23 Mart 2023 Perşembe

XV Qenneshre Fragmanı ve Edessa’lı Pikopos Daniel (665-84)

          Qenneshre Fragmanı ve Edessa’lı Pikopos Daniel (665-84)

Yazar

Nau ve Sachau, Edessa’lı Daniel'i yazar olarak kabul ediyorlar, Hoyland yazarın başka bir editör tarafından parçaların birleştirildiğini düşünmektedir.[1] Penn’e göre çoğu Muhtemelen sekizinci yüzyılda yazılmıştır.

Kitap

Fragmanlar

Kaynakça

Eduard Sachau, “Verzeichniss der syrischen Handschriften der koniglichen Bibliothek zu Berlin (Berlin: A. Asher &. co, 1899), 2.523-524; François Nau, “Notice historique sur le monastère de Qartamin, suivie d'une note sur le monastère de Qennesrè. (Extrait du tome II des Actes du XIVe Congrès international des orientalistes, Alger 1905. Part 2 (Paris: 1907), 114-135; Gerrit J. Reinink, “Die Muslime in einer Sammlung von Damonengeschichten des Klosters von Qennesrin” in VI Syniposium Syriacuni 1992, ed. Renć Lavenant (Romę: Pontificio Instituto Orientale, 1994), 335-346; Michael Penn (2013). "Demons Gone Wild: An Introduction, and Translation of the Syriac Qenneshre Fragment". Orientalia christiana periodica. 79 (2): 367–399;

Qenneshre Fragment

 

https://archive.org/details/nau_notice_historique_monastere_qartamin_et_qenneshre/page/n23/mode/2up

“And I Daniel, bishop of Aleppo (in the margin: d y Edessa)  I questioned this demon a lot and he said to me” (Nau, s.82)

Dipnot;

“1. Further down we find Aleppo once again in the text and Edessa in the margin. The correct reading is undoubtedly Edessa, because further down we will find this name in the text itself and Michael the Syrian (II, 429) writes: "After the death of the venerable Severus, it happened in the time of Mar Daniel, bishop of E - goddess, whom the demons possessed the brothers of the convent of Qennesré. The Archimandrite sent for Mar Daniel, in order to be able to calm these unfortunate people. This Daniel is undoubtedly the author of the text that we publish. The invasions of the Persians, the Arabs and the ardent struggles of the Monophysites and the Chalcedonians could provoke among the monks certain contagious nervous crises directed, at least in part, against the Monophysite doctrine; these crises were linked to the phenomena of possession and a certain magician was even held responsible for them—Urbain Grandier of that period. — Daniel intervened, as well as the temporal power represented by the Emir Abdallah, then Daniel himself wrote up a tendential account of these events, the remains of which we are publishing.” (Nau, s.82) 

 




 


 

 

 

 

 


 


 


 



[1] Seeing Islam as Others Saw it. A survey and analysis of the Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian writings on Islam (Darwin; Princeton, 1997) s.142-147.

22 Mart 2023 Çarşamba

XIV Maruni Kroniği (664)

                                                   Maruni Kroniği (664)

Yazar

664'ten kısa bir süre sonra tamamlanan Süryanice dilinde anonim bir yıllıktır. Yazarının bir Maruni olduğu anlaşıldığı için bu adı almıştır.

Kitap

Bugün sadece Londra'da, British Library Add'de 17,216 no ile bulunan tek bir hasarlı 8. veya 9. yüzyıl el yazmasında hayatta kalmıştır. 660-664 yıllarını kapsayan tek Süryani vakayinamesidir.

https://archive.org/details/ChronicaMinoraIi/page/n15/mode/2up (02.09.2022).

Kaynakça

 

Henri Lammens (1899) “Qays al-Mārūnī aw aqdam ta'rīkh li-l-kitbat al-Mawārina”. Al-Machriq 2: 265-268; Ernest Walter Brooks (1904) (ed.) “Chronica minora. Volume Two (Corpus scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, 3: Scriptores Syri, 3). Paris - Leipzig: 43-74; Jean-Baptiste Chabot (1904) (tr.) Chronica minora. Volume Two (Corpus scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, 4: Scriptores Syri, 4). Paris - Leipzig: 35-57; Michael Breydy (1990) “Das Chronikon des Maroniten Theophilus ibn Tuma”. Journal of Oriental and African Studies 2: 34-43; Sebastian Paul Brock, (1984); “Syriac sources for the seventh-century history”. In: Syriac perspectives on Late Antiquity, ed. Sebastian Paul Brock, (Collected Studies Series, 199). London: VII = Sebastian Paul Brock (1976); “Syriac sources for the seventh-century history”. Byzantine and modern Greek studies 2: 17-36; Muriel Debié (2015) “L'écriture de l'histoire en syriaque”: Transmissions interculturelles et constructions identitaires entre hellénisme et Islam (Late antique history and religion, 12). Leuven - Paris - Bristol: 546-548; Robert Hoyland (1997) “Seeing Islam as others saw it: A survey and evaluation of Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian writings on early Islam” (Studies in Late Antiquity and early Islam, 13). Princeton: 135-139; Andrew Palmer (1993) “The seventh century in the West-Syrian chronicles, including two seventh-century Syriac apocalyptic texts (Translated texts for historians”, 15). Liverpool: 29-35.

