Bardaisan's Influence on Late Antique Christianity
Ute
Possekel
Harvard Divinity School
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute
2018
Volume 21.1
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/hv21n1possekel
Ute Possekel
Bardaisan's Influence on Late Antique Christianity
https://hugoye.bethmardutho.org/pdf/vol21/HV21N1Possekel.pdf
Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute, 2018
vol 21
issue 1
pp 81–125
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.
Bardaisan
Book of the Laws of Countries
Philosophy
Late Antiquity
File created by James E. Walters
Abstract
This article seeks to evaluate how the thought of Bardaisan of
Edessa was received by later generations of Christians. The article shows that
the Book of the Laws of Countries, a Syriac dialogue in
which Bardaisan is the main interlocutor, exercised considerable influence in
both the Greek- and Syriac-speaking worlds. Although later authors tended to
denigrate Bardaisan’s views on fate and free will as an undue compromise, they
nevertheless did not hesitate to borrow freely from his cogent anti-
deterministic arguments and integrate them into their own discourses. But
Bardaisan’s influence, especially in the Syriac-speaking regions, extended into
other areas as well: his innovations in the realm of poetry and music, his
astronomical calculations, his ethnographic discourse, and his anti-Marcionite
polemics were all appreciated and adapted by subsequent authors. While it is
well known that later Christians tended to malign Bardaisan’s thought, and
especially his cosmology, as tainted with heresy, this article favors a more
nuanced view: alongside the late antique rejection of Bardaisan runs a notable
current of positive reception of his innovative contributions in the realms of
science, music, and apologetics.
Bardaisan (154–222) composed numerous works on a wide array of theological and
philosophical topics, ranging from cosmology to eschatology, from ethnographic
surveys to astronomy.
Eusebius mentions dialogues composed by
Bardaisan against the Marcionites and other heretics, as well as a
dialogue On Fate (h.e.
4.30.1, ed. E. Schwartz / Th. Mommsen, Eusebius, Werke II.1. Die
Kirchengeschichte, second edition, GCS N.F. 6,1 (Berlin 1999),
392,15–17.21–22). Ephrem explicitly refers to
a Book of Domnos (ܟܬܒܐ ܕܕܡܢܘܣ) and a Book of Mysteries (ܣܦܪ ܪ̈ܐܙܐ). Book of Domnos: Ephrem, Prose Refutations (hereafter cited as PR), ed. with Engl. transl. C. W. Mitchell / A. A. Bevan / F. C. Burkitt, S. Ephraim’s Prose
Refutations of Mani, Marcion, and Bardaisan, 2 vols. (London
1912–1921), vol. 2, p. 1 and p. 6,42–43; Book of
Mysteries: Ephrem, Hymns against Heresies 56,9, ed. with German transl. E. Beck, Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen contra haereses, CSCO
169–170 /Syr. 76–77 (Louvain 1957) (hereafter cited as CH), text in CSCO 169, 211,22; cf. CH
1,14 (ed. Beck, 4,11). He also notes that Bardaisan composed hymns (CH 53,5–6, ed. Beck, 203,5–14), and a treatise on
the resurrection (Hymns on Nisibis 51,2–3, ed.
with German transl. E. Beck, Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Carmina
Nisibena, CSCO 218–219 / Syr. 92–93 [Louvain 1961–1963]).
Bardaisan also wrote on astronomical subjects and composed a treatise on
India (on these, see below).
Yet of his large literary output
nothing has been preserved in its entirety save the Syriac dialogue known as the
Book of the Laws of the Countries, written down by
Bardaisan’s disciple Philip, in which Bardaisan is the main interlocutor.
The Book of the Laws is preserved in only one
manuscript, BL Syr. add. 14658, fol. 129a–141a, dated by Wright to the
seventh century (W. Wright, Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts
in the British Museum, vol. 3 [London 1872], 1154). This
manuscript contains various treatises of philosophical and scientific
content (see ibid., 1154–1160).
The fact that only this was
preserved by later generations of Christians is already indicative of its impact
upon the late antique church. Yet while Bardaisan’s reflections on free will and
fate, as set down in this dialogue, evidently had a long trajectory of influence
upon both Syriac and Greek-speaking readers, upon closer inspection it emerges
that other aspects of his teachings did so as well. This essay will highlight
some areas in which Bardaisan’s oeuvre shaped and challenged subsequent
generations of Christians.
1. The Memory of Bardaisan
Before addressing particular aspects of Bardaisan’s Wirkungs-geschichte, it will be convenient to trace how the memory of
Bardaisan as a person was preserved in Greek, Latin, Syriac, and Arabic
literature.
For reasons of space, the Armenian tradition cannot be considered
here.
Although his writings were lost, his remembrance was
kept alive by friend and foe alike.
The (in his view irreconcilable) discrepancies in
the reception history of Bardaisan in late antiquity were emphasized by
the Dutch scholar T. Jansma, Natuur, lot en vrijheid. Bardesanes,
de filosoof der Arameeërs en zijn images, Cahiers bij het
Nederlands theologisch tijdschrift 6 (Wageningen 1969).
Considering the fierce polemics of later Syriac authors, it comes as a surprise
to note that many of those late antique writers who mention him express rather
an amicable attitude towards the Edessene theologian. Amongst those who
expressly value Bardaisan are Julius Africanus (who left the only historical
account of a personal encounter with Bardaisan), Eusebius of Caesarea, Didymus
the Blind, the anonymous fourth-century author of the Life of
Aberkios, and Jerome.
Julius Africanus, Kestoi 7.20, ed. and transl. M. Wallraff / C. Scardino / L.
Mecella / Ch. Guignard / W. Adler, Cesti: The Extant
Fragments, GCS N.F. 18 (Berlin 2012), 98–103; Eusebius, h.e. 4.30.1,
ed. Schwartz / Mommsen, 392,15–17.21–22
(praises Bardaisan’s ingenuity); didymus the
Blind, Commentary on Psalms 181,8–9 (on
Ps. 32), ed. with German transl. A. Gesché / M. Gronewald, Didymus der
Blinde, Psalmen-kommentar (Tura-Papyrus), vol. 3,
Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen 8 (Bonn 1969), 182–184 (discusses
Bardaisan without a negative comment); Life of
Aberkios, ed. Th. Nissen, S. Abercii Vita
(Leipzig 1912); Jerome, Vir.
ill. 33, ed. E. C. Richardson, Hieronymus, Liber
de viris inlustribus. Gennadius, Liber de viris inlustribus, TU
14.1 (Leipzig 1896), 24–25.
Even Epiphanius, in spite of his
objections, cannot but concede that Bardaisan was ἄριστός τις ἀνήρ.
Ephiphanius, Pan.
56.1.2, ed. K. Holl,
Epiphanius, Werke II, GCS (Leipzig 1922),
338,5. English transl. F. Williams, The Panarion of
Epiphanius. Books II and III (Sects 47–80, De Fide), Nag
Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 36 (Leiden 1994).
Although
several of these authors express some doubt regarding Bardaisan’s orthodoxy –
based, of course, on their own later theological perspectives – they all
articulate their admiration for the man: his learning, his eloquence, his
refutation of heresy, his skill as an archer, his scientific mindset.
Over against this group of predominantly Greek-speaking authors favorably
disposed towards the Edessene stand those with a hostile attitude, most of whom
flourished in the same Syriac milieu as did Bardaisan. His most outspoken critic
was the poet Ephrem (d. 373), yet even he does not hesitate occasionally to
borrow from Bardaisan’s ideas – without acknowledgement, to be sure. Eusebius of
Emesa (d. ca. 359), who grew up bilingually in Edessa and wrote in Greek,
engages with Bardaisan’s views in his Commentary on
Genesis.
The commentary is preserved only in an Armenian version and in Greek
and Syriac fragments, ed. F. Petit /
L. van Rompay /
J. J. S. Weitenberg, Eusèbe d’Émèse,
Commentaire de la Genèse. Texte arménien de l’édition de Venise
(1980). Fragments grecs et syriaques. Avec traductions,
Traditio Exegetica Graeca 15 (Louvain 2011); section on Bardaisan on pp.
92–95, 212–215, 292–295. See also
R. B. ter Haar Romeny, A Syrian in Greek
Dress. The Use of Greek, Hebrew, and Syriac Biblical Texts in
Eusebius of Emesa’s Commentary on Genesis, Traditio Exegetica
Graeca 6 (Louvain 1997), 265–271. Space does not suffice here to discuss
to what extent the opinions attributed to Bardaisan by Eusebius of Emesa
reflects Bardaisan’s own thought, and to what extent they may represent
either later developments among his disciples or heresiological attempts
to discredit Bardaisan.
Significantly, the only two
non-biblical authors mentioned by name in this commentary are Bardaisan and
Homer.
Petit /
van Rompay / Weitenberg,
Eusèbe d’Émèse, xxxviii, note 69.
In the course of the christological controversies of the fifth and sixth
centuries, associating one’s opponent with Bardaisan and his theology became a
convenient rhetorical tool, but here, too, authors sometimes unintentionally
cited passages from Bardaisan’s works that seem to have become part of the
common lore.
Cf. L. van Rompay, “Bardaisan and Mani in Philoxenus of
Mabbog’s Mēmrē Against Habbib,” in: Syriac Polemics. Studies in Honour of Gerrit Jan
Reinink, ed. W. J. v. Bekkum / J. W. Drijvers / A. C. Klugkist, OLA 170 (Louvain 2007),
77–90.
A negative memory of Bardaisan is preserved in the
heresiological summaries of a much later age, including those by Barḥadbeshabba
ʿArbaia (6th cent.), Theodore bar Koni (late 8th cent.), Moses bar Kepha (d. 903), and Michael the
Syrian (12th cent).
Barḥadbeshabba ʿArbaia, History 2.5, ed. F. Nau, La première partie de l’
Histoire de Barḥadbešabba ‘Arbaïa. Texte syriaque édité et
traduit, PO 23.2 (1932), 191–192; Theodore
bar Koni, Scholion 11.49, ed. A. Scher, Theodorus bar Kōnī, Liber scholiorum II, CSCO 69
/ Syr. 26 (Louvain 1954), 307,20–308,20; French transl. R. Hespel / R. Draguet, Théodore bar Koni, Livre des scolies (recension de
Séert), CSCO 432 / Syr. 188 (Louvain 1982),
229f.; Moses bar Kepha,
Hexaemeron Commentary 1.14, relevant section
ed. F. Nau, Patrologia
Syriaca 1.2 (1907), 513–514; section also ed. H. J. W. Drijvers, Bardaiṣan of
Edessa, Studia Semitica Neerlandica 6 (Assen 1966), 98–104;
German transl. of the entire treatise
L. Schlimme, Der
Hexaemeronkommentar des Moses bar Kepha. Einleitung, Übersetzung und
Untersuchungen, 2 vols., Göttinger Orientforschungen, 1. Reihe:
Syriaca, vol. 14.1–2 (Wiesbaden 1977), passage on Bardaisan in vol. 1,
137–140; Michael the Syrian, Chronicle, ed. with French transl. J.-B. Chabot, Chronique de Michel
le Syrien, 4 vols. (Paris 1899–1910, reprint Brussels 1963),
vol. 1, 183–185 (transl.), vol. 4, 109–111 (text).
On the
other hand, some later Syriac authors do express a favorable attitude towards
Bardaisan, namely with regard to his scientific understanding of astronomy.
One reason for this surprising disparate reception within the Greek and Syriac
traditions is that fact that in the Syriac-speaking communities of northern
Mesopotamia Bardaisanite teachings long continued to be a force to be reckoned
with, challenging the established church with doctrines at times much more
radical than had been those of Bardaisan himself. Another, and not entirely
unconnected reason for this disjunct memory of Bardaisan is that in the Syriac
tradition Bardaisan’s name primarily remained associated with his cosmology
(later judged to be heretical), whereas Christians in territories to the West of
Edessa remembered Bardaisan principally for his capable refutation of astral
determinism.
A third and distinct memory of Bardaisan is preserved by later Arabic-speaking
authors, many of whom regard him as a dualist (which he was not) and attribute
to him otherwise unknown (and most likely inauthentic) works. Ibn al-Nadim, for
instance, lists three book titles for Bardaisan that are unknown in the Syriac
tradition.
Ibn al-Nadim, Fihrist
9.1, ed. G. Flügel,
Kitab al-Fihrist, 2 vols. (Leipzig
1871–1872); transl. B. Dodge, The Fihrist of al-Nadīm. A
Tenth-Century Survey of Muslim Culture, 2 vols. (New York
1970), vol. 2, 805f. Al-Nadim mentions a Book of Light
and Darkness, a Book of the Spirituality of
the Truth, and a Book of the Moving and the
Static.
