Brouria Bitton-Ashkelony, The
Ladder of Prayer and the Ship of Stirrings: The Praying Self in Late
Antique East Syrian Christianity
Lucas
Van Rompay
(Emeritus, Duke
University), ’S-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute
George A. Kiraz
James E. Walters
TEI XML encoding by
James E. Walters
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute
2021
Volume 24.1
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/hv24n1prvanrompay2
Lucas Van Rompay
Brouria Bitton-Ashkelony, The
Ladder of Prayer and the Ship of Stirrings: The Praying Self in Late
Antique East Syrian Christianity
https://hugoye.bethmardutho.org/pdf/vol24/HV24N1PRVanRompay2.pdf
Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute, 2021
vol 24
issue 1
pp 362-367
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.
File created by James E. Walters
Brouria Bitton-Ashkelony, The
Ladder of Prayer and the Ship of Stirrings: The Praying Self in Late
Antique East Syrian Christianity, Late Antique History and
Religion 22 (Leuven: Peeters, 2019). Pp. xi + 270; €95.
In humanity’s search for an encounter with the divine,
prayer holds a very important place. The present monograph zooms in on
the praying individual, using as its sources descriptions, often
self-descriptions, of a group of ascetic authors between the fifth and
the eighth century, most of whom belong to the East Syriac tradition.
With the exception of John of Apamea, they all represent the specific
branch of East Syriac ascetic Christianity that took its main
inspiration from the Syriac tradition of the writings of Evagrius
Ponticus. The book, however, offers much more than a study of the Syriac
reception of Evagrius, as it highlights the agency and the creative
responses of Syriac authors, who shaped their own ideas and reflected on
their own multifaceted experiences during prayer, experiences they were
eager to share with their disciples and readers. Contextualizing prayer
within the wider discourse of asceticism, the author engages with
scholarship on East Syriac ascetic literature as it developed over the
last one hundred years—if we take Paul Bedjan’s 1908 edition of (the
first part of) Isaac of Nineveh’s Mystic
Treatises and A. J. Wensinck’s 1923 English translation of the
same texts as the starting point. Among the large body of scholarship,
special mention should be made of Sebastian Brock’s 1987 richly
annotated anthology, The Syriac Fathers on Prayer and
the Spiritual Life, which to some extent sets the parameters
for the present book. This new publication, extremely well documented
and eloquently written, marks an important step forward in disclosing
the richness of Syriac ascetic literature.
Chapter 1 (pp. 21–51) introduces the topic of
prayer in its Late Antique context. It briefly surveys the philosophical
tradition, starting with the second-century sophist Maximus of Tyre, and
its reception by Clement of Alexandria and Origen, up to Evagrius, who
understands prayer as “a conversation of the nous
with God” and whose theory “reveals its radical originality in terms of
its religious anthropology and technologies of the self” (pp. 46–47).
Chapter 2 (pp. 53–78) discusses “John of Apamea on Silent Prayer.” While
the tripartite model of John’s anthropology (body, soul, and spirit) was
widely accepted by later ascetic authors, his exposure to Greek learning
and his possible acquaintance with some of Evagrius’ writings remain
debated in present-day scholarship. For the author, “John is
representative of a unique moment in Syriac indigenous spirituality—just
before it was affected by the Evagriana Syriaca”
(p. 78).
In chapter 3 (pp. 79–103), Isaac of Nineveh (late
7th cent.) enters the scene, heir to John of Apamea and an avid reader
of Evagrius. Exploring the boundaries of Evagrius’ notion of “pure
prayer,” Isaac proposes instead the experience of “non-prayer,” a
condition in which prayer is replaced by “wonder”: ܬܡܗܐ (translated as “stupor” on p. 181) or
ܬܗܪܐ. Chapter 4 (pp. 105–135)
deals with Dadishoʿ Qaṭraya, Isaac’s contemporary, who draws his
inspiration from a larger number of sources (including Mark the Monk and
Abba Isaiah) and aims at a wider audience, including simple brothers who
may have less interest in Theodore of Mopsuestia’s biblical exegesis as
practiced in the schools. Chapter 5 (pp. 137–158) has Shemʿon d-ṭaybutheh as its subject, who flourished roughly
in the same period and whose literary corpus remains ill defined. (That
he was a physician and the author of medical writings quoted in Bar
Bahlul and in a number of Arabic sources may be incorrect, as recently
argued by Grigory Kessel.) Shemʿon’s interest in the bodily aspects of
asceticism leads him to a holistic approach to ascetic practice,
understood “as a performance of introspection” (p. 157). Among his
sources of inspiration—in addition to those known to his predecessors—is
the Pseudo-Dionysian corpus, available in Syriac since the early sixth
century and briefly mentioned already by Isaac, but more prominent in
Shemʿon.