Maronite Chronicle

 

“Sayfa. 69/...Mu’aiwiye, Hudhayfa, the son of his sister, and Mu‘aiwiye gave orders that he be put to death.

‘Ali, too, threatened to go up once again against Mu’awiye, but they struck him while he was at prayer in al-Hira (133) Sayfa. 70/ and killed him. (134) Mu‘awiye (then) went down to al-Hira, where all the Arab forces there proffered their right hand to him, (135) whereupon he returned to Damascus.

In AG 970, the 17th year of Constans, on a Friday in June,(136) at the second hour, there was a violent earthquake in Palestine, and many places there collapsed.

In the same month the bishops of the Jacobites, Theodore and Sabukht (137) came to Damascus and held an inquiry into the Faith with the Maronites (138) in the presence of Mu’awiye. When the Jacobites were defeated, Mu’aiwiye ordered them to pay 20,000 denarii and commanded them to be silent. Thus there arose the custom that the Jacobite bishops should pay that sum of gold every year to Mu’awiye, so that he would not withdraw his protection and let them be persecuted by the members of the (Orthodox) Church. The person called ‘patriarch’ by the Jacobites fixed the financial burden that all the convents of monks and nuns should contribute each year towards the payment in gold and he did the same with all the adherents of his faith. He bequeathed his estate to Mu’aiwiye, (139) so that out of fear of that man all the Jacobites would be obedient to him.

On the ninth of the same month in which the disputation with the Jacobites took place, on a Sunday at the eighth hour, there was an earthquake. (140)

In the same year King Constans ordered his brother Theodosius to be put to death - quite unjustly and without any fault on his part, according to what many people said. Many were grieved at his violent end and they say that the citizens chanted slogans {Gr. phoas} against the King, calling him a second Cain, murderer of his brother. In great anger he left his son Constantine on /Sayfa. 71/ his throne and himself set out for the north, taking the queen and the whole Roman fighting force with him, against foreign peoples.

In AG 971, Constans’s 18th ear, many Arabs gathered at Jerusalem and made Mu’aiwiye kingz (141) and he went up and sat down on Golgotha; he prayed there, and went to Gethsemane and went down to the tomb of the blessed Mary to pray in it. In those days, when the Arabs were assembled there with Mu’aiwiye, there was an earthquake and a violent tremor and the greater part of Jericho fell, including all its churches, and of the House of Lord John at the site of our Saviour’s baptism in the Jordan every stone above the ground was overthrown, together with the entire monastery. The monastery of Abba Euthymius, as well as many convents of monks and solitaries and many other places also collapsed in this (earthquake).

In July of the same year the emirs and many Arabs gathered and proffered their right hand to Mu’awiye. Then an order went out that he should be proclaimed king in all the villages and cities of his dominion and that they should make acclamations and invocations {Gr. phonas, kleeis} to him. He also minted gold and silver, but it was not accepted, because it had no cross on it. Furthermore, Mu’aiwiye did not wear a crown like other kings in the world. He placed his throne in Damascus and refused to go to Muhammad’s throne.

The following year there was frost in the early morning of Wednesday, 13 April, and the white grapevines were withered by it. (142)

When Mu’awiye had acquired the power which he had aimed at and was at rest from the (civil) wars of his people, he broke the peace settlement with the Romans and refused to accept peace from them any longer. Rather he said, ‘If the Romans want / Sayfa 72/ peace, let them surrender their weapons, and pay the tax {Ar. jizya}.’

[one folio missing]

... of the year, Yazid b. Mu’aiwiye went up again with a large army. (143) While they were encamped in Thrace, the Arabs scattered for the purpose of plunder, leaving their hirelings and their sons to pasture the cattle and to snatch anything that should come their way. When those who were standing on the wall (saw) this, they went out and fell upon them and (killed) a great many young men (144) and hirelings and some of the Arabs too. Then they snatched up the booty and went in (to the City). The next day, all the young of men (145) of the City (146) grouped together, along with some of those who had come in to take refuge there and a few of the Romans and said, ‘Let us make a sortie against them’. But Constantine told them, ‘Do not make a sortie. It is not as if you had engaged in a battle and won. All you have done is a bit of common thieving.’ But they refused to listen to him. Instead, a large number of people went out armed, carrying banners and streamers {Gr. banda, phlaimoula} on high as is the Roman custom. As soon as they had gone out, all the gates {Lat. portae} were closed. The King had a tent erected on the wall, where he sat watching. The Saracens drew (them) after them, retreating a good long way away from the wall, so that they would not be able to escape quickly when put to flight. So they went out and squatted in tribal formation. When the others reached them, they leapt to their feet and cried out in the way of their language, God is great!’. Immediately the others turned tail in flight, chased by the Saracens, who fell an them, killing and making captives right up to the point where they came within range of the catapults {Lat. ballistrae} on the wall. In his fury with them Constantine /Sayfa. 73/ was barely willing to open (the gates) for them. Many of them fell and others were wounded by arrows.

