West-Syriac Synodal Decrees of Callinicos 818

Among the Syriac manuscript collection that is found in the Oriental Institute-Chicago University, there are six leaves of Syriac parchments from the mid-ninth century, registration number: A12001-A12006.1 These leaves belonged to the same manuscript known as “the Canonical Collection of Basibrīnā” that was described but reported missing by Afrām Barṣawm2 during World War I.3 A short description of these fragments is included in A Checklist of Syriac Manuscripts in the United States and Canada by J. T. Clemons.4 Among these leaves is a fragment containing West-Syriac Synodal Decrees of Callinicos 818. This rediscovered document reveals the dynamics of ecclesial events and positions during the synod and the development of these affairs after the synod. Therefore, this article aims to present the Syriac text with an English translation of the synodal decrees of Callinicos 818, followed by observation and commentary. It sheds some light on the missing manuscript of “the Canonical Collection of Basibrīnā” and the recent rediscovery of a few leaves from this manuscript.

Lost Extensive Canonical Jurisprudential Manuscript Known as “Canons of Basibrīnā”

The story of the rediscovery that we are about to present to the reader dates to the year 1911, when the Syriac Orthodox monk Afrām Barṣawm (1887–1957), who later became the patriarch of his church, visited the region of Ṭūrʿabdīn in southeast Turkey and examined the manuscripts kept in its churches and monasteries. Barṣawm found a ninth-century century manuscript in the Village of Basibrīnā.5 This manuscript contained an extensive collection of canons and some historical tracts composed between the third and ninth centuries. In his catalog, The Manuscripts of Ṭūrʿabdīn,6 Barṣawm described the manuscript as a large Syriac manuscript dated mid-ninth century written on parchment, two columns per page, in Syriac Estrangelo script:

كتاب جليل نفيس جدا فريد في مواضيعه وفوائده، على رق اسطرنجيلي القلم بخط دقيق غاية في الحسن أشبه بخطنا اليوم ضخم متوسط الحجم في كل صفحة عمودان كتبه ساويرا المانعمي بين سنة 855-885 م وهو من مخطوطات خزانة دير قرتمين. وقع في تجليده تبلبل.

“A very remarkable and exceptional book, unique in its subjects and benefits, (written) on parchment in a very beautiful Estrangelo script, similarly to our handwriting nowadays. It (the manuscript) is quite large, with two columns per page. It was written by Severus of Beṯ Manʿem between the years 855 and 885 A.D. It (the manuscript) belonged to the manuscripts found in the library of the Monastery of Qartmin. Its binding is untidy”.7

Barṣawm gave a detailed description of the contents of the manuscript in his catalog of the Syriac manuscripts in Ṭūrʿabdīn:

يشتمل على دسقالية الرسل وكتاب قليميس ورسالة برنابا وقوانين المجامع القديمة والأباء ومناشير وقوانين مجامع كفرنبو وبيت باتين ودير مار شيلا والرقة وتواقيع اباء هذا المجمع – ورسائل سينوديقية لبطاركة انطاكية والاسكندرية من سنة 512 حتى 848 – ومنشور اثناسيوس الثاني وقوانين رابولا ورسائل شتى لمار يعقوب الرهاوي ومار فيلكسينس ومار سويريوس ويوحنا التلي وتوما اسقف جرمانيقي وسرجيوس امغياطور وساويرا الأسقف وجرجس اسقف العرب واوتاليوس الأسقف وشمعون رئيس دير العرب وأجوبة لثاودوسيوس الرهاوي وقوانين الملوك، ونبذة من تاريخ سقراط وتاريخ ديني مدني مختصر من سنة 309 حتى 1130 ي وهو الذي نشرناه في باريس سنة 1914 م ونبذ من رسائل القديس اغناطيوس النوراني ورسائل لمار يعقوب السروجي ورسالة من لاون الروماني الى مرقيان الملك. وبيان عدد الكراسي الأسقفية في البطريركية الأنطاكية وأسماء البطاركة من مار سويريوس حتى ديونيسيوس وغير ذلك. وضياع هذا الكنز في الحرب العالمية قبل ان نتمكن من الحصول على نسخة منه خسارة علمية كبرى، واليك ثبت مواضيعه التي نقلناها منه سنة 1911م

“It (the manuscript) contains the Didascalia Apostolorum, the Book of Clement, the Letter of Barnabas, the canons of the ancient Synods and church fathers, the proclamations and canons of the synods of Kfar Nabu,8 Beth Botīn, Monastery of Mor Šīlō, Callinicos, and the signatures of the fathers of this synod. The synodical letters exchanged between the patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria between 512 and 848. The proclamation of (Patriarch) Athanasius II, the canons of Rabbula. Several letters by Jacob of Edessa, Saint Philoxenos (of Mabbugh), Saint Severus, John of Tella, Thomas Bishop of Germanicia, Sergius Amghyāṭūr, Bishop Severus, George, bishop of the Arabs, Bishop Euthalius, Simon the abbot of the Monastery of Arabs, the answers of Theodosius of Edessa, the canons of the kings, an extract from the history of Socrates, a short ecclesiastical and secular history from the year 309 to 1130 A.G., which is the same as what we published in Paris in 1914, extracts from the letters of Saint Ignatius the Illuminator, and letters by Jacob of Serugh. A letter from Pope Leo the Roman to Emperor Marcian. The record of the episcopal sees of the patriarchate of Antioch, the names of the patriarchs from Mor Severus to Dionysius, and others (documents). Losing this treasure during World War (I) before we could get a copy of it was a great scientific loss. Here are the topics that we recorded in 1911”.9

Because of its extensive content of canonical jurisprudential texts, Barṣawm referred to this manuscript as: “The Canons of Basibrīnā”,10 “Book of Canons in Basibrīnā”,11 or “the Collection of Canons of Basibrīnā.”12 Barṣawm mentioned that two people were involved in the production of this manuscript. It was copied by Monk Severus from the village of Beth Manʿem,13 nephew of Bishop David of Ḥarran, who had requested that it be copied. Then, Bishop David of Ḥarran gave the manuscript to the Monastery of Qartmin,14 “where it was kept most of the time until its loss during World War I”:

“Dawud ascended the See of Harran after Gewargi (Jirjis) II. He was well known as Dawud of Manimʿim, after the name of his native village in Tur ʿAbdin. He was a relative of Simeon of the Olives. He became a monk at the Monastery of Qartmin and was ordained a bishop by Patriarch Yuhanna IV, being the 26th bishop the patriarch had ordained. Bishop Dawud, one of the best Fathers, lived between 855 and 880.  In the Calendar (of Saliba ibn Khayrun), his commemoration is mentioned on February 4. He bequeathed his books and other precious items to his monastery (of Qartmin). They included a collection of canons copied on vellum by his nephew (son of his sister) Sawera (Severus) of Manim’im. Later, Bishop David of Haran bequeathed the manuscript to the monastery of Qartmin where it remained for a long time until it was lost a few years after 1911 during the First War World”.15

