Download PDF | Irfan Shahid, Byzantium And The Arabs In The Sixth Century. 1, Part 2 Dumbarton Oaks ( 1995)
376 Pages
Introduction
T he chapters that constitute Part Two on ecclesiastical history present the role of the Arab foederati in the history of the Byzantine church in Oriens in the reigns of the emperors of the sixth century and in those of Phocas and Heraclius in the seventh. This century and a half may be divided into three periods as far as Arab-Byzantine ecclesiastical relations are concerned. 1.
The first period is represented by the reign of Anastasius, especially the second decade of the century when Anastasius became openly Monophysite and with him the Ghassiinids. Federate-imperial relations were at their best since lord and vassal belonged to the same doctrinal confession. 2. The second or middle period opens with the accession of a Chalcedonian emperor, Justin I, in 518 and the beginning of a sharp reversal in imperial ecclesiastical policy.
This middle period is characterized by tensions that strained the Arab-Byzantine relationship throughout the reign of Justin I, Justinian, Justin II, and Tiberius, until it led to a bloody encounter with the central government in 581 and the suspension of the Ghassanid phylarchate for five years. The loyalty of the Ghassiinids to the Monophysite confession and their refusal to convert to Dyophysitism lie at the root of these tensions. 3. The third period opens in 587, when the Ghassiinid phylarchate was restored during the reign of Maurice, the same emperor who had exiled the Ghassiinid king, MurnJir, to Sicily. A modus vivendi between the two parties was worked out and endured throughout the reign until the death of Maurice in 602. It also continued into the last two reigns of the proto-Byzantine period, those of Phocas and Heraclius, with a definite improvement in relations, especially during the reign of Heraclius. This diachronous treatment of Arab-Byzantine ecclesiastical relations is followed by a number of topical studies that treat some saints with whom the Arabs had a special relationship, such as Sergius, Cosmas and Damian, and Julian of Emesa.
The last chapter treats Arab Christianity in the Sinai Peninsula, while the Epilogue brings together the Arab foederati of the East and the German foederati of the West as the adherents of non-orthodox Christian confessions, namely, Monophysitism and Arianism. The comparative context in which these two federate groups are discussed is consonant with one dimen-sion of the history of the Arab federates, their role as the Germans of the East, 1 and the comparison is illuminating . In addition to recording the history of the Ghassanid involvement in and contribution to the Monophysite movement, this volume reveals other aspects of Ghassanid life and history that have been obscure. Among other things, these protectors of the Monophysite confession emerge as sedentaries and builders of churches and monasteries . BASIC II will discuss their structures and other aspects of their cultural life in detail.
IX The Reign of Anastasius (491-518) The early period coincides with the reign of Anastasius, the crucial reign for the fortunes of Monophysitism and the ecclesiastical history of the Christian Orient throughout the sixth century, since it witnessed the triumph of that movement when the emperor himself in the last years of his reign became openly Monophysite. Brief as that period was, it proved sufficiently important to set the stage for the tensions 1 and disputes of the entire century between· the Monophysites of the Pars Orientalis and the central Dyophysite government in Constantinople, after the death of Anastasius in 518. How the extraordinary happened, and the autokrator was won over to Monophysitism, has been explained by ecclesiastical historians.
That movement was lucky enough to be guided by two powerful and influential theologians. One was Philoxenus, a Persian firebrand, who for the long period of his episcopate over Hierapolis (485-518) worked fervently and incessantly for the triumph of the movement . The other was Severus, a Greek from Sozopolis in Pisidia, ascetic, dedicated, and administratively energetic. The combined efforts of the two, one working in Constantinople and the other in Syria, finally prevailed upon Emperor Anastasius to move toward the Monophysite position. The emperor was already inclined to it, and it was alleged that he was the son of an Arian mother and the nephew of a Manichaean uncle. So it was not very hard for the two powerful ecclesiastics to effect his conversion, and bring about the deposition of the three Chalcedonian patriarchs of Constantinople, Antioch, and Jerusalem, and the appointment of others who were Monophysites, including Severus himself to the see of Antioch . 2 This was the ecclesiastical scene in the second decade of the sixth century, and it is not difficult to see how this ecclesiastical revolution affected the Arab foederati, especially the Ghassanids in Oriens, who, too, became Monophysite and ardent ones at that, during this reign. This chapter will, therefore, treat the efforts of the Monophysites to influence the Arabs and draw them into their orbit .
It will discuss these efforts first within the emp ire, with the Ghassanids and the Kindites, and then outside the empire in l:lira and in South Arabia. It is in fact the story of the Monophysite mission to the Arabs in the reign of Anastasius. ~ I. WITHIN THE EMPIRE The reign of Anastasius witnessed the influx of new federate blood into Oriens, represented by the Ghassanids and the Kindites, which thus made the federate structure in that diocese even more complex. In addition to the old federates of the fourth and fifth centuries, the Taniikhids and the Sali}:iids respectively, Oriens now had two new powerful groups that dominated ArabByzantine relations. The doctrinal persuasion of these various federate groups in Oriens in the reign of Anastasius as a result of the change of Anastasius' doctrinal stance to Monophysitism is not clear. The Taniikhids and the Sali}:iids were Orthodox, but how they were affected by the ecclesiastical policy of Anastasius is not known .
There is absolutely nothing in the sources for the reign which could help answer this question. As to the two newcomers, Ghassan and Kinda, certainty about confessional color can be predicated of the former, not of the latter. But there are at least echoes in the sources which help the process of reconstructing the religious history of these two federate groups in the reign of Anastasius. The Ghassanids The conversion of Ghassan to Christianity as part of its settlement within the limes on Roman territory is mentioned by Ya'qubi for the period antedating 502 when they had not yet toppled the Sali}:iids as the dominant Arab federate group in the service of Byzantium . 4 The presumption is that they were then Chalcedonians,5 especially as Anastasius was then in the first decade of his reign . Although he was personally inclined toward Monophysitism, he was interested in good relations with Rome and in restoring religious unity, and had not yet championed the Monophysite cause openly. This was also the situation after the turn of the century when the foedus of 502 was concluded.
