Language, Literacy and Historical Apologetics
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 72(1-2), 1-32. doi: 10.2143/JECS.72.1.3287533 © 2020 by Journal of Eastern Christian Studies. All rights reserved. LANGUAGE, LITERACY AND HISTORICAL APOLOGETICS HIPPOLYTUS OF ROME’S LISTS OF LITERATE PEOPLES IN THE SYRIAC TRADITION ANDY HILKENS* In a contribution to a volume on Syriac identity formation, Muriel Debié remarked that ‘the question of origins [of Syriac Christians and Syriac churches] has more to do with the use of a language than ethnicity or geo- graphical location’.1 At the centre of the identity of Syriac Christians was not a country or nation, but Classical Syriac, an Eastern dialect of Aramaic, that was their liturgical and literary language (of Syriac Orthodox, East-Syriac and to a certain degree also Melkite Christians). Because of the importance of Classical Syriac for the Syriac churches, it is not surprising that language has been at the centre of several debates.2 * The idea for this article arose when I was working on my doctoral project “Defeating Doom with History. Syriac Historiography of the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries” (2010-2014), funded by the Ghent University Research Fund (BOF). It was finished during a postdoctoral fellowship of the Flemish Research Foundation (FWO). I wish to thank Peter Van Nuffelen, Sergey Minov and Marianna Mazzola who offered valuable suggestions about various aspects of this paper. All remaining errors are my own. The author was a postdoctoral research fellow of the Center for the Study of Christianity, Department of Comparative Religions, Hebrew University, Jerusalem (2018-19), and currently a postdoctoral researcher of the Research Foundation of Flanders (FWO), Department of History, Ghent University, Belgium. 1 M. Debié, ‘Syriac Historiography and Identity Formation’, Church History and Religious Culture, 89.1-3 (2009), pp. 93-114, on p. 104. 2 See the edition of Elias’ of Nisibis “Book of Sessions” in N.N. Seleznyov, Kitāb al-maǧālis li-mār ’Iliyyā, muṭrān Niṣībīn, wa-risālatuh ilā ’l-wazīr al-kāmil Abī ’l-Qāsim al-Ḥusayn ibn ‘Alī ’l-Maġribī (Moscow, 2017). On this text, see D. Bertaina, ‘Science, Syntax, and Supe- riority in Eleventh-Century Christian-Muslim Discussion: Elias of Nisibis on the Arabic and Syriac Languages’, Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations, 22.2 (2011), pp. 197-207. This discussion marks the starting point of the Syriac Renaissance, a period of revival of Syriac literature; see H. Teule, ‘The Syriac Renaissance’, in The Syriac Renaissance, eds. H. Teule, C. Fotescu-Tauwinkl, B. ter Haar Romeny and J. van Ginkel, Eastern Christian Studies, 9 (Leuven, 2010), pp. 1-30. 2 ANDY HILKENS Most well-known is probably the debate that took place in 1026-1027 C.E. between Elias bar Shenaya, the East Syrian metropolitan of Nisibis, and the Muslim vizier al-Maghribi about the ability of Classical Syriac as a lan- guage for scientific literature. In the focus of this article, however, is a debate about the identity of the language of Creation, the language spoken before the division of languages after the fall of the Tower of Babel. Similarly to Jewish authors, early Syrian church fathers, probably also including Ephrem of Nisibis (307-383 C.E.), supported the idea that Hebrew was the mother of all languages, but as early as the middle of the fifth century some Syrian voices like Theodoret of Cyrrhus argued for the primacy of Ara- maic (and thus Syriac).3 From the seventh century onwards, most West-Syriac and East-Syriac authors would argue for the primacy of Aramaic over Hebrew, presumably to promote the status of Syriac in the face of ‘the widespread use of Arabic’.4 The earlier opinion that preferred Hebrew was only followed by two Syriac Orthodox authors: Jacob of Edessa (c. 633-710) and John the Stylite of Litarba (d. 737/8). Jacob expresses his opinion in a letter to John.5 3 In his Commentary on Genesis, Ephrem indicates that he believed that ‘the original lan- guage (…) remained with only one’ nation. He does not identify the nation, but in the fourth century, ‘Hebrew was the only attested candidate in discussions on the primeval language’; see S. Minov, ‘The Cave of Treasures and the Formation of Syriac Christian Identity in Late Antique Mesopotamia: Between Tradition and Innovation’, in Between Personal and Institutional Religion: Self, Doctrine, and Practice in Late Antique Eastern Christianity, eds. B. Bitton-Ashkelony and L. Perrone, Cultural Encounters in Late Antiq- uity and the Middle Ages, 15 (Turnhout, 2013), pp. 155-194, on pp. 164-184. For a similar debate in Islamic circles, see M.J. Kister, ‘Ādam: A Study of Some Legends in Tafsīr and Ḥadīth Literature’, Israel Oriental Studies, 13 (1993), pp. 118-140. 