Unfortunately, the manuscript was lost during the First World War. Barṣawm described its loss by saying: “the loss of this treasure in the World War before obtaining a copy of it is a great scientific loss”.16

Rediscovery of Six Fragments from the “Collection of Canons of Basibrīnā”

During my cataloging work of the Syriac manuscripts collection found in the Oriental Institute Museum-Chicago, I came across six old leaves of Syriac parchment with registration numbers: A12001 to A12006. The acquisition of these leaves, together with two other Syriac manuscripts: OIM A11997, and OIM A11999, occurred on July 1st, 1928, by Martin Sprengling, Professor of Semitic Languages at the University of Chicago.17 Sprengling purchased them from Afrām Barṣawm, who then became the Syriac Orthodox archbishop of Syria and Lebanon. From the chronology of his life, we know that after his journey to Geneva and Lausanne as an apostolic delegate to the World Conference on Faith and Order (August 3–21, 1927), Afrām Barṣawm came as an emissary of the Patriarch to the United States, where he investigated the condition of the Syriac Orthodox Church, consecrated three new churches, and ordained new priests. In the USA, Afrām Barṣawm gave lectures on the Syriac language and literature at Providence University and the University of Chicago and served at the Oriental Institute of the latter institution until his return in 1929. The purchase of the Syriac manuscripts occurred most probably while he was visiting Chicago.

Courtesy of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago

The fragments on parchment: OIM A12001, A12002, A12003, A12004, A12005, and A12006, written in Syriac Estrangelo, dated to the mid-ninth century, belonged to the same manuscript. This claim is based on the size of the leaves, the type of parchment, and the matching physical marks that appear on the leaves, such as wear, tears, cuts, wrinkling, discoloring, and holes. Also, the contents of this collection of fragments run through more than one leaf. So, part of the text continues from one leaf to another. In addition, the unity of these fragments is based on the same handwriting, ink, Syriac script, and approximate date.

A short description of these fragments was included in A Checklist of Syriac Manuscripts in the United States and Canada, by J. T. Clemons:18

A 12000. Evangeliary. Vellum; c. 8x12 in; I f; 2 cols; at least 21 l; brown and red ink; very large letters.

A 12001. Evangeliary. Minor Chronicle and List of Bishoprics; Vellum; c. 8x12 in; I f; 2 cols; 42-43; brown and red ink marginalia; p. i.

A 12002. Evangeliary. Minor Chronicle and List of Bishoprics. Vellum; c. 8x12 in; I f; 2 cols; 40 1; brown ink with red markings; one side badly stained; p.i.

A 12003. Evangeliary. Minor Chronicle and List of Bishoprics. Vellum; c. 8x12 in; I f; 2 cols; 44 45 1; brown ink with red markings; one has written in a different hand near the bottom in black ink; p.i.

A 12004. Evangeliary. Minor Chronicle and List of Bishoprics. Vellum; c. 8x12 in; I f; 2 cols; 46 1; brown ink with red markings; a larger hand was used in writing the bottom portions; p.i.

A 12005. Evangeliary. Minor Chronicle and List of Bishoprics. Vellum; c. 8x11 ½ in; I f; 2 cols; 45 1; brown ink with red markings; p.i.

A 12006. Evangeliary. Minor Chronicle and List of Bishoprics. Vellum; c. 8x11 ½ in; I f; 2 cols; 45 1; red and brown ink; p.i.

Unfortunately, Clemons’s very brief description is vague and incorrect. The Syriac fragments A12001 to A12006 comprise the following subjects:

• OIM A12001 Recto and Verso:
• A remaining part of the agreement issued at the Synod of Callinicos 818 (fol. 1r).
• A list of forty-eight bishops who signed the Synodal decision of Callinicos 818 (fol. 1r – fol. 1v).
• A remaining part of the letter issued by the Syr. Orth. Patriarch Dionysius (818–845)19 and the bishops that preceded the canons of Synod Callinicos 818 (fol. 1v).
• OIM A12002 recto: Canons of not yet identified Syriac Orthodox Synod issued probably during the eighth century.20
• OIM A12002 recto and verso: A record of episcopal sees of the patriarchate of Antioch known as Notitia Antiochena.21
• OIM A12003 – A 12006: A short, annotated chronological table of events and notable persons from the birth of Christ to 819.22

The contents of the six leaves are unique and were mentioned by Barṣawm as found only in the manuscript of the “Canons of Basibrīnā.” Also, these six leaves were purchased by the Oriental Institute, and two other manuscripts were originally from Basibrīnā. The scribal and marginal notes found in the margins of the texts are the same mentioned by Barṣawm. The incomplete fragmentary texts transcribed by Barṣawm from the manuscript of “Canons of Basibrīnā” exactly match the remaining parts of the same texts found in the Syriac parchment leaves of the Oriental Institute Museum-Chicago.