So the exact doctrinal persuasion of the new foederati could not have been an issue as long as they were Christian. The situation changed dramatically around 510, and the conversion of the Ghassanids to Monophysitism must have occurred in the last decade of the reign of Anastasius since they are attested as Monophysite early in the reign of the Chalcedonian Justin I. It was in this period that Anastasius departed from his neutrality and openly championed the Monophysite cause. How the conversion of the Ghassanids to Monophysitism was effected is not documented, but there is little doubt that it took place in this decade under the influence of the energetic and enthusiastic patriarch, Severus of Antioch, who was possessed by an ardent desire to convert the world to Monophysitism .
Since the Ghassanids lived within his jurisdiction in Oriens, they probably succumbed to his overtures. This conclusion is of course inferential. One can support it by reference to the mission of Severus to Mungir, the Lakhmid king of I:Iira in 513, trying to convert him to Monophysitism . 6 It can be argued a fortiori that Severus would have sent a similar mission to convert those Arabs who were within Byzantine territory. Although the extant sources are silent on any overtures made by Severus to the Ghassanids, they mention those m~de by other Monophysite ecclesiastics, who worked energetically beside Severus for the spread of Monophysitism, such as Philoxenus. There is extant a fragment of a letter addressed by him to John the Arab (Tayaye), in which the bishop of Hierapolis expounds Monophysite theology.
The addressee has been tentatively identified as John, the bishop of the Arabs of I:Iuwwarin (Evaria) in Phoenicia Libanensis,7 who was a Monophysite prelate during the reign of Anastasius and was one of the bishops exiled by Justin in 519. These Arabs were certainly foederati in the service of Byzantium, and it has been argued that they were most probably the Ghassanids. 8 If so, then this would establish contact between Philoxenus, the ardent Monophysite missionary, and an Arab federate group. It is notewoqhy that the addressee, called John, is ethnically an Arab. If he is the same as John, the bishop of the Arab group at l:luwwarin, the fact becomes important in understanding the ecclesiastical policy of assigning to the Arab foederati clerics of the same ethnic background.
Whatever the process that converted the Ghassanids to the Monophysite confession was, there is no doubt that the pressure of the two powerful eccle siastics in whose jurisdiction the Ghassanids lived must have been efficacious. 9 In 519 the Ghassanids appear as definitely Monophysite, and' this could have happened only in the second decade of the century during the reign of Anastasius. The Kindites Byzantium concluded a foedus with Kinda m 502 as it did with the Ghassanids. The question aris~s as to whether conversion to Christianity was one of the conditions of the foedus, especially for that part of Kinda that was settled within the limes. The presumption is that it was converted, if it had not yet adopted Christianity earlier as a Peninsular power. As to its doctrinal persuasion, it was probably Chalcedonian, as was Ghassan's around 502. Whether Kinda adopted Monophysitism as Ghassan was to do later, in the second decade of the sixth century, is not clear. But those of Kinda who were settled in Palaestina Prima are likely to have remained Chalcedonian. Just as a strong Monophysite ecclesiastic, Severus of Antioch, was probably instrumental in the conversion of the Ghassanids to Monophysitism, so it was such ecclesiastics as Elias, the staunchly Chalcedonian Arab patriarch of Jerusalem, and St. Sabas, the celebrated monk of the Desert of Juda, who kept Palaestina Prima Chalcedonian, or mostly Chalcedonian, even during the reign of Anastasius. The Kindite Arabs who were settled in Palaestina Prima naturally were influenced by the Chalcedonian Christianity of the province and most probably remained within that doctrinal fold. 10 The only member of the royal house of Kinda whose Christianity is attested beyond doubt is Hind, the Kindite princess, daughter of the same Kindite Arethas with whom Anastasius made the foedus of 502. She built a monastery in l;Ii'ra, the Lakhmid capital, in which was found the most important Christian Arab inscription of pre-Islamic times. 11 She had that inscription carved after the death of her husband, Mungir, the famous Lakhmid king, and during the reign of her son 'Amr . 12 The inscription raises the question of when Hind became a Christian, and what her doctrinal persuasion was.
It is certain that she did not adopt Christianity in l:IIra since her husband was a notorious pagan who reveled in anti-Christian outbursts. Consequently she must have been converted while still a Kindite princess, and if so her father, Arethas, must have been Christian too. 13 She is supposed to have been married to Mungir during a period of eclipse for him brought about by her father, 14 who for some time became the ruler of l:lira and replaced Mungir himself, in the 520s. 15 She could have brought with her a Chalcedonian form of Christianity which she probably kept, or even a Monophysite one. The proud Kindite princess would not have converted to Nestorianism, the tolerated form of Christianity in Sasanid Persia and its prevailing form in l:IIra. 16 The Ghassanids and Palestine While the Patriarchate of Antioch finally fell to Severus, a Monophysite of the deepest dye, who held office from 513 to 518, the Patriarchate of Jerusalem remained solidly Dyophysite principally owing to the resistance of a monk and a patriarch, St. Sabas and Elias of Jerusalem, both staunchly Chalcedonian, except for two years when Anastasius finally dethroned Elias and banished him to Ayla in 516. In view of this, it is unlikely that the Ghassanids had any foothold in Palestine, especially since, as pointed out earlier in this volume, Palaestina Prima was not their province but rather that of the Kindites. Yet there is that tantalizing toponym that appears in an Arabic source, namely, Dayr Ghassaneh, "the Monastery of the Ghassanids," which unmistakably points to a Ghassanid association. 17
The question arises as to when it was established. If the monastery dates to the reign of Anastasi us, as is likely, it most probably was established in the second decade of his reign. In spite of the strongly Dyophysite character of Palestine, there were Monophysite pockets in it, represented by the monastery of Peter t~e Iberian (between Gaza and Maiouma), under whose influence Severus himself came when he was a monk at that monastery as he was to be also at the monastery of Romanus (near Tekoa). 18 The future patriarch of Antioch thus had strong Palestinian connections, and he kept his interest in Palestine even after his elevation to the see of Antioch, trying, with the help of other Monophysite clerics, to convince Anastasius to dethrone Elias, the Dyophysite patriarch of Jerusalem, which finally took place in 516. As explained in the previous section, the Ghassanids were won over to the Monophysite position in this decade during the patriarchate of Severus and under the combined influence of the two powerful Monophysites of the patriarchate, Severus and Philoxenus, who kept their interest in Palestine.
