Andrzej Uciecha, Ascetyczna nauka w "Mowach" Afrahata [= Ascetic teaching in Aphrahat's "Expositions"], (Studia i Materialy Wydzialu Teologicznego Uniwesytetu Slaskiego w Katowicach, Nr 3), Katowice: Ksiegarnia Sw. Jacka, 2002, 192 pp.
Witold
Witakowski
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute
George A. Kiraz
James E. Walters
TEI XML encoding by
html2TEI.xsl
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute
2008
Vol. 11, No. 2
For this publication, a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
license has been granted by the author(s), who retain full
copyright.
https://hugoye.bethmardutho.org/article/hv11n2prwitakowski
Witold Witakowski
Andrzej Uciecha, Ascetyczna nauka w "Mowach" Afrahata [= Ascetic teaching in Aphrahat's "Expositions"], (Studia i Materialy Wydzialu Teologicznego Uniwesytetu Slaskiego w Katowicach, Nr 3), Katowice: Ksiegarnia Sw. Jacka, 2002, 192 pp.
https://hugoye.bethmardutho.org/pdf/vol11/HV11N2PRWitakowski.pdf
Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute,
vol 11
issue 2
Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies is an electronic journal dedicated to the study
of the Syriac tradition, published semi-annually (in January and July) by Beth
Mardutho: The Syriac Institute. Published since 1998, Hugoye seeks to offer the
best scholarship available in the field of Syriac studies.
Syriac Studies
Aphrahat
File created by XSLT transformation of original HTML encoded article.
[1] The
present book is a doctoral dissertation written and defended at
the Theological Faculty of the Academy of Catholic Theology
(now: Catholic University of Stefan Wyszynski) in Warsaw in
2001. The author is a Catholic priest who is now working at the
Theological Faculty of the Silesian University at Katowice in
Southern Poland. The book is written in Polish, which is to be
regretted, as all the potential readers in Poland would be able
to read English, German or French, while few such readers
abroad are able to read Polish. There is however a
Summary in English (pp. 186-192).
[2] Aphrahat
(ca. 270 - ca. 345), called "The Persian Sage", is the earliest
Syriac Church Father, which is perhaps the reason for his
never-ceasing popularity among the Syriac scholars. His work
"Expositions", or "Demonstrations" (Syr.
Ta&wÇy%th%
), contains
23 homilies or treatises, of which the first 22 begin with the
letters of the Syriac alphabet in order. U. renders the title
in Polish with the word "Mowy"—'speeches', which
seems too general. 'Homilie' or 'wyklady' might have been a
better choice.
[3] The
"Expositions" make up one of the most famous Syriac
compositions. They have been translated into German (twice:
1888 by Bert, 1991 by Bruns), Latin (1894-1907, Parisot),
English (1869 Gwynn, 1971 Neusner, both partial) and French
(1988-89 Pierre), an honour that few Syriac compositions share.
The popularity of the "Expositions" is however nothing
new, as already in Late Antiquity and Middle Ages they were
translated (at least partially) into Armenian and Ethiopic
(although in both languages they are attributed to Jacob of
Nisibis), furthermore into Georgian (attr. to Hippolytus) and
Arabic (attr. to Ephrem).
[4] The work
of Aphrahat bears witness to early Syriac theological thought
at a time when it had still been little influenced by Western,
i.e. Greek, theology (the Church of the East accepted Nicea as
late as 410 A.D., at the synod of Catholicos Ishaq) and has
been the object of lively discussion. In particular the
character of the "proto-monasticism", to which the so-called
"covenanters" devoted themselves, has attracted several
scholars since the discovery of Aphrahat's homilies in the
middle of the 19th century. It is known that these
were ascetics, but the exact kind of asceticism they were
devoted to is uncertain. The term in question, "covenanters"
(Syr.
bÇnay qÇy%m%
and
fem.
bÇn%th qÇy%m%
;
Uciecha neither uses schwa, nor does he mark
spirantization of the beghadhkephath consonants),
changed its meaning several times, so that that the meaning
found in the text of the sixth century—'monks'—has
hardly any bearing on its semantic value in Aphrahat's
writings.
[5] To
render the term
bÇnay
qÇy%m%
. U. uses the expression synowie
przymierza—'the sons of the covenant'. This
translation should be avoided in English as it is unnecessarily
literal and in point of fact incomprehensible (notwithstanding
the fact that it has been used by some scholars), just as the
Syriac expression bar (sing. Of
bÇnay
)
tÇl%th§n
¯Çn§n
, meaning 'a person thirty
years old', would be incomprehensible if rendered verbatim:
'the son of thirty years'. It is however not easy to provide an
adequate and meaningful Polish translation of the term in
question: perhaps 'sprzymierzeniec' or 'sprzymierzony' would
fit, despite some connotations which the Syriac term may
lack.