Edition

(... ... ...) ܠܪܚܡܬ ܛܝܒܘܬܗ ܕܐܠܗܐ܇ ܗܘ ܕܨܒܐ ܕܢܬܟܢܫ ܘܢܬܦܢܐ ܘܠܫܘܬܦܘܬܐ ܕܝܠܗ ܦܩܕ ܟܠ ܘܡܬܛܦܝܣܝܢܢ ܕܥܠ ܫܦܝܪܘܬ ܡܛܟܣܢܘܬܐ ܕܩܢܘ̈ܢܐ ܥܕܬܢ̈ܝܐ. ܘܠܡܕܒܪܢܘܬܐ ܐܠܗܝܬܐ ܕܐܒ̈ܗܬܐ ܩܕ̈ܝܫܐ ܕܡܢ ܩܕܡܝܢ. ܕܒܪܢܢ ܘܦܣܩܢܢ ܘܬܚܡܢܢ ܟܕ ܫܦܝܪ ܝܕܥܝܢܢ ܟܠܢ. ܕܡܢ ܙܒ̈ܢܐ ܩܕܡ̈ܝܐ ܗܟܢܐ ܒܚܕܐ ܫܠܡܘܬܐ ܕܠܐ ܚܪܝܢܐ ܪܕܬ ܥܕܬܐ ܕܐܠܗܐ. ܟܕ ܡܢܗܘܢ ܡܢ ܐܡܪܝܢ܇ ܡܢܗܘܢ ܕܝܢ ܠܐ ܐܡܪܝܢ ܗܘܘ. ܘܠܐ ܣܟ ܐܬܚܪܝܘ ܐܘ ܫܓܫܘ ܠܚܕܕ̈ܐ ܡܛܠ ܗܕܐ܇ ܥܕܡܐ ܠܙܒܢܐ ܗܢܐ ܕܝܠܢ. ܘܗܠܝܢ ܬܚܡܢܢ. ܟܕ ܠܐ ܣܟ ܡܬܦܫܟܝܢܢ ܒܚܕ ܡܢ ܙܢܝ̈ܢ܇ ܕܠܘ ܠܚܡܐ ܫܡܝܢܐ ܡܫܪܪܐ ܘܒܣܘܥܪܢܐ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ. ܦܓܪܐ ܩܕܝܫܐ ܕܒܪܗ ܕܐܠܗܐ ܗܘ ܕܡܢ ܡܕܒ̈ܚܐ ܟܗܢ̈ܝܐ ܢܣܒܝܢܢ. ܐܠܐ ܟܠܢ ܡܘܕܝܢܢ ܗܕܐ ܟܕ ܬܚܝܬ ܚܪܡܐ ܣܝܡܝܢܢ܇ ܠܟܠ ܕܠܐ ܡܘܕܐ ܥܡܢ ܕܠܚܡܐ ܫܡܝܢܐ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ. ܗܘ ܕܢܣܒܝܢܢ ܡܢ ܡܕܒܚ̈ܐ ܩܕܝܫ̈ܐ܇ ܐܝܟ ܕܡܠܦܢܘܬܗ ܕܩܕܝܫܐ ܘܪܒܐ ܡܪܝ ܣܐܘܝܪܐ ܦܛܪܝܪܟܐ. ܘܠܫܘܪܪܐ ܕܗܕܐ. ܟܠܢ ܐܪܡܝܢܢ ܐܝܕܐ ܡܦܣܝܦܣܡܐ ܓܘܢܝܐ ܀ ܀ ܀ ܀ ܀

ܕܝܢܘܣܝܘܣ ܕܒܪ̈ܚܡܐ ܕܐܠܗܐ ܦܛܪܝܪܟܐ ܕܟܘܪܣܝܐ ܫܠܝܚܝܐ ܕܐܢܛܝܘܟܝܐ ܕܣܘܪܝܐ، ܟܕ ܠܗܠܝܢ ܕܡܢ ܠܥܠ ܡܫܪܪ ܐܢܐ ܐܪܡܝܬ ܐܝܕܐ ܀

ܐܢܐ ܒܣܝܠܝܘܣ ܡܝܛ̄ܪ ܕܬܓܪܝܬ ܘܪܝܫ ܟܘܪܣܝܐ ܕܡܕܢܚܐ ܟܕ ܫܠܡܬ ܐܪܡܝܬ ܐܝܕܐ ܀

ܐܢܐ ܒܪܚܕܒܫܒܐ ܐܦܝ̄ܣ ܕܡܪܓܐ ܕܫܠܡܬ ܠܗܠܝܢ ܕܡܢ ܠܥܠ ܘܐܪܡܝܬ ܐܝܕܐ ܀

ܐܢܐ ܝܘܚܢܢ ܐܦܝ̄ܣ ܕܓܪܡܢܝܩܝܐ ܝܗܒܬ ܫܠܡܘܬܐ ܠܫܠܡܘܢ ܕܩܘܪܘܣ ܘܢܩܦܬ ܠܡܕܒܪܢܘܬܐ ܕܣܘܢܕܘܣ ܗܕܐ ܩܕܝܫܬܐ ܀

ܐܢܐ ܓܘܪܓܝ ܐܦܝ̄ܣ ܕܩܢܫܪܝܢ ܕܝܗܒܬ ܫܠܡܘܬܐ ܕܝܠܝ ܠܚܐܢܢܝܐ ܣܥܘܪܐ ܕܝܠܝ ܘܠܣܘܢܕܘܣ ܩܕܝܫܬܐ ܀

ܐܢܐ ܐܗܪܘܢ ܐܦܝ̄ܣ ܕܡܝܠܝܛܝܢܝ ܕܫܠܡܬ ܠܗܠܝܢ ܕܡܢ ܠܥܠ ܘܪܫܡܬ ܒܟܬܝܒܬ ܐܝܕܐ ܕܝܠܝ ܀

ܐܢܐ ܙܟܪܝܐ ܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ ܕܐܘܪܗܝ ܕܫܠܡܬ ܠܗܠܝܢ ܕܡܢ ܠܥܠ ܘܐܪܡܝܬ ܐܝܕܐ ]ܡܢ ܥܘܡܪܐ ܕܩܪܬܡܝܢ[33܀

ܐܢܐ ܩܘܣܛܢܛܝܢܐ ܕܕܠܝܟ ܕܫܠܡܬ ܘܐܪܡܝܬ ܐܝܕܐ ܀

ܬܐܘܕܣܝܘܣ ܐܦܝ̄ܣ ܕܣܠܘܩܝܐ ܕܫܠܡܬ ܠܗܠܝܢ ܕܡܢ ܠܥܠ ܘܐܪܡܝܬ ܐܝܕܐ ܀

ܬܐܘܡܐ ܐܦܝ̄ܣ ܕܐܢܣܛܣܝܐ ܕܗܝ ܕܪܐ ܕܫܠܡܬ ܘܐܪܡܝܬ ܐܝܕܐ ܘܠܗܠܝܢ ܕܡܢ ܠܥܠ ܫܪܪܬ ܥܡ ܐܚ̈ܝ ܚܣܝ̈ܐ ܀

ܐܢܐ ܬܐܘܕܣܝܘܣ ܡܝܛܪܘ̄ܦܘ ܕܩܠܝܢܝܩܘܣ ܕܫܠܡܬ ܘܐܪܡܝܬ ܐܝܕܐ ܀

ܕܘܡܝܢܐ ܐܦܝ̄ܣ ܕܣܪܘܓ ܕܫܠܡܬ ܠܗܠܝܢ ܘܐܪܡܝܬ ܐܝܕܐ ܀

ܫܡܥܘܢ ܐܦܝ̄ܣ ܕܬܐܘܕܡܪ ܕܫܠܡܬ ܘܐܪܡܝܬ ܐܝܕܐ ܀

ܐܢܐ ܛܝܡܘܬܐܘܣ ܡܝܛܪܘܦܘܠܝܛܘܣ ܕܐܘܪܫܠܡ ܕܝܗܒܬ ܫܠܡܘܬܐ ܠܐܦܝ̄ܣ ܬܐܘܕܘܣܝܘܣ ܕܣܠܘܩܝܐ ܘܠܣܝܢܘܕܘܣ ܩܕܝܫܬܐ ܀

