ARAM, 11-12 (1999-2000), 85-96 S.

BROCK 85

SYRIAC WRITERS FROM BETH QA™RAYE

SEBASTIAN BROCK

THE ECCLESIASTICAL BACKGROUND

In Syriac usage the term Beth Qa†raye refers, not only to Qatar, but also to
the entire western coast of the Gulf, along with the islands.1 Christianity was
evidently already well established there by the early fifth century, with an
episcopal see at Mashmahig, as we learn from the Acts of the Synod of Seleu-
cia-Ctesiphon in 410, where Elia, bishop of Mashmahig is a signatory, and
another bishop of Mashmahig, Batay, is anathematized.2
Hardly any information is available for the next century and a half or more.
At the Synod of 576 we encounter another bishop of Mashmahig, Sergius,
among the signatories,3 but it is not until the seventh century that we are pro-
vided with a brief insight into ecclesiastical politics in the area. For this we
are endebted to the extensive correspondence of the energetic Catholicos
Isho‘yahb III, five of whose letters from the time of his catholicosate (649-
659) specifically deal with events in Beth Qa†raye, and are addressed to three
different groups there.4 In these letters we learn that there has been a revolt
against the authority of the Catholicosate by the metropolitan see of Rev Arda-
shir, whose holder at the time was Shem‘on (who may be the author of a small
surviving collection of canons, on which see below). Rev Ardashir (modern
Zaydun) was the main ecclesiastical see in Fars, and since the bishops of Beth
Qa†raye came under its control, they too were implicated in this unilateral dec-
laration of independence.
1
 See above all Fiey, J-M “Diocèses syriens orientaux du Golfe persique”, in Mémorial
Gabriel Khouri-Sarkis, (Louvain, 1989), 177-218 (reprinted in his Communautés syriaques en
Iran et Iraq, (London, 1989), ch. 2), and Beaucamp, J., and Robin, C., “L'Évêché nestorien de
Mashmahig dans l'archipel d'al-Bahrayn”, in Potts, D. (ed.), Dilmun, (Berlin, 1983), 171-96; the
wider background is given in Potts, D.T., The Arabian Gulf in Antiquity, II, (Oxford, 1990), ch. 5.
2
 Chabot, J.B., Synodicon Orientale, (Paris, 1902), 35-36 (text)/273-75 (tr.). The Chronicle of
Seert (PO, 5, 311-12) mentions a Mar ‘Abdisho‘ as being active in the area in the latter part of
the fourth century, while the notorious Chronicle of Arbela alleges a Christian bishop in Beth
Qa†raye in the third century (ed. Mingana, A., Sources syriaques, I, (Mosul, 1907), 30(text)/106
(tr.) = ed. Kawerau, P., Die Chronik von Arbela (CSCO 467-8, Scr. Syri 199-200; 1985), 31/51).
3
 Chabot, Synodicon Orientale, 128/387.
4
 Ed. Duval, R., Isho‘yahb III patriarcha, Liber Epistularum (CSCO 11-12, Scr.Syri 11-12;
1904-5), 260-83/188-204. An earlier letter (II.27; pp. 200-202/146-7), written by Isho‘yahb be-
fore he became Catholicos, and addressed to John, bishop of Beth Qa†raye, is not of relevance to
the schism. On Isho‘yahb, see Fiey, J-M., “Isho‘yaw le Grand”, OCP, 35, (1969), 305-33, and
36, (1970), 5-46 (esp. 34-42).
86 SYRIAC WRITERS FROM BETH QA™RAYE

