The correction of Palut

Somehow, Academia.edu and/or Charles Stang's publishers are allowing Invitation to Syriac Christianity on their site... the whole thing. Believe me, I am not complaining. Read it whilst you can. Michael Philip Penn is involved so you know it's good.

Presently I'm intrigued by the Teaching (or: Doctrine, maybe Didascalia) of Addai, which may be had from the public domain. After the main of it tells how Addai made Palut a presbyter, we get this appendix:

Because [Addai’s successor Aggai] died speedily and rapidly at the breaking of his legs he was unable to lay his hand upon Palut. Palut himself went to Antioch and received ordination to the priesthood from Serapion, the bishop of Antioch. Serapion himself, the bishop of Antioch, had also received ordination from Zephyrinus, the bishop of the city of Rome, from the succession of ordination to the priesthood of Simon Peter, who received it from our Lord, and who had been bishop there in Rome twenty-five years in the days of Caesar, who reigned there thirteen years.

We've met Palut, of Edessa Callirrhoë. In Ephrem's day, rival Christians were calling Ephrem a "Palutian". Ephrem wrote enough that we may assuredly talk of an Ephremian theology; Ephrem's enemies, however, did not use that term, insisting on Palut's school.

The core "Teaching of Addai" is properly Palutian. This, the coda corrects... sort of. By the coda's time, Addai remained a hero in this town. But Palut was now a problem. Palut would then have been too-associated with Ephrem, Aphrahat and other protoNestorians even quasiArians. Some would cut him from the Apostolic Succession, at least here.

This "Teaching" meanwhile was interpolated with a "protonike" legend, probably by that awful Rabbûla AD 412-36.

Proposal: As long as people were adding to the text, this coda was added as well. By association with Antioch and Rome (both!), Palut could be tarred with Diodore of Tarsus and all the dyophysite enemies of Rabbula. Not like us, my dear boy...

But to add mine own coda: if propagandic, this coda might not be a lie. The rest of this text was the lie. Here Rabbula may have insisted on the truth, or at least on some contrary lore as might be useful.

Aporiae

Looks like we've filled out this last month with real content. Wahoo! So here is a last-day link, to Paul Ulishney on Mar Anastasios. Saint Anastasius was a monk of Sinai who enjoys pride of place in Hoyland's Seeing Islam. Here's a new work to add.

Hoyland's problem in 1997ish was that many of the texts we needed simply weren't edited. They were known in manuscript, and after Hoyland well-known; but if you wanted a copy you needed to beg somebody for a xerox. There was a Diyarbakri MS of "The Monk of Bet-Hale" which became infamous for only existing in xerox or (soon) TIFF, the MS subsequently being lost - or, perhaps, hidden, because too many dirty Western researchers were pawing at it. Anyway that's been published now, but not in the 1990s, which is when everyone was getting excited about it. (It is now known as too late to be of scope for Hoyland but, he couldn't know that.)

Anastasius' work, popular as it was in the AD 700s, was suffering a similar fate. Excerpts were floating all over the 'web but not in any organised form. Ulishney, now, has a real dataset. His focus is on Hodegos #22, which concerns "Apostasis" and what questions - ἀπορίαι - an "apostate" might pose to Christians. And yes, Christians; not just his own Melkites or Miaphysites or whoever. Which means the apostates have become something Other.

For Anastasius overall, apostasis springs from Christians of any camp when they enter Saracen territory. In the Hodegos chapter under review, our saint collects the aporiae which his readers must hear. Ulishney points out that these were not the usual "Epaporēmata" which an Internet apologist might set up, to knock down thus to prove Bishop Ussher right. Anastasius does not (here) have the energy to confront these particular aporiae line by line; he basically punts, to suggest attending Mass and letting in the Spirit.

The questions levied against Christianity include five questions against the Torah. This means the apostates weren't Jews or "Judaisers". Ulishney is aware of the amir who was still accepting Torah between him and the Christians of Damascus; who isn't. Ulishney however contrasts that disputation - as in the Epaporēmata genre; he argues it didn't happen.

One aporia which hit the NT could equally go to the OT - in our day. That's the problem Muslims now call tahrif. In Anastasius' day this affected only the Christians - who shared that belief, for better or worse. A Jew could simply deny it because, hey, Masoretic. Greeks were then aware of several Bible versions, owning not only the old "Septuagint" but also straight MT translations, and LXX editions corrected to the MT. Syrians had become equally aware, since the Peshitta was a MT translation but also (now) the LXX had made it to Syriac. In Latin the reverse held: although Jerome had made the MT popular, "Vetus Latina" translations from LXX survived and were still copied. In Sinai, Anastasius would have seen at least these three languages and maybe more, like Armenian.

If I may switch to black-and-white, like Feral Historian does on Youtube: several of the aporiae are stupid, easily countered by a Catholic today - or by Augustine before us. Fundamentalists might care about calendar discrepancies in Genesis; we don't. On the minus side, when Anastasius does dare an answer, sometimes his answers aren't great either, as he brings the majority-text tactic against the "orthodox corruption" complaint. Thus Anastasius must confront Jesus' prayer in Gethsemene. Now back to polychrome.

The aporiae clearly weren't going away. Ulishney plonks this chapter in roughly the same milieu as James/Jacob of Edessa, who must convince his own flock not to jump the fence. James faced similar questions; to which, unlike Anastasius, he will moot a serious theologic response on the part of the Free Will debate (thus supplementing Michael Cook). We'll see more earnest attempts to counter aporiae in Leo III's response to him Anastasius might have known as the Umayyads' governor of the Madina, eventually to become a caliph himself: 'Umar II.