In AG 975, the 22nd of Constans and 7th (147) of Mu’aiwiye, (‘Abd al-Rahman) b. Khalid, commander of the Arabs of Emesa, the capital of Phoenicia, went up with an army against Roman territory. He came and pitched camp by the lake called Scutarium; (148) and when he saw that a large number of people were dwelling in it, he wanted to take it. So he made rafts and boats and embarked a force on them and sent them towards the middle (of the lake). The lake-dwellers, seeing this, ran away and hid from them. When the Arabs got into the harbour, they disembarked and tied up the boats, then made off towards the interior to attack the people. At that moment the men who were in hiding got up and ran to the boats, cut off their moorings and rowed out onto the deep water. Thus the Arabs were left on shore in the harbour, penned in by deep water and mud. The inhabitants then grouped together against them, surrounding them from all sides, fell upon them with slings, stones and arrows and killed them all. Their companions stood watching from the opposite shore, unable to come to their aid. The Arabs have not attacked that lake again up to the present day.

Ibn Khalid then set off from there and came to the city of Amorium and gave it the word. (149) When they opened (their gates) to him he stationed an Arab garrison there and left that place. He then came to the great fortress of SYLWS, (150) because a master-carpenter from Paphlagonia had played a trick on him. This man had said to him, ‘If you give me and my household your word (that our lives will be spared), I will make you a catapult {Gr. manganike} capable of taking this fortress.’ Ibn Khalid gave him (his word) and gave orders for some long logs (151) to be brought; and so he made a catapult {Gr. manganike} such as they had never seen before. They went up and installed it opposite the gateway {Lat. porta} /Sayfa 74/ of the fortress. The men defending the fortress, trusting to its impregnability, let them get quite close. Ibn Khalid’s men then drew back their catapult; a rock rose up in the air and hit the gate {Syr. tar‘o} of the fortress. They then shot another rock and it fell a little short; then they shot a third rock, which fell shorter than the other two. The men above jeered and cried out, ‘Pull your weight, Khalid’s men, you are drawing badly’. They wasted no time in using their own catapult to propel a huge rock down onto Ibn Khilid’s catapult from above, hitting it and wrecking it. In thk process of rolling away, the boulder killed a large number of men.

Ibn Khalid went on from there and took the fortresses of Pessinus, Cius and Pergamum, (152) and also the city of Smyrna.

XIII Papa I. Martin’in Mektubu (ö.655)

 

 

Papa I. Martin’in Mektubu (ö.655)

 

Yazar

 

5 Temmuz 649'dan 17 Haziran 653'e (İstanbul'a sürgün edildiğinde) veya 16 Eylül 655'e (öldüğünde) kadar. Şehit olarak anılır. Müslüman kuvvetlerin Doğu Roma İmparatorluğu'nun Asya eyaletlerini yuttuğu bir zamanda Monofizitlerin baskın olduğu yerde, imparatorluk hükümeti, Kalkedon ve Monofiz bölgesi konumlarını uzlaştıracak ve böylece Konstantinopolis'te imparator tarafından yönetilen Hıristiyan imparatorluğunun dini birliğini yeniden kuracak dogmatik bir formül bulmak için umutsuzdu. Papa olarak seçilmesi üzerine, I. Martin geleneksel kullanımı göz ardı etti ve imparatorluk hükümetinin onayını almadan kutsandı, belki de imparatora meydan okuma kararını öneren bir eylem. Roma'nın Kristolojik ihtilaf konusundaki tutumunu netleştirecek resmi ve kamusal bir eylemle ortodoksiyi güçlendirme zamanının yakın olduğuna ikna olan yeni papa, Ekim 649'da çoğunluğu İtalya'dan 105 piskoposun katıldığı bir Lateran sinodunu topladı. Ayrıca, Monothelitizm'e açıkça karşı çıkan ve sinoda ortodoksiyi tanımlamada yardımcı olmak için iyi nitelikli olan başarılı bir teolog olan Maximus the Confessor da oradaydı. Babaların Mesih'in ilahi ve insan doğası hakkındaki öğretilerinin ayrıntılı olarak gözden geçirildiği beş oturumdan sonra, sinod, İsa'nın hükmünü doğrulayan bir inanç sembolü yayınladı. Babaların Mesih'in ilahi ve insan doğası hakkındaki öğretilerinin ayrıntılı olarak gözden geçirildiği beş oturumdan sonra, sinod, İsa'nın hükmünü doğrulayan bir inanç sembolü yayınladı.Mesih'in doğası üzerine Kalkedon Konsili, Monotelistizmin belirli yönlerini kınayan yirmi kanon ve Ecthesis ve Typos'u ilan etmekten sorumlu Konstantinopolis patriklerini - ancak imparatorları değil - aforoz eden bir karar . İmparator II. Konstans'a sinod kararlarını bildiren bir mektup gönderildi. Martin ayrıca, sadece Batı'da değil, aynı zamanda Doğu'da da sinodun eylemlerini özetleyen bir genelge yayınladı; burada, Müslüman fetihlerinden kaynaklanan dini yönetimdeki kargaşaya, Roma'da papa adına hareket edecek apostolik vekiller tayin ederek karşı koymaya çalıştı. “Sarazenlerle” gizli anlaşma yapmakla suçlandı. Martin'in, imparator tarafından "imparatorluğun resmi doktrini olarak 'monotelit' (tek irade) öğretisini dayatan" bir derece olan "Ekthesis"i reddetmesi, Kırım'a sürüldü ve Eylül 655'te yaşadığı zorluklardan öldü bu onun şehit olarak anılmasına yol açtı.