As the background to this schism it is important to remember that Seleucia-

Ctesiphon, the seat of the Catholicos of the Church of the East, had fallen un-
der Arab control already in 635, whereas Fars remained under Sasanian rule
until the Arabs took Istakhr for good in 648/9. It is not known when Shem‘on
became metropolitan of Fars, but he was certainly already in office when
Isho‘yahb III became patriarch in 649. In the light of this one may well sup-
pose that the period of political separation between Seleucia-Ctesiphon and
Fars left Shem‘on disinclined to take up the direct ecclesiastical ties again
when the political situation changed – all the more so since the metropolitan
see of Fars had always tended to take an independent line.5 The relevance of
this background to Beth Qa†raye lies in the fact that its bishops (for evidently
there were several by now) were subject to the metropolitan see of Rev
Ardashir, and so will have followed Shem‘on in rebelling against the Catho-
licos.
The relevant letters among Isho‘yahb's correspondence fall into three
groups: (1) Letter 17, addressed to the bishops of Beth Qa†raye; (2) Letters
18-19, addressed to the Christians of Beth Qa†raye in general; and (3) Letters
20-21, addressed to the monks of Beth Qa†raye.
From Letter 176 we learn that the bishops of Beth Qa†raye had already
sought the approval of the secular (i.e. new Arab) authorities for their declara-
tion of independence; Isho‘yahb points out to them that they had thus cut
themselves off from the source of priestly life, in other words, they had broken
the chain of ordinations that descended, through the Catholicos, from the
Apostles.
The first letter to the people of Beth Qa†raye (Letter 18)7 opens with a refer-
ence to the rebellion of the bishops of Fars and of ‘your bishops': Isho‘yahb
had invited them to a synod to sort matters out, but they had refused to attend.
As a result Isho‘yahb says that he has sent two bishops from Beth Huzaye to
Fars, and two bishops from Maishan to Beth Qa†raye to deal with matters; at
the same time he urges the people of Beth Qa†raye to remain loyal to him as
Catholicos, and to go against their own bishops. The second letter (Letter 19)8
makes specific mention of one of the rebel bishops of Beth Qa†raye, Abraham
bishop of Mashmahig. Abraham is described as causing harm to the monks in
Beth Qa†raye; from this we can deduce that he was putting pressure on the
monks to stay in communion with the rebel bishops. Isho‘yahb speaks of the
monks as ‘a refuge for the afflicted' and ‘a fragrant incense-burner for the
Church of Beth Qa†raye'; at the same time he blames the people of the region
for failing to do anything when these ‘holy men' were driven out: ‘You just
5
 Fiey, “Isho‘yaw le Grand”, 35-37.
6
 Ed. Duval, 260-62/188-89.
7
 Ed. Duval, 262-70/189-96.
8
 Ed. Duval, 270-73/196-97.
 S. BROCK 87

sat still and did nothing', and he tells them ‘Open your eyes to the evil that is
going on'.
In Letter 20, the first to be addressed to the monks of Beth Qa†raye,9
Isho‘yahb tells them that he has learnt of their good reputation (i.e. loyalty to
himself) from Giwargis, bishop of Maishan (one of the bishops mentioned in
Letter 18 as having been sent to Beth Qa†raye). He goes on to urge the monks
to imitate the zeal of the Old Testament prophets, and of the martyrs after
them, who did not hesitate to rebuke the wickedness of those in power. Metro-
politan Shem‘on of Rev Ardashir is specifically mentioned by name as the
source of the current evils, and he is supported by ‘your despicable bishops'.
The second letter to the monks (Letter 21)10 suggests that the monks had
turned out not to have been the strong source of loyalty that Isho‘yahb had
hoped: some have joined the rebels, and others threaten to do so. Evidently the
monks had written to Isho‘yahb pointing out the pressure put on them not to
withdraw communion from the rebels, and had accordingly asked the
Catholicos if they might receive communion from their own hierarchy. This is
a suggestion which horrifies Isho‘yahb: by breaking off from the Catholicos
the rebel bishops have effectively broken the line of priesthood. Isho‘yahb
ironically suggests that, if Fars now consecrates its own bishops, why don't the
people of Beth Qa†raye do the same: it would save them the trouble of going
all the way to Rev Ardashir!
Nothing more is known of the matter until 676 when the Catholicos
Giwargis went to Beth Qa†raye for a local synod,11 by which time the schism
had been finally healed. The signatories include Thomas, ‘metropolitan' of
Beth Qa†raye, and five bishops, mostly from the Gulf area. Isho‘yahb had by
then been dead for more than 15 years, and it is not certain whether the schism
was brought to an end during his Catholicosate,12 or only after Giwargis had
come to the patriarchal throne. The fact that there is now a metropolitan of
Beth Qa†raye (thus making Beth Qa†raye independent of the metropolitan see
of Rev Ardashir) suggests that the elevation of Beth Qa†raye's ranking in the
hierarchy might have been a concession by the Catholicosate in order to win
back the loyalty of its bishops (Thomas of Marga simply says ‘they had cut
themselves off from subordination to the throne of Rev Ardashir'). If there is
anything in this suggestion, one suspects that it was Giwargis, rather than
Isho‘yahb, who made this move, given that Isho‘yahb would have been un-
likely to have converted his own ironical remark into a reality.
9
 Ed. Duval, 273-77/198-200.
10
 Ed. Duval, 277-83/201-204.
11
 Synodicon Orientale, 215-26/480-90. Thomas of Marga, Book of Governors, II.14, = ed.
Budge, E.A.W., (London, 1993), I, 86/II, 188.
12
 This is in fact suggested by Mari, Gismondi, H., Maris Amri et Slibae de Patriarchis
Nestorianorum Commentaria, I, (Rome, 1899),62/65; Thomas of Marga, however, states that it
was Giwargis who made peace.
88 SYRIAC WRITERS FROM BETH QA™RAYE

