LOGICISING ECCLESIASTICAL CONFLICTS Ḥenanīshō͐ II (775)

LOGICISING ECCLESIASTICAL CONFLICTS

The Synod of Ḥenanīshō͐ II (775) and the Aristotelian Vogue among East Syrian Scholars

Vittorio Berti (Università degli Studi di Padova)

1. Syriac Scholasticism and Syllogistic Rhetoric: Some Starting Points

In revealed traditions, debating religious questions by means of logical thinking implies the conviction that one can reach, through rational reasoning, some form of consensus on topics informing and somehow preceding language itself. Such point of view presumes an undisputed confidence that a logical approach to expression can establish a distinguishing framework for comparing mutually exclusive truth systems. This attitude was widespread in the apologetic and dialogic genres of monotheistic literatures in Late Antiq- uity and the Middle Ages, both externally, in the dialogues between members of different traditions, and internally, in theological debates conducted by scholars of a particular confession who sought to define their own ortho- doxy.1 As for late antique Christianity, its status as a revealed faith not only did not extinguish discussion, but even stimulated it, which led to an increase in the social relevance of logical and dialogical reasoning among ecclesiastical elites. According to the specialist of Tibetan Buddhism, José Ignacio Cabezón, a comparative and cross-cultural understanding of the term ‘scholasticism’, as a historical-phenomenological category, could be employed to describe a

1 On this issue a vast body of literature is available, but here I refer only to some of the most influencing works that have appeared in the past years: G. G. Stroumsa, The Making of the Abrahamic Religions in Late Antiquity (Oxford, 2015), pp. 43-58; The Majlis. Interreli- gious Encounters in Medieval Islam, eds. H. Lazarus et al. (Wiesbaden, 1999); A. Cameron, Dialoguing in Late Antiquity, Hellenic Studies Series, 65 (Washington, DC, 2014); Dialogues and Debates from Late Antiquity to Late Byzantium, eds. A. Cameron and N. Gaul (London – New York, 2017). 204 Vittorio Berti sophisticated level of complex civilizations in which, besides other recurring features, logical reasoning becomes the leading criterion used by cultural elites in discerning controversial religious topics.2 Adam Becker, in his reference monograph on the School of Nisibis, tried to interpret the East Syrian intellectual tradition also from this angle.3 Greek logic, appropriated by Christian schools in Sassanid Persia in the middle of the 6th century via Syriac translations, not only provided a fundamental device for developing theological thinking and secular sciences,4 but also became an essential feature of the intellectual mind-set of Christian scholars and their ritualised approach to study. This is manifest when we focus on East Syrian intellectual circles during the first Abbasid epoch: in Letter 8 of Catholicos Timothy I, we find an illu- minating example of how the communication codes of two clerics belonging to the same Christian school incorporated the syllogistic method as a common rhetorical expedient for the creation of a shared pun.5 Timothy is writing to his addressee, Sergius, a former fellow student at the school of the late Mar Abraham Bar Dāshandād, in order to request some services. Yet the greater part of the letter consists of a long prologue in which Timothy shows a seem- ingly bizarre syllogistic reasoning, which can probably be interpreted as a rhetorical game between old friends. Since Sergius had not replied to an earlier letter, Timothy claimed that his behaviour deserved to be considered rude on two levels, on a particular level because he had not replied to Timothy, and on a general level because he had not responded to the “Catholicos”: since the term ‘catholicos’ means ‘universal’, he maintained that the offence perpe- trated was itself universal. To give substance to his facetious argument, he refers to a particular kind of syllogism: the ‘syllogism of deprivation’. This example shows clearly that the East Syrian approach to logic devices was not a mere gambit, part of a wider intellectual craftsmanship aimed at