 

Kitap

Mektup halindedir.

Kaynakça

Mektubun Latincesi, Patrologia Latina 87, Epistolae (Martinus I), 14. Bölüm;

CHARLES JOSEPH HEFELE, A HISTORY Of The COUNCILS OF THE CHURCH, VOLUME V. EDINBURGH, 1896, s.120,121.

Letter of Pope Martin I

 

“Pope Martin further relates that he was then accused, with respect to the faith, as though he had not taught correctly in regard to the Holy Virgin, and had, together with many, sent a tomus to the Saracens, as to what they should believe, all of which was untrue, and he had only given alms to some Christians  who came from a Saracen country. The Pope would make no opposition to violence, was not subjected to constraint, and voluntarily surrendered himself. He was unwilling that blood should be shed on his account.”

 

https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Epistolae_(Martinus_I) (23.08.2022).

“At no time did I send letters to the Saracens nor, as some say, a statement (tomus) as to what they should believe; neither did I ever despatch money, except only to those servants of God travelling to that place for the sake of alms, and the little which we supplied to them was certainly not conveyed to the Saracens.” (Hoyland).

21 Mart 2023 Salı

XII İsho‘yahb III (öl.659) ve Mektupları

                                        İsho‘yahb III (öl.659) ve Mektupları

 

Yazar

Adiabene'li III. İsho‘yahb (649'dan 659'a kadar Doğu Kilisesi Patriği idi. Adiabene, isim klasik Suryanca'dan türetilmiştir, merkezi Arbela (Erbil) olan, eski Asur'daki bir Yahudi (Uydu) devletiydi. 652 yılı, Orta Doğu'da köklü bir siyasi değişime işaret ediyordu. Bu tarihte Sasani İmparatorluğu yıkılmış ve doğudaki Bizans hakimiyetinin büyük bir kısmı Müslüman Arapların eline geçmişti. İsho‘yahb III’ün yazdığı 628 ile 658 arasında yazdığı mektuplarıdır. İsho‘yahb’ın mektuplarından yüz altı tanesi günümüze ulaşmıştır. İslam öncesi Doğu Kilisesi'nin tarihi hakkında ve islam fetihleri ve bu fetihten sonraki yirmi yılla ilgilidir. (630-656).

Kitap

Piskopos olarak atandıktan sonra, İsho‘yahb çeşitli kişilerle (keşişler, piskoposlar, patrik) çeşitli konularda canlı bir yazışma yürüttü. İki mektup, Doğu Kilisesi'nin topraklarında Müslüman varlığı hakkında bilgi verir. İsho‘yahb’ın mektupları, on üçüncü yüzyılda 'Abdīšū' al- Ṣūbāwī kataloğunda zikredilmiştir. Assemani bazılarını yayınlamıştır.

 

Kaynakça

İsho‘yahb’ın on sekizinci yüzyıldaki Bibliotheca Orientalis'indeki mektupları. 1894'te Ernest Alfred Thompson Wallis Budge, İsho‘yahb’ın “The Book of Governors, Historia Monastica of Thomas bishop of Marga A.D. 840”da, Charles Kenneth Scott Moncrieff,  “The Book of Consolations, or the Pastoral Epistles of Mar Isho‘yahbh of Kuphlana in Adiabene (1904)”de, Rubens Duval, “Isho‘yahb Patriarchae III liber epistularum”. 2 vols. Paris: ?, 1904-1905.”de, Jean Maurice Fiey, “Išoʿyaw le Grand. Vie du Catholicos nestorien Išoʿyaw III d’Adiabène (580-690)”. In: OCP 35 (1969), 305-333; 36 (1970), 5-46”da, Sebastian Paul Brock, İşoyabh’ın “Syriac Views of Emergent Islam” (1982)” adlı eserinde Müslüman Araplara bakışını, Victoria Erhart “The Church of the East during the Period of the Four Rightly-Guided Caliphs” (1996)” makalesinde Müslüman Arapların fetihten sonra ilk yılları, yine mektuplarla ilgili, Ovidiu Ioan, “Muslime und Araber bei Īšō‘jahb III. (649–659), Göttinger Orientforschungen, I. Reihe: Syriaca 37 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2009”,  William Galbraith Young, Harald Suermann, Robert Hoyland, Mario Kozah, Martin Tamcke, Herman Teule, Dietmar W. Winkler,  Michael Philip Penn, Karl Pinggéra, Marikje Metselaar yine İsho‘yahb hakkında yazmışlardır.

His Letters

Iskandar Bcheiry “Išū‘yahb III and the Muslim Arabs”tan;[1]

“The fervent madness of the wicked and blasphemous people who are mentioned here came about because of a satanic illusion. They found for themselves an advantageous time for obvious reasons: First, the eagerness of the current governors to hear them [the heretics], who are approaching them with incantations of money and golden persuasion [bribes]. The second reason is the multitude of evil assistants [of the governors], who in the past belonged to their heresy and now are counted among the current rulers. The third is the reception and success of the people of Tikrīt before the rulers there. Fourth, and additionally, the influence of Satan which functions among the disobedient children [of the church] who do not hold fast to living according to the love of truth. Thus, they went by themselves as they wished and wrestled [against the heretics] as they desired. However, they were unable to speak a wise word. They did no even present a persuasive plea. They did not show a sign of stewardship to the Lord. They did not accomplish anything worthy of persuasive conversation with the governors. After they had completed their desire they [some members of his church] returned to disturb us. They found out that the governor of this place is openly supporting them [the heretics].