By and large, the Arabic testimonies to
Bardaisan reflect much later concerns with dualist sects and fall outside the
scope of this essay.
Important references to the
Bardaisanites by Arabic authors can be found in the writings of
al-Nadim, al-Warraq, al-Maturidi, and al-Biruni. Some of these are
translated and discussed in the following publications: G. Vajda, “Le
témoigne de al-Māturidī sur la doctrine des Manichéens, des Dayṣānites
et des Marcionites,” Arabica 13 (1966), 1–38;
W. Madelung,
“Abū ʿĪsā al-Warrāq über die Bardesaniten, Marcioniten und Kantäer,” in:
Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Vorderen
Orients. Festschrift für Bertold Spuler zum siebzigsten
Geburtstag, ed. H. R. Roemer / A. Noth (Leiden 1981), 210–224; G. Monnot, Islam et religions, Islam d’hier et d’aujourd’hui
27 (Paris 1986), 34–37, 167–168;
J. van Ess, Theologie und
Gesellschaft im 2. und 3. Jahrhundert Hidschra. Eine Geschichte des
religiösen Denkens im frühen Islam, 6 vols. (Berlin 1991–1995),
vol. 1 (1991), 426–430 (with further bibliography).
2. Fate and Free Will
Bardaisan’s refutation of astral determinism, as expressed in the Book of the Laws, has had the most obvious impact upon
late antique Christianity. This is the only work preserved in its entirety, and
it is also the one cited most widely – with or without attribution to Bardaisan
– in the patristic literature. The Syriac dialogue has come down to us in a
seventh-century manuscript, thus it was still read and copied at that time.
Detailed
discussion of the manuscript’s content and its possible Sitz in Leben as
a school curriculum may be found in D. King,
“Origenism in Sixth Century Syria: The Case of a Syriac Manuscript on
Pagan Philosophy,” in Origenes und sein Erbe in Orient
und Okzident, edited by A. Fürst
(Münster 2011), 179–212. King’s assertion, however, that this collection
represents Origenist teachings (see esp. 208–211; elsewhere in the
article the subject of Origenism is hardly mentioned) is not wholly
convincing.
Both Greek and Syriac-speaking Christians would
have been familiar with Bardaisan’s thought also through reading Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, the Syriac version of which
likely dates from the fourth century.
The Syriac version of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History is ed. W. Wright / N. McLean,
The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius in Syriac,
edited from the manuscripts. With a collation of the ancient
Armenian version by Adalbert Merx (Cambridge 1898), the section
on Bardaisan is on p. 243f. The Syriac version of the Ecclesiastical History is extant in several manuscripts; on
these, see A. Baumstark, Geschichte der syrischen Literatur
mit Ausschluß der christlich-palästinensischen Texte (Bonn
1922), 58–59.
Several early Syriac treatises, such as the Apology of
Ps.- Melito or the Acts of Thomas,
Ps.-Melito, Apology,
ed. W. Cureton, Spicilegium Syriacum: containing remains of Bardesan,
Meliton, Ambrose and Mara bar Serapion (London 1855), 21–31
(text), 41–51 (transl.). Space does not permit here a discussion of the
relation between the BLC and Ps.-Melito’s Apology and the Acts of
Thomas, respectively.
contain passages that show
close affinities with the Book of the Laws. This might
suggest, as some scholars have posited,
I. Ramelli, Bardaisan of Edessa.
A Reassessment of the Evidence and a New Interpretation
(Piscataway, NJ 2009), 111–114, maintains the Acts of
Thomas “include an unequivocal quotation” from the Book of the Laws (p. 111).
that the
respective authors of these treatises were familiar with the Syriac dialogue,
but only a close textual analysis can ascertain whether such similarities are
not better explained by the authors’ common cultural and intellectual
milieu.
Ephrem the Syrian in the fourth century was confronted, much like Bardaisan was
in the early third, with deep-seated astrological beliefs among members of his
community. In his Hymns against Heresies, the poet
specifically targets his congregants’ misguided trust in horoscopes and fate,
and at times Ephrem’s arguments are reminiscent of those set forth in the Book of the Laws so that a familiarity with Bardaisan’s
most important work appears likely. Bardaisan in the dialogue asserts that fate
does not control human free will in ethical matters, nor does it determine
natural processes such as bodily growth or the need for nourishment. Prominent
among Bardaisan’s examples in support of his claim that fate does not have power
over nature, is that not before puberty or in old age are people able to
conceive children, regardless of fate.
BLC 20, ed. Nau,
572,1–575,3. On Bardaisan’s defense of free will against astral
determinism, see for example
T. Hegedus, Early Christianity
and Ancient Astrology (New York 2007), 261–278.
In
his hymns, Ephrem employs a very similar rationale to oppose the view that fate
is responsible for sexual transgressions, for that would imply that only during
a certain age does fate have this power.
Ephrem, CH 4,15, ed.
Beck, 17,9–14. In CH 6,12–13, ed. Beck,
25,25–26,10, he mentions the example of old age.
Moreover,
Ephrem brings forth several extensive objections to the claim, articulated in
the Book of the Laws, that fate is the cause of sickness,
health, or a person’s social status.
Ephrem, CH 4,8–11.14;
5,4.9–10; 6,2.6 and passim, ed. Beck, 15,22–16,18; 17,3–8; 19,11–16;
20,13–24; 23,15–20; 24,16–21.
Taken alone, any of these
arguments would not suffice to establish Ephrem’s familiarity with the Syriac
dialogue, but in their entirety they would seem to allow no conclusion other
than that Ephrem was well aware of the book’s content.
Bardaisan’s rebuttal of astral determinism was still well remembered and
appreciated among learned Syriac authors in the early eighth century, for Jacob
of Edessa (d. 708) favorably comments on the Bardaisanite refutation of fate in
his Commentary on the Hexaemeron. In this remarkable
passage, Jacob recalls how a man from Edessa, who belonged to the school of
Bardaisan, capably refuted the astral determinism advocated by an astrologer
from Harran.
Jacob of Edessa, Hexaemeron, ed. I.-B. Chabot, Iacobi Edesseni Hexaemeron, CSCO 92 / Syr. 44
(Louvain 1953), 61a,35–62a,24. Jacob even knows the name of the
Bardaisanite: Vologeses.
Turning to the reception history of Bardaisan’s Book of the
Laws in Greek patristic literature, it becomes apparent that here,
unlike among Syriac authors, Bardaisan’s authorship is generally much more
readily acknowledged. Eusebius records in his Ecclesiastical
History that Bardaisan’s disciples translated his dialogues from Syriac
into Greek,
Eusebius, h.e. 4.30.1, ed. Schwartz / Mommsen,
392,19–21.
and we may assume that the Book
of the Laws was among these treatises so that the dialogue would have
been available to Greek readers from a very early time.
A long excerpt from the
Book of the Laws is contained in the
Ps.-Clementine Recognitions, a fascinating novel produced
in fourth-century Syria that extensively reworks earlier materials. In the Recognitions Clement of Rome recounts in the first person
his conversion to Christianity, his adventurous journeys with Peter the apostle,
and his eventual reunification with his (now likewise converted) family.
Ps.-Clementine
Recognitions, ed.
B. Rehm /
G. Strecker, Die
Pseudoklementinen II: Rekognitionen in Rufins Übersetzung,
second edition, GCS (Berlin 1994); English transl.
T. Smith, ANF 8 (reprint 1989), 73–211.
The book includes also lively conversations between the chief protagonists and
prolonged theological discourses. In book nine, Clement debates with a defender
of astrological fate, and Clement’s counter-arguments here include of a long
section lifted from the second part of the Book of the
Laws (25–46), without, however, naming either Bardaisan or Philip.
Ps.-Clementine
Rec. 9.19–29, ed. Rehm / Strecker, 270–314. BLC 25–46, ed. Nau,
582,5–608,13.
Although parts of the Recognitions survive in a Syriac translation of the Greek
original,
A Syriac translation of portions from the Ps.-Clementines is contained in the famous manuscript BL Syr.
add. 12150, dated to AD 411 and thereby the oldest dated Syriac
manuscript. Ed. of the Syriac in W. Frankenberg, Die syrischen
Clementinen mit griechischem Paralleltext, TU 48/3 (Leipzig
1937). English transl. F.
S. Jones, The Syriac Pseudo-Clementines. An Early Version of the
First Christian Novel (Turnhout 2014).
the relevant
passage is extant only in the Latin version of Rufinus and shows a number of
deviations from the Syriac text of the Book of the Laws.
The encounter between Clement and the defender of astrology (who in the end
turns out to be Clement’s father) is narrated in the Ps.-Clementine Homilies as well, although here the section from the Book of the Laws is wanting.
Ps.-Clementine Hom. 14, ed.
B. Rehm /
G. Strecker, Die
Pseudo-klementinen I. Homilien, third edition, GCS (Berlin
1992), 204–211.
The great number of parallels between the Recognitions and Homilies has led
scholars to postulate the existence of a Ps.-Clementine Grundschrift (dated to between 220 and 260), and this Grundschrift already would have included the sections
from Bardaisan’s dialogue.
B. Rehm, “Bardesanes in den Pseudoclementinen,”
Philologus 93 (1938), 218–247; F. S. Jones, “The Pseudo-Clementines: A History of
Research,” Second Century 2 (1982), 1–33, 63–96;
J. N. Bremmer,
ed., The Pseudo-Clementines, Studies on Early
Christian Apocrypha 10 (Louvain 2010).
The Ps.-Clementines
thus contain the oldest known quotation from the Book of the
Laws.
The earliest Greek author explicitly to attribute quotations from the
dialogue on fate to Bardaisan is Eusebius, who in his Praeparatio evangelica excerpts lengthy passages.
Eusebius, Praep. ev.
6.10.1–48, ed. K. Mras /
É. des Places, Eusebius, Werke
VIII.1, second edition, GCS (Berlin 1982), 335,1–343,15.
The church historian remarks that he quotes from Bardaisan’s
dialogues with his companions, but he does not specify a title. The sections
cited by Eusebius are almost the same as those quoted in the Ps.-Clementine Recognitions,
Synoptic printing of all three texts in Rehm / Strecker, Pseudo-klementinen II, 270–317.
a fact that has
given rise to an extensive scholarly debate concerning the original language of
the Book of the Laws and the various intertextual
dependencies between the Syriac dialogue, Eusebius, and the Ps.-Clementine Recognitions.
This question need not be taken up here. See the
extensive discussion by Rehm, “Bardesanes in
den Pseudoclementinen.” That the Book of the Laws
originally was composed in Syriac (and not in Greek) has been argued
convincingly by Th. Nöldeke, “Zum ‘Buch der Gesetze der Länder’,”
ZDMG 64 (1910), 555–560. See also F. Nau, “Notes
d’astronomie syrienne,” Journal Asiatique, 10th
series, vol. 16 (1910), 209–228, esp. 216–219;
G. Levi della Vida, “Appunti Bardesanici,” Rivista degli studi orientali 8 (1919–1920), 709–722.
Whereas in his Ecclesiastical History
Eusebius acknowledges Bardaisan’s contribution to Christian theological
discourse,
Eusebius, h.e. 4.30, ed. Schwartz / Mommsen,
392,14–28.
in the Praeparatio
evangelica he treats the excerpts from Bardaisan among the
non-Christian refutations of astrology
Eusebius, Praep. ev.
6.9.32 (ed. Mras / des Places 334,20–24),
introduces the quotation from Bardaisan by stating that now he will
produce the arguments of the astrologers against the Chaldeans. In Praep. ev. 6.10.49 (ed. ibid., 343,17–20), he
indicates that the discussion of non-Christian authors is now concluded
and that he will move on to Christian authors. In fact, Origen comes
next.
– perhaps because in his Greek Vorlage, unlike in the extant Syriac version, Bardaisan does not
explicitly identify himself as a Christian.
In the Syriac dialogue, Bardaisan says,
“what shall we say, then, about the new race of us Christians?” (ܡܐܢܐ
ܕܝܢ ܢܐܡܪ ܥܠ ܫܪܒܬܐ ܚܕܬܐ ܕܝܠܢ ܕܟܪ̈ܣܛܝܢܐ) (BLC 46,
ed. Nau, 607,16–17), whereas Eusebius’ text
reads τί δὲ ἐροῦμεν περὶ τῆς τῶν Χριστιανῶν αἱρέσεως (Eusebius, Praep. ev.
