Solving the Ninth-Century West Syrian Synoptic Problem.

• Author: Moss, Yonatan

INTRODUCTION

Within the rich literary tradition of the West Syrian (i.e., Syriac Orthodox) Church, two ninth-century authors stand out thanks to a curious problem. The authors are the bishops John of Dara, who lived in the first half of the century, and Moses bar Kepha, who died in 903. (1) The problem is the literary relationship between several of the texts transmitted in their names.

The Syriac manuscript tradition, now spread across libraries in the Middle East, Europe, and North America, assigns over a dozen treatises to John, (2) and several dozen treatises, homilies, and commentaries to Moses. (3) The subjects covered by the two authors mostly deal with speculative theology (such as paradise, angels, creation, the soul, and resurrection), the explanation of church feasts, sacraments, and liturgy, and, for Moses, also biblical exegesis. With one exception, there is no ambiguity concerning the manuscripts' attributions; each work is consistently attributed to one of the two authors. (4)

Several titles are associated with only one of the two authors. We will call these works "one-form" texts. Thus, for example, John's On Demons and Moses's Hexaemeron have no parallel text attributed to the other author. (5) But such parallelism is precisely what we find when it comes to other writings that go under these two authors' names. A series of treatises are transmitted in the manuscripts in two forms: one attributed to John, and one to Moses. Thus, there is an On the Soul in the name of John, and an On the Soul in the name of Moses; an On the Resurrection of the Bodies in the name of John, and an On the Resurrection of the Bodies in the name of Moses. In each of these cases, as well as about half a dozen others, the two forms of the text are strikingly similar, though far from identical (and thus do not belong to the category of "double attribution," where the same work circulates under the names of two authors). We will call these cases "two-form" texts. (6)

The overlap between the two textual forms is evident on all levels: from vocabulary, to many identical sentences, to closely parallel, and sometimes identical, content, to strong similarities on the level of overall structure and literary arrangement. In other words, each case of such two-form texts poses a synoptic problem, not unlike the well-known problem of the synoptic Gospels. The challenge is how to explain the literary relationship between two texts that are at the same time both remarkably similar and far from identical. As with the synoptic Gospels, we cannot automatically write off the problem by assuming that the later author, Moses, simply appropriated material from the earlier author, John. (7) This is because, as in the case of the Gospels, we have reason to suspect the authorial attributions. Just as the Gospel of Matthew was not written by the apostle Matthew, so the works attributed to John of Dara may not have been penned by the historical bishop of that name.

Yet even if we do accept John of Dara as the true author of the treatises attributed to him, one may ask whether it is likely that Moses appropriated materials from John's corpus on such a large scale, without acknowledgment. Reasons to doubt this include the fact that Moses often does acknowledge his sources when it comes to other authors. (8) Why then would he not mention John of Dara if citing from him? Another reason is the fact that John was an older contemporary of Moses's, living within the same ecclesiastical community. Would Moses have taken over so much material, without acknowledgment, from a source widely known in his own milieu? (9)

A second solution to the challenge, briefly proposed by Lorenz Schlimme, is that the works attributed to John were written by someone else, who reworked Moses. (10) A third solution is to suggest that the similarities and differences between John and Moses are the result of the authors' independent borrowing from the same Vorlagen, or a common "school tradition," neither of which is known to us. (11)

The John of Dara and Moses bar Kepha synoptic problem has long been known to scholars. (12) Some have simply called attention to it; (13) others have pointed out the existence of individual parallel texts; (14) and others have provided more detailed analyses of individual parallel passages. (15) Despite the realization that the only way to confidently solve the problem is to analyze two parallel texts in their entirety, (16) there has been, to date, no attempt to do so. No parallel full edition or translation exists of a two-form text, let alone a thorough study of the relationship between any of them. (17)

Most of the dozen treatises attributed to John and several dozen attributed to Moses are still in manuscript. Of the few works that have been published, the substantial ones have mostly been only in translation. (18) Yet in the absence of more published Syriac texts, it is impossible to solve the synoptic problem definitively. (19) Moreover, the problem is further compounded by a vicious circle: due to the widespread synoptic challenges surrounding John's and Moses's texts, their dating and context are uncertain, for which reason many texts possibly do not get published, and the synoptic problem languishes unsolved. (20)

