BOOK REVIEWS

John F. Healey, Aramaic Inscriptions and Documents of the Roman Period,

Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions, Volume IV (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2009) Pp. xvii + 369. Hardback.

AARON MICHAEL BUTTS, YALE UNIVERSITY, NEW HAVEN

The volume under review provides a selection of eighty texts, along
with translation and commentary, from the following five dialects
of Aramaic: Nabataean, Jewish (Palestinian) Aramaic, Palmyrene,
Early Syriac (Edessan Aramaic), and Hatran. The volume is billed
as the fourth in the series of J. C. L Gibson’s Textbook of Syrian
Semitic Inscriptions, Vol. 1. Hebrew and Moabite Inscriptions; Vol. 2.
Aramaic Inscriptions including inscriptions in the dialect of Zenjirli; Vol. 3.
Phoenician Inscriptions including inscriptions in the mixed dialect of Arslan
Tash (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1971–1982) (traditionally
abbreviated TSSI), which replaced G. A. Cooke’s A Text-Book of
North-Semitic Inscriptions (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1903). The
second volume of TSSI is devoted to Aramaic texts from the
earliest attestation of Aramaic in the ninth century BCE through
the end of the Achaemenid period (ca. 330 BCE). The volume
under review follows chronologically upon this with Aramaic texts
from two centuries before the turn of the Common Era up to three
and a half centuries after it.
The volume begins with two introductory chapters. The first is
dedicated to the historical and cultural context of the texts. In the
first part of this chapter, Healey surveys the historical context for
each of the five geographic centers (Nabataea, Judaea, Palmyra,
Edessa, and Hatran). The latter part of the chapter then addresses
several broader cultural topics: literacy and bilingualism, ethnicity,
law, and religious syncretism. At the end of each section, a short
but helpful bibliography is found. The second chapter is entitled
‘Epigraphic and Linguistic Introduction’. It begins with a
discussion of the various scripts employed, all of which derive from
Aramaic scripts of the Achaemenid period. Each script is described
separately, and a comparative chart is also provided (p. 30–31). The
chapter then moves to a brief overview of the history of Aramaic
(following Fitzmyer’s chronological classification), and this is

151
152 Book reviews

followed by a survey of features for each of the five Aramaic

dialects represented in the volume (‘Key Features’ are summarized
in a chart on p. 51). The latter pages are especially valuable since
similar lists of features are not readily available elsewhere in the
scholarly literature. The chapter concludes with a bibliographic
overview of the relevant grammars and dictionaries.
After the two introductory chapters, the remainder of the
volume contains a selection of texts from Nabataean (18 texts),
Jewish (Palestinian) Aramaic (9 texts), Palmyrene (18 texts), Early
Syriac (Edessan Aramaic) (18 texts), and Hatran (17 texts). Each
text is presented in transliteration, which is a welcome departure
from Gibson’s TSSI volumes, as it will make Healey’s volume
accessible to a wider audience (for an additional, ideological
motivation, see p. vii–viii). The Jewish (Palestinian) Aramaic and
Syriac texts are also presented in script. In general, the presentation
of the texts is accurate, though there is the occasional slip (e.g. rʚmɼ
mh for rʚm ɼmh in line 4 of Text 5 and wlršpɻ lhyɻ for wlršp ɻlhyɻ in
line 6 of Text 29). One reading does, however, require a brief
comment. Instead of Healey’s mprns<n>ytɻ, the first word of line 5
of text 45 clearly reads mprsnytɻ in the published photograph.1 In the
editio princeps, however, Ingholt incorrectly read mprnsytɻ with n and s
reversed.2 This erroneous reading has found its way into Hillers
and Cussini’s collection of Palmyrene texts (PAT)3 and now the
volume under review (p. 219, 221). The correct reading mprsnytɻ
must of course be emended to mpr<n>snytɻ, a form which is found
in an unpublished inscription.4 Finally, it should be mentioned that
çprns is likely a Greek loanword in Aramaic.5

1The photograph is found in H. Ingholt, ‘Inscriptions and Sculptures

from Palmyra, II’, Berytus 5 (1938), plate xlvii. For this reading, see already
J. Cantineau, Grammaire du palmyrénien épigraphique (Cairo: Impr. de l’Institut
français d’archéologie orientale, 1935), 116; J. Hoftijzer and K. Jongeling,
Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 674.
2 Ingholt, ‘Inscriptions and Sculptures from Palmyra, II’, 124, 130.
3 D.R. Hillers and E. Cussini, Palmyrene Aramaic Texts (Baltimore:

Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996), 36–37 (PAT 0095).

4 Ingholt, ‘Inscriptions and Sculptures from Palmyra, II’, 130.
5 See recently S.D. Fraade, ‘Local Jewish Leadership in Roman

Palestine: The Case of the Parnas in Early Rabbinic Sources in Light of

Extra-Rabbinic Evidence’, in A.I. Baumgarten, H. Eshel, R. Katzoff, and
 Book reviews 153

After the Aramaic text of each inscription, an English

translation is provided. This translation tends toward the literal as is
appropriate for this type of volume, but it is not overly wooden.
There then follows a substantial section of notes. These notes vary
considerably in their complexity and scope. Some provide simple
glosses (even for basic items such as dnh ‘this’ and dy ‘which’),
others outline grammatical issues or prosopography, while still
others discuss the broader cultural and historical context. The
notes do not propose vocalizations and thus depart from Gibson’s
TSSI volumes (but return to Cooke’s Text-Book). In general, the
content of the notes is reliable, though the specialist will have an
occasional disagreement. It is, for instance, surprising to find
frequent citations of forms from ‘Jewish Aramaic’ (many with
references to Jastrow’s Dictionary) since it is now well-established
that there is no such entity as ‘Jewish Aramaic’ but rather a number
of distinct dialects.
After the presentation of the texts, the volume contains a
selection of hand-copies and photographs. The size of this
selection represents the only significant shortcoming of the
volume. Out of the 80 texts, only 18 are found in a hand-copy or
photograph. Thus, in most cases, the reader has no access to the
text as it is actually written and so will be forced to track down
previous publications. The volume concludes with lexical indices
for each of the five dialects and a bibliography.
A key question with a volume such as this is its intended
audience. In the introduction, the author unapologetically states
that the volume is not ‘intended for the specialist in any of the
particular dialects covered’ (p. v). Two audiences are, however,
envisioned. The first is students. With this audience, I feel that the
volume is certainly a success. The excellent introductory chapters
and the extensive commentary should be especially welcome with
this audience. Unfortunately, however, the price of the volume is
probably beyond most student budgets. The second intended
audience is scholars who work in one dialect of Aramaic and want
to familiarize themselves with other dialects. Given the increasingly
specialized state of Aramaic studies (following the trend of

S. Tzoref (eds.), Halakhah in Light of Epigraphy (Journal of Ancient Judaism

Supplements 3; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 155–173,
esp. 156–157 with n. 5 (contains references to additional literature).
154 Book reviews

academia more generally), this represents an important aim, and I

feel that the volume will prove beneficial to this audience as well.
Finally, several comments are required on the revival of the
title Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions. This designation has long
been problematic. Gibson’s volumes are not limited to inscriptions
but also include texts on papyrus (viz. the Aramaic papyri from
Hermopolis). This problem is even more accentuated in the
volume under review, which contains not only texts on stone and
other hard material but also documents written on parchment and
papyrus (hence the use of ‘Documents’ in the main title). The word
‘Inscriptions’ is then too restrictive. Even more problematic is the
label ‘Syrian’, which should be replaced by ‘Northwest Semitic’.
The infelicity of the term ‘Syrian’ was already admitted by Gibson
in the third volume of TSSI, where he states, ‘For the sake of
consistency the title Syrian Semitic has been retained for the present
volume; but I would like to announce that it will not be used in any
future editions of the Textbook’. Thus, it is regrettable that the
volume under review has perpetuated this nomenclature. Finally,
on a more practical note, the relationship between the volume
under review and Gibson’s earlier three volumes introduces a
bibliographic inconsistency. The volume under review is entitled
Aramaic Inscriptions and Documents of the Roman Period and is the
fourth volume in the series Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions. In
contrast, the previous three volumes by Gibson were entitled
Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions with each volume given a
subtitle after the volume number (see the first paragraph for full
reference). Though it is not too serious of a problem, this will
undoubtedly lead to inconsistency in the citation of all four
volumes of the series in the future.
In the end, this fine book is a most welcome addition. Drawing
upon his extensive experience with the Aramaic of this time
period,6 Healey has produced a very useful volume that
conveniently brings together a selection of Middle Aramaic

6See, inter alia, his The Nabataean Tomb Inscriptions of Mada'in Salih (JSS
Sup. 1; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), The Religion of the
Nabataeans: A Conspectus (Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 136;
Leiden: Brill, 2001), as well as (co-authored with H.J.W. Drijvers) The Old
Syriac Inscriptions of Edessa and Osrhoene. Texts, Translations and Commentary
(Handbuch der Orientalistik I, 42; Leiden: Brill, 1999).
 Book reviews 155

documentary texts. These texts are important not only for scholars
of Aramaic and of Semitic languages but also for classicists, ancient
historians (including legal historians), and scholars of religious
studies as they provide a window into several Near Eastern
communities who lived in the wake of the Seleucid and then
Roman empires.
156 Book reviews

Robert D. Millar, ed., Syriac and Antiochian Exegesis and Biblical

Theology for the 3rd Millenium. Gorgias Eastern Christian Studies 6.
Gorgias Press, 2008.