6.10.45, ed. Mras / des Places,
342,23–24).
The church historian first quotes a segment in
which Bardaisan outlines the respective powers of nature and free will (BLC 15–16) and then produces a long passage of νόμιμα
βαρβαρικά from the dialogue’s latter part (BLC 25–47).
BLC 15–16 and 25–47, ed. Nau, 558,10–562,3; 582,5–610,7.
For understanding
the dissemination of Bardaisan’s dialogue it is vitally important to note that
Eusebius – unlike the Ps.-Clementine Recognitions – cites
from two separate sections of the Book of the Laws.
Eusebius thus had access to the entire dialogue, whereas the author of the
Ps.-Clementine Recognitions reveals familiarity only with
the second, ethnographic part of this work.
The famous Antiochene exegete Diodore of Tarsus (d. ca. 390) takes up the subject
of fate and free will in his κατὰ εἱμαρμένης. This book is now lost, but we are
well informed of its arguments through the summary provided by the ninth-
century Constantinopolitan patriarch Photios in his Library.
Photios, Bibl. 223
(208b–222a), ed. R. Henry, Photius,
Bibliothèque, vol. 4 (Paris 1991), 8–48.
Right at
the beginning of his synopsis, Photios favorably comments that Diodore (whose
theology he apparently generally does not much appreciate) set forth a clear and
zealous refutation of Bardaisan’s doctrines in the fifty-first chapter of his
treatise. According to the patriarch, Diodore began this section by summarily
criticizing Bardaisan’s position as a half-hearted compromise, because his
discourse freed the soul from fate but kept the body and all which concerns it
subject to fate.
Photios, Bibl. 223
(208b), ed. Henry, 8,18–9,32.
It is
likely that Diodore regarded Bardaisan’s coherent and well- argued position as a
particular threat to his own anthropology and therefore wished to raise
objections to it already at the beginning of his treatise On
Fate. Bardaisan’s theology apparently was still a force to be reckoned
with at the end of the fourth century. After surveying Diodore’s refutation,
Photios in due course rehearses several specific points brought forth by the
Antiochene exegete against Bardaisan. Diodore challenged Bardaisan’s theory on
biblical, theological, and philosophical grounds.
Photios, Bibl. 223
(221b–222a), ed. Henry,
45,12–47,16.
Much of Diodore’s reasoning against fate elsewhere
in this treatise rests on anti-deterministic arguments in the tradition of
Carneades, which, of course, were also employed by Bardaisan.
Cf.
E. Amand de Mendieta, Fatalisme
et liberté dans l’antiquité grecque. Recherches sur la survivance de
l’argumentation morale antifataliste de Carnéade chez les
philosophes grecs et les théologiens chrétiens des quatre premiers
siècles (Louvain 1945). On Bardaisan’s notion of fate and its
relation to Alexander of Aphrodisias, see A. Dihle, “Zur Schicksalslehre des Bardesanes,” in: Kerygma und Logos. Beiträge zu den
geistesgeschichtlichen Beziehungen zwischen Antike und Christentum.
Festschrift für Carl Andresen zum 70. Geburtstag, edited by A.
M. Ritter (Göttingen 1979),
123–135.
Interestingly, certain parallels between Diodore and the
Book of the Laws are apparent,
For instance, in 215b
Diodore stresses that unlike the behavior of various animals, human
action exhibits much variety, so that it consequently cannot possibly be
determined by fate (ed. Henry, 28,6–29,28). In
218a Diodore refers to the customs of Jews and Christians as counter
examples (ed. Henry, 35,13–36,33).
so that the question presents itself to what degree Diodore might have mined his
opponent’s dialogue for those kinds of arguments that well suited his
agenda.
The reception history of Bardaisan’s Book of the Laws
continues well into Byzantine times. In the sixth century, an anonymous author
attributed certain theological dialogues to Caesarius, the brother of Gregory of
Nazianzus, and these treatises show familiarity with the Book
of the Laws.
Ps.-Caesarius, Erotapokriseis, ed.
R. Riedinger, Pseudo-Kaisarios,
Die Erotapokriseis, GCS (Berlin 1989), 83–87. Older ed. in PG
38 (1862), 977–987 (= dial. 2, 109–110). On this
author, see R. Riedinger, Pseudo-Kaisarios.
Überlieferungsgeschichte und Verfasserfrage, Byzantinisches
Archiv 12 (München 1969). Brief overview in
D. Ramos-Lissón,
“Pseudo-Caesarius,” LThK
3 8 (1999), 708.
In the ninth century, the
historian George Harmatolos quotes from the Book of the
Laws.
George Hamartolos, ed.
J. A. Cramer,
Anecdota Graeca Bibliothecarum Oxoniensium,
vol. 4 (Oxford 1837, reprint Amsterdam 1963), 236–237. Brief overview of
George in A. Kazhdan
/ A. Cutler, “George
Hamartolos,” Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium 2
(1991), 836.
But inasmuch as George mentions Caesarius
directly prior to his discussion of Bardaisan, and since the two passages
contain many parallels, it appears likely that George may have derived his
knowledge from Ps.-Caesarius, as already A. Hilgenfeld surmised.
A. Hilgenfeld, Bardesanes, der
letzte Gnostiker (Leipzig 1864), 93.
Finally, a
reference to Bardaisan occurs in the Ecclesiastical
History composed by Nikephoros Kallistos in the early part of the
fourteenth century.
Nikephoros Kallistos, h.e. 4.11, PG 145 (1904), 1001.
Much of what
Nikephoros writes about the Edessene is taken directly – at times even verbatim
– from Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, but his account
also includes an interesting detail that remains without parallel in the Greek
patristic literature,
Noteworthy is Nikephoros’ statement in the
dialogue that Bardaisan characterized the “Father of the Logos” (PG 145,
1001). However, the section in Nikephoros is only brief and no definite
conclusions can be drawn from it.
so that one is led to
wonder if, perhaps, he was acquainted with some of Bardaisan’s treatises.
Of all of Bardaisan’s works, the Book of the
Laws clearly is the one with the most significant impact upon late
antique Christianity. Although Bardaisan was often criticized for entering a
compromise on the subject of fate and thereby ceding too much to the power of
the stars, the arguments set forth in his dialogue favorably impressed later
generations of theologians and provided useful resources for the ongoing
refutation of astral determinism. Yet Bardaisan’s influence upon Christian
thought, especially in his native Syriac tradition, far exceeds his reflections
on fate and free will and pertains to many other areas as well. Some of these
will be outlined in the remainder of this essay.
3. Poetry and Madrashe
The Syriac Christian tradition is rightly famous for its abundance of
imaginative religious poetry, a feature that has characterized it from its
inception. What constitutes perhaps the oldest extant literary text in Syriac,
the Odes of Solomon, is a collection of hymns.
Odes of Solomon, ed.
J. H. Charlesworth, The Odes of
Solomon. The Syriac texts, edited with translation and notes,
SBL Texts and Translations 13, Pseudepigrapha 7 (Chico, CA 1977); also
ed. with German transl.
M. Lattke, Oden Salomos. Text,
Übersetzung, Kommentar, 3 vols., Novum Testamentum et Orbis
Antiquus 41 (Göttingen 1999–2005). Scholarly opinion varies as to the
date and original language of the Odes.
The Acts of Thomas, dating to
the early third century, incorporate poetic material. And Bardaisan, too, wrote
hymns and psalms – one hundred and fifty of them in imitation of the psalms of
David, Ephrem claims. Ephrem speaks of Bardaisan as a composer of both hymns
(ܡܕܪ̈ܫܐ) and psalms (ܙܡܝܪ̈ܬܐ),
Ephrem, CH 53,5–6;
54,1, ed. Beck, 203,5–14; 204,25–205,3.
and his remarks
suggest that in the Syriac world it was Bardaisan who first set the previously
existing literary genre of madrasha to music.
Ephrem, CH 53,5, ed.
Beck, 203,5–9. See
K. E. McVey, “Were the
Earliest Madrašē Songs or Recitations?” in: After Bardaisan. Studies on Continuity and Change in
Syriac Christianity in Honour of Professor Han J. W. Drijvers,
ed. G. J. Reinink / A. C. Klugkist, OLA 89 (Louvain 1999), 185–199, esp.
187–190.
Bardaisan’s son is said to have continued in the
footsteps of his father and to have composed chants.
Ephrem, PR II, 221. See
also the passages in Sozomen and Theodoret, cited below in n. 49.
These Bardaisanite madrashe significantly
influenced the Syriac tradition, for Ephrem in the later fourth century laments
that Bardaisan’s followers still chant these hymns with their altogether
objectionable content.
Ephrem,
CH 1,17, ed. Beck, 5,1–3.
According to
the fifth-century Greek church historians Sozomen and Theodoret, Ephrem
consequently set out himself to compose madrashe with
orthodox content, so that the tunes championed by Bardaisan and his son could
now be sung without causing doctrinal offense.
Sozomen, h.e. 3.16.5–7;
ed. J. Bidez /
G. C. Hansen, Sozomenus,
Kirchengeschichte, second edition, GCS N.F. 4 (Berlin 1995),
128,15–129,8; Theodoret, h.e. 4.29.2–3, ed. L. Parmentier / G. C. Hansen, Theodoret,
Kirchengeschichte, third edition, GCS N.F. 5 (Berlin 1998),
269,13–18.
Bardaisan, even if he cannot be credited with
having invented the genre of madrasha, appears to have
been the earliest among the Syriac Christians to enhance this poetic form with
music. He was a pioneer in setting poetry to music, and he did so with great and
long-lasting success. From Ephrem’s comments and the few extant fragments of
Bardaisan’s poetry, we can gather that certain of his hymns had educational
theological content, discussing, for example, the doctrine of creation.
H. H. Schaeder argued that the heresiological
summary by Theodore bar Koni contains excerpts from Bardaisan’s
writings, cf. H. H. Schaeder, “Bardesanes von Edessa in der
Überlieferung der griechischen und der syrischen Kirche,” ZKG 51 (1932), 21–73, esp. 47–49. In CH 55, Ephrem quotes fragments of hymns
attributed to Bardaisan’s followers. These fragments seem to relate a
cosmogonic myth.
Thereby Bardaisan’s hymns constitute the
oldest Syriac madrashe (a term derived from drš, ‘to instruct’) that have come down to us,
‘teaching-songs’ in the true meaning of the word.
Some of Bardaisan’s theological poems were apparently not only
popular but also sufficiently orthodox to become disconnected from their
author’s name and to enter the mainstream of the Syriac tradition. In the late
fifth century, Philoxenus of Mabbug and the deacon Habbib engaged in a literary
controversy on christology, in the course of which Philoxenus articulated his
own miaphysite stance as follows:
And the Ancient of Ages became a child,
and the Most High a baby in the womb,
and God became human in the womb,
and the spiritual (became) bodily.
Philoxenus, Letter to the
Monasteries, ed. M. Brière /
F. Graffin, Dissertationes decem
de uno et sancto Trinitate incorporate et passo, PO 41.1
(1982), 44,10–12.
The well-read Habbib
See Habbib’s own statement, quoted by Philoxenus
in Diss. 3,12, ed. Brière / Graffin, PO 38.3, 486,4–6;
cf. van Rompay, “Bardaisan and Mani,” 81. On
Philoxenus’ objections to Habbib’s reading list, see Diss. 10, 189–190, ed. Brière / Graffin, PO 40.2 (1980), 344–346.
claimed at once to have recognized the phrase “the Ancient of Ages became a
child, and God a baby in the womb” as originating from none other than
Bardaisan, and he lost no time in accusing Philoxenus of borrowing from a
heretic.
Philoxenus, Diss., ed. Brière / Graffin, PO 41.1, Paris
1982, 14,27–16,2 (no. 17); cf. PO 41.1, 16,23–24 (no. 22); Diss. 1, 35, ed. Brière, PO 15.4 (1920), 464,11–12.
Philoxenus’ own
defense against Habbib’s accusation is rather weak and gives the impression that
Bardaisan indeed was the author of this metric passage.
On the details of the debate
between Philoxenus and Habbib, see
van Rompay, “Bardaisan and Mani.”
This
episode illustrates the power and persuasiveness that Bardaisan’s poetry exerted
for centuries to come.
4. Astronomy
Bardaisan declares in the Book of the Laws
that formerly he himself had belonged to the Chaldeans, that is to the
astrologers whose teachings he now so effectively opposes.