2 Scholasticism. Cross-cultural and Comparative Perspective, ed. J.I. Cabezón (New York, 1998). 3 A. Becker, Fear of God and Beginning of Wisdom: The School of Nisibis and the Development of Scholastic Culture in Late Antique Mesopotamia (Philadelphia, 2006), pp. 12-13. 4 See, for example, J. Walker, The Legend of Mar Qardagh: Narrative and Christian Heroism in Late Antique Iraq (Berkeley – Los Angeles – London, 2006). 5 Timothei Patriarchae I Epistulae, ed. O. Braun (Paris, 1914), pp. 87-90. See now also: V. Berti, ‘Notes sur la fonction de la logique dans l’église de l’Orient avant l’Islam’, in La philosophie en syriaque, eds. E Fiori and H. Hugonnard-Roche, Études Syriaques, 16 (Paris, 2019), pp. 249-265. Logicising Ecclesiastical Conflicts 205 pleasing the caliphal client, but rather an intellectual penchant, which revealed itself even in daily relations within the ecclesiastical sphere during the Abbasid age. Let us consider now a specific case where such a mentality, which was inclined to use, sometimes pretentiously, the logical jargon, informed the interpretation and solution of political and religious rifts within the Church. This case is a vivid reminder that the role assumed by the Greek intellectual heritage in a wider communitarian context was not episodic. It is described in the acts of a synod held in 775 in order to consecrate Ḥenanīshō‘ II, Tim- othy’s predecessor on the Catholicos’ see of Seleucia-Ctesiphon.6 The text,7 preserved in the Synodicon Orientale, the official collection of the ecclesiastical assemblies held by the Church of the East between 410 and 775, shows the impact the Syriac Aristotelian vogue had on Church life.

2. The Election of Ḥenanīshō͐ II: Two Different Stories

As the text reports,8 the Church of the East was emerging from a dark period, which had lasted nine years. During this period the patriarchal see had been vacant. ‘Caravans of infidels and Jews’ had allegedly occupied churches and the Caliphate had confiscated ecclesiastical properties. As a result traditional Christian structures, notably schools and hospitals, which mostly dated back to the last phase of the Sassanian regime, had decreased in number, and there had been widespread apostasy in the Church. The synodical acts of Ḥenanīshō‘ underline that the new Caliph Al-Mahdī (775-795) changed direction, inau- gurating a more peaceful policy towards the Christians of Iraq, and allowing a new patriarchal election to take place. It is said that the sovereign was greatly impressed by a sort of public lamentation made by Giwargis, a monk promot- ing the plan to allow an electing synod for the new Catholicos of the Church.

6 On the Catholicos Patriarch Ḥenanīshōʻ II see V. Berti, Vita e studi di Timoteo († 823), Patriarca cristiano di Baghdad. Ricerche sull’epistolario e sulle fonti contigue, Cahiers de Stu- dia Iranica, 41, Chrétiens en terre d’Iran, III (Paris, 2009), pp. 148-152. Ḥenanīshōʻ II is the patriarch mentioned in the Xi’an inscription, cf. S. Lieu, ‘The “romanitas” of the Xi’an Inscription’, in From Oxus river to Chinese Store. Studies on East Syriac Christianity in China and Central Asia, eds. L. Tang and D. W. Winkler (Zürich – Berlin, 2013), p. 131. 7 Synodicon orientale ou recueil de synodes nestoriens, ed. J.-B. Chabot (Paris, 1902), pp. 245- 252 (French translation, pp. 515-524). 8 Synodicon orientale (see n. 7), pp. 245-246 (French translation, pp. 515-517). 206 Vittorio Berti

The Caliph, seduced by his rhetorical performance, would have endorsed the monk for the task. Although reluctant to accept the appointment, Giwargis would have involved in the electing procedure Isaac, the bishop of Kashkar,9 as, according to the tradition, this latter was the upholder of the East Syrian communion during the vacancy of the patriarchal see. So, in accordance with canon law, the bishop of Kashkar announced that the elective synod would be held. A commander of the army, which must be identified as Abū al-Qasīm Mūḥriz ibn Ibrahim al-Jubani,10 is reported to have protected and supervised the episcopal assembly on direct order of the Caliph. Abū al-Qasīm was a high-ranking military commander of the caliphal army since the first Abbasid revolt. Probably non-Arab, he is mentioned first in two lists of seventy duʻāt (propagandists of the revolution). During the war, he had played a leading role in the political purges in the district of Merw; he was lieutenant of Qahtabah b. Shabīb and a loyal ally of Abu Muslim. Aṭ-Ṭabarī11 informs us that in the same year in which the synod of Ḥenanīshōʻ II was held, the Caliph charged Abū al-Qasīm with supervising the fitting out of a regiment consist- ing of 1500 volunteers, who were to man the frontier garrison in Al-Hīnd. This makes sufficiently clear the level of military control and patronage that Al-Mahdī imposed when he allowed the new election, by which de facto he entered the elective process. Abū al-Qasīm would have persuaded Isaac and the high clergy of Kashkar to confirm the election of the Caliph’s favourite. Isaac for his part would have accepted the candidature of Giwargis. Faced with such an intrusion into the life of the Church, some members of the high clergy, led by Ḥenanīshōʻ, bishop of the diocese of Lashom, turned against the policy of Kashkar and