J.W. CHILDERS, ABILENE CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY

A symposium meeting at St. Mary’s Seminary in Emmitsburg,
Maryland in 2004 prompted the studies that make up this
collection of twelve essays. The topic is a timely one. Despite the
central place of scripture in Christian faith and practice, biblical
hermeneutics is an increasingly complex and troubled field, beset
by a host of philosophical, literary, and theological problems. The
symposium was built on three premises: 1) a serious disconnect
exists within biblical scholarship between theological and exegetical
endeavors; 2) the Antiochene/Syriac tradition of biblical
interpretation represents a distinct and vital tradition; and 3) the
latter “has much to contribute to the apparent impasse in biblical
scholarship between historical criticism and a desire for theological
relevance” (vii). The collection treats a range of topics related to
Antiochene/Syriac interpreters and their practices, hoping to
stimulate further reflection on that tradition and clarify its
contemporary relevance.
The first five essays offer patristic studies. In “The Bible in the
Hands of the Persian Sage,” Craig E. Morrison analyzes Aphrahat’s
manner of biblical citation. The study aptly illustrates Aphrahat’s
creativity in presenting the biblical text, arguing that his
adjustments to the wording are not normally due to faulty memory
or the stylistic requirements of the homiletic context. Instead, they
are intentional and offer key interpretive clues. Aphrahat’s citation
technique expresses his conviction that an interpreter can never
exhaust the full meaning of the biblical text. Sidney H. Griffith
studies one of Ephrem’s most evocative hymn cycles in,
“Syriac/Antiochene Exegesis in Saint Ephrem’s Teaching Songs
De Paradiso.” Griffith maintains that Ephrem thought of his
metrical homilies (mêmrê) and teaching songs (madrćshê) as the main
media of his biblical interpretation, conditioned as they are for
spiritually rich liturgical enactment. The study discusses Ephrem’s
reading strategies as exemplified in Hymns on Paradise, emphasizing
the symbological approach by which he correlates the material of
occasional liturgical readings with the wider revelation found in
scripture and in nature for the sake of teaching Christians. Utilizing
 Book reviews 157

poetry and song, he “evoked a Christian understanding of the

scriptural texts within the context of the larger parameters of
church teaching, which was itself more a particular way of reading
the Bible than it was truly a set of doctrines” (46).
In “Slouching towards Antioch: Biblical Exposition in the
Syriac Book of Steps,” Robert A. Kitchen attempts to characterize
the exegetical methods at work in the aforementioned ascetical
homilies and determine whether they anticipate an identifiably
Antiochene approach. Focusing on the Book’s handling of several
biblical narratives, Kitchen concludes that it displays some features
of “Antiochene exegesis” but not others. Its author shows great
respect for the coherence of the biblical narrative, as one might
expect from an “Antiochene” exegete, yet its readings are greatly
shaped by the author’s ascetical agenda. In particular, the Book of
Steps sees scripture as the source of normative but ongoing stories
in which the ascetical readers may locate themselves. Paul Nadim
Tarazi turns to the Greek tradition in “Chrysostom on Isaiah:
A Paradigm for Hearing Scripture.” Underscoring Chrysostom’s
hermeneutic of love for neighbor, Tarazi presents him as a model
interpreter to be emulated today. Chrysostom’s supposedly
forthright “grammatico-historical” approach and his unwavering
trust in biblical authority combine to produce a reading strategy
more committed to the moral embodiment of the text than either
to the doctrinal polemics of late antiquity or today’s clever and
arrogant theological posturing. Edward G. Mathews explores
several Syriac authors’ views on biblical anthropology in, “‘What
Manner of Man?’ Early Syriac Reflections on Adam.” Surveying
Ephrem, Narsai, Isaac of Antioch, Jacob of Sarug, and Jacob of
Edessa, the chapter traces an interpretive tradition that is diverse
yet shares a commitment to the biblical view of humanity as
essentially elevated in nature, task, and destiny. The Syriac tradition
is taken as a reminder that genuinely biblical anthropology stands in
sharp contrast to the modern reductionist views of many
contemporary exegetes and theologians that construe humanity as
mere incidents of matter, or as psychologized loci of personal
experiences, rather than in terms of humanity’s place in the
universe.
Four essays engage contemporary hermeneutical issues more
directly. In “What Do Syriac-Antiochene Exegesis and Textual
Criticism Have To Do with Theology,” Angela Kim Harkins
158 Book reviews

handsomely tracks the recent discussions in biblical hermeneutics

that have led some to propose a partial retrieval of pre-modern
reading strategies in order to bridge “the current gulf between
biblical studies and theological inquiry” (166). Then she
coordinates recent trends in the textual criticism of the Hebrew
Bible with features of pre-critical exegesis (especially Syriac). She
notes that such exegetes as Ephrem or Aphrahat have strong
respect for the littera of the text, yet also assume and creatively
exploit the text’s “plurality” of meaning. Similarly, the discipline of
textual criticism has come to respect the “pluriformity” that the
ancient text enjoyed. Something is to be learned from an approach
to the text that recognizes its transcendent nature and authority
without obsessing on a precisely fixed text form or narrow
singularity of meaning. In the chapter, “Psalm 22 in Syriac
Tradition,” Stephen D. Ryan describes the various forms that the
celebrated psalm has taken in Syriac translation and discusses the
related Syriac commentary tradition. He offers a model for
presenting the wealth of patristic reflection on a specific text for
the sake of stimulating “a more theologically ecumenical exegesis”
(208) that is ecclesially diverse (like the Syriac tradition) and
synthesizes the strengths of the “patristic-medieval” method and
“the modern historical-critical approach.”
Anthony J. Salim explores the role that liturgy and catechesis
play in forming attitudes towards scripture within a living
community, in “Catechetical, Liturgical, and Biblical Implications
of the Husoyo in Contemporary Maronite Tradition.” John J.
O’Keefe’s essay, “Rejecting One’s Masters: Theodoret of Cyrus,
Antiochene Exegesis, and the Patristic Mainstream,” restates and
develops the author’s proposal that “Antiochene exegesis” never
existed as such but is a “hopeful projection of historically
conscious moderns” (247), and that the attempts to conjure this
phantom are largely misguided. Whereas some exegetes associated
with Antioch—e.g. Chrysostom and especially Theodoret—
manifest productive approaches to the biblical text because of their
willingness to interpret christologically and figuratively, the
ostensibly critical readings that their teachers Diodore and
Theodore employed were so spiritually bland that the church was
justified in squelching their voices. O’Keefe issues a challenge to
contemporary interpreters that they imitate the Fathers by
upholding the primacy of the text, rather than the primacy of
 Book reviews 159

historical events behind it, thereby becoming comfortable again

with the notion of multiple meanings—albeit responsibly
controlled by something like the rule of faith.
The final chapters respond to the preceding essays from three
different angles. Paul S. Russell offers a “Response from Patristic
Theology,” affirming the observation of several of the authors that
much discussion of patristic exegesis has overdrawn the
distinctions between different practitioners, while overlooking
important nuances such as are evident in the Syriac tradition. In
“An Historical Critic’s Response,” Robert D. Miller cautions
against caricaturing the historical-critical method of
interpretation—for which he finds ample evidence in the preceding
essays. He maintains that a pursuit of the author’s intended
meaning may be conducted as a pursuit of “the divine author’s
intent” (277) and therefore well serve purposes of faith and
worship. Ronald N. Beshara’s “A Pastoral Theologian’s Response,”
does not respond critically to the essays but affirms the value of the
Syriac tradition for cultivating communal spirituality.
The book concludes without any indices or bibliography,
beyond what respective authors cite in the footnotes to their
essays.
As one might expect in such a volume, the collection is marked
by a certain unevenness. Most of the essays treating particular
patristic authors or texts make fine contributions to their topics
that patristic scholars will find valuable. Of those that deal with
hermeneutical matters more broadly, a few are focused so intently
on agendas set by issues of Catholic interpretation and revelation
that they will be of interest primarily to Catholic and Orthodox
scholars. Several of the essays exhibit little awareness of the
expansive literature on biblical hermeneutics and only a few engage
current discussions of the theological interpretation of scripture as
informed by the patristic and medieval tradition. This may be due
to the Catholic/Orthodox orientation of many of the contributors,
since some of the most vibrant discussions about these matters are
taking place in Protestant biblical scholarship (e.g. ressourcement).
The essays by O’Keefe, Ryan, and Harkins, and Miller’s response,
display greater awareness of these conversations and engage them
more. Similarly, Salim’s article and Beshara’s response make worthy
proposals, but their impact would increase measurably from a
deeper engagement with contemporary discussions amongst
160 Book reviews

practical theologians about the formational interplay between

teaching, ritual, dogma, and ethics within practicing communities.
Tarazi’s exposition of Chrysostom’s ethical hermeneutic deserves a
hearing and fits into the growing consideration of the place of
virtue in epistemology and of theological commitment in exegetical
research. But the presentation adopts such an anti-modernist
polemical tone that readers may lose sight of the basic proposal
behind the cloud of vitriol. Yet even the book’s limitations
instantiate the impulse underlying the conference and its essays: a
desire for scholars and practitioners across disciplines and
confessional lines to engage more fully in constructive dialogue
about the function of scripture in Christian faith and practice, with
a view not merely towards further understanding but the possibility
of synthesis.
A great strength of the volume is that the contributors are
divided as to whether an “Antiochene exegesis” actually exists and,
if so, whether resuscitating it would be possible or beneficial.
Different viewpoints on these subjects supply a healthy energy to
the discussion, reminding the reader that the Christian tradition—
whether Antiochene/Syriac or otherwise—must in the 21st-century
regain its role as a vital resource, yet it is unwise to be dismissive of
the problems posed by modern scholarship without genuinely
engaging them. Perhaps a next step would involve synthesizing a
grand theological-hermeneutical proposal, one genuinely inspired
by Antiochene/Syriac modes of interpretation but that attempts to
span the alleged “impasse” by fully tackling particular obstacles and
charting a robust alternative approach. Such a task exceeds the
purpose of the present collection. But as the conversation
progresses, it is to be hoped that the appearance of this set of
studies and others like them will stimulate projects that attempt
such a synthesis.
 Book reviews 161

Janet Soskice, The Sisters of Sinai: How Two Ladies Adventurers

Discovered the Hidden Gospels, New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 2009.

