthed a stele bearing a lengthy Chinese text on its face with Syriac inscriptions on its sides that recounted the development of the Syro-Oriental Church. Its leader, Aluoben, came to Chang'an, the capital of the Tang dynasty under the Taizong Emperor (627–649) in 635. Within three years, the emperor issued an edict allowing the diffusion of Christianity. Buddhist and Daoist opposition in the late seventh and early eighth centuries curtailed such Christian endeavors, but the Jingjiao beiwen (Stele of the Luminous Religion, called the "Nestorian monument" in the past) erected in 781 described the history of Christianity in that period.1 Entwined with the persecution of Buddhism by the state in 845, Christianity was uprooted from the capital and virtually disappeared from China until it was introduced for a second time before the opening of the Yuan or Mongol dynasty (1279–1368). From the seventeenth through the nineteenth centuries, the stele was considered a hoax in some scholarly circles. But archaeological discoveries as well as Chinese and non-Chinese written sources of the last century explain the presence of the Syro-Oriental Church in China under the Mongols. With two exceptions, the thirty essays in this volume stem from the conference titled "Research on Nestorianism in China" held in Salzburg, Austria, in May 2003. Historians, archaeologists, theologians, and sinologists were able to present their findings in an interdisciplinary setting that resulted in a collection of research materials, not final studies in this field.
The preface by Peter Hofrichter and the editorial introduction by Roman Malek explain why "Nestorian" in the title of the conference was an overarching term that is commonly known, but that more appropriately Jingjiao (Luminous Religion) in the Tang period and yelikewen (in the Yuan period) "should no longer be translated as "Nestorianism" (p. 12). The Church of the East fled from the Roman Empire but continued the theological tradition of Syria and Antioch as they settled in Persia. Over many centuries, misunderstandings resulted in the use of "Nestorianism" as a heresy opposed to the teaching of the Church in Rome. Not until 1994 was a doctrinal agreement on Christology between the Church of the East and the Holy See concluded that led to the latter accepting the liturgy of the Church of the East in 2001. No longer is the term "Nestorian" an appropriate designation; instead Jingjiao, as in the title of the book, is preferable.
The two essays in part 1 focus on past and present studies on Tang dynasty Jingjiao. Matteo Nicolini-Zani indicates that past research developed in three [End Page 513] phases. Japanese scholars such as Haneda Toru and Saeki Yoshiro made the documents known, edited them, and began to interpret them. A watershed was reached with Saeki's The Nestorian Documents and Relics in China (Tokyo, 1951) so that from the 1960s to the 1980s studies were done mostly by Chinese scholars in Taiwan and Hong Kong, but with no appreciable addition of new elements to the Japanese findings. But more recently scholars such as Chen Huaiyu, Lin Wushu, and Wu Qiyu have reformulated the issues on a more scientific basis and thereby have developed "a turning-point in the history of the research on the Christian Syro-Oriental documents in Chinese" (p. 26). The companion essay in part 1 by T. H. Barrett, "Buddhism, Daoism and the Eighth-Century Chinese Term for Christianity. A Response to Recent Work by Antonino Forte and Others," originally appeared a few years ago.2 A discussion of the impact of Daoism and Buddhism shows that in his 745 edict, the Xuanzong emperor changed Bosi jiao (the Persian teaching) to Da Qin jiao (Teaching of Great Qin).
The first two essays of the nine in part 2 show thematic connections of Jingjiao with specific Buddhist and Daoist texts. Stephen Eskildsen notes that there may have been an intensive dialogue of Christians with Daoists, but he is "inclined to think that the Buddhist influence on Nestorians came more through the medium of the heavily Buddhist-influenced Daoist religion of the time" (p. 81). In his essay, Chen Huaiyu portrays a linguistic connection between two Jingjiao and Buddhist texts in the late Tang period by comparatively analyzing each paragraph. Significantly, one of the problems that scholars in this field face is whether some of the documents from Dunhuang said to be "Nestorian" are forgeries. Lin Wushu poses this question, but admits that a final response is not yet possible. Ge Chongyong examines the lifestyle of the Jingjiao followers in terms of their political participation with the upper social classes; their communication with the middle class of doctors, craftsmen, and musicians; and also their charity work among the lower classes. He attributes the failure of their mission to deficiencies in their doctrine compared to the Buddhists as well as their economic inferiority with the Buddhists.
In part 3, twelve essays cover the presence of the Syro-Oriental Church in China during the Jin (1115–1234) and Yuan dynasties. A general overview is provided by Zhou Liangxiao in his comparison of two families who were followers in that church. One family had been in China for more than two hundred years and had adapted to Chinese culture. The other family, part of the Syrian-born immigrant population, had close contacts with the imperial court and were involved in politics even to the extent of temporarily administering religious affairs. Though the two families had a common faith, they differed in culture and lifestyle.
The next essay, by Niu Ruji, discusses Nestorian inscriptions from China during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. This sets the scene for the four subsequent essays, one on Yangzhou and three on Quanzhou (Zayton). The illustrations greatly enhance the understanding of these viewpoints that discuss Greek, Latin, Syriac, Uighur, and Chinese terms. These illustrations are followed by an essay [End Page 514] on the past and present field research of gravestones of the Syro-Oriental Church located in Inner Mongolia. Again the illustrations are integral to the text. The rest of part 3 covers such topics as the art of the Syro-Oriental Church in China; a Nestorian-Turkic manuscript from Kharakhoto; a Syriac manuscript possibly written in Inner Mongolia; a biography of Sorkaktani Beki, a Nestorian woman who became prominent in the Mongol court; and the issue of identifying urban structures in Önggüt territory during the Mongol period.
In part 4, seven essays discuss the Syro-Oriental Church in areas beyond China. These include Mesopotamia during the Mongol period, Christian crosses from Central Asia, as well as issues in understanding the finds made along the Silk Route, especially in Kyrgyzstan. Additionally, the last essays present parallels from Caucasian origins to Chinese representations of the cross as well as vestiges of the Syro-Oriental Church in Iran and India. Part 5 is devoted to a two hundred page preliminary multilingual bibliography on the Church of the East in China and in Central Asia.
The wide spectrum of topics under review precludes a thorough critique of each of these essays. The significance of this volume lies in its comprehensive coverage of the Syro-Oriental Church by scholars in very diverse fields. None of them contend that their work is definitive, but they are pointing the way towards attaining a deeper penetration of a phenomenon heretofore known to few specialists.
This volume definitely has constructed a watershed on an important subject in the history of Tang China and later. One glaring omission concerns the date of publication, which is found neither on the title page nor elsewhere in the volume nor on the separate list of errata and corrigenda made available to the reviewer weeks after the arrival of the volume. Some of the English phrases or sentences need revision. But these observations are of lesser consequence in a volume that covers discussions from multilingual sources in Chinese, German, Russian, Syriac, and Uighur, among others. The reader needs to take time to ponder the essays thoroughly. The reward is gaining insights into the history of China from the Tang to the Mongol period under the guidance of leading scholars engaged in fruitful scientific inquiry.
John W. Witek
John W. Witek, SJ, is a professor of East Asian history in the Department of History, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
Notes
1. The original stele is in the Beilin Museum, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China. Replicas are located at the old entrance of the mausoleum of Kobo Daishi (774–835) on Mount Koya, Japan; in the Vatican Museum, Vatican City, Italy; in the Musée Guimet in Paris, France; and in the Intercultural Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
2. In the Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 65 (2002): 555–560. [End Page 515]
Copyright © 2008 University of Hawai'i Press

Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2000.10.07 Elizabeth Key Fowden, The Barbarian Plain: Saint Sergius between Rome and Iran.

Sun, 11 Sep 2011 12:53:01 -0400

Elizabeth Key Fowden, The Barbarian Plain: Saint Sergius between Rome and Iran. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1999. Pp. xix + 227; 17 b/w ills. ISBN 0-520-21685-7. $55.00.

 Reviewed by Jas' Elsner, Corpus Christi College Word count: 1028 words
In his brilliant and underrated account of pagan pilgrimage to the great temple of Atargatis in Hierapolis (Manbij) in Syria, Lucian evokes the multicultural constituency of the goddess' adherents. He tells us that "no temple is more sacred nor any region more holy" than Hierapolis, whose sanctuary is full of "expensive artefacts and ancient offerings" (De Dea Syria 10). The treasures come from as far afield as 'Arabia, Phoenicia, Babyonia and still more from Cappadocia' (De Dea Syria 10) while the lavish votive offerings that adorned her statue summed up the riches of a whole world largely outside the Roman empire: "There are also many sardonyxes and sapphires and emeralds, which the Egyptians, Indians, Ethiopians, Medes, Armenians and Babylonians bring" (De Dea Syria 32).1
Likewise, in the ruins of the desert town of Dura Europos, in the same Syrian plain, a religious and artistic interface of Roman and Parthian is attested in the characteristic artistic styles and the jumble of deities whose origins reach equally into the East and the West as well as more locally in Syria itself (the latter being represented not only by Atargatis and the gods of near-by Palmyra but also by a very early temple to Jesus Christ).2 Clearly the 'Barbarian Plain', as Procopius called the Syrian Steppe, had a long history as a fundamental frontier zone not only politically, between the great empires of Persia and Rome, but also culturally.
Elizabeth Key Fowden's articulate and well-written account of this region -- part historical geography and part religious history -- fills in the Christian end of this story by focusing (a brilliant move) on a major local saint whose appeal stretched as far as Constantinople and Rome to the Byzantine West and beyond Ctesiphon to the Sassanian East. If I have a major regret it is that the book does not tell the pre-Christian story -- which is every bit as interesting and as relevant to the historical complexity of this frontier region between empires which found multicultural religious appeal to be part of the solution to its difficulties. When Theodoret in the fifth century wrote in his Historia Religiosa that St Symeon the Stylite (atop his pillar at Qalat Siman, also in the same Syrian desert) attracted 'Ishmaelites, Persians, Armenians, Iberians, Himyarits, Spaniards, Britons, Gauls and Italians' (26.11, quoted by Fowden at p. 59), he was effectively making the same point as Lucian three centuries earlier.3 Indeed, it was the Christian bishop Alexander of Hierapolis, from the very city of Atargatis now Christianized, who was responsible in the years immediately before the Council of Ephesus in 431 for setting up the Shrine of St Sergius in the Mesopotamian wilderness at Rusafa. As Fowden well describes, it was only with the coming of Islam and the conquest of the Roman East that the 'Barbarian Plain' lost its centuries-old distinction as the supreme frontier between worlds which had only been so temporarily breached by Alexander. So Islam is certainly the right point for ending the story, but Sergius -- a relative newcomer into the sacred politics of the Syrian desert -- might be said to provide an insufficient beginning.
Fowden's book consists of 6 chapters and an introduction. The latter is a brief and helpful historical geography of the 'Barbarian Plain'. Then she moves to her saint. Chapter 1 ("Portraits of a Martyr") enters the fraught world of reading history out of hagiography and reading hagiography in its correct historiographic milieu. F. is broadly convincing in rejecting the extreme position (taken by David Woods and Tim Barnes, following Hippolyte Delehaye) that the Passio of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus has no historical value, though her dating of a putative martyrdom under Maximinus Daia in c.312 remains at best a good guess. Her dating of the Passio itself to the period immediately after Bishop Alexander's dedication of the Shrine (and his investment there of 300 lb of gold) seems sensible. Clearly the shrine grew relatively popular swiftly (in what was the golden age of pilgrimage to the saints in the East), and it is heartening to see F. use and illustrate a range of visual sources to investigate this topic.
From the saint himself, F. moves in chapter 2 to the place of martyr cult on the frontier. She examines the fascinating case of Mayperqat, east of the Tigris on the very borders of Armenia, Persia and the Roman Empire, where Bishop Marutha (who had served more than once as an imperial envoy to the Persian court) gathered the bones of all those martyred in Iranian territory. With the backing of Theodosius II, he built a grand city full of churches and christened it Martyropolis. Its interest lies in its appeal across the two empires, in which it was to be emulated by Rusafa, the subject of chapter 3. Here F. places the city and cult in its context within the frontier zone (moving back from religious history to historical geography) and gives a good archaeologically-grounded account of the city, its churches, pilgrimage and liturgy. Chapter 4 discusses the spread of the cult of St Sergius in Syria and Mesopotamia, assessing the archaeological and epigraphic evidence place by place (in rather minute detail). The appeal of the saint within the Iranian empire and among the Arabs is extended further in chapter 5 ("Frontier Shrine and Frontier Saint"), where it is clear that he could figure as a kind of deity within polytheistic circles as well as a Christian saint in famous buildings such as the church dedicated to him by Justinian in Constantinople. The final chapter, entitled "St Sergius after Islam" is really a conclusion about the loss of the age-old frontier identity for the Syrian plain (and hence for Rusafa) after the Ummayad triumph in the 630's.
All this is well done and clearly told. A minor cavil is F.'s use of the term 'non-Chalcedonian' -- by which she means 'Monophysite' or 'anti-Chalcedonian' according to p. 3 and the index entry, but which could equally mean Nestorian on the face of it. Indeed at pp. 122-3, it is not entirely clear how the Nestorians and the non-Chalcedonians differ, while at pp. 140-1 they are opposed.

Notes:
 1. For issues of multiculturalism, cultural mix, translation and resistance in the De Dea Syria, see my "Describing Self in the Language of Other: Pseudo(?)-Lucian at the Temple of Hire" in S. Goldhill (ed.), Being Greek Under Rome: Cultural Identity, the Second Sophistic and the Development of Empire, Cambridge (CUP), forthcoming. There is a new edition with commentary currently in preparation by Jane Lightfoot.  2. See F. Millar, "Dura Europos Under Parthian Rule" in J. Wiesehöfer (ed.), Das Partherreich und seine Zeugnisse, Stuttgart, 1998, 473-92.  3. For another link between Symeon and Lucian's Atargatis, see D. Frankfurter, "Stylites and Phallobates: Pillar Religions in Late Antique Syria," Vigiliae Christianae 44 (1990) 168-98.

Book Review: The Wisdom of the Pearlers Trans. and Intro. Brian E. Colless

Sun, 11 Sep 2011 12:52:02 -0400

Cistercian Publications, 2008. ISBN: 9780879073169. ~$25
Recently there has been a great interest among the general public, and to a lesser extent, among scholars. This book seems to be aimed more at a public audience than at an academic one. Part of this desire stems from the popularization of Islamic origins courtesy of Ibn Warraq, Andrew Rippin, and the cheap reprints of John Wansbrough’s seminal works publish more than 30 years ago. The Cistercian Studies series is not geared toward this goal, but does have many books that cover Syriac topics, such as Sebastian Brock’s theology-biography of Ephraim the Syrian (303-373), recent publications with original Syriac side-by-side with English, and now this.
This book is especially important because mysticism in general is hard to understand, especially something so foreign as the Syriac version. Nevertheless, Brian Colless is our guide with an Introduction that covers more than half the book, with selections from the most famous and influential of those discussed. Be warned: there is no Syriac in this book, only the English translations. I bought this thinking I was getting Syriac texts, but no. The general reader may not care in this case since it is a little known language with grammars and dictionaries running into the $100s.
In any case, this serves to introduce the topics in Syriac mysticism, the items they were concerned most about, and their development through various figures. What is striking is that it did not start out with a fast development, and in fact, the greatest mystics were monks who lived in the 6th and 7th centuries, tapering off in the 8th and eventually disappearing almost altogether by the 13th century. What is even more fascinating is that most of these developments had a great impact on developing Islamic theology which emerged out of Mesopotamia, and the Persian Gulf region (the same locale for the highest activity of Christian theology as well). Also of note is the influence of Buddhism. Colless believes there is some substance to the idea that Buddhism was the originator of Christian asceticism and the turning away from the world. Buddhism certainly had an impact on Mani (founder of Manichaeism), and India seems to be an important place in Syriac Christianity, not just by being the destination of Judas Thomas, but also because of the mystical tradition that was already there. In the “Song of the Pearl” the East is the centre of the poem. This poem is part of the “Acts of Thomas” that was composed 2nd-3rd centuries and was very influential among East Syriac Christians, and Indian Christians.
Colless admits there are many topics of interest, but he chose to focus on the pearl, and the imagery of pearlers who were divers into the ocean to get them (they are from clams and are formed when something gets inside the shell, and this white substance forms around it to make it less bothersome). This does make for an interesting read.
The book cover has a picture from a Gospel manuscript from the 13th century in Iraq. This is appropriate since the image is the Transfiguration and gives a hint of what is in the book. Many of the poems deal with Christ and the Holy Spirit. Many of these ideas should be familiar to Western Latin based Christians (eg. Catholics, Protestants), and also to Eastern Orthodox (eg. Greek, Russian) since many of the foundational ideas come from saints and men who are held in high esteem by all traditions.
Dionysius the Areopagite is a case in point. He is said to have been a companion of Paul in Acts, but the writings attributed to him were composed in the early-6th century, and survive in Syriac and Greek from that time. These writings were very influential to the theologians in both those languages, and we know that John Damascene (d. 780) studied them. They were translated into Latin in 858, and men such as Thomas Aquinas and Albertus Magnus wrote commentaries on them, so we can truly see how important this set of writings was.
The anthology itself is very impressive, containing the most pertenant of passages, as well as Biblical and internal references (internal to this book where ideas are found in more than one author). The bibliography and source list of available texts and translations is also impressive, giving an indication of how much of the tradition has been studied. All-in-all, a must-have for those interested in foreign traditions, Eastern Christianity, and the origins of Islam.