The Ghassanids were geographically closer than both ecclesiastics to Palestine since they surrounded it from the three provinces of Palaestina Tertia, Arabia, and Palaestina Secunda and protected it against the pastoralists of the Arabian Peninsula. Thus they must have been also interested in what, after all, was the Holy Land to them. It is therefore not unnatural to suppose that they effected a foothold in Palestine exactly in this period when the emperor, the patriarch of Antioch, and also that of Jerusalem, were all Monophysite. 19 Perhaps Dayr Ghassaneh belongs to this period, and if Dayr 'Amr, "the monastery of 'Amr," is also Ghassanid, it may also belong to this period . Discussion of the Arab presence in Palestine, that of the Ghassanids and Kindites, in this ecclesiastical context has led to the discussion of the position of the patriarch of Jerusalem in this period, Elias, himself a Rhomaic Arab. The Palestinian ecclesiastical scene thus presents a paradoxical situation where there was an Arab at the top ecclesiastical echelon in Palestine, while the powerful federates, the Ghassanids in Oriens, were moving in the orbit of the Pisidian Severus, sure sign that their Monophysitism was not related to their ethnic makeup.
The Arab patriarch, who was discussed in detail in the previous volume of this series, 20 wrote an important chapter in the history of Palestine, the ecclesiastical fortunes of which he guided for some twenty-two years from 494 to 516. Among his many ecclesiastical establishments was the laying of the foundation of the New Church of the Mother of God in Jerusalem, later finished by Justinian. His Arab flock, then, did not include the Ghassanids and was limited to the phylarchs of the Parembole in the Desert of Juda and most probably to the Kindices of Palaestina Prima. 21 The zeal of the Ghassanids for Monophysicism, which became evident throughout the sixth century, is startling, and its roots must go back co chis reign, that of Anastasius, to the powerful impact that the two strong Monophysite ecclesiastics, Severus and Philoxenus, had on them. In vain one cries to extract from the silent sources data concerning this impact, but two events in Oriens and the Patriarchate of Antioch could be considered relevant in this connection. 1. First there was the consecration of the cathedral of Bostra22 between September 512 and March 513. The Ghassanid phylarch most probably attended the consecration .
The headquarters of the Ghassanids was the Provincia Arabia, and Bostra was its capital. The phylarch had important relations with the dux of Arabia who resided in Bostra. Furthermore, the Ghassanids had some important relations with this provincial capital, as the reign of Mungir testifies late in the century. It is natural, therefore, to assume that on that important occasion the phylarch of the province, who was newly converted to the Monophysite faith, would have been invited, especially as the cathedral was dedicated to the military saints Bacchus and Sergius, and Leoncius, the first of whom was the patron saint of the Ghassanids. That the Ghassanid phylarchs were invited to such events is atteste<;l by the invitation to the Ghassanid Mungir around 580 to attend the consecration of the church at }::luwwarin (Evaria), a much less important consecration. 23 2.
Then there was the splendid consecration of Severus himself on 16 November 513, at which Philoxenus officiated, 1 when Severus delivered his cathedral homily in which he denounced Chalcedon and the Tome of Leo. 24 The Ghassanid phylarch must have been invited to attend the enthronement of the patriarch who, together with Philoxenus, must have been instrumental in winning over the Ghassanids to the Monophysite cause. Attendance at such consecrations-that of the cathedral of Bostra and of the patriarch of Antioch -must have impressed the Ghassanids and enhanced their attachment to their new confession. Trilinguis Zabadaea Almost more than a century ago, E. Sachau discovered, on the lintel of the west portal of a church in the western part of the ruins of Zabad, the famous trilingual inscription in Greek, Syriac, and Arabic. The inscription commemorates the erection of a martyrion for St.
Sergius in 512, and it contains a number of names written in the three languages with whom the erection of the church is associated. The inscription has been in the hands of a host of scholars who have tried to establish its text. In spite of the ingenuity that has been exercised in the study of the text for many years by the bestknown scholars in the field, the text of the inscription is not crystal clear. The various names that are mentioned in it are associated with different functions, the founder(s), the engraver, and the donors.
The relevant part of the inscription for the history of Arab-Byzantine relations is the Arab names and the light they t;hrow on cultural matters in the history of Arab-Byzantine relations in the early part of the sixth century. According to E. Littmann, the Arabic inscription contains five names: (1) Sergius, son of Amat/Manaf; (2) Hunai' (or Hannai') , son of Mar'alqais; (3) Sergius, son of Sa'd; (4) Sier(?); and (5) Sergius. 26 The Arab name 'Azi'z also appears in the Greek part of the inscription. In what way these Arab names are associated with the church is not entirely clear. In spite of these uncertainties, it is possible to make the following observations on the Arabic names in the inscription. 1. The first question that arises concerns the legal status of these Arabs. Were they foederati or were they Rhomaic Arabs? There is no way of telling. The region of Zabad, not far from Hierapolis, is associated with the Arabs, and it has been argued that the Taniikhids were possibly the foederati of By zantium m the fourth century that were associated with it. 27 So it is not altogether impossible that they were federate Arabs who contributed something to the building of this church. Shara~il, the phylarch of l:farran, is attested epigraphically as having built a church dedicated to St. John. What might raise the suspicion that these may have been federate Arabs is the perfectly Arabian name of Mar' alqais (lmru' al-Qays), a name more associated with the Arabian Peninsula whence the foederati had hailed 28 than with Rhomaic Oriens. 2.
