Letter #38 assumes a whole diocese prey to bandits, whence many have fled into Nineveh. In letter #39 Nineveh lies itself under an investiture. Letters might be exiting our city; but ultimata still enter it, to discomfit its bishop. For both, the katechon of 2 Thess 2 is on the author’s mind: God's church is holding back the Last Day. The compiler has attached #38 to #39 in that order.
Scott-Moncrieff for "XXXVI" and "XXXVII", as typical, has offered bland summaries for important events. For #39 Bcheiry, 80-3 does better although, against his translation, I have made mine own translation (from Duval's Latin).
Neither letter names the invader, except inasmuch as not naming the enemy bears a hint: other letters mark Greeks as "foreign", Persians as "mages", Jews as Jews and the Had-Qnoma as "heretics". Jews and heretics do show up in #39 but only indirectly. Elsewhere roam none-of-the-above "heathens" (who speak Syriac, #44) but not in these two letters.
Where the brigands of #38 are "wicked", those of #39 are "barbarian". The former are literal antichrist (UPDATE 3/4: ruling out David Urtaeus). The latter are simply allied to Maruta and to Nineveh's Judas, so may be suasible. #39's barbarians brought their own “shouts” which, the Maronite Chronicle will inform his own side of contemporary Christendom, is alien to Syrian-speakers.
Bcheiry smelled from letter #39 the scent of Easter-sermon: those events at the gate of Nineveh have taken place over Holy Week. The turncoat community leader is saecular - in fact a Ninevene; and he takes the Host without administering it. The barbarian invaders have withdrawn from Nineveh but remain in the heretics’ base, which is Tikrit.
If Duval is right about text missing from #39 then, for it, a conservative should restore “our guards and these soldiers”, on the assumption the copyist had suffered homoteleuton.
Our Ishoʿyahb is writing #39 to the holy father of everybody the Catholic Patriarch, rather than to one of the three Metropoles in his area. Cyriacos is still running Nisibin during a barbarian anarchy, which must be this anarchy. Mind, if Cyriacos had got wind of good fortune for Nisibin he'd just ask for more supplies. And I still cannot find Mar Paul of Arbela after the Boran embassy. This leaves Mar Gabriel as a prospect as recipient. Hold that thought.
Per Bcheiry, 46: Mahoze fell first March AD 637. Then Tikrit and Nineveh the following May or June - he's referring to Sayf bin ʿUmar who said "Jumada" AH 16 - which is indeed AD 637 / AG 948. It was the following summer when the Catholicate moved from the Mahoze up to Bet-Garmay, which is what we read in #50 and #52. #39 hints that the Catholicos is considering that shift up-country.
Whether #38+39 belong before or after the #40 series (concerning the wasp of Bet-Babay) demands closer reading of the #40 series. Bcheiry sets #39 alongside #49 (which he translates in full, 93-5) and, in seeing the new sultans as rational, with #48 (pp. 91-3). His order implies #39 first, #49 last. But I note #49 uses "the wicked" (or "the impious") rather than "heretics" or "barbarians". In this #49 reads more like #38.
#49 promises to go out with a draught of a letter explaining the miracle at Nineveh, so it does not include that. But in it we do get the aftermath, whereby all the servants of the devil are scattered "afar" or "back to their hidingplaces". Rather than posit two miracles, with #39's more modest in its final effect (on account the siege continues); more likely #39 and #49 refer to the same event, with #39 toning down expectations.
I would, therefore, see: #38, the (posited) Easter Sermon about the miracle, #49 to Mar Gabriel along with some (lost) draught summarising said sermon, #39 to the Catholicos - authorised by Gabriel, and updated. #43, 44, 48 do not note this miracle; they may precede it - but more likely postdate it.
UPDATE 3/8: Ep. #4 has stronger links with #38 so hints Abba was bishop of Rayy. This makes difficult to link #38 with Ninevene #39+49.
FIEY 4/16/23: E. XXXVIII footnoted ch. IV, p. 329 in French. XXXIX summarised p. 330; XLIX, p. 329.
No comments:
Post a Comment