EMILY J. COTTRELL, MARIE CURIE FELLOW,

INSTITUTE FOR RELIGIOUS STUDIES, LEIDEN UNIVERSITY
In 1892, Agnes Smith Lewis and her twin sister Margaret Dunlop
Gibson discovered in the Saint Catherine Monastery a palimpsest
of what would become known as the “Lewis Codex” or “Syrus
Sinaiticus.” This Syriac version of the Gospels antedates the
Peshitta and is related to the lost Old Syriac version of the Four
Gospels. Janet Soskice’s The Sisters of Sinai is the history of this
discovery, as well as a learned biography of the twin sisters.
A scholar of the history of religions and professor at Cambridge
University, Soskice succeeds with brio in giving her readers both a
lively description of the late Victorian age and a precise narrative of
the events that led to the different editions and translations of the
Sinai Palimpsest from its discovery to the 1930s.
Born in Irvine, Scotland, in 1843, the twins remained all their
life devout believers, participating in charities and Sunday School,
and funding in 1899 the establishment of Westminster College, the
first Presbyterian college in Cambridge. Their intellectual vivacity
had been aroused since their early youth by eclectic figures such as
William Robertson Smith, a friend of Thomas de Quincey who
held a parish in Irvine, and was a close friend of the family.
Robertson Smith would become professor at Cambridge from
1883 to 1894 after he was tried and nearly excommunicated by his
coreligionists for endorsing Biblical criticism (versus the “Verbal
Inspiration” theory) in his preaching and in articles he wrote for
the ninth edition of the British Encyclopaedia. At a time when women
in England were not allowed to work, vote, or get a degree, the
Smith sisters had found happiness in their misery. As their mother
had died shortly after giving birth, they were raised by their
widowed father, John Smith, as if they had been sons: they were
taught gymnastics and given a higher education focusing on
religion (they were Presbyterian Calvinists belonging to the Free
Church of Scotland) as well as foreign languages. The mastery of
any language would bring as a recompense a trip to a country
where it was spoken, therefore instilling in the twins from an early
age on a passion for travel that would never leave them.
162 Book reviews

At the death of their father in 1866, the Smith sisters had

inherited a great amount of wealth. As they had no relatives closer
than far-away America, “they enjoyed a freedom which was rare in
England at that time, and almost unheard of in Scotland,” as
Whigham Price puts it in his biography of the sisters (see
A. Whigham Price, The Ladies of Castlebrae, Gloucester: Alan Sutton,
1985). With the agreement of William Robertson Smith, they
decided to go to Egypt and the Holy Land after eighteen months in
mourning. During this trip which first took them to Cyprus, they
had their first encounter with Orthodoxy for which Agnes seems
to have had some contempt. Soskice writes, “watching the priests
incensing the icons at the Monastery of Kykkos, it seemed a scene
from the Middle Ages, with traditions and repetitious prayers that
were in danger of making the Word of God of no effect,” Soskice
writes, quoting from Agnes Smith’s travelogue ‘Through Cyprus’,
“watching the priests incensing the icons at the Monastery of
Kykkos, it seemed a scene from the Middle Ages, with traditions
and repetitious prayers that were in danger of making the Word of
God of no effect.” It may seem hard for many today to imagine
that already in the mid-19th century, Cairo was the place to visit for
the European upper-class. Only twenty years before the Smith
sisters’ first visit to Egypt, the Khedive Ismail Pasha had
commissioned Verdi to compose Aïda, an opera on the glory of
Ancient Egypt for which the French Egyptologist Mariette would
write the plot and design the scenery. During their first trip to
Egypt in 1868, when they wanted to travel up the Nile river, a visit
of the Prince of Wales created such a traffic-jam on the Nile that all
boats had to wait for days before being allowed to pass the famous
cataracts. In addition to the experience of Oriental exoticism,
contemplating the Nile’s beauty and visiting temples, most scholars
in Egypt were searching for artifacts, from Pharaonic statues to
Coptic and Arabic manuscripts. It was only recently that Bible
criticism had reached such heights that Europeans were starting to
look for pieces of the early Christian texts in the souks of Cairo.
Margaret was the first of the twins to get married, to a
melancholic Presbyterian Minister named James Gibson. He died
in 1885, only three years into their marriage. Agnes decided to visit
Cambridge to attempt cheering up her widowed sister. There, she
would meet her future husband, the Reverend Samuel Lewis,
librarian of Corpus Christi College. Within three years of marriage
 Book reviews 163

Agnes too became a widow. Being married to a Cambridge

librarian, she had settled there in 1890 (with her inseparable sister),
and she naturally decided that the best remedy to her sorrow would
be another journey to the East. This time she was determined to
visit the Sinai, especially after a friend of her late husband, Dr
J. Rendel Harris, had just come back with the news of several
interesting manuscripts he had discovered. Among the preparations
for the trip were Syriac private lessons (Agnes in particular wanted
to tackle Syriac), palaeography, and learning how to operate a
camera. The twins left in January 1892. Both were fluent in
Greek — including the pronunciation of Modern Greek — a factor
which would enable them, according to Harris, to gain the
confidence of the monks in Cairo from whom they would need
authorization before heading to St. Catherine. Through their
journeys and intellectual endeavours, Margaret had mastered
Arabic as well, and they had learned Hebrew in their youth for
religious purposes. The sisters had been made aware by Dr
J. Rendel Harris about a small case in St. Catherine’s monastery in
which the monks were keeping some of their most precious
manuscripts. It was there that he had discovered a few years before
a manuscript of the Apology of Aristides, which had been known
before only from a quotation in Eusebius.
As only beginner’s luck could have it, the sisters came across a
Syriac palimpsest which happened to be the oldest Syriac copy of
the Gospels known to this day. Apart from the famed Sinai
Palimpsest, they discovered several other important manuscripts (in
Greek, Syriac and Arabic) which were published in two collections
they would establish, namely the Studia Sinaitica and the Horae
Semiticae. They would decipher the Sinai Palimpsest with the help of
a team of Cambridge experts (R.L. Bensly, F. Burkitt and J. Rendel
Harris) they had brought with them on a second trip. This proved
to be one of the most important findings of the time, and it has still
not revealed all its secrets. But this scholars’ trip to the Sinai was
the beginning of a heated feud that would be chronicled in
specialized journals and publications for the next thirty years. The
spouses of two of the scholars that had come along for the tiring
expedition (it took nine days of walk through the Sinai desert to
reach the monastery) took part in the feud by publishing their own
travelogues, giving Soskice material for some entertaining narrative.
164 Book reviews

Three elements were of special interest. First, it was agreed that

the Syriac Palimpsest shared some readings with the Curetonian
Gospels, the only other witness to a Syriac translation of the Four
Gospels earlier than the fifth-century Peshitta. It also showed
agreement with readings offered by Tatian’s second-century
Diatessaron, a harmony of the Gospels into a unique narrative that
circulated among early Syriac circles. Second, the genealogy of
Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew gave, uniquely, the reading
“Joseph, to whom was betrothed the virgin Mary, bore Jesus, who
is called Christ,” against all the Greek witnesses. Finally, the Sinai
Palimpsest lacked the twelve last verses of the Gospel of Mark
(16:9-20), ending in Mark 16:8. This was paralleled by an Armenian
manuscript of the Gospels which gave further on “Ariston the
Elder” as the author of these verses, as was noticed by Agnes
Lewis quoting the discovery of F. C. Conybeare in 1891 in her
Light on the Four Gospels of the Syriac Palimpsest.
In conclusion, a few remarks should be made which in no way
detract from reading this very pleasant book: 1) Soskice refers to
S. V. Morton’s Through Lands of the Bible, published in New York in
1938, as containing the best description of St Catherine’s
Monastery but one would expect a mention of Pierre Loti’s
Le Désert, the travelogue of his Sinai experience and stay in the
Monastery in 1894. 2) The pictures of the sisters and their
colleagues and relatives could do with dates and explanations. The
indiscriminate use of ancient and modern pictures of the
Monastery create a sense of confusion. 3) The mention of the
sixth-century Mosaic of the Transfiguration should be
accompanied by a note on the fact that it has been restored by an
Italian team between 2005 and 2009 (see http://www.cca-
roma.org/en/node/249). 4) Finally, on the vexed question of
whether what is known today as Mount Moses is the actual place
where Moses received the tables, Soskice mentions Edward
Robinson’s observation that this seems to contradict the Biblical
text where the peak may be seen from a plain, while the Sinai
Mount Moses would be visible only half way up the ascent. This is
certainly not accurate, since the peak may be seen from the valley
of Wadi Isba‘iyya, north-east of the Monastery. Some foreign
pilgrims still pray there at Easter.
 Book reviews 165

