Painful corrections

John bar Penkaye comments several times in Memra XIV on the Hašušuta, a concept of suffering, attached to the had qnoma dogma of the Ephesian synod(s) and of Cyril Alexandrene. I had trouble interpreting this concept. I ran across P. Harb, “Les origines de la doctrine de la 'la-hašušuta' (apatheia)” (1974) that Philoxenos of Mabbug interpreted this as indifference to suffering. So I thought that those impious Miaphysites of Egypt (especially), John's foil, by the AD seventh-century had expanded this such that the Son did not suffer on the Cross, since He was of the same substance as the Father. If Christ cried out, this was a ruse - the haeresiologists (and most Muslims) would say, it was docetic (δοκέω).

Then in fol. 143b I read d-Hašušuta w-DMYTwt'. I didn't know DMYT-wta - at all. Bar Penkaye himself confessed he didn't know what better to call whatever concept was behind that latter term, hinting he'd cooked it up on the spot. I also recalled the aphtharto-docetism, which some antique historians traced as high as the Imperial Court. So based on my reading of hašušuta: I conjectured the root of dmâ, as "to seem". Thus: "of apatheia and docetism".

Mar-Emmanuel translates hašušuta to the exact opposite as I did. Instead, it is that as the Son suffered, so did the Father. He brings in the Trisagion, updated over these synods - especially Justinian's synod at Constantinople AD 553 - to attach after God immortal, who was crucified for us. Theopaschism implies Patripassionism.

Latin Christians may wonder if we might dismiss Justinian's synod as a robber-synod as we dismiss the second Ephesus. Pope Vigilius was poorly treated in its name. Moreover, Mar-Emmanuel has raised that it abused Theodore of Mopsuestia by distorted quotation: this, from Frederick G. McLeod, The Roles of Christ’s Humanity in Salvation: Insights from Theodore of Mopsuestia (Washington, DC: CAAP, 2005), 206. For the scope of our dueling translation: how is it that the had qnoma should eff off? - if I may.

Right now it's more a case of who should do the effing off and that's... me.

I'd fallen to Homeoteleuton - in Harb, not having read his article past the title (derrrp). La 'la-hašušuta'. Might have helped if the title (or at least those citing the title) had those circumflex marks which, I hear, the French language does use, from time to time. We don't need docetism anymore. Accordingly Mar-Emmanuel has w-DMYTwt' as wd-mytwt': "and of death".

DERRRP 2/6: Bcheiry, 91 from Bishop Isho'yahb Ep. #48: that the Tayyi give no aid to such d-amren hašša w-mawta 'allel Alaha Markull. Time was, I'd have remembered that quote. Sigh.