Aho Shemunkasho, ed. and tr., John of Dara,
On the Resurrection of Human Bodies (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2020)
Kelli Bryant
Gibson
Abilene Christian University
TEI XML encoding by
James E. Walters
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute
2022
Volume 25.2
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/hv25n2prgibson
Kelli Bryant Gibson
Aho Shemunkasho, ed. and tr., John of Dara,
On the Resurrection of Human Bodies (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2020)
https://hugoye.bethmardutho.org/pdf/vol25/HV25N2PRGibson.pdf
Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute, 2022
vol 25
issue 2
pp 497-501
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
Aho Shemunkasho, ed. and tr., John of Dara,
On the Resurrection of Human Bodies (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2020).
Pp. ix + 597; $165.
While little is known about the life of the ninth-century
Syriac Orthodox metropolitan bishop John (Iwannis) of Dara (d. 860), he has left
behind a rich literary corpus. Apart from the commentary On the
Divine Liturgy, published 50 years ago, Syriac edition and French translation: Jean
Sader, Le De Oblatione de Jean de Dara, CSCO 308–309
/ Syr. 132–133 (Louvain: Peeters, 1970); English translation: Baby Varghese,
John of Dara: Commentary on the Eucharist, Moran
Etho 12 (Kerala, India: SEERI, 1999). none of John of Dara’s
works are available in modern editions and translations. Aho Shemunkasho’s edition
and translation of John of Dara’s four
memre On the Resurrection of Human Bodies (On the Resurrection) This volume is a publication of Shemunkasho’s 2017
habilitation thesis, completed in the course of his work for the Department
of Biblical and Ecclesiastical History at the University of Salzburg (p.
vii). is a valuable contribution to the study of an
underappreciated author. According to Shemunkasho, John’s treatises
On the Resurrection are “the most
detailed and offer the richest exposition of the concept of resurrection . . . in
the whole Syriac tradition” (p. 4). In these works, John proves to be a skilled
exegete who is well-versed in a wide range of patristic and philosophical sources.
One outstanding achievement of the volume is Shemunkasho’s painstaking effort to
identify John’s many citations and allusions and compare them to known Syriac
versions of biblical, patristic, and philosophical works.
The first three chapters offer a literary review of scholarship
on John of Dara, sketch his ninth-century context, and introduce his life and work.
The fourth chapter explains the conventions of the edition, followed by the Syriac
text. The fifth chapter contains the English translation. A bibliography and an
index of biblical, patristic, and other citations complete the volume.
After the introduction and literature review in the first
chapter, Shemunkasho’s second chapter outlines the broad contours of Syriac
Christianity in the ninth-century Abbasid Caliphate. With little biographical
information to go on, Shemunkasho attempts to reconstruct a plausible cultural and
religious context for John, as though to trace his silhouette by filling in the
negative space. Shemunkasho compiles all the available information about the city of
Dara and its Syriac Orthodox bishops. He surveys the political situation of
Christians in the Golden Age of the Abbasid Caliphate, Christian reactions to the
growth of Islam, and the Graeco-Arabic translation movement. He situates John of
Dara’s works among those of his Syriac contemporaries, especially other Syriac
treatises on the resurrection. Shemunkasho has indeed pulled together many useful
details for understanding John of Dara’s works in context, but it is a broad sweep
rather than a deep one. At times the reader is left wondering about the rationale
for including certain details; a stronger authorial voice would be welcome here.
Overall, Shemunkasho’s historical sketch underscores the need for a more complete
narrative of Syriac Christianity in the Abbasid Golden Age. Editions and
translations of primary sources like this one are vital for that larger task.
Chapter three includes extensive tables of all of John of
Dara’s known works in the oldest extant manuscripts, listing the individual chapter
titles in Syriac with English translations. The information provided in these tables
goes far beyond the scope of the present study, but they are certainly a boon to
scholars who wish to find particular subjects across John of Dara’s corpus.
One curious omission is a discussion of the authorship of On the Resurrection, especially since the attribution to John
of Dara has been questioned. In 1973, Werner Strothmann argued that the real author
of these treatises is Mushe bar Kepha. Werner Strothmann, Moses Bar Kepha.
Myron-Weihe (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1973), 23–25.