In an attempt to break this vicious circle, we are currently completing a synoptic edition and translation of a two-form text: John of Dara's On Heretics (21) and the third book of Moses bar Kepha's On Paradise. Despite their different names, these two treatises bear a close resemblance. Here we will focus on aspects of the relationship between those two texts, and between their authors, that can help solve the synoptic problem. More specifically, we will show how a comparative analysis of the two works, at both the "macro" and the "micro" level, points to a solution, however preliminary. With "macro" level we mean the works' respective textual transmissions, namely, how each work is internally organized and with which other texts it circulates; with "micro" level we mean slight textual variations in the way each formulates its arguments and, particularly, in the way each cites earlier patristic sources. As background to this comparative textual analysis, we first offer an assessment of the evidence in John's and Moses's biographies and literary styles relevant to the synoptic problem.

1. BIOGRAPHICAL AND STYLISTIC ASPECTS

   The existence of both figures is attested by contemporary sources outside of the manuscripts that attribute works to them. John, known by the Greek (Iwannis), not Syriac (Yuhanon), form of the name, was a monk in the Dayr Za'faran monastery until Patriarch Dionysius of Tell-Mahre (r. 818-845) consecrated him as metropolitan bishop of Dara (both in southeastern Turkey, near Mardin). (22) Dionysius also dedicated his Ecclesiastical History to John, since, as he states, it was John who had asked him to write it. (23) Furthermore, Dionysius praises John as an intellectual, eager to acquire knowledge about every science, including secular history. (24)

   With the exception of these sparse snippets and the works attributed to him in the manuscript tradition, nothing else is known about John. (25) We do not know where he came from, who his teachers or associates were (with the exception of Dionysius), if he had any students, and what his stance might have been on contemporary issues of debate. (26) All works attributed to John speak in a void. They display no awareness of the reader, they betray no presence of the writer--no reference is made to other parts of the work, or to other works by the same author.

   By contrast, we have far more information concerning Moses. Two biographical notices are preserved. (27) These state that he was born and raised in Balad, close to Mosul, either in 813 or, more likely, in 833. (28) His father's uncle was the teacher of David bar Paulus, who died in 837. (29) Moses studied at the Mar Sargis monastery in Sinjar, west of Mosul, under the monastery's abbot Cyriacus, to whom he later dedicated his Commentary on John. (30) He became a monk at age twenty. Ten years later he was consecrated bishop by Patriarch John III of Antioch. Under the episcopal name Severus, he served as bishop of Beth Raman, north of Tagrit, and possibly as suffragan bishop of other towns as well. (31)

   Moses dedicated several of his works to Mar Ignatius, whose identity is not entirely certain, but is probably Patriarch Ignatius II of Antioch (878-883). (32) Moses's biographical accounts also list his works and names of his associates and students. The name of another student, Bar Nasiha, is provided by a later chronicle, which indicates that he broke with his teacher due to a theological and liturgical schism within the West Syrian Church. (33) The debate in question concerned the use of the Eucharistic formula "we break the heavenly bread, in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." The West Syrian patriarchal line deemed this formula offensive to one-nature Christology, since it appears to imply two natures in Christ manifesting as "heavenly bread" and as "the Son." The schism it created had roots in the eighth century and extended late into the twelfth. (34) At various points in his works, Moses engages, albeit subtly and tacitly, in this debate. (35) Traces of other contemporary political events and conditions can also be detected in his works. (36) Finally, Moses's writings have also been shown to display an interest, if not always necessarily open and explicit, in wider intellectual trends of the day, such as Islamic (and Christian and Jewish) kalam, questions about free will, and new historicizing trends in biblical exegesis. (37)

   Thus, it is fair to conclude that Moses bar Kepha is a "known entity" in a way that John of Dara is not. We know there was a John of Dara, and we can list over a dozen works attributed to him, but we can say next to nothing about his historical...