The church is dedicated to St. Sergius. Zabad is situated in the province of Euphratensis where Ru~afa (Sergiopolis), the pilgrimage center, was located. Sergius was a military saint and one of the patron saints of the Roman army in Oriens, and of the Ghassanids, and he was equally venerated among the Arabs. Noteworthy is the fact that, according to Littmann, three of the Arabs mentioned in the inscription bore the name Sergius. 3. The inscription is important palaeographically, since it is considered to represent the earliest specimen of the Arabic script in Oriens. lt antedates the 1:farran inscription and also the one found at Usays. 29 The Namara inscription of A.D. 328 is written in the Nabataean script. The trilinguis of Zabad reflects the triculturalism of Oriens, and the employment of Arabic is striking in spite of the fact that the two languages of cultural dominance in the region, Greek and Syriac, are represented in the inscription. This reflects the strong Arab identity of those Arabs whose names were included in the inscription, sure sign that they were not completely assimilated into the Greek and Syriac cultural traditions of the region. 4. These Arabs kept their Arabic names, used patronymics more Arabico, and apparently insisted on having their names written in the Arabic script. The last clearly indicates that, although they were living in a multilingual ambience in which Greek and Syriac were used and were well known, these Arabs did not think it was superfluous to have their names written in Arabic, their own language.
This is of some relevance to the problem of a simple Arabic liturgy and a lectionary for the use of the Arabs, especially the foederati of Oriens. If the Arabs of the Zabad inscription turn out to be not foederati but Rhomaic Arabs, the fact will be even more significant since it would argue that even the Rhomaic Arabs, who were subjected to cultural assimilation, did not entirely lose their sense of Arab identity. So, in addition to the palaeographic, there is this other important dimension to the inscription. II. OUTSIDE THE LIMES The Monophysite mission, or even missionary offensive, outside the frontiers of the empire was even more impressive and is better documented. It reached two important areas in the Semitic Orient, one in the middle Euphrates region in l::Hra, the capital of the Lakhmids, and another in South Arabia. l:fira Two attempts were made to establish contact with l::Hra, one in the first decade of the century and the other in the second. Both were attempts to reach the ruler as the most efficacious way of converting his people or region. The first is associated with the name of Philoxenus and the second with that of Severus. The First Attempt Sometime in the first decade of the sixth century, the Monophysite metropolitan of Hierapolis sent a letter to Abu Ya'fur, the Lakhmid ruler of the Arab city of l:fira on the middle Euphrates, in which he discussed Nestorianism and the Christian faith from the point of view of Monophysitism. The letter had been under a cloud concerning both its attribution to Philoxenus and its authenticity, but most of the doubts were laid to rest in 1963 when Father A. de Halleux published his dissertation on Philoxenus and set on a firm foundation both the attribution and the authenticity of the letter, with some reservations on certain parts of it. 30 Recent research on Oriens Christianus, especially its Arab sector, has confirmed these conclusions 31 beyond any shred of doubt, and this section upholds these conclusions and enriches them with new data. The letter of Philoxenus with its precious reference to Abu Ya'fur, the ruler of l:fira, turns out to be a mine of information for the history of Arab Christianity in this period. The most complete recension of the letter is that in the collection of the John Rylands Library in Manchester, 32 which inter a/ia gives the correct orthography of the name of the ruler of }::lira as Abu Ya'fur and mentions him some three times. From it the following data may be extracted . (1) Philoxenus apparently wrote two letters to Abu Ya'fur, one of which has survived. (2) Philoxenus' letters were in response to letters sent by Abu Ya'fur himself. (3) The opening paragraph of the letter says something about the virtues of Abu Ya'fur, of which he enumerates three. (4) Abu Ya'fur is referred to not as king but as stratelates, the military term, and l:lira is referred to as l:lirat al-Nu'man , Qerta d'Na'man. 33
The letter represents the earliest extant record of the attempt of the Monophysites to establish contact with l:lira and its rulers, an attempt that was repeated many times in the course of the sixth century . That ,there was a Monophysite problem in Sasanid Persia, including l:lira, at this time is known from other sources and may be summarized as follows. The Council of Seleucia in 488 established Nescorianism as the accepted form of Christianity in Persia. There followed apparently an assertion of Nestorian ascendancy in Persia with persecution of the Monophysites, involving Bar-~auma , the Nestorian bishop of Nisibis, the flight of the Monophysites to Byzantine territory, and a letter from Emperor Anastasius to the Persian king Kawad on this point. 34 This is the background of Philoxenus' letter to Abu Ya'fur. Philoxenus hailed from Persia, and he must have been familiar with the religious situation in that region and the role that l:lira could play in the protection of the Monophysites, his fellow confessionalists. Two centuries before, it protected the Manichaeans, and since then two of its kings had been associated with Christianity, Imru' al-Qays and Nu 'man. 3) But above all, this was the style of the metropolitan of Hierapolis-to go to the top of the administrative level for protection, to the ruler himself in the capital. Although he did not succeed, since Abu Ya'fur disappeared from the scene shortly after and l:lira remained a Nestorian stronghold till the very end, the letter does witness to the energy of Philoxenus in spreading his faith, which aimed at winning the important center of l:lira for Monophysitism, another instance of his missionary zeal which encompassed such distant centers of the Near East as Constantinople and also Najran in South Arabia.
More important is the light the letter throws on Abu Ya 'fur and the history of the Lakhmid dynasty in this obscure period and on Christianity in that Arab center. All that the specialized monographs on l:lira36 and the Lakhmids know of Abu Ya'fur is that he was a Lakhmid appointed by Kawad after the death of King Nu'man from a wound he received before the walls of Edessa in 503, and that he did not last long, since the famous Mungir III appears as the king of 1:fira shortly after. Now this bald statement receives both confirmation and bright illumination from Philoxenus' letter. 1. Abu Ya'fur was a Lakhmid, but he did not belong to the ruling house, the N~rids or "the sons of N~r." This much had been known about him before the letter of Philoxenus was published. With this document and other data from the Arabic sources, Abu Ya'fur appears as the son of another Lakhmid, 'Alqama, who fathered another son, who had the emphatically Christian name of 'Abd al-Masi):i.37 Here then is a clan within the Lakhmids called Banu 'Alqama, "the sons of 'Alqama," which played an imp?rtant role in the history of Christianity in 1:fira. 2.