R.L. Bensley, J. Rendel Harris, F.C. Burkitt, The Four Gospels in Syriac
transcribed from the Sinaitic Palimpsest, Cambridge, The University
Press, 1894.
F.C. Burkitt, Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, Cambridge, The University Press,
1904.
W. Cureton, Remains of a Very Ancient Recension of the Four Gospels in Syriac,
hitherto unknown in Europe, London, John Murray, 1858.
A. Hjelt, Die altsyrische Evangelienübersetzung und Tatians Diatessaron besonders
in ihrem gegenseitigen Verhältnis, Leipzig, A. Deichert, 1903.
A. Hjelt, Syrus Sinaiticus, Helsingfors, 1930 (photographic edition).
G.A. Kiraz, Comparative Edition of the Syriac Gospels. Aligning the Sinaiticus,
Curetonianus, Peshîʞtâ and ʙarklean Versions, 4 vols, Leiden—New
York—Köln, Brill, 1996.
A. Merx, Die vier kanonischen Evangelien nach dem ältesten bekannten Texte,
Berlin, Reimer, 1897–1911.
M. Dunlop Gibson, How the codex was found. A Narrative of Two Visits to
Sinai, from Mrs Lewis’s Journal, Cambridge, Macmillan and Bowes,
1893.
A. [Smith] Lewis, A Translation of the Four Gospels from the Syriac of the Sinaitic
Palimpsest, London, Macmillan 1894.
A. Smith Lewis, The Old Syriac Gospels, or Evangelion da-Mepharreshe; being the
text of the Sinai or Syro-Antiochian Palimpsest, including the latest
additions and emendations, with the variants of the Curetonian text,
London, Williams and Norgate, 1910.
A. Smith Lewis, Light on the Four Gospels from the Sinai Palimpsest, London,
Williams and Norgate, 1913.
166 Book reviews

A.H. Becker, Sources for the Study of the School of Nisibis, Translated
Texts for Historians 50 (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press,
2008). Pp. x + 217. Paperback.

GRIGORY KESSEL, PHILIPPS UNIVERSITÄT,

FACHGEBIET KIRCHENGESCHICHTE
The book under review is a significant contribution to the study of
the East Syriac tradition in general and of the School of Nisibis in
particular, for it provides for the first time the English translation
of the primary and some of the most important sources that one
has to deal with while pursuing research on the Medieval Syriac
school movement.
The volume of translations constitutes something of a
supplement to the author’s monograph published a few years ago1.
Both the present book and the monograph stem from Becker’s
thesis of 2004,2 though, as with to the monograph, the volume of
translations has been considerably enlarged and recast.
The core text of this volume is the ‘Cause of the Foundation of
the Schools,’ and the four other texts included complement the
picture it paints. Of course, the selection of texts does not exhaust
the entire dossier for the School of Nisibis, which includes texts
from different genres in Syriac, Greek, Armenian and Arabic3.
What the collection of texts does show, however, it that students of
the School of Nisibis has to seek for relevant material in all kinds
of Syriac literature, and not limit themselves, for example, to
exclusively historical sources. As the selection of the texts provided
in the volume demonstrates, notable data can be found also in texts
representing polemical and poetical genres. Thus, the volume
includes the following texts:

1A.H. Becker, Fear of God and the Beginning of Wisdom: The School of
Nisibis and the Development of Scholastic Culture in Late Antique Mesopotamia
(Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006). Cf. its review by
I. Ramelli in Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies 10 (2007).
2 A.H. Becker, Devotional Study: The School of Nisibis and the Development

of Scholastic Culture in Late Antique Mesopotamia, Ph.D. thesis (Princeton:

Princeton University, 2004), UMI Number 3110224.
3 For their presentation and analysis of the data they provide see

Becker, Fear of God and the Beginning of Wisdom…, 41–97.

 Book reviews 167

The ‘Letter’ of Simeon of BĔt Arsham, the Syrian Orthodox

bishop of BĔt Arsham (end of 5th – beginning of the 6th c.) on the
‘Nestorianization’ of Persia (p. 25–39) is one of the earliest sources
for the school in Edessa and the establishment of the School in
Nisibis. The text provides a polemical picture of the origin and of
history of the diophysite tradition seen as a heresy (in that sense
Becker, following the wording of the ‘Letter’, made use of the
notorious term ‘Nestorianism’ - syr. nesʞňryanŠtć) that descended
from Hannah and Caiphas. The ‘Letter’ certainly served as West
Syrian propaganda (common to that period) against spreading
diophysitism and for that reason can be used with utmost caution
for reconstruction of the history of the School.
Although only the relevant section of the ‘Ecclesiastical
History’ of Barʘadbshabbć (late 6th c.) (p. 47–85) appears in
English translation (histories of Narsai and Abraham, both heads
of the School of Nisibis in 5th and 6th c. respectively), Becker
provides a summary of the ‘Ecclesiastical History’ that allows one
to get the clear idea of the context of the translated part. The text
of the ‘Ecclesiastical History’ has an apparent hagiographical tone
and Becker does well to warn the reader not ‘to attribute historical
value to the claims made by the text’ (p. 45).
The most important text in the volume is no doubt
Barʘadbshabbć’s (late 6th c.) ‘Cause of the Foundation of the
Schools’ (p. 94–160). This text was most likely composed as a
speech addressed to the incoming class at the School of Nisibis,
and it presents the entire world history as a long chain of schools.
The translation of the ‘Cause’ has been considerably revised in
comparison with the version that can be found in Becker’s thesis4.
To facilitate the reading of the text Becker conveniently provides a
summary of the whole and briefly discusses its literary character.
Becker argues that the ‘Cause’ is a specimen of the so-called ‘cause’
genre that was developed in the School of Nisibis; another major
influence on the ‘Cause’ revealed by Becker is Greek philosophical
thought represented by translations of Evagrius of Pontus,
Aristotle’s logical works and the later Neoplatonic commentaries of
Porphyry.
The ‘Mingana fragment’ (p. 161–162) is a short passage first
published by Alphonse Mingana that was treated with distrust by

4 Becker, Devotional Study..., 366–418.

168 Book reviews

later scholars (A. Scher, J.B. Chabot, J.-M. Fiey) except Arthur
Vööbus, who accepted the material therein as historically authentic.
Mingana’s purpose in publishing the material was to challenge
Labourt’s and Chabot’s interpretations of the history of the Church
of East and of the School of Nisibis, though Becker acknowledges
that in neither case he was able to find ‘what points… would be
challenged by this new material’ (p. 170).
Becker’s discussion of the text portion from the MĔmrć ‘On
the Holy Fathers’ of Rabban Surin (p. 163–164) requires a little
further clarification. The fragment published by Addai Scher is an
insert written by Rabban Yaɸqob, who is usually believed to be an
exegete at the School of Nisibis in the 7th c. Its text was added to
the MĔmrć ‘On the Holy Fathers, Mar Narsai, Mar Abraham, Mar
John’ (viz. three heads of the School of Nisibis) of Rabban Surin
(also an exegete at the School of Nisibis in the 7th c.), whose
disciple, reportedly, was Rabban Yaɸqob5. Contrary to the
assumption of Becker, Macomber provides the evidence that the
text of the MĔmrć is not to be found elsewhere except for the
Diyarbakir/Scher 706, whereas ms Sachau 174, 175, 176, argued by
Becker to be related to the Diyarbakir codex, actually reproduce the
contents and order of Notre-Dame des Sémences/Vosté 160,
which could well be the model of the Sachau ms7.
The translations are based upon the standard (although not
always perfect) editions of the texts: J.S. Assemanus, Bibliotheca
Orientalis Clementino-Vaticana I (Rome, 1719), 346–58 for the
‘Letters’; F. Nau, La seconde partie de l’histoire de Barʚadbešabba ɸArbaïa,
PO IX,5 (Paris, 1913), 503–631 for the ‘Ecclesiastical History’
[here 588–630; Becker’s translation covers about a third part of the
entire text]; A. Scher, Mar Barʚadbšabba ɸArbaya, Cause de la fondation
des écoles, PO IV,4 (Paris, 1908) p. 327–397 and 399–402 for the
‘Cause’ and a portion from MĔmrć; A. Mingana, Narsai Doctoris Syri
Homiliae et Carmina, I (Mosul, 1905), 32–39 for a dubious ‘Mingana
fragment’. Furthermore, taking into consideration the uncritical

A. Scher, Mar Barʚadbšabba ɼArbaya, Cause de la fondaion des écoles, PO

5

IV,4 (Paris, 1908), 399, W. Macomber, “The manuscripts of the metrical

homilies of Narsai” (OCP 39 [1973]) 275–306 [here p. 282 note 1].
6 W. Macomber, “The manuscripts of the metrical homilies of

Narsai” (OCP 39 [1973]) 275–306 [here p. 306].