Book Review From Ephrem to Romanos: Interactions between Syriac and Greek in Late Antiquity Sebastian Brock

Fri, 9 Sep 2011 12:54:14 -0400

Book Review
From Ephrem to Romanos: Interactions between Syriac and Greek in Late Antiquity

Sebastian Brock. From Ephrem to Romanos: Interactions between Syriac and Greek in Late Antiquity. Variorum Collected Studies Series CS664. Brookfield, Vt.: Ashgate Publishing, 1999. Pp. xi + 352. $106.95.
Those who are familiar with the work of Professor Sebastian Brock will not be surprised to learn that this is his third volume of essays in the Collected Studies Series. The previous volumes, Syriac Perspectives on Late Antiquity (1984) and Studies in Syriac Christianity (1992), covered a range of topics and interests that, in a majority of cases, have come to be defined by Brock's pioneering scholarship. The present collection is organized around such a topic that has occupied much of Brock's research in recent years: the interaction between Greek and Syriac literary cultures. Following this category, one finds essays that deal with texts and genres of writing. Especially well represented is the extensive literature of dialogues and disputes, a flourishing genre in Syriac, with Sumero-Babylonian antecedents. Here, too, Brock's own prodigious scholarship defines the field. Essays on a selection of wider issues complete the volume.
Chapter 1 traverses the complex intersections between language and geography in the eastern Roman Empire, where Greek continued to function as the language of political power, but where major dialects of Aramaic (Nabataean, Palmyrene, Emesan Hatran, and Syriac) reasserted themselves around the beginning of the common era. Recent discoveries of Syriac mosaic inscriptions confirm the ethnic, linguistic, and political links among these dialects and the populations who used them.
Chapter 2 surveys the textual tradition and underlying interests of the founding legend of Edessene Christianity, the "Teaching of Addai"; first recorded by Eusebius, and expanded in subsequent Syriac recensions. Closely related is the matter of the obscure origins of Syriac-speaking Christianity, specifically, whether Christianity arrived in Edessa by way of missionaries from Greek-speaking Antioch, the position defended by Hans J. W. Drijvers, or if it made its way across western Syria in Aramaic, as Brock has consistently argued.
In chapter 3, Brock maps the intellectual and literary trajectories between the thought-world of the Syriac East and the Britain of Theodore of Tarsus. Sparked by a period of flourishing activity in the seventh century, the use of Syriac spread [End Page 115] to areas west of the Euphrates where it continued to develop lexically even as the prestige and influence of Greek were expanding in the region.
Chapter 4, "From Ephrem to Romanos," the title-essay of the volume, proposes areas of literary interaction between Syriac and Greek. Brock demonstrates the debt of Romanos, an author of Jewish origins in bilingual Emesa, to Syriac literary sources. Following both Maas and Peterson, Brock locates the antecedent of the Greek kontakion in the Syriac madrasha.
Chapters 5 through 9 treat a variety of metrical compositions, verse homilies (mimre), and dispute poems, all areas into which Brock has spearheaded research: chap. 5, "Ephrem's Verse Homily on Jonah"; chap. 6, "Two Syriac Verse Homilies on the Binding of Isaac"; chap. 7, "Syriac Dispute Poems"; chap. 8, "A Dispute of the Months and Some Related Syriac Texts"; and chap. 9, "Tales of Two Beloved Brothers: Syriac Dialogue between Body and Soul." Monastic exegetical concerns fuel the debate in "The Baptist's Diet in Syriac Sources," in chapter 10. Chapter 11 explores unique East Syrian treatments of the ever-popular and widespread legend of the Finding of the Cross.
The seventh-century Syriac monastic writer Isaac of Nineveh, the subject of a recent monograph by Brock (The Wisdom of St. Isaac the Syrian, 1997) is the focus of chapter 12, "Some Uses of the Term Theoria in the Writings of Isaac of Nineveh." Brock charts the expanding semantic range of theoria among Syriac ascetical writers who borrowed the term from Evagrius, and then developed it to accommodate their unique understanding of the spiritual life.
Chapters 13 and 14 are concerned with the role played by Syriac in the transmission of Greek philosophical and medical texts into Arabic. Brock demonstrates how the use of Syriac to bridge Greek and Arabic greatly increased as a result of growing Arab interest in philosophical and medical texts from the ninth century onwards.
Chapter 15 considers the phenomenon of Syriac lexical borrowings from Greek as one measure of the growing influence of Greek on Syriac, especially in the sixth and seventh centuries when Greek increasingly served as the model for Syriac authors who adopted Greek genres, types of syntax, and even vocabulary. The result could be as obscure to readers of Syriac as it was to readers of Greek.
Chapter 15 fittingly closes the collection with the essay "The Scribe Reaches Harbor," in which Brock examines this distinctive nautical topos employed by Greek and Latin scribes, but whose earliest attestations are in Syriac.
In this volume, some of the most recent and defining work of Professor Brock's career, heretofore often available only with difficulty outside Europe or the Middle East, is conveniently gathered. However, at over a hundred dollars, the price will be prohibitive to many, including graduate students, who could profit most from this valuable resource.
Joseph P. Amar  University of Notre Dame

The Martyred Church A History of the Church of the East David Wilmshurst

Thu, 18 Aug 2011 17:03:06 -0400

East & West Publishing Ltd ADVANCE INFORMATION
This absorbing book deals with the Church of the East—the so‐ called ‘Nestorian’ Church—arguably the most interesting of all the Syriac‐speaking Churches. Few Christians nowadays outside the Middle East are familiar with its name, let alone its history, yet between the ninth and fourteenth centuries the Church of the East was in geographical extent the largest Christian Church in the world, with dioceses stretching from the Mediterranean right across Asia to China. The Church of the East, which began
life as the indigenous church of Sasanian Persia, has been harried and persecuted throughout its history. The tragic story of this ‘martyred church’ is brought vividly to life in this impressive book.
The book is organised into the following ten chapters:
 The Church beyond Rome (AD 36 to 502)  Nestorians and Jacobites (503–633)  Christians and Muslims (634–779)  The Age of Timothy I (780–905)
 A Church at Bay (906–1221)  The Mongol Century (1222–1317)  The Years of Darkness (1318–1552)  Nestorians and Chaldeans (1553–1830)  The Age of the European Missions (1831–1913)  The Calamitous Twentieth Century (1914–2011)
Each chapter contains an overview and a narrative history that describes major events and assesses the reigns of successive Nestorian and Chaldean patriarchs. The historical narrative is followed by thematic sections on ecclesiastical administration, monastic history, and literature
and scholarship. The sections on ecclesiastical administration give ample space to the history of the Nestorian missions to Central Asia, India and China. The sections on monasticism chart the growth and decline of a distinctive form of worship that differed in important respects from monasticism in the Roman Empire. The sections on literature and scholarship pay particular attention to texts which are readily available in English translation, and are written partly with the aim of winning new readers for these texts.
The book gives due weight to the popular Sasanian and Mongol periods but also provides a detailed history of the Church of the East under the Umayyad and cAbbasid caliphs, a relatively neglected area of study in the English‐speaking world. It is particularly strong on the history of the Church of the East under the Ottomans. Drawing on the research which underpinned his earlier work, Wilmshurst provides the fullest account of the history of the Church of the East between the fourteenth and nineteenth centuries that has yet been published in English. He also provides a thoughtful Afterword, in which he discusses several possible futures for the Church of the East in the twenty‐first century.
The author demolishes a number of fashionable myths about the Church of the East. In his exposure of the alarming amount of legendary material in its early history, his sober appraisal of the extent and effectiveness of its missionary role in the Middle Ages, and his insistence on the positive role played by the European and American missionaries in the development of the Nestorian and Chaldean Churches in the nineteenth century, he ventures onto sensitive ground. Not all readers may welcome his conclusions, but they will certainly find his arguments stimulating.
David Wilmshurst was educated at Worcester College, Oxford, where he took a first‐class BA degree in Classics (1979) and a D Phil degree in Oriental Studies (1998). He has spent much of his life in Hong Kong, and is one of the few modern scholars of the Church of the East who can read Syriac, Arabic and Chinese. He first became interested in the Church of the East during a visit in 1988 to Ch’uan‐chou in southern China, whose city museum housed a fascinating collection of Nestorian tombstones from Marco Polo’s time. Presently working as Academic Editor at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, Wilmshurst is the author of The Ecclesiastical Organisation of the Church of the East, 1318–1913 (Louvain, 2000), a study hailed as ‘an indispensable research tool for students of the Church of the East and Syriac scholars’.
East & West Publishing Ltd
ADVANCE INFORMATION
I’m very excited about this book: it is a welcome, comprehensive overview of the history of the Church of the East, which takes the theological and historical issues seriously and provides a reliable account of the many vicissitudes in the Church’s long life. The Church of the East has truly been a ‘Martyred Church’ twice over; both at the hands of hostile civil regimes and, regrettably, even at the hands of fellow Christians, both east and west. Wilmshurst’s book
brings us a welcome opportunity to know anew and cherish the faithful history of the Church of the East and to work in our own time not only for a healing of memories but also for communion among the sister Christian Churches whose histories reach all the way back to the first centuries of Christianity.
Sidney H Griffith
Written with enthusiasm for the subject, this well‐informed book traces the history of the Church of the East from its origins to the present day. A particularly valuable feature lies in the considerable amount of new light that Wilmshurst has been able to shed on the various obscure periods for which no narrative historical sources are available, thanks to his extensive use of information contained in the colophons of manuscripts.
Sebastian Brock
Wilmshurst displays a phenomenal knowledge of a very little known subject covering a vast area over two thousand years, and manages to convey it very lucidly and readably. The book is also a very useful corrective. Europe tends to think that it invented Christendom, and Europeans often view Christianity as centred perennially on Rome and as somehow the converse of Asia. This book is a timely reminder that Christianity spread eastwards before it spread westwards, and that there was a ‘world Church’ in the east long before the rise of the medieval popes.
Warwick Ball
ISBN 978 1907318 04 7 232 x 154 mm, 544 pages, 14 plates and maps, £39.00, hardback; September 2011
East & West Publishing Ltd G8 Allen House The Maltings, Station Road Sawbridgeworth,
Herts. CM21 9JX, UK
Tel. +44 (0)1279 721398 info@eastandwestpublishing.com www.eastandwestpublishing.com

Original Sin Or the Lack of It? Is Original Sin an Augustinian Nightmare? Robert Stevens