They went down to the dung-heap near the gate of our city since they are the dung of the church. There, they made for themselves a house of foulness and stupidity in the name of a church as a meeting place, located near the place where all people usually would have to go for their natural purification [i.e., defecation]” (Ep. 44B. 82).

“[I will narrate all of these in a letter: I mean,] how they [the heretics] are provoking and troubling the governors and the people of the land [against me] every day, and how I had to deal with such challenges by visiting or by being driven before the rulers. I will write about all of these in a letter, so that it [knowledge of Išū‘yahb’s activity against the heretics] will be spread and made further known.”  (Ep. 43B. 77)

“And if it happens that you [monks] would give false excuses, or that the heretics would deceive you so that you say: what happened occurred by the order of the Ṭayayē—this is entirely untrue. For the Ṭayayē Mhaggrē do not assist those who say suffering and death came upon God, the Lord of all. And if by chance they did help them for whatever reason, you can explain to the Mhaggrē and persuade them in regard to this matter, if really you care about it at all. Do all things wisely, O men, my brothers. Give unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and to God what belongs to God. And the Lord of the Most-High will do what He does, by His hands, all good things for the benefit of those who fear Him.” (Isho'yahb III, Ep. 48B, 97).

“A short time ago, father, when we were struggling by fighting the wicked ones, we instantly turned the face of our thoughts toward you, O steady guardian of Orthodoxy. When we were ready, and time allowed us, we wrote to inform you, with faithful reliance. Not long after this trouble, but as we were beginning to write [a letter], the mercy of the grace of the Lord suddenly hit us with an indescribable miracle, which repelled the turbulence of the impious from here. Some of them were expelled to far [places] and some of them to the holes of their hiding places, so that we in astonishment were obliged to thank [the Lord], because it [the miracle] brought back to us the accustomed peace. Not only that, but also, we have hope that the demonstration of the power of Our Lord will get stronger in striking the pride of the audacious wicked one, [i.e.] the ones [the heretics] who already have begun to experience it. You may rejoice, O father, in these things and give thanks because of them to Our Lord, as it is fitting. And you may pray for the sake of [good] things in the future, hoping that a rich end will be received through the grace of God for the glory of the holy Church, and for the rejoicing of the faithful. As for me, I see the letter which was written a short time ago to your holiness in the middle of the tempest of the difficulties. I will send it along with this writing so that you will know more about the fight of the servants of the devil and the amazing intervention of the power of God, and the swift change that suddenly appeared to us from the incomprehensible mercy. When you know about this you will be amazed, and when you are amazed you will give thanks and praise. ” (Ep. 49B. 97–98).

“With regard to your people of Mazūn, who left their faith for their own reasons, which is made clear by the same people of Mazūn who themselves admit that the Arabs have not forced them to abandon their faith, but only asked them to give up a portion of their possession and [thus] keep their faith. Yet they abandoned their faith, which is eternal, and retained the portion of their possession, which lasts for a short time. And the faith, which was preserved by all the nations at the cost of the blood of their necks, and which they are still preserving, through which they gain eternal life your people of Mazūn did not retain it at the cost of the portion of their possession.” (Ep. 14C. 251).

“As for the Arabs, to whom God has now given rule over the world, and who are among us, as you know: not only do they not oppose Christianity, but they praise our faith, honor our priests and the holy men of Our Lord, and give aid to the churches and monasteries.” (Ep. 14C. 251).

“Rather than that your so-called bishops would be satisfied by hostile impiety toward the Church of God, they have aimed to show off their rebellion against the government of the Church of God to the governors of that place, and to the Great Ruler,[2] the chief of the rulers of this time, and they have in reality been despised by the governors just as their rebellion deserved.” (Ep. 18C. 266).



[1]An Early Christian Reaction to Islam”, Gorgias Press 2019.

[2] Halife Osman (644–656)

XI Sedre'li Yahya III (ö. 648)

                                                   Sedre'li Yahya III (ö. 648)