SYRIAC AUTHORS FROM BETH QA™RAYE

Such, then, was the background to the seventh-century Syriac writers con-
nected with Beth Qa†raye. It is significant that most of them were monks, and
so belonged to the group of Christians in Beth Qa†raye who were most loyal to
the Catholicos. Who, then, were these writers? We have surviving works by at
least four different Syriac authors from the area, and a few more are known
indirectly.

ISAAC of NINIVEH

The most famous of the scions of Beth Qa†raye is undoubtedly Isaac of

Niniveh, also known as Isaac the Syrian, the author of numerous works on the
spiritual life which have been translated into many different languages, and
whose influence continues right into the late twentieth century.13 Unfortu-
nately little is known concerning the details of his life, and most of our infor-
mation comes from two fairly short notices. The ninth-century East Syriac au-
thor Isho‘dnaÌ14 only mentions in passing that Isaac originated from Beth
Qa†raye, but the other notice, of Syrian Orthodox provenance,15 is a little more
informative, stating that ‘he was born in the region of Beth Qa†raye' and that
when he had become versed in the writings of the Church Fathers he became a
monk and a teacher in his own region. When, however, the Catholicos
Giwargis (c.659-680) came to Beth Qa†raye he took Isaac back with him to
Beth Aramaye (the area of Seleucia-Ctesiphon), because one of his relatives
was Gabriel Qa†raya, ‘Interpreter of the Church'. The notice then goes on to
tell of his appointment as bishop of Niniveh, and subsequent resignation and
retreat to an eremitical life in Beth Huzaye/Khuzistan.
Now from some autobiographical references in (Syriac) Homily 1816 we
learn that when Isaac was a young man he was evidently living somewhere
where no one knew him, that is, outside Beth Qa†raye. From this it has been
quite plausibly suggested17 that Isaac was among the monks of Beth Qa†raye
driven out of the region by the rebel bishop Abraham of Mashmahig, c.650. If
this is correct, then Isaac must have returned to Beth Qa†raye by the time that
the Catholicos Giwargis visited: this was probably in 676, when he was in
Darin for the synod referred to above.18 Since good relations between the
13
 See my “From Qatar to Tokyo, by way of Mar Saba: the translations of Isaac of Beth
Qa†raye (Isaac the Syrian)”, below, pp. 00-00.
14
 Chabot, J.B. (ed.), Isho‘denaÌ, Liber Castitatis, (Rome, 1896), ch. 124.
15
 Rahmani, I.E., Studia Syriaca, I, (Charfet, 1904), 33.
16
 Ed. Bedjan, P., Mar Isaacus Ninivita. De Perfectione Religiosa, (Paris/Leipzig, 1909), 140.
17
 By Dana Miller, in the introduction to his translation of the Greek Isaac, The Ascetical
Homilies of Saint Isaac the Syrian, (Boston, 1984), lxviii.
18
 See note 11.
 S. BROCK 89

Catholicosate and the bishops of Beth Qa†raye had probably been restored by
that date, one might suppose that Isaac returned to Beth Qa†raye once the
schism had ended. In any case, after his departure to Beth Aramaye with the
Catholicos, Isaac never returned to Beth Qa†raye.