Thu, 18 Aug 2011 17:01:23 -0400

Original Sin Or the Lack of It? Is Original Sin an Augustinian Nightmare?1 Robert Stevens2 17 August 2011
Introduction: The Purpose of the Paper and The Theological Ground-Rules
The purpose of this paper is not to pretend to be original, but to promote discussion with a view to seeking out sound theology. The writer believes that theology should be rooted in a good exegetical understanding of the scriptures, but also considers that theological learning can be gained from theologians of the past, particularly the early Church Fathers. This practice should be as much a part of the western evangelical traditions as that of the eastern Orthodox traditions. It is noteworthy that John Wesley commented the Church Fathers in his Advice to Clergy (1756).
‘Can any who spend several years in those seats of learning, be excused if they do not add to that reading of the Fathers? The most authentic commentators on Scripture, as being both nearest the fountain, eminently endued with that Spirit by whom all Scripture was given. It will be easily perceived, I speak chiefly of those who wrote before the council of Nicea. but who could not likewise desire to have some acquaintance with those that followed them? With St. Chrysostom, Basil, Austin, and above all, the man of a broken heart, Ephraim Syrus?’ (sic) 3 4
1 Adapting the words of Norman Powell Williams (p 417), ‘original guilt is an Augustinian nightmare’.
2 The writer begins by thanking Fr Gregory Hallam and acknowledges the assistance of his Ancestral Sin & Salvation and Abba Elia Khalife for informing him about the writing of John S. Romanides.
3 wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/an-address-to-the-clergy/ 4 Don Schofield issues a caveat: ‘I trust you will continue to bear in mind the Brethren's caution about 'inspiration of “Church Fathers' anyone other than one who witnessed the events of the Gospels and Apostles are all second-hand accounts and opiinions’. The writer would add a rider: the early Church Fathers had both a wisdom and an understanding of the scriptures with which they continue to bless the church. Nevertheless, one should always read with critical care.Osborne (p 273) argues for a ‘community exegesis’ which involves a dialogue with the past community via commentaries etc and with present communities via constant interaction) to challenge our interpretation.
1
The doctrine of Original Sin was unknown in both the Eastern and Western Church until Augustine of Hippo (c. (354-430).5 It is in Augustine’s writings that for the first time in Christian thought there occurs the term originale peccatum6, a sinful quality inherent in man’s constitution that is involuntarily acquired and deserving of punishment ex poena originalis peccati. It involves guilt.7 Augustine thought that sin had become ingrained into human nature and was transmitted by physical heredity.8
Indeed, it is interesting to note that even Augustine considered more than one possible interpretation.9 The one doctrine he seems to have favoured and the one that has been associated with him is to be found in Contra duas epistolas Pelagianorum.10 Briefly stated, the Augustian idea of Original Sin is that all men since the Fall of Adam are seminally in Adam and as a direct result of this in Adam all have sinned and thus share in Adam’s guilt.
Krister Stendahl stated, ‘our vision is often more obstructed by what we think we know than by our lack of knowledge.’11 The doctrine of Original Sin is often based on Romans 5:1212, particularly Augustine’s understanding of that text. The crucial question is ‘in what sense does [Paul] mean that all men sinned’?13 Much turns on the Greek ’εφ ‘ω. Augustine, along with several of the Latin Fathers understood the words "in whom all have sinned", to mean that all have sinned in Adam. This is based on an erroneous Latin
5 The concept may have arisen in the writings of Tertullian, but the expression seems to have appeared first in Augustine’ s works. 6 The concept of original sin may have arisen with Tertullian. 7 Williams, p 327
8 Williams (p 397) refers to Augustine’s de Diversis Quaestionibus ad Simplicianum. Simplicianus was Ambrose’s successor as bishop of Milan. 9 Earlier on, Augustine considered that God imputed Adam’s sin to the rest of mankind because Adam was head of mankind. Later, he considered that sin was passed on through genetic reproduction because a child was in the father’s own likeness. 10 Ziesler, p 146 11 Paul Among Jews & Gentiles & Other Essays. Philadelphia, Fortress Press, 1976, p 7 12 There has been controversy over the interpretation of Romans 5:12-21 since Origen (c 185-252) onwards. It contains ‘obscure and tangled sentences’ (Williams, p 124). Clement of Alexandria apparently did not hold the doctrine of Original Sin. (See Strom. 3:9:64, where he quoted Romans 5:12 and stated that death was produced by natural necessity (Williams, p 339). 13 Williams, p 127
2
translation.14 Modern exegesis, as well as that of the Greek Fathers, prefer to translate this as, "and so death passed upon all men because all have sinned. Witherington states that in relation to Romans 5 ‘we are dealing with some of the most difficult material in all of Romans in terms of grammar and interpretation’. He indicates that the Greek can be interpreted in a number of ways, but, after assessing the various different ways of interpreting ’εφ ‘ω states that the Pauline parallels support the translation ‘because’.15
Williams asserts that Ambrosiaster16 (‘the disaster’)17 made the blunder of misreading the Greek ’εφ ‘ω as ‘in whom (Adam)’. On the other hand, the Pelagians translated the Greek correctly as ‘propter quod’, but this was denounced by Augustine who had an imperfect understanding of Greek.
Romanides states that as a matter of Greek grammar it is impossible to interpret ’εφ ‘ω as a reference to any word other than θανατος (death).18
Ziesler also analyses ’εφ ‘ω. If this is to mean ‘in whom’ (as per the Latin text), there is the difficulty that if it refers to Adam it is uncomfortably back in the passage. If this were to be an analogy of Adam with Christ, one should expect to find not ’εφ ‘ω but ’εν ‘ω. And, like Witherington, Ziesler holds that in Pauline writing, ’εφ ‘ω usually means ‘because’. He drives this interpretation home by stating that in the light of contemporary and near contemporary Jewish thought, it is likely that ‘Adam’ is everyman, so that to state that Adam sinned is a way of saying that everybody sins. This means that the later sinner cannot put the blame on the historical Adam.19 What is inherited is death. Likewise, Alison is of the opinion that understanding ’εφ ‘ω to refer to Adam is the ‘least plausable’. He prefers to follow Photius who linked those words with θανατος (death). In terms of biblical theology, he sees this to be consistent with James 1:12-15 (the temptation leading to
14 Stephen Duffy and Norman Williams. The latter ( p 127) asserts that the Latin provided an inaccurate rendering of the Greek by translating it ‘in quo’. The modern Catholic Jerusalem Bible replaces it with ‘because’. 15 Witherington, pp 143-146
16 ? 4th century 17 The writer’s pun! 18 My thanks to Graham Hallam for drawing my attention to John Romanides’ article, Original Sin According to St Paul. 19 A point also made by my son, William, who, speaking as a psychologist, sees the Augustinian doctrine of Original Sin as an excuse for one’s own sinning!
3
sin is the work of an individual’s own desire).20 Williams also holds that ’εφ ‘ω means ‘because’.21
Augustine also relied upon Ps 51:5 as proof of Original Sin and that fallen man was free only to sin. The writer believes that this illustrates the danger of misinterpreting scripture and then proceeding to use misinterpreted texts to built a doctrine. This stance of Augustine has been challenged by two responses within the Nazarene Wesleyan camp. First, McGonigle states in a profound way that there is a difference between universal sinfulness and the origin of sin. The writer observes that the first can be accepted as experienced fact, the second is, at least a debatable theological issue of causation. McGonigle drives his point home by stating that the bible never uses the phrase ‘original sin’. Second, Swanson argues that Ps 51:5 has been misinterpreted because of a failure to take into account the ‘intense poetic imagery’ of that psalm. Psalm 51:5 is a hyperbole. He argues that if Ps 51:5 is to be taken literally, then one must also take Ps 51:7-8 literally, so purification is through hyssop! He concludes that the key to this poem is not the origin of sin, but assurance that God will not despise a contrite heart as per Ps 51:17. Swanson observes that Ps 139:13-14 is overlooked when original sin is under consideration!
The writer would suggest that Augustine may have been influenced in what he said about Original Sin and its impact on the inner nature of mankind by his making out a strong case against the very optimistic view of mankind by
the Pelagians. Romanides asserts that ‘In regard to the power of Satan to introduce sin into the life of every man, Augustine in combating Pelagianism obviously misread St. Paul. By relegating the power of Satan, death, and corruption to the background and pushing to the foreground of controversy the problem of personal guilt in the transmission of original sin, Augustine introduced a false moralistic philosophical approach which is foreign to the thinking of St. Paul and which was not accepted by the patristic tradition of the East.’22
Neither Eastern Orthodoxy nor Celtic Christianity accepted Augustine’s negative diagnosis of the human condition.23
20 Alison, p 154. 21 Williams, p 127 22 Example: St. Cyrill of Alexandria 23 Some attribute inter faeces et urinam nascimur to Augustine; others to Bernard of Clareveux.
4
A more biblical approach to sin might be found in James 1:13-14: man is drawn away by his own lust. James may reflect a Jewish-Christian retention of the Jewish teaching of (rh rcy (yetzer ha-ra), an inclination to evil.24
The presence of the story of Israel in Romans 5-8 means that these chapters are as concerned with the people of God as they are with the individual. The use of the first person should not reduce these chapters to a discussion of the implications of justification for the individual believer because the individual believer is situated within the wider community.25
Augustine had a weakness: an imperfect knowledge of Greek and this shut him off from a more reasonable doctrine of the Fall held by the primitive and Greek church.
Theodore of Mopsuestia (c 350-428) attacked the Augustinian doctrine of hereditary sin in his book Against Those Who Say That Man Falls By Nature and Not By Sentence. The book itself has perished: but Photius, who had read it, gives a summary of its contents. Theodore absolutely rejects such propositions that man, originally created good and immortal, became bad and mortal by Adam’s sin; that sin now has its origin in human nature, and not in the will of man; that newly born infants are tainted by sin, and must obtain forgiveness by baptism, and eating the Lord’s Supper; that marriage and generation are the evil results of an evil nature, etc. It will be seen that Theodore repudiated original sin. At a later date, Julian of Eclanum, and other Pelagians found refuge with him.26 Pelagius denied man’s innate depravity.
Clement of Alexandria relied on Job 1:21 to argue that a child enters this world free from sin.
The writer will develop his points by making a number of propositions and commenting upon them.
24 See Gen 6:5 & 8:21 and Williams, p 118. 25 Cf Is 61:10-11 where the prophet uses the first person singular to describe the restored community. Hays & Johnson, p 195 26 www.earlychurch.org.uk/theodore.php
5
Proposition 1: Adam and Eve were created neither mortal nor immortal.
Comment: Scripture seems to be neutral on OS27, and God rebukes Adam (and also speaks of Eve) in Gen 3:19 where He decrees that man shall return to the ground. The Fathers support the proposition: Theophilus of Antioch, Ephraim the Syrian, Hilary of Poitiers, Maximus the Confessor.
Hallam comments, ‘the Paradise account of Genesis reveals a certain latency toward immortality in humankind which has been spoiled by disobedience to God’.
Proposition 2: Until Adam disobedied, Adam was sinless but not perfect and able to sin. He was not immortal but capable of achieving immortality through obedience.
Comment: The writer believes that this proposition can be supported by scripture: see Rom 5:12. Christ in his ανακεφαλαιωσις (anakephalaiosis) of mankind reverses the first Adam’s disobedience by obedience in both his life and death on a cross. (Phil 2:828; Rom 5:1929) Hallam gives an excellent overview when he remarks, ‘...the Fathers speak of God saving us by recapitulating or regathering [ανακεφαλαιωσις ] the whole creation in Himself and redeeming it, [Ephesians 1:10 where a cognate of ανακεφαλαιωσις appears]. The beginning of this process was in the Incarnation, its climax, the death and resurrection of Christ, its fruition in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the Church, the Body of Christ glorified.’30
27 The writer is grateful to Hallam who, in an email observed, ‘I think you have a good point on the "neutrality" of Scripture in certain aspects although I would have preferred the description ... "not fully worked out." One thinks of "Trinity" and "homoousios" in this regard’. 28 In a sermon Butterworth of Pennington refers to a commentator (unnamed) on αρπαγμον and suggests that the teaching in Phil 2:6 is that Christ did not grasp upon equality with God as a trump card as a way out of death on a cross. A study of Bagster’s Analytical Greek Lexicon appears to confirm this understanding of αρπαγμον. 29 Romans 5:19 uses πολλοι (many) to refer to the impact of Adam and the final Adam (Christ). Unless one were to suggest that the impact of Adam was not all-embrasive in its impact on mankind, it is clear that an Arminian understanding of the impact of Christ must be correct. 30 "God the Son became Man in order to regather in Himself the ancient creation, so that He might slay sin and destroy the power of death, and give life to all men." AH 3:19:6
6
Christ is τελιος (perfect) as the Father is τελιος (see Matt 5:48). The writer believes that whilst Jesus was τελιος, he was able to sin because the temptations by Satan was real. Also, the inherent temptation in Gethsemane was real. The crucial point is that he did not give in to temptation.
Proposition 3: Adam was like a child, fully capable of growing up in obedience to his Heavenly Father and achieving immortality. The fruit itself was not placed in Eden with a permanent exclusion zone around it which would leave humanity in state of infantile innocence. God’s intention was that Adam should grow up through obedience until he received the necessary spiritual maturity to handle such things. Like a child he had to be taught. The same applied to his helper, Eve. But like many children and adults she would not be taught. She wanted to be autonomous and she persuaded Adam to be likewise. They wanted to be God-like without God and so both, particularly Adam as the then head of mankind thereby brought death down upon their heads.
Comment: Scripture seems to be neutral on this. There is a danger in reading into scripture a permanent exclusion zone. However, again, on the issue of permanence scripture appears to be neutral. It tells the story of what happened, rather than what ought to have happened.
However, in terms of Adam’s childlike state, Irenaeos of Lyons is helpful: ‘Man was a little one, and his discretion still undeveloped, wherefore also he was easily misled by the deceiver.31 A good case can be made for studying Irenaeos. He is close in time to the final deposition of the Apostolic Tradition: Christ taught the Apostles, who educated Polycarp, who instructed Irenaeus. A case can be made for Irenaeos being an early witness to the Tradition of the Apostles.32
31 Epid., 12; see also AH 4.37.1; 4.38.3 (ANF, Vol. 1, 518-519, 521-522). 32 He writes to the Roman presbyter Florinus: For, when I was still a boy, I knew you (Florinus) in lower Asia, in Polycarp's house...I remember the events of those days more clearly than those which happened recently...how he (Polycarp) sat and disputed,...how he reported his intercourse with John and with the others who had seen the Lord, how he remembered their
7
Proposition 4: Irenaeus and the Fathers generally do not understand death as a punishment for the disobedience of our first parents.
Comment: Hallam asserts that this distortion arose later in the West under the influence of Augustine. Instead, the Fathers interpret the consequences of the Fall as something Adam brought on himself when he distanced himself from God. ‘God still walks in the Garden. It is we who hide and shamefully cover our nakedness. Likewise, the expulsion of Adam and Eve from Paradise and the angel standing guard with the flaming sword is not an act of divine retribution but a compassionate and merciful provision lest we eat of the second tree, the Tree of Life, and die eternally. The fruit of this tree, if we had eaten it, would have condemned us forever.’33
Comment: Chrysostom teaches that by partaking of the tree, the man and woman became liable to death and subject to the future needs of the body. Adam was no longer permitted to remain in the Garden, and was bidden to leave, a move by which God showed His love for him34 ... he had become mortal, and lest he presume to eat further from the tree which promised an endless life of continuous sinning, he was expelled from the Garden as a mark of divine solicitude, not of necessity.35
Comment: Zimmerman states that ‘Irenaeus and Augustine teach (in agreement) that Adam sinned and lost his initial endowment of friendship with God, and that all people die as a result of Adam's sin. But whereas Augustine sees God's pristine plans frustrated by original sin, Irenaeus sees the same sin as an almost necessary step for the education of mankind’. (The writer comments that this shows more of God’s foresight and is much more optimistic.) ‘Irenaeus sees God laying out His plans with original sin already
words, and what were the things concerning the Lord which he had heard from them, and how Polycarp had received them from the eye-witnesses of the Word of Life, and reported all things in agreement with the Scriptures. I listened eagerly even then to these things ...and made notes of them, not on paper, but in my heart, and ever by the grace of God do I truly ruminate on them (Euseb. History of the Church 5:20,5-7; trans. by Johannes Quasten, Patrology I,287).
See www.lifeissues.net/writers/zim/ev/ev_01evolution_sin13.html 33 Gregory Hallam 34 This accords with a ‘hermeneutic of love’ and makes Genesis consistent with John 3:16. Hallam comments, ‘God did not cease to love and care for us in our fallen state’. 35 Hom. in Gen 18, 3 PG 53 151
8
foreseen from the beginning. He would create man free, He foresaw the sin, He then made provisions accordingly. He would help man to use that freedom properly, with original sin36 as a stepping stone to facilitate the learning process. Christ would come fully prepared to cope with the situation of the fallen race. He would recapitulate the fallen race and lead it to the Father.
Comment: Augustine, however, would project Christ as an afterthought - as a second plan after the first had failed. Christ is sent into the world as a repairman, to patch up the disaster caused by Adam. Even so, Augustine has us living in a world not completely repaired by Christ. It is a world, he maintains, in which God still punishes us for Adam's misdeed. It is as though we live in the suburbs of Chernoble after the nuclear meltdown’.37
Comment: St. Paul claims that death is the enemy which came into the world and passed unto all men through the sin of one man.38
Proposition 5: The whole of mankind has inherited inwardly a form of corruption, namely death.
Cyril of Alexandria looks to the birth of the first children from Adam and Eve and notes that ‘he (Adam) produced children after falling into this state, we his descendents are corruptible coming from a corruptible source. Thus it is that we are heirs of Adam’s curse’.39 The curse is that man participates in the disobedience of the Adam and this is inherited through death, not sex. To avoid confusion with the western Augustinian notion of ‘original sin’, it may be helpful to adopt the Orthodox term, προγονικη ‘αμαρτια, or as Williams has it, ‘αμαρτια προπατορικη40 ‘ancestral sin’. Ancestral sin is not inherited guilt as per Augustine’s original sin neither is it imputed guilt (as per Protestant Reformed thinking). It is a state of being that has been redeemed by Christ.41
36 The writer detects that Zimmerman, a Roman Catholic, is here reading in the Catholic Augustinian doctrine of original sin.
37 Anthony Zimmerman, Evolution and the Sin in Eden. www.lifeissues.net/writers/zim/ev/ev_01evolution_sin13.html 38 1 Cor 15:26 39 Doctrinal Questions and Answers, IX, 6 in Cyril of Alexandria, Selected Letters 40 Williams, p 388 41 Galatians 3:13
9
Comment: Hallam acknowledges that those who advocate the western notion of Original sin may rely upon MT Ps 50(otherwise 51): 5, but he comments that this is capable of being understood either in an Augustinian or Orthodox sense. The writer, with Hallam, would assert that the MT can be understood in the light of the equally authoritative LXX text which, when translated, reads: "Behold I was brought forth in iniquities, and in sins (plural) did my mother conceive me." Hence, sin is endemic to the human condition from birth to death. It says nothing about transmission, let alone transmission by sex.
Comment: Hallam observes that there is significant difference between the belief that mankind shares in Adam’s curse through the corruption of death and the view (common in the West since Augustine) that we are punished by death for an original sin in Eden. The Augustinian West started to believe that this original sin was transmitted to subsequent generations through sexual reproduction42 and that man inherits the guilt of Adam.43 Orthodox teaching is clear than mankind does not inherit Adam’s guilt.44
Proposition 6: (This is closely related to proposition 5.) Although mankind became corrupted at the Fall, God preserved his free will (as a part of his Inner constitution) so that according to that free will he might choose to do good and turn away from evil.45
The danger of Augustine’s teaching is that Augustine taught that fallen man did not have any independent freedom to do any good, unless he is assisted by grace46 and in this respect his teaching is unnecessarily pessimistic. Christ, truly man as well as truly God, choose to do good by fulfilling the law and the Father’s will and was without sin.
Proposition 7: The resurrection of Christ is a contingent part of soteriology (the teaching on salvation) beginning with the loving removal of man from
42 This is graphically described by a knowledge of female anatomy and the statement, some ascribe to Augustine, inter faeces et urinam nascimur! (We are born between faeces and urine.) 43 See Augustine, Treatise against Julian the Pelagian 44 This is not to suggest that Christ did not also redeem Adam and those living before him in sin: see Matthew 27:52-53. For further exposition on Matt 27:52-53 and an educationally instructive icon, see a separate paper by the writer.
45 Pomazansky, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, p 162 46 Pomazansky, p 162
10
Eden, the birth, life and death of Christ and the resurrection of Christ provides the opportunity of, and the operative capability for, the resurrection of believers who accept Christ as their saviour.
Comment: The writer considers that this proposition can be supported by John 11:25. If there is an Aramaic background to John 11:25 in an oral teaching, then, there is further force in the point. The Syriac Peshitta has aye which carries the double meaning of both ζωη (life) and salvation.47
To the writer it is significant that Christ says that He is the resurrection and the life in that order.
This proposition appears to be supported by Hallam. ‘We should not be surprised then if death, itself the wages of sin, in bringing yet more sin upon the generations of humankind, must needs be destroyed in order that the gates of Paradise might be opened once more to the whole48 of Creation.. This is precisely what we believe about the resurrection. Death has been destroyed by death and Christ, our God, has emerged victorious by contesting that ancient serpent on his own ground: death and hell. The voluntary obedience of a Virgin-Mother bruised the serpent’s head in the Incarnation, [Genesis 3:15]49 and the voluntary obedience of her Son unto death on a cross finally granted unto us the victory in the resurrection.’ ‘The resurrection has become our portal into the very life of God himself, our [θεοσις].’50
Comment: The writer would not overlook a hermeneutic of love when considering God’s sense of justice.51 Kalomiros writes that the Greek word δικαιοσυνη (usually translated ‘righteousness’) is a translation of the Hebraic word hqdc (tsedaka) meaning ‘the divine energy which accomplishes man's salvation’. It is parallel and almost synonymous to dsx
47 Jennings lexicon. See www.dukhrana.com for Peshitta text and lexicons. 48 Italicised by the writer because this contradicts Calvinist teaching. 49 Without detracting from the accomplishment of Christ, one might note the obedience of Mary. The writer believes that this is borne out by 1 Tim 2:15a. A more detailed interpretation of that text can be found in the writer’s paper, Καλασαντος which Don Schofield helpfully critiqued. 50 It is encouraging that in the Lord’s Prayer for believers in John 17, Jesus prays for an aspect of our θεοσις when in John 17: 21 he asks that [believers] may be εν ‘ημιν (in us). 51 It has been asserted that love is the heart and soul of the theology of the early Fathers and of the Orthodox church.
11
(hesed) which means ‘mercy’, ‘compassion’, ‘love’ (the writer would add ‘steadfast love’), and to tm) (emet) which means ‘fidelity’, ‘truth’. This understanding gives a completely different dimension to what is usually conceived as justice. This is how the Church understood God's justice. This is what the Fathers of the Church taught of it. Saint Isaac the Syrian wrote, ‘How can you call God just, when you read the passage on the wage given to the workers? “Friend, I do you no wrong; I will give to this last even as unto you who worked for me from the first hour. Is your eye evil, because I am good?” ’
Christianity is not a wholesale repudiation of Jewish theology, but a deeper understanding of it in the light of Christ’s teaching, the teaching of the New Testament with the aid of the Church Fathers. Therefore, it is significant that Judaism, working from the Old Testament, teaches that men are born morally pure. This teaching appears to be founded on a basic understanding of the creation story. Men were created in the image of God with the free will to obey or disobey God. Judaism has no concept analogous to original sin but rather affirms that men are born with bw+h rcy (yetzer hatov) (a tendency to do good) and with a (rh rcy (yetzer hara) (a tendency to do evil). Men have the free will to act upon bw+h rcy or (rh rcy. There is within mankind an inherent conflict between good and evil orientations.52
A careful study of the Hebrew in Genesis 2 and 3 reveals a play on words and much more. In Gen 2:25 Adam and Eve are described as ,
naked (plural). In Gen 3:1 the serpent is described as more , naked (singular) than all of the animals. After Adam and Eve had eaten the fruit
they realised that they were , naked (plural). Swanson53 develops this point of this in some detail, but look at how Adam and Evil were deceived and note their revelation! The Hebrew root seems to convey the idea of revealing, something that is common to being naked, having knowledge, prudence and cunning! Adam and Eve had gained knowledge
52 See DeFrancisco, James J. Original Sin and Ancestral Sin - Comparative Doctrines. 53 Swanson, Primeval Narratives.
12
before it was intended for them to have that knowledge. Their banashment was now for their own protection!
Conclusion
Whatever might be the condition of man before accepting Christ, the same passage in Romans 5 points out clearly the impact on the believer of the work of Christ. One should read on! The result of death for all in Romans 5:21a is remedied by the gift of life through Christ in Romans 5:21b.54 This is a theologically encouraging Gospel.
It seems to the writer that if the Augustinian doctrine of Original Sin is discarded, then the Calvinist doctrine of election also falls, for if all have not sinned in Adam, then the case for pre-birth election to damnation on the basis of sin falls.
McGonigle writes, ‘the influence of Augustine’s teaching on both Roman Catholic and protestant theology has resulted in a pessimistic over-emphasis on original sin and not enough attention given to the glorious possibilities of the new life in Christ through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit’.
The initial draft of this paper was written during Pascha-tide and the writer cannot improve upon Hallam: ‘it is Christ our God who in the icon of Pascha storms into hell and liberates the captives from the grip of death and sin. A new way has thereby been opened up for us to regain Paradise, Christ the first fruits of all those who have fallen asleep’. The focus shifts from a questionable doctrine of original sin to the offer to all of salvation in Christ and, through Christ’s ανακεφαλαιωσις, the θεοσις of all believers. In this way believers can say ‘amen’ to, and are on the soteriological road to, resurrection and life/salvation. Aνακεφαλαιωσις (inclusive of death on a cross), αναστασις (anastasis – resurrection) lead to believers’ θεοσις (theosis) and αναστασις (anastasis).
54 Frank Thielman in Hay & Johnson, p 181 13
Bibliography
Alison, James. The Joy of Being Wrong: Original Sin Through Easter Eyes. New York, Crossroad, 1998
Anon. The Development of the Practice of Infant Baptism and the Doctrine of Original Sin in the Early Church up to the Time of Augustine. Nazarene College Library: CT310.
Duffy, Stephen J. Our Hearts of Darkness: Original Sin Revisited. Theological Studies 49 (1988)
DeFrancisco, James J. Original Sin and Ancestral Sin - Comparative Doctrines.
Hay, David M. and E. Elizabeth Johnson (editors). Pauline Theology: Vol III: Romans. Minneapolis, Fortress Press, 1995.
Hughes, Antony. Ancestral versus Original Sin: An Overview with Implications for Psychotherapy. St. Mary Antiochian Orthodox Church, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Google Scholar
Kalomiros, Alexander. (1980). The River of Fire. As presented at the 1980 Orthodox Conference sponsored by St. Nectarios American Orthodox Church
Seattle, Washington
www.orthodoxpress.org/parish/river_of_fire.htm.
14
McGonigle, Herbert. Re-Minting Christian Holiness:Part 10. The Flame (2000) (vol 66), pp 16-17 (Nazarene Library Reference CT310)
Osborne, Grant R. The Hermeneutical Spiral. Downers Grove, Illinois : IVP, 1991.
Romanides, John S. Original Sin According to St Paul. St. Vladimir's Seminary Quarterly, Vol. IV, Nos. 1 and 2, 1955-6.
Swanson, Dwight D. Re-Minting Christian Holiness:Part 11: Holiness in the Psalms. The Flame (2000) (vol 66), pp 21-23 (Nazarene Library Reference CT310)
Swanson, Dwight D. Original Sin in the Primeval Narratives in European Explorations in Christian Holiness: On Original Sin. Nazarene Theological College, Didsbury, 2001.
Williams, Norman Powell. The Ideas of the Fall and of Original Sin: A Historical and Critical Study. London, Longmans, Green & Co., 1927.
Witherington, Ben. Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids. Eerdmans, 2004
Ziesler, John. Paul’s Letter to the Romans. London. SCM Press, 1989.
15

Moral, Ascetic, and Ritual Dimensions to Law-Observance in Aphrahat's Demonstrations Adam Lehto