ܚܒܝܒ ܕܒܪ̈ܚܡܐ ܕܐܠܗܐ ܡܝܛ̄ܪܘ ܕܐܘܦܡܝܐ ܕܫܠܡܬ ܠܗܠܝܢ ܕܒܟܬܒܐ ܗܢܐ ܀

ܦܝܠܟܣܝܢܘܣ ܐܦܝ̄ܣ ܕܢܨܝܒܝܢ ܕܫܠܡܬ ܠܗܠܝܢ ܕܡܢ ܠܥܠ ܘܪܫܡܬ ܀

ܚܒܝܒ ܕܒܪ̈ܚܡܐ ܕܐܠܗܐ ܐܦܝ̄ܣ ܕܒܓܐܕܕ ܕܫܠܡܬ ܘܐܪܡܝܬ ܐܝܕܐ ܀

ܐܢܐ ܐܝܓܢܛܝܘܣ ܡܝܛ̄ܪܘ ܕܐܢܙܐܪܒܐ ܕܫܠܡܬ ܘܐܪܡܝܬ ܐܝܕܐ ܀

ܬܐܘܕܣܝܘܣ ܡܝܛ̄ܪܘ ܕܐܘܪܗܝ ܕܫܠܡܬ ܠܗܠܝܢ ܕܡܢ ܠܥܠ ܘܐܪܡܝܬ ܐܝܕܐ ܀

ܐܪܐܒܝ ܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ ܕܪܝܫܥܝܢܐ ܕܫܠܡܬ ܘܐܪܡܝܬ ܐܝܕܐ ܀

ܫܠܝܡܘܢ ܐܦܝ̄ܣ ܕܩܘܪܣ ܕܢܩܦܬ ܠܗܠܝܢ ܕܡܢ ܠܥܠ ܀

ܢܩܝܡ ܐܦܝ̄ܣ ܕܩܪܩܣܝܘܢ ܕܫܠܡܬ ܘܐܪܡܝܬ ܐܝܕܐ ܀

ܐܠܝܐ ܕܒܪ̈ܚܡܐ ܕܐܠܗܐ ܐܦܝ̄ܣ ܕܚܕܬ ܕܫܠܡܬ ܘܐܪܡܝܬ ܐܝܕܐ ܀

ܣܪܓܝܣ ܐܦܝ̄ܣ ܕܒܝܬ ܢܗܕܪܐ ܕܫܠܡܬ ܘܐܪܡܝܬ ܐܝܕܐ ܀

ܐܒܪܗܡ ܐܦܝܣ̄ܩܘ ܕܬܓܠܒܝ̈ܐ ܕܫܠܡܬ ܘܐܪܡܝܬ ܐܝܕܐ ܀

ܚܒܝܒ ܐܦܝ̄ܣ ܕܢܪܣܝܒܕ ܟܕ ܫܠܡܬ ܐܪܡܝܬ ܐܝܕܐ ܀

ܬܐܘܕܘܪܐ ܐܦܝܣ̄ܩܘ ܕܟܝܫܘܡ ܟܕ ܫܠܡܬ ܐܪܡܝܬ ܐܝܕܐ ܀

ܠܥܙܪ ܐܦܝ̄ܣ ܕܓܫܪܐ ܕܫܠܡܬ ܘܐܪܡܝܬ ܐܝܕܐ ܀

ܫܡܥܘܢ ܡܝܛ̄ܪܘ ܕܐܪܨܦܐ ܕܫܠܡܬ ܘܐܪܡܝܬ ܐܝܕܐ ܀

ܕܢܝܐܝܠ ܐܦܝ̄ܣ ܕܚܠܒ ܕܫܪܪܬ ܠܗܠܝܢ ܘܐܪܡܝܬ ܐܝܕܐ ܀

ܝܥܩܘܒ ܐܦܝ̄ܣ ܕܐܘܪܡ ܟܕ ܫܠܡܬ ܐܪܡܝܬ ܐܝܕܐ ܀

ܓܘܪܓܝ ܐܦܝ̄ܣ (A 12001 verso)ܕܫܡܝܫܛ ܕܫܠܡܬ ܠܗܠܝܢ ܕܡܢ ܠܥܠ ܘܐܪܡܝܬ ܐܝܕܐ ܀

ܚܒܝܒ ܡܝܛ̄ܪܘ ܕܐܪܣܝܐ ܕܚܬܡܬ ܒܟܬܝܒܬ ܐܝܕܐ ܕܝܠܝ ܀

ܐܘܓܪܝܣ ܐܦܝ̄ܣ ܕܐܪܕܥܬ ܕܫܠܡܬ ܘܐܪܡܝܬ ܐܝܕܐ ܀

ܝܘܚܢܢ ܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ ܕܩܢܣܛܢܛܝܢܐ ܕܗܝ ܬܠܠܐ ܕܫܠܡܬ ܘܚܬܡܬ ܘܐܪܡܝܬ ܐܝܕܐ ܀

ܡܝܬܘܕܐܘܣ ܐܦܝܣ̄ܩ ܕܐܫܦܪܝܢ ܕܫܠܡܬ ܠܗܠܝܢ ܕܡܢ ܠܥܠ ܀

ܓܐܘܪܓܝ ܐܦܝ̄ܣ ܕܡܝܦܪܩܛ ܟܕ ܫܠܡܬ ܠܗܠܝܢ ܐܪܡܝܬ ܐܝܕܐ ܀

ܝܘܚܢܢ ܐܦܝܣ̄ ܕܩܪܕܘ ܕܫܠܡܬ ]ܠܗܠܝܢ ܕܡܢ ܠܥܠ[ ܘܐܪܡܝܬ ܐܝܕܐ ܀

ܐܕܝ ܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ ܕܟܪ̈ܡܐ ܕܢܩܦܬ ܠܗܠܝܢ ܕܡܢ ܠܥܠ ܘܪܫܡܬ ܀