BLC 16, ed. Nau,
564,19–23.
After his conversion to Christianity, he outright
rejected the central tenets of astral determinism and upheld human freedom in
ethical matters.
Bardaisan upheld that astral phenomena can have
some influence over factors that are beyond the control of human beings
or the laws of nature, such as sickness or poverty that do occur but are
generally undesired. This proposition made him unacceptable to the later
normative church.
As is well known, astrology and astronomy
went hand in hand in antiquity and one cannot always clearly distinguish between
the two. And while Bardaisan’s counter- arguments in the Book
of the Laws reveal his easy familiarity with astrological doctrines
(which he now opposes), other texts demonstrate that he was also well acquainted
with astronomy.
It may come as a surprise to realize that, in fact, later Syriac
Christians admired him for his specialized astronomical knowledge and upheld his
scientific inquiry as exemplary. In the seventh century, Severus Sebokht, the
learned bishop and monk at Qenneshre,
On the intellectual life in the monastery, see
J. Tannous, “You Are What You Read:
Qenneshre and the Miaphysite Church in the Seventh Century,” in: History and Identity in the Late Antique Near
East, edited
by Ph. Wood (Oxford
2013), 83–102. On Severus at Qenneshre, see É. Villey, “Qennešre et l’astronomie aux VIe et VIIe siècles,”
in: Les sciences en syriaque, edited by É. Villey, Études syriaques 11 (Paris 2014),
149–190.
proudly points out that Bardaisan’s astronomical
insights undeniably demonstrate that not only pagans but also Syriac Christians
were well versed in this discipline.
Nau, “Notes
d’astronomie syrienne,” 211,20–212,1. See also
E. Reich, “Ein Brief des Severus Sēḇōḵt,” in: Sic itur ad astra. Studien zur Geschichte der
Mathematik und Naturwissenschaften. Festschrift für den Arabisten
Paul Kunitzsch zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. M. Folkerts /
R. Lorch (Wiesbaden 2000), 478–489.
In
the eighth century, George, the bishop of the Arab tribes (d. 724), similarly
takes recourse to the astronomical calculations of the Bardaisanites in a letter
addressed to the stylite John of Litharb who had, among other things, inquired
about the rising times of the zodiacal signs.
George, ep. 1 (dated
714 AD), ed. V. Ryssel, “Die astronomischen Briefe Georgs des
Araberbischofs,” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 8
(1893), 1–55, esp. 19,7–20,11. To be precise, George refers not to
Bardaisan, but to the “Bardaisanites.” The scientific background and
relevance of the particular astronomical topics that are discussed by
George and by Severus Sebokht need not be addressed here. For this, see
the relevant sections in my forthcoming monograph on
Bardaisan.
Precise knowledge of the rising times was important
for astrology, but it also allowed one to calculate the length of day and night
for a particular date. Christians most likely were interested in such
computations in order to determine the date of moveable feasts such as
Easter.
Cf. George, ep. 1, ed.
Ryssel, “Die astronomischen Briefe,”
8–11.
Significantly, Bishop George here endorses Bardaisan’s
scientific accomplishments as a solid base for calculations of astral phenomena,
and he does not at all associate him with astrology. This is not due, as one
might surmise, to George not being able adequately to distinguish between
astronomy and astrology, for in another letter to the same John of Litharb,
George vehemently rejects the claims of the “demonic astrologers.”
George, ep. 2 (dated
716), ed. Ryssel, “Die astronomischen Briefe,”
24–25.
A further illustration of Bardaisan’s astronomical
interest comes from a short manuscript notice on the names for the zodiacal
signs as they were used by the Bardaisanites.
Ed.
E. Sachau, Inedita syriaca. Eine
Sammlung syrischer Übersetzungen von Schriften griechischer
Profanliteratur. Mit einem Anhang. Aus den Handschriften des
Britischen Museums herausgegeben (Wien 1870, reprint Hildesheim
1968), 126.
This brief segment is preserved in the same
manuscript as is the Book of the Laws, but it does not
immediately follow upon the dialogue.
In the manuscript BL Syr. add. 14658, the Book of the Laws (the eleventh text in this
manuscript) is followed by a treatise by Sergius of Reshʿaina On the Motion of the Moon and a short appendix
thereto (On the Motion of the Sun), then follows
the notice on the names of the signs of the zodiac; cf. Wright, Catalogue, vol.
3, 1158.
As with the rising times, the signs of the zodiac
were certainly relevant to astrology, but they were occasionally also discussed
by Christian intellectuals for their scientific relevance, as the letter by
George, the bishop of the Arab tribes, illustrates.
On the terminology for the
signs of the zodiac used by George, see his letter to John of Litharb,
ed. Ryssel, 19–21. This is the same passage in
which George discusses the rising times of the signs of the
zodiac.
These various testimonies show that Bardaisan was known and
appreciated by later Syriac Christians for his astronomical insights and helpful
calculations. We can thus concur with the view voiced already by François Nau
more than a hundred years ago, based on his reading of two of the
above-mentioned sources: “Les deux textes nous montrent encore que les
préoccupations de Bardesane étaient d’ordre astronomique et géographique et
n’avaient aucun rapport avec les fantaisies théurgiques que les auteurs
postérieurs lui ont attribuées en l’adjoignant à Manès.”
F. Nau, “La cosmographie au VIIe siècle chez les
Syriens,” Revue de l’Orient Chrétien 15 (1910),
225–254, quote on p. 227.
5. Ethnography
Bardaisan’s broad ethnographic interest becomes quickly apparent to
the reader of the Book of the Laws, for in the dialogue
he reports at length on the various customs and rituals of other peoples. Both
the sources employed by him and the later reception history of the diverse
ethnographic material compiled in this treatise merit further research. Here,
however, I should like to confine myself to some remarks on Bardaisan’s interest
in Indian culture and religion.
In the Book of the Laws, Indian customs play
an important role and are mentioned in several passages. Bardaisan begins his
list of the laws of the countries, presented in the second half of the treatise,
with the Seres and then immediately moves on to the Indians. He describes the
norms of life common among the ascetic Brahmans as well as the lifestyle of
those who are not Brahmans.
BLC 27–28, ed. Nau,
583,27–584,25.
Later on in the dialogue he again takes up the
customs of the Indians, now elaborating on their funerary rites.
BLC 39, ed. Nau, 596,13–20; BLC 40, ed. Nau, 599,4–8.
Moreover, the large
territory of India serves him as a suitable example to show that within one
climate zone a variety of customs can exist side by side, thus repudiating the
Chaldean doctrine that one of the planets rules over each of the seven climata.
BLC 42, ed. Nau,
600,22–26. On the theory of seven climata, see
E. Honigmann, Die sieben Klimata
und die ΠΟΛΕΙΣ ΕΠΙΣΗΜΟΙ. Eine Untersuchung zur Geschichte der
Geographie und Astrologie im Altertum und Mittelalter
(Heidelberg 1929).
Bardaisan’s curiosity about India led him to engage with an Indian
delegation which he encountered, probably in Edessa, while they passed through
the region en route to Emperor Elagabalus (218–222). In
his writings he rehearses some of what he had learned from them, and fragments
of his reflections on India have come down to us through the Neo-Platonist
philosopher Porphyry (d. 305). In his treatise On the
Styx, Porphyry preserves a passage from Bardaisan in which the Edessene
describes an ordeal by water common among the Brahmans. In the same treatise,
Porphyry presents another excerpt in which Bardaisan describes an androgynous
cosmogonic statue, as it were a prototype of creation, that is said to be
located in a grotto in India. In this cave, Brahmans purportedly assemble for
prayer, debate the statue’s meaning, and undergo a ritual of
self-examination.
Porphyry, De Styge (=
Stobaios, Florilegium. 1.3.56), ed. F. Jacoby,
FGH 3C (Leiden 1958), no. 719, Fragm. 1, p.
643–645. Ed. with German transl.
F. Winter, Bardesanes von Edessa
über Indien. Ein früher syrischer Theologe schreibt über ein fremdes
Land, Frühes Christentum. Forschungen und Perspektiven 5 (Thaur
1999), 37–40, 47–55. For the most recent discussion of these fragments,
see the excellent study by I. Tanaseanu-Döbler, “Bemerkungen zu Porphyrios und Bardaiṣan,”
ZAC 19 (2015), 26–68.
Porphyry’s
interest in Bardaisan’s work on India becomes evident also in his treatise On Abstinence, where he cites a lengthy passage from
Bardaisan that describes the customs of the Indian Brahmans and of the
‘Samaneans’
Porphyry, De abst.
4.17, ed. Jacoby, FGH
3C, no. 719, Fragm. 2, p. 645–647. Ed. with German transl. Winter, Bardesanes,
41–43, 56–62. Engl. transl.
T. Taylor, Porphyry, On
Abstinence from Animal Food (London 1965).
(the
latter of which are to be identified with Buddhist monks).
Winter, Bardesanes, 141–142 and passim;
Tanaseanu-Döbler, “Bemerkungen,”
59–60.
Via Porphyry’s works Bardaisan’s ethnographic
observations became available to a wider audience, including late antique
Christian authors. Jerome, for instance, in his Against
Jovinian takes over directly from Porphyry illustrative examples of how
various pagan and Jewish groups practice asceticism, and he includes the
striking illustration pertaining to India provided by Bardaisan.
Jerome, Against
Jovinian 2.14, PL 23, 304. Close textual analysis shows that it
is unlikely that Jerome drew on Bardaisan’s works directly.
We do not know how far-reaching the influence of Bardaisan’s
ethnographic discourses was in late antiquity, but the examples shown above make
manifest that his reflections on India certainly enjoyed a wider audience.
Several passages were favorably cited by the pagan intellectual Porphyry, and
Jerome’s Against Jovinian reveals that Bardaisan’s
observations on foreign cultures were well received by patristic authors as
well.
6. Cosmology
Bardaisan’s cosmology, which does not seem to have had much of an
afterlife among Greek intellectuals, constitutes the aspect of his oeuvre most
controversial among later Syriac authors. Although the Book of
the Laws offers only a sketchy picture of Bardaisan’s cosmology, it
nevertheless clearly affirms that Bardaisan believed God to be the creator of
the world and humankind.
BLC 1, ed. Nau,
536,11–14; BLC 19, ed. Nau, 567,24–568,1.
Regarding the heavenly bodies,
Bardaisan maintains in the dialogue that these, too, are created entities and
subject to the divine commandments.
BLC 19, ed. Nau, 567,26–568,6; BLC 8, ed. Nau, 544,14–24.
He posits that the
heavenly bodies were endowed with a certain kind of freedom – a view resonating
with the statement in Gen. 1:17 according to which the heavenly bodies were
given power to rule over day and night
Another biblical passage that might have
motivated Bardaisan to this statement is Isa. 45:12, where God exclaims,
“I have given commandments to all the stars.” This verse is among
biblical passages cited by Origen in support of his view that the
heavenly bodies are rational beings. Origen,
De princ. 1.7.3, ed. Koetschau, 88,11–12. On Bardaisan’s use of Scripture more
broadly, see my forthcoming article “Bardaisan and the Bible.” See also
A. Camplani, “Bardaisan
and the Bible,” in: Gnose et manichéisme: entre les
oasis d’Egypte et la route de la soie: hommage à Jean-Daniel
Dubois, edited by A. Van den Kerchove
/ G. Soares Santoprete (Turnhout 2017),
699–715.
– and that based on the use they make of their
freedom, they too will be judged on the last day.
BLC 9, ed. Nau,
548,15–19.
This understanding of the heavenly bodies in some
respects resembles the ideas articulated by Origen in On First
Principles, who likewise maintains that the heavenly bodies are
rational beings endowed with free will.
Origen, De princ.
1.7.2–1.7.3, ed. Koetschau. On this subject,
see my “Bardaisan and Origen on Fate and the Power of the Stars,” JECS 20 (2012), 515–541. Possible parallels
between the thought of Bardaisan and Origen are also addressed by
I. Ramelli, “Origen, Bardaiṣan, and the Origin of
Universal Salvation,”HTR 102 (2009),
135–168.
One cannot be sure whether this constitutes an instance
of Bardaisan’s influence upon the great Alexandrian theologian, or if any
similarities between the thought of the Edessene and Origen – of which there are
more – arise out of them reflecting upon the same questions and on the same
biblical passages within a very similar cultural milieu.