Jehoash' dam

After Jehu did for his cousin-in-law, survivors regrouped in the south. Chief was Ghatalyaw (KJV "Athaliah", LXX Γοθολία). She then fell in a coup too; which raised up the infant child Joash ben Zibiah - or Jehoash to give him his Southern name. The real ruler of David's City was Jehoiada the priest - and the main southern power was Gath, if anywhere.

Mostly 2 Kings 12 is about Jehoiada. During the 23rd year of Jehoash' reign, like 813 BC or something, the king ordered Jehoiada to fund the Temple from the Temple's own funds. Also around here is Hazael's expedition against Gath which then turned upon Jerusalem.

For 2 Kings 12 I propose a counter-reading.

In ?813 BC Jehoash was about thirty so able to run his own affairs. Already suspected is that the Damascenes hit Gath rather earlier, like in the 830 BC. That's likely when the victorious Hazael shook down Jerusalem. As of 813 BC, the Temple couldn't outspend the Palace. Hazael had left Jehoash in a stronger fiscal position (relatively); he was now able to force the Temple to levy its own funding. OY GEVALT

As long as we are revisiting archie findings of the past year, here comes some evidence that, yes, Jerusalem did run its own, saecular projects. Namely, a dam - dateable to near-exact 800 BC. This is a half-century before Uzziah/Jotham 750 BC.

Jehoash ended up getting murdered himself. Whatever the conspirators wanted, Uzziah/Amaziah was already an adult - if a very young adult - so succeeded as king. He punished the conspiracy. That's out of scope tho'.

Amazonis update

In the north of Mars, something whacked it and smoothed a vast ellipsoid, creating the northern plains. Among those plains is Amazonis, west of Olympus. A few years ago a (smaller) meteor struck it and excavated some ice.

This week ScienceDaily has deigned a Mississippi press release ... from last June (per the URL). This relays a 3 May paper, by Erica Luzzi et-quinque. Luzzi's sextet confirms the 25°N band of water-ice in shovel-distance of surface settlement.

It's not anything new to Baghestan readers, of which I seem to have attracted many lately (likely robots). Also I've never been interested in settling this postapocalyptic planet when we haven't bothered settling the interior of Iceland or the dry valleys of Antarctica. Get to Deimos first, Elon. Or even our Moon, which we can at least resupply and/or evacuate in time.

The version of Hebrews which Acts used

Last month I relayed evidence for Luke's knowledge of "to the Hebrews". The Polumeros blog links two 1978 articles as may constrain that: Ceslaus Spicq, and George Wesley Buchanan's evaluation.

Buchanan argues that "Hebrews" has a core, starting chapters 1-12. For him, at least 13:22f was appended in antiquity to give it the appearance of a letter; likewise, its first paratext which would be its title. Whatever ascriptions, to saint Paul or (in Luke's case) to saint Stephen, came later still. Hence why there remains no agreement between Tertullian (mooting Barnabas), Origen (Clement or Luke), and the late-antique guesswork (usually Paul). Spicq for his part mooted Apollos. Buchanan on his face dismisses all Hebrews 13 - which Spicq did not do, quoting even up to 13:22 (for "brothers").

Luke's Stephen story depends on a narrow part of the whole. That part does not include Hebrews 13 (any of it) and also has no knowledge that Stephen has his lore from a letter. If, then, Luke be responsible for any part of the transmission; Luke restricted himself to writing - forging, rather! - that epistolary ending, and maybe its heading too. I'd not put it past Luke, because I think he was a liar; however, we'd have to ask why he would bother, since his followers like Marcion didn't take him up on it.

As you might tell, I split the difference: yes Hebrews-as-homily up to 13:21, no 13:22f. The thirteenth chapter commends obedience to the Christian leaders (not named as bishops, although assuredly they are), not to Roman authority as Luke might commend. This gives Luke something he can use, but not all of it; like Luke had no use for the ending of Paul's manifesto to the Romans, which actually was epistolary. Since Luke has "Hebrews" in its draught-edition, it allows for Luke to be writing fairly early. For me that means Flavians.

The sacking of the library

Whilst we're talking the fragments of Babylon, or the disasters which the Muslims visited upon Assyria; earlier than either, the Babylons came to the library of Assyria. They found tablets they could read. It looks like they smashed what they couldn't carry.

So claims Irving Finkel anyway.

Personally I think Dr Finkel has earned up a great store of credit to his scholarship, which (say) Graham Hancock has not. I couldn't think of anything bad to say of his theory of Noah's Coracle anyway, at least in its Iraqi Marsh form which assuredly contributed to Genesis 6-7. (Although the meme of Ararat is assuredly more Assyrian.) Finkel's theory that the Babylonians would have taken a lot of their literature "back" down-stream smells right to me.

Smelling a good deal less good is his take on Göbekli, because like assholes everybody has to have one, I guess. I should be more careful around there. Around Göbekli I mean.

Roman Britain was unhygienic

A few articles came up this month about What Has Rome Done For Us. For us Brits: disease. Lately we're hearing of parasites up to Vindolanda.

An imperium with basic germ-theory might have worked better than it did. I take it that the Christians understood this and that's why they got converts in the classes most exposed to the nasty. Probably the Jews too which is how they were able to outbreed the Roman citizens in Cyrene, Cyprus et al. under Trajan.