Philip Scott-Moncrieff in "XIX" thought that this referred to the "XVIII" letter to Yazdshapur. In this S-M followed the 'Abbasid-era compiler. The repetition of "shapir" - kalos, in Greek - feels like a wordplay. What we read more explicitly in #21, as S-M intuited, is the shadow of previous correspondence. The compiler may have deemed the other letters redundant.
But this letter went to a plurality of pious men so - pace S-M - not to Yazdshapur. Somewhere around here, also, one Samuel got tossed under the chariot. He might be #32 "XXX"'s priest, who is considering hanging up his stole.
#21 came in the wake of a debate. The debate concerned one who might, otherwise, be called upon to "lay hands". In the Oriental Church as in ours this is the ritual of ordination, by which the Apostolic succession takes place - from Saint Peter himself (the Nestorian would trace inheritance from Antioch). Sometimes bishops got through who would break bad in public, later. Sahdona will become the cause célèbre of Isho'yahb's tenure as metropolitan (nobody suspects Sahdona yet). Isho'yahb on occasion posed objections to poorly-ordained bishops; #40 "XXXVIII" (against one Narsai) goes right to the pope.
The #21 question might have turned over exactly consecration, about the rôle of the Spirit therein. It may be that the subject was considered as a candidate for ordination, but has been questioning the use of holy-water and unction. It might sound Islamic to modern senses, from afar (so to speak), but I don't find "hanputa" nor "mhaggruta" in #21. In those days, for this Church, the bugaboo was Messalianism, real or perceived.
The matter might have improved in the long run for Yazdshapur, at least. He might be the "Shapur" of #24 "XXII" - he cannot be this guy. The "Patriarch", probably a metropolitan, received Shapur's public confession. This letter went to the pope too, approving the deed.
FIEY 4/16/23: E. XXI is not discussed.
No comments:
Post a Comment