Various GABRIELs

As was mentioned above, the Syrian Orthodox notice concerning Isaac

stated that the reason why the Catholicos Giwargis took Isaac back with him
from Beth Qa†raye was that a relation of Isaac's, Gabriel the Interpreter, was
teaching in Beth Aramaye (i.e., presumably in Seleucia-Ctesiphon itself).
There happens to be a plethora of Gabriels connected with Beth Qa†raye in the
seventh century, and there are great problems in identifying exactly how many
different Gabriels there really were. Thus from a variety of different sources
we know of eight possibly different persons of that name connected with Beth
Qa†raye:
(1) Isaac's relative, Gabriel ‘the Interpreter' (i.e. biblical exegete), active in
Beth Aramaye.19
(2) Gabriel Qa†raya bar Lipah, author of a Commentary on the Liturgy, pre-
served in a single manuscript (dated 1267/8).20 On internal grounds this
Gabriel seems to belong to the first half of the seventh century, and he ante-
dates Isho‘yahb III's liturgical reforms.
(3) Rabban Gabriel Qa†raya, who is often quoted in the East Syriac com-
mentators of the eighth and ninth centuries (and later) as an authority on bibli-
cal exegesis, covering both the Old and the New Testaments. He is usually
thought to belong to the seventh century.
(4) A Gabriel Qa†raya was the owner and collater of a manuscript of the
Peshitta New Testament written in Nisibis in the 25th year of Khusrau II (i.e.
AD 614/5).22 Since various officers of the School of Nisibis are mentioned, it
is likely that the manuscript was itself copied in the famous School; the
Gabriel in question was evidently fairly young at the time, since he states that
he wrote it ‘in the presence of the true teacher, Mar Zakka.
19
 See note 15 for the source.
20
 British Library, Or. 3336, unpublished. A Latin translation of the section on the anaphora is
given by Jammo, S.Y.H., La structure de la messe chaldéenne, (OCA 207, 1979), 29-48. Jammo
(pp. 26-7) dates the author to c.615; this more precise dating turns out to be due to his identifying
the author with the scribe of British Library Add. 14471 (see Gabriel (4) below): see his “Gabriel
Qa†raya et son commentaire sur la liturgie chaldéenne”, OCP, 32, (1966), 39-52, esp. 40-42; this
identification, however, is far from assured.
21
 See especially van Rompay, L., Le Commentaire sur Genèse-Exode 9,32 du manuscrit
(olim) Diyarbakir 22, (CSCO 484, Scr.Syri 206), xxvii-xxxii, li-liii; also Reinink, G.J., Gannat
Bussame, I, (CSCO 502, Scr.Syri 212; 1986), xxxiii-xxxiv, lxxiv-lxxv.
22
 British Library, Add.14471; see Wright, W., Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts in the
British Museum acquired since the year 1838, I, (London, 1870), 53-54. The hand is illustrated in
Hatch, W.H.P., An Album of Dated Syriac Manuscripts, (Boston, 1946), plate cxli.
90 SYRIAC WRITERS FROM BETH QA™RAYE

(5) According to Addai Scher, an epitome of canons in a lost Seert manu-

script contained mention of a Gabriel Qa†raya who was a teacher in the School
of Mahoze (i.e. Seleucia-Ctesiphon), and among his pupils were the future
Catholicoi Înanisho‘ (686-700) and Aba bar BrikhÒebyaneh (742-753).23
Three further references to relevant Gabriels feature in ‘Abdisho‘ of Nisibis'
famous Catalogue of Syriac Writers:
(6) In his noice on Babai the Great (died 628), ‘Abdisho‘ mentions that
Babai wrote a ‘Book of Causes' either ‘about', or (perhaps better) ‘against'
(‘al), among others, a certain Gabriel Qa†raya.24
(7) A separate notice is given to a Gabriel Qa†raya who wrote ‘a Discourse
on the Union' (i.e. of the divinity and humanity in the incarnate Christ), and
some ‘Resolutions to Questions on the matter of the Faith'.25
(8) Another entry is devoted to ‘Gabriel Arya' (the epithet ‘lion' – if that is
what it is -remains unexplained), who is stated to have been a relative of Isaac
of Niniveh. He is said to have composed a ‘Tradition/Transmission of the
Scriptural Text' (salges mashlmanuta d-Òurta), evidently some sort of biblical
commentary.26 ‘Abdisho‘ specifies that it covered selections only. No mention
of any connection with Beth Qa†raye, however, is to be found (apart, that is,
from the relationship to Isaac).
Clearly some of these Gabriels are likely to represent the same person. The
description of Gabriel Arya (= 8) as a relative of Isaac, makes it virtually cer-
tain that Gabriel (1) and (8) are the same person. The further identification of
Gabriel Arya with the commentator Gabriel Qa†raya (= 3) is specifically made
in a passage of the Gannat Bussame derived from the ninth-century writer
Seharbokht: ‘Gabriel Qa†raya who is called Arya'.27 This reduces the number
of Gabriels at least to six:
- Gabriel Arya, the commentator and relative of Isaac of Niniveh (1, 3, 8);
- Gabriel bar Lipah (2);