The Book of the Laws hints at Bardaisan’s
belief that the world was created out of pre-existing substances,
BLC 8, ed. Nau,
547,10–12; BLC 46, ed. Nau, 611,10–15.
a notion not without parallel among
early Christian writers. Justin Martyr, for instance, upheld the view that the
world was made from “unformed matter” (ἐξ ἀμόρφου ὕλης).
Justin, 1 Apol. 10.2,
ed. M. Marcovich, Iustini Martyris
Apologiae pro Christianis, PTS 38 (Berlin 1994),
45,7.
Harmonizing the accounts given by Plato in the Timaeus and by Moses in Genesis 1:2, Justin elaborates:
“So by God’s word the whole universe was made out of this substratum (ἐκ τῶν
ὑποκειμένων), as expounded by Moses, and Plato and those who agree with him, as
well as we, have learned it [from him].”
Justin, 1 Apol. 59, ed.
Marcovich, 115,10–11; transl. C. C. Richardson,
Early Christian Fathers (New York 1970), 280.
Hermogenes (fl. 175–205)
M. Durst, “Hermogenes,” LThK
3 5 (1996), 13.
too
interprets the Genesis account of creation, not unlike Bardaisan, in such a way
that led him to postulate the existence of several uncreated primal elements
(darkness, the abyss, the spirit, and water).
Tertullian, Adversus
Hermogenem 23.1, 30.1, 41–43, and passim, ed.
F. Chapot, Tertullien, Contre
Hermogène, SC 439 (Paris 1999), 140–142, 158–160, 188–194. On
Hermogenes and his teachings, see K. Greschat, Apelles und
Hermogenes. Zwei theologische Lehrer des zweiten Jahrhunderts,
Vigiliae Christianae Supplements 48 (Leiden 2000), esp. 148–166, 224f.
Brief outline of Bardaisan’s cosmogony in my “Die Schöpfungstheologie
des Bardaisan von Edessa,” in: Edessa in
hellenistisch-römischer Zeit. Religion, Kultur und Politik zwischen
Ost und West. Beiträge des internationalen Edessa-Symposiums in
Halle an der Saale, 14.–17. Juli 2005, ed. L. Greisiger / C. Rammelt / J. Tubach, Beiruter
Texte und Studien 116 (Beirut 2009), 219–229; see also A. Camplani, “Note
bardesanitiche,” Miscellanea Marciana 12 (1997),
11–43; A. Camplani,
“Rivisitando Bardesane: Note sulle fonti siriache del bardesanismo e
sulla sua collocazione storico-religiosa,” Cristianesimo nella storia 19 (1998), 519–596; A. Camplani,
“Bardesane et bardésanites,” École pratique des hautes
études. Section des sciences religieuses Annuaire. Résumé des
conférences et travaux 112 (2003–2004), 29–50 (includes
discussion of an unedited fragment on Bardaisan’s cosmogony in the
Hexaemeron commentary by Moses bar Kepha).
In the second
century, when Bardaisan formulated his cosmology, a belief in pre-existing
substances was thus held by several Christian intellectuals, but in a later age,
when the doctrine of a creatio ex nihilo had emerged as a
broad consensus among theologians,
See the comprehensive study by
G. May, Schöpfung aus dem
Nichts. Die Entstehung der Lehre von der creatio ex nihilo,
Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 48 (Berlin 1978). On Jewish discussions
of the subject, see M. R. Niehoff, “Creatio ex
Nihilo Theology in Genesis Rabbah in
Light of Christian Exegesis,” HTR 99 (2005),
37–64; M. Kister, “Tohu wa-Bohu, Primordial Elements and
Creatio ex Nihilo,” Jewish Studies Quarterly 14
(2007), 229–256. On the Syriac Christian interpretation of Gen. 1:2, see
A. Guillaumont,
“Genèse 1,1–2 selon les commentateurs syriaques,” in: In Principio. Interprétations des premiers versets de la
Genèse, Collections des Études Augustiniennes. Série Antiquité
38 (Paris 1973), 115–132; S. Brock, “The Ruaḥ Elōhīm
of Gen 1,2 and its Reception History in the Syriac Tradition,” in: Lectures et relectures de la Bible. Festschrift P.-M.
Bogaert, ed. J.-M. Auwers / A. Wénin, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum
Lovaniensium 144 (Louvain 1999), 327–349.
the presupposition
of some sort of primordial matter came to be regarded as an outrageous heresy.
The fact that Bardaisan’s followers continued to uphold the idea of primordial
matter and that, moreover, they appear to have developed his doctrines further
into a dualist direction,
See Ephrem, PR II, 227,2–6.
relegated them to a
place far outside the mainline tradition.
This process can be illustrated by the shifting role attributed to
the darkness in the Bardaisanite cosmogony. The Book of the
Laws, in which the creation of the world receives some attention, never
even mentions the darkness. In the Syriac dialogue Bardaisan firmly rejects
dualist notions,
BLC 1, ed. Nau,
536,11–12.
and this makes it highly unlikely that he would
have regarded the darkness as some kind of evil entity. On the other hand, since
it can be shown that Bardaisan, as a Christian theologian, developed his
cosmogony in light of the Genesis account, it would be surprising that the
darkness (which features so prominently in Gen 1:2–5) should not have received
some attention in his creation theology. It is thus quite plausible, as Ephrem
later maintained, that the darkness constituted for Bardaisan one of the
primordial elements (alongside water, wind, light, and fire),
Ephrem, PR I, 52–53;
II, 222–225.
although it is highly doubtful that he would
have considered the darkness as an evil entity, standing in opposition to God.
While Ephrem generally does not characterize Bardaisan’s darkness as evil, he
hints at this idea when he calls darkness ‘ugly’ (ܣܢܝܐ) in the Hymns against Heresies.
Ephrem, CH 41,7, ed.
Beck, 166,9–13. The passage implies that the attribute “ugly” (or
“hateful”) is Ephrem’s and not Bardaisan’s terminology.
One may surmise that under Manichaean influence Bardaisan’s disciples
radicalized his teachings and increasingly conceptualized darkness as a negative
force, so that by the sixth century mainline Syriac Christian authors could
describe the darkness in the Bardaisanite cosmology as ‘the enemy’
(ܒܥܠܕܒܒܐ).
Barḥadbeshabba ʿArbaia, History 2.5, ed. Nau,
191,8.
This process must have continued well into the Islamic
era, for Arabic authors generally treat the Bardaisanites among the dualist
sects and claim that they proposed a juxtaposition of light and darkness within
the cosmogonic system.
See the literature cited in n. 12
above.
Bardaisan’s thought in general, and his cosmology in particular, must
have exercised a profound influence upon the formation of the Manichaean
doctrinal system. The fact that Mani, just as had Bardaisan before him, composed
a book entitled On the Mysteries already hints at a
certain rivalry.
Bardaisan’s treatise On the
Mysteries is mentioned by Ephrem, CH 56,9; cf. CH 1,14. On
Mani’s book of the same title see the following footnote.
Ibn al-Nadim in his Fihrist reports that in his Book of Mysteries Mani dedicated three sections to a
refutation of Bardaisan’s teachings.
al-Nadim, Fihrist 9.1,
transl. Dodge, vol. 2, 797f. It is of course
possible that further sections of this book also addressed Bardaisan’s
teachings.
Moreover, the Arabic astronomer and scientist
al-Biruni (973–1048) preserves a quotation from Mani’s treatise On the Mysteries, in which Mani explicitly opposes
certain of Bardaisan’s views.
The passage is ed.
E. Sachau, Alberuni’s India. An
account of the religion, philosophy, literature, geography,
chronology, astronomy, customs, laws and astrology of India about
A.D. 1030, 2 vols. (London 1888), transl. in vol. 1, 54–55. The
subject here is the relation between human soul and body. On this
source, see A. Camplani, “Bardaisan’s
Psychology: Known and Unknown Testimonies and Current Scholarly
Perspectives,” in: Syriac Encounters: Papers from the
Sixth North American Syriac Symposium, Duke University, 26–29 June
2011, edited by M. Doerfler / E. Fiano / K. Smith
(Leuven 2015), 259–276. On the relation between Bardaisan’s thought and
the Manichaean system, a subject still deserving further study, see for
example H. J. W. Drijvers, “Mani und Bardaiṣan. Ein Beitrag zur
Vorgeschichte des Manichäismus,” in: Mélanges
d’histoire des religions offerts à Henri-Charles Puech (Paris
1974), 459–469; B. Aland, “Mani und Bardesanes — Zur Entstehung
des manichäischen Systems,” in: Synkretismus im
syrisch-persischen Kulturgebiet. Bericht über ein Symposium in
Reinhausen bei Göttingen in der Zeit vom 4. bis 8. Oktober
1971, ed. A. Dietrich, Abhandlungen der Akademie der
Wissenschaften in Göttingen. Philologisch-historische Klasse, dritte
Folge, Nr. 96 (Göttingen 1975), 123–143; S. N. C. Lieu, Manichaeism in the
Later Roman Empire and Medieval China. A Historical Survey
(Manchester 1985), 42–45, 103–104; G. Harrison / J. BeDuhn, “The
Authenticity and Doctrine of (Ps.?) Mani’s Letter to Menoch,” in: The Light and the Darkness. Studies in Manichaeism and
its World, edited by
P. Mirecki /
J. BeDuhn (Leiden 2001),
128–172, esp. 151–153, 168–171 (on the possible impact of the BLC on the author of this letter).
Mani’s letter to the Edessenes, of which the Cologne Mani
Codex preserves an excerpt, confirms that a group of Mani’s followers
resided in Edessa.
Cologne Mani Codex 64,8–65,22, ed. with German
transl. L. Koenen /
C. Römer, Der Kölner Mani-Kodex.
Über das Werden seines Leibes (Opladen 1988), 44f.; ed. with
Engl. transl. R. Cameron /
A. J. Dewey, The Cologne Mani Codex
(P. Colon. inv. nr. 4780): Concerning the Origin of his Body
(Missoula, Mont. 1979), 50–53.
In light of such close
contacts, it would not come as a surprise to find later followers of Bardaisan
in conversation with Manichaeans, adapting their own cosmological views to those
of this successful new religious movement, and in turn influenced it as
well.
7. The Refutation of Marcionism
A further aspect of Bardaisan’s reception among late antique
Christians that ought to be mentioned here is his refutation of Marcionism.
On Marcion, see
now J. Lieu, Marcion and the
Making of a Heretic: God and Scripture in the Second Century
(Cambridge, UK 2015).
As W. Bauer has shown long ago, the
Marcionites established a community in Edessa at a very early time, perhaps even
preceding the arrival of ‘orthodox’ Christianity,
W. Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy
in Earliest Christianity (Mifflintown, PA 1996), first publ. as
Rechtgläubigkeit und Ketzerei im ältesten
Christentum, 1934.
so that Bardaisan most certainly
was confronted with the controversial teachings of Marcion and his followers.
Bardaisan’s vehement opposition to Marcion’s theology constitutes one of the
best documented aspects of his activity,
The BLC does not
explicitly mention Marcion, but Bardaisan’s initial arguments refute the
Marcionite postulate of two gods. Eusebius, Ephrem, the Life of Aberkios, and the Adamantius Dialogue (ed. W. H van den Sande Bakhuyzen, Der Dialog des Adamantius, GCS [Leipzig 1901]),
all mention Bardaisan’s anti-Marcionite efforts as well. Hippolytus, Ref. VII 31,1, refers to a treatise by the
Marcionite Prepon against Bardaisan, thus confirming the existence of a
literary debate between Marcionites and Bardaisan, ed.
M. Marcovich, Hippolytus.
Refutatio omnium haeresium, PTS 25 (Berlin 1986), 312,3–5.
but unfortunately none of his dialogues against the Marcionites
has survived
Such dialogues are mentioned by Eusebius, h.e. 4.30.1–2, ed. Schwartz
/ Mommsen, 392,14–23.
and only traces of his
anti-Marcionite reasoning remain in the patristic literature. In the Book of the Laws, Bardaisan affirms the doctrine of the
oneness and goodness of God, an indication that he here specifically targets,
albeit without explicitly mentioning the name, Marcion’s novel distinction
between a good god and a foreign god.
BLC 1–2, ed. Nau,
536,9–539,4.
Further evidence for Bardaisan’s consistent
opposition to Marcion is supplied by the
Life of Aberkios, the second-century
bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia whose vita was composed
in the fourth century.