Thu, 21 Jul 2011 16:15:43 -0400

Abstract Writing to counter the critique of a much larger Jewish community, and to instruct fellow ascetics in their chosen path, the fourth-century Syriac author Aphrahat develops a notion of law-observance that serves both ends: God's law of righteousness, which is more fundamental than the Mosaic law, has been summed up in Christ's teaching on love for God and neighbor; but a commitment to this way of love also calls for ascetic renunciation. In addition, the few references to ritual should be understood, like Aphrahat's teaching on ascetic practice, as an attempt to bring this area of Christian life under the all-embracing imperative of following the law of righteousness with a pure heart.
A prominent feature of Aphrahat's fourth-century Syriac Demonstrations1 is the author's concern about the threat of Judaism to his Christian community. In addition to various passages throughout the work as a whole, the majority of the final thirteen Demonstrations focus explicitly on this perceived threat, seeking to show that the Jews have been rejected and that the church has become God's chosen people, drawn from all the peoples of the world.2 Thus Aphrahat feels compelled to argue against circumcision [End Page 157] (Demonstration 11), Sabbath (12) and Passover (13) observance, dietary laws (15), Jewish claims of election (16, 19), Jewish objections to Christ being the son of God (17) and to celibacy (18), and Jewish criticism of Christians based on the fact that they are persecuted (21). Demonstration 20, ostensibly on the topic of giving to the poor, is also preoccupied with the status of the Jews, a preoccupation expressed in particular through an extended midrash on the parable of Lazarus and the rich man.3
Another prominent feature of the text is its ascetic orientation, not unusual in an early Christian work. This is most clear in Aphrahat's Demonstrations on fasting (3), covenanters (6), and virginity and holiness (18), but asceticism is not far beneath the surface in much of the rest of [End Page 158] his work. Aphrahat himself has embraced the ascetic life and is writing to those who have done likewise. Even as Aphrahat affirms the legitimacy of marriage, it is clear that, like Paul, his preference is for a more rigorous understanding of the Christian life. While the topics of Aphrahat's Demonstrations are often generic, this should be not be taken to be evidence for a general readership. When he outlines the qualities of the ascetic in Demonstration 6, faith, prayer, love, and humility figure prominently. Though he does not deny that these topics have relevance beyond his fellow ascetics, his own attention is to that particular subset of the larger Christian community.
It is possible to relate Aphrahat's concern about Judaism to his asceticism by focusing on his positive concept of divine law.4 Much has been written on Aphrahat's arguments against the ritual observances of Jewish law and his rejection of some of the basic assumptions of the Jewish theology in his milieu. A number of studies have also investigated the degree of familiarity that Aphrahat may or may not have had with rabbinic arguments.5 An important aspect of Aphrahat's response to what he perceived as a Jewish threat is the way in which he articulates his own interpretation of God's law, an interpretation which sees the Jewish law as being fulfilled and at the same time points to what Aphrahat saw as a higher, ascetic way of life. It will also become clear that the importance of the law for Aphrahat is a basic part of his faith and not merely a response to Jewish pressure or a product of persecution.6 While Aphrahat claims that Christian ascetics [End Page 159] embrace their way of life "by free choice, and not from the slavery and coercion of a commandment or because we are constrained by it under the law,"7 it is clear from a consideration of other crucial passages in the Demonstrations that asceticism itself is a higher form of law-observance. Aphrahat's preoccupation with law is not merely a feature of his anti-Jewish polemic, though it is often developed in that context.
The main focus of the investigation that follows will be the Greek loan-word nāmosā (; "law" or "the law"), though words based on the root pqd(; e.g., "command," "commandment," etc.) will also be considered where appropriate. I will not be considering cases where nāmosā is used to refer to human laws. Aphrahat also uses the term 'orāytā a relatively infrequent seven times.8
The Semantic Range of Aphrahat's Concept of Law
I will begin by examining the various meanings associated with the term "law" in the Demonstrations. Aphrahat is not overly concerned with consistency in his usage, so it is important to note that the term functions differently in different contexts.
"Law" as Scripture
This sense of the term is basic to all of Aphrahat's arguments, dependent as they are upon numerous prooftexts.9 The law is clearly related to Scripture, but the relationship is not clearly defined. A number of logical [End Page 160] possibilities exist for the denotation of "law": i) the revelation to Moses at Sinai; ii) the ritual laws within the Sinai revelation that are no longer relevant; iii) the Pentateuch as a whole; iv) the Bible (OT plus NT); v) the gospels; vi) the words of Christ in the gospels; vii) the Old Testament alone; and ix) the New Testament alone. The last two of these do not occur in the Demonstrations and can be excluded from discussion.
i) Here Aphrahat seems to refer to a body of law that is given to Moses, contained in but not co-extensive with the Pentateuch. Thus 1.19 (God "gave the Torah to Moses")10 ; 2.5 ("The [promise to Abraham] was four hundred and thirty years older than the law")11 ; 2.7 ("at the head of the whole law it is written: 'I am the Lord your God . . .'")12 ; 3.3 ("Moses also fasted purely when he went up the mountain and brought the law to his people")13 ; 3.4 (where Deut 17.6–7, Lev 24.16, and Exod 20.17 are cited as "written in the law," though this could be an example of ii) below)14 ; and 15.8 (refers to the "ten holy commandments which [God] inscribed with his hand and gave to Moses" ).15
ii) It is important to take note of certain phrases, concentrated in 2.5–6, that Aphrahat uses to denote ritual laws that have, according to him, been made irrelevant by the coming of Christ: "the observances of the law"; "the law of the commandments"; "the customs of the law"; "the offerings which are in the law"; and "the works which were in the law."16 In all cases, these phrases denote that which has been done away with by the sacrifice of Christ.17 Likewise, in the fascinating section 8 of Demonstration 15, when Aphrahat quotes Gal 3.11–12 and says that the Israelites "were not able to be made righteous through the law," it is ritual law that he has in mind. In this passage, the Decalogue is associated with the "easy and pleasant" yoke that Christ gives to his followers, in contrast [End Page 161] with the "hard and difficult" yoke of the ritual law.18 I shall return to this passage below.
iii) Though the denotation of "law" is sometimes ambiguous (does he mean the entire Pentateuch?) in passages where Aphrahat appeals to Sinai revelation (e.g., 3.4, listed above),19 there are some passages in which the whole Pentateuch is clearly the referent. Throughout Demonstration 2 and in 21.2 we find the phrase "the law and the Prophets" in which "law" refers to a section of the Bible rather than to a particular set of laws delivered to Moses at Sinai. Likewise, in Demonstration 3.11, Exod 17.9, which is pre-Sinai in the biblical narrative, is referred to as part of the law.20 Twice in Demonstration 6 (sections 1 and 6), the phrase "curse of the law" occurs. Unlike Paul, it seems that Aphrahat has Genesis rather than Deuteronomy in mind when he uses this phrase.21
iv) When Aphrahat, in various passages (6.1, 17, 20; 7.21; 9.2, 4, 11)22 exhorts his readers to meditate on the law of the Lord, it is inherently unlikely that the reference is to a restricted sense of "law," either Decalogue or Pentateuch. Rather, the meaning of "law" in such passages seems to be "Scripture," including both Old and New Testaments.
v & vi) These two possible meanings emerge from a single passage in section 20 of Demonstration 6. In his closing words at the end of that Demonstration, Aphrahat quotes Luke 16.14 to describe anyone who mocks or scoffs at a fellow covenanter. He says that the warning that Jesus gave to the Pharisees (Luke 16.15, which he does not quote) is fulfilled against such a person. This is followed by the admonition: "Read and learn, and be zealous to read and to act. Let this law of God be your meditation at [End Page 162] all times." Though this could be another example of iv) above, the context and the use of the demonstrative pronoun suggest that here law is associated with either the gospel(s) or with Christ's words in the gospel(s). Even if this is the case, it is clear that this denotation of law did not figure prominently in Aphrahat's thinking.
"Law" as a Spiritual or Moral Ideal Predating Moses
The use of the term "law" to denote Scripture or parts of Scripture represents Aphrahat's "default mode." Another meaning of the term, however, though infrequent, is very important. This other meaning is reflected in a few passages which indicate that the righteous have no need of a written law: they observe a "law of righteousness" that is inscribed in their hearts (2.2, 7; 13.8). Abraham is the paradigmatic figure in this regard, though Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and Moses are also singled out. It is striking that no NT figure appears in this list. This is probably due to the assumption that this law of righteousness, once obeyed by the few, was now available to all through Christ.
Now that I have established the semantic range of the term "law," I will argue three related points: i) the theme of the observance of a "law of righteousness," reflected in but not limited to Scripture, is fundamental to Aphrahat's discourse; ii) ascetic practices are a means to the end of observing this law of righteousness; iii) even Christian ritual law (such as it appears in the Demonstrations) is subordinate to this deeper law of righteousness.
Law-Observance: The Moral Dimension
Aphrahat's ethical instruction flows out of his emphasis on the "two commandments, upon which depends the whole force of the law and the Prophets."23 Love for God is primary but must lead to love for neighbor: "[A]fter a person loves the Lord his God, he should also love his neighbor as himself."24 The theme of faith, as an affirmation of the existence of God and a commitment to loving obedience to God, frames the Demonstrations as a whole, and this faith is inextricably linked to good actions. The role of Christ in faith is stated at the beginning and the end of the Demonstrations: "[T]he foundation of our whole faith is the true stone, [End Page 163] our Lord Jesus Christ"; "In him we have come to know [God] and have become his worshippers. . . ."25
In both cases, faith in God through Christ is linked to good works. The building that is raised on the foundation of faith is "furnished" with items that make it suitable for Christ the king (1.4). Many of these items have a decidedly ascetic flavor to them, but we must keep in mind that when Aphrahat speaks of "pure fasting" and "pure prayer" (the first two items), the purity here has to do with purity of heart, which includes a commitment to moral action that transcends mere ascetic praxis (see 3.8; 4.14–15). The inclusion of love, almsgiving, and hospitality in the list of required furnishings for the house of faith make clear the connection between faith and good works. The fact that ascetic and moral "furnishings" both feature prominently reflects Aphrahat's conviction that a true observance of the moral law is facilitated by asceticism, a link which will be examined in more detail below.
In the closing sections of the last Demonstration, the link between faith and moral action is expressed even more forcefully. Immediately after the passage from 23.61 quoted above, we read:
As the essence of all good actions, this is required before God: a person must believe that there is one God and with faithfulness keep his commandments. If a person acknowledges that there is one God but transgresses his commandments and does not follow them, he does not really believe that there is one God. . . . For the person who believes that God judges the murderer does not murder, and in the person who murders, it is not established that God exists. The person who believes that God judges the adulterer does not commit adultery, and in the person who commits adultery, it is not established that God exists. The person who believes that God judges thieves does not steal, and in the person who steals, it is not established that God exists. All the commandments are likewise.26
Once again Aphrahat's dependence on the Decalogue is evident. In the four sections that follow, Aphrahat expands on the prohibition against swearing falsely, a moral rule that was evidently being breached in a particularly flagrant way in the church he knew. After this exhortation, section 67 contains the very end of his argument proper, before the formal end of the Demonstration in sections 68 and 69. The theme of section 67 is the impermanence of the world and worldly attachments, and its final [End Page 164] line should be seen as a summary of Aphrahat's argument in the Demonstrations as a whole: "There is nothing greater than the fear of God, and the person who keeps his commands is glorified. For many are called wise, but there is no wisdom like the fear of God."27 Aphrahat assumes that by now the reader will understand that ascetic practice is required for the one who is deeply committed to keeping God's commands.
This emphasis on the moral dimension of law-observance is not merely a feature of the beginning and end of the Demonstrations, but occurs throughout.28 The Decalogue is held up as a slightly expanded version of the double law of love, and Christ is portrayed as one who would call God's people back to a true law-observance. Combining a passage from Hosea with the parable of the lost coin from Luke, Aphrahat criticizes Jews for rejecting Christ, who is the lamp that they should have used to seek the Lord and recover their lost love for God (the first of the ten commandments) and neighbor (the other nine commandments).29 To accept Christ is to return to the essence of the law. Likewise, as mentioned above, in 15.8 a distinction is made between the "ten holy commandments" and other "commandments and judgments" having to do with ritual purity. This clear contrast is followed by another: that between the "hard yoke" of these ritual purity laws and the "easy yoke" of Christ. An obvious reading of this passage would understand this "easy yoke," whatever else it may involve, to refer back to the "holy commandments" that are not obscured (for Aphrahat) by ritual purity laws. In other words, as at 1.11, we are again dealing with a portrayal of Christ as proponent of the Decalogue.
Perhaps the most striking appeal to law-observance as a fundamental category for Christian living occurs in the fourteenth Demonstration. A recurrent theme in the exhortation that Aphrahat and his associates direct toward the leadership of the Syriac church is that the law is not being observed. Most of the occurrences of the terms "law" and "command[ment]" [End Page 165] are in the context of discussions of disobedience to the divine imperative. After greeting his readers, Aphrahat30 points to the crisis in the church in a way that seems to include him and his supporters in the problem (14.2). Very quickly, however, it becomes clear that Aphrahat is ready to assess blame for the present situation. His talk of "our sins" and "our minds" in 14.2 refers not to himself and his supporters, but to the church insofar as it has been corrupted by certain of its leaders.
In 14.3 he says that these leaders have "forsaken the law and have adorned themselves with evil,"31 and that under their rule the law has "grown cold" and is "bound."32 In their greed, they have ignored the clear commands found in Scripture against the practice of lending at interest. Their disregard for the law is further seen in the fact that they cater to the rich and oppress the poor, which leads them to pervert justice and to refuse to listen to any admonition. Aphrahat distances himself from the so-called "handlers of the law,"33 whose greed has made them envious and jealous and whose way of life does not match their teaching. They are seen by Aphrahat as continuing the tradition of Adam, who, out of greed, disobeyed the command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (14.23). Indeed, the leaders of the church are portrayed as the culmination of a long history of greed outlined in the Bible (14.23–24). These men enjoy exercising power, but have no interest in the good works which ought to accompany the titles they bear. A series of Old Testament allusions describes their condition:
The foolish shepherd's eye is blind and his arm is withered. Do not the priests say, "Where is the Lord?" The handlers of the law do not understand it, and the shepherds are unfaithful to it. From the prophets of Jerusalem comes forth godlessness over the whole earth. The leaders of my people are uprooting them, and women have power over the people. Henceforth we do not fear the Lord. What will the king do to us? Woe to us! What have we become when the law is forsaken and some among us adorn themselves with wickedness? We ought to sit and be quiet and not talk.34 [End Page 166]
Later in the Demonstration, Aphrahat provides another evocative description:
Our Lord has opened before us a great treasure full of all good things. In it is love, peace, friendship, healing, purity, and all manner of good, beautiful, and excellent things. He has given authority to his stewards over all the treasure-house, and has also placed chains, prisons, and fetters into the hands of the stewards and authorized them to bind and to set free. But the stewards have forsaken love and peace and friendship and all the rest of the treasure. They have become prison wardens, prosecutors, and executioners, instead of stewards of the treasure of all good things. . . . We hope, brothers, that when the king sees his stewards, who have transgressed the law and changed the commandment which he gave to them and established their own decrees, he will bind them with the fetters that they so loved, demand payment from them for the blood of his servants, and take away from them his treasure, because they did not cherish it.35
The commandment that has been given to them is expressed, in section 44, not only in Jesus' injunctions to love and forgive, but also in Moses' well-known words, "Do not hate or sin [against] your brother in your heart" (Lev 19.17).36 Leaders such as these have been rejected by God (14.17, 27), with the example of Uzzah (who, in carrying the ark on some heifers, "transgressed the law" and died as a result) serving as a solemn warning.37
Sections 34–37 of the fourteenth Demonstration compare observance of the law among humans with that of the rest of creation. In section 34, the reader is reminded of the greatness of God's creative work. For all the greatness of creation, however, no part of it can respond to God in the way that humans can:
The wind has no vision, the air has no sense of touch, the sky has no shape, and the clouds have not been given knowledge. The creatures of the sea are powerful, but the monsters in it are without speech. The arms of intelligence are stretched out, and the wings of thought are extended; the senses of the mind explore, and the eyes of consciousness gaze intently. The openings of the sense of hearing fly to perceive and to understand the inquiry. But even all of these together do not comprehend.38
These references to "intelligence," "thought," "mind," and "consciousness" are metaphorically applied to the animal and inanimate worlds, but in the next section (14.35) we are told that "the one who extends the [End Page 167] wings of his intellect" inherits wisdom and knowledge.39 These objects of the mind are unavailable to the foolish, but those who ask and who have open hearts are able to acquire them.40 Clearly the topic has shifted from non-human creation to humans. A profusion of metaphors describes first the powers of wisdom and then the characteristics of the wise man. Wisdom is focused on the heavenly realm. It is "the great temple of its Creator,"41 who shows it all kinds of heavenly treasure. The content of this treasure has already been mentioned above: "love, peace, friendship, healing, purity, and all manner of good, beautiful, and excellent things" (14.44). When the wise man (who has been represented by "wisdom" thus far) "sees in his mind the place of his many treasures, then his thought is elevated, and his heart conceives and gives birth to all good things, and he meditates on all that has been commanded."42 The rest of the section contrasts the earthly limitations of the wise man with the power of his wisdom; he can give this wisdom away freely without becoming impoverished, since there "is no limit to the mind of the one who is contained and who lives inside of him."43 What we see here in Aphrahat is a kind of wisdom-mysticism,44 but it is important to keep in mind that this mystical tendency is balanced by an emphasis on "all that has been commanded" in the history of salvation, and it is on the basis of these commands that the final judgment will take place. That Aphrahat does not think of law as disembodied but rather as historically given is affirmed, moreover, in the fact that he can speak of the church leaders as "handlers of the law," i.e., as interpreters of a sacred text that has been given by God. The law seems to function in these passages as the key to the treasury of God; the [End Page 168] wicked leaders of the church will lose its treasure because they did not cherish it by obeying the law.
Section 36 portrays all of creation as an analogue to the wise man who does God's will. By their obedience, the water and sand in the time of Noah play a role in the destruction of a disobedient generation. When God wills for the flood to end, water recedes into the abyss below the land, and the water above the firmament remains where it is. Other examples from the lives of biblical heroes prove that "[h]eaven, earth, and all creatures do his will at each moment, and none among them has resisted his will."45 Such is not the case in the human sphere. Section 37 opens with the thematic statement, "But the transgression of the law is found with Adam. From the first day and forever, he transgresses the law."46 The examples that follow are not of humans in general, but rather the wicked leaders of the church. I will not attempt to summarize Aphrahat's description of these leaders. He is quite harsh, going so far as to call them "the offspring of Satan" and "the enemies of Christ."47 For our purposes, it is enough to note that their behavior and characteristics fall under the category of law-breaking, given the thematic statement which begins the section. At one point Aphrahat calls them "mute dogs who are unable to bark,"48 which reminds us of 7.21, where those who do not meditate on the law are given the same designation.
Aphrahat returns to the metaphor of harvest (among other metaphors) in the closing section of Demonstration 14. Section 46 summarizes the parable of the sower. Section 47 then opens as follows:
Friends! Though we are sinners and unworthy, nevertheless it is on this foundation that we build, and this leaven that we have received. The seed of our Lord has fallen on our earth, and we have received money from the rich merchant. His Spirit has been poured out on everyone, and his kindness is not held back from anyone. If it should happen that someone scoffs at us and does not receive what we have written, he does not injure us thereby, nor does he gain [anything]. Our words demonstrate profit for those who listen, for we have written nothing to you that is outside of the law, nor have we sent a stolen treasure to you, but rather from the seed and the clay of the holy writings.49 [End Page 169]
Here, once again, Aphrahat appeals to "the law" (or "the holy writings") as a standard for truth. Furthermore, this "law" is implicitly compared to a seed. Aphrahat seems to read the parable of the sower as a story of how Christ gives his law to those who would receive it. The "holy writings" are also described as containing (or consisting of) "dough." Earlier in the Demonstration (in sections 30 and 38), Aphrahat, in the process of describing to his readers the kind of persons God calls them to be, draws on a New Testament image and compares them to "new dough" which is not contaminated by any "old yeast."50 Thus, when he compares the holy writings (i.e., the law) to dough, we can infer that the state of being "new dough" has everything to do with responding appropriately to the law of God. The phrase "outside the law" is used elsewhere in Aphrahat only once, to refer to those who engage in immoral acts: "thieves, murderers, liars, and servants of hatred."51 There is no possibility, given Aphrahat's continual use of the Old Testament, that "holy writings" refers only to the New Testament as a kind of "new dough." It is also important to note that in 14.47, law and Spirit are the only elements that are not intended to be taken metaphorically. These two work together, and it is their effect or activity which is described as "foundation," "leaven," "seed," "money," "dough," "good flour," "strong wine," "new patch," "vine," and "fruit." Likewise, those who fail to respond positively to God's law and Spirit are like "the rock which dries out the seed," "the building that is placed on sand," or "salt that has lost its taste."All of these metaphors can be taken, in the context of Aphrahat's discourse, as describing a state of disobedience to God's law and/or a lack of receptivity to God's Spirit. There is no hint of the Pauline antithesis between law and Spirit.52
Other passages can be cited to demonstrate Aphrahat's concern with moral instruction. In 4.15–16, 18, he emphasizes that prayer without compassion and a commitment to doing the will of God is without value. The seventh Demonstration urges those who have fallen into sin to seek out the remedy that is provided in repentance and also urges those in leadership positions not to withhold this remedy from those who desire it. Demonstration 9 portrays humility as a fundamental virtue, from [End Page 170] which other virtues flow.53 In section three of the ninth Demonstration, Aphrahat states that "the humble one reflects on the law of his Lord, and from it receives the remedy which he seeks." The word translated here as "remedy" appears first in Demonstration 7, where it is used eight times to refer to repentance. One of the main functions of the law (i.e., the Scriptures in general), we are here reminded, is that of encouraging sinners to repent. Only those who are humble can embrace repentance. The theme of repentance as remedy also figures prominently in Demonstration 23.3. Those who have repented have access to the tree of life, and judgment is delayed so as to allow others to repent. Though the meaning of the passage is not as clear as we might wish, the fruit of the tree of life is associated with the remedy of repentance. The tree of life is pictured as an olive tree which "gives light to those in darkness, fattens up those who are feeble, and brings the hidden mystery to those who repent."54 This repentance opens the door to spiritual/mystical perception. That Aphrahat is addressing ascetic leaders in the church seems to be indicated not only by this claim for enhanced levels of perception, but also by the passage that follows: "Now they have become the yeast of the righteous in this world, so that room for repentance might be given through them. It is also through them that sinners are forgiven on the earth, so that they might receive the promise and that the sun of goodness might rise on them." The reference to yeast echoes the passage from Demonstration 14, cited above, where Aphrahat describes those who follow the law as being "new dough." I would suggest that these passages emphasizing humility and repentance fall naturally into the same category of law-observance, seen as a positive feature of the Christian life.
Law-Observance: The Ascetic Dimension
It will not be necessary to provide an extensive summary of Aphrahat's instruction on ascetic living.55 While there are the usual commitments to [End Page 171] the renunciation of sexual activity, property, food (certain kinds and/or at certain times), sleep and comfort, Aphrahat also includes discussions of the ascetic's commitments in the moral sphere. My purpose here is to note how this askesis is associated with obedience to divine law and how it is often taken to be a means to a moral end. Though not an exhaustive survey, the following discussion will deal with the most significant passages which make a connection between askesis and moral commitment.
We may begin with the important image for the development of Christian virtues found in the first Demonstration, which I mentioned briefly above. Aphrahat compares this development to the building of a house, with Christ as the bedrock upon which the foundation of faith is laid. The image is not entirely consistent, since the spiritual "house" that rises on the bedrock of Christ and the foundation of faith also has Christ as royal resident. What is important for our purposes are the "furnishings" which must be in place for Christ to reside within and the imperative involved in providing them. The language is clear: the development of these qualities (which include actions) are "required" by faith (i.e., in some sense follow from faith), and indeed, "required" by Christ. In passages such as this Aphrahat comes close to speaking of a "law of Christ" for his followers. The requirements in question (the furnishings of the house) are as follows: pure fasting, pure prayer, love, almsgiving, humility, virginity, holiness, wisdom, hospitality, simplicity, perseverance, moderation, mourning, and purity. It would be convenient for my argument if Aphrahat had explicitly said that various ascetic behaviors were designed to further the development of moral qualities, but he does not. What we do find, however, is the embedding of askesis within what can only be seen as a larger program of spiritual development, which includes a significant moral dimension.
Fasting and prayer occupy prominent positions in this list. While it is clear that these disciplines are very important to Aphrahat, one needs to remember what he means by the phrases "pure fasting" and "pure prayer." An examination of the third and fourth Demonstrations makes this clear. A commitment to the outward forms of fasting and prayer is not enough [End Page 172] in itself. What matters is one's inward disposition, expressing itself in acts of service. When Aphrahat says that "without purity of heart, fasting is not accepted,"56 he is saying, at the very least, that abstinence of any sort must either express or develop purity of heart. This connection is elaborated in a particularly powerful statement later in the Demonstration:
For, my friend, when one fasts, fasting from wickedness is always more excellent than fasting from bread and water. It is also better than humbling oneself, and better than bending one's neck like a hook or covering oneself with sackcloth and ashes, as Isaiah said. Indeed, when a person abstains from bread, water, and all nourishment, and when he covers himself with sackcloth and ashes and when he mourns, he is lovely, virtuous, and beautiful. But this beauty is more excellent: when a person humbles himself and also loosens the chains of impiety and cuts the bonds of deceit.57
On the one hand, humbling oneself, as expressed in fasting, repentance, and mourning, has value in itself. This humbling of oneself already involves moving beyond the observance of merely outward forms or rituals. But Aphrahat's point is that if such humbling of oneself does not also lead to action, it is less than it should be. The pure fasting that includes a commitment not merely to humbling oneself and to repentance but also to moral action is, at the very end of Aphrahat's discussion, said to be the subject of divine command: "[Christ] has commanded us to fast and to keep watch at all times, so that by the power of pure fasting, we might attain his rest."58 The commandment is not primarily about literal fasting, i.e., abstinence, but about pure fasting, which involves a commitment to purity of heart and action. Abstinence serves to further the goal of this purity of heart and action.
Likewise in his explication of "pure prayer." After reminding his readers that prayers will not be accepted from those who are unwilling to forgive, Aphrahat explains how the need to ask for forgiveness can be avoided by "bringing about the rest of God." His starting point is Isa 28.12:
It says in the prophet, "This is my rest: give rest to the weary." Therefore, bring about the rest of God, O human, and there will be no need for you [to say,] "Forgive me." Give rest to the weary, visit the sick, and provide for the poor: this is prayer. . . . Watch out, my friend, that, when an opportunity for giving rest to the will of God comes to you, you do not say, "The time for prayer is at hand. I will pray and then I will act." For while you are trying to finish your prayer, the opportunity for bringing about rest [End Page 173] will have slipped away from you, and your ability to bring about the will and the rest of God will have been diminished. Through your prayer you will be guilty of sin. However, if you bring about the rest of God, it will be [considered] prayer.59
Thus a distinction is drawn between the ritual of prayer (understood in the literal sense of "speaking with God"), which is important in all forms of Christian asceticism, and a deeper kind of "prayer" which involves service to those in need. Those who make a show of their prayers but lack what Aphrahat calls "the works of prayer,"60 a phrase parallel to "the works of the law" in Aphrahat's usage, cannot be said to be offering "pure" prayer; their offerings are rejected. No ritual performance of prayer, as part of an ascetic commitment, can be considered complete without the willingness to allow service to those in need, or reconciliation with one's enemies, to take precedence.
The theme of forgiveness appears in the second Demonstration as a major example of how love is expressed. There, too, Aphrahat repeats the gospel teaching on how forgiveness for the petitioner is conditional upon forgiveness of others. As is so often the case, Aphrahat pairs his exposition of a gospel passage with an appeal to Paul, citing, appropriately, 1 Cor 13. The metaphor from Demonstration 1 is then elaborated: along with Christ as the bedrock upon which the foundation of faith is laid, the house of faith requires beams to strengthen it, which are here equated with love. After an extensive discussion of biblical examples of loving action, in particular the acts of Christ, Aphrahat introduces what seems at first to be an abrupt change of topic:
He gave us a command: that we should forsake the world and turn to him. He revealed to us, in the example of the rich man who trusted in his possessions, that whoever loves the world is not able to please God.61
It turns out, however, that this giving of a commandment is yet another example of the loving acts of Christ. Forsaking the world in order to please God is central to his teaching. Forsaking the world, however, does not involve a flight from the world. Rather, it means participating in the love of Christ, and thus fulfilling the law and the Prophets. Love, in turn, can be identified as the element that brings purity to both fasting and prayer. For Aphrahat, obeying the command to forsake the world means embracing purity of heart. He does not explicitly say that askesis helps to develop [End Page 174] purity of heart, but this is because he does not have to; his readers would have made this connection themselves. The reference to possessions in the passage just quoted, however, as well as the material from Demonstrations 1 and 3, noted above, indicate that, according to Aphrahat, the fundamental goal of love/purity/fulfillment of the law, if taken seriously, requires a commitment to asceticism.
It should not be supposed that the pursuit of purity, at least in the Demonstrations, is limited to the realm of sexual renunciation. Those who do not carefully guard, "in purity,"62 the pledge of the Holy Spirit, imparted at baptism, suffer the temporary departure of that Spirit:
[T]his is the way things are for a person: in the hour in which he perceives in his soul that he is not fervent in the Spirit and his heart is falling into attachment to this world, let him understand that the Spirit is not with him, and let him rise up and pray and keep vigil, so that the Spirit of God might come back to him and he might not be conquered by the Adversary.63
Evidence for this departure includes "speaking hateful words or becoming angry or quarrelling or fighting,"64 which, Aphrahat says, serves as a sign for the Evil One to attack, since he then knows that the Spirit is not present. The fact that "guarding the pledge in purity" can mean more than fidelity to a vow of sexual renunciation is significant. For Aphrahat, the ideal of purity is all-encompassing, and is related to obedience to the law, not in its ritual aspects, but at its deepest level, that of loving God and neighbor.65
There can be no doubt, however, that for Aphrahat, sexual renunciation is of great importance in the pursuit of purity, which is obedience to the law of love. This would be clear even apart from Demonstration 18, which focuses directly on Jewish objections to the Christian ideals of virginity and celibacy. It will be enough for my argument to show how these ideals are related to a moral end, and thus to another ideal, that of law-observance. It is here that Aphrahat makes a distinction between the compulsion of Jewish law and the freedom of Christian asceticism. This distinction, however, is not as absolute as it at first seems, since he retains his own version of the law, into which asceticism is incorporated. [End Page 175]
The opening section of Demonstration 18 outlines Aphrahat's perception of the Jewish objections to virginity and celibacy. In particular, the link between procreation and blessing is rejected. What benefit, Aphrahat asks, are many descendants if the vast majority of them turn to wickedness? Going beyond the general observation of the wickedness of most of the human population, Aphrahat cites the particular examples of Zimri, Achan, and the sons of Eli and Samuel, concluding with the statement, "There are many similar [cases], in which it would have been better for [certain people] not to have fathered [children] or to have been born."66 On the other hand, "[t]o God, a single person who does [his] will is more excellent and notable before his majesty than myriads and thousands of those who are wicked."67
Section 9 shows the link between procreation and a tendency to transgress divine law: "[A]fter he fathered Eve, [Adam] went astray and transgressed the commandment . . . David was attractive in his youth, but through his desire for Bathsheba he transgressed the law and abrogated three of the ten commandments. . . ."68 Even the earth, Aphrahat says, was virginal once, before the rain caused it to produce thistles. In the other examples mentioned (the descendants of Seth, Samson, Amnon, and Solomon), it is not stated that the law has been transgressed, but this is certainly implied. The sexual urge that Aphrahat must admit has been created by God and is good in itself (section 8) is in fact a dangerous thing that is better left uncultivated. The biblical warrant for marriage in Gen 2.24 is given a decidedly negative valence: if a man leaves his father [God] and his mother [the Holy Spirit] in order to marry, "his mind is captivated by this world."69 On the other hand, the "man who has not yet taken a wife and who remains alone is in one spirit and one mind with his father," that is, with God.70 [End Page 176]
It is at this point in the argument (18.12) that Aphrahat introduces an important distinction between ascetic observance and a kind of law-observance that he claims to have transcended:
For this way of life [i.e., virginity] there is a great reward, since we perfect it by free choice, and not from the slavery and coercion of a commandment or because we are constrained by it under the law. We have found its form and image in Scripture, and we have seen that this image of the watchers in heaven is found with the victorious, while on earth it is acquired as a gift. If a person loses this possession, he will be unable [to find it again], nor is a person able to acquire it at [any] price. No one who has it and loses it will find it [again]. No one who does not have it can run and attain it. Love this gift, my friend, to which nothing in the whole world is comparable.71
Clearly if virginity (and, by extension, non-virginal celibacy) is a gift, it cannot be required by the law.72 What we have seen, however, is that a commitment to celibacy is seen by Aphrahat as a kind of shield against wickedness, a very strong preventative measure. One could say that it functions as a "fence around the law," to use a well-known rabbinic phrase. Some are given the ability to rise to a higher level of law-observance than [End Page 177] others, that is, a higher level of purity, a deeper commitment to the law of love. When Aphrahat says, in the context of a very real debate with Jewish interlocutors, that Christian asceticism is embraced freely, and not from the "coercion of a commandment or because we are constrained by it under the law," he is referring to the ritual law that, in his understanding, contributes nothing to the observance of the deeper law (love for God and neighbor).
Law-Observance: The Ritual Dimension
Just as celibacy (and virginity in particular) is reflected, if not commanded, in Jewish Scripture, so too aspects of Christian liturgical ritual can be seen there, according to Aphrahat. Demonstration 12 contains his argument against the Jewish observance of the Passover. His concern is to show that Diaspora Jews cannot lawfully observe the Passover (since this was to occur only in Jerusalem) and that the celebration of Christ's death and resurrection has superseded it anyway. A very comprehensive typological interpretation of the Jewish festival is given, along with a very confusing chronology of Christ's death and resurrection (12.6–12). There is no need to discuss either of these here. It will suffice to focus on one aspect of Aphrahat's argument. He says, "After the Passover, Israel eats unleavened bread for seven days until the twenty-first day of the month, but we observe the [days of] unleavened bread as the festival of our Savior."73 Then in section 12 he stipulates that "If the day of the passover sacrifice, which is the suffering of our Savior, should fall for us on the first [day] of the week, according to the law we ought to make it [fall] on the second day, so that his whole week might be observed with his suffering and his unleavened bread. For after the Passover there are seven days of unleavened bread, until the twenty-first."74 Aphrahat thought that the Christian Easter celebrations ought to coincide with the Jewish Feast of Unleavened Bread. In this sense Easter itself is portrayed as a kind of law-observance. The seven days of unleavened bread are commanded in the law, but Aphrahat interprets this commandment typologically as pointing to the feast of the Savior. It is not clear if Aphrahat's "feast of the Savior" is always seven days or not, since if Sunday could not begin the feast then it is hard to see why it would occur in the middle either. What is clear is that Aphrahat felt compelled to observe Easter "according to the law," where the [End Page 178] commandments about Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread are in mind. This concern for keeping the commandments is reinforced, with a new emphasis, in the closing lines of the Demonstration:
But for us, this is what is required: to observe the festival in its time from season to season, to fast in purity, to pray continually, to give glory [to God] eagerly, to chant psalms when appropriate, to administer correctly the annointing oil [lit. "the sign"] and baptism, to consecrate the holy things in their time and to fulfill all the customary rituals. . . . But if we are troubled by these things, and about [the observation of the] fourteenth alone, let us be diligent, but not [only] about the festival which is from season to season. Rather, let us embrace the observance of the fourteenth of every month, and let us mourn on the Friday of every week. However, we ought to do good on every day of the week before the Lord our God. Now, be convinced by this small [treatise] that I have written to you, for you are not commanded to be troubled by bickering over words, in which there is no profit, but [rather you are commanded to have] a pure heart which observes the commandment75 and the festival and the times of the observances of [each] day.76
Here we catch a rare glimpse into the ritual aspect of Aphrahat's faith. He is prepared to admit that the Christian community, like the Jewish, has "customary rituals." The observance of the festival of Christ's death and resurrection involves a regimen of various actions, all of which are "required" and "commanded." Of more importance, however, is the requirement to have a pure heart while doing all those things that are required. This demand for purity of heart does not do away with the observance, but rather transposes it to a new key. The observance of the festival is now placed within the larger context of doing good on every day before God. To celebrate the festival "according to the law," then, is not only to engage in a typological fulfillment of the Old Testament commandment to observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread, but it is also to do so in the proper way, with purity of heart, which acts according to the law of love and thus fulfills the whole law. Aphrahat, then, replaces one form of ritual with another. He shares with his Jewish opponents a desire to follow God's law. What is at issue is how to do so. [End Page 179]
Conclusion
For Aphrahat's celibate circle, asceticism is the path to purity, which could be described as a pure commitment to law-observance. A prominent feature of this asceticism is celibacy, virginity if possible. But as we have seen, Aphrahat is equally (if not more) concerned with purity of speech and acts of compassion. Acts of renunciation that lead to a "flight from the world," understood geographically or physically, are not valued, but those that contribute to a lessening of a love for the world, understood as a realm of lawlessness, are highly prized indeed. Aphrahat is an ascetic because he wants to follow God's law, not the reverse. Asceticism, for him, cannot be established on independent grounds, leading subsequently to a concern for the law. Law-observance itself, however, is fundamental in his discourse, and provides a rationale for the various forms of renunciation reflected in the Demonstrations. The few, almost casual, references to a non-written law of righteousness in the hearts of the patriarchs are more important than they at first seem. This unwritten law forms the essence of the Sinai revelation and becomes explicit in the teaching of Christ.77 For [End Page 180] Aphrahat and his circle, Christians who follow the higher way of asceticism make use of powerful tools in the quest to follow this law. In his second Demonstration, which seeks to show how the whole revelation of God is summed up in the double law of love, Aphrahat says that "[e]verything that is done through the law is meant to encourage people to love" God and neighbor (2.8). If my analysis is correct, the same could be said of Aphrahat's approach to asceticism.
Dr. Adam Lehto lives in Waterloo, Ontario
Footnotes
1. For a general introduction to Aphrahat, see Marie-Joseph Pierre, Aphraate le Sage Persan: Les Exposés I–X, SC 349 (Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1988), 33–199. A more concise introduction can be found in Peter Bruns, Aphrahat: Unterweisungen. Erster Teilband, Fontes christiani 5/1 (Freiburg: Herder, 1991), 35–73.
2. The most plausible explanation for the shift in focus toward Jewish issues in the second series of Demonstrations is that Shapur II had initiated a persecution against Christians, making conversion to Judaism more appealing. Directly related to Shapur's war with Rome, which was now pro-Christian, this persecution became intense when the bishop of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, Simeon bar Sabba'e, refused to collect a head tax imposed on Christians to finance the war. See S. P. Brock, "Christians in the Sasanian Empire: A Case of Divided Loyalties," in Religion and National Identity,Studies in Church History 18, ed. Stuart Mews (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982), 1–19; J. G. Snaith, "Aphrahat and the Jews," in Interpreting the Hebrew Bible: Essays in Honour of E. I. J. Rosenthal, ed. J. A. Emerton and Stefan C. Reif (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 235–37; Pierre, Les Exposés I–X, 71–93; Naomi Koltun-Fromm, "A Jewish-Christian Conversation in Fourth-Century Persian Mesopotamia," JJS 47 (1996): 45–63; Adam H. Becker, "Beyond the Spatial and Temporal Limes: Questioning the 'Parting of the Ways' outside the Roman Empire," in The Ways That Never Parted: Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, ed. Adam H. Becker and Annette Yoshiko Reed (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 343–62.
3. Demonstration 20.7–12 (Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:904, 13–1:913, 5). I have used the standard critical edition of J. Parisot ("Aphraatis Sapientis Persae Demonstrationes," in PS volumes 1 [Demonstrations 1–22] and 2 [Demonstration 23], ed. R. Graffin [Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1894 and 1907]). In-text references are to Demonstration number and section number (as established by Parisot). All translations of the Demonstrations are the author's own. For a discussion of this particular Demonstration and a plausible reconstruction of its social context, see Adam H. Becker, "Anti-Judaism and Care for the Poor in Aphrahat's Demonstration 20," JECS 10 (2002): 305–27. Of the few extant works of Syrian provenance earlier than the Demonstrations, none but the Didascalia exhibit such a preoccupation with Judaism. This work was originally written in Greek, but was translated into Syriac not long before Aphrahat wrote his Demonstrations. It is in fact a Syriac manuscript which provides the only complete version of this work, with fragments surviving in Greek, along with extensive Latin portions. For an English translation and extensive introduction, see R. H. Connolly, Didascalia Apostolorum (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1929). Connolly includes the extensive Latin fragments on facing pages where they occur and refers to the few Greek fragments in his footnotes. He argues that Aphrahat probably knew the Didascalia. A. Vööbus, skeptical of any influence from the Didascalia on Aphrahat, has produced the most recent critical edition (The Didascalia Apostolorum in Syriac, CSCO 401 and 407 [Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1979]) along with an English translation published at the same time (CSCO 402 and 408). For a reading of the Didascalia as a Jewish document, see Charlotte Elisheva Fonrobert, "The Didascalia Apostolorum: A Mishnah for the Disciples of Jesus," JECS 9 (2001): 483–509.
4. Henceforth "divine law" will be referred to simply as "law" for the sake of convenience.
5. See Frank Gavin, "Aphraates and the Jews," Journal of the Society of Oriental Research, 7, #3–4 (1923): 95–166; Marcel Simon, Verus Israel: A Study of the Relations between Christians and Jews in the Roman Empire (135–425) (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986; trans. by H. McKeating of French 2nd edition published in 1964); Jacob Neusner, Aphrahat and Judaism: The Christian-Jewish Argument in Fourth Century Iran (Leiden: Brill, 1971); Snaith, "Aphrahat and the Jews"; P. Hayman, "The Image of the Jew in the Syriac Anti-Jewish Polemical Literature" in "To See Ourselves as Others See Us": Christians, Jews, "Others" in Late Antiquity,ed. Jacob Neusner and Ernest S. Frerichs (Chico: Scholars Press, 1985), 423–41; Pierre, Les Exposés (introduction, as well as extensive footnotes throughout on rabbinic parallels); Naomi Koltun-Fromm, "Sexuality and Holiness: Semitic Christian and Jewish Conceptualizations of Sexual Behavior," VC 54 (2000): 375–95; idem, "Yokes of the Holy Ones: The Embodiment of a Christian Vocation," HTR 94 (2001): 205–18.
6. A recent study by Diana Juhl fails to acknowledge the multivalency of the term "law" for Aphrahat, a failure that is all too typical in the literature: "Neben dem Tod war das Gesetz eine weitere Folge des Falls. Afrahat hat dabei das ganze mosaische Gesetz im Blick. Das Gesetz sollte den viefältigen Begierden der Menschen entgegentreten, die Menschen vor der Sünde schützen. Erst bei der Ankunft des Erlösers wurde der Gebrauch des Gesetzes aufgehoben" (Die Askese im Liber Graduum und bei Afrahat [Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 1996], 67). This does not negate the value of her study as a whole.
7. Demonstration 18.12 (Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:841, 20–22).
8. Five of these occurrences are in Demonstration 2, where Aphrahat discusses the way in which the law of love has fulfilled the law and the Prophets. Four of these five occur in quotations of the words of Christ, and the remaining example in Demonstration 2 is found in Aphrahat's introduction to one of these quotations. The other two occurrences of the term in the Demonstrations are in 1.19 and 21.18, where Aphrahat is not quoting any verse. That he uses the term as a synonym for nāmosā can be deduced by comparing 2.1 and 2.2, where the phrase "the law and the Prophets" occurs using first one (in quotation) and then another term for "law." I have used the term "Torah" (a cognate) to translate 'orāytā. In contrast to the limited use of 'orāytā, the term nāmosā is used 53 times in Demonstration 2 and 116 times elsewhere.
9. The title of the work as a whole is derived from this feature of the text, which includes many "demonstrations" of the truth of its arguments from Scripture.
10. Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:44, 16–17.
11. Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:56, 19–20.
12. Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:61, 23–25.
13. Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:104, 4–5.
14. Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:105, 14–15.
15. Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:756, 11–12.
16. See Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:56, 21; 1:57, 12–13, 15, 24; 1:60, 12. Significantly, earlier in Demonstration 2, Aphrahat had argued that the patriarchs exhibited the "works of the law" before the law was revealed (1:49, 17; 1:52, 7). Clearly this phrase, in contrast to those just mentioned, had a positive meaning for Aphrahat.
17. In 5.20, Antiochus is presented as a kind of anti-Christ (not Aphrahat's term), in the sense that he, too "made the observances which are in the law cease," not because he wanted to fulfill the law (as Christ did), but because he opposed all righteousness.
18. Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:757, 9–11.
19. See also 7.19 ("When [Gideon] assembled the people for war, the scribes admonished [them] with the words of the law . . ."), where "law" clearly means something less than "Old Testament," but may be either "Sinai revelation" or "Pentateuch."
20. Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:121, 8–11.
21. See 1:244, 12–13; 1:265, 10–11. In Gal 3.10, Paul quotes Deut 27.26 in order to argue that those who try to obey the whole law are under a curse, since such obedience, on his view, is impossible. In 6.6, Aphrahat argues that "it was because of [Eve] that the curse of the law was established, and it was because of her that the promise of death came." There is no reason to suppose that "the curse of the law" in this passage has the same meaning as it does in Galatians. Rather than focusing on a curse from Deuteronomy, Aphrahat refers to the Genesis narrative, which is more appropriate for a discussion of the role of Eve. Thus the phrase "curse of the law" seems to refer to "the curse recorded in Genesis" (which is part of the law, i.e., the Pentateuch) rather than "the curse recorded in the Mosaic legislation."
22. See Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:252, 23–26; 1:304, 22–25; 1:312, 17–18; 1:349, 11–13; 1:412, 6–8; 1:416, 17–19; 1:433, 4–12.
23. Demonstration 2.2 (Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:48, 11–13).
24. Demonstration 2.11 (Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:72, 19–21).
25. Demonstration 1.2 (Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:8, 4–6); Demonstration 23.61 (2:128, 12–13).
26. Demonstration 23.62 (Parisot, Demonstrationes, 2:128, 18–23; 129, 15–23).
27. Demonstration 23.67 (Parisot, Demonstrationes, 2:144, 19–2:148, 8).
28. This is a major theme in early Christianity and beyond. As Marcel Simon so aptly put it: "In actual fact there is not a great deal of difference between the Jew who applies himself to fulfil what the law prescribes and the apostle who spontaneously, without seeking to do so, lives in conformity with the law. There was even less difference between the ordinary Christian and the ordinary Jew. For the immense majority of Christians the commandments kept their old force, as they had always done. This was even more true after Christian theology had slipped into moralistic grooves very similar to those of Judaism, and made respectable again the ideas of merit and retribution that St. Paul had denied" (Verus Israel, 75). A trajectory that would repay further study on this theme runs from Theophilus of Antioch through the Didascalia and Aphrahat and on to Philoxenus of Mabbug.
29. Demonstration 1.11 (Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:25, 4–1:28, 21).
30. For the sake of convenience, I will refer to Aphrahat as the author of the exhortation, though it must be kept in mind that here he was not writing on his own, but representing the convictions of the covenanters in general. This is not to deny, of course, that the fourteenth Demonstration bears all the marks of Aphrahat's own convictions.
31. Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:577, 1–2.
32. See Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:577, 22 and 1:580, 1.
33. Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:633, 7.
34. Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:640, 12–22.
35. Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:704, 11–1:708, 16.
36. Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:705, 9–10.
37. Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:620, 27–1:621, 1.
38. Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:660, 14–22.
39. Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:661, 7–8.
40. Section 35 opens as follows: "Who perceives the place of knowledge? Who comprehends the foundation of wisdom? Who discerns the place of understanding? It is hidden from every living thing, and from the thoughts of all flesh" (1:660, 23–26). The words "knowledge" and "wisdom" are feminine singular, while "understanding" is masculine singular. The pronoun "it" is feminine singular. Either Aphrahat is referring back to knowledge or wisdom, or, more likely, he is treating all three terms as referring to essentially the same entity. He uses the pronoun, rather than any particular term, in the long description that follows. I use the term "wisdom" to refer to what might be more properly referred to as "knowledge/wisdom/understanding."
41. Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:661, 17–18.
42. Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:664, 10–14.
43. Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:665, 4–5.
44. See the very thorough and thought-provoking article by Alexander Golitzin, "The Place of the Presence of God: Aphrahat of Persia's Portrait of the Christian Holy Man: An Essay in Honor of Archimandrite Aimilianos of the Monastery of Simonos Petras, Mount Athos"(http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/aimilianos).
45. Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:672, 18–20.
46. Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:672, 21–23.
47. See Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:676, 7 and 1:676, 16.
48. Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:676, 8–9.
49. Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:716, 20–1:717, 7.
50. See Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:649, 12–13 and 1:680, 25–26.
51. Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:924, 2–4.
52. For an insightful discussion of Aphrahat's use of Paul, see Stephen S. Taylor, "Paul and the Persian Sage: Some Observations on Aphrahat's Use of the Pauline Corpus," in The Function of Scripture in Early Jewish and Christian Tradition, ed. Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 312–31.
53. For a discussion of the theme of humility in Aphrahat, and how it might compare to the concept of "implicity" in Philoxenus, see Adam Lehto, "Aphrahat and Philoxenus on Faith," The Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 4 (2004): 47–59.
54. Parisot, Demonstrationes, 2:9, 7–8.
55. Others have undertaken this task effectively. See Sebastian Brock, "Early Syrian Asceticism" (Numen 20 [1973]: 1–19); George Nedungatt, "The Covenanters in the Early Syriac-Speaking Church" (OCP 39 [1973]: 191–215 and 419–44); Robert Murray, "The Exhortation to Candidates for Ascetical Vows at Baptism in the Ancient Syriac Church" (NTS 21 [1974]: 59–80); idem,"The Features of the Earliest Christian Asceticism," in Christian Spirituality: Essays in Honour of George Rupp, ed. Peter Brooks (London, SCM Press: 1975), 65–77; idem,"'Circumcision of the Heart' and the Origins of the Qyāmâ," in After Bardaisan: Studies on Continuity and Change in Syriac Christianity in Honour of Professor Han J. W. Drijvers, ed. G. J. Reinink and A. C. Klugkist, Orientalia Lovaniensia analecta 89 (Louvain: Peeters, 1999), 201–11; Marie-Joseph Pierre, "Introduction," in Les Exposés; Sidney H Griffith, "Asceticism in the Church of Syria: The Hermeneutics of Early Syrian Monasticism," in Asceticism, ed. Vincent L. Wimbush & Richard Valantasis (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), 220–45; Diana Juhl, Die Askese.
56. Demonstration 3.2 (Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:101, 10–11).
57. Demonstration 3.7 (Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:113, 12–22).
58. Demonstration 3.16 (Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:136, 12–14).
59. Demonstration 14.4 (Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:169, 16–23).
60. Demonstration 4.13 (Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:165, 16).
61. Demonstration 2.20 (Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:96, 3–4).
62. Demonstration 6.1 (Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:245, 21).
63. Demonstration 6.17 (Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:301, 11–16).
64. Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:304, 11–12.
65. Here, of course, Aphrahat's Jewish interlocutors might have protested that the ritual observance of the law is precisely intended to facilitate the observance of the "deeper" law, rather than being an end in itself.
66. Demonstration 18.6 (Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:832, 21–23).
67. Demonstration 18.3 (Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:824, 7–9).
68. Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:837, 3–5, 11–14.
69. Demonstration 18.10 (Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:840, 15–16).
70. Demonstration 18.11 (Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:840, 26–1:841, 2). Though this particular interpretation of Gen 2.24 is not mentioned in the discussion of the passage in Elizabeth Clark's Reading Renunciation: Asceticism and Scripture in Early Christianity (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999), 182–83, Aphrahat's approach to the passage appears to be close to that of Jerome and John Chrysostom (among many others), who thought that marriage represented a fallen state. Not surprisingly, it is here, in his defense of virginity and celibacy against Jewish criticisms, that Aphrahat is forced to give the most ascetic reading of the Old Testament in all of the Demonstrations. Elsewhere, ascetic exegesis rarely figures prominently: Aphrahat's moral and historical orientation does not require it. The main exception to this rule is found in Demonstration 7.18–22, where Aphrahat gives an ascetic reading of Judg 7.1–8: Gideon choosing men for war is compared to the leaders of the church guiding select candidates into ascetic warfare. A less prominent example is Aphrahat's attribution of "pure fasting" to a series of Old Testament figures (see 3.2). This, however, is ascetic reading with a twist, since what he is attributing to them is not literal fasting, but rather the purity of heart that literal fasting, at best, facilitates. Even when Aphrahat has the luxury of examples of literal fasting (that is, Moses and Elijah; see 3.3), the important thing is that they "fasted purely" and thus were able to function effectively as God's servants.
71. Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:841, 19–1:844, 5.
72. Naomi Koltun-Fromm has suggested that "Aphrahat perceived his celibate vocation as a divinely commanded obligation" ("Yokes of the Holy Ones," 215). This is true only indirectly. Insofar as virginity, for example, is a gift, it cannot be considered a general law. But if virginity enables the select few to follow the law of love more closely, then by extension we might say (though, in a polemical context, Aphrahat avoids this formulation) that it is "commanded" for those few. Earlier in her article Koltun-Fromm states, "A comparison between Aphrahat's 'yoke' and various rabbinic 'yokes' illuminates how Aphrahat's Christianity and rabbinic Judaism share common Semitic exegetical patterns and methodology. The yoke's embodiment in ritualized practice—celibacy for Aphrahat and Torah-study and commandment-fulfillment for the rabbis—enables these biblical exegetes to pursue analogous paths to holiness in a post-Temple existence." Koltun-Fromm's general point is well-taken, but it is a mistake to suggest that Torah-study and commandment fulfillment are not important for Aphrahat. As we have seen, Aphrahat is comfortable with the designation of the Decalogue as Christ's "easy yoke," and his self-designation as a "disciple of the holy scriptures" (22.26) should be taken seriously.
73. Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:521, 12–15.
74. Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:533, 24–1:536, 4.
75. The "commandment" that is observed by the pure in heart may be the love command (cf. 1.8; 1.11; 2.12; 14.14; 14.44).
76. Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:537, 8–15 and 1:537, 20–1:540, 6.
77. Aphrahat's claim that an unwritten law of righteousness predated Sinai, continued to be operative under the written law, and was now clarified in Christ's teaching and call is formally similar to the later Islamic claim that what Muslims embrace in their faith is nothing other than the pure and original form of religion. For a similar statement in another important early Syriac text, note the following passage from the Liber Graduum 26.5: "Now this Gospel which Jesus gave is the same one which Adam transgressed and [from which he] fell. That Uprightness which Moses and the prophets gave is the same one which was established for Adam after he had transgressed against the first commandment. So the first law become the latter law and the latter [law became] the first one, just as the last became the first and the first [became] the last" (trans. Robert A. Kitchen, The Book of Steps: The Syriac Liber Graduum, Cistercian Studies Series 196 [Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 2004]). Aleksander Kowalski has argued that in the Liber Graduum, the commandment to avoid eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (sometimes simply called "the first commandment") is associated with prohibitions against obeying Satan and engaging in worldly activities (marriage, ownership, and the like). In other words, according to the Liber Graduum, Adam and Eve were the first monastics (see Perfezione e giustizia di Adamo nel Liber Graduum [Rome: Pontificium institutum orientale, 1989], 41–46). While it is clear that for Aphrahat, as for the Liber Graduum, there was a "fall into sexuality," there is, in Aphrahat, no association of the commandment to avoid the fruit of the tree with prohibitions against obeying Satan and embracing worldly activities (for the relevant passages, see Demonstrations 2.2,7; 7.1; 8.17; 11.3; 13.4; 18.9; 21.1, 2, 6; 23.3). Even more significant is the lack of any distinction between perfection and uprightness in the Demonstrations, and the corresponding lack of a "law for the perfect" (first given to Adam and reinstituted by Christ) and a "law for the upright" (given to Moses to regulate the lives of those who had fallen from perfection). For Aphrahat, the perfect law of love, which is also the "law of righteousness" written on the hearts of the patriarchs, forms the essence of the Mosaic law, and it is to this law that Christ calls his followers to return. Asceticism is embraced as a means to the fulfillment of this law of love. The lack of any emphasis on a separate "law for the upright" is probably also a function of Aphrahat's decision to address his own ascetic circle, and not the wider church.

