So far discussed are what [Nineveh-]Siʿrt is, and its mostly-theological context.
Philip Wood sees a lot of editorial work in Siʿrt. The whole thing was, everyone agrees, compiled in AD 900 and even after that not free from later glosses like one to the ʿAbbâsid Zâhir, who had the caliphate AD 1225-6. In this light, Wood finds reference to monasticism (Barsaumite?) in the third century, deeming such anachronous, so intrusive. These injections - says Wood - come from the late sixth century or even, like Saint (mâr) Awgin, the ninth. The fifth century is less adulterated, in Wood's sight.
But then Siʿrt breaks off. More: Mari breaks off, AD 424-84. Wood sees a dark-age in the East over those six decades.
Siʿrt certainly knew something on Peroz's reign because it has a section on Babowayh, dated in Peroz's regnal years. This - says Wood - comes from Bar Sahdé. Mari doesn't use him and doesn't use Elias of Nisibin, either.
Likely ignorance of the East is one reason why Mari's talking Rome instead; another reason may be to account for Nestorius, by Mari's time a hero. But also it was not a nice time at home. Here is Barsauma perhaps an archeretic. We will observe for the lacuna that Yazdegird II's reign features in it, a great persecutor at least against the Armenia then deemed "Aryan". Also herein is Chalcedon, that half-hearted retraction of Ephesus, which caused such great tumult in West-Syria (Mari correctly sees Chalcedon as Nestorius' revenge). And Peroz's misadventure in Hephtalia. We might also ask about the Talmud.
Maybe Siʿrt lost only that one page, or had two sides of two leaves stuck together like Agapius. Maybe someone (an antiNestorian?) deemed that one page as rubbish and scraped it off for something more useful, like a life of Mar Awgin. It's certainly easier to imagine one lost page, especially if the text was bad; rather than dozens, where the text might be good.
East-Syrian / Iraqi Christendom returned under Acacius and shah Balas, as far as metastability.
No comments:
Post a Comment