[6] In
addition to an introduction and a conclusion U.'s book contains
four chapters. In the introduction U. sketches the development
of Aphrahat's studies, showing his acquaintance with the
abundant literature on "the Persian sage". This literature is
to a high degree coextensive with studies on the intricate
problem of the character of the "covenanters", the topic which
is dealt with in chapter 1, section 1. Here U. examines other
terms which were used interchangeably with that of
bÇnay qÇy%m%
, an
analysis which allows him to get a better grasp of the meaning
of the term in question. These terms are
&§dh%y%
—'single',
qaddi¯%
—'celibate,
continent',
bÇthºl%
—'virgin
(masc.)'—all of them unequivocally pointing to
celibacy—and
bÇnay
ÿ7(d)tt%
—'the children of the church',
which poses the problem of their place within the church and of
their relation to the regular faithful.
[7] The
chapter as a whole is devoted to the historical context of
Aphrahat's ascetic teaching, and since this context is not
limited to the milieu of the Christian
bÇnay
qÇy%m%
, also non-Orthodox (Markionites) and
non-Christian (Manichaean, Gnostic, Jewish) ascetic traditions
are presented, similar phenomena occurring in these. Aphrahat
himself, although conscious of close parallels between his
Christian ascetic teaching and those of the "heretics",
dismissed any such parallels using the argument of theological
context: it is not ascetic practice in itself which leads to
salvation, but the context of the faith: if your belief is
"wrong" your ascetic practice will not help you (p. 53). Of
interest is his polemic against the Jews to whom the ideal of
celibacy was contradictory to God's command in Genesis
9,18. Aphrahat first rejected the Jewish opposition, caused,
according to him, by the lasciviousness (
pa&zºth%
) and licensiousness (
Ëa&nºth%
) of the
Jews (Exp. 18,1), but went on to explain that God's
intention was not a large quantity of progeny, but its quality,
while the ideal of sexual abstinence was not unknown to many
Old Testament figures (pp. 58-59).
[8] In
chapter 2, entitled "Anthropological elements in the ascetic
teaching of Aphrahat", U. analyses a number of notions such as
'body'(
pagr%, besr%
), 'soul' (
naph¯%
), 'heart' (
lebb%
) and 'spirit' (
rº&%
), and their role for
ascetics. Also women are treated here: they are an impediment
in the ascetics' path to achieving perfection or, in other
words, the tool of the Devil. This anti-feminist attitude
(Exp. 6,3 is a veritable hymn of misogyny!) is only
weakly mitigated by his providing some positive female examples
from the Old Testament (p. 97), which U. correctly
does not highlight.
[9] Chapter
3 is devoted to the theological dimension of asceticism in the
eyes of Aphrahat. Here the most important factors are
Christological. For an ascetic Christ provides a model as the
conqueror of Satan and death, as a model of humanity and as an
§&§dh%y%
, although
the term as applied to Christ does not mean 'solitary' but
'unigenitus'. Two subsequent sections in the same
chapter take up pneumatological and eschatological aspects.
[10] In
chaper 4 U. resumes the topic of the "covenanters", this time
taking up their ascetic ideals. He analyses notions such as
Ùathl7³%
—which
in addition to the original meaning of 'a champion' acquires in
the context discussed the meaning of 'a spiritual athlete',
i.e. 'an ascetic',
Ùakhseny%
—i.e. keeping
distance from the world (also known as
nukhr%yºth%
—'being a stranger'
scil. to the world), a distance involving liberation from
things material. Other ideals of the "covenanters" are the
vita angelica, i.e. continuous vigilance (scil.
against the deceits of Satan), sexual purity; and finally an
imitatio Christi, in prayer, in separation from the
world, and even in suffering.
[11] All
the assertions are supported by abundant text samples taken
from the Expositions. These are provided in as many as
three forms: the Syriac vocalised text, a transcription (in
footnotes), and a Polish translation. The latter wherever I
checked is good. What is a bit odd is the presence of
transcription and its rules. Since the Syriac text is printed
vocalised I see no point in providing a transliteration, for it
is a conventional rendering of the script, not of a
pronunciation that U. gives here. It is the more
surprising that the convention he uses is difficult, at least
for the present reviewer, to accept.