Yazar

Sedre'li III. John 631'den 648'deki ölümüne kadar Antakya Patriği ve Süryani Ortodoks Kilisesi'nin başıydı. Muhtemelen Ömer ibn el -Hattab'ın halifeliği sırasında Umayr ibn Sad, Suriye'nin Humus valiliğine atandı. 874'te yazılan Yahya ve Emir'in Tartışması adlı tek bir el yazmasında, Yahya'nın İncil'in bütünlüğünü, Mesih'in kutsallığını ve Hıristiyan hukuk kaynaklarını tartışmak için isimsiz bir emir tarafından çağrıldığı ayrıntılı olarak anlatılır. Tartışma 9 Mayıs 644'te gerçekleşti ve emir Umayr ibn Sad el-Ansari olarak tanımlandı 644'te gerçekleşen bu karşılaşmanın sekreteri tarafından Süryanice raporu tek bir ms'de saklanıyor. 874'te yazılmıştır. Metinde, özellikle miras hukuku üzerine bir tartışma olmak üzere, orijinal raporun daha sonraki redaktörler tarafından, muhtemelen 8. ve hatta 9. yüzyılda elden geçirildiğini düşündüren bir dizi unsur vardır. Tel Mah'lı Dionysius. (ö. 845) Müslüman bir emir olan Bar'dan bahseder. Saʻd, patrik Antakyalı Yahya'yı bir seyirci için çağırıyor. Yahya'nın sorularına verdiği yanıtlardan etkilenen emir, ona İncil'i Arapçaya tercüme ettirmesini emretti. John ve Emir'e göre, bu görüşme gerçekleşti 9 Mayıs Pazar. John'un görev süresi boyunca üç yıl vardı. John 14 Aralık 648'de (AG 960) öldü ve Amid'deki Saint Zoora Kilisesi'ne gömüldü. John'un ölümü Suriyeli Mikail, Chronicle of 819 ve Chronicle of 846 tarafından 648'de (AG 960) yer alırken, Zuqnin Chronicle 649/650 (AG 961) verir.

Biyografi Ephrem Barsoum, (2003). The Scattered Pearls: A History of Syriac Literature and Sciences. Translated by Matti Moosa (2nd ed.). Gorgias Press, s.320-322;

 

“87. John of the Sedros (d. 648)

John III, Patriarch of Antioch, was a prominent and energeticchurch dignitary, a pious, intelligent and far-sighted man. Heentered the monastic order at the Monastery of Ousebuna wherehe mastered Greek and Syriac as well as theology. He became thedisciple and secretary of Athanasius I and succeeded him to theApostolic See in 631 . He witnessed the Arab conquest of al-Jazira.He was a man who faced difficulties and hardships with patienceand the course of events made him compliant.

At his behest, the Gospels were translated from Syriac into Arabic by skilled Christian Orthodox Arab translators from the Banu 'Uqayl, Tanukh, and Tay at the request of 'Umayr Ibn Sa'd Ibn Abi Waqqas al-Anari the Amir of al-Jazira around 643,1 but this translation did not come down to us. He entered into an elaborate dialogue with this Amir on the establishment of the facts of Christianity, which was written down by Severus, one of his secretaries. It is titled "Letter of the Patriarch Mar John concerning his conversation with the Amir of the Muslims." This letter was translated into French and published by Nau.2

Joho also composed supplicatory prayers known as the sedros or husoyos, which he incorporated into church rituals. They usually begin with praise and glorification. Of these sedros we found a large collection in the oldest copy at the British Museum,3 most of which undoubtedly came from the pen of this father who was nicknamed "John of the Sedros." They are written in a smooth and splendid style. Nine of these sedros bear his name, the first of which is for Lent, the second for the resurrection, the third and the fourth for the repentance of sinners, the fifth for the dispelling of ordeals, the sixth for evening, night and day, the seventh for the morning, the eighth for the dead and the ninth for the Friday morning of the fifth week of the fasting.4 We have also found three of his husoyos for the celebration of the eucharist, the first of which begins thus: "Praise be to the pure sacrifice who became the priest of his person;" the second begins thus: "Praise be to the heavenly Lord of hosts;" and the third begins: "O Lord who art truly a good master."; He has also drawn a liturgy which begins: "O Lord, who art delighted by love and enjoyest safety;"6 a homily on the consecration of the Chrism, beginning thus: "Beloved brethren let us talk philosophically a little bit in behalf of this present sacred

1 Bar Hebraeus, Ecclesiastical HistOIJ', 1 : 275. Chronicle of the anonymous Edessene, 1 : 263.

2 Published by Nau according to a Brit. Mus. MS. 1 7 1 93 in 1 9 1 5.

3 Brit. Mus. MS. 1 7 1 28 in 1 48 large size pages transcribed in the tenth century.

4 Brit. Mus. MSS. 1 45 1 8, 1 4493, 1 4495 and 1 4499, and also Paris MS. 1 059.

5 Paris MS. 75, also in a liturgy dated 1 486 at the village of Fayruza.

6 Berlin MS. 1 5 1 .”

 

feast"1 and a letter to Marutha, Maphryono of Takrit, which he wrote at the beginning of his patriarchate.2 He also wrote a magnificent doctrinal treatise in thirty-nine pages addressed to Chorepiscopus Theodorus, which he opened with a general proclamation to the children of the Holy Church and declared in detail the creed of faith in support of the true apostolic belief, citing as evidence the fathers, one of whom is John of Jerusalem. Furthermore, he condemned in this treatise the heresy of the Phantasiasts and concluded it with the history of the leaders of this heresy and the account of their false ordinations.3 He died on the fourteenth of December, which is also the day of his commemoration.

1 Brit. Mus. MS. 825.

2 Michael the Great, Chronicle, 2: 432.

3 Brit. Mus. 1 4629. Some Nestorian scholars ascribed to him the orders for the Benediction of the Oil of Anointment and the Benediction of the Water at the evening of the Epiphany.