23
 Scher, A., “Étude supplémentaire sur les écrivains syriens orientaux”, Revue de l'Orient
Chrétien, 11, (1906), 18. Scher gave no number, but Baumstark, A., Geschichte der syrischen
Literatur, (Bonn, 1922), 235 note 2, must be correct in identifying this epitome of synodal can-
ons with Seert 67, and the author as Gabriel of Basra (Scher says nothing of the matter in his
Catalogue des manuscrits syriaques et arabes conservés dans la bibliothèque épiscopale de
Seert, (Mosul, 1905), 51); the manuscript unfortunately no longer survives, and the relevant in-
formation is not in the section of the epitome preserved in Vatican Borg. syr. 78: see Kaufhold,
H., Die Rechtssammlung des Gabriel von Basra und ihr Verhältnis zu den anderen juristischen
Sammelwerken der Nestorianer, (Berlin, 1976), 41-42.
24
 Catalogue, no. 66, ed. Assemani, J.A., Bibliotheca Orientalis, III, (Rome, 1725), 97, =
Habbi, J., Catalogus Auctorum. Abdisho‘ Sob., (Baghdad, 1986), no. 70, p. 76/183. 25. Cata-
logue, no. 101, ed Assemani, 172-3, = Habbi, no. 106, p. 95/200-201.
25
 Catalogue, no.101, ed Assemani, 172-3, = Habbi, no. 106, p. 95/200-201.
26
 Catalogue, no.81, ed Assemani, 153, = Habbi, no. 85, p. 85/192.
27
 See Reinink, G.J., Studien zur Quellen- und Traditionsgeschichte des Evangelienkom-
mentars der Gannat Bussame, (CSCO 414, Subs. 57; 1979), 123-4.
 S. BROCK 91

- Gabriel Qa†raya who collated the New Testament manuscript in Nisibis in

614/5 (4);
- Gabriel Qa†raya who taught Înanisho‘ and Brikhsebyaneh (5);
- the man against whom Babai the Great wrote his Book of Causes (6);
- the author of a (lost) Discourse on the Union (7).
Various further identifications have been suggested, thus reducing the number
of Gabriels. Scher28 considered (1), (3), (5), (6), (7) and (8) all to be the same
person, but this is surely excessive, and runs into chronological difficulties,
especially concerning (5) and (6). In his entry on Gabriel Qa†raya Baumstark29
takes as his starting point our Gabriel (5), whom he then equates with (7), (2),
(3) and (8), thus by implication also (1). This goes beyond Scher by including
the liturgical commentator Gabriel Qa†raya bar Lipah,30 which is problematic
on chronological grounds, since (2) must belong to the early seventh century,
while (5) to the latter part of that century. Jammo31 went on to identify (2) as
the same person as (4), but this must remain very uncertain. A. de Halleux32
listed five separate Gabriels, who correspond to our (2), (3), (5), (6) and (7),
where (3) is thought to be probably identical with (1) and (8), while (4) is not
mentioned. According to van Rompay,33 the identification of (3) with (5)
seems legitimate, with the further likelihood that these are the same as (1) and
(8). Put in tabular form, we thus have the following suggestions:
Scher: (1), (3), (5-8) are all the same person ((2) and (4) are not men-
tioned);
Baumstark: (2), (3), (5), (7), (8), and by implication (1), all represent a sin-
gle person;
Jammo: (2) and (4) are also the same person;
de Halleux: (1), (3) and (8) are probably the same; and (2), (5) and (6) are
three different persons; ((4) is not mentioned);
van Rompay: (1), (3), (5), and (8) are probably the same person; the other
identifications are left open.
As we saw above, the single identity of (1), (3) and (8) is pretty well as-
sured; on chronological grounds there would be no objection to adding (5): all
28
 Scher, “Étude supplémentaire”, 17-18.
29
 Baumstark, Geschichte der syrischen Literatur, 200-201.
30
 Baumstark makes the passing suggestion (p. 200, note 14) that Gabriel Qa†raya's Liturgical
Commentary might be identified with the second manuscript described by Diettrich, G.,
“Berichte über neuentdeckte handschriftliche Urkunden zur Geschichte des Gottesdienstes in der
nestorianischen Kirche”, Nachrichten, Göttinger Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1909, 174-81 (=
no. XXXIV in Pigulevskaya, N.V., Katalog Siriyskikh Rukopisey Leningrada (Palestinskiy
Sbornik 6(69) (1960)). In fact this latter manuscript contains chapters 1-11 of Book I of
Ps.George of Arbela's Expositio Officiorum, edited by R.H. Connolly (see note 35); this has al-
ready been noted by W.C. van Unnik, Nestorian Questions on the Administration of the Eucha-
rist by Isho‘yahb IV (Amsterdam, 1937 repr. 1970), p. 44 n. 4, and Baumstark had indeed already
envisaged this possibility.
31
 Jammo, “Gabriel Qa†raya”, 42.
32
 Dictionnaire d'Histoire et de Géographie Ecclésiastiques, 19, (1981), 563-64.
33
 Van Rompay, Le Commentaire, xxxii.
92 SYRIAC WRITERS FROM BETH QA™RAYE

