Response to J.F. Coakley's Review of John Joseph, The Modern Assyrians of the Middle East: Encounters with Western Christian missions, archaeologists,and colonial powers (Studies in Christian Mission, 26; Leiden: Brill, 2000).
John
Joseph
Lewis Audenreid Professor of History, Emeritus
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute
George A. Kiraz
James E. Walters
TEI XML encoding by
html2TEI.xsl
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute
2002
Vol. 5, No. 2
For this publication, a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
license has been granted by the author(s), who retain full
copyright.
https://hugoye.bethmardutho.org/article/hv5n2prjoseph
John Joseph
Response to J.F. Coakley's Review of John Joseph, The Modern Assyrians of the Middle East: Encounters with Western Christian missions, archaeologists,and colonial powers (Studies in Christian Mission, 26; Leiden: Brill, 2000).
https://hugoye.bethmardutho.org/pdf/vol5/HV5N2PRJoseph.pdf
Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute, 2002
vol 5
issue 2
Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies is an electronic journal dedicated to the study
of the Syriac tradition, published semi-annually (in January and July) by Beth
Mardutho: The Syriac Institute. Published since 1998, Hugoye seeks to offer the
best scholarship available in the field of Syriac studies.
Syriac Studies
Syriac
Modern Assyrians
File created by XSLT transformation of original HTML encoded article.
[1] I would
like to start with a crtitical observation made by Chip Coakley
that especially puzzled me; let me quote his remarks: "With
matters religious, ecclesiastical and missionary, Joseph is
less comfortable. The reader who is told that 'after the
Council of Ephesus, those who adhered to the teachings of
Nestorius organized their own church' which was subsequently
'forced to move in the direction of Mesopotamia and Persia' (p.
41, a statement admittedly at variance with most of the rest of
the chapter) will naturally be somewhat wary of the treatment
of ecclesiastical matters later on in the book."
[2] The
citation above combines two of my sentences into one and omits
a part of each sentence, creating some unintended but
troublesome distortions. The omitted parts of my remarks are
placed within brackets: "After the Council of Ephesus, those
who adhered to the teachings of Nestorius organized their own
church, [establishing themselves first in Edessa. They were
driven out of there soon after the Council of Chalcedon],
forced to move further east in the direction of Mesopotamia and
Persia."
[3] Since I
could not see any discrepancy between the citation and "the
rest of the chapter" and because Coakley did not explain the
contradiction that was apparent to him, I reluctantly wrote and
asked him to explain what was "at variance" between his
citation and what followed, noting that I would comment on his
explanation in my response. Below are the three points that
Coakley kindly made in answer to my query; I will respond to
point #1 after I've commented on points 2 and 3:
1."What I did not like here was chiefly 'organized their own
church'. The idea of having a separate church, with a different
hierarchy, was, I think, slow in coming - and when it did
happen, it happened with the so-called Monophysites. The
"Nestorians" never - did they? - organize a separate hierarchy
anywhere. At certain times, certain bishops in the Roman Empire
were sympathetic to Nestorius, but that is quite different from
'organizing their own church'."
2. "...the phrase 'further east in the direction of
Mesopotamia' sounds as if you don't realize that Edessa is
already in Mesopotamia. A small matter, no doubt, but
potentially confusing."
Comment: there are two Mesopotamias involved here:
1.Western Mesopotamia, ruled by the Roman/Byzantine empire, and
2.The rest of Mesopotamia, ruled by the Persians. To write that
"Edessa is already in Mesopotamia," is literally half-true; it
is "already" in Byzantine Mesopotamia but not in the
Mesopotamian territories under Persian domination, as Coakley
seems to assume. For long a disputed frontier province,
Mesopotamia's western region finally became Roman in 216 A.D.
and continued as one of Roman/Byzantine empire's eastern
provinces for almost four ceturies, until 609.
3. "The church of Persia did not see itself as 'adhering to
the teaching of Nestorius' - they may have heard of him, but
they hardly knew what his "teaching" was - until the 7th
century at the earliest."
Comment: Here Coakley clearly places Edessa in
Persian Mesopotamia. A second look at what I have actually
said--3rd paragraph of p.1 above--shows: 1 The church of Persia
is not mentioned at all; that is a subject yet to be discussed;
2. In my text the subject of the verb "forced", is
"They"--referring to "those who adhered to the teachings of
Nestorius" in Byzantine Edessa. In Coakley's restructuring of
my two sentences, where the name of Edessa is omitted, the
subject of "forced" is "church"-- which to Coakley, is "The
church of Persia..." of his point #3.
[4] Coakley wrote that
he did not like my statement that "those who adhered to the
teachings of Nestorius organized their own church"--his point
#1 above. The point that I was emphasizing in that sentence was
that after the christological controversies of the 5th
century--which I had just finished discussing--'Nestorianism'
continued to be preached and taught in the Roman empire.This
fact is well summed up by Arthur J. Maclean, of the Archbishop
of Canterbury's Assyrian Mission fame. Nestorianism, wrote
Maclean, "retained some footing in the Roman empire...", "for a
considerable time...", before it reached "the later Nestorians"
of Persia. (Maclean's article in Encyclopedia of Religion
and Ethics, under "Nestorianism", 1917 edition.)
[5] As briefly noted
in my first two introductory chapters, Edessa was for long a
stronghold of Syriac learning and tradition in Byzantium,
highly regarded by the Aramaic-speaking eastern Christians.