Special An interview with novelist Henriette Aboudi about her latest novel "Farewell Mardin", written in Arabic. Azad-Hye

Thu, 14 Jul 2011 17:18:44 -0400

The novel is about Seyfo (the Genocide of Syriac, Assyrian and Chaldean population in the Ottoman Empire during WWI), which coincided with the Armenian Genocide.
Due to the importance of the subject to the Armenians we addressed author Henriette Aboudi and asked her about her book.
The Swedish parliament has already recognized the Armenian genocide and mentioned the Assyrian genocide in the known pronouncement. The publishing of your novel coincides with a time when there’s a growing interest in the fate of the nations that were part of the Ottoman Empire before the Genocide of 1915-1918. Will reading the novel help understand what had happened from both a historical and a political perspective?
The purpose behind this novel is to further clarify the events. It gives a chronological order of the events through real characters such as some of my family members who witnessed the atrocities. For example, the scene about Bishop Maloyian’s brutal killing with many other Armenians is taken from history books, while the one where my uncle and his pregnant wife were murdered and their son was kidnapped is taken from my family memoirs. My cousin was later recovered by my family - thanks to the mediation of Cardinal Tabuni - who later became one of Aleppo’s prominent writers.
Why is it that the Assyrian massacres do not grab the same attention like the Armenian genocide? Is it simply negligence by your own people or do you blame the international circumstances?
I do not have one answer to this question. Assyrians in fact did not speak of the persecution they incurred in the last days of the Ottoman Empire with the same determination as the Armenians had. Why? The reason could be because Assyrians, unlike the Armenians, do not have an independent country of their own. There’s also the language factor. For the Assyrians, the first language has always been the Arabic albeit a small number still speaks the old language. By many this language is considered as religious rather than a national one. Just like the Maronites in Lebanon, the Assyrians do not use their language any more, except for the rituals.
There are of course calls to revive the Assyrian nationality but they are seen as reactions to the rise of the religious wave in the region, which was seen in Iraq as bloody conflict between the followers of the same religion and between Islamic extremists and Christians. This is not far from nationalistic struggles between Arabs, Kurds and Turks in the region which could be extended to Turkey and Syria.
Some authors have told details of massacre from personal perspective. Are there any events in the novel that you have personally witnessed?
Both my parents were displaced from Mardin, also most of my relatives. Some still live in my hometown Aleppo, and some have moved to Lebanon or migrated to America or Canada. There are many who have been captivated or killed. To all of these I owe my existence and there is no mission more important than reviving their memory through my novel, especially that their tragedy has been silenced for a long time. Isn’t it unfair that the thousands of innocent victims who have been killed in a moment of insanity in history can find no one to mourn them and tell the story of their tragedy?
I have written this novel driven by the spirit of tolerance that I learned from my mother. My mother, who suffered like everyone else but then she forgave.
Would you like to have your book translated into other languages?
Definitely, every novelist likes to be read in other languages. Translating this book will help introducing the Assyrian tragedy to the public opinion which gives further consolation to those who were displaced, captivated or killed, simply because they represented "the other" or "the different one", from the viewpoint of their persecutors.
We should not forget that what helps victims most and leads them to the stage of forgiveness is the confession of the crimes by the murderers.
Translated by Nanor Mikayelian from Arabic

The Sisters of Sinai: How Two Lady Adventurers Discovered the Hidden Gospels, by Janet Soskice

Wed, 13 Jul 2011 17:04:37 -0400

Janet Soskice's The Sisters of Sinai is a pioneering biography of two women, identical Scottish twins born in 1843, who without the opportunity for university study fashioned themselves into biblical scholars whose achievements were nothing less than spectacular. The subtitle, How Two Lady Adventurers Discovered the Hidden Gospels sounds sensational, but this history truly is sensational. Agnes Smith Lewis and her sister Margaret Dunlop Gibson [End Page 341] undertook dangerous journeys to St. Catherine's monastery in Sinai where they discovered what turned out to be the second oldest manuscript of the Christian Gospels: a palimpsest on which a "racy" martyrology of women saints obscured a fourth-century Syriac translation of the original Greek text (qtd. in Soskice 160). As the translation itself dated back to the second century, and as Syriac was a dialect of the Aramaic language spoken by Jesus, this early translation promised a closer approach to the very earliest Christian beliefs. Soskice appropriately closes the first chapter of her account of these adventurous women by testifying that "this is the true story of two sisters who, like the biblical Moses, made a discovery at Mount Sinai that would transform their lives … after trials (including some on the Nile) had proved their worthiness" (6).
But if this beginning sounds like the stuff of romance and legend, the twin sisters' story is situated in an impeccably researched history of biblical textual discoveries that shook the world of Victorian religion to its core by proving that the Christian Bible was the product of many translations and revisions. Soskice is the author of two previous monographs and co-editor of seven essay collections on subjects ranging from feminist theology to medicine and moral reasoning; she brings a sophisticated knowledge of biblical textual history to her impressive sleuthing of biographical minutiae. She is also a gifted writer who transforms the lives of two largely forgotten Scottish women into a page-turning adventure story.
The prologue takes us back to Constantin von Tischendorf's disclosure of an ancient manuscript that he had "borrowed" from St. Catherine's in 1859 (112), and to a new and authoritative edition of the Greek New Testament prepared by two Cambridge scholars based on their comparison of the newly discovered manuscript with the one already held in the Vatican Library. A new English translation of this revised Greek edition was then released on 17 May 1881; the Oxford University Press alone sold a million copies on the first day. But Soskice trumps this sensational bestseller story with a London Daily News story published on 13 April 1893 concerning two ladies, a Mrs. Lewis and her sister, Mrs. Gibson, who had travelled to Mount Sinai in Egypt and discovered another ancient manuscript of the Four Gospels. This was a palimpsest "in a dreadful condition, all the leaves sticking together and being full of dirt" (qtd. in Soskice 3); Lewis had steamed its pages apart with her teakettle! Thus Soskice moves her readers from the standard view of nineteenth-century biblical scholarship as the work of men from the rarified world of university scholarship to the popular media and its amazing news about a blackened wedge of manuscript found by "two ladies" in a "dark closet" (123).
But as Soskice informs us, the Daily News story was only a partial truth. The presence of two eminent male biblical scholars on the expedition was omitted although a third, Professor Rendel Harris, is mentioned. In fact, the exclusion of the two male scholars, Professor Robert Bensley and his adjutant Frank Burkitt, from the account of the sensational new find was precisely what these men had feared. While working with the sisters and Harris on the 1893 trip to the monastery whose purpose was to fully transcribe the Syriac manuscript found by Lewis on an earlier trip, conflicts boiled. It became evident that "Bensly and Burkitt resented Harris's presence and considered Agnes and Margaret upstarts—in which judgment their wives concurred" (157). Who were these two women, and were they unqualified "upstarts"?
Soskice's biography is the first scholarly, fully documented account of the twin sisters. Their life's work was a crucial part of the exciting, if often scandalous, [End Page 342] history of Victorian takeovers of ancient manuscripts discovered in Middle Eastern countries. The self-taught sisters—women were barred from university degrees in England—shine forth as exemplary figures of non-exploitative scholar-adventurers open to the Oriental cultures in which they worked. Before their first trip to St. Catherine's, Bensly had discouraged them from the undertaking, saying that their journey would be in vain because the monks wouldn't accept women. What they found was precisely the opposite: the monks welcomed them because they were women and not "scientific scholars" (108)—a European breed that they had found could seldom be trusted—and also because, unlike the scholars who often were only learned in ancient languages, these women spoke modern Greek, their own language.
They first arrived at St. Catherine's in January 1892 fully prepared with water filters, medicines, and a state-of-the-art photographic apparatus, complete with 1,000 nitrate negatives. They also brought with them knowledge of the Syriac language, which Lewis had begun to study because she had been so enthralled by Harris's work. Harris had discovered at St. Catherine's a full copy of the "Apology of Aristides" in Syriac, a work which proved the existence of an already well-formulated version of Christian belief in the first half of the second century. Harris soon became a valuable friend and supporter. It was he who told them about a "dark closet" full of Syriac manuscripts that he had not had time to examine thoroughly, and in that closet Lewis discovered the palimpsest under whose surface text she was just able to make out "Of Matthew" and "Of Luke" (124).
The rest is, as Soskice's final chapter title makes clear, not history but "Palimpsest." Although Lewis wrote a "masterpiece" of an introduction to what eventually became known as the "Lewis Codex" and later published an English translation (195), so that ordinary people could read this early version of the Gospels; although the sisters also published a still-valuable catalogue of Syriac and Arabic manuscripts held at St. Catherine's, as well as many editions of ancient manuscripts; although the sisters made repeated trips to Mediterranean destinations, lawfully purchasing manuscripts and also publishing accounts of their travels; and although they achieved high acclaim as scholars in their lifetimes, Lewis being awarded four honorary doctorates and Gibson three, and the two together receiving the triennial gold medal of the Royal Asiatic Society—in spite of all these remarkable adventures and achievements, the sisters' lives have been overwritten by the work of biblical scholars who happen to have been men. Soskice has now spelled out the hidden gospel truths of their lives. No scholar of Victorian religion, or of the lives of Victorian women, not to mention anyone who just wants to sit down with a spellbinding tale of Victorian history, should miss it.
Mary Wilson Carpenter
Mary Wilson Carpenter (carpentm@queensu.ca), Professor Emerita at Queen's University, Kingston, Canada, is the author of Imperial Bibles, Domestic Bodies: Women, Sexuality, and Religion in the Victorian Market (2003), George Eliot and the Landscape of Time: Narrative Form and Protestant Apocalyptic History (1986), and, most recently, Health, Medicine, and Society in Victorian England (2009). She is currently working on Victorian literature and medicine.