 

Kitap

874'te Abraham adlı bir keşiş doksan dokuz yapraktan oluşan bir kitap yazdı. El yazması artık British Library'de bulunuyor (BL Add. 17,193). John ve Emir'e. Fraçois Nau bu metnin bir baskısını yayınladı 1915'te. Michael Penn, 2008'de gözden geçirilmiş bir baskı yayınladı.

Kaynakça

Baumstark, Literatur, 243–5.

Jean-Baptiste Chabot, ed. (1905). Chronique de Michel le Syrien. Vol. III. Paris: Ernest Leroux; François Nau, ‘Un colloque du patriarche Jean avec l’émir des Agaréens et faits divers des années 712 à 716’, JA 11.5” (1915), 225–79; Andrew Palmer (1990). Monk and Mason on the Tigris Frontier: The Early History of Tur Abdin. Cambridge University Press; Jouko  Martikainen, “Johannes I. Sedra. Einleitung, syrische Texte, Übersetzung und vollständiges Wörterverzeichnis” (GOFS 34; 1991)”; Gerrit Jan Reinink, “The beginnings of Syriac apologetic literature in response to Islam”, OC 77 (1993), 165–87; Andrew Palmer,  ed. (1993). The Seventh Century in the West Syrian Chronicles. Liverpool University Press; Abdul-Massih Saadi, “The letter of John of Sedreh. A new perspective on nascent Islam”, JAAS 11 (1997), 68–84; Amir Harrack (1999). The Chronicle of Zuqnin, Parts III and IV A.D. 488–775. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies; Barbara Roggema, ‘The Debate between Patriarch John and an emir of the Mhaggrāyē: A Reconsideration of the earliest Christian-Muslim Debate’, in Christlich-muslimische Gespräche im mittelalterlichen Orient, ed. M. Tamcke (BTS 117; 2007), 21–39; Ephrem Barsoum (2003). The Scattered Pearls: A History of Syriac Literature and Sciences. Translated by Matti Moosa (2nd ed.). Gorgias Press; Griffith, Sidney H. (2005). "Answering the Call of the Minaret: Christian Apologetics in the World of Islam". In Jan Jacob van Ginkel; Hendrika Lena Murre-van den Berg; Theo Maarten van Lint (eds.). Redefining Christian Identity: Cultural Interaction in the Middle East Since the Rise of Islam. Peeters Publishers. pp. 91–127; Ignatius Jacob III (2008). History of the Monastery of Saint Matthew in Mosul. Translated by Matti Moosa. Gorgias Press; M.  Penn, ‘John and the Emir. A new introduction, edition, and translation’, LM 121 (2008), 65–91; Barbara Roggema, (2008). "The Disputation of John and Emir". In David Thomas; Barbara Roggema (eds.). Christian-Muslim Relations: A Bibliographical History. Vol. 1. Brill. pp. 782–785; Herman G. B Teule, (2011). Marianna Mazzola,  ed. (2018). Bar 'Ebroyo's Ecclesiastical History : writing Church History in the 13th century Middle East. PSL Research University. Retrieved 31 May 2020; "Yuḥanon of the Sedre". In Sebastian P. Brock; Aaron M. Butts; George A. Kiraz; Lucas Van Rompay (eds.). Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage: Electronic Edition. Retrieved 8 July 2020; David Wilmshurst, (2019). "West Syrian patriarchs and maphrians". In Daniel King (ed.). The Syriac World. Routledge. pp. 806–813;

John III of the Sedre

“Next, the letter of Mār John the patriarch concerning the conversation that he had with the emir of the Hagarenes. Because we know that you are anxious and afraid on our behalf due to the aff air for which we have been called to this region [along with] the blessed and God-honored father, lord, and patriarch of ours—we inform your love that on the ninth of this month of May, on holy Sunday, we entered before the glorious commander, the emir. The blessed one and father of all was asked by him if the gospel that all those in the entire world who are and are called Christians hold is one and the same and does not vary in anything. The blessed one answered him, “It is one and the same to the Greeks, the Romans, the Syrians, the Egyptians, the Ethiopians, the Indians, the Aramaeans, the Persians, and the rest of all peoples and languages.”

He also inquired, “Why, when the gospel is one, is the faith diverse?” The blessed one answered, “Just as the Torah is one and the same and is accepted by us Christians, by you Hagarenes, by the Jews, and by the Samaritans, but each people differs in faith, so also concerning the gospel’s faith: each sect understands and interprets it differently, and not like us.”

He also inquired, “What do you say Christ is? Is he God or not?” Our father answered, “He is God and the Word that was born from God the Father, eternally and without beginning. At the end of times, for men’s salvation, he took fl esh and became incarnate from the Holy Spirit and from Mary—the holy one and the Virgin, the mother of God—and he became man.”

The glorious emir also asked him, “When Christ, who you say is God, was in Mary’s womb, who bore and governed the heavens and the earth?” Our blessed father immediately replied, “When God descended to Mount Sinai and was there speaking with Moses for forty days and forty nights, who bore and governed the heavens and the earth? For you say that you accept Moses and his books.” The emir said, “It was God, and he governed the heavens and the earth.” Immediately he heard from our father, “Thus Christ [is] God; when he was in the womb of the Virgin, as almighty God he bore and governed the heavens, the earth, and everything in them.”