7 Ibid. [here p. 285].
 Book reviews 169

character of Assemani’s edition of the ‘Letter’ of Simeon of BĔt

Arsham, Becker had recourse to the unique manuscript containing
the text (Vatican syr. 135) and thanks to that he was able to
produce a more accurate and precise translation.
Three appendixes follow the translations.
Appendix I, ‘On the Manuscript Tradition of the Cause of the
Foundation of the Schools’ (p. 165–171), provides a good
presentation of the manuscript evidence of the ‘Cause’ (the oldest
manuscript was written in the 16th c.) with updated information
concerning the fate of the manuscripts in question. In the case of
the collection formerly preserved in the Monastery of Notre-Dame
des Sémences that was eventually moved to the Chaldean
Monastery in Baghdad, it is now possible to give the latest update,
for the collection was recently transferred again (mostly for safety
reasons) to its former location at the monastery of Notre-Dame
des Sémences.8 Since the manuscript Sharfeh Rahmani 80 was
accessible to the present reviewer, it is worthwhile offering some
details about it. Rahmani 80 is a collection of various works that
was written in the beginning of the 20th.9 It is hardly possible to
agree with Becker’s assumption that Rahmani 80 might have been
copied from Vatican syr. 507 (p. 167, 168) because of the apparent
differences in contents between them. Whereas Vatican syr. 507
contains the ‘Cause’ only, Rahmani 80 has much more extensive
contents, thus making it an unlikely exemplar for the Sharfeh
codex. The author is introduced in the Rahmani 80 not as—
according to Becker’s premise—‘Mćr Barʘadbeshabbć Abćyć,
Bishop of ʗalwan’ (p. 167), but ‘Mar ʗadbeshabba ɸArbćyć’
(Rahmani 80, p. 24). If one supplements that point by the fact that
Rahmani 80 supports the readings of Siirt 109, then we can see the
Sharfeh codex as representing the text form of the ‘Cause’
preserved in the lost Siirt 109 (there are some other points in
common between two manuscripts). One witness to the ‘Cause’
was overlooked by Becker. It is Mardin/Scher 82 (AD 1890)
which, according to the statement of Scher, contains the text of the

8 I am indebted to Prof. Herman Teule (Nijmegen) for that

communication.
9 More about that manuscript see in G. Kessel, N. Sims-Williams,

“The ‘Profitable Counsels’ of Šem ňn d-ʝaibŠtĔh: the Syriac original and

its Sogdian version,” Le Muséon 124 (forthcoming).
170 Book reviews

‘Cause’ copied from the Siirt 109. It is not only the relationship to
the lost Siirt codex attaches to this witness importance but also the
fact that it is still extant and, therefore, can not be neglect in further
study of the ‘Cause’ and its transmission history.
Appendix II, ‘The Tree of Porphyry in the Cause of the
Foundation of the School’ (p. 172–180), contains a curious analysis
of a passage from the ‘Cause’ that helps to reveal the importance of
the study of Aristotle’s logical works as interpreted by the later
Neoplatonic commentary tradition in the School of Nisibis. Becker
demonstrates evident dependence in the ‘Cause’ upon the ‘Isagoge’
of Porphyry of Tyre and, more precisely, upon the concept of the
Tree of Porphyry. Some elements of the Tree of Porphyry as found
in the ‘Cause’ (e.g. more developed use of the soul, sensation of the
soul, division of rational into spiritual and psychic) suggest to the
author that they were supplemented already in the East Syriac
milieu. Becker strongly maintains that the ‘East-Syrian use of
Aristotle and the Neoplatonic commentary tradition on his logical
works should not be mistaken for philosophy’ for ‘the East-Syrian
appropriation of philosophical terms and concepts consisted of a
pragmatical selection of what would ultimately be useful only to
issues of theological and devotional concern’ (p. 180).
The relationship between the ‘Ecclesiastical History’ and the
‘Cause’ are studied in Appendix III, ‘Literary Dependence of the
Cause of the Foundation of the Schools on the Ecclesiastical
History’ (p. 181–191). Becker provides a synoptic comparison of
the overlapping parts that help to distinguish the similarities
between the two sources. Being reluctant to attribute two texts to
one and the same author, Becker can not help but state that the
‘two texts are clearly related to one another, but it is not certain
whether this is through dependence on a third text’ (p. 181).
The volume is concluded by useful Glossary of Selected Terms
(p. 192–193), Two Maps (p. 194–195), Bibliography (p. 196–202)
Indexes of Biblical References (p. 203–205), of Proper Names
(p. 206–210) and of Subjects (p. 211–217).
The text sample that was compared against the original Syriac
proves the author’s aim ‘to be as literal as possible without making
the English too awkward for the reader’ (p. 17), nevertheless it is
worth noting that translation indeed tends to follow the Syriac and
at times presupposes the knowledge of Syriac on the side of a
reader.
 Book reviews 171

All translations are densely annotated with relevant historical,

philological, literary, philosophical and theological information that
will undoubtedly be of assistance to the reader in comprehending
these (sometimes obscure) texts, while being aware of their
peculiarities and context.
The intended aims, as well as the reliability and the problematic
issues that underlie the sources provided here in English translation
were masterfully studied by the author in his monograph and it is
to that work the reader should consult for a more elaborate analysis
of the texts and their evidence.
A couple of recently published articles closely follow some
issues discussed by Becker: G.J. Reinink, “Tradition and the
Formation of the ‘Nestorian’ Identity in Sixth- to Seventh-Century
Iraq” (Church History and Religious Culture 89 [2009]), 217–250;
M. Debié, “Writing History as ‘Histories’: The Biographical
Dimension of East Syriac Historiography,” in Writing ‘True Stories’.
Historians and Hagiographers in the Late Antique and Medieval
Near East, CELAMA 9, ed. M. Debié, A. Papaconstantinou,
H. Kennedy (Brepols, 2010), 43–75; F. Briquel-Chatonnet, “La
religion comme enseignement: les écoles dans la tradition historique
et culturelle de l’église syro-orientale” (Comptes rendus des séances
de l’Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres [2010]), p. 59–76.
Moreover, the author himself made one more important
contribution in the field: A.H. Becker, “The Comparative Study of
“Scholasticism” in Late Antique Mesopotamia: Rabbis and East
Syrians” (AJS Review 34 [2010]), 91–113.
The author is to be commended for making a reliable English
translation of some of the main sources for the history of the
School of Nisibis, as well as for his successful endeavors to provide
solid grounds for a source critical analysis of texts that are quite
often used for reconstruction of the School’s history without
paying any attention to the agenda and purposes that lie behind the
narration.
A few inaccuracies and misprints are to be pointed out: p. 3
note 7: Barauma for Barsauma; p. 36 note 109 [about Mćruthć]:
d. c. 520 for d. c. 420; p. 39: Mćri of Tahćl for Mćri of Taʚćl,
transliterated Syriac names sometimes lack hyphenation: p. 12
(Barʘ / adbeshabbć), p. 13 (ʗ / enćnć). However, the most serious
typographical error is the misleading abbreviation of the title on its
spine and back cover (‘Sources for the Study of Nisibis’).
172 Book reviews

Rosemary A. Arthur, Pseudo-Dionysius as Polemicist: The Development

and Purpose of the Angelic Hierarchy in Sixth Century Syria.
Aldershot/Burlington: Ashgate, 2008. 213 pp.

ROBERT A. KITCHEN, KNOX-METROPOLITAN UNITED CHURCH,

REGINA, SASKATCHEWAN, CANADA
Rosemary Arthur’s doctoral dissertation at King’s College, London,
under Graham Gould initially seems to wear its thesis on the
(jacket) sleeve, but as one would expect with an author as complex
and enigmatic as Pseudo-Dionysius (PsD), Arthur’s analysis takes
on a similar complexity.
Arthur is clear that this monograph is not intended as a
thorough overview of the Dionysian Corpus and its doctrine, but
as a critical reexamination of PsD’s sources and the context in
which he was writing. The subtitle, locating the study in “Sixth
Century Syria,” should draw the attention of Hugoye readers as
Arthur devotes considerable attention to a number of Syriac writers
who alternately reflect and refute PsD’s concerns. Arthur targets
the conflicted and confusing political/theological atmosphere in
which the Miaphysite movement was bemired from the late 520’s
into the early 530’s following the accession of Justinian I and the
reestablishment of Chalcedonian primacy, to which PsD wrote as
one level of response.
What strikes the reader initially is Arthur’s ambivalent attitude
towards PsD. In the early chapters, Arthur launches a virtual
polemic against this author, challenging his motives, ethics and
tactics, as well as the orthodoxy of his doctrines. Eventually, Arthur
will deal with PsD with an even historical hand, but in the short
conclusion, she is now fully on PsD’s side, defending not only his
actions in their historical context, but extending approval of his
doctrinal decisions as a fitting solution to contemporary theological
positions.
The literary genre and shape of the Corpus is of decisive
importance for interpreting PsD. Arthur asks whether the Corpus
is a summa or a polemical treatise. While there are characteristics of
a summa present, she concludes that the frequent inconsistencies
and contradictions undermine the cohesiveness typical of
systematic treatise.
 Book reviews 173