4 Arabic began to be promoted as the administrative language of the caliphate from the end of the reign of ‘Abd al-Malik (r. 685-705 AD) onwards; see A. Papaconstantinou, ‘Administering the Early Islamic Empire: Insights from the Papyri’, in Money, Power and Politics in Early Islamic Syria: A Review of Current Debates, ed. J.F. Haldon (Farnham, 2010), pp. 57-74, on p. 69. 5 For the text and translation of these letters, see W. Wright, ‘Two Epistles of Mar Jacob, Bishop of Edessa’, Journal of Sacred Literature and Biblical Record, NS 10 (1867), pp. 430-460; F. Nau, ‘Traduction des lettres XII et XIII de Jacques d’Édesse (exégèse biblique)’, Revue de l’Orient Chrétien, 10 (1905), pp. 197-208 and pp. 258-282, on pp. 273-274. On Jacob’s opinion, see A. Salvesen, ‘“Hebrew, Beloved of God”: The Adamic Language in the Thought of Jacob, Bishop of Edessa (c. 633 – 708 CE)’, pp. 1-12, on pp. 2-4 (unpublished 2014, available on her Academia.edu page) and Minov, ‘Cave of Treasures’ (see n. 3), pp. 168-169. Michael the Elder mentions Jacob’s opinion on the matter and credits John with the same opinion, which suggests that John may have discussed this issue in his now lost Chronicle, see Chronique de Michel le LANGUAGE, LITERACY AND HISTORICAL APOLOGETICS 3 The most popular argument for the primacy of Aramaic/Syriac was an ety- mological one: the term ‘Hebrew’ (‘ebroyo), supposedly derived from the fact that Abraham had crossed (Syriac, ‘Əbar) the river Euphrates, was interpreted as proof that Syriac predated Hebrew. East-Syriac authors of the eighth, ninth and/or tenth centuries attribute this theory to Theodoret of Cyrus’ teacher Theodore of Mopsuestia6 (350 – 428 C.E.), but in the Syriac Renaissance it came to be attributed to Ephrem by West-Syriac (the Syriac Orthodox patri- arch of Antioch Michael the Elder7 [1126-1199 C.E.] and maphrian Barhe- braeus8 [1226-1286 C.E.]) as well as East-Syriac authors (Solomon of Basrah9 [c. 1222 C.E.] and ‘Abdisho bar Brikha of Nisibis10 [d. 1318 C.E.]).11 The earliest extant West-Syriac source that identifies Aramaic as the primeval language is the Book of the Cave of Treasures, a piece of Rewritten Bible, known to West-Syriac as well as East-Syriac Christians, whose sixth- or early seventh- century West-Syriac author attributed his own work to Ephrem.12 Denouncing ‘ancient authors’ who argued that Hebrew was the only language that was spoken before the division of languages (presumably a reference to the Book of Jubilees), Syrien, trans. J.-B. Chabot, 3 vols. (Paris, 1899-1905), vol. 1, p. 20; ed. J.-B. Chabot (Paris, 1910), p. 10; ed. G.Y. Ibrahim, The Edessa-Aleppo Syriac Codex of the Chronicle of Michael the Great, Text and Translations of the Chronicle of Michael the Great, 1 (Piscataway, NJ, 2009), p. 11. 6 M. Rubin, ‘The Language of Creation or the Primordial Language: A Case of Cultural Polemics in Antiquity’, Journal of Jewish Studies, 49 (1998), pp. 306-333, on pp. 323-324. For doubt about the accuracy of this attribution, see Minov, ‘Cave of Treasures’ (see n. 4), p. 172. In the ninth century, the West-Syriac author Moses bar Kepha (d. 903 C.E.) also identified Syriac as the language of Paradise, see Y. Moss, ‘The Language of Paradise: Hebrew or Syriac? Linguistic Speculations and Linguistic Realities in Late Antiquity’, in Paradise in Antiquity: Jewish and Christian Views, eds. M. Bockmuehl and G.G. Stroumsa (Cambridge, 2010), pp. 120-137, on pp. 128-129. 7 Chronique de Michel le Syrien, trans. Chabot, vol. 1, p. 20; ed. Chabot, p. 10; ed. Ibra- him, Edessa-Aleppo Syriac Codex (see n. 5), p. 11. 8 Barhebraeus, Scholia on the Old Testament. Part I: Genesis – II Samuel, eds. M. Sprengling and W. C. Graham (Chicago, 1931), p. 45. 9 Solomon Metropolitan of Basrah, The Book of the Bee, ed. E.A.W. Budge (Oxford, 1886), p. 42. 10 Abd-Iesu Sobensis Carmina Selecta ex libro Paradisus Eden, ed. and Lat. trans. H. Gis- mondi (Beirut, 1888), p. 4 and p. 110. 11 The attribution of this argument to Ephrem is perhaps related to the fact that the Book of the Cave of Treasures, whose author attributed it to Ephrem, also argues for the primacy of Aramaic/Syriac over Hebrew. 12 On the attribution of this text to Ephrem, see Minov, ‘Cave of Treasures’ (see n. 3), pp. 157-165. 4 ANDY HILKENS the author of the Cave of Treasures claimed that Aramaic was the queen of lan- guages from which all other languages derived. Although this idea seems to reflect the author’s hostility towards the Jews and towards three other sacred languages (Hebrew, Greek and Latin), his geographical location and the political context may also matter. Probably writing in a part of Mesopotamia that was controlled by the Persians, the author may have argued for the superiority of Aramaic over these other languages in order to ‘dissociate his community from these paradig- matic representatives [i.e.