9 About the diocese of Kaškar, part of the “Patriarchal province”, see J.-M. Fiey, Assyrie chrétienne. Contribution à l’étude de l’histoire et de la géographie ecclésiastiques et monastiques du nord de I’Iraq, Recherches publiées sous la direction de l’Institut de lettres orientales de Beyrouth, 42 (Beyrouth, 1968), pp. 151-187. 10 In the Syriac text the name appears as ܡܗܪܒܐ ܪܒ ܙܝܙܚܘܡ = Mōḥziz bar Abraham. zāy). For a) ز rāʼ) with) ر The Synod’s compilers, or some later copyist, confused the Arabic presentation of Abū al-Qasīm Mūḥriz ibn Ibrahim al-Jubani see Ṣ. Saʻīd Āghā, The Revo- lution Which Toppled the Umayyads: Neither Arab Nor ʻAbbāsid (Boston, 2003), p. 363. 11 Al-Ṭabarī III, p. 461. English translation in The History of Al-Ṭabarī, vol. 29: Al- Mansur and Al-Mahdi. A.D. 763-786/A.H. 146-169, ed. H. Kennedy (New York, 1990), p. 172. Logicising Ecclesiastical Conflicts 207 established its leader as Catholicos. The election of Ḥenanīshōʻ frustrated Isaac’s strategy, but at the same time exposed the newly elected Catholicos to procedural criticism. The election was indeed not in line with tradition, lack- ing the essential agreement of the bishop of Kashkar. The prospect of a possible schism persuaded the new Catholicos to come to an agreement with the notables of Kashkar. Bishop Isaac died before the preparatory assembly took place and this unexpected loss probably made it easier to restore Church unity. The account reported in the Synodicon Orientale is not our only source of information for this election. The Arabic Christian text Kitab al-Magdal, best known by the Latin title Liber Turris (about 12th century)12 presents a biographical profile of Ḥenanīshōʻ II that offers a quite different version of the events. According to this narrative, Isa, a Christian physician close to the Caliph, obtained permission for the new patriarchal election. Through his mediation, Jacob, the new bishop of Kashkar, convoked the great electors of the Church. Jacob was a supporter of Giwargis, here described as an educated monk from the monastery of Bet Hale, who spoke Syriac, Persian and Arabic. In spite of such an endorsement, the archdeacon Marwa, together with the electors from al-Hira and Bet Garmai, preferred to appoint Ḥenanīshōʻ. Despite the clear decision of the Synod, the Caliph decided to meet the two candidates at the monastery of Mar Pethion in Baghdad, reserving for himself the final decision about who should be the new patriarch. Initially, Al-Mahdī allegedly suggested to both that they convert to Islam. In order to extricate themselves from this embarrassing situation, they adopted two different strat- egies: Giwargis preferred to remain silent, whereas Ḥenanīshōʻ pleaded his ignorance of the Arabic language. At this point Al-Mahdī put them through a theological test, asking them from what kind of tree the staff of Moses was made. We should note that the question about the origin of this object was a topos in late antique Jewish literature, as well as in Syriac and Arabic traditions.13

12 Maris Amri et Slibae de Patriarchis nestorianorum commentaria. Pars prior: Maris textus arabicus, ed. H. Gismondi (Rome, 1899), p. 70; Maris versio, trad. H. Gismondi, p. 62. On this book see M. Swanson, Kitab al-Majdal, in Christian-Muslim Relations: A Biblio- graphical History, vol. 2 (900-1050), eds. D. Thomas and A. Mallet (Leiden – Boston, 2010), p. 627-632; B. Holmberg, ‘A Reconsideration of the Kitāb al-Maǧdal’, Parole de l’Orient, 18 (1993), pp. 255-273. 13 References to the staff of Moses are present in four surat of Quran: 7:107, 26:32, 27:10, 28:31. The question whether this rod was created directly by God or by Adam in 208 Vittorio Berti

Employing his elegant Arabic eloquence, Giwargis replied that the Bible contains no information, which would allow us to assess this topic. By contrast, Ḥenanīshōʻ employed a mixture of syllogistic and exegetical reasoning, declaring that Moses’s rod was made from the wood of an almond tree. He argued that from Exodus 7:19 one could deduce that Moses’ rod was the same as the one used by Aaron; and since Aaron’s staff was made of almond-wood, according to Numbers 17:8, one could attribute this feature also to Moses’ staff.14 Ḥenanīshōʻ’s answer disappointed Giwargis, whereas Al-Mahdī was so pleased by this kind of reasoning that he chose the bishop of Lashom for the task of patriarch of the Church of the East.