Hunayn Ibn Ishaq: A Forgotten Legend Samir Johna

Wed, 13 Jul 2011 17:03:28 -0400

IT DOES NOT MATTER whether we like the history of science or not. If we were to understand the continuity of medical science progress we must study the science of the ancient times, the Middle Ages, and the Renaissance because they are not exclusive but rather overlapping. The Greek miracle of marvelous arts, science, and culture over two centuries before the Christian era came very close to perishing if it were not for its transmission through the dark ages. Perhaps it is best stated by Sarton( n1). "Transmission is as important as discovery." If all of the ancient science had been hidden instead of published or had been lost in transmission it would be almost as if it had never been.
With the revolution in communications today the transmission of science is almost automatic and instantaneous providing an easy access for the exchange of expertise. This was not the case in earlier ages. Scientists faced enormous economic, logistic, and political difficulties that made the exchange of expertise very slow and limited. Most of the discoveries had to migrate from one continent to another or had to be translated from a language to another before they became integrated in our intellectual patrimony.
Thanks to the Nestorian (Christian) schools and scholars in Mesopotamia (Edessa and Gondi-Shapor) the translations took place from Greek into Syriac or Aramaic and from the Syriac into Arabic during the third to seventh centuries of the Christian era.( n2, n3) From Arabic they were translated into Latin and finally into English. Many Christian scientists--mostly physicians--graduated from these schools and became forgotten legends as their contributions to science and humanity are only trivially mentioned today. Even when remembered in the literature they are often referred to as Arabs and/or Moslems, contrary to their national identity as Assyrians-Chaldeans (the indigenous people of Mesopotamia) and contrary to their religious identity as Christians.
As an Assyrian American and a Nestorian surgeon I feel obliged to unravel the facts and pay those giant scholars a tribute they deserve in memory of their dedication to science, medicine, and humanity. Perhaps starting with Hunayn ibn-Ishaq sets the stage lot my objectives.
The Life of Hunayn ibn-Ishaq (809-877AD)
Born to a Nestorian druggist in al-Hira near Babylon Hunayn ibn-Ishaq followed in the footsteps of his father. Being an Assyrian like many other natives of al-Hira at that time he spoke only Syriac. It appears that ibn-Ishaq had to learn Arabic later in life.( n4) However, his knowledge about drugs granted him a position as a drug dispenser to ibn-Massawaih, a prominent Nestorian physician and teacher in the school of medicine in Jondi-Shapor. His enthusiasm and eagerness to learn medicine irritated his master and cost him his position.( n5)
ibn-Ishaq left the school determined to study Greek and Arabic languages; he spent several years in Greek towns in Asia Minor and in Basra. Later he was welcomed in Baghdad by Jibra'il Bakhtishu, the court physician to the Caliph al-Ma'mun. Being a liberal Moslem and an admirer of the Greek science and medicine al-Ma'mun appointed ibn-Ishaq to be in charge of an academy and a library, beit al-hikma ("house of wisdom"), supervising all of the translations from Greek and Syriac into Arabic.
Hunayn ibn-Ishaq made long journeys through Mesopotamia, Syria, Palestine, and Egypt to find Greek scientific manuscripts. The money for these travels and for the purchase of rare books was provided not only by the caliphs but also by the prominent men at their courts many of whom were themselves learned scholars of great reputation.
In time--and for the first time--Arab students could read the Arabic translations of a great portion of the works of Hippocrates, Galen, Paul of Aegina, Ptolemy, Euclid, Aristole, and Plato, an important milestone in the history of science. Arabs and Moslems soon picked up and added their original contributions which were subsequently transferred to Europe via Spain.
Hunayn ibn-Ishaq's Translations
Although preceded and followed by many translators none could be compared with ibn-Ishaq and his pupils. He trained a group of pupils who became competent translators of works into both Syriac and Arabic. His nephew Hubysh was especially proficient in Arabic, and his son Ishaq was competent in Syriac.
Hunayn ibn-Ishaq was without a doubt the greatest and most productive of all translators. He made many original translations as well as revision of many others done by his predecessors as they were inaccurate and many of them had transliterated the Greek with Syriac or Arabic letters.
According to his own list he translated into Syriac 95 and into Arabic 39 books of Galen. In one of his manuscripts entitled al-Sina'ah al-Saghirah preserved in the Garrett collection of Arabic and Persian manuscripts in Princeton University, seven books of Galen's anatomy which are, lost in the original Greek are fortunately preserved in Arabic through the translations of ibn-Ishaq.( n6) Six more Syriac versions and about 70 Arabic versions were made by his pupils and mostly revised by himself as well as the 50 Syriac versions that had been made by his predecessors including the famous Corpus Galena by Sergius of Ras al'Ayn.
Hunayn ibn-Ishaq translated works into Syriac for very prominent (Nestorian) Christian physicians and scholars( n7)--to mention a few: Gibra'il ibn Bakhtishu', Yuhanna ibn Masawaih, Salmawaih ibn Bunan, Bakhtishu' ibn Gibra'il, Zakariyya at-Taifuri, Isra'il at-Taifuri, Shirishu' ibn Qurtub, and others. The Arabic versions were made for prominent Moslems, some of whom had recently converted to Islam such as Ali ibn Yahya, secretary of the caliph al-Mutawakkil: Muhhammad ibn Abd al-Malik az-Zayyat, Vizir of the caliph al-Mu'tasim; Muhammad and Ahmad ibn Musa, mathematicians and physicists; Ahmad ibn Muhammad al-Mudabbir, governor of Egypt under al-Mutawakkil; Ishaq ibn Ibrahim al-Tahiti, governor of Khurassan under al-Ma'mun: and Ishaq ibn Sulaiman, former governor of Egypt.
ibn-Ishaq's method of translation was admirable and satisfies the demands of modern philology. He severely criticized his own early translations and those done by his predecessors and often had them redone. At the time of his death in 877 AD he was engaged in making a translation of Galen's De constitutione artis medicae.
Hunayn ibn-Ishaq's Own Works
ibn-Ishaq was the author of more than 100 original works, but only few of these are extant today. In addition to a Greek-Syriac dictionary, his writings can be divided into the following areas.
General Medicine and Various Subjects( n7)
ibn-Ishaq became famous in medieval Europe by his introduction to the Ars Parva Galeni, which was translated into Latin under the title Isagoge Johannitii. His greatest success among Asians came by his Questions on Medicine and Ophthalmology. Other books covered diverse subjects such as the diet of the old, the diet of convalescent patients, different remedies, symptoms, pulse, fever, urine, bath, hygiene, veterinary medicine, anecdotes of ancient philosophers and medical men, colors, actions of the sun and moon, the reason why seawater is salty, etc. He also wrote about logic, syntax, universal history, religion, and a missive (Risala) on the misfortunes of his own life.
Ophthahnology( n7)
Perhaps Hunayn ibn-Ishaq's greatest achievements were in ophthalmology. He authored many books, some of which are still preserved today. A few of the titles are: The Ten Treatises of the Eve, The Questions on the Eye, On the Structure of the Eye, The Book of Colours, The Divisions of Eye-Diseases, The Choice of Remedies for Eye-Diseases, and The Operative Treatment of Eye-Diseases. His achievements were certainly the starting point for Arab ophthalmology.
Hunayn ibn-Ishaq's Morals and Ethics
Under the caliph al-Mutawakkil ibn-Ishaq reached the summit of his glory as a translator and as a medical practitioner, but at the same time the mistrust of the caliph, a very orthodox and fanatical Moslem, and the envy of ibn-Ishaq's Christian colleagues caused him a series of bad experiences. Although favored by most of the caliphs his integrity as a person and as a professional was heavily and seriously tested.( n7)
The caliph al-Mutawakkil bade him to prepare a poison for an enemy offering him rich rewards if he would do so. ibn-Ishaq refused and was imprisoned for a year. When brought again before the caliph and told he would be put to death if he did not obey the order, he replied:
Two things forbid it, my religion and my profession. My religion commands us to do good, even to our enemies, so much more to our friends, and my profession forbids us to do harm to our kindred as it is instituted for the benefit and welfare of the human race, and God imposed on physicians the oath not to compose mortiferous remedies.
After he was pardoned al-Mutawakkil told him that he had only desired to test his loyalty to the standard traditions of medical practice!
A few years later new misfortunes befell ibn-Ishaq when some of his colleagues denounced him to the caliph as a heretic. He was imprisoned in his house for several months and was flogged from time to time, and the caliph deprived him of his goods and (what was the worst punishment to him) his books. In his own words (Missive), he related the following: "I had lost all the books which I had gradually collected during the course of the whole of my adult life in all the lands in which I had traveled, all of which books I lost at one blow..."
Later on he began to regain the favor of al-Mutawakkil after a successful cure and had his fortunes restored and honors and rich presents bestowed on him. From this time ibn-Ishaq devoted himself with an astonishing zeal to the translation work. He pardoned his former enemies and disdained to take revenge on them.
No doubt Hunayn ibn-Ishaq set a rare example for a true scholar and a legend. He kept very high moral and ethical standards in his professional conduct. By translating the marvelous heritage of Greek science into Syriac and Arabic and by adding more than 100 original works he managed not only to preserve but to transfer and enrich the existing fund of knowledge ensuring its sate passage to future generations through the dark ages.
REFERENCES
(n1.) Sarton G. Introduction to the History of Science, Vol I. Carnegie Institution of Washington. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins Co, 1927.
(n2.) Whipple AO. Role of the Nestorians as the connecting link between Greek and Arabic medicine. Ann Med Hist New Ser 1936:2:313-323.
(n3.) Whipple AO. The role of Nestorians and Moslems in the history of medicine. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1967.
(n4.) O'Leary D. How Greek Science Passed to the Arabs. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, Ltd., 1948.
(n5.) Browne EG. Arabian Medicine. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1921.
(n6.) Hitti PK. History of the Arabs; London: Macmillan and Co. Ltd., 1937.
(n7.) Meyerhof M. The Book of the Ten Treatises on the Eye Ascribed to Hunayn ibn-Ishaq (809-877 A.D.). Cairo, Egypt: Government Press, 1928.
~~~~~~~~
By Samir Johna, M.D., F.A.C.S., From the Department of Surgery, Loma Linda University School of Medicine, Loma Linda, California

( Studies in Syriac Literature)' Bibliography Matti Moosa

Sat, 18 Jun 2011 09:50:41 -0400

1-See J. B. Chabot. La Litterature Syriaque (Paris, 1935), pp. 9-10. Chabot also refers to H. Omont, Inventaire de la Collection renaudot a la Bibliotheque Nationale See also, by the same author, Les Langues et la Litterature Armeenne (Paris, 1910), translated into Arabic by Anton Shukri Lawrence (Jerusalem, 1930), p. 5.

2-William Wright, Syriac Literature (London, 1894), p. 141.

3-Wright, p.74.
664-The Repentance of Ninevah, by Ephraim Syrus. Trans. By Rev. Henry burgress (London, 1853), Introduction, pp.20-21. According to Burgess, Ephraim says that “God gives forgivness, a word concerning which there can be no difference.” Yet Assemani renders the sentence “Indulgenatiam adjecit, id est, Clavium potestatem.” (“He adda indulgence, that is the ‘power of the the keys’.”)

5-loc. Cit., p.21.

6-Viscount Philip de Tarrazi, Asdag ma kan an Tarikh lubnan (The Most True Account of the History of Lebanon), in Arabic (Beirut, 1948), I, 432.

7-Wright, Syriac Literature, p. 74, mentions one anaphora by Philoxenus of Mabug, but refers us to Renaudot, II, 310, and to Assemani, B.O., II, 24. He also cites Renaudot as the source of this information in his Catalogue of Syriac Manuscript in the British Museum.

8-Rubens Duval, La Litterature Syriaque (Paris, 1899), p. 13.

9-Ernest Renan, Histoire des langues semitiques, p. 259.

10-Bar Daysan, Laws of the Countries, ed. Williams Cureton (London, 1855), p.15.

11-Bar Hebraeus, Chronicon Syriacum, ed. Paul Bedjian (Paris, 1890), p. 168.

15-Ignatius Aphram Barssoum, al-LuLu al-Manthur (Histoire des Sciences et de la Litterature Syriaque) Arabic, 2nd edition (Aleppo, 1956), p. 237.

16-Ibid

17-martin Sprengling, “Antonius Rhetor on Versification,” American journal of Semitic languages and Literature, XXXII, 3 (April, 1916), p. 139.

18-See Anton Baumstark, Geschichte der Syrischen Literature (Bonn, 1922), p.11.

19- See the preface of William Cureton to his Spicilegium Syriacum (London, 1855).

20-For an English translation of the Pshitto see George M. Lamsa Holy Bible from the Peshitta (Philadelphia, 1957). This translation appeared for the first time in 1933.

21-William Wright, Syriac Literature (London, 1894), p. 5.

22-F. Crawford Burkitt, Early Eastern Christianity (London, 1904), p. 70.

23-Anton baumstark, Geschichte der Syrischen Literature, p.18.

24-Burkitt, pp. 39-78.

25-E. Nestle, “Syriac Versions,” The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of religion, ed. Samuel Macauley Jackson, XI (1958), 126.

26-Ibid

27-Paul E. Kahle, The Cairo Geniza, and ed. (Oxford, 1959), p. 265.

28-Nestle, p. 127.

29-Kahle, pp. 265-283.

30-F. Crawford Burkitt, Evangelion da Mephareshe (Cambridge, 1904), II, 201.

13-Kahle, p. 265.

32-Kahle, pp. 265-267.

33-John Pinkerton, “the Origin and Early History of the Syriac pentateuch,” in J.T.S., XV (1914), 14-41.

34-Kahle, p. 266.

35-Burkitt, Eastern Christianity, pp. 39-78 Passim.

36-Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book I, xiii.

37-Burkitt, Eastern Christianity, pp. 71-72.

38-Joseph Marquart, Osteuropaische und ostasiatische Streifzuge (Leipzig, 1903), p.288, quoted by Kahle, p. 270.

39-According to Josephus (Antiquities, XX, ii, 1, 4), Izates II, King of Adiabene, son Monobazas I, and his sister Helena, had been won over to the Jewish religion. A Jewish merchant named Ananias (Hannania) had been admitted to the Royal court and harem, whre he was able to I terest the royal ladies I the Jewish religion.

40-Kahle, p. 274, quoting Marquart, p. 298. 41-Kahle, p. 274, quoting Adoloph harnack, Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentum (4th ed., 1924), p. 284.

42-Kahle, p. 275.

43-For the Syriac text and English translation of the Doctrine of Addai, see William Cureton, Ancient Syriac Documents (London, 184), pp. 24-35.

44-Kahle, pp. 282-283.

45-Addai Scher, Tarikh Kaldo wa Athur, II, 6.

46-See Duval, La Litterature Syriaque (Paris, 1899), p. 32.

47-Assemani, Bibliotheca Orientalis, II, 279.

48-Ibid., II, 468.

49-The Anonymous Chronicle of Edessa, ed. Rahmani, p. 66, cited by Rev. p. Behnam, “Ta qibat Tarikhiyya,” Lisan al-Mashriq (May-july, 1951), p. 271.

50-For full statement of Solomon of Basra see (cureton, Ancient Syriac Documents)

51-Burkitt, Eastern Christianity, p. 32.

52-Kahle, p. 283.

53-Michael the Great, Chronicle , pp. 283-285, quoted by Rev. P. Behnam, “Ta Cqibat Tarikhiyya,” p. 271.

54-Burkitt, Eastern Christianity, P. 32.

55-Cureton Ancient Syriac Documents, p. 162.

56-F. C. Burkitt, “The Diatessaron and Early Syriac Versions,” Encyclopedia Britannica (1950), 517.

57-According to the Encyclopedia Britannica (1950), XXI, 834, his heresy “was that of the Encratites. Their main doctrines were the evil nature of matter, an absolute forbidding of marriage, abstinence from wine and perhaps from meat.
58-Barsoum, al-LuLu al-Manthur (syria, 1956), p. 630.

59-Wright, Syriac Literature, p. 8.

60-The full text of St. Aphraim’s commentary on the Diatessaron was discovered and published recently with a Latin translation and French by Leloir. See St. Ephrem, Commentaire De L’ Evangile Concordance Syriaqe Texte Edite Et Transmit par Don Louis Leloir (Dublin, 1963).

61-Ignatius Jacob III, “Al-Kitab al-Maqaddas fi al-Kanisa al-Suryaniya,” al- Magalla al-Patriarchiyya, I (Damascus: September, 1962), 67.

62-Addai Scher, Tarikh Kaldo wa Athur, II, 19.

63-William Cureton, Remains of a very Ancient Recension of the four Gospels in Syriac (London, 1858).

64-Robert C. Bensley, J. Rendel Harris and F. Crawford Burkitt, The Four Gospels in Syriac, transscribed from the Sinatics Palimpsest, intro. By Agnes Smith lewis (Cambridge, 1894).

65-Edgar Goodspeed, “The Canons of the New Testament,” The Interpeter’s Bible (1952) I, 68.

66-Wright, Syriac Literature, p. 13.

67-Barsoum, Al-LuLu al-Manthur, p. 57.

68-Wright, p. 16.

69-Wright, p. 17.

70-William Wright, “Syriac Literature,” Encyclopedia Britannica (1887), vol. XXIV.

71-Bar Daysan was born in 154 A.D., in a place near Edessa on the River Daysan (for which he was named). He was a babylonian by origion, or according to another theory, from Adiabene. His parents. Nuhana and Nahshayrem, escaped from their country in the fifteenth year of the reign of the Persian King Shahruq, the son of Narsay, and settled in Edessa. There Bar Daysan was raised in the palace of King Mano VIII (139-179); hence, he must have been of noable origin. He studied both Syriac and Greek and was converted to Christianity by Oshtasab , the bishop of Edessa. He was ordained a deacon and probably a priest as well. Perhaps he was the person who convinced the Edessa. King Abgar IX (179-214) to become a Christian., for they had been close friends from their younger days. Bar Daysan dies in 222. For information about his life, see Eusebius, Ecclesiasthical History, IV, xxx; Michael the Great, Chronicle, ed. J. B. Chabot (Paris, 1899-1918), p. 110.; Duval, La Litterature Syriaque, pp. 241-248; Addai Scher, II, 20-21; and Barsoum, al-LuLU, al-Manthur (2nd editions), p. 238.