As the title of this monograph indicates, Arthur perceives

PsD’s project as a polemical work written in the midst of a period
of intense conflict, both within Miaphysite leadership and
externally from the Chalcedonian forces recently reestablished
under Justinian I as the empire’s church. A polemic needs to be
directed against someone or some group, and it is here that Arthur
centers her argument on the work of the equally enigmatic sixth-
century Syriac writer, Stephen bar Sudhaili, the author of The Book
of Holy Hierotheos. The traditional assessment is that Stephen wrote
in response to PsD’s Corpus, but Arthur sees it the other way
around—PsD wrote in correction of the Origenist trajectories of
Stephen which inappropriately legitimized the authority of his
personal visions. Typical of Origenist systems, angels in Stephen’s
perspective were free to ascend and descend to and from heaven
and earth, but PsD perceived a more restricted hierarchy and
movement that did not give play to individual presumptions.
Arthur is skeptical regarding the loose and imprecise dating of
the Corpus to “around 500” and locates the situation in which PsD
wrote to be the turbulent years between 527 and 532, starting with
the consultation of Miaphysite leaders with Justinian and
concluding with the momentous Collatio of Constantinople in 532.
It was, in fact, at the Collatio that PsD was unveiled. This was not a
safe time to come forward with a distinctive and controversial
alternative, so our author guarded carefully his anonymity and
would cloak his Origenist tendencies under the pseudonym of a
converted first-century pagan with no known extant works to
betray him.
Arthur cites an impressive number of Syriac authors in support
of or in debate with PsD—John the Solitary of Apamea,
Philoxenus of Mabbug, John of Tella, John bar Aphtonia. It is
Sergius of Reshaina, a leading Miaphysite bishop during this critical
period, and the reputed translator of PsD into Syriac at a very early
date, who gains the most attention. Arthur demonstrates the
closeness of Sergius’ thought and style to PsD, especially in his On
the Spiritual Life. Not too subtly Arthur hints that Sergius is in fact
Pseudo-Dionysius, but only declares this identity outright in an
understated manner in her final conclusions.
The entry point into PsD is via angels, which Arthur observes
is the key dynamic for understanding the author’s polemical
agenda. PsD’s foundational concept is the unknowability of God,
174 Book reviews

and his cardinal sin for theologians is that of pride in believing that
they have adequately defined the nature of God—Stephen bar
Sudhaili’s problem. Consequently, he is impatient with the
Miaphysite/Chalcedonian/Church of the East Christological
controversies plaguing the church for the better part of a century in
which over-confident assertions regarding what these protagonists
claimed to know about the nature of Christ and of God were
epidemic. The way it really works, PsD explains, is that knowledge
is given or revealed to a person and it is then the recipient’s
obligation to pass it down to the next level. This implies a
hierarchy, although for human beings the chain is broken when
one attempts a direct link to God. This is precisely where angels
come in, for these beings are the only ones in direct
communication with God. PsD develops an elaborate nine-tiered
hierarchy of angels whose first purpose is to communicate
knowledge down to the next level. PsD bristles at the declarations,
for instance, of monks—several levels down in the ecclesiastical
hierarchy—for the only rank worthy to receive divine visions is
that of the bishop (the author of The Book of Steps would insist upon
a contrary evaluation of the spiritual ability of bishops!).
Ironically, in her Conclusion, Arthur seems to push the angels
aside as a rhetorical device, barely mentioning their presence in
PsD’s work. As noted, the provocative identification of Sergius of
Reshaina as the alter ego of PsD is mentioned without much
fanfare. Convincing as Arthur’s argument is, it leans heavily upon
circumstantial evidence, similarity of ideas and writing style, rather
than a historical unveiling of Sergius’ reputed ploy. This is not
intended to diminish Arthur’s suggestion, for after all, PsD has
done an excellent job of maintaining his anonymity for nearly 1500
years.
The strength of Arthur’s research is in the inclusion of a
number of Syriac theologians, broadening our perspective on PsD
and taking seriously the historical context of the Miaphysite
struggles during this period. The fact that Arthur is using Syriac
sources in generally older English translations hinders her
somewhat, but not critically. Part of the problem in using older
materials is the awkwardness of non-inclusive language and the
persistence of archaic and inappropriate labels, especially
Monophysite and Nestorian, which Arthurs employs throughout
her work.
 Book reviews 175

In her conclusion Arthur seems to place aside the historical-

critical questions and recast PsD as a post-modern, progressive
Christian thinker. That is a difficult stretch for any author of Late
Antiquity, although undeniably Pseudo-Dionysius’ contribution to
Christian thought, especially as elucidated by Arthur, still has much
value for contemporary thinking.
176 Book reviews

Ovidiu Ioan, Muslime und Araber bei ĩšňɺjahb III. (649–659),

Göttinger Orientforschungen, I. Reihe: Syriaca, herausgegeben von
Martin Tamcke, Band 37, Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden, 2009,
ISSN 0340-6326, ISBN 978-3-447-05861-2, pp. 145.

ANDREW PALMER, UNIVERSITY OF MÜNSTER,

NORDRHEIN-WESTFALEN, GERMANY

Introduction
The earliest references to Christian dealings with Muslims are in
two letters written between 628 and 659 by ĩšňɺ-yhab of Adiabene,
a leading cleric of the Church of the East (Robert G. Hoyland,
Seeing Islam as others saw it, Studies in Late Antiquity and Islam, vol.
13, Princeton, 1997, pp. 174–82). The name ĩšňɺ-yhab means
‘Jesus-gave’. Ovidiu Ioan prepares his reader for a close reading of
these two letters (Ch. 9) by presenting him with a biography of the
letter-writer (Chs. 2–5) and a history of the Islamic Conquest and
its impact on the Church of the East (Chs. 6–8); this history would
have been easier to follow if it had been accompanied by a timeline
and a map. Ch. 1 contains the author’s introduction, Ch. 10 his
short conclusion.
The references to Christian-Muslim relations have been
interpreted in various ways by various scholars. Ioan here claims to
translate them more accurately and to evaluate them more
completely and more reliably than his predecessors. He ought,
then, to have quoted the original Syriac texts in his book. The
reader may wish to form his own opinion on the basis of the
original; nor should he be obliged to go to the trouble of obtaining
a copy of Duval’s edition of the Liber epistularum of ĩšňɺjahb III,
Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, Scriptores Syri,
vol. 11 (text) and 12 (Latin translation), Paris, 1904–5 (reprint:
Louvain 1955), to keep open beside him as he reads this book.
(Ioan presents the reprint as the original publication.)

Letter 48 of the Bishop of Nineveh (628–640)

The first reference occurs in No. 48 of the collected letters written
by ĩšňɺ-yhab as Bishop (p. 97). The title describes him as Bishop of
Nineveh, which, if correct (Fiey ‘ĩšňɺyaw le Grand: vie du
catholicos nestorien ĩšňɺyaw III d’Adiabène’, Orientalia Christiana
 Book reviews 177

Periodica, vol. 35 [1969], pp. 305–33, and vol. 36 [1970], pp. 5–46,
has his doubts about this), dates the letter to the years 628–640.
Hoyland translates it as follows:
The heretics are deceiving you [when they say] there
happens what happens by order of the Arabs, which is
certainly not the case. For the Muslim Arabs (ʞayyćyĔ
mhaggrĔ) do not aid those who say that God, Lord of all,
suffered and died. And if by chance they do help them
for whatever reason, you can inform the Muslims
(mhaggrĔ) and persuade them of this matter as it should
be, if you care about it at all. So perform all things
wisely, my brothers; give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s,
and to God what is God’s.
Indexes to such a study, including an index locorum, are surely a
necessity. The reviewer, having read the book from cover to cover,
now has to hunt back through the footnotes to find the author’s
comments on the above passage; this is made more difficult by
Ioan’s omission of the crucial information. On pp. 114–22 he
discusses this letter, but he does not give its number until n. 162 on
p. 121.
Ioan’s German translation of the passage from Bishop-Letter
48, which—together with his other renderings—will here be
translated into English, begins (in line 2 of p. 115) a little before the
point at which Hoyland begins:
But if it happens that you, in that you invent false
reasons or the heretics deceive you and say: ‘What
happened was done by order of the ʝayyćyĔ.’ That is
quite untrue.
The verb which should complete the clause ‘that you’ has
apparently been omitted in error; from the mention of the heretics
onwards there is no substantial difference from Hoyland’s version.
Ioan continues to translate in line 10 from the bottom of the same
page, but does not say that this passage follows on from the first
without a break.
For the ʝayyćyĔ mhagrĔ do not help those who say that
the omnipotent God suffered and died. And if they
happen to help them, for whatever reason, you could
surely explain la’mhagrĔ what [the matter] is and
178 Book reviews

convince them of the matter, if the matter is

appropriately important to you, as it should be.
Ioan’s ‘what [the matter] is’ replaces Hoyland’s ‘as it should be’ and
Ioan’s ‘appropriately’ replaces Hoyland’s ‘at all’; and he omits the
last sentence with its reference to Matt. 22:21. It is unclear why
Ioan, here and on p. 89, transcribes the word translated by Hoyland
as ‘the Muslims’ as ‘la’mhagre’. Firstly, the transcription should be
la-mhaggrĔ; and secondly, the first syllable is no part of the name
which is labelled by the prefixed Lomad as the object (direct or
indirect) of the verb. This verb, whatever it is, is translated as
‘inform’ by Hoyland, by Ioan as ‘explain’ and by Suermann and
Fiey (quoted in Ioan’s footnotes) as ‘say’. All this demonstrates the
need to quote the original.