On the date of the Vita
Abercii, see
D. Bundy, “The Life of Abercius: Its Significance
for Early Syriac Christianity,” Second Century 7
(1989–90), 163–176; P. Thonemann, “Abercius of
Hierapolis: Christianization and Social Memory in Late Antique Asia
Minor,” in: Historical and Religious Memory in the
Ancient World, edited by B. Dignas / R. R. R. Smith. (Oxford
2012), 257–282.
Aberkios on his travels purportedly met
Bardaisan.
Life of Aberkios 69–70, ed. Nissen, 48,17–50,8. French transl. now in P. Maraval, Vie d’Abercius. Vie
de Polycarpe. Deux biographies légendaires d’évêques du IIe
siècle (Paris 2017).
The bishop is also said to have
encountered a certain Marcionite named Euxenianos and to have engaged him in a
lively debate during which Aberkios conveniently drew on Bardaisan’s speeches in
the Book of the Laws.
Life of Aberkios 31–38,
ed. Nissen, 23–30.
Detailed discussion of the parallels between the Vita
Abercii and the Book of the Laws by
Th. Nissen, “Die Petrusakten und ein
bardesanitischer Dialog in der Aberkiosvita,” ZNW
9 (1908), 190–203, 315–328. See also
H. Grégoire, “Bardesane et S. Abercius,” Byzantion 25–27 (1955–1957),
363–368.
Even Ephrem the Syrian, Bardaisan’s most vocal antagonist, cannot but
acknowledge Bardaisan’s persuasive refutation of Marcionism.
Ephrem repeatedly affirms
that Bardaisan criticized Marcion,
e.g., Ephrem, CH 3,4; PR I,
135.
Among other arguments, Bardaisan apparently adduced
philosophical considerations on the nature of space in order to challenge
Marcion’s notion of two gods, though unfortunately the precise ductus of
Bardaisan’s reasoning can no longer be accessed on account of the fragmentary
nature of our sources. Ephrem on the one hand tries to undermine Bardaisan’s
premises on space in order to challenge Bardaisan’s cosmology;
Ephrem,
PR I, 135f.; cf. CH 3,4.
but elsewhere Ephrem’s refutation of Marcion reveals such
similarity with Bardaisan’s arguments that in the end, the reader of Ephrem’s
hymns is left to wonder to what extent his anti-Marcionite polemic is itself
indebted to the apologetic discourses of his great Edessene rival.
See for
example Ephrem,
CH 32,14; 35,1–4.
8. The Alphabet of Bardaisan
A curiosity in the reception history of Bardaisan is the so-called
‘alphabet of Bardaisan’, a cipher widely used by Syriac scribes to encrypt
words, usually their own name, but at times also other short texts. These are
normally found in manuscript colophons. This cipher was first noted by Wright
and commented upon by some nineteenth-century scholars, but only recently has it
garnered more attention.
Wright, Catalogue … British
Museum, vol. 3, 1207 and passim; B. H. Cowper, “The Alphabet of Bardaisan,” Journal
of Sacred Literature and Biblical Record 6 (1863), 465–466; A.
Merx, Bardesanes von
Edessa, nebst einer Untersuchung über das Verhältnis der
clementinischen Recognitionen zu dem Buche der Gesetze der
Länder (Halle 1863), 61–62, n. 1; R. Duval, Traité de grammaire syriaque:
écriture, phonétique, orthographie, les parties du discours et les
formes des mots, syntaxe, index des mots (Paris 1881), 12–13;
Y. Paz / T. Weiss,
“From Encoding to Decoding: The AṬBḤ of R. Hiyya in Light of a Syriac,
Greek and Coptic Cipher,” Journal of Near Eastern
Studies 74 (2015), 45–65.
The encryption takes place
by permutating the letters of the alphabet according to the following
schema.
BL add. 7202. The scribe here lists assorted other alphabets in
conjunction with that of Bardaisan. See Wright, Catalogue, vol. 3, 1207, who
however does not here list the alphabet of Bardaisan. For this, see J.
P. N. Land, Anecdota
syriaca (Leiden 1886), 13; Paz / Weiss, “From Encoding to Decoding,”
52.
ܬ
ܫ
ܪ
ܩ
ܨ
ܦ
ܥ
ܣ
ܢ
ܡ
ܠ
ܟ
ܝ
ܛ
ܚ
ܙ
ܘ
ܗ
ܕ
ܓ
ܒ
ܐ
ܩ
ܪ
ܫ
ܬ
ܝ
ܟ
ܠ
ܡ
ܗ
ܣ
ܥ
ܦ
ܨ
ܐ
ܒ
ܓ
ܕ
ܢ
ܘ
ܙ
ܚ
ܛ
Several manuscripts, ranging in date from the 14th through the 19th
century, spell out this alphabet, occasionally alongside other alphabets or
ciphers; this particular code (with some minor variations) is consistently named
‘alphabet of Bardaisan’.
A slight variation is found in the subscription
of ms. BL add. 21,211, fol. 146b, see Wright,
Catalogue, vol. 3, 1182. The date of this ms.
is AD 1831 (fol. 42b, see Wright, Catalogue, vol. 3, 1181).
The cipher
is not unique to the Syriac world; similar ciphers occur in rabbinic literature
as well as in Greek and Coptic texts. It originated in Greek, where the earliest
extant evidence is a graffito from the second century, and was then adapted from
the Greek by Coptic and Syriac scribes.
See the detailed study by Paz / Weiss, “From
Encoding to Decoding.” On the second-century graffito from Egypt, see
ibid., 58–59.
A peculiarity of this code is that when the
numerical value of each letter is added to that of its code letter, the sum
amounts to 10, 100, 55, or 500.
For details, and the corresponding Greek
numerological analysis, see Paz / Weiss, “From Encoding to Decoding.” The first
to draw attention to this
was Cowper,
“Alphabet.”
This numerological aspect, however, is not
normally commented upon by Syriac scribes. Although the actual code and its
designation as ‘alphabet of Bardaisan’ appears only in later manuscripts,
scribes employed it already in some of our oldest extant Syriac manuscripts
(dating to the first half of the sixth century).
BL add. 17,176 (containing
Palladius) is dated AD 532, and the encoded name of Stephen appears on
fol. 87b, according to Wright written in “[a]nother, but still ancient,
hand” (Wright, Catalogue, vol. 3, 1072–1073). The codex BL add. 14,431
contains the books of Samuel in the Peshitta version and was collated in
AD 545 by a certain George who wrote his name in this cipher (Wright, Catalogue, vol.
1, 14–15).
The question of whether one can attribute this cipher with some
confidence to the historical Bardaisan must be asked, and while it cannot be
answered with certainty, I should like here to present some reasons that might
suggest a cautiously positive response.
Cowper, “Alphabet,” left the question open and
suggested a “Gnostic origin” (466). Duval, Traité de grammaire, 13, posited that the Syriacs
received the cipher from the Jews and attributed it to Bardaisan as “le
premier et le plus célèbre des gnostiques de la Syrie.”
While it is true, as Paz and Weiss have observed, that the earliest evidence for
the cipher in Syriac “dates to more than three centuries after Bardaisan’s
death” and the designation ‘alphabet of Bardaisan’ appears only in later
manuscripts,
Paz / Weiss, “From
Encoding to Decoding,” 58. Because of this, and since no evidence exists
that Bardaisan himself or his followers used the cipher, they do not
consider it likely that the cipher originated with Bardaisan (51–52).
However, in light of the very fragmentary nature of the sources on
Bardaisan, an argument ex silentio does not carry
too much weight.
we must emphasize that the use of the cipher
was a scribal habit documented in some of our oldest
Syriac manuscripts; it was not a subject discussed by ancient Syriac authors.
The earliest evidence of this alphabet comes from colophons dating from the
first half of the sixth century, thus belonging to the oldest layer of Syriac
manuscripts since only very few manuscripts produced prior to this date have
come down to us.
See S. Brock, “A
Tentative Check List of Dated Syriac Manuscripts up to 1300.“ Hugoye 15.1 (2012), 21–48. Brock lists only
fifteen manuscripts prior to 532.
Moreover, drawing attention
to the fact that this cipher originated with the ill-reputed Bardaisan surely
lay not in the interest of any ancient scribe. Nor do these early scribes, in
fact, ever spell out the code or its name; only rather later manuscripts contain
references to the actual cipher and its name, ‘alphabet of Bardaisan’. Three
further points can be adduced in support of the hypothesis that this alphabet
may have originated with Bardaisan. First, Julius Africanus – whom Bardaisan met
in person – is known to have appreciated codifications and quite possibly
employed this particular cipher.
Julius Africanus, Kestoi 7. 6, ed. Wallraff et al.,
58–61. The documentary evidence is somewhat inconclusive, and Paz and
Weiss seem to waiver as to whether or no Africanus knew the cipher.
However, the persuasive arguments in their Appendix suggest that he may
well have been familiar with it. (Paz / Weiss, “From Encoding to Decoding,”
65).
It is thus conceivable that Bardaisan learned the code from
Africanus. Second, Bardaisan is known to have exhibited interest in
numbers,
This is clear from the astrological calculations with which later
writers credit him. He also engaged in experiments intended to ascertain
how far an arrow would fly if it were to travel at an equal speed for 24
hours. See Julius Africanus, Kestoi 7.20, ed. Wallraff et al.
98–101.
and he was fascinated with language and the meaning
of words.
On
the names for the signs of the zodiac, see above n. 62. On Bardaisan’s
interest in names more generally, see Ephrem,
PR II, 48 and 221–222.
Adopting this
cipher from the Greek to Syriac would hence fit his intellectual profile
precisely. And thirdly, it would be difficult to explain, were he not at all
affiliated with the origin of this Syriac code, why it should have been named
after him – a contemptible heretic, after all, in the eyes of most Syriac
scribes (as they do not fail to point out).
The scribe of Vat. sir. 96, fol. 159a,
writes out the alphabet and labels it “the alphabet of Bardaisan the
wicked, which he and his wicked troop used.”
The alphabet of Bardaisan enjoyed a surprisingly wide and
long-lasting reception. Babylonian Jews adapted the code from the Syriac, and
the AṬBḤ cipher had a long afterlife in Jewish literature.
Paz / Weiss, “From
Encoding to Decoding,” 48–51.
Interestingly, rabbis would
occasionally even employ the cipher to decode a biblical word;
R. Hiyya employed the
cipher to explain the hapax manon (Prov. 29:21),
see Paz / Weiss,
“From Encoding to Decoding,” 45–46.
a midrash draws on the
numerical aspect of the code; and Kabbalistic literature enhances with the
cipher its theosophical discourse.
Paz / Weiss, “From
Encoding to Decoding,” 48–51.
In the Syriac tradition, by
contrast, the numerological aspect recedes into the background and the principal
application of the alphabet lies in encoding a scribe’s name, a short phrase, or
a brief text.
The scribe of BL add. 14,606, an 8th-century codex containing spiritual and monastic literature,
wrote a short encoded paragraph in the colophon; see Wright, Catalogue, vol.
2, 744–745.
One scribe even enhanced his encrypted request
for prayer by a pictorial representation of the encoded letters.
Cambridge Or.
1142, fol. 324v (Barhebraeus, Ethicon, ms. dated
18th cent.; see J. F. Coakley, A Catalogue of the
Syriac Manuscripts in Cambridge University Library and College
Libraries Acquired since 1901 (2018), 60–61.
The
practice was seemingly ubiquitous: colophons with encoded words are found in
East and West Syriac manuscripts from as early as A.D. 545 to as recent as the
nineteenth century, and range in content from New Testament Gospels to saints’
lives, from grammar treatises and lexica to philosophical handbooks.
See for
example Cambridge Oo.1.31, fol. 220b (Gospels and Epistles, East Syriac,
ca. 17th to 18th
cent.; see W. Wright, A Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts Preserved in the
Library of the University of Cambridge, vol. 2 [Cambridge
1901], 1109–1110); BL 14,431, fol. 157a (Book of Samuel according to the
Peshitta version, dated AD 545; see Wright,
Catalogue, vol. 1, 14–15); BL add. 21,21,
fol. 145a (encoded text), 145b (alphabet of Bardaisan) (the manuscript
contains an elementary grammar and the metrical grammar of Bar Hebraeus
and is dated AD 1831 (fol. 42b); see Wright,
Catalogue, vol. 3, 1180–1182); Berlin Syriac
ms. 90 (philosophical terms; ms. dating to the 17th cent.; see E. Sachau, Verzeichniss der syrischen Handschriften der
Königlichen Bibliothek zu Berlin, vol. 1 (Berlin 1899),
338–339. Further examples can be adduced, and I hope soon to offer a
more comprehensive analysis of this scribal habit in Syriac
manuscripts.