The house of 'Alqama thus was already Christian when Abu Ya'fur appears as the ruler of l;Hra. This is confirmed by the letter itself, as is clear from the opening paragraph. 38 The question of his Christian confession naturally arises. If his father, 'Alqama, was converted to Christianity, the natural presumption is that he was baptized into Nestorianism. This is a likely presumption, and equally likely is that his son Abu Ya'fur was born into or converted to the same doctrinal persuasion. 3. Yet the letter is startling in suggesting that Abu Ya'~r was not Nestorian. In the opening paragraph he is described as "one who delivers the lambs bought with the blood of Christ from the heresy of the Nestorians which is a second Jezebel, like Obadiah." Yet the implication is that he was a Christian; so to which Christian confession did he belong? The possibility must be entertained that he was won over to either the Chalcedonian or the Monophysite position. This should not be as startling as it sounds. It was in this period that there was a severe persecution of the Monophysites in Persia, and so much so that Emperor Anastasius had to intervene and sent representations to the Persian king, Kawad.
It is not impossible that Abu Ya'fur may have been outraged by these persecutions conducted by the Nestorians, that he found it revolting and so wrote to the nearest ecclesiastic to him, Philoxenus at Hierapolis, for advice. Besides, he may have known that Philoxenus was a Persian. In support of this is the history of Aspebetos, the pagan Arab commander who was so outraged by the persecution of the Christians in Persia during the reign of Yazdgard that he defected to Byzantium and firlally became the phylarch and bishop of the Parembole in Palestine. 39 4. This could have been the background of the letter that Abu Ya'fur sent to Philoxenus, asking him to inform him about this Christian confession that had outraged him by its severe persecution of fellow Christians. It should be remembered that Kawad himself had requested to be informed about Christianity and other religions, and so a statement was prepared for him and translated into Persian. 40 If his overlord did this, the vassal could easily have done the same. Kawad, as is well known, meandered from one religious fold to another, Mazdakism included; hence the period during which Abu Ya'fur flourished serves as appropriate background for his conversion. 5. This raises the question of his choice as successor for Nu'man.
It is possible that the anti-Christian outbursts of the latter 41 may have alienated the Christian population in }:IIra, as it did one of the chiefs in his army, and this may have led to some disturbances. So the appointment of the Christian Abu Ya'fur in }:IIra could have stabilized the situation. On the other hand, Mungir, the son of Nu'man, may still have been a minor, and so Kawad simply appointed a competent warden from the same tribe of Lakhm until Mungir reached his majority. It is noteworthy that he is not called king but by the military term strati/ates of the }:lirta, which too suggests that Kawad did not appoint him king since kingship belonged to the house of N~r, not to the 'Alqamids. This suggests that his appointment was temporary and contingent. The N~rid prestige is reflected in the name of }:lira which is called }:lira of Nu'man, the N~rid Lakhmid king. It should also be remembered that the war with Byzantium was still going on and that the Arabs of }:IIra took an active part in it. Hence what was needed in }:lira after the death of Nu'man before the walls of Edessa was a warrior, a soldier who could keep }:lira well in hand. 6.
In the Chronicle of Tabari, so ably edited and interpreted by Noldeke, 42 Abu Ya'fur appears as a name, that of the ruler of }:IIra during this short interregnum. This opacity that surrounds him is illuminated by the letter, which provides three dimensions to his personality: 43 he is noble, pure and God-loving as Abraham; he gives his wealth in alms to the poor as Job did; and he delivers the Christians from the heresy of the Nestorians. The first presents him as a monotheist, the second is almost Arab in emphasizing his generosity; the third reflects his confessional affiliation and efforts against Nestorianism. If all this is an accurate picture of Abu Ya'fur and not the wishful thinking of the writer of the letter, then chis document has preserved a picture of an Arab Lakhmid chief around A.D. 500 not unlike that of Aspebetos, another army commander whom the persecution of Christians in Persia outraged and forced to emigrate to Byzantine territory. 7.
The historian of the Lakhmid dynasty, G. Rothstein, was at a loss to explain the disappearance of Abu Ya'fur from the scene in l:fira after such a short interregnum. 44 The letter now provides some satisfactory explanation for this. Here was a vassal of the Persian king carrying on a correspondence concerning the Christian faith, that of the enemy Byzantium, with a metropolitan of Hierapolis so close to the Persian frontier. This must have made him suspect in the eyes of the Persian authorities, and the Nestorians would have lost no time in denouncing him as a traitor. Kawad dismissed him, and this may be confirmed by the appointment of Mungir III who celebrates his reign pointedly by the invasion of the Holy Land, thus emphasizing that a non-Christian ruler was again in the saddle in l:fira, like his father Nu'man. This examination of the letter of Philoxenus to Abu Ya'fur has further confirmed its essential authenticity, or at least that part of it that deals with Christianity in l:fira and the Land of the Two Rivers. The Syriac source had confirmed the reliability of the Arab historian Hisham on the Lakhmids, 4i and has brightly illuminated the history of l:fira and the Lakhmid dynasty in this short period in the first decade of the sixth century. A clan within the Lakhmids has thus been identified as the Christian clan of Banu 'Alqama, the sons of 'Alqama, to be added to others in l:fira such as "the house of Ayyub. "46 Their Christianity is confirmed onomastically and epigraphically. According to the genealogies, this 'Alqama had two sons (at least); one is Abu Ya'fur, the other 'Abd al-Masil); the latter had a son called l:fan~ala, who built a monastery at l:fira in which a Christian Arabic inscription was found, 47 all of which is relevant to the study of Arabic as one of the languages of Oriens Christianus in pre-Islamic times. The Second Attempt Some ten years after Philoxenus' effort to convert Abu Ya'fur of l:fira to Monophysitism, another attempt was made, this time in 513 by Severus, the newly consecrated Monophysite patriarch of Antioch, who according to ecclesiastical historians sent two bishops to Mungir III of l:fira in order to convert him. Mungir, however, confounded and embarrassed the two bishops sent by Severus and remained "orthodox" in faith.
The authenticity of this report has been much discussed, and its latest treatment goes back to the early 1970s. 48 The subject may now be discussed anew in light of recent research, especially the detailed analysis of the letter of Philoxenus. 1. Of the many authors who report Severus' mission, Theodore Anagnostes (Lector) is the main source from whom all the rest derive. 49 It is especially important to emphasize this because Theodore was a contemporary, and so his report may be considered reliable. 50 2. A mission to convert the powerful ruler of l:fira is very much in consonance with what is known about Severus, the zealous and dedicated Monophysite patriarch who had just been consecrated to the see of Antioch and who was anxious to convert the world around him to his confession. 3. A close relationship obtained between Philoxenus and Severus, and in fact the former was instrumental in elevating Severus to the patriarchate and took part in his consecration. The two clerics were in communication and were close to each other geographically.