72-William Cureton, Spicilegium Syriacum (London, 1855), preface.

73-Burkitt, Eastern Christianity, pp. 158-159.

74-Ibid, pp. 158-159.

75-Antonius is believed to be the emperor Marcus Antonius Aurelius. Yet there is no indication in the original Syriac text that the treatise was addressed to this emperor. See Cureton, op. Cit., preface.

76-Eusebius, Ecclesiastical, IV, xxx.

77-Severus Jacob, Tarikh al-Kanisa al-Suryaniyya al-Antakiyya (History of the
Syrian Church of Antoich), Arabic (Beirut, 1953), I, 129.

78-Martin Sprengling, “Antonius Rhetor on Versification,” The American journal
of Semitic Languages and Literature, XXXII, 3 (April, 1916), appendix I.

79-P. D. Gabrielem Crdahi (Liber Thesauri de Arte poetica Syroum, p. 12) gives the following short poem by St. Ephraim against Daysan: “He whom you see named Bar Daysan/ is more appropriately named than the name of Daysan/ a river near Edessa which Bar Daysan apparently was named after/. For this one the River Daysan / was not flooded with thorns and tares, of which Bar Daysan was full/.

80-Michel le Syrian, ed. J. B. Chabot, p. 110.

81-Bar Hebraeus, Tarikh Mukhtsar al-Duwal (Compendious History of Dynasties), Arabic, ed, A. Salhani (Beirut, 1890), p. 125.

82-Duval, p. 234.

83-Ibid., p. 247.

84-Ahmad Amin, Fajr al-Islam, Arabic (Cairo, 1928), I, 156.

85-Duval, la Litterature Syriaque, pp. 75-77; Wright, Syriac Literature, pp.
33-39; Addai Scher, Tarikh Kaldo wa Athur, II, 46-47.

86-Baumstark, Geschichte der Syrischen Literature, p. 42.

87-Wright, p. 35; Baumstark, p. 44.

88-See Gregory Nyssa, “In praise of St. Ephraim,” al-Majalla al-
patriarchiyya, I, II, III (Hims, Syria, 1939).

89-Wright, p. 33; Addai Scher, II, 47.

90-Burkitt, p. 178.

91-Sprengling, p. 149.

92-Burkitt, Eastern Christianity, P. 96.

93-Ibid., pp. 98-99.

94-Duval, p. 21. 71

95-Ephraim Syrus, The Repentance of Nineveh, trans. Rev. Henry Burgess (London, 1853), II, preface, p. 13.

96-T. J. De Boer, The History of Philosophy In Islam, trans, Edward R. Jones (London, 1961), p. 11.

97-Ernest renan, De Philosophia Peripatetica apud Syros (Paris, 1852), p. I. 98-

98- Jurji Zaydan, Tarikh al-Tamaddun al-Islami (Cairo, 1904), III, 132.

99-Ibid.

100-Renan, p. 4.

101-Renan, Chapter I, passim.

102-Philip K. Hitti, History of Syria (New York, 1951), pp. 251-261.

103-Cureton, Spicilegium Syriacum, pp. 72-74. 104-Ibid., pp. 72-4.

105-Max meyerhof, Von Alexandrien nach Baghdad, trans. Into Arabic by Dr. Adb al-Rahman Badawi, in Al-Turath al-Yunani fi al-Hadara al-Islamiyya (Cairo, 1940), p. 38.

106-Meyerhof, p. 52.

107-Zaydan, III, 128.

108-William Wright , Cataloque, III, 731-33.

109-Baumstark, pp. 101-102.

110-Severus Jacob, Tarikh al-Kanisa al-Suryaniyya al-Antakiyya (Beirut, 1957), II, 34-5.

111-Renan, p. 12.

112-Ibid., pp. 12-13.

113-Wright, Syriac Literature, p. 48.

114-J. S. Assemani, Bibliotheca Orientalis, III, I, 85, note cited by Renan, p. 14.

115-Wright, Syriac Literature, p. 50. 116-Baumstark, p. 254.

117-Duval, p. 15.

118-Renan, p. 15.

119-Ibid., p. 25.

120-Duval, pp. 255-256, quoting Victor Ryssel, Uber den textkritischen wert der Syrischen Ubersetzungen der Klassiker (Leipzing, 1880).

121-Ibn Abi Usaybia, Uyum al-Anba (Beirut, 1957), II, 173.

122-G. P. Behnam, al-Falsafa al-Masha Iyya fi Tarikhina al-Fikri (Mosul, 1958), pp. 12-14.

123-Wright, Syriac Literature, p. 138.

124-Duval, pp. 278-279.

125-Wright, Cataloque, III, 1189.

126-For the Acts of Martyrs, see William Cureton, Ancient Syriac Documents (London, 1864). See also John of Ephesus, Lives of the Eastern Saints, ed. E. W. Brooks in the Patrologia Orientalis, ed. R. Graffin and F. Nau (Paris, 1923-26), XVII, XVIII and XIX.

127-Wright, Cataloque, III, pp. 1070-1153.

128-The third part of the Ecclesiastical History of John of Ephesus was edited and published at Oxford in 1853 by William Cureton. See also J. P. N. Land, Joannes, Bischof von Ephesos, der erste Syrische Kirchenhistoriker (Leiden, 1856). In 1860 R. Payne Smith translated Cureton’s Syriac edition of the history of John of Ephesus into English and published it at Oxford. In 1862 the same was translated into German by J. M. Schonfelder and published at Munich. Fragments of the second part of the Ecclesiastical History were published by Land in part ii of his Anecdota Syriaca at Leiden, 1868. Finally, extracts from the Ecclesiastical History were edited by Jessie Payne Margoliouth and published at Leiden, 1909.

129-Duval, p. 187-223.

130-Ibid., pp. 351-52.

131-Renan, p. 34.

132-Bar Hebraeus, Tarikh Mukhtsar al-Duwal, p. 51.

133-DE Boer, The History of Philosophy in Islam, trans. Edward R. Jones (London: Luzac and Co, 1903; republished New York; Dover Publ. Inc., 1967), p. 15.

134-Renan, p. 32.

135-Wright, Catalogue, II, 984.

136-Cf. Renan, p. 33, and Wright, Catalogue, III, 1163.

137-Renan, p. 33.

138-Ibid., pp. 34.

139-Ibid., p. 33.

140-Duval, p. 259; Wright, Syriac Literature, pp. 210-11.

141-Ignatius Aphram Barsoum, al-LuLu al-Manthur, p. 482.

142-Renan, pp. 65-67; Wright, Syriac Literature, pp. 269-70; Duval, pp. 261-62; Baumstark, pp. 316-317.

143-For the complete list of the works of Bar Hebraeus, see E. A. Wallis Budge, The Chronography of Bar Hebraeus (Oxford, 1932).

144-Wright, Catalogue, II, 1165.

145-Renan, p. 28; Wright, Syriac Literature, p. 91.

146-Bar Hebraeus, Dynasties, p. 41. Cf. Renan, pp. 49-50.

147-Wright, Syriac Literature, p. 164.

148-Wright, Syriac Literature, pp. 276-79.

149-The ode Divine Wisdom was translated into Arabic and published with elaborate commentary by Archbishop Paulos Behnam in Lisan al-Mashriq (Mosul, 1950). IT WAS REPUBLISHED WITH THE Syriac text in Syria in 1965 in Archbishop Behnam’s Ibn al-Ibri al-Shair (Bar Hebraeus the poet).

150-Ignatius Jacob III, “al-Kindi wa al-Suryaniyya,” al-Majalla al-Patriarchiyya (January, 1963), pp. 255-267. See also Meyerhof, p. 60.
151-Meyerhof, pp. 62-63.

152-For a detailed analysis of the missionary activity of the Syrian Church in Arabia, See Louis Cheikho, al-Nasraniyya wa Adabuha bayn Arab al-jahiliyya (Beirut, 1912), part I.

153-Bar Hebraeus, Chronicon Syriacum, I, 275.

154-Barsoum, al-LuLu al-Manthur, p. 77.

155-Ibid.

156-Ibn Abi Usaybia Uyun al-Anba (Beirut, 1956), II, 37-41.

157-Al-Qifti, Tarikh al-Hukama, ed. J. Lippert (Leipzing, 1903).

158-Meyerhof, p. 60, is incorrect in calling Yahya an Arab.

159-For a detailed description of the works and life of Yahya b. Adi, see
Augustine Perier, Yhya ibn Adi (Paris, 1920).

160-See Ibn Abi Usaybia, Uyan al-Anba for a detailed description of the lives and works of the different translators.

161-The most comprehensive work on the Syrian Christian literature written in Arabic is Georg Graf, Geschichte der Christlichen Arabischen Literatur (Vatican City, 1944 and 1960).

162-Khalil Georr, Les Categories d’Aristotle dans leurs Versions Syro-arabes (Beirut, 1948), pp. 182-200.

163-Meyerhof, pp. 72-78.

164-Ibid.

165-For a through analysis of the Sciences of the Ancients ( Ulum al-Awa’il), see Ignaz Goldziher, “Stellung der alten islamischen Orthodoxie zu den antiken Wissenschaften” in Abhandlungen der Koniglichen Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Klasse, VIII (Berlin, 1916), translated into Arabic by Abd al-Rahman Badawi in al-Turath al-Yunani fi al-Haddara al-Islamiya, (Cairo, 1947), pp. 123-172.

166-Ibrahim Madkur, L’Organon d’Aristotle dans le monde Arabe (Paris, 1934), p. 47.

167-Graf, pp. 281-284.

168-Ibid.

169-Barsoum, p. 546.

170-Ibid., pp. 565-66.

171-For the biography and works of Maphrian Shamoun, see al-Majalla al- Patriarchiyya, VI (1938), 23-30.

172-Barsoum, p. 581.

173-Murad Chiqqi, Naum Faiq (Jerusalem, 1936), pp. 300-4.

174-Barsoum, p. 528.

PAUL THE PERSIAN

Sat, 28 May 2011 06:12:06 -0400

PAUL THE PERSIAN

PAUL THE PERSIAN, a writer who lived at the time of the Nestorian Patriarch Ezekiel (567-80 C.E.), according to Bar Hebraeus (Chron. Eccl. II; ed. Abbeloos and Lamy, 1872, cols. 97-98), and was well versed in ecclesiastical and philosophical matters. Having once aspired to be the metropolitan bishop of Persis, he later converted to Zoroastrianism. Paul’s apostasy is described in a similar manner in the Arabic Chronicle of Séert (XXIV; ed. Scher, 1911, p. 147), but Teixidor (1996, p. 509, n. 1) has questioned the historical value of these reports.
Bar Hebraeus attributes to Paul “an admirable introduction to the dialectics (of Aristotle).” It is generally agreed that this is identical with the Treatise on the Logic of Aristotle the Philosopher addressed to King Ḵosrow (i.e., Ḵosrow I Anuširvān, r. 531-79), which is extant in a Syriac manuscript in the British Museum (ms. 988 [Add. 14660], foll. 55ᵛ-67ʳ; Wright, 1872, p. 1161). An edition and Latin translation of the Treatise were published by Land (1875). The Treatise contains an introduction to philosophy in general, an introduction to Aristotle’s logical works (dependent upon Porphyry’s Isagoge), and concise summaries of the individual books of the Organon studied in the Syrian school tradition (Categoriae; De interpretatione; Analytica priora 1.1-7). The first half of the Treatise has been translated into French by Teixidor (1992, pp. 129-32; 1998b).
Meskawayh (d. 1030), in his Tartib al-saʿādāt, quotes from an otherwise unknown work of Paul addressed to Ḵosrow which provides a general introduction to the philosophy of Aristotle (Pines, 1971, pp. 123-24; Gutas, 1983, pp. 233, 244); this type of prolegomenon traditionally formed the first part of a commentary on the Categoriae (Gutas, 1983, p. 246).
The two works described above exercised a certain influence upon Islamic philosophical writers of the ninth to eleventh centuries C.E. (Kraus, 1934, pp. 16-20; Pines, 1971; Gutas, 1983; 1985, pp. 119, 123, n. 17). Particularly influential were Paul’s classification and division of the parts of philosophy (Gutas, 1983; Teixidor 1996/1997, pp. 733-34) and his claim that knowledge is superior to faith and should be chosen in preference to the latter. Paul argued that through knowledge one may attain certainty, allowing people to reach unanimous agreement. Faith, however, can neither gain exact knowledge nor eliminate doubt, leading to dissension and discord (Gutas, 1983, p. 247; Teixidor, 1996).
This Paul also wrote a short commentary on Aristotle’s De interpretatione, which is extant in Syriac in Alqoš, ms. Vosté 53 (= Scher 50), cah. 24, pp. 1-15. The prescript asserts that this commentary was translated from Middle Persian into Syriac by Severus Seboḵt (d. 667) (Scher, 1906, p. 498; Vosté, 1928, p. 23; Sims-Williams, forthcoming), raising the question of whether the Treatise Paul addressed to Ḵosrow was likewise originally written in Middle Persian (Baumstark, 1922, p. 246 with n. 8; Vööbus, 1965, p. 171 with n. 19; Gutas, 1983, pp. 239, n. 15; 244, n. 29). The De interpretatione commentary and its prescript are also known to have survived in pp. 124-55 of a Syriac manuscript formerly in the collection of Paul Bedjan (Van Hoonacker, 1900, p. 73). The relation of this commentary to the summary of the De interpretatione given in the Treatise has not been established.
Paul the Persian also appears as a literary figure in an early Byzantine Greek anti-Manichean work, the Debate of Photinus the Manichaean and Paul the Persian, which is extant in Sinaiticus gr. 513 (383), foll. 130ᵛ-136ᵛ; Athos, Vatopedinus 236, foll. 129ᵛ-135ʳ; and Vaticanus gr. 1838, foll. 249ᵛ-258ᵛ. Mai (1847) produced an edition of the text (based upon Vaticanus gr. 1838 but with numerous errors) together with a Latin translation; these were reprinted by J.-P. Migne (Patrologia Graeca, vol. 88, cols. 529A-552C). Samuel Lieu and Mark Vermes have prepared an English translation of this work (to appear in the Corpus Fontium Manichaeorum Series Graeca), which is based upon Mai’s edition but includes some emendations made after examining a microfilm of Vatopedinus 236. A critical edition of the Greek text and a new English translation are being prepared by Byard Bennett.
The Debate purports to be a transcript of three disputations held in Constantinople at the command of the Emperors Justin I and Justinian I (i.e., between 1 April and 1 August 527 C.E.), with the eparch of the city, Theodorus (Teganistes), presiding. The three disputations deal, respectively, with the origin of human souls, the Manichean doctrine of the two principles, and the nature of the Law and validity of the Old Testament. Lieu (1983, p. 165, n. 107) initially suggested that the Debate was fictional, being “composed in the literary tradition of the Acta Archelai.” In a later work, however, Lieu (1992, pp. 96, 211-14) appears to have accepted the historicity of the disputations, noting the realistic narration of events and the coincidence in time of this alleged debate with Justinian’s edicts against Manicheism (Codex Justinianus 1.5.12.2-3, 1.5.16.2; ed. Krüger, 1929, pp. 53, 56) and persecution of the Manicheans (John Malalas, Chronographia, ed. Dindorf, 1831, p. 423, 16-17; reproduced in Theophanes, Chronographia A.M. 6016; ed. de Boor, 1883, p. 171, 2-3). The historicity of the disputations has similarly been affirmed by Mercati (1901, p. 191), Richard (1977, p. XLV), and Klein (1991, p. 31). Since, however, there is no evidence that Theodorus held the office of eparch after 1 December 526 (Martindale, 1980, p. 1096; Feissel, 1986) and these disputations are not attested in any other source, their historicity cannot be regarded as established.
The assertion by Labourt (1904, pp. 166-67) and Lieu (1992, p. 212) that the Paul who appears in the Debate can be identified with the author of the Treatise is implausible. The fact that the Paul who authored the logical treatises is said to have flourished over forty years after the debate with the Manichean is supposed to have taken place suggests caution in identifying these two figures.
Bibliography: J. B. Abbeloos and T. J. Lamy, Gregorii Barhebraei Chronicon Ecclesiasticum, vol. 1, Louvain, 1872. A. Baumstark, Geschichte der syrischen Literatur, Bonn, 1922. C. de Boor, Theophanis Chronographia, vol. 1, Leipzig, 1883. L. Dindorf, Ioannis Malalae Chronographia, Bonn, 1831. D. Feissel, “Le préfet de Constantinople, les poids-étalons et l’estampillage de l’argenterie au VIᵉ et au VIIᵉ siècle,” Revue Numismatique 28, 1986, pp. 119-42. D. Gutas, “Paul the Persian on the Classification of the Parts of Aristotle’s Philosophy: A Milestone Between Alexandria and Baghdad,” Der Islam 60/2, 1983, pp. 231-67; reprinted in his Greek Philosophers in the Arabic Tradition, Aldershot, 2000. Idem, “The Starting Point of Philosophical Studies in Alexandrian and Arabic Aristotelianism,” in Theophrastus of Eresus: On His Life and Work, ed. W. W. Fortenbaugh, P. M. Huby, and A. A. Long, New Brunswick, 1985, pp. 115-23; reprinted in his Greek Philosophers in the Arabic Tradition.
H. Hugonnard-Roche, “Introductions syriaques à l’étude de la logique: à propos de quelques Divisions de Porphyre,” Hautes Études Médiévales et Modernes 73, 1994, pp. 385-408. H. F. Janssens, L’Entretien de la Sagesse: Introduction aux Œuvres Philosophiques de Bar Hebraeus, Paris, 1937. W. W. Klein, Die Argumentation in den griechisch-christlichen Antimanichaica, Wiesbaden, 1991. P. Kraus, “Zu Ibn al-Muqaffaʿ,” Rivista degli Studi Orientali 14, 1934, pp. 1-20. P. Krüger, Corpus Iuris Civilis. Volumen secundum. Codex Iustinianus, Berlin, 1929; repr. 1954. J. Labourt, Le Christianisme dans l’Empire Perse sous la Dynastie Sassanide (224-632), Paris, 1904. J. P. N. Land, Anecdota Syriaca, vol. 4, Leiden, 1875 (Syriac text, pp. 1-32; Latin text, pp. 1-30 [translation], pp. 99-113 [notes]). Samuel N. C. Lieu, “An Early Byzantine Formula for the Renunciation of Manichaeism–The Capita VII contra Manichaeos of «Zacharias of Mitylene»,” Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 26, 1983, pp. 152-218. Idem, Manichaeism in the Later Roman Empire and Medieval China, 2nd ed., Tübingen, 1992.
A. Mai, Nova Patrum Bibliotheca, vol. 4/2, Rome, 1847, pp. 80-91. J. R. Martindale, The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire. Volume II: A.D. 395-527, Cambridge, 1980. G. Mercati, “Per la vita e gli scritti di ‘Paolo il Persiano.’ Appunti da una disputa di religione sotto Giustino e Giustiniano,” in his Note di Letteratura biblica e cristiana antica, Rome, 1901, pp. 180-206. S. Pines, “Ahmad Miskawayh and Paul the Persian,” Našriye-ye Irān-šenāsi 2/2, 1971, pp. 121-29. E. Renan, “Lettre à M. Reinaud, sur quelques manuscrits syriaques du Musée Britannique,” JA, 4ᵉ série, 19, 1852, pp. 293-333. Idem, De philosophia peripatetica apud Syros commentationem historicam, Paris, 1852, pp. 19-22. M. Richard, Iohannis Caesariensis presbyteri et grammatici opera quae supersunt, Corpus Christianorum Series Graeca 1, Turnhout, 1977.
A. Scher, “Notice sur les manuscrits syriaques conservés dans la bibliothèque du couvent des Chaldéens de Notre-Dame-des-Semences,” JA, 10ᵉ série, 7, 1906, pp. 479-512. Idem, Histoire Nestorienne (Chronique de Séert). Seconde partie, fasc. 1, Patrologia Orientalis 7, Paris, 1911. N. Sims-Williams, “Christian Literature in Middle Iranian Languages,” in The Literature of Pre-Islamic Iran, ed. R. E. Emmerick and M. Macuch, New York, forthcoming. J. Teixidor, Bardesane d’Edesse. La première philosophie syriaque, Paris, 1992. Idem, “Science versus foi chez Paul le Perse. Une note,” in From Byzantium to Iran: Armenian Studies in Honour of Nina Garsoïan, ed. J.-P. Mahé and R. W. Thomson, Atlanta, 1996, pp. 509-19. Idem, “Aristote en syriaque: les philosophes de la Haute Mésopotamie au VIᵉ siècle,” Annuaire du Collège de France 97, 1996/1997, pp. 723-43. Idem, “L’introduction au De interpretatione chez Proba et Paul le Perse,” in Symposium Syriacum VII, ed. R. Lavenant, Rome, 1998a, pp. 293-301. Idem, “Les textes syriaques de logique de Paul le Perse,” Semitica 47, 1998b, pp. 117-38.
A. Van Hoonacker, “Le traité du philosophe syrien Probus sur les Premiers Analytiques d’Aristote,” JA, 9ᵉ série, 16, 1900, pp. 70-166. A. Vööbus, History of the School of Nisibis, Louvain, 1965. J.-M. Vosté, “Catalogue de la bibliothèque du couvent syro-chaldéenne de Notre-Dame des Semences près d’Alqoš (Iraq),” Angelicum 5, 1928, pp. 3-36, 161-94, 325-58, 481-98. W. Wright, Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum, Acquired since the Year 1838, London, 1872.
(BYARD BENNETT)