Arabs of the Hi÷ra

Hoyland signals, with a reference to Fiey, pp. 315–20, that ‘the
letter may be misplaced’ (my emphasis) in the period 628–640. I
had hoped that Ioan would be able to date this passage more
securely. However, he only refers to p. 331 of Fiey’s study. His own
statement that the title of the letter is wrong to describe the author
as Bishop at the time of writing is, however, unqualified. He
assumes, without giving grounds for this assumption (n. 132 on p.
114), that the letter was composed in the period 649–659.
Nevertheless, Ioan quotes without revision Hoyland’s statement
(cautiously based on the earlier date) that this is our earliest
reference to Christian dealings with Muslims. This reviewer thinks
it unlikely that we know enough to exclude the possibility that
Jacobites had already obtained permission from Muslim Arabs
before 641 to occupy a building which had once belonged to the
Church of the East.
Whether it is correctly dated by the manuscript tradition to 640
or earlier, or was written between 649 and 659, as Ioan believes,
this passage is early evidence for the Christian adoption of the
name muhćüirŠn, ‘which is the name by which the Arabs are
designated on all official documents of the first century of Islam’
(Hoyland, op. cit., p. 180 with n. 25 on that page). In the mid-
seventh century mhaggrĔ must have sounded in Christian ears like
‘of the hiüra’, whereby the Arabic word is left untranslated. Later a
pun was made on the name of Abraham’s slave Hagar, who was
 Book reviews 179

the mother of Ishmael, and some Christians sneeringly called the

Muslims ‘sons of Hagar’; but this reviewer disagrees with Ioan,
who sees the word mhaggrĔ as polemical and supposes that ĩšňɺ-
yhab uses it in a derogatory way ‘for Muslims who take up a false
theological and political position’ (p. 119).

West-Syrians vying with East-Syrians

for the favour of the Muslims
Hoyland finds in this passage evidence for the general statement
that ‘Monophysites and Nestorians vied for privileges from their
new masters much as they had done in Sasanian times’. According
to Ioan (p. 118f.) there is too little contemporary evidence to
generalise from this isolated text. However, the passage surely does
imply that the Muslims (‘the mhaggrĔ’) would never knowingly
support Christians who claim that the only God suffered agonies
and died. It is also evident that ĩšňɺ-yhab claimed the Muslims,
believing as they did in a transcendent God, would support the
Christians of the Church of the East against the Jacobites, because
the former were prepared to deny categorically that God was
vulnerable.
Ioan should perhaps have taken time to explain how a follower
of Theodore of Mopsuestia (the teacher of Nestorius) might edit
his theology to make it seem acceptable to the Muslims. Perhaps he
would avoid calling Jesus the Son of God, calling him the Son of
Mary and the Word of God instead, as he is called in the Gospel of
John and in the Qu’rćn. He would probably try to avoid discussion
of the crucifixion of Jesus, which was an illusion, according to the
teachings of Muhammad; instead, he would condemn the alleged
belief of the Jacobites that the Lord of the Universe suffered
agonies and died on the Cross, saying that the Church of the East
taught that the Person of God was incapable of suffering and death
and condemned the ‘theopaschite’ position.
This reviewer is not convinced that Ioan has invalidated
Hoyland’s generalisation on the basis of the first passage in which
ĩšňɺjahb touches on Christian-Muslim relations; but I would say
that Hoyland’s comparison with Sasanian times is not entirely
appropriate, because the Church of the East could not claim that
their doctrine was closer to Zoroastrianism than that of the
Jacobites. This new element seems a dangerous gambit on
180 Book reviews

ĩšňɺ-yhab’s part. Will it not have encouraged conversion to Islam to

say that the faith of the Church of the East is close to that of the
Muslims?

Letter 14 of the Catholicos-Patriarch of Seleucia-Ctesiphon

(649–659)
The second passage in which ĩšňɺ-yhab touches on Christian-
Muslim relations is in No. 14 of the collected letters written by him
as Catholicos-Patriarch of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, titular head of the
Church of the East. I quote Hoyland’s translation (p. 181):
As for the Arabs, to whom God has at this time given
rule (shŠlʞćnć) over the world, you know well how they
act towards us. Not only do they not oppose
Christianity, but they praise our faith, honour the
priests and saints of our Lord, and give aid to the
churches and monasteries.
Ioan’s translation is on p. 90:
And also these Arabs, to whom God has given empire
over the world at this time, are also—as you know—
where we live. Moreover, they are not against
Christianity, but rather they praise our Faith and pay
their respects to the priests and the saints of our Lord
and help the churches and the monasteries.
This agrees with Hoyland, except for one thing: Hoyland has ‘how
they act towards us’, but Ioan has ‘are also [...] where we live’
(German: bei uns). H. Suermann, ‘Orientalische Christen und der
Islam. Christliche Texte aus der Zeit von 632–750’, Zeitschrift für
Missions- und Religionswissenschaft, vol. 67 (1983), pp. 120–36, at
p. 128, as quoted by Ioan in note 6 on p. 90, has: ‘As for the
Zealous Ones (the Arabs), [...] you know that they are for us.’ We
are presented with three different translations of one Syriac phrase,
which Ioan does not quote; and yet he will base one of his ‘nine
foundational theses’ on it. He discusses the differences between his
translation and that of Suermann and says that Suermann must
have read ʞannćnĔ, where the text clearly has ʞayyćyĔ; but when it
comes to the question of the meaning of the phrase so differently
translated by Hoyland, Suermann and himself, he simply states: ‘In
contrast, the text simply expresses an observable fact: “they are
also—as you know—where we live”.’ He does not justify his
 Book reviews 181

translation by reference to the Syriac and the lexica, nor does he

discuss the translations of other scholars, although he notices that
Fiey (art. cit., p. 30) agrees with Suermann on this point.

‘To be taken with a pinch of salt’

Hoyland’s comment on this passage (p. 181f.) is as follows: ‘The
mention of warmth towards the Nestorians in this passage must be
taken with a pinch of salt, for, as is show by the remark of
Isho‘yahb cited above, the Monophysites also claimed that the
Arabs favoured them; apparently both sides alleged this in order to
win adherents and reassure their own community.’ Nevertheless,
there are other witnesses to the closeness of Nestorianism and
Islam. These are cited by Ioan (p. 92) from Fiey (art. cit., p. 30f.):
1) a letter of ‘Abd Allćh b. Ismć’Īl al-HćšimĪ to ‘Abd al-MasĪʘ al-
KindĪ; 2) the legend of the prophecy of a Nestorian monk to
Muhammad concerning his mission; 3) the remark of a Greek
official to his Arab captors, reported by Gregorius Barhebraeus.
Ioan might have given his reader the information he needs in order
to evaluate the credibility of these witnesses: Who were those two
Arabs and when and where did they live? Why should that
particular legend be taken seriously? Is not a snide remark about
the Nestorians, allegedly made by a Byzantine Orthodox Christian
to his Muslim captors and reported by a Jacobite who lived in the
thirteenth century, a source to be discounted in discussing ĩšňɺ-
yhab III, both because of its polemical bias and because of its late
date?
ĩšňɺ-yhab writes: ‘Not only do they (the Arabs) not oppose
Christianity, but they praise our faith, honour the priests and saints
of our Lord, and give aid to the churches and monasteries.’ This
seems to refer to all Christians and indeed the Christians in the
Arab Empire enjoyed a measure of religious freedom; but, as Ioan’s
biography shows, ĩšňɺ-yhab was no ecumenist. He did not regard
the Jacobites as Christians at all, but as devils, who use the name of
Christianity to mislead the faithful. Where he speaks of ‘our faith’,
he refers to the doctrine of the Church of the East. He had
evidently heard Muslims speak with approval of what he taught,
though no doubt he gave them a selective account of his faith.
According to the Kitćb al-Maüdal by MćrĪ b. Sulaymćn, official
biographer of the Nestorian patriarchs (I have slightly improved
182 Book reviews

the English of Hoyland’s translation on p. 182, without reference

to the Syriac):
He was a respected man to whom the governors of the
region were beholden, and one of them gave him a
diploma assuring him a free hand with regard to his
monasteries, his see, his revenue and exemptions for
his intimates; and only a small charge was exacted for
those things. He would go every week to ask for what
he needed and for anything whereby he might benefit
the affairs of the Christians.

