The Metropolitan of Adiabene sent the fifth(-collected) letter to a nonMetro' bishop: one Jacob. This concerns two Christians called to holiness who are thumbing their noses at (Ishoʿyahb's) authority. Here the Metropolitan informs the bishop that he's not to permit Communion to these two.
The Jonah imagery might suggest that they've gone overseas, but you'd think that the overseer of Hidyab would use the chain-of-command: not writing to literally-who Jacob but - say - to Marammeh at Bet-Lapat, or even to the Catholicos himself. Given Ishoʿyahb's letter assumes the Pope would back him on this one; all this is a local business.
Meanwhile Assemani summarised the Papal Epistle #7 to Jacob of Shahrazur; Bcheiry devoted all pp. 106-16 to this. Bcheiry also translated all of it that matters, excepting only an ellipsis which Duval himself could not figure out: The last words are from Tim. 5:25; they can scarcely be correctly adjusted with the preceding ones, and the period seems to be confused
[UPDATE 3/15 so I've deleted my clumsy weekend speedread]. Shahrazur would be the region now represented by Sulaymaniya: more on the Kirkuk side, than on the Arbela. Either way Shahrazur was a subset of a metropole. So: opposite problem as M#5! in C#7 the Catholicos has written straight to a nonMetro'.
I cannot find either Jacob in Ishoʿdnah, although Chabot thought that #66 be a candidate for Shahrazur's. The founder of Bet-ʿAbê is long dead; Ishoʿyahb himself had dealt with the aftermath. That Jacob in charge back when Nineveh was a metropole ruled under shah Shapor so was even deader. On the other side Jacob Hazzaya as a Nûhadrene is (much) later. The founder of the Hbîsha convent is in Bet-Garmay and, anyway, I don't hear he's a bishop.
Overall these two illustrate most about how much we do NOT know about post-Futûh Iran in its "two centuries of darkness". Even in its foothills.
FIEY 4/17/23: M. V is not discussed; C. VII is discussed only in relation to his health, at the last chapter.
No comments:
Post a Comment