ܐܠܝܐ ܐܦܝ̄ܣ ܕܫܝܓܪ ܕܫܠܡܬ ܘܐܪܡܝܬ ܐܝܕܐ ܀

ܚܙܩܐܝܠ ܐܦܝ̄ܣ ܕܛܘܪܥܒܕܝܢ ܟܕ ܫܠܡܬ ܚܬܡܬ ܒܟܬܒܬ ܐܝܕܐ ܕܝܠܝ ܀

ܓܒܪܐܝܠ ܐܦܝ̄ܣ ܕܐܪ̈ܡܢܝܐ ܟܕ ܢܩܦܬ ܠܗܠܝܢ ܕܡܢ ܠܥܠ ܘܐܪܡܝܬ ܐܝܕܐ ܀

ܐܝܓܢܛܝܘܣ ܐܦܝ̄ܣ ܕܡܪܕܐ ܟܕ ܫܠܡܬ ܐܪܡܝܬ ܐܝܕܐ ܀

ܓܐܘܪܓܝ ܐܦܝ̄ܣ ܕܚܪܢ ܕܫܠܡܬ ܘܐܪܡܝܬ ܐܝܕܐ ܀

ܬܐܘܡܐ ܐܦܝ̄ܣ ܕܪܝܫ ܟܐܦܐ ܕܢܩܦܬ ܘܐܪܡܝܬ ܐܝܕܐ ܒܗܠܝܢ ܕܡܢ ܠܥܠ ܀34

ܝܘܐܢܝܣ ܐܦܝ̄ܣ ܕܒܝܬ ܒܠܫ ܩܐܣܛܪܐ ܕܫܠܡܬ ܘܐܪܡܝܬ ܐܝܕܐ ܀35

ܕܐܘܝܕ ܐܦܝ̄ܣ ܕܐܓܪܘܦܣ ܟܕ ܢܩܦܬ ܐܪܡܝܬ ܐܝܕܐ ܀

ܬܐܘܦܝܠܐ ܐܦܝ̄ܣ ܕܙܘܒܛܪܐ ܟܕ ܫܠܡܬ ܠܗܠܝܢ ܐܪܡܝܬ ܐܝܕܐ ܀

ܚܒܝܒ ܐܦܝ̄ܣ ܡܢ ܓܘܒܐ ܒܪܝܐ ܕܫܠܡܬ ܠܗܠܝܢ ܘܐܪܡܝܬ ܐܝܕܐ ܀

ܐܢܐ ܝܘܚܢܢ ܩܫܝܫܐ ܬܐܒܠܝܐ ܡܢܗ ܕܥܘܡܪܐ ܕܫܠܡ ܐܢܐ ܠܗܠܝܢ ܕܡܢ ܠܥܠ ܀

ܐܢܐ ܓܐܘܪܓܝ ܘܐܢܬܝܡܐ ܘܝܘܣܦ ܡܫܡܫ̈ܢܐ ܡܢܗ ܕܥܘܡܪܐ ܥܡ ܫܪܟܐ ܕܟܠܗܘܢ ܒܢ̈ܝ ܥܘܡܪܐ ܕܓܘܒܐ ܒܪܝܐ، ܕܦܪ̈ܨܘܦܝܗܘܢ ܡܫܡܠܝܢܢ، ܕܫܠܡܝܢܢ ܫܪܝܪܐܝܬ ܠܗܠܝܢ ܕܫܪܪܬ ܣܘܢܕܘܣ ܩܕܝܫܬܐ ܘܐܪܡܝܢܢ ܐܝܕܐ ܀

ܬܘܒ ܣܝܡܐ ܕܐܓܪܬܐ ܘܩܢܘܢ̈ܐ ܕܐܬܬܣܝܡܘ ܡܢܗ ܕܛܘܒܬܢܐ ܡܪܝ ܕܝܢܘܣܝܘܣ ܘܣܘܢܕܘܣ ܩܕܝܫܬܐ ܕܥܡܗ ܒܗ̇ ܒܡܕܝܢܬܐ ܩܐܠܝܢܝܩܘܣ

ܠܒܢ̈ܝܐ ܕܐܒܐ ܫܡܝܢܐ܇ ܘܐܚ̈ܐ ܘܒܢ̈ܝ ܝܪܬܘܬܐ ܕܡܫܝܚܐ܇ ܫܘܬܦ̈ܐ ܕܝܢ ܕܪܘܚܐ ܩܕܝܫܐ܇ ܕܒܐܝܕܘ̈ܗܝ ܠܚܝ̈ܐ ܕܠܥܠܡ ܘܠܝܪܬܘܬܐ ܠܐ ܡܬܚܒܠܢܝܬܐ ܐܬܩܪܝܘ܇ ܘܒܕܓܘܢ ܠܨܘܪܐ ܕܬܪܥܝܬܗܘܢ ܚܘܝܚܐܝܬ ܬܚܝܬ ܢܝܪܐ ܕܦܘܩܕܢ̈ܐ ܐܘ̈ܢܓܠܝܐ ܣܡܘ܇ ܛܟܣܐ ܡܢܗܪܢܐ ܘܡܕܟܝܢܐ ܕܬܓܡܐ ܫܒܝܚܐ ܕܟܗܢ̈ܐ ܘܡܫܡܫܢ̈ܐ܇ ܘܫܪܟܐ ܕܩܠܝܪܘܣ ܩܕܝܫܐ ܘܥܡܐ ܡܗܝܡܢܐ ܕܒܟܠ ܡܕܝܢܬܐ ܘܐܬܪܐ ܬܘܬܒܬܐ ܙܒܢܝܬܐ ܡܡ̈ܠܝܢ܇ ܕܝܢܘܣܝܘܣ ܕܒܛܝܒܘܬܐ ܐܠܗܝܬܐ ܦܐܛܪܝܪܟܐ ܕܟܘܪܣܝܐ ܫܠܝܚܝܐ ܕܐܢܛܝܘܟܝܐ ܡܕܝܢܬܐ ܕܐܠܗܐ܇ ܘܣܘܢܕܘܣ ܩܕܝܫܬܐ ܘܡܫܝܢܬܐ ܗܕܐ ܕܒܡܕܝܢܬܐ ܫܦܝܪܬ ܙܟܘܬܐ ܘܪܚܡܬ ܐܠܗܐ ܕܩܠܝܢܝܩ̈ܝܐ܇ ܒܡܫܝܚܐ ܗܘ ܕܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܫܝܢܐ ܕܝܠܢ܇ ܗܘ ܕܠܚܕܐ ܘܗܝ ܟܕ ܗܝ ܬܪܥܝܬܐ ܠܟܠܢ ܟܢܫ܇ ܘܥܒܕ ܐܝܟ ܕܠܡܐܡܪ ܕܚܕܐ ܢܣܘܩ܇ ܠܘ ܒܨܝܪ ܐܘ ܒܫܘܝܘܬ ܡܘܬܒܐ ܕܐܟܚܕܐ܇ ܘܐܒܘܗܝ ܣܓܝܕܐ ܘܪܘܚܗ ܩܕܝܫܐ. ܫܠܡܐܝܬ ܢܬܪ ܒܢܦܫ̈ܬܐ ܕܝܠܟܘܢ. ܘܣܒܪ̈ܬܐ ܛܒ̈ܬܐ ܘܕܦܘܪܩܢܐ. ܡܛܠ ܗܟܝܠ ܕܠܡܒܢܝܘ ܬܘܪ̈ܥܬܐ ܘܠܡܩܝܡܘ ܡܣܚ̈ܦܬܐ ܕܥܕܬܐ ܩܕܝܫܬܐ ܐܬܟܢܫܢܢ ܚܒܝܒ̈ܝܢ܇ ܘܠܡܬܦܪܣܘ ܘܠܡܨܝܒܘ ܐܘܝܘܬܐ ܠܟܢܫ̈ܐ ܕܝܠܗ̇ ܡܗ̈ܝܡܢܐ܇ ܘܠܡܟܢܫܘ ܘܠܡܠܚܡܘ ܠܗܕܡ̈ܐ ܕܐܬܒܕܪܘ ܡܢ ܦܓܪܐ ܕܝܠܗ̇ ܡܝܩܪܐ܇ ܗܘ ܕܡܫܝܚܐ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܪܝܫܐ ܕܝܠܗ܇ ܘܡܢܗ ܡܬܪܟܒ ܘܡܬܩܛܪ܇ ܟܕ ܒܝܬܐܝܬ ܘܠܚܡܢܐܝܬ ܠܟܠ ܚܕ ܚܕ ܒܕܘ̈ܟܝܬܐ ܒܝܬܝ̈ܬܐ ܒܫܦܝܪܘܬ ܡܛܟܣܘܬܐ ܡܩܦ ܘܡܣܬܬ ܘܡܩܝܡ܇ ܒܟܠܗ̇ ܢܓܝܪܘܬ ܪܘܚܐ ܕܙܕܩܐ܇ ܘܐܦ ܒܡܚܡܣܢܢܘܬܐ ܘܠܝܐܝܬ ܐܬܚܫܚܢܢ܇ ܕܗܠܝܢ ܟܝܬ ܒܥܒܕܐ ܢܓܡܘܪ ܘܢܫܡܠܐ ܝܕܝܥܐ ܕܝܢ ܕܟܕ ܡܢ ܛܝܒܘܬܐ ܐܠܗܝܬܐ ܡܚܝܠܘܬܢ ܡܣܬܡܟܐ. ܐܝܟܢܐ ܕܠܘ ܚܢܢ ܡܠܠܘܢ. ܛܝܒܘܬܐ ܕܝܢ ܐܠܗܝܬܐ ܬܬܪܨ ܒܐܝܕܝ̈ܢ܇ ܗܝ ܕܒܟܠܙܒܢ ܡܠܬܐ ܠܘ ܐܝܕܐ ܕܗܝ ܥܒܕܐ܇ ܘܫܝܢܐ ܘܩܘܝܡܐ ܘܚܕܝܘܬܐ ܕܥܕ̈ܬܐ ܩܕܝܫ̈ܬܐ. ܘܡܛܠ ܗܕܐ ܟܕ ܬܟܝܠܝܢܢ ܘܡܗܝܡܝܢܢ܇ ܕܐܦܢ ܠܐܢܫ̈ܝܢ ܐܝܬܝܢ ܠܐ ܚܫܢܝ̈ܐ ܘܒܨܝܪ̈ܐ܇ ܘܕܒܙܒܢܐ ܗܢܐ ܠܐ ܡܛܟܣܐ ܘܫܓܝܫܐ ܘܕܝܬܝܪ ܡܢ ܟܠܗܘܢ ܙܒܢ̈ܐ ܐܝܟ ܕܚܢܢ ܕܝܢܝܢܢ ܣܓܝܬ ܒܗ ܡܪܕܘܬܐ܇ ܘܠܐ ܡܬܬܦܝܣܢܘܬܐ܇ ܒܗܝ ܕܦܓ ܚܘܒܐ ܕܣܓܝ̈ܐܐ ܐܝܟ ܡܠܬܐ ܐܘܢܓܠܝܬܐ .(... ... ...)