Anton Baumstark had listed identically titled works On the
Resurrection of the Body for John of Dara and Mushe bar Kepha. Anton Baumstark, Geschichte der syrischen Literatur, mit Ausschluss der
christlich-palästinensischen Texte (Bonn: A. Marcus und E. Webers,
1922), 277 and 281, respectively. Strothmann assumed these are a
single work by a single author and put forth two arguments in favor of Mushe bar
Kepha. First, he noted that the treatise On the Resurrection
employs a question-and-answer format, a style used frequently by Mushe. Based on the
absence of this literary device in
John’s Commentary on the Divine Liturgy,
Strothmann assumed that John never used the question-and-answer format. However,
Shemunkasho reveals that John did sometimes use this literary device. E.g., the memra “On
the Divine Economy” (p. 45). Strothmann’s second argument
apparently relies on a manuscript description in the catalog of the Mingana
Collection. Strothmann observes that John’s “three” treatises on the resurrection
contain a total of 34 chapters, the same number of chapters that Mushe wrote on the
topic. He concludes that these must be the same work, abruptly declaring Mushe the
author. However, the entry in the Mingana Collection catalog obscures the fact that
John wrote four treatises on the topic, not three, for a
total of 58 chapters. Alphonse Mingana, Catalogue of the
Mingana Collection of Manuscripts now in the Possession of the Trustees
of the Woodbrooke Settlement (Cambridge: W. Heffer and Sons, 1933),
I:154–155. The catalog description of the first three memre expressly
mentions the resurrection of the body, but it simply describes the fourth
memra as “on the end of the world, on the next world, and on heaven and
hell.” Shemunkasho’s work demonstrates that this memra belongs with the
three preceding it. Though Strothmann’s arguments are based on
shaky evidence, simply raising the question has placed these memre in the category
of “disputed writings” for some. For example, Elizabeth L. Anderson’s dissertation
excludes consideration of texts “that are more disputed such as those on the
resurrection and the soul.” Anderson, “The Interpretation of
Pseudo-Dionysius in the Works of John of Dara” (Ph. D. dissertation, Yale
University, 2016), 4. Shemunkasho is familiar with Strothmann’s
work, and he observes that there are some similarities between Mushe bar Kepha’s and
John of Dara’s treatises
On the Resurrection (pp. 34–35). He does
not, however, directly engage the question of authorship, even though his own work
shows how untenable Strothmann’s argument is. While questions may remain about the
relationship between these two works, the notion that they are identical works by
the same author should be laid to rest. Addressing the question of authorship is
essential for a study like this one, especially as it would help scholars move
beyond out-of-date arguments.
Shemunkasho uses a manuscript from the Syriac Orthodox
Bishopric of Mosul (M) as his base manuscript; presumably it has no shelf mark, as
none is given. The manuscript is not dated, but based on the paleography,
Shemunkasho estimates that it is from the tenth century. The script in M is similar
to that of Shemunkasho’s second main manuscript, Vatican Syriac 100 (V), which was
among the manuscripts taken from Baghdad to Egypt by Mushe of Nisibis in 932 ce. Shemunkasho posits a close relationship between the
two manuscripts: either they are copies of the same manuscript or V was copied from
M. Though Shemunkasho uses M as the base text, he sometimes prefers a reading from
V, and he uses readings from V where M is defective; square brackets clearly mark
these passages. In the apparatus, Shemunkasho lists variant readings from V, gives
information about the condition of the manuscript(s), and identifies quotations of
and allusions to the Bible, along with a select number of patristic citations. In
the body text of the edition, he has included the folio number, recto/verso, and
columns for both manuscripts. While this information is valuable, a marginal note or
footnote would have been less disruptive. Shemunkasho’s decision to format
quotations from verse homilies according to their meter is a nice editorial touch.
Shemunkasho notes in the introduction that his translation
follows the Syriac text very closely, sometimes resulting in an awkward English
style (p. 6). The translation is indeed quite wooden, though it is usually accurate
and the meaning discernible. Sometimes, however, following the Syriac text so
closely renders the translation confusing or opaque. In many cases, small changes to
the English word order would improve the clarity and flow without straying far from
the Syriac.
The book does contain many typos, formatting issues, and
spelling inconsistencies, especially of proper nouns (for example, ‘Umayyad’ is
spelled three different ways, see pp. 13 and 23). This problem particularly affects
the first three chapters, but the footnotes in the edition and translation also
contain occasional errors. While these do not detract from the quality of
Shemunkasho’s scholarship, they are distracting. One mistake worth noting is that
the edition attributes a quotation to Jacob of Serugh (p. 122), whereas the
translation has “Jacob [of Edessa]” in the main text (p. 382). The supporting
footnote on p. 382 correctly indicates that Jacob of Serugh is intended, but the
index still lists p. 382 under Jacob of Edessa, not Jacob of Serugh.
Overall, Aho Shemunkasho has done a great service with his
thorough introduction to John of Dara’s work and context and his edition and
translation of this remarkable collection of
memre On the Resurrection of Human Bodies.
His detailed analysis of John of Dara’s biblical, patristic, and other sources is
valuable. Hopefully, more of John of Dara’s works will appear in comparably skillful
editions and translations—perhaps without the interval of half a century this
time!