But wait... there's more! Philip Wood really did a number on Nineveh-Siʿrt. His article literally is several in one. That's what I'm here for, until my brain gets too tired again...
Quite a bit of Siʿrt and Mari together comes from the Greek Rhomania. Wood for C1 sees "Eusebian material" perhaps from Symeon of Beth Garmai's seventh-century translation of the Chronicon UPDATE 2/19/22 which is hardly Tur Mardîn's. C3 is diverting, in every sense of the word: instead of discussing the "dyothelete continuation" to the fifth century AD in Siʿrt, which we've noted simply isn't there, Wood takes us on a magical mystery tour through Mari. For C4, is a series about Constantine's patriarchs up to Emperor Justin; this opposes the Theopaschism, and is here to contrast the Nestorians and the Latins against the heretical Empire. Wood for E then sees a "Melkite history of the emperors" in here up to Constans II, which is... where Siʿrt's manuscripts end.
Eusebius was of course common-property in Late Antique Syria. C3 is, like, not even Siʿrt. The E list of emperors, to me, seems like it was had from Constans son of Luke. I want to discuss C4. Because Wood doesn't unpack it as well as the casual reader should like.
Patriarch Euphemius had come into his office AD 490, under Zeno. Zeno was a moderate between the Ephesians, swiftly becoming "Miaphysites"; and the Chalcedon synod, itself a moderation of Ephesus. The Roman bishop was Felix III, a Chalcedonian who took it upon himself to be just as immoderate as were the Ephesians. I am really not seeing Zeno at this time especially appointing anyone whom an Edessene could possibly tar as "haeretic".
On Zeno's death AD 491 the mob in Constantinople demanded an "orthodox" emperor implying that Zeno (and Euphemius) had failed. Euphemius forced Anastasius to swear allegiance to Chalcedon. Anastasius turned out to be a Miaphysite and nursed this grudge. Meanwhile Euphemius proved unable to moderate Roman bishops Felix and then, from AD 492, Gelasius. Euphemius, of course, lived closer to the Emperor so suffered more political hazard from him.
In AD 496, as Siʿrt records, the emperor exiled Euphemius. It is nowadays agreed that the contention was Anastasius' written oath, which he wanted backsies on, which backsies Euphemius - growing balls at last - wouldn't give him. Siʿrt claims Anastasius' rationale being that Euphemius had refused to renounce Nestorius by name.
It is entirely likely that Siʿrt has recorded a lie - by somebody. It was impossible for a Byzantine Patriarch to rehabilitate Nestorius, at a time when the Latins - further from the capital - were not considering that. (Although some Antiochene outsiders might take a shot at it.) In later years, even such a Dyothelete as Maximus Confessor would not do that. Although since we've mentioned Maximus, we must note that his Maronite enemy George in ReshʿAyné will accuse Maximus of same. So I'd not put it past this Emperor to be the liar, earlier, in the same Monothelete cause.
If Anastasius lied, I do wonder about this anti-Theopaschite strain in Siʿrt. Is the core a Constantinopolitan liber pontificalis? Such might veer politically depending on which Christianity was then dominant. It would then need to be edited. But the Emperor was consistently Monothelete (Anastasius, Heraclius), or in sympathy (Justinian I), or at least wanted the headache to go away (Zeno, Constans II). This headache lingered until Constantine IV in the AD 680s who finally accepted Chalcedon (and Nicaea) in spirit, excepting the hangover in Vardanes. During this time was ample opportunity for Constantinopolitan lore (and rumour) to get out into the Near East in Syriac.
A liber pontificalis model might explain how two patriarchs, holding the same dogma, would be viewed positively under Zeno but negatively under Anastasius. Pace Wood, who sees C3 and C4 as different texts, and may I remind everyone once more that C3 is a non text in Siʿrt's lacuna. Hey if Wood can speculate then so can I. We'll not likely know for real since Siʿrt craps out on us in the 640s under Constantine's father.
Out East, naturally, any bogus tale of a late fifth century Patriarch(!) being a closeted Nestorian, or - better - a convert, would have been read as AWESOME. So the lie was repeated, in a more-orthodox context.
No comments:
Post a Comment