English Translation

[Letter of the Synod of Callinicos 818]

(… … …) for the love of the grace of God, who decided that we should meet and return and commanded us all to join him. Therefore, we take as an example in our administrating, ruling, and regulating (agreement), the good setting of the church canons, and the holy forefathers’ conduct. We all know that the church of God has operated since ancient times with concord and without conflict. So that if some of them said something, some others have kept silent, they never quarreled or held each other with contempt regarding these matters until these days. This is what we decided with no way of doubt in any form, that the heavenly bread is truly and actually the holy body of the Son of God that we receive at the holy altars. We all confess this, with the threat of ex-communication against whoever does not confess with us that He (the Son of God) is the heavenly bread that we obtain from the holy altars, according to the teaching of the great saint, Patriarch Mor Severus. As confirmation of this, all of us fixed our signatures on this act.36

[Signatures of the bishops at the Synod of Callinicos 818]

[1] I, Dionysios by the mercies of God, Patriarch of the Apostolic See of Antioch in Syria, have signed and confirmed what is mentioned above.

[2] I, Basil37 metropolitan of Tagrit38 and the head of the See of the East, have consented and signed.

[3] I, Barḥadbšabā, bishop of Marga,39 have consented to and signed the above-mentioned (decisions).

[4] I, Yoḥannan, bishop of Germanicia,40 authorized Šlaymūn,41 (bishop) of Cyrus42 to follow the decision of this Holy Synod.

[5] I, Gewargī, bishop of Qenneshrin,43 authorized Ḥānanyā my representative to the Holy Synod.

[6] I, Ahrūn, bishop of Melitene,44 have consented to the above-mentioned (decisions) and signed by my own hand.

[7] I, Zakariyā, bishop of Edessa,45 from the Monastery of Qartmīn consented to the above-mentioned (decisions) and signed.

[8] I, Constantine,46 bishop of Dulīk,47 consented and signed.

[9] I, Theodosius, bishop of Seleucia,48 approved those above-mentioned (decisions) and signed.

[10] I, Tūmā,49 bishop of Anāsṭasiyā which is Darā,50 have approved and signed the above-mentioned together with my brethren the bishops.

[11] I, Theodosius,51 metropolitan of Qalīnīqūs have approved and signed.

[12] (I,) Damian,52 the bishop of Serugh,53 approved and signed (those decisions mentioned above).

[13] (I,) Šamʿūn54 bishop of Tādmur55 accepted and signed.

[14] I, Timothy,56 metropolitan of Jerusalem, authorized our Father Theodosius, bishop of Seleucia, and the Synod in this matter.

[15] (I,) Ḥabīb,57 by the mercies of God metropolitan of Awfimyā (Apamea),58 approved the content of this document.

[16] (I,) Philoxenus,59 bishop of Nisibis,60 accepted and signed the above-mentioned (decisions).

[17] (I,) Ḥabīb, by the mercy of God, bishop of Baghdad, accepted and singed.

[18] I, Ignatius,61 metropolitan of Anzārbā,62 consented and signed.

[19] I, Theodosius,63 metropolitan of Edessa, accepted and signed the above-mentioned (decisions).

[20] I, Arabi,64 bishop of Rīšʿaynā,65 consented and signed.

[21] (I) Solomon,66 bishop of Cyrrhus, I accepted the above-mentioned (decisions).

[22] (I,) Nqīm,67 bishop of Circesium,68 accepted and signed.

[23] I, Elijah, by the mercies of God bishop of Ḥadaṯ, consented and signed.