3. The Synodical Use of Logical Jargon as a Device to Structure an Ecclesiastical Syntax of Plurality

Returning to the text found in the Synodicon Orientale, one should note the discrepancies concerning the reasons for the Caliph’s consent and concerning

Paradise was often debated in Late Antiquity, as presented by J. C. Reeves in the chapter ‘The Eschatological Appearance of the staff of Moses’, of his book Trajectories in Near Eastern Apocalyptic: A Postrabbinic Jewish Apocalypse Reader, Society of Biblical Literature (Atlanta, 2005), pp. 187-199. The Muslim interest on the topic continued until the late middle age, as is testified, for example, by Ibn Taymiyyah (1263–1328 CE), cf. J. Dammen McAuliffe, ‘Assessing the Isrāʻīliyyāt, an Exegetical Conundrum’, in Story-telling in the Framework of Non-fictional Arabic Literature, ed. S. Leder (Wiesbaden, 1988), p. 351, n. 24. The history of Moses’ rod is narrated by Salomon of Bosra in The Book of the Bee, ed. E. A. Wallis Budge (Oxford, 1886), pp. 50-59. 14 Solomon of Bosra does not resolve the doubt whether the rod of the House of Levi was the same as that of Moses. Actually, he seems to suggest the contrary: ‘And Aaron returned to Moses. And God said to Moses, “Let the children of Israel collect from every tribe a rod, and let them write the name of the tribe upon its rod, and the name of Aaron upon (that of) the tribe of Levi, and the rod of the man whom the Lord chooseth shall blossom”. And they did as God had commanded them, and took the rods and placed them in the tabernacle that day. On the morrow Moses went into the tabernacle, and saw the rod of the house of Levi budding and bearing almonds. And Moses brought out all the rods to the children of Israel, and the sons of Levi were set apart for the service of the priesthood before the Lord’ (Book of the Bee [see n. 13], pp. 61-62). We should note that the exegetical solution provided by Ḥenanīshōʻ is on the contrary coherent with the perspective of the Jewish apocalypse Sefer Zerubbabel (about 630 CE): ‘The rod which the Lord will give to Hephêibah, the mother of Menahem [ben] ‘Amiel, is made of almond-wood. [...] It is the same rod which the Lord previously gave to Adam, Moses, Aaron, Joshua, and King David’. Logicising Ecclesiastical Conflicts 209 the sequence of the events. These differences suggest that the public memory of this synod was informed by the frictions between the two opposing factions. I will first try to detect the rhetorical structure underlying the synodical proceedings. The final acts of the synod are a combination of two different ecclesiological perspectives, partially modified by a rephrasing which aimed at unifying the factions and minimising their skirmish. The hermeneutical framework employed to this end consists of interpreting the stages of the confrontation through logical categories, introduced by Ḥenanīshōʻ and derived from chapter 6 of the book of the Hermeneutics on affirmation and denial. Therefore, the synod defined the two contrasting positions as apophasis (denial) and kataphasis (affirmation), both resolved and overcome through an antiphasis (contradiction). A precious lexicographic note, written in the same period by Theodore Bar Koni, helps us to understand why the compilers of the acts used such terminology. According to Theodore,15 the Greek loanwords kataphasis and apophasis corresponded to the Syriac ‘yes’ and ‘no’: they indicate two expressions which, when predicated of the same subject, are mutually exclusive. Example: this thing is white (kataphasis); this thing is not white (apophasis). The relation between these two opposing sentences is the antiphasis16. When the two expressions are not predicated of the same subject, they can both be true. We should note, however, how the synodical text seems to strain the tech- nical meaning of these words in Aristotelian logic, amplifying the original sense through a juridical and canonical connotation. The apophasis repre- sents here the point of view of the bishop of Kashkar. It seems to indicate the “negative way”, a sort of non obstat, adopted by Isaac in supporting Giwargis for the patriarchal see, just passively accepting a candidate chosen by the Caliph, thereby reducing the synod’s prerogatives and autonomy. According to a radical reading of Romans 13, which reveals a sort of Caliphal version of Byzantine Caesaropapism, Isaac accepted Al-Mahdī’s interference as long as he did not provoke a schism or introduce heresy into the Church. Furthermore,