are definitely tied to the latter part of the seventh century (including (3),34 in
the light of (8)). By contrast, (2), (4) and (6) belong to the early decades of the
century, and there seems to be no really good reason for identifying any of
these as one and the same person. Gabriel (7) is unattached chronologically,
but one might suggest that this man was in fact the Gabriel (6) against whom
Babai wrote (understanding ‘al in that sense). Should this be accepted, then we
are left with four different Gabriels, all from Beth Qa†raye:
- Gabriel the Interpreter of Mahoze (5) and relative of Isaac (1) who wrote
biblical commentaries (3) and in this role was also known as Arya (8);
- Gabriel bar Lipah (2), author of the Commentary on the liturgy;
- Gabriel who collated a New Testament manuscript at the School of
Nisibis in 614/5 (4);
- Gabriel, author of a christological treatise (7), against whom Babai wrote
a book (6).
For the remaining Syriac writers from Beth Qa†raye it will be most conven-
ient to proceed in alphabetical order.

ABRAHAM

Abraham Qa†raya bar Lipah is the author of a short extant Commentary on

the Liturgy; according to Jammo35 this is little more than a summary of
Gabriel bar Lipah's Commentary (= Gabriel 2), put in question and answer
form.

AÎOB

In his Catalogue ‘Abdisho‘ mentions an Ayyub Qa†raya who ‘composed a

scholion on the whole of the New Testament, Law and all the Prophets, with
the exception of the Beth Mautbe'.36 Ayyub is clearly a corruption of AÌob,37
and without any doubt this author is to be identified with the Ahob Qa†raya
who is frequently cited in later East Syriac biblical commentaries. He is also
34
 It is unclear on what grounds Reinink dates the biblical commentator to the first half of the
seventh century, e.g. in his Gannat Bussame, xxxiii, lxxiv (in his earlier article to which he re-
fers, the date is just given as seventh century: “Die Textüberlieferung der Gannat Bussame”, Le
Muséon, 90, (1977), 164).
35
 Jammo, Structure, 49. Abraham's commentary was edited by Connolly, R.H, Anonymi
auctoris expositio officiorum ecclesiae Georgio Arbelensi vulgo adscripta, II. Accedit Abrahae
bar Lipheh interpretatio officiorum, (CSCO 72, 76, Scr.Syri 29, 32; 1913-15), 162-80.
36
 Catalogue, no.107, ed. Assemani, 175, = Habbi, no.112, p.98/203.
37
 So already Chabot, J.B., “Ahob de Qatar”, Journal Asiatique, 10:8, (1906), 273-4. Was
Ahob Qa†raya the same person as the monk at the monastery of Rab Kennare (in Beth Huzzaye)
who requested Dadisho‘ Qa†raya to write his Commentary on the Asceticon of Abba Isaiah
(Comm. I.1; XIV.2)?
 S. BROCK 93

probably the same person as Ahob, the author of the ‘Cause of the Psalms',
that is, a short introduction to the Psalter surviving in a few manuscripts.38 Ex-
cerpts from Ahob were incorporated by Ibn al-™aiyib (died 1043) into his bib-
lical commentaries, composed in Arabic, and in this form they came to be read
in Oriental Orthodox circles, where they were translated into Ge‘ez, and then
eventually into Amharic, with the result that Ahob features in the Andemta
commentary tradition still in current use in Ethiopia today.39
It might be mentioned here that both Ahob and the biblical Commentator
Gabriel (= 3) refer on occasion to the language of Beth Qa†raye.40