[24] (I,) Sargīs, bishop of Beth Nuhadra,69 consented and signed.

[25] (I,) Abraham, bishop of the Taghlabites, consented and signed.

[26] (I,) Ḥabīb, bishop of Narsībad,70 consented and signed.

[27] I, Theodore Resafa,71 bishop of Kayšūm,72 consented and signed.

[28] I, Laʿazar,73 bishop of Gešrō, consented and signed.

[29] I, Šamʿūn,74 metropolitan of Resafa,75 consented and signed.

[30] I, Daniel,76 bishop of Aleppo confirmed these and signed.

[31] I, Yaʿqūb,77 bishop of Urīm, consented and signed.

[32] I, Gewargī,78 bishop of (A 12001 verso) Samosata,79 consented to and signed the above-mentioned (decisions).

[33] I, Ḥabīb, metropolitan of Arasyā, signed with my own hand.

[34] I, Evagrius,80 bishop of Adraʿat, consented and signed.

[35] I, Yūḥanun,81 bishop of Constantina which is Tellā,82 consented, approved, and signed.

[36] I, Methodius, bishop of Ašfarīn, consented to the above-mentioned (decisions).

[37] (I,) Gāwargī, bishop of Maypherqaṭ,83 approved these (decisions) and signed them.

[38] (I,) Yūḥanun, bishop of Qardū,84 approved the above-mentioned (decisions) and signed them.

[39] (I,) Aday,85 bishop of Karmē,86 I accepted the above-mentioned (decisions) and signed.

[40] (I,) Elijah,87 bishop of Šīgar, consented and signed.

[41] (I,) Ezekiel,88 bishop of Țūrʿabdīn,89 consented and signed with my own hand.

[42] (I,) Gabriel, bishop of the Armenians, accepted the above-mentioned (decisions) and signed.

[43] (I,) Ignatius,90 bishop of Mardin,91 consented and signed.

[44] (I,) Gāwargī, bishop of Ḥaran,92 consented and signed.

[45] (I,) Tāwmā, bishop of Rīš Kīfā, accepted and signed the above-mentioned (decisions).

[46] (I,) Yuwānīs,93 bishop of castrum Beṯ Bališ,94 consented and signed.

[47] (I,) Dāwīd, bishop of Jarabulus,95 accepted and signed.

[48] (I,) Theophilus,96 bishop of Sozopetra,97 consented to these (decisions) and signed.

[49] (I,) Ḥabīb, a bishop from the Monastery of Gūbō Baroyō,98 consented to these (decisions) and signed.

I, Yūḥanun, an ecumenical presbyter from the same monastery, accept the above-mentioned (decisions).

We, Gāwargī, Anṯīmā, and Yawsef, deacons from the same monastery, together with the rest of the sons of the monastery of Gūbō Baroyō whom we represent, truly accept and sign on what this holy Synod confirmed.

[The letter of Patriarch Dionysius of Tel-Maḥroyō after the synod]

Also, the composition of the letter and the canons that were set by the blessed Mor Dionysius and with him, the holy synod in the City of Qāllīnīqūs.

To the children of the Heavenly Father and brothers and heirs of Christ, companions of the Holy Spirit through whom you have been called to eternal life and to the incorruptible inheritance, where you have gladly laid the neck of your mind under the yoke of the evangelical commandments; to the illustrious and purifying orders of the glorious company of priests, deacons, and the rest of the holy clergy and the faithful people who in every city and every country are fulfilling their temporary abode,—Dionysius who is, by divine grace, the patriarch of the apostolic see of Antioch, the City of God, and this holy and peaceful synod in the victorious and God-loving city of the people of Qāllīnīqūs through Christ who is our peace, who are gathered all of one and the same mind and so made that we can say we desire the same thing, not only the dignity of sitting together (but the company) of His wonderful Father and the Holy Spirit. May peace ever abound in your souls with the good hope of redemption.

Therefore, my beloved ones, we were gathered to examine the transgression and the rise of destruction in the Holy Church, to spread and provide harmony to its believing masses and to join and strengthen the members who have been detached from its honorable body whose head is Christ, which by Him is framed and linked together conveniently and suitably, fastening, and joining and setting firmly everyone in good order in the proper places. (In all this) we have worked with all the necessary patience and endurance to practice and fulfill these (canons) by acts.

However, it is known that our weakness is supported by the divine grace so that it is not we but rather the divine grace which directs the actions through our hands because it is not always in the hands but the work which acts as well as the peace and the sustenance of the holy churches. For this reason, we are confident even though we believe that we are useless and poor men and in this time without order—so confused, even more than of all times, as we adjudge it. The rebellion and disobedience increased. In it, the love of many grew cold according to the evangelical word99 (… … …).

Observations and commentary

The following section of this article draws attention to a collection of orthographical mismatches and misreading errors of geographical and personal names that occurred in Barṣawm’s transcript of the original text.100 It also analyzes the text in comparison with the sequence of events presented in the Chronicle of Michael the Syrian:

Orthographical mismatches of geographical names: Anāsṭasiyā; Bagādad; Tellā, were transcribed by Barṣawm as Anasṭasiyā; Bagdad; Tālā.

Orthographical mismatches of Personal names: Dīnūsiyūs; Ḥānanyā; Tāwudusiyūs; Iygnaṭiyūs; Ḥazqāyel have been transcribed by Barṣawm as Diyūnūsiyūs; Ḥananyā; Tāwudūsiyūs; Iygnāṭīyūs; Ḥazqiyāīl.

The misreading of geographical name in the case of Kayšūm has been misread by Barṣawm as Karūm.101

In the original manuscript, we find “Gabrāyel, bishop of the Armenians”, however, in Barṣawm it was read as “Gabrāyel, bishop of Armenia”.102

Barṣawm also misread the name of Šlaymūn, bishop of Qūrūs, as Šamʿūn.103

In the original manuscript, we find “Ḥabīb, a bishop from the Monastery of Gūbō Baroyō, consented to these (decisions) and signed”, however, in the Arabic translation of Barṣawm he renders the text as “Ḥabīb, a bishop from the Monastery of Gūbō Baroyō, obeyed these (decisions) and signed”.104

In the original manuscript, we find “I Yūḥanun, an ecumenical presbyter from the same monastery, accept the above-mentioned (decisions); however, in the Arabic translation of Barṣawm, he renders the text as “I, Yūḥannā, an ecumenical presbyter from the same monastery, I obeyed the above-mentioned (decisions)”.105

In the original manuscript, we find: “We, Gāwargī, Anṯīmā, and Yawsef, deacons from the same monastery, together with the rest of the sons of the monastery of Gūbō Baroyō whom we represent, truly accept and sign on what this holy Synod confirmed”, however, in the Arabic translation of Barṣawm he renders the text as “I, Gāwargī, Antīmā and Yūsef, deacons from the same monastery, together with the rest of the sons of the monastery of Gūbō Baroyō whom we represent, obey and submit totally and truly and sign on what this holy Synod confirmed”.106