With the last two chapters, we move into the eighth
century. Chapter 6 (pp. 159–188) discusses John of Dalyatha whose
mystical discourse “is marked by a density of ecstatic and emotional
expression [and] radical theological claims regarding encounter and
union with the divine” (p. 160). Even more than Shemʿon’s, John’s work
is indebted to Pseudo-Dionysius. Chapter 7 (pp. 189–213) deals with
Joseph Ḥazzaya, who in his description of prayer draws a clear
distinction between prayer “in the sphere of limpidity (ܫܦܝܘܬܐ),” which belongs to the stage of the
soul (ܢܦܫܢܘܬܐ), and prayer in the
spiritual stage (ܪܘܚܢܘܬܐ), where the
intellect’s vision has no image or form, “but is invested with a single
vision of the light, to which nothing can be likened” (p. 197). The book
ends with an “Afterword” (pp. 215–226), a most welcome recapitulation of
some major points at the end of this fascinating and high-energy ascetic
journey.
Carefully selecting the topics of discussion for
each of the chapters, the author fully succeeds in “listen[ing] to the
unique voices of the various texts” (p. ix). In this process, she is
able to bring a good measure of convergence and cohesion to the
multiplicity of texts, with many cross-references and echoes back and
forth. What holds the book together, however, also raises some
questions. The author’s specific interest in deliberate reflections on
prayer and in the discourse on the praying self brings her almost by
definition to the body of literature impacted by the introduction of
Evagrius’ writings to the Syriac-speaking world. Texts that do not fit
this paradigm are left out of consideration, and we run the risk of
losing sight of the broader picture of Syriac literature on prayer. It
is worth noting that Sebastian Brock’s anthology, The
Syriac Fathers on Prayer, has a different scope and includes
Aphrahaṭ, Ephrem, the Book of Steps, Philoxenus,
and others. Even within the Church of the East, Evagrius’ influence was
not felt equally by all ascetic writers, as is shown, for example, by
the Book of Gifts of Shubḥalmaran of Karka d-Beth
Slokh, a contemporary of Babai (ed. David J. Lane, CSCO 612–613/Syr.
236–237, 2004). These non-Evagrian texts stand in the same linguistic,
literary, and cultural tradition and must have been read by the same
monastic communities. Interestingly, the author occasionally points to
expressions or specific ideas that the texts she discusses share with
other Syriac compositions (the concept of “self-emptying,” ܡܣܪܩܘܬܐ, may serve as an example, see
p. 154), thus warning the reader not to regard the selected texts as
disconnected from the rest of Syriac literature.
Partly related is the larger issue of Greek vs.
Syriac. Several of the foundational ascetic texts discussed in this book
are of Greek origin and were subsequently translated into Syriac. Our
Syriac ascetic authors, who may have known some Greek and may have been
aware that the texts had a Greek provenance, only used the Syriac
translations. Given our awareness of historical developments, it is
difficult in our descriptions to avoid terminology that implies some
binary, as the following phrases indicate: “this inter-cultural process
of hybridization, incorporating Greek patristic learning while
maintaining many indigenous features” (p. 8); “the melding of
[Evagrius’] insights with Syriac ascetic transcendent thought … in
addition to other indigenous concepts” (p. 50); “Dadishoʿ’s process of
adoption and selection from the Greek and Syriac literary ascetic
legacy” (p. 106); “[Dadishoʿ’s] efforts to harmonize the amalgam of the
Greek and Syriac ascetic traditions” (p. 115); “[the merging of] Greek
ascetic theories with indigenous Syrian spirituality” (p. 222). While
such language is historically justified, and the author shows much
subtlety and insight in navigating the complex linguistic and cultural
processes, I find her book also to be a stimulus to rethink the ways in
which we talk about the divide between what is Greek and what is
“indigenous” in Syriac literature, even centuries after the
indigenization of much Greek thought.