9. Conclusion
Just as only traces remain from Bardaisan’s numerous works, so we can
find only hints in the patristic literature about the impact these have had on
the church of late antiquity. Yet the evidence that does survive unequivocally
shows the far-reaching and powerful influence this original thinker exercised
upon subsequent generations. Although Bardaisan was later considered a dangerous
heretic, his most influential work, the Book of the Laws,
was read, used, and criticized by generations of Greek patristic theologians,
and it appears to have had an afterlife in the Syriac tradition as well. Its
clever anti-deterministic arguments offered convenient tools for those wishing
to refute astrology, and its numerous ethnographic illustrations could easily be
adapted to other purposes. By setting madrashe to music,
Bardaisan made an innovation of considerable importance. His madrashe inspired Ephrem, as Sozomen relates, to write his own
teaching hymns that in turn would transform Syriac literature. Bardaisan’s
cosmology, perhaps not so exceptional in his own time as later opponents claim,
but further radicalized by his later followers, continued to challenge the
Syriac church and significantly contributed to the negative image passed down by
Syriac authors of Bardaisan the heresiarch. Bardaisan’s objections to Marcion’s
thought are well documented, and although but little survives of his reasoning,
it appears plausible that his Dialogues against the
Marcionites provided Ephrem with a convenient starting-point for his
own anti-Marcionite polemics.
Some of this research was presented several years
ago at a workshop entitled “Bardesanes – Liber legum regionum,” held at
Göttingen University. I would like to thank the organizers, and
especially Dr. Ilaria Ramelli, for the invitation to attend. I am also
grateful to the colloquium participants and to Dr. Lucas van Rompay for
their comments on an earlier version of this article.
Later
generations of Syriac authors also admired Bardaisan’s scientific
accomplishments that ranged from astronomical calculations to experiments on the
flight of arrows. His personal acquaintance with Julius Africanus provides a
tangible link with Graeco-Roman culture, and it may have been this encounter
that inspired Bardaisan to adapt the Greek cipher to the Syriac language. If the
attribution of the alphabet to Bardaisan is correct, this may well constitute
his longest-lasting legacy.
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Adamantius Dialogue. Ed. W.
H. van de Sande Bakhuyzen. Der Dialog des Adamantius.
GCS 4 (Leipzig 1901).
Barḥadbešhabba ʿArbaia. History. Ed.
F. Nau.
La première partie de l’ Histoire de Barḥadbešabba
ʿArbaïa. Texte syriaque édité et traduit. PO 23.2 (Paris 1932).
al-Biruni.
On India. Ed. with English transl.
E. Sachau. Alberuni’s India. An account of the
religion, philosophy, literature, geography, chronology, astronomy,
customs, laws and astrology of India about A.D. 1030. 2 vols.
(London 1888).
Ps.-Caesarius. Erotapokriseis. Ed. R. Riedinger. Pseudo-Kaisarios, Die
Erotapokriseis. GCS (Berlin 1989).
Ps.-Clement.
Homilies. Ed.
B. Rehm / G. Strecker. Die
Pseudoklementinen I. Homilien. GCS (Berlin 1992).
Ps.-Clement.
Recognitions. Ed. B. Rehm / G. Strecker.
Die Pseudoklementinen II: Rekognitionen in Rufins Übersetzung.
Second edition. GCS (Berlin 1994).
Ps.-Clementines [Syriac
version]. Ed. W. Frankenberg. Die syrischen Clementinen mit griechischem Paralleltext. TU 48/3
(Leipzig 1937).
Ps.-Clementines. English transl. F.
S. Jones. The Syriac Pseudo-Clementines. An Early Version of the First Christian
Novel (Turnhout 2014).
Cologne Mani Codex. Ed. with German
transl. L. Koenen / C. Römer. Der Kölner Mani-Kodex. Über das Werden
seines Leibes (Opladen 1988).
Cologne Mani Codex. Engl. Transl. R. Cameron /
A. J. Dewey. The Cologne Mani Codex (P.
Colon. inv. nr. 4780). Concerning the Origin of his Body (Missoula,
Mont. 1979).
Didymus the Blind. Commentary on the Psalms. Ed.
A. Gesché / M. Gronewald. Didymus der Blinde, Psalmenkommentar (Tura-Papyrus). Vol. 3 (Bonn
1969).
Ephrem. Hymns against
Heresies. Ed. with German transl.
E. Beck. Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen contra
haereses. CSCO 169–170 / Syr. 76–77 (Louvain 1957).
Ephrem. Hymns on
Nisibis. Ed. with German transl.
E. Beck. Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Carmina
Nisibena. CSCO 218–219 / Syr. 92–93 (Louvain 1961–1963).
Ephrem. Prose
Refutations. Ed. with English transl.
C. W. Mitchell /
A. A. Bevan /
F. C. Burkitt. S. Ephraim’s Prose
Refutations of Mani, Marcion, and Bardaisan. 2 vols. (London
1912–1921).
Epiphanius. Panarion. Ed.
K. Holl. Epiphanius, Werke II. GCS (Leipzig
1922).
Epiphanius. Panarion. Transl.
F. Williams.
The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis. Books II and III
(Sects 47–80, De Fide). Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 36
(Leiden 1994).
Eusebius of Caesarea. Historia ecclesiastica. Ed.
E. Schwartz / Th. Mommsen. Eusebius, Werke II.1.
Die Kirchengeschichte. Second edition. GCS N.F. 6.1 (Berlin
1999).
Eusebius of
Caesarea. Historia ecclesiastica
[Syriac version]. Ed. W. Wright / N. McLean. The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius in
Syriac, edited from the manuscripts. With a collation of the Armenian
version by Adalbert Merx (Cambridge 1898).
Eusebius of Caesarea. Praeparatio evangelica. Ed.
K. Mras / É. des Places. Eusebius, Werke
VIII.1. Second edition. GCS (Berlin 1982).
Eusebius of Emesa. Commentary on Genesis. Ed. F.
Petit /
L. van Rompay / J.
J. S. Weitenberg. Eusèbe d’Émèse,
Commentaire de la Genèse. Texte arménien de l’édition de Venise (1980).
Fragments grecs et syriaques. Avec traductions. Traditio Exegetica
Graeca 15 (Louvain 2011).
George, Bishop of the Arabs. Letters. Ed. with German transl. V. Ryssel. “Die astronomischen Briefe Georgs des
Araberbischofs.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 8
(1893), 1–55.
George Hamartolos. History. Ed.
J. A. Cramer. Anecdota Graeca
Bibliothecarum Oxoniensium. Vol. 4 (Oxford 1837, reprint Amsterdam
1963).
Hippolytus. Refutatio
omnium haeresium. Ed.
M. Marcovich. Hippolytus. Refutatio omnium
haeresium. PTS 25 (Berlin 1986).
Jacob of Edessa. Hexaemeron.
Ed. I.-B. Chabot. Iacobi Edesseni
Hexaemeron. CSCO 92 / Syr. 44 (Louvain 1953).
Jacob of Edessa. Hexaemeron. Latin
transl. A. Vaschalde. Iacobi
Edesseni Hexaemeron. CSCO 97 / Syr. 48 (Louvain 1953).
Jacoby, F. Die
Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, Dritter Teil, C (Leiden
1958).
Jerome. De viris
illustribus. Ed.
E. C. Richardson. Hieronymus, Liber de
viris inlustribus. Gennadius, Liber de viris inlustribus. TU 14.1
(Leipzig 1896).
Jerome. Against
Jovinian. PL 23 (1845), 211–338.
Julius Africanus. Kestoi. Ed. and
transl. M. Wallraff / C. Scardino / L. Mecella / Ch. Guignard / W. Adler.
Cesti: The Extant Fragments. GCS N.F. 18 (Berlin
2012).
Justin. 1
Apologia. Ed. M. Marcovich. Iustini Martyris Apologiae pro Christianis. PTS 38
(Berlin 1994).
Justin. 1
Apologia. Transl. C. C. Richardson,
Early Christian Fathers (New York 1970).
Life of Aberkios. Ed.
Th. Nissen. S. Abercii Vita (Leipzig 1912).
Life of Aberkios. French
transl. P. Maraval. Vie
d’Abercius. Vie de Polycarpe. Deux biographies légendaires d’évêques du
IIe siècle (Paris 2017).
Ps.-Meliton.
Apology. Ed. with English transl.
W. Cureton. Spicilegium Syriacum: containing remains
of Bardesan, Meliton, Ambrose and Mara bar Serapion (London 1855),
22–31 (text), 41–51 (transl.).
Michael the Syrian. Chronicle. Ed. with
French transl. J.-B. Chabot.
Chronique de Michel le Syrien. 4 vols. (Paris
1899–1910, reprint Brussels 1963).
Moses bar Kepha. Hexaemeron Commentary. Transl. L. Schlimme. Der Hexaemeronkommentar des Moses bar
Kepha. Einleitung, Übersetzung und Untersuchungen. 2 vols.
Göttinger Orientforschungen, 1. Reihe: Syriaca, vol. 14.1–2 (Wiesbaden
1977).
al-Nadim,
Ibn. Fihrist. Ed.
G. Flügel (Leipzig 1871–1872).
al-Nadim, Ibn. Fihrist. Transl.
B. Dodge. The Fihrist of al-Nadīm. A Tenth-Century
Survey of Muslim Culture. 2 vols. (New York 1970).
Nikephoros Kallistos. Historia ecclesiastica. PG 145 (1904), 549–1332.
Odes of Solomon. Ed. with German transl.
M. Lattke.
Oden Salomos. Text, Übersetzung, Kommentar. 3 vols. Novum
Tes-tamentum et Orbis Antiquus 41 (Göttingen 1999–2005).
Odes of Solomon. Ed. with English transl.
J. H. Charlesworth.
The Odes of Solomon. The Syriac texts, edited with
translation and notes. SBL Texts and Translations 13,
Pseudepigrapha Series 7 (Chico, CA 1977).
Origen. De
principiis. Ed. P. Koetschau. Origenes, Werke V. De principiis. GCS (Leipzig
1913).
Philoxenus of Mabbug. Dissertationes decem de
uno et sancto
Trinitate incorporate et passo. Ed. M.
Brière /
F. Graffin. PO 15.4, 38.3, 39.4, 40.2, 41.1 (Paris 1920–1982).
Photios. Bibliotheca. Ed.
R. Henry. Photius, Bibliothèque. Vol. 4: Codices 223–229 (Paris 1991).
Porphyry. De
abstinentia. Transl.
Th. Taylor. Porphyry, On Abstinence from Animal
Food (London 1965).
Sozomen. Historia
ecclesiastica. Ed.
J. Bidez /
G. C. Hansen. Sozomenus,
Kirchengeschichte. Second edition. GCS N.F. 4 (Berlin 1995).
Tertullian. Adversus
Hermogenem. Ed. with French transl.
F. Chapot. Tertullien, Contre Hermogène. SC 439
(Paris, 1999).
Theodore bar Koni. Scholion. Ed.
A. Scher. Theodorus bar Kōnī, Liber scholiorum
II. CSCO 66 / Syr. 26 (Louvain 1912).
Theodore bar Koni. Scholion. Transl.
R. Hespel / R. Draguet. Théodore bar Koni, Livre des scolies (recension de Séert) II. Mimrè
VI–XI. CSCO 432 / Syr. 188 (Louvain 1982).
Theodoret of Kyros. Historia
ecclesiastica. Ed.
L. Parmentier /
G. C. Hansen. Theodoret,
Kirchengeschichte. Third edition. GCS N.F. 5 (Berlin 1998).
Secondary Sources
Aland, B. “Mani
und Bardesanes – Zur Entstehung des manichäischen Systems.” In: Synkretismus im syrisch-persischen Kulturgebiet. Bericht
über ein Symposium in Reinhausen bei Göttingen in der Zeit vom 4. bis 8.
Oktober 1971, edited by A. Dietrich (Göttingen 1975), 123–143.
Amand de Mendieta, E. Fatalisme et liberté dans l’antiquité grecque. Recherches
sur la survivance de l’argumentation morale antifataliste de Carnéade
chez les philosophes grecs et les théologiens chrétiens des quatre
premiers siècles (Louvain 1945).
Bauer, W.
Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity
(Mifflin-town, PA 1996). Originally published as Rechtgläubigkeit und Ketzerei im ältesten Christentum (Tübingen
1934).
Baumstark, A.
Geschichte der syrischen Literatur mit Ausschluß der
christlich-palästinensischen Texte (Bonn 1922).