The fragment OIM Syr. A 12001 gives us the names of the representatives of the Monastery of Gūbō Baroyō, who approved the synodal decisions of Callinicos 818, on behalf of “the rest of the sons of the monastery of Gūbō Baroyō”. These are Bishop Ḥabīb, Presbyter Yūḥanun, Deacons Gāwargī, Anṯīmā, and Yawsef. Based on the historical information that Michael the Syrian gives us in his Chronicle, we can assume that these representatives are the ones who broke away from Abīram of Gūbō Baroyō, who led the opposition against Patriarch Cyriacus of Tikrit and later against Patriarch Dionysius I Tel-Maḥroyō and refused the decision of Synod Callinicos 818.107

The surviving last part of the synodal letter of Callinicos 818 differs relatively from the same letter that was reported by Michael the Syrian in his Chronicle. In our fragment, there is no mention of a decision made at the Synod to burn all the writings that discussed the expression “we break the heavenly bread”. Also, there is no use of the Christological statement of “the qnumo (hypostasis) of the Word of God (Christ) that he took from Mary and became a sacrifice on the cross”. Also, absent is the following: “We further condemn he who says that it (the body) is broken not just to satisfy the partaking of many, but it is certainly a Messianic sacrifice”.

OIM A 12001

Chronicle of Michael the Syrian

“(… …) We all know that the church of God has operated since ancient times with concord and without conflict. So that if some of them said something, some others have kept silent, they never quarreled, or hold each other with contempt regarding these matters until these days. This is what we decided with no way of doubt in any form, that the heavenly bread is truly and actually the holy body of the Son of God that we receive at the holy altars. We all confess this, with the threat of ex-communication against whoever does not confess with us that He (the Son of God) is the heavenly bread that we obtain from the holy altars, according to the teaching of the great saint, Patriarch Mor Severus. As confirmation of this, the bishops, all of us unanimously fixed our signatures”.

“We all know that the church of God has operated since ancient times with concord and without conflict. So that if some of them said something, some others have kept silent, they never quarreled, or hold each other with contempt regarding these matters until this time. We have resolved that everything that has been written about this expression “heavenly bread” should be burned by fire, whether it concurred with it or opposed it, and that no one shall have the authority to write anything about it. We did not find anything indicating that the ancients (fathers) had provoked this subject. This is what we decided with no way of doubt in any form, that the heavenly bread is truly and actually the holy body of the Son of God that we receive at the holy and priestly altars. We all confess this, with the threat of ex-communication against whoever does not confess with us that He (the Son of God) is the heavenly bread that we obtain from the holy altars, according to the teaching of the holy Patriarch Severus (of Antioch, d. 538). We also condemn anyone who says that it is not the body of the qnumo (hypostasis) of the Word of God (Christ) that he took from Mary and became a sacrifice on the cross. We further condemn he who says that it (the body) is broken not just to satisfy the partaking of many, but it is certainly a Messianic sacrifice. We, the bishops, have unanimously fixed our signatures”.108

The analysis of the Syriac text found in fragment OIM Syr. A 12001 permits us to believe that this fragment contains the final acts of the Synod at Callinicos, which were issued during or a little bit after August 818. These final acts involve specific updates made on the draft agreement that was agreed upon in June 818 at Callinicos which was mentioned by Michael the Syrian in his Chronicle. These updates are the following: (1) adding the name and signature of Patriarch Dionysius who was elevated to the patriarchal throne on August 1^st, 818. The names and the signatures of the Gūbites (from the Monastery of Gūbō Baroyō) who broke away from Abīram of Gūbō Baroyō, the leader of the opposition after he had refused the draft agreement at Callinicos in June 818, and the election of Monk Dionysius as a patriarch. (2) The final acts include Patriarch Dionysius's letter with the Synod of bishops at Callinicos introducing twelve canon decisions in August 818.

To follow the chronological development of events and the documentation of the Synodal decisions at Callinicos, it is useful to present the following table of events based on the Chronicle of Michael the Syrian:

Circa 800	The liturgical controversy occurred in the Syriac Orthodox Church during the patriarchate of Cyriacus of Tikrit.109
Circa 808	Patriarch Cyriacus of Tikrit excommunicated a group of self-appointed bishops and the monks of the Monastery of Gūbō Baroyō who refused his decision in banning the use of the liturgical phrase “We break the heavenly bread”.110
Circa 810	Monk Abīram was appointed a rebel patriarch by the expelled bishops who were supported by the inhabitants of the region of Cyrrhus and the Monastery of Gūbō Baroyō.111
June/August 817	The death of Patriarch Cyriacus.112
June 818	Forty-eight bishops met at Callinicos to resolve the liturgical dispute. Abīram with a group of monks from the Monastery of Gūbō Baroyō were also present there.113
June 818	An agreement was reached between the bishops to resolve the liturgical dispute. This agreement was confirmed by all bishops and representatives including Abīram and his group. An agreement was drawn up between the different parties who signed their names.114
June/July 818	The agreement about the liturgical matter was followed by a discussion on ecclesiastic administrative matters which lasted for more than forty days.115
July 818	Then, Monk Dionysius was chosen by the bishops at Callinicos to succeed Patriarch Cyriacus on the patriarchal throne. A document of agreement on the election of Monk Dionysius was drawn up with the signatures of the prelates.116
July 818	Abīram and his followers rejected the nomination of the Monk Dionysius to the patriarchal throne and backed out of their approval of the (liturgical) agreement, but a group of his followers abandoned him and obeyed the decisions of the Synod.117
Sunday, August 1, 818	Dionysius was elevated to the rank of a patriarch at Callinicos.
August 818	The Synod was concluded, and the final acts of the Synod were issued.118

Conclusion

There is more than one reason to re-publish and edit this document. First, it is a rediscovery of a historical document that was thought of as lost. It is important to return to the original manuscript to examine the transcript of Afrām Barṣawm which contained several inaccuracies. Moreover, the importance of this document lies in the fact that it reveals (when intersected with the Chronicle of Michael the Syrian) the dynamics of ecclesial events and positions that occurred during the convening of the Synod of Callinicos 818 and the development of these positions such as of the monks and bishops from the Monastery of Gūbō Baroyō. Furthermore, the synodal letter is not identical to the one found in the Chronicle of Michael the Syrian, and this opens a general question of how far the documentation of synodal acts and letters are actually representing the actual documents issued by the synod.

Appendix

Courtesy of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, Ms. OIM Syr. A12001r.

Courtesy of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, Ms. OIM Syr. A12001v.