Edessa was also a center of Greek learning, translated into
Syriac--"Greek learning in Syriac disguise," Han J.W.Drijvers
calls it. At the theological school of Edessa, Nestorian
doctrine was studied and developed, and so successfully, that
its leading opponents were eventually able to obtain from
emperor Zeno the closure of the school, in 489. It is pertinent
to note here that even after Zeno, during the reign of emperor
Anastasius, who succeeded Zeno, we still read of abused
"Nestorian clergy" in the very capital of the empire,
Constantinople. (J.B. Segal's Edessa, p.102.)
[6] If a religious
congregation has clergy, bishops, priests, a theology that it
passionately upholds, and has a foothold in the Roman empire
for a considerable time, why isn't it, by definition, a
"church"? Do all churches of late antiquity have a "hierarchy"?
We know that Edessa grew into one of the leading religious
cities of Byzantium; its local Christianity, despite its links
to Antioch, showed "a great variety of forms". (See R.
Lavenant, Encyclopedia of the Early Church, 1992, under
"Edessa" ).
[7] The Nestorian
exiles from Edessa found their way to nearby Nisibis, a town in
Persian Mesopotamia since 363. There they started the famous
school of Nisibis which became the center from which Nestorian
teachings spread, leading to the establishment of "the later
Nestorians", members of "the church of Persia"; that section of
the chapter is marked by my heading 'NESTORIANISM' FINDS A HOME
IN PERSIA (pp.41-44).
[8] In the same
paragraph discussed above, Coakley writes: "It is also an
ominous sign, that having banished the name 'Nestorian' from
the title, the author retains it elsewhere in the book, even in
the chapters covering the period after 1918 when it clearly
includes people other than members of the Church of the East.
For all that it may be a handy term, no theologically sensitive
writer could do this." Let me just say that as a member of the
Church who belongs to an earlier generation, when the name
Nestorian was still used--and as one who had a favorite uncle
named Nestorius--I did not feel the need to be either
diplomatically or theologically correct. If the term was
banished from the title of the revised edition, it was meant to
be changed only in the title, as explained in my prefatory
remarks, which Coakley well covers in his review.
[9] Explaining where
he would really "fault" me ("and others"), Coakley writes that
I am "hardly interested in the primary, religious work of the
missions (there are no tabulations of parishes, schools, books
printed, etc. - they would be dull, to be sure), but only in
the secondary, social and political, effects of this work."
Perhaps I should note here that the title of my book is The
Nestorians and Their Muslim Neighbors, with the subtitle:
A Study of Western Influence on Their Relations. In the
subtitle of the revised edition, "Western influence" of the
original is more specifically identified as Encounters with
Western Christian Missions, Archaeologists, and Colonial
Powers.
[10] Nowhere in his
review does Coakley say anything about the missions and
Islam--how Islam was viewed by the early missionaries; the role
that they hoped a "reformed Nestorian church" would play in the
conversion of Islam, seen on its deathbed; or on the reaction
of Muslims as they heard what they held holy being denigrated
by these Western clergy. Even when commenting on my concluding
chapter ('From Missions to Ecumenism'), where I survey Western
Christian Missions' admirable reassessment of their position
with regard to Islam--and other non-Christian faiths--Coakley
sees there only "a discussion of the exercise of 'rethinking
missions' ... and a section entitled 'The Roman Catholic Church
and Islam', neither of which", he writes, "is particularly
relevant to the Assyrians."
[11] According to
Coakley my "praise" for the missionaries is limited "more or
less, to their role in the relief of suffering during World War
I". John P. Ameer raised a similar point in his review that
recently appeared in an issue of JAAS. In its next issue
I will have a statement addressing that question, largely
citing passages from the book that seem to be overlooked.
Coakley, referring to page 69 of my text, writes, quoting a
part of my sentence, that "these missions were the agents of
'the political and cultural imperialism of the 'Christian
powers'." The passage in question actually says the
following:
"Unfortunately for the evangelists, they had arrived at a
difficult time for their spiritual campaign. The Russo-Persian
conflict had already intensified Christian-Muslim animosities.
Gradually through the nineteenth century, these out-of-the-way
places, where the Nestorians had found refuge for the last five
centuries or more, were to become a hornets' nest, disturbed by
the political and cultural imperialism of the 'Christian'
powers."
[12] The statement
above does not say that "these missions were the agents" of the
European powers; Coakley's clause actually distorts the meaning
and intent of the above passage.
[13] These
differences of opinion on the missions aside, let me express my
agreement with some of Chip Coakley's other critical
observations. He is right that I am not an ecclesiastical
historian, something that I have never claimed. On the history
of the early church, as I have noted before, I have depended
solely on reading scholarly secondary sources, some of them
written by a few readers of this newsletter. I have learned
much from the contributions of Chip Coakley himself; I dare say
that no one has found his details more fascinating than I have.
I agree with his comments on the absence of copy-editing; I
myself was shocked and irritated by the number of typographical
mistakes that mar many a page of the text. I take full
responsibility for whatever inadequacies there are; how I wish
I had paid a professional proof-reader to have a second look at
the typed manuscript. Finally, I want to thank Chip Coakley for
the gracious and favorable words that he has said about my book
as a whole. In my attempt to clarify my position--an unpleasant
task--I trust that I have not mis- interpreted him.