15 Livre des Scolies (recension de Séert) II, Mimrè VI–XI, eds. R. Hespel and R. Draguet, CSCO, 431-432, Syr., 187-188 (Leuven, 1981-1982), pp. 33-34. 16 On this I have to thankfully mention Alberto Rigolio’s paper on Theodore Bar Kōnī’s Book of Scholia, Logic and Religious Controversies, delivered at the conference to which go back the contributions to the current volume. 210 Vittorio Berti

Isaac’s policy was apophatic, or so to speak ‘negative’, meaning that it was denying the inadequacy of Giwargis for the task of Catholicos. The kataphasis emerged, on the contrary, from the faction favouring Ḥenanīshōʻ. The term here indicates the act of affirmatively imposing a candidate without the consent of the bishop of Kashkar. Part of the Church refused to submit to the sovereign in the fundamental issue of the choice of the patriarch: they claimed that confirming Isaac’s nomination would have introduced an unprecedented innovation. After Isaac’s death, Ḥenanīshōʻ’s uncanonical election provoked an objection from the former’s supporters, exposing the invalidity of the procedure. In the final revision of the synodical acts, such opposition is defined as antiphasis, meaning ‘contradiction’. The compilers of the text, expressing Ḥenanīshōʻ’s point of view, conceded that Kashkar’s criticism, based on ‘logical premises of an assertive discussion’ and arguments from natural law and synodical principles, was well-argued by means of syllogisms. Therefore, the synodical acts report in full the polemical document, aiming at smoothing out the conflict. The argumentation in this section, which, according to the point of view of Kashkar, denies the legitimacy of the patriarchal election, rests on a precise form of ecclesiology, which is coherent with a particular view of Petrine primacy, differently from the Roman one. According to this perspective, there is no superimposition of the Petrine ministry and the patriarchal see, but rather of the Petrine ministry and the vicar of the patriarch, namely the episcopate of Kashkar. A father cannot be considered a father if he does not generate children. Thus, so to speak, the firstborn ‘generates’ the father. The child gives the attribute of paternity. Peter is Christ’s firstborn, and he has a position of primacy among the Twelve. Peter is part of Christ, and being the part of something means displaying a fullness of elements and an intrinsic purpose in common with that of which one is part. In the case of being part of Christ, the expression of love, peace, forbearance and justice authenticate this belonging, otherwise – according to the terms of logic – that “part” is not a real “part”. Against this background, the fraudulent behaviour that occurred during the election of Ḥenanīshōʻ does not make it possible to attribute to the new Catholicos any form of paternity. In this metaphorical construction, Peter, the firstborn, corresponds to the bishop of Kashkar, for the following Logicising Ecclesiastical Conflicts 211 reasons: 1) he is also the bishop of Ur of the Chaldeans, Abraham’s home- town; 2) Kashkar can be identified with the biblical town of Delasar; 3) the speed with which Kashkar adopted Christianity; 4) the fruits its Church spread throughout the East. Kashkar is therefore needed to “generate” the patriarch. It must be noted how Ḥenanīshōʻ’s opponents adopt here the motif of Isaac’s blessing of Jacob and the submission of Esau, as scriptural evidence for the episcopal primacy of Kashkar. This openly contradicts the previously mentioned argumentation, which claimed that the see’s primogeniture was the reason for its importance. The antiphasis thus uses this biblical reference in order to prevent Ḥenanīshōʻ’s supporters from using it. The supporters of the new Catholicos, indeed, much more sensibly, might have quoted it as proof in their favour; exactly as later Thomas of Marga in his Book of Governors would do to justify Timothy I’s plots to obtain the see of Seleucia-Ctesiphon.17 Being the head of the different limbs of Christ represented by the ecclesiastical body, the bishop of Kashkar was personifying the pastoral government of the different parts of the Church. Therefore, if he did not agree with the procedure of the election, the entire body would find itself without a head, and the election would lack any legitimate basis. To express the consequence of this concept, the synod uses logical terminology:

It follows that the term of this dialectical harmony is convertible by the solidity of its consequentiality. If an apophasis of negation is placed at this head which is the leading part of the pastoral body, in an election where he contests the one who has been ordained, the whole body is removed from it, and the election is found null and void according to the law and the logic rule.