It is natural to suppose that Philoxenus informed Severus of his previous efforts to convert Abu Ya'fur, and it is quite possible that the initiative to renew efforts to convert l:fira and its ruler may have come from Philoxenus. It is tempting to think that Philoxenus may himself have been one of the two bishops who went to l:fira to convert Mungir since he had hailed from Persia and was already familiar with the l::Uran situation through his correspondence with Abu Ya'fur. 4. Severus' interest in l:fira is attested from other sources, one of his own letters addressed to two clerics, Jonathan and Samuel, and "all the rest of the Orthodox who assembled in the church of the city of Anbar and in the church of l:fira of Nu 'man. "51 So the Monophysite mission to l:fira in 513 may be accepted as historical and interpreted as an ambitious attempt on the part of Severus to win over to Monophysitism the powerful ruler of l::lira, the most important Arab center in the Fertile Crescent. The report, however, raises questions about Mungir's religion at the time of this mission. In the early 1970s, and in light of the discovery of a new letter by Simeon of Beth-Arsham in which there is a reference to Mungir swearing by the Gospel, it was suggested that Mungir, the pagan and antiChristian ruler of l::lira, was at one time in his life a Christian, and it was also suggested that his Christianity must have been Nestorian. 52 But in view of that reference to Mungir in the ecclesiastical account as a Chalcedonian, it is not impossible that Mungir was converted to the Dyophysite position for a short time in this period and was already such when Severus' two bishops arrived at his court. Support for this could come from the fact that Mungir was married to a Christian Kindite princess, Hind, the daughter of the Kindite king, Arethas, with whom Byzantium concluded the foedus of 502. And it has been argued that Kinda's conversion to Christianity at that time was to Dyophysite Chrjstianity since it happened before Anastasius became openly Monophysite in the second decade of this century. 53 So there was a Christian at Mungir's court, his own wife, and it is possible that she had influenced him to become Christian for a short time and that this was his persuasion when the two Monophysite bishops arrived and found him a Dyophysite as the ecclesiastical historian reports.
This is all that can be said in support of the view expressed by the ecclesiastical historians who reported the episode, namely, that Mungir was a Chalcedonian at this time . However, this view encounters a difficulty deriving from the uncertainty that attends the date of Mungir's marriage to the Kindite princess Hind. As expressed earlier in this volume, it was possibly in the 520s. 54 If so, this would invalidate the argument, but no certainty attaches to this dating. So chances are equal that Mungir at this time was either Chalcedonian or Nestorian , and either would do as a background for the statement in the letter of Simeon that he swore by the Gospel sometime in the second decade of the sixth century . What matters here is the mission of Severus to Mungir, which, as has been argued, must be accepted as historical, unsuccessful as it was. Mungir was no theologian , and his rejection of the overtures of the two Monophysite bishops was certainly not on theological grounds . He was the vassal of the Persian king , and the latter would not have tolerated from his vassal the acceptance of a form of Christianity that in the second decade of the sixth century was the official Christianity of the secular enemy, Byzantium. Chalcedonian Christianity was bad enough from the point of view of the Persian king and the Zoroastrian establishment. 55 Mungir reverted co paganism lace in the decade, and chis reversion may be attributed to pressure from his overlord Kawad who looked on the Lakhmid king as a convenient ally for expressing his displeasure with Christian Byzantium. 56 Booty from the rich Christian shrines of Oriens must have appealed to the predatory instincts of the Lakhmid king, but rifling Christian shrines would have been impossible for him as a Christian. His Christianity was very chin co scare with, and once the Persian king signaled his disapproval of his client's religious persuasion, it was not difficult for the latter co revere co paganism. South Arabia Although the Monophysice mission to convert the Lakhmids of I:Iira failed, it was signally successful in South Arabia. This has been treated in detail for the reign of Anascasius in the previous volume of chis series, BAFIC, 57 and more will be said on it in BASIC II in the discussion of western Arabia. But, as the conversion of South Arabia to Monophysitism was the work of Philoxenus, it is only fitting that it should be briefly treated here, after his efforts co convert l:Iira which were discussed in the previous section, in order to indicate the full extent of his activity in the propagation of that confession. South Arabia represents the farthest limit of this activity in the Semitic Orient. 1-f.imyar Knowledge of a Monophysite mission to l:Iimyar in South Arabia is owed to John Diacrinomenus, the Monophysite writer who said that his own maternal uncle, Silvanus, was dispatched to l:Iimyar in the reign of Anastasius. This valuable but bald statement has left many questions unanswered concerning this Silvanus, such as the occasion for his dispatch, the year, and his see.
No definite answer can be given to these questions, and it was suggested that his episcopal see was either Mukha or Zafar itself, the capital, or possibly Najran. Whether Philoxenus was involved in this missionary effort is not stated. But in view of his interest in the Arab and Arabian area, it is not unlikely that he was behind the dispatch of Silvanus to South Arabia. 58 1-f.aqramawt The Monophysite presence in South Arabia is also attested in J:Ia9ramawt and is associated with another imponant figure in the history of the Monophysite church, namely, John of Tella. According to the new letter of Simeon of Beth-Arsham, one of the martyrs in J:Ia9ramawt around the year 520 was a presbyter by the name of Elias, who had been a monk at the convent of Beth Mar-Abraham near Callinicum and who was ordained presbyter by John of Tella. Another presbyter who was also martyred in J:Ia9ramawt was Thomas who had been a monk at the monastery of Beth Mar-Antiochina in Edessa. 59 So here are two presbyters assigned to J:Ia9ramawt, who had hailed from the Monophysite world of Oriens, one of whom, Elias, had been ordained by John of Tella. Although it is not stated that John of Tella was involved in his dispatch to, or his presence in, J:Ia9ramawt, the chances are that he was, and if so, John of Tella may be added to the list of Monophysite ecclesiastics who were active in the mission to Arabia. 60 Najrdn More important than the Monophysite presence in J:Iimyar and J:Ia9ramawt was the Arab city of Najran, situated in the northern part of South Arabia. A flood of light has been thrown on it for the reign of Anastasius by the new letter of Simeon of Beth-Arsham, which solves the problem of the inception of its episcopate. This document clearly states that Philoxenus consecrated two bishops of Najran: Paul I, the first bishop that Najran received, and Paul II, consecrated bishop of Najran sometime after Paul I was martyred in Zafar. 61 This report on the Monophysite presence in Najran calls for the following observations. 1. Najran had been converted to Christianity in the first half of the fifth century by J:Iayyan, one of its merchants, who brought the Christian Gospel from l:fira before the birth of the Monophysite movement. But it was in the reign of Anastasius and through the vision of Philoxenus that Najran acquired its strong Monophysite character, which determined the confessional stance of South Arabia for a century till the rise of Islam. 62 2.