The ‘nine foundational theses’ elaborated by Ovidiu Ioan

On p. 93 Ioan lists ‘nine foundational theses’ for ĩšňɺ-yhab’s view
of the conquerors:
1. He calls them TayyćyĔ, not TayyćyĔ MhaggrćyĔ. (Here Ioan’s
desire to find fault with the admittedly erratic Ohlig leads
him to suppress the fact that ĩšňɺ-yhab does elsewhere call
them MhaggrĔ.)
2. He accepts that God has given them empire, but seems to
limit this by the expression ‘at this time’. (One might say
this means ‘in our own lifetime’ and refers to the gift of
empire, that is, to the fact of conquest, not to its duration.)
3. Their conquest is treated as an event in world politics.
(Ioan might have added: ‘not as part of an apocalyptic
scenario’.)
4. The area conquered by them is described subjectively—but
inaccurately—as ‘the world’. (Might the author not have
supposed that his letter could be translated for a curious
Arab, who would be flattered by this exaggeration? Such a
possibility should make us even more cautious about
taking his positive statements about Muslim-Christian
relations at face value.)
5. They are daily present in his direct proximity. (This thesis
assumes that Ioan’s translation ‘are also [...] where we live’
is right and that the alternative translations of
Fiey/Suermann and Hoyland are wrong, an assumption
which, as we have seen, he does not corroborate with
reference to the original Syriac.)
6. They are not hostile to Christianity.
 Book reviews 183

7. They praise his own belief system, i.e. that of the Church
of the East.
8. They honour the priests and the saints of the Church of
the East. (The text actually says: ‘The priests and the saints
of our Lord’.)
9. They have shown themselves helpful towards the churches
and monasteries.
On p. 94f. Ioan sketches the historical context of the source
from which he has extracted these theses. The addressee is Šem‘Šn,
the Metropolitan of Rew-ArdašĪr, in the province of Fars. Šem‘Šn
belongs to the same East-Syrian tradition as ĩšňɺ-yhab, but he, like
his predecessors, does not accept that his see is under the
jurisdiction of the Catholicos of Seleucia-Ctesiphon. ĩšňɺ-yhab’s
purpose is to bring this see under his jurisdiction. This purpose is
presented to Šem‘Šn as ‘the necessity of unification’.

Rhetorical usefulness of the last four theses

to the leader of a divided Church
It is the chief merit of Ioan’s book that he places the texts cited by
Hoyland in their context. This enables the reader to see that ĩšňɺ-
yhab’s positive presentation the state of his Church under Muslim
rule is necessary to the rhetoric of his letter. In Fars and Kermćn
the Muslims have destroyed sanctuaries belonging to the Church of
the East. Evidently this is due to the separation of these regions
from the centre. They have cut themselves off from the well-
springs of divine Grace; they have broken the apostolic succession
and their holy orders are holy in name, without possessing the
power of the Holy Spirit, which would have protected them from
the demons. For it is to an evil demon, not to the Muslims, that
ĩšňɺ-yhab attributes the destruction of the churches. He connects
this demon with the presence in the same provinces of heretics,
whom Šem‘Šn’s community had not driven out. In Iraq, by
contrast, where the apostolic succession was unbroken (and
where—one might add—the Church of the East took violent
measures to drive out heretics), the Muslims have been helpful
respecters of the Christians.
ĩšňɺ-yhab blames Šem‘Šn and his confederates for their failure
to argue with those who were out to destroy their churches and
convince them of the power and the rightness of their faith;
184 Book reviews

instead, they had adopted a meek and unmanly submission. The

earlier part of the letter suggests (though Ioan does not make this
connection) that this lack of persuasive power and of spirited
resistance is due to the schism, whereby these regions have been
cut off from the Spirit of God.

Theology and deception

Ioan notices a parallel with Bishop-Letter 48 (the text from which
we quoted a passage at the beginning of this review): there, too, the
author blames the victims of sectarian violence perpetrated in the
name of the Muslims and says the monks had remained ‘without
movement, without pain, without anger, like dumb idols’ in the
face of persecution. They should have followed ĩšňɺ-yhab’s own
example and explained to the Muslims why they should respect the
teachings of the Church of the East and despise those of the
Jacobites.
In the fourth section of his long ninth chapter, the last before
the short conclusion, Ioan considers those of the nine theses which
outline a theological view of the conquerors: Nos. 2–3 and 6–9. He
rightly emphasizes that the Church of the East had never been the
Established Church of an empire, so that it was not a theological
problem for them that God had not given the empire to a Christian
ruler. With respect to his last four theses (Nos. 6–9), Ioan supposes
that ĩšňɺ-yhab is speaking of Arabs who used to be Christians and
have recently been converted to Islam, for these certainly had been
admirers of the Christian Faith and supporters of the churches and
monasteries and writers remarked on their great reverence for
Christian priests and saints. Should we suppose that this reverence,
this support and this admiration continued after these Arabs
became Muslims?
One possibility not noticed by Ioan is that ĩšňɺ-yhab uses a
rhetorical sleight of hand here: he calls the conquerors Arabs, not
MhaggrĔ, then speaks of them as conquerors, leading the reader to
understand that he means the Muslims. Thesis No. 6 confirms this,
for it merely says that the Arabs are not hostile to Christianity. But
at this point the Arabs may be an inclusive term, including both
Muslim and Christian Arabs. However, supposing the last three
theses could not really be applied to the Muslims, they might at
least be applied to the Christian Arabs; and if Šem‘Šn believed they
 Book reviews 185

applied to the Muslims, so much the better for ĩšňɺ-yhab’s

argument.

The early adoption of Islam in the area of modern Oman

under fiscal pressure
The argument of Catholicos-Letter Nr. 14 continues in Hoyland’s
translation (p. 181) as follows:
Why then do your Mrwnaye reject their faith on a
pretext of theirs? And this when the Mrwnaye
themselves admit that the Arabs have not compelled
them to abandon their faith, but only asked them to
give up half of their possessions in order to keep their
faith. Yet they forsook their faith, which is forever, and
retained the half of their wealth, which is for a short
time.
Ioan, who translates this section on p. 100, does not say that it
follows on without a break from the section earlier quoted.
Why then have your MazŠnćyĔ abandoned their Faith
on their [the Arabs’] account? And that while the
TayyćyĔ, as the MazŠnćyĔ themselves say, have not
compelled them to abandon their Faith, but have only
ordered them to surrender one half of their possessions
and keep their Faith. But they actually abandoned their
eternal Faith and retained that portion of their
transitory possessions.
Here again there are small differences which make one wish one
could see what the Syriac has. In note 28 on the same page
Hoyland surveys various theories as to the identity of the Mrwnaye,
including F. Nau, ‘Maronites, Mazonites et Maranites’, Revue de
l’Orient Chrétien, vol. 9 (1904), pp. 268–76, and concludes that,
whoever they are, their country must be somewhere in Persia. Ioan
emends the name (with Braun and Chabot) to MazŠnćyĔ and so
applies it to modern Oman; oddly, though, he does not seem to be
aware of Nau’s article or indeed of the problem that the text has a
Rish instead of a Zayn, for he simply says that ĩšňɺ-yhab called the
inhabitants of modern Oman ‘MazŠnćyĔ’ (p. 100). Apparently
Oman fell under the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan of Rew-
ArdašĪr (hence ‘your MazŠnćyĔ’), on the other side of the Persian
Gulf.
186 Book reviews

The Catholicos probably intended this story as a warning to

the schismatic Metropolitan: if he refused to let his see be unified
with Seleucia-Ctesiphon, more of the peoples under his jurisdiction
would be converted to Islam. Ioan is puzzled by the punishing level
of taxation which was the price of religious freedom for the
Christian population of Oman. It seems difficult to reconcile with
ĩšňɺ-yhab’s testimony to the high esteem in which the Muslims held
the Christian Church and its Creed. Taxing Christianity out of
existence is not obviously the action of a government which ‘helps
the churches and monasteries’.

Conclusion
Ioan’s study notices the relevant literature (perhaps according too
much space to the refutation of the views of Karl-Heinz Ohlig) and
is well constructed: the biography of ĩšňɺ-yhab III and the story of
the Arab Conquest of his region prepare the reader for a detailed
appraisal of the two letters containing passages which touch on
Christian-Muslim relations. It is only a pity that the crucial
passages, the interpretation of which needs to be argued
philologically, are not reproduced in the original language.
The book enables one to appreciate that it was useful to the
rhetorical purposes of the Catholicos to exaggerate the beneficence
of the Muslims towards the Christians in general and towards the
Church of the East in particular, especially in the vicinity of his see,
Seleucia-Ctesiphon. One suspects that the Catholicos acquired the
favour of his Muslim rulers by the discreet influence of money and
that theological arguments for giving preference to the Church of
the East over the Jacobites would not have cut much ice with the
Muslims without the more tangible persuasive power of silver and
gold. All the same, since ĩšňɺ-yhab claims that the Arabs ‘praise our
faith’ and suggests that they would never have helped the Jacobites,
had it been ‘properly’ explained to them what heresy they held, it
might have been useful to explore theoretically how the Faith of
the Church of the East might have offered more scope than that of
the Jacobites for claiming common ground with Muslim ideas
about God and Jesus. On the other hand, as Ioan rightly
emphasizes, the heroic practices of Christian ascetics commanded
respect from the Arabs before Muhammad and made a far greater
 Book reviews 187

impression on them than any abstract theological argument. The

same may well have been true of the early Muslims.
The editor of the series ‘Syriaca’, Martin Tamcke, who
supervised the doctoral thesis of which this book is the fruit, is to
be congratulated, together with the author, on an elegant volume
without too many blemishes; but, while doing so, this reviewer
suggests that a future volume of this kind should include maps,
timelines, indices and an English summary.