In Epistle 12 this blog presents the primary source for the reference in Michael Morony (1974) pp. 124-5 n. 1. Ishoʿyahb expects Enoch to tag along with the Catholicos, whereever they are and whoever he is.
Morony was bold with his account of years. Not many scholars since 1974 have pinned Ishoʿyahb II to AD 628-43! 644 were better. (956 be best but, hey.)
Metropolitan Ishoʿyahb does not tell Mar Enoch what negotium is diverting him from Arbela which, we must assume, is not to Kirkuk or Seleucia. He's been to Nineveh before but that might not be his last visit up there.
Also Morony was unaware of any updated work of canon-law Mar Enoch might have written. We do know the 640s / 950s for the East was a decade of literary activity, not least from our dear Ishoʿyahb, but also Daniel bar Maryam the historian - Guidi's Khuzestan might actually excerpt Daniel, explaining its parallels with Siʿrt and Ishoʿdnah. (Elias, I think, no longer knew Daniel direct.) The Catholicos may have had Enoch's work destroyed. Under pope George AD 676 the synod at Dirin will declare canon law the law for Oriental Christians.
Mar Enoch is compiling a text for marriage and inheritance. Every Christian being in agreement that bigamy is Bad, marriage to the maternal uncle's wife is most likely in effect for his widow. It wasn't likely that her second marriage could bear much issue. If the widow was poor, this might work as charity. But what if her (late) husband was rich? Shouldn't their children get the inheritance? - or at least her father's and his father's extended family. Marriage was exploitable; just plain ol' property. Ishoʿyahb denies this as Sasanian praxis, per Payne; but, of course, the Sasanids are no longer with them. The custom perhaps was held (as leviritism) with the Jews. Iraq used to have lots of these.
FIEY 4/17/23: M. XII footnoted mainly V p. 8 in French, and the last chapter (on his health). Chapter IV relates E. XXVI to this situation, of driving out an obstreporous monk.
No comments:
Post a Comment