Finally, I would like to comment on one of the
author’s conclusions, namely “the relative paucity of biblical exegesis
in the formation of the East Syrian mystical discourse” (p. 222) and her
suggestion that “[t]hose authors made a deliberate choice to scrutinize
the self rather than the Scriptures” (p. 224). I would like to offer one
counter-argument. On pp. 90–93, the author discusses the state of
“wonder and stillness,” in which the corporeal consciousness is eclipsed
and which, according to Isaac of Nineveh, is achieved by prayer at the
spiritual stage. The author sees this sensation of “wonder” as Isaac’s
own contribution and refers to it as “the peculiar Syriac notion of
wonder” (p. 174). While the term indeed has a Syriac pedigree and may be
traced back to Ephrem (see Brock, The Syriac Fathers
on Prayer, p. xxxi), Isaac may (also) have thought about
biblical precedents, following Theodore of Mopsuestia. In his treatise
“On the revelations and powers that happen to the saints in images” (ed.
Bedjan, pp. 154–161; tr. Wensinck, pp. 105–109), Isaac explicitly
mentions as his source “the writings of … Theodore , … especially the
three volumes on Genesis … and on Acts.” As is clear from his examples,
Isaac has in mind the state of ἔκστασις which according to the Greek
Bible fell upon Adam (Gen. 2:21, during the creation of Eve), upon
Abraham (Gen. 15:12, following his sacrifice), and upon Peter (Acts
10:10, during his vision). Theodore’s definition of the term ἔκστασις is
preserved in the Greek biblical Catena (ad Gen. 15:12): “the condition of being outside
the awareness of the surrounding things (ἔξω τῆς τῶν παρόντων
αἰσθήσεως), (which) prepares the thought (τὴν διάνοιαν) for the
reception of the theory (θεωρίαν) of the hidden things” (ed. F. Petit,
La chaîne sur la Genèse, III, 1995, p. 58 (no. 964)); a nearly identical definition is
found ad Gen. 2:21 (ed. Petit, La chaîne, I,
1991, p. 205 (no. 299)). Even while the Peshitta reads ܫܠܝܐ “stillness” in the two passages in
Genesis and ܬܡܗܐ “wonder” in Acts,
East Syriac biblical commentators apply Theodore’s explanation
invariably and almost literally to the three passages, as for example
the Diyarbakır Commentary (ed. Van Rompay, CSCO
483–484/Syr.205–206, 1986, pp. 32:13–16 and 74:24–27 [text]; pp. 42 and
96 [transl.]), and Ishoʿdad of Merv (ed. M. D. Gibson and J. R. Harris,
Commentaries on the New Testament, IV, 1903, pp. ܟܚ and 20). It seems very likely that Isaac, in analyzing
the ascetic’s advanced stage of prayer, took his cues from biblical
examples as understood by Theodore. Additional evidence of the prominent
role that biblical exegesis had for the East Syriac ascetical authors
may be seen in Joseph Ḥazzaya’s On Providence
(ed. N. Kavvadas, 2016), which for the most part is a narration of
biblical history, often following in Theodore’s footsteps.
That this new monograph, in addition to offering
such an engaged and well-informed reading of key passages in East Syriac
ascetic literature, also raises interesting questions is the best
guarantee for its usefulness in future research. By covering five of the
most prominent writers over a period of two centuries, the author
provides a broader framework and a number of signposts, which lead us to
a fuller appreciation of an important subfield of Syriac literature and,
more generally, of the intellectual history of Syriac Christianity. This
is a most welcome contribution for which we should be very thankful!