DADISHO‘

The late seventh-century Dadisho‘ Qa†raya is to be distinguished from the late

sixth-century Dadisho‘, Superior of the famous monastery of Mar Abraham
(Mount Izla).41 Dadisho‘ Qa†raya is known to have been associated at different
times of his life with the Monastery of Rab Kennare and that of Rabban
Shabur42 (with which Isaac of Niniveh was also connected at the end of his
life). Dadisho‘ was a major monastic author of his time, and the following
works of his survive:
- Commentary on the Asceticon of Abba Isaiah;43
- Commentary on the Paradise of the Fathers;44

38
 For manuscripts, see Baumstark, Geschichte der syrischen Literatur, 132, n. 1 (to which
Mingana syr. 58 and British Library Or. 9354 can be added). An extract was published by
Vandenhoff, B., Exegesis Psalmorum imprimis messianicorum apud Syros Nestorianos, (Rheine,
1899), 17-24.
39
 See above all Cowley, R.W., “Scholia of Ahob of Qatar on St John's Gospel and the
Pauline Epistles”, Le Muséon, 93, (1980), 329-43. Cowley (p.338), however, makes the wrong
choice in identifying this AÌob with Ayyub, the Interpreter of Seleucia who was a candidate for
the patriarchal election in 581, rather than with the Job/AÌob mentioned by ‘Abdisho‘.
40
 For Gabriel, see van Rompay, Le Commentaire, xxxii, and for Ahob, xliii, n. 19. For
Qa†raya words cited in the later East Syriac commentator Isho‘dad, see Schall, A., “Der
nestorianische Bibelexeget Isho‘dad von Merw (9.Jh. n. Chr.) in seiner Bedeutung für die
orientalische Philologie”, in Macuch, M., Müller-Kessler, C., Fragner, B.G. (eds), Studia
Semitica necnon Iranica R.Macuch…dedicata, (Wiesbaden, 1989), 271-82.
41
 With whom Assemani confused him, Bibliotheca Orientalis, III, 98 (no.67); this was cor-
rected by Scher, in ROC, 11, (1906), 25, and especially in his “Notice sur la vie et les oeuvres de
Dadisho‘ Qa†raya”, Journal Asiatique, 10:7, (1906), 103-18, esp. 104-5. 5
42
 On this monastery (near Shustar/Tustar), see Fiey, J-M., “L'Elam, première des metropoles
ecclésiastiques syriennes orientales”, Melto, 5, (1969), 247-8 (p.2 47, n. 126 for the possible lo-
cation), reprinted in his Communautés syriaques, ch.IIIa.
43
 Ed. Draguet, R., in CSCO 326-7, Scr. Syri 144-5 (1972). A fragmentary Sogdian transla-
tion of parts of Homily 15 has been identified and published by Sims-Williams, N., The Christian
Sogdian Manuscript C2 (Berliner Turfantexte 12; 1985), 78-86; an earlier edition of the text ap-
peared in his “A Sogdian fragment of a work by Dadisho‘ Qa†raya”, Asia Major, 18, (1973), 88-
105.
44
 See Sims-Williams, N., “Dadisho‘ Qa†raya's Commentary on the Paradise of the Fathers”,
Analecta Bollandiana, 112, (1994), 33-64.
94 SYRIAC WRITERS FROM BETH QA™RAYE

- Discourse on Stillness;45
- Letter to Abqosh;46

ISHO‘PANAH

Isho‘panah Qa†raya is mentioned in the Catalogue of ‘Abdisho‘47 as the au-

thor of some Admonitory Discourses, a Commentary on the Centuries (per-
haps those of Evagrius?), a Book of Spiritual Philosophy', various Discourses,
turgame, Letters and Consolatory works, and some teshbÌata that were ‘full of
feeling' and arranged alphabetically. No trace, however, of any of these works
survives.

JACOB

An otherwise unknown Jacob Qa†raya is quoted by Isaac Eshbadnaya, an

author of the fifteenth century.48

*  *  *

Finally three other men from Beth Qa†raye might be mentioned here, a
bishop, an anonymous translator, and a merchant sailor turned monk.
JACOB, Bishop of Darin
From the Synodicon Orientale we learn of Jacob, bishop of Darin, who
wrote to the Catholicos Isho‘yahb I with a series of questions about liturgical
practice; Isho‘yahb's reply survives, together with a set of 20 canons.49 The
date is 585.