How this came about is not entirely clear, but it has been suggested that the Ghassanids in Oriens, who became the zealous Monophysites among the Arabs, were partly responsible for this shift in doctrinal persuasion in Najran. The Ghassanids were related to the Arabs of Najran and had close ties with them, and it is not impossible that they were involved in carrying the Monophysite flame there. 63 3. The consecration of a bishop for Najran is a clear indication that Christianity had advanced far enough in that city to require an episcopal presence. The Monophysite church wanted a center in South Arabia that it could consider its firm foothold in that region whence Christianity might spread, and Najran clearly qualified as such since Christianity was introduced to it relatively early in the first half of the fifth century . 4. The success of Philoxenus' efforts in establishing a strong Monophysite presence in Najran is reflected in various ways: in the rise of an organized hierarchy for the church in Najran whose names have been preserved in the new letter of Simeon of Beth-Arsham, in the international character of many of the clerics who formed this hierarchy, 64 and in native Najranites, acting as missionaries or ministers of the faith in other parts of South Arabia, such as the presbyter Thomas who died a martyr in J::la9ramawt. 65 The conversion of South Arabia to the Monophysite confession of Christianity was a major triumph for Monophysitism and for Philoxenus . 66 This was an event of the first importance in the history of the Arabs and the Arabian Peninsula. As far as Monophysitism is concerned, it represented a major conquest, that of a vast province, a triumph that was to be repeated later in the century , when Nubia across the Red Sea was won over to Monophysitism in the reign of Justinian, thus making the whole of the valley of the Nile a Monophysite valley, after Egypt and Ethiopia had also been won over to the same doctrinal persuasion.
III. APPENDIX "The Camp of Anasartha": A Cautionary Note In one of his letters, 1 the Monophysite patriarch of Antioch, Severus (513-518), addresses the monks of the monastery of Mar-Isaac concerning the consecration of one of them, Stephen, as bishop of "the camp of Anasartha " in Syria Prima . The men of the "camp" had submitted a list to him, and he chose Stephen, whom he recommends strongly. The following three passages are from Severus' letter as translated by E. W . Brooks.' 1. "But now I am writing to your love of God about a matter which is for the common benefit, and tends to the advancement of the right faith and the preservation and extension of the holy churches of God in the East." 2. "
The men of the camp of Anasartha by their psephismata proposed various persons in order that a bishop might be ordained for them; and I for my part determined that we would ordain the religious father Stephen, who is adorned with character and with faith, and, if one may so say, with all the excellencies of virtues, bishop for the aforesaid camp ." 3. "I have chosen the religious father Stephen as being one of those mentioned in the psephisma by those who came from the aforesaid camp : and for us to introduce someone else not included in the psephisma is impossible ." Severus' letter, which in its English version speaks of the "men of the camp of Anasartha," could easily lead the student of Arab-Byzantine relations into thinking that these were federate Arabs who had asked Severus to consecrate a bishop for them. It is quite unlikely that regular Roman soldiers in a camp would have asked Severus to do this, but Arab federates might very well have. If so, the letter assumes considerable importance since it would refer not to the Ghassanids, about whom much is known in the sixth century, but to other, lesser known Arab federate groups who were encamped in the northern provinces of Oriens of which Syria Prima was one. Exciting as it would be if "the men of the camp of Anasartha" turned out to be Arab federates, it is not quite certain that they in fact were. Severus wrote in Greek , but his letter has survived only in a Syriac version . The Syriac of this version is clearly a translation of the phrase in Greek, and it presents problems to the translator, both the anonymous one who turned the Greek into Syriac and Brooks who turned the Syriac into English . The only course is to state what can be said for "the camp of Anasartha " as an Arab federate camp and then to examine an alternative translation of the Syriac phrase with reference to the Greek original or what the Greek original might have been. A In support of, and in relation to, what Brooks implied by his translation of the Syriac phrase as "the men of the camp of Anasartha" as Arab federates, the following observations may be made.
1. The first question that arises is the identity of these Arab foederati encamped near Anasartha. The city is associated with the Arabs and the Arab federates, and this is attested in Greek inscriptions. 3 An Arab federate group encamped outside the walls of Anasartha is likely to have been the Taniikhids. This was one of their sites in the fourth century, while the Salil_iids were in the south of Oriens. Also in the south were the Ghassanids in this period, before the conferment of the supreme phylarchate on the Ghassanid Arethas around 530 . 2. Noteworthy is the fact that the troops in the camp want a bishop of their own choosing from a list they have voted for. This could be another indication of the Arab and Taniikhid identity of this group. In the fourth century the federate queen Mavia insisted that a holy man, Moses, be consecrated as her bishop, 4 and so do those of "the camp of Anasartha" in the sixth century. 3. This raises the question of the ethnic background of the bishop: was he Arab? The precedent set by Mavia in the fourth century could suggest that this became the rule in choosing bishops for the Arab foederati. The election and consecration of the Arab Theodore/ the bishop of the Ghassanids around 540, who oversaw the entire Arab area, gives further support for this view. 4. The candidate that Severus chose was a monk of the monastery of Mar-Isaac named Stephen. 6 It is noteworthy that the convent was in an Arab area, since Chalcidice was a desert region inhabited by Arabs/Saracens. It does not necessarily follow that their inmates were Arab, but it could argue that at least some of them were Arab, and Stephen may have been one of them. Stephen is a non-Arab name, but this does not necessarily argue against his Arabness, since the Arabs shed their Arabic names when they became monks or priests . And some Arabs are attested as having assumed the name Stephen, such as the hegoumenos of the lavra of St.