The text of the antiphasis concludes that it is needed for the newly elected patriarch to ‘enter through the gate for the sheep’, which means, in short, to assume the patriarchal office only after receiving the consent of the bishop of Kashkar. Otherwise, the nominated deserves to be considered as a thief and a scoundrel.

17 The Book of Governors: The Historia Monastica of Thomas of Marga A.D. 840, I, eds. E.A. Wallis Budge, et al. (London, 1893), pp. 196-197, English translation: II, pp. 382- 383. 212 Vittorio Berti

At this point follows the passage that acts as a link between the two opposing perspectives and that, correctly understood, could clarify how the patriarchal circle interpreted the use of the three terms of apophasis, kataphasis and antiphasis. Probably partially corrupted, it contains a contorted reasoning. The passage is a device aimed at providing support for the thesis of the Kashkar faction as part of a peaceful and accomplished ecclesiastical procedure. To be clear, what follows is an attempt at translating a rather obscure passage:

I Ḥenanīshōʻ and all the fathers that (are) with me, signed (this document), because this agonistic contradiction between our assertion and their denial attacked the foundation of the falsehood, by means of logical premises, and proceeding by an assertoric discourse. This is the very same (discourse) of ours according to categories, from the very same subject of theirs. To speak in a conclusive manner, (it was) the very same not by synonymy, neither according to something else nor according to one or another of the parts. Like- wise, what is predicated is the same of what is settled by means of dialectical and analytical terms. They confirmed and established their justice through apodictic demonstrations, as is written: “that thou mayest be justified in thy words, and prevail when thou art judged”.

According to Daniel King,18 we should understand this passage as a fun- damentally satiric linguistic exercise specific to the code of communication shared by the East Syrian elite. I agree that this is a common scholastic code, but I would reject the notion that it should be understood as a ‘shared game’, because here we are talking about an official document of a synod resolving a dramatic conflict. Therefore, I prefer to see the passage as a rational argument for trying to restore the unity of the Church. It is an attempt, certainly pretentious and clumsy, to translate what was a material and historical conflict between different parties, disrupting the peace of the Church, into the organised, static and administratively manageable level of an orderly ecclesiastical structure. The Catholicos accepts that Kashkar’s objection rests on logical argumentations, the same kind of reasoning as was used by his own faction, and this allows for a balanced solution. He empha- sizes that only the apophasis shares the same subject with the antiphasis, while, on the contrary, the kataphasis speaks about a different topic. Only the use

18 D. King, ‘Why Were the Syrians Interested in Greek Philosophy?’, in History and Identity in the Late Antique Near East, ed. P. Wood (Oxford, 2013), pp. 61-81, here p. 77. Logicising Ecclesiastical Conflicts 213 of categories is analogous between the kataphasis and the antiphasis. In this way, Ḥenanīshōʻ denies that the two opposing positions play out on the same ground ‘through synonymy’. According to the abovementioned definition by Theodore Bar Koni, the alleged non-synonymic relation between the two ecclesiastical positions allows for an appeasement of the conflict. In other words: the antiphasis is not a real antiphasis. This logical ploy anables the Patriarch to endorse the reasons for the complaint of the Kashkar faction because it does not contradict the legitimate request to have a patriarch who is not imposed by the sovereign. That is to say, it is acknowledged that every election that leaves Kashkar’s agreement out of consideration is procedurally illegitimate, but at the same time it is claimed that the bishop of Kashkar led the Church in a positive way during the synod, without stipulating any private deal with the Muslim ruler.