[12]
Transcription of
§h§d%ya
, i.e. with short last
—a (on p. 28 twice, p. 29 and 31) may be
regarded as a typing error (multiplied by computer 'copy'
function), but the use of the short —e (without
Ù%laph
) in plural ending of
nouns is met with systematically. This is not a good
transcription rule because Classical Syriac does not have short
vowels in open syllables. On the other hand one finds on p. 47,
footnote 110,
ne¯bºq
, i.e. a long vowel, where
one should have a short one (and in Classical Syriac
—o-, not —u-). Traditionally in
transcribing Semitic languages macrons are used as marks of the
length of vowels, no matter what signs (matres
lectionis or vowels) are used in the original script,
whereas in order to note the presence of matres
lectionis the circumflex signs are employed.
[13] To
what further unfortunate consequences U.'s transliteration
system leads can also be seen in (for example) footnote 109,
where we find marqyun, which renders the name
'Markion': a simple —o- would suffice. Even more strange
is
walentin%ws
in the same footnote.
U. follows the unfortunate vocalisation provided by Jean
Parisot in his edition in Patrologia Syriaca. This was
printed in the Serto writng, whose vocalisation is far from
adequate where texts in early Classical Syriac are concerned.
In the ending of Valentinos' name, Parisot printed
zÇq%ph%
over
—n- and then waw (and
semkath). He almost certainly pronounced
zÇq%ph%
as 'o', and thus
this vowel sign only provided the pronunciation already
indicated by waw as a mater lectionis, namely
the vowel 'o', and not the consonant 'w'. (Incidentally, such
vocalisation:
zÇq%ph%
and waw, would
never be used in a real Syriac manuscript). It seems that
Parisot used
zÇq%ph%
as other editors of Syriac
texts would use a dot over waw, i.e. just to mark its
being pronounced as 'o' (and not 'u'). Thus to transliterate
the ending in question as—
%ws
is,
to say the least, confusing.
[14]
Another example of this inadequate convention in which U.
unfortunately follows Parisot can be found in
ÿidt%
(p. 31, last two lines). This is
a typical Western Syriac pronunciation, which does not apply in
the case of a writer of the 4th century, who would
have used the Classical Syriac pronunciation
ÿ7(d)tt%
. On the next page, first
line, we find
ÿidt%
daÙlaha
instead of
d-(Ù)all%h%
. It is to be regretted
that U. has not marked the reduplication of the consonants, a
feature so characteristic of Classical Syriac, as opposed to
Late Western Classical Syriac. But, again, Aphrahat lived in
the fourth century, not in the epoch of, say, Bar'Ebroyo.
[15] The
last example of an unfortunate vocalisation, although one which
has nothing to do with Classical vs. post-Classical Syriac
problems, is met with on p. 28, l4: wau (the name of
the sixth consonant in Syriac alphabet). Neither in Polish
pronunciation nor in English (and even less so in French) makes
such spelling any sense.
[16] Some
minor lapses in other areas than transcription can be found
too, as for instance taking Manichaeans and Valentinians for
"heretics" (p. 41), or attributing the authorship of some
"Chronicles" (p. 24) to Isaac of Niniveh.
[17] As
to the scholarly literarature taken into account, although this
is quite extensive, the author missed Robert Murray's
Symbols of Church and Kingdom, Cambridge 1975, which
deals inter alia with Aphrahat and which has already
become a classic (2nd ed. publ. by Gorgias Press,
Piscataway 2004). For works more directly relevant for U.'s
topic perhaps the most conspicuous omission is the work of
Shafiq AbouZayd,
I&idayutha
: a study of the life of
singleness in the Syrian Orient: from Ignatius of Antioch to
Chalcedon 452 A.D., Oxford: ARAM Society for
Syro-Mesopotamian Studies, 1993. AbouZayd devotes a whole
chapter to "Aphrahat and the covenanters" (pp. 51-106), and
some of his analyses are on precisely the notions dealt with by
U. Another work of some importance for the theme of U.'s
dissertation is Michael Breydy's, 'Les laïcs et les Bnay
Qyomo dans l'ancienne tradition de l'Église Syrienne',
Kanon, 3 (1977), pp. 51-75. When referring to K.
Brockelmann's Lexicon Syriacum (in a footnote and in
the bibliography) U. says "b.m.w." (Polish sine loco).
This is strange, since both the original edition (1928) and the
reprint (1992), at least in my copy, provide the place of
publication: Halis Saxonum (= Halle am Saale).
[18] All
the remarks above should not however be taken as strongly
critical of the book under review. It has the merit of
providing an in-depth study of the intricate topic of
Aphrahat's asceting teaching. For Polish readers U.'s book will
make useful reading on the topic, and it is in fact the first
of its kind in Polish. The work is a sign that Syriac studies
in Poland have gathered momentum.