The glorious emir also said, “As for Abraham and Moses, what sort of faith and belief did they have?” Our blessed father said, “Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aaron, and the rest of the prophets and all the just and righteous ones had and held the faith and belief of Christians.” The emir said, “Why then did they not write openly and make [it] known concerning Christ?” Our blessed father answered, “As [God’s] confi dants and intimates they knew. But [there was] the childishness and uneducated state of the people at that time who were inclined and attracted toward a multitude of gods to the point of considering even pieces of wood, stones, and many things [to be] gods and erecting idols, worshiping them, and sacrifi cing to them. The holy ones did not want to give the errant an occasion to depart from the living God and to go after error. But cautiously they said that which is the truth: ‘Hear, Israel, that the Lord your God, the Lord is one’ [Dt 6:5]. For they truly knew that God is one and [that there is] one divinity of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Because of this, they spoke and wrote secretly concerning God, that he is one and the same in divinity and is three hypostases and persons. But he is not, nor is he confessed [to be], three gods or three divinities or, by any means, gods and divinities. Because [there is] one divinity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as we have said. And from the Father are the Son and the Spirit. If you want, I am willing and ready to confi rm all these things from the holy scriptures.”

After the emir also heard these things, he asked only that if Christ is God and was born from Mary and if God has a son that it immediately be shown to him also from the Torah. The blessed one said, “Not only Moses but also all the holy prophets prophesized beforehand and wrote these things concerning Christ. One wrote concerning his birth from a virgin, another that he would be born in Bethlehem, another concerning his baptism. All of them, so to say, [wrote] concerning his salvific suffering, his life-giving death, and his glorious resurrection from among the dead after three days.” And he immediately brought forth examples and began to confi rm [these things] from all the prophets and from Moses. But the glorious emir did not accept these things from the prophets but wanted it to be shown to him [from] Moses that Christ is God. The same blessed one, along with many other [passages], brought forth this [one from] Moses: “The Lord brought down from before the Lord fi re and sulfur upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah” [Gn 19:24]. The glorious emir asked that this be shown in the scripture. Without delay our father showed [this] in the full Greek and Syriac scriptures. For in [that] place there were also present with us certain Hagarenes. And they saw with their eyes those writings and the glorious name of “the Lord” and “the Lord.” Indeed, the emir summoned a Jewish man who was [there] and was considered by them an expert of scripture. He asked him if this was so in the wording in the Torah. But he answered, “I do not know exactly.” From here the emir moved to asking about the laws of the Christians, what and what sort [of laws] they are and whether they are written in the gospel. He also [asked], “If a man dies and leaves sons or daughters, a wife, a mother, a sister, and a cousin, how should his property be divided among them?” And after our holy father said, “The gospel is divine, for it teaches and commands the heavenly teachings and life-giving commandments and rejects all sins and evils and through itself teaches virtue and righteousness,” many things were discussed regarding this subject—while there were gathered there [many] people, not only nobles of the Hagarenes but also chiefs and leaders of cities and of believing and Christ-loving people: the Tanukāyē and Tuʻāyē and the ʻAqulāyē. And the glorious emir said, “I want you to do one of three [things]: either show me that your laws are written in the gospel and be guided by them or submit to the Hagarene law.” When our father answered, “We Christians have laws that are just, are upright, and agree with the teaching and commandments of the gospel, the canons of the apostles, and the laws of the church,” that first day’s assembly was thus concluded. And we have not yet come to enter before him again.

It was commanded by him that some people from the bishoprics of the Council of Chalcedon also come. Indeed, everyone who was present [both] from the Orthodox and from the Chalcedonians prayed for the life and safety of the blessed lord patriarch. They glorifi ed and magnifi ed God, who generously provided the word of truth for his eloquence and fi lled him with the power and grace which is from him, according to his true promises when he said, “They will stand you before kings and governors on account of me. But do not worry what you will say and be not concerned. At that hour, what you should say will be given to you. For you will not speak. Rather the spirit of your Father will speak through you” [Lk 12:11–12].

We have reported to your love these few of the many things that were very recently discussed so that you might diligently and continually pray for us without ceasing and entreat the Lord that he, in his mercy, care for his church and his people and that Christ make a resolution to this aff air that pleases his will, aids his church, and comforts his people. For, as we said above, also those of the Council of Chalcedon prayed for the blessed Mār patriarch, because he spoke on behalf of the entire Christian community and did not speak against them. They continually communicated with him and sought his blessedness to thus speak on behalf of the entire community and not to stir up anything against them. For they knew their weakness and the greatness of the danger and anguish that awaited if the Lord did not care for his church in accord with his mercy.

Pray for the glorious emir, that God would enlighten and instruct him concerning what is pleasing to the Lord and is beneficial. The blessed father of all, the revered fathers with him- Abba Mār Thomas, Mār Severus, Mār Sergius, Mār Aitilaha, Mār John, and their entire holy synodal board- as well as the leaders and believers who are gathered here with us, especially our beloved Mār Andrew (both a wise leader and one guarded by Christ), and we [who are] least in the Lord ask for your peace and holy prayers always.”

Cibt ve Tâgût Kelimelerinin Habeşçe izleği

                                                          Cibt ve Tâgût Kelimelerinin Habeşçe izleği   “ اَلَمْ تَرَ اِلَى الَّذٖينَ ا...