Euthymius in the Desert of Juda in the fifth century. 7 To the above arguments may be added Severus' attitude toward the choice of Stephen. Severus was a capable ecclesiastical administrator who, as the first passage indicates, was anxious to spread the Monophysite faith. As he wanted converts, he must have thought it perfectly appropriate for winning over the federate Arabs of Anasartha (who at the time were probably Chalcedonian) to accede to their wishes to choose one from the list they had submitted; and as has already been argued, they most probably would have wanted as their bishop an Arab who understood their language . The letter is valuable as it reflects the concern of Severus for spreading the Monophysite faith in Oriens and elsewhere. He speaks of the "advancement of the right faith and the preservation and extension of the holy churches of God in the East." In this case, the advancement and extension involve the Arabs, whom he was able to convert to a large extent. The Ghassanids were won to the Monophysite faith in this period, and he sent emissaries to Mungir, the Lakhmid king of l:lira, to attempt to convert him. And so it is within this framework of an active missionary activity among the powerful Arab foederati in Oriens chat his recommendations for the consecration of Stephen among the Arab federates of Anasartha has co be viewed. His insistence on the consecration of Stephen reveals the capable ecclesiastical hierarch who knew the role that the foederati would play in the support of the Monophysice church. So in the letter he appears understanding of their desire for a bishop of their own choice and adamant in seeing their wishes carried out.
The sequel justified his expectation, since the federate Arabs turned out co be the pillars of strength of the Monophysice movement throughout the sixth century. B In spice of the case chat can be made for the Arab federate status of "the men of the camp of Anasarcha," it is by no means certain chat these were actually Arab federates. A close look at the Syriac original, itself a translation from the Greek, suggests an alternative and better translation of the phrase, which in Syriac reads qaJfrii lfanaJartii. 8 1. The first reaction to the translation of the phrase qaJfrii lfanaJartii by "the camp of Anasarcha" is chat the translation reflects the genitive relation. But the Syriac is not couched in any of the three ways in which the genitive relation is expressed in Syriac: by the employment of the emphatic state with the preposition d; by the employment of the construct state; and by the employment of both the possessive pronominal suffix and the preposition d. So the translation of the Syriac phrase should not have been expressed through the genitive relation, "the camp of Anasarcha. "9 2. Then there is the term "camp." The Syriac original has qaJfra, and this normally means in Syriac not camp but fortified place; 10 it is a Lacinism in Greek and a Graecism in Syriac. This raises the question of what the original Greek of Severus was and what he meant by it.
There are two possibilities: he could have used it in the normal sense of a fortified place or as a Latin term, castra, which indeed means "camp." Severus knew Latin, since he studied it in Alexandria, and later in Beirut he studied law, the language of which was Latin. The chances are that he used it not in the Latin sense of "camp" but in the new sense the term had acquired after its naturalization in Byzantine Greek-fortress, fortified place. 3. Further confirmation of this derives from the syntax of the phrase. The Syriac translator surely must have known the two languages as well. As he did not use one of the three ways of expressing the genitive relation, the conclusion is inevitable that "Anasartha," which comes after qasfra, is not the genitive but is simply in apposition to it , and the phrase should be translated "the qasfra, the fortress Anasartha ," identifying the qasfra with the town. 4 . Objections to the identification of qasfra with Anasartha could disappear when it is realized that Anasartha was on the limes and so was a fortress, a fortified place, and as a town on the timer, was referred to as such . A passage in Malalas indeed describes Anasartha as i:o 'AvaoaQ0ov xaoi:QOV. 11 5.
Another objection may be the use of the plural or what seems to be plural, namely, Syriac qasfra (the Greek plural xaoi:Qa) and not singular qasfron (Greek singular XetITTQOV), the term that describes Anasartha in Malalas. But although it transliterates plural XetITTQCl, Syriac qasfra is considered a grammatical singular. Besides, syntax is decisive. Since what is involved is not the genitive relation but apposition, qasfra must be construed as singular, the same as the grammatical singular "Anasartha." The notion of apposition also disposes of the possibility, or makes it very remote, that qasfra transliterates Latin castra, plural in form but singular in meaning, "camp, " since Anasartha is not a camp (castra) but a fortified city, xaoi:QOV. 6. A final objection may be that Stephen as the bishop of Anasartha does not appear in the list of Monophysite bishops exiled by Justin in 519 . This could argue that he was not a bishop of the city of Anasartha but of the Arab federate camp, which was not deemed important enough to be mentioned in the list of exiled bishops, as was John of Evaria, who was the bishop of the Ghassanids, the dominant Arab federate group, and who was indeed mentioned. 12 The omission is noteworthy but does not necessarily invalidate the foregoing reasoning, which rests on the correct transliteration of the language of the crucial Syriac phrase . Stephen was only recommended for consecration as bishop; he may not have actually attained the episcopal dignity, or he may have succumbed to the solicitations of the Chalcedonians and reconverted to their position; hence his non-inclusion in the list of exiled Monophysite bishops. And there is the possibility that the list of exiled bishops as preserved in later Syriac sources is not complete .
This attempt to recover the precise Greek phrase that Severus used involving Anasartha in his letter has yielded a conclusion that does not square well with Brooks' translation of the Syriac phrase as "the camp of Anasartha," with all that such a translation implies . Important as it is to recover data on the ecclesiastical history of the Arab foederati in the sixth century, especially when they are non-Ghassanids, it is necessary to guard against misapprehension of the phrase in the English version . Thus one must exclude it as evidence for Arab federate Christianity in the environs of Anasartha in Syria Prima in the early part of the sixth century . Federate Christianity may have existed there at that time, but if so, it must rest on other evidence.
Link
Press Here
0 التعليقات :
إرسال تعليق