Bremmer, J. N., ed. The
Pseudo-Clementines. Studies on Early Christian Apocrypha 10
(Louvain 2010).
Brock, S. “The Ruaḥ Elōhīm of Gen
1,2 and its Reception History in the Syriac Tradition.” In: Lectures et relectures de la Bible. Festschrift P.-M.
Bogaert, edited by J.-M Auwers /
A. Wénin (Louvain 1999), 327–349.
Brock, S. “A Tentative
Check List of Dated Syriac Manuscripts up to 1300.” Hugoye 15.1 (2012), 21–48.
Bundy, D. “The Life of Abercius: Its Significance for
Early Syriac Christianity.” Second Century 7
(1989–90), 163–176.
Camplani, A.
“Bardesane et bardésanites.” École pratique des hautes
études. Section des sciences religieuses. Annuaire. Résumé des
conférences et travaux 112 (2003–2004), 29–50.
Camplani, A. “Bardaisan and
the Bible.” In: Gnose et mani-chéisme: entre les oasis
d’Egypte et la route de la soie: hommage à Jean-Daniel Dubois,
edited by A. Van den Kerchove / G. Soares Santoprete (Turnhout 2017), 699–715.
Camplani, A. “Bardaisan’s
Psychology: Known and Un-known Testimonies and Current Scholarly
Perspectives.” In: Syriac
Encounters: Papers from the Sixth North American Syriac Symposium, Duke
University, 26–29 June 2011, edited by M. Doerfler / E. Fiano / K. Smith (Leuven 2015), 259–276.
Camplani, A. “Note
bardesanitiche.” Miscellanea Marciana 12 (1997),
11–43.
Camplani, A.
“Rivisitando Bardesane: Note sulle fonti siri-ache del bardesanismo e sulla
sua collocazione storico–religiosa.” Cristianesimo nella
storia 19 (1998), 519–596.
Coakley, J. F. A Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts in Cambridge
University Library and College Libraries Acquired since 1901
(2018).
Cowper, B. H. “The
Alphabet of Bardaisan,” Journal of Sacred Literature and
Biblical Record 6 (1863), 465–466.
Dihle, A. “Zur Schicksalslehre des
Bardesanes.” In: Kerygma und Logos. Beiträge zu den
geistesgeschichtlichen Beziehungen zwischen Antike und Christentum.
Festschrift für Carl Andresen zum 70. Geburtstag, edited by A. M.
Ritter (Göttingen 1979), 123–135.
Drijvers, H. J. W.
Bardaiṣan of Edessa. Studia Semitica Neerlandica 6
(Assen 1966).
Drijvers, H. J. W.
“Mani und Bardaiṣan. Ein Beitrag zur Vorgeschichte des Manichäismus.” In:
Mélanges d’histoire des religions offerts à
Henri-Charles Puech (Paris 1974), 459–469.
Durst, M. “Hermogenes.” LThK
3 5 (1996), 13.
Duval, R. Traité de
grammaire syriaque: écriture, phonétique, orthographie, les parties du
discours et les formes des mots, syntaxe, index des mots (Paris
1881).
Grégoire, H. “Bardesane et S. Abercius.” Byzantion 25–27 (1955–1957), 363–368.
Greschat, K. Apelles und Hermogenes. Zwei theologische Lehrer des
zweiten Jahrhunderts. Vigiliae Christianae Supplements 48 (Leiden
2000).
Guillaumont, A. “Genèse 1,1–2 selon les commentateurs
syriaques.” In: In Principio. Interprétations des premiers
versets de la Genèse (Paris 1973), 115–132.
Haar
Romeny, R. B. ter. A Syrian in Greek Dress.
The Use of Greek, Hebrew, and Syriac Biblical Texts in Eusebius of
Emesa’s Commentary on Genesis. Traditio Exegetica Graeca 6 (Louvain
1997).
Harrison, G. / J. BeDuhn. “The Authenticity and Doctrine of (Ps.?)
Mani’s Letter to Menoch.” In: The Light and the Darkness.
Studies in Manichaeism and its World, edited by
P. Mirecki / J. BeDuhn (Leiden 2001), 128–172.
Hegedus, T. Early Christianity and Ancient Astrology (New York
2007).
Hilgenfeld, A. Bardesanes, der letzte Gnostiker (Leipzig 1864).
Honigmann, E. Die sieben Klimata und die ΠΟΛΕΙΣ ΕΠΙΣΗΜΟΙ. Eine
Untersuchung zur Geschichte der Geographie und Astrologie im Altertum
und Mittelalter (Heidelberg 1929).
Jansma, T. Natuur, lot en vrijheid. Bardesanes, de filosoof der
Arameeërs en zijn images. Cahiers bij het Nederlands theologisch
tijdschrift 6 (Wageningen 1969).
Jones, F. S. “The Pseudo-Clementines: A History of Research.”
Second Century 2 (1982), 1–33, 63–96.
Jurasz, I. “Éphrem, Bardesane et
Albinus sur les Incorporels. Une confrontation entre le platonisme et le
stoïcisme en milieu syriaque.” Philosophie antique 17
(2017), 169–204.
Jurasz, I. “Résurrection de l’âme chez Bardesane.”
Chora. Journal of Ancient and Medieval Studies 9–10
(2011–2012), 399–427.
Kazhdan, A. /
A. Cutler. “George Hamartolos.” Oxford Dictionary of
Byzantium 2 (1991), 836.
King, D. “Origenism in
Sixth Century Syria: The Case of a Syriac Manuscript on Pagan Philosophy.”
In: Origenes und sein Erbe in Orient und Okzident,
edited by A. Fürst (Münster 2011), 179–212.
Kister, M. “Tohu
wa-Bohu, Primordial Elements and Creatio ex Nihilo.” Jewish Studies Quarterly 14 (2007), 229–256.
Land, J. P. N. Anecdota syriaca (Leiden 1886).
Levi della
Vida, G. “Appunti Bardesanici.” Rivista
degli studi orientali 8 (1919–1920), 709–722.
Lieu, J. Marcion and the Making of a Heretic: God and Scripture in
the Second Century (Cambridge, UK 2015).
Lieu, S.
N. C.
Manichaeism in the Later Roman Empire and Medieval China.
A Historical Survey (Manchester 1985).
Madelung, W. “Abū
‘Īsā al-Warrāq über die Bardesaniten, Marcioniten und Kantäer.” In: Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Vorderen Orients.
Festschrift für Bertold Spuler zum siebzigsten Geburtstag, edited
by H. R. Roemer / A. Noth (Leiden
1981), 210–224.
May, G. Schöpfung aus dem Nichts. Die Entstehung der Lehre von der
creatio ex nihilo. Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 48 (Berlin
1978).
McVey, K. E. “Were the Earliest Madrašē Songs or Recitations?” In: After
Bardaisan. Studies on Continuity and Change in Syriac Christianity in
Honour of Professor Han J. W. Drijvers, edited by
G. J. Reinink /
A. C. Klugkist. OLA 89 (Louvain 1999), 185–198.
Merx, A. Bardesanes
von Edessa, nebst einer Untersuchung über das Verhältnis der
clementinischen Recognitionen zu dem Buche der Gesetze der Länder
(Halle 1863).
Monnot, G. Islam et religions. Islam d’hier et d’aujourd’hui 27
(Paris 1986).
Nau, F. “La cosmographie au VIIe siècle chez les
Syriens.” Revue de l’Orient Chrétien 15 (1910),
225–254.
Nau, F. “Notes
d’astronomie syrienne.” Journal Asiatique, 10th series, vol. 16 (1910), 209–228.
Niehoff, M. R. “Creatio ex Nihilo
Theology in Genesis Rabbah in Light of Christian
Exegesis.” HTR 99 (2005), 37–64.
Nissen, Th. “Die Petrusakten und ein bardesanitischer
Dialog in der Aberkiosvita.” ZNW 9 (1908), 190–203,
315–328.
Nöldeke, Th. “Zum ‘Buch der Gesetze der Länder’.” ZDMG 64 (1910), 555–560.
Paz, Y. / T. Weiss. “From Encoding to
Decoding: The AṬBḤ of R. Hiyya in Light of a Syriac, Greek, and Coptic
Cipher.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 74 (2015),
45–65.
Possekel, U.
“Bardaisan and Origen on Fate and the Power of the Stars.” JECS 20 (2012), 515–541.
Possekel, U. “Die
Schöpfungstheologie des Bardaisan von Edessa.” In: Edessa
in hellenistisch-römischer Zeit. Religion, Kultur und Politik zwischen
Ost und West. Beiträge des internationalen Edessa-Symposiums in Halle an
der Saale, 14.–17. Juli 2005, edited by L. Greisiger / C. Rammelt / J. Tubach. Beiruter Texte und Studien 116 (Beirut
2009), 219–229.
Possekel, U. “Bardaisan
of Edessa on the Resurrection. Early Syriac Eschatology in its
Religious-Historical Context.” Oriens Christianus 88
(2004), 1–28.
Ramelli, I. Bardaisan of Edessa. A Reassessment of the Evidence and a
New Interpretation (Piscataway, NJ 2009).
Ramelli, I.
“Origen, Bardaiṣan, and the Origin of Universal Salvation.” HTR 102 (2009), 135–168.
Ramos-Lissón, D. “Pseudo-Caesarius.” LThK
3 8 (1999), 708.
Rehm, B.
“Bardesanes in den Pseudoclementinen.” Philologus 93
(1938), 218–247.
Reich, E. “Ein
Brief des Severus Sēḇōḵt.” In: Sic itur ad astra. Studien
zur Geschichte der Mathematik und Naturwissenschaften. Festschrift für
den Arabisten Paul Kunitzsch zum 70. Geburtstag, edited by M. Folkerts / R. Lorch (Wiesbaden 2000), 478–489.
Riedinger, R. Pseudo-Kaisarios. Überlieferungsgeschichte und
Verfasserfrage. Byzantinisches Archiv 12 (München 1969).
Sachau, E. Inedita syriaca. Eine Sammlung syrischer Übersetzungen von
Schriften griechischer Profanliteratur. Mit einem Anhang. Aus den
Handschriften des Britischen Museums herausgegeben (Wien 1870,
reprint Hildesheim 1968).
Sachau, E. Verzeichniss der syrischen Handschriften der Königlichen
Bibliothek zu Berlin. 2 vols. (Berlin 1899).
Schaeder, H. H. “Bardesanes von Edessa in der Überliefer-ung der
griechischen und der syrischen Kirche.” ZKG 51
(1932), 21–73.
Tanaseanu-Döbler, I. “Bemerkungen zu Porphyrios und Bardaiṣan.”
ZAC 19 (2015), 26–68.
Tannous, J. “You Are What You Read:
Qenneshre and the Miaphysite Church in the Seventh Century.” In: History and Identity in the Late Antique Near East,
edited by Ph. Wood (Oxford
2013), 83–102.
Thonemann, P. “Abercius of Hierapolis:
Christianization and Social Memory in Late Antique Asia Minor.” In: Historical and Religious Memory in the Ancient World,
edited by B. Dignas / R. R. R. Smith. (Oxford 2012), 257–282.
Vajda, G. “Le témoigne de al-Māturidī sur la doctrine des
Manichéens, des Dayṣānites et des Marcionites.” Arabica 13 (1966), 1–38.
van Ess, J.
Theologie und Gesellschaft im 2. und 3. Jahrhundert
Hidschra. Eine Geschichte des religiösen Denkens im frühen Islam. 6
vols. (Berlin 1991–1995).
van Rompay, L.
“Bardaisan and Mani in Philoxenus of Mabbog’s Mēmrē
Against Habbib.” In: Syriac Polemics. Studies in
Honour of Gerrit Jan Reinink, edited by W.
J. van Bekkum / J. W. Drijvers /
A. C. Klugkist. OLA 170 (Louvain 2007), 77–90.
Villey, É. “Qennešre et
l’astronomie aux VIe et VIIe siècles.” In: Les sciences en
syriaque, edited by É. Villey. Études
syriaques 11 (Paris 2014), 149–190.
Winter, F. Bardesanes von Edessa über Indien. Ein früher syrischer
Theologe schreibt über ein fremdes Land. Frühes Christentum.
Forschungen und Perspektiven 5 (Thaur 1999).
Wright, W.
Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts in the British
Museum. 3 vols. (London 1870–1872).
Wright, W. A Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts
Preserved in the Library of the University of Cambridge. 2 vols.
(Cambridge 1901).