4. Some Concluding Remarks

In contrast to the story reported by the Kitab al-Majdal, the synodical docu ment underlines the fundamental role played by the monk Giwargis, attrib- uting to him the achievement of having obtained the new patriarchal election, as well as of having demonstrated a noble attitude of humility and unselfish- ness in filling ecclesiastical offices. The compilers of the acts of the synod avoid mentioning the polemical confrontation between the two candidates in the presence of the Caliph. This anecdote in the Kitab al-Majdal shares with the synodical acts the basic idea that the conflict between the two factions of the Church was played on the basis of logical and rhetorical performance. Nevertheless, the episode may be a literary fabrication by the author of the Arabic text, or by some sources used by him, circulating after the end of the synod; alternatively, the encounter with the Caliph may have really taken place in some form, somewhat later, when Ḥenanīshōʻ established the new bishop of Kashkar, since a bishop of Kashkar is mentioned in the Arabic text whereas the see was still vacant when the Synod took place. Tertium non datur. At all events, in the synodical acts, Giwargis appears to be a champion of monastic saintliness, with the effect of neutralizing his figure. The Caliph’s endorsement of the person of Ḥenanīshōʻ, as reported by the Kitab al-Majdal, is not mentioned at all, and this is worthy of interest. What is the truth? Did 214 Vittorio Berti the freedom of the Church really triumph in this elective synod, as its acts would suggest? The synod accepts the points of view of Kashkar, but it does so after the death of bishop Isaac, pompously reaffirming the role of that episcopate in exchange for the final endorsement of Ḥenanīshōʻ by the clergy of the great eparchy, who sign this protocol promising total fidelity to the newly elected Catholicos. Kashkar was presumably expecting a new bishop, and consequently found himself in a difficult position, even open to blackmail, as Jean-Baptiste Chabot, already pointed out over one hundred years ago.19 Probably, what we have here is nothing but a form of recognition of the defeated faction that has no other ambition than retroactively to restore the formal role of the diocese of Kashkar in the elective processes, establishing the primacy of the synod at the same time. It is a rhetoric turned towards the inner workings of the Church, aimed at dispelling doubts and perplexi- ties about the intrusion of the Caliphate in the fundamental procedure of the choice of Catholicos-Patriarch. The control exercised by the caliphal army must raise doubts concerning whether the outcome of the synod was really in contrast with respect to the philo-caliphal leaning of the interpretation of the letter to the Romans expressed in the apophasis. The unconventional use of logical jargon indicates the tendency of the new Catholicos to promote his cultural excellence within the boundaries of the Church, but at the same time it was an extraordinary occasion to test the usefulness of a device for the analysis of language when applied in the domain of ecclesiastical conflicts. Nevertheless, we should note that this experiment remained an isolated case in the sphere of synodical literature: the synods held by Timothy I in 78220 and 790,21 the former to seal the peace with his adver- sary Ephraim of Elam and the latter to receive the protocol of abjuration of Messalian doctrines by the newly elected bishop Nestorius of Beth Nuhadra, both avoid use of logical jargon.

19 Synodicon orientale (see n. 7), p. 523, n. 1. 20 Die Briefe 42-58 des Ostsyrischen Patriarchen Timotheos I., ed. M. Heimgartner, CSCO, 644-645, Syr., 248-249 (Leuven, 2012), pp. 95-106 (German translation, pp. 80- 88). 21 Die Briefe 42-58, pp. 89-95 (German translation, pp. 107-113) (see n. 18), Synodicon orientale (see n. 7), pp. 599-603 (French translation, pp. 604-608). Logicising Ecclesiastical Conflicts 215

Abstract

The Synod of Ḥenanīshō‘ II (775 CE) was held at a moment of transition for the Church of the East during the first Abbassid age. The new ruling dynasty had moved the political heart of Islam from Hellenistic Syria into the native space of the Church of the East. The Christians of Iraq for the first time were placed at the centre of an empire that extended from the Mediterranean to the Indian Ocean, from Arabia to Central Asia. In this context, the cultural competences required to administrate and structure such an empire, opened a political space in which East Syrian scholars could gain public legitimacy because of their literary and scientific skills. In this perspective, the strongly hellenizing attitude that Syriac Christian elites cultivated in their monasteries and schools since the 6th century, in particular the study of the Aristotelian logic, became one of the main ways of gaining not only social prestige outside the Church, but also ecclesiastical recognition and hegemony. This cultural dynamics could explain the application of an emphatic logical jargon in the text of the Synod of Ḥenanīshō‘ II. The ecclesiastical assembly electing him was held after a long vacancy of the patriarchal seat of Seleucia-Ctesiphon. Two main factions opposed each other. The text of the synod, handed down to us in the Synodicon Orientale, reflects a complex work of editing documents directed at settling contrasting ecclesiastical groups by a superimposed hermeneutical grid of logical matrix. This contribution aims to explain the meaning and relevance of this logical grid, by clarifying the strategy of the synod and presenting an example of a practical and political application of logical language and reasoning among Syriac speaking elites. Keywords: Church of the East, Synod of Ḥenanīshō‘ II, Aristotelian Logic