ANONYMOUS MONK

In his preface, the man who translated from Persian into Syriac the (extant)
Law Book of Shem‘on of Rev Ardashir identifies himself as ‘one of the stran-
gers (aksenaye, i.e.monks) from the region of Beth Qa†raye', and mentions
that he did the work (which he says he found difficult) at the request of a priest
Shem‘on.50
45
 Ed. Mingana, A., Early Christian Mystics, (Cambridge, 1933), 201-47/70-143; Bedjan had
edited part of the text earlier, under the name of Isaac, in his Mar Isaacus Ninivita, 601-28.
46
 Ed. Guillaumont, A., and Albert, M., “Lettre de Dadisho‘ Qa†raya à Abkosh sur
l'Hesychia”, in Lucchesi, E., and Saffrey, H.D., Mémorial A-J. Festugière, (Geneva, 1984), 235-
45.
47
 Catalogue, no.118, ed. Assemani, 188, and = Habbi, no. 124, p. 102/206.
48
 See Reinink, Studien zur Quellen und Traditionsgeschichte, 50, n. 15.
49
 Synodicon Orientale, 165-68/424/27.
50
 Ed. Sachau, E., Syrische Rechtsbücher, 3 (Berlin, 1914), 207-53 (the translator's introduc-
tion is on pp.208-11).
 S. BROCK 95

It remains a matter of dispute whether the Shem‘on of Rev Ardashir, the

author of this Law Book, is the same person as the rebel metropolitan or not.
Sachau51 thought not, and placed the author of the Law Book in the eighth cen-
tury, whereas Dauvillier52 and others maintain their identity. In making a dis-
tinction between the two Shem‘ons Sachau may also have been influenced by
Isho‘yahb III's Letters, which indicate that the monks of Beth Qa†raye were
those who remained loyal to the Catholicos and opposed the schism – which
would make it most unlikely that any of them would have translated a work by
the rebel metropolitan; on the other hand, Isho‘yahb's second letter to the
monks indicates that opinions among the monks were themselves divided, in
which case there would be no objection to identifying Shem‘on of the Law
Book with the rebel Shem‘on of Rev Ardashir.

Rabban BAR SAHDE

According to Isho‘dnaÌ,53 the monastic founder Rabban Bar Sahde origi-

nated from the town of Dayrin, on the island ‘in the sea of Beth Qa†raye'. He
had been a merchant who had travelled to ‘the region of the Indians
(Hendwaye)', but when, on one voyage, his ship had been attacked by pirates
he made a vow, ‘If I escape, I will become a monk'. As it turned out, he was
the only man on the boat to escape death, so he went to the monastery of
Rabban Shabur54 who gave him the monastic schema (this locates him towards
the middle of the seventh century). He later went on to found a monastery near
the village of Baruqa, in the region of Îira.55

*  *  *

Although the presence of Syriac Christianity in Beth Qa†raye is attested for

some five hundred years, from the fourth to the ninth century,56 those known
to have been writers are all concentrated on the seventh century. This probably
implies the presence at that time somewhere in Beth Qa†raye of one or more
church/monastery schools whose teaching was on the level of higher educa-
tion, and thus comparable to that of the famous School of Nisibis. Several of
the writers were widely read, as can be judged from the range of writers they
cite: this applies above all to Isaac and Dadisho‘. Two of them, Ahob and
51
 Sachau, Syrische Rechtsbücher, xix-xx.
52
 Dauvillier, J., “Chaldéen (droit)”, in Dictionnaire de droit canonique, 3, (1943),
331-32; Thazhath, A., The Juridical Sources of the Syro-Malabar Church, (Kottayam, 1987), 94.
53
 Isho‘dnaÌ, Liber Castitatis, ch.77 (78).
54
 Rabban Shabur lived in the first half of the seventh century.
55
 Fiey, Assyrie chrétienne, III, Beirut, 1968), 215.
56
 Fiey, “Diocèses syriens”, 211. That Christianity still survived there in the early ninth cen-
tury is indicated by a letter on liturgical matters from the Catholicos Isho‘barnun (823-8) to Isaac,
the ‘Visitor' of Beth Qatraye, to be found in Mingana Syr. 587.
96 SYRIAC WRITERS FROM BETH QA™RAYE

Gabriel the Commentator, serve as fine examples of the high level of biblical
scholarship in the Church of the East at this time, whose influence continued
to be felt in the later commentary tradition, long after their deaths. But of all
the known Syriac writers from Beth Qa†raye it is certainly Isaac who has
proved by far the most influentual, and no other Syriac writer, not even
Ephrem, has been translated into so many different languages.