JACOB OF EDESSA
Miaphysite
ca. late seventh century C.E./before 708 C.E.
Ordained in 684 as the Miaphysite bishop of Edessa, Jacob gained a reputation for being a stickler for church regulations. Frustration at his contemporaries’ disregard for ecclesiastical rules led him to resign his bishopric, retire to the monastery of Jacob at Kayshum, and, while there, write yet more legal decisions. He subsequently moved to the monastery of Tell ʻAdē. In 708 he returned to be Edessa’s bishop, but he died a few months later.
Most of Jacob’s decrees appear in epistles written in response to specific questions. Although not originally written as canon law, they were later collected into Miaphysite legal compilations, sometimes in the form of an entire letter, sometimes with excerpts of the questions posed to Jacob along with his answers, and sometimes simply as abridgements of his answers. References to Muslims appear throughout most of this corpus as well as in several of Jacob’s nonjuridical letters.
Jacob’s letters provide some of the best surviving evidence for on-the-ground interactions between seventh- and early eighth-century Christians and Muslims. Although the correspondence is not a transparent, objective lens on how things were, it nevertheless almost certainly reflects, however imperfectly, a messy world where people and objects frequently crossed confessional boundaries. The issues that Jacob addressed continued to be contentious, and his letters became a form of “living literature” that later generations frequently consulted, consolidated, and modified.
A large number of early Syriac manuscripts preserve Jacob’s letters. No manuscript, however, contains them all. Even those with the same letter often vary in how many rulings they preserve, how they number the rulings, and even the wording of the rulings themselves. The most important manuscripts include Mardin 310 (dated on paleographic grounds to the eighth century), Harvard Syriac 93 (dated on paleographic grounds to the eighth or ninth century), Paris Syriac 62 (dated on paleographic grounds to the ninth century), Damascus 8/11 (copied in 1204), Cambridge 2023 (dated on paleographic grounds to the thirteenth century), and Birmingham Mingana 8 (a 1911 copy of Mardin 310). Other manuscripts containing Jacob’s letters include British Library Additional 12,172, BL Add. 14,493, BL Add. 14,631, BL Add. 17,215, Charfeh 234, and Vatican Borg. Syriac 133. Additionally, Bar Hebreaus’s thirteenth-century Nomocanon has preserved some of Jacob’s rulings that do not appear in his extant letters. Only some of Jacob’s letters have been published.
Because of the disparate nature of the preservation and publication of Jacob’s letters, it seems particularly important to gather all of his references to Islam in one place. I refer to these passages using the terminology and numbering advocated by Robert Hoyland. When there is substantial variance between manuscript witnesses, I present those passages that occur in multiple recensions to illustrate how Jacob’s rulings concerning Islam were modified. I have also included the versions of these rulings that appear in Bar Hebreaus’s Nomocanon.
Given the antiquity and general coherence of the manuscript tradition, no one has challenged the letters’ universal attribution to Jacob. There has not yet emerged a consensus for when he wrote any given letter. For most, the composition date is difficult to narrow further than sometime between the beginning of Jacob’s career as the bishop of Edessa in 684 and his death in 708.
• • •
[Harvard Syriac 93. Near-identical versions found in Paris Syriac 62, Mingana 8, and British Library Additional 14,492.]
[#25] Addai: “What should be done with a holy table which Arabs have eaten meat on and left soiled with fat?”
Jacob: “A table on which pagans have eaten is no longer an altar. Rather, it should be well washed and scoured and become a useful, ordinary item for the sanctuary or the vestry. But if it is small and of little use, let it be broken and buried in the ground.”
Addai: “What should be done with a table which pagans have eaten on and left full of stench?”
Jacob: “A table on which pagans have eaten is no longer an altar. Rather, it should be well washed, scoured, and buried in the ground.”
[Harvard Syr. 93, slightly amended by the near-identical versions found in Paris Syr. 62 and Damascus 8/11.]
[#56] Addai: “A heretical ruler who had the authority to punish, beat, and imprison ordered an orthodox priest to dine with him. He said to him, ‘If you do not agree to dine with me, I swear by God that I will punish you.’ While they were eating, the leader ordered a censer to be brought. He said to him, ‘Get up and take the perfume. Beware if you don’t!’ [The priest] took the perfume and prayed. And because there were no faithful in that house, he anointed them with the perfumed oil. He did these things because of [his] fear of the ruler. I want to learn if, on account of this, he is guilty and if he has transgressed the canons.”
Jacob: “While it is mine to say who is a transgressor of the canons, whether he is guilty is for God to know and not me. But this I will say. Priests used to transgress the canons. They also loved to take part in worldly things and possessions. Therefore they were enslaved by rulers and those holding worldly authority. So too they were commanded by them. And, out of fear, they transgressed this canon among others. Were it not for this, I would also say that he was not guilty. For these canons were established when the orthodox had both influence and authority. But now, because of our sins, we have been deprived of influence and authority. We have been handed over to those who have the authority to command us to transgress the canons.”
[#57] Addai: “If an emir orders an abbot to dine with him, should he eat or not?”
Jacob: “I do not allow this. Rather, necessity allows it.”
[#58] Addai: “Is it appropriate for a priest to teach the children of Hagarenes who have the authority to punish him if he does not teach [their children]?”
Jacob: “It is necessity that also permits this. As for me, I say that this in no way harms either he who teaches or the faith. [This would be permitted] even if it were not [for] those having the authority to punish. For often from such things arises much benefit.”
[Harvard Syr. 93, fols. 26b–27a, slightly amended by the near-identical versions found in Mingana 8 and Cambridge 2023.]
[#75] Addai: “Concerning a Christian woman who willingly marries a Hagarene, [I want to learn] if priests should give her the Eucharist and if one knows of a canon concerning this. [I want to learn]: if her husband were threatening to kill a priest if he should not give her the Eucharist, should [the priest] temporarily consent because [otherwise the husband] would seek his death? Or would it be a sin for him to consent? Or, because her husband is compassionate toward Christians, is it better to give her the Eucharist and she not become a Hagarene?”
Jacob: “You have abolished all your doubts concerning this question because you said, ‘If the Eucharist should be given to her and she not become a Hagarene.’ So that she will not become a Hagarene, even if the priest would have sinned in giving it and even if her husband were not threatening [the priest], it would have been right for him to give her the Eucharist. But [in truth] he does not sin in giving [it] to her. Then, [as for] the other thing you said: ‘If one knew of a canon concerning this.’ If there is neither risk of apostasy nor her threatening husband, it is right for you to act in this way. Namely, because other women should fear [[fol. 27a]] lest they also stumble, for [this woman’s] admonition she should fall under the canons[’ sentence] for as long as it appears to those in authority that she is able to bear.”
[Bar Hebreaus, Nomocanon, edition in Paul Bedjan, ed., Nomocanon Gregorii Barhebraei (Leipzig: O. Harrassowitz, 1898), 41–42.]
A woman who belonged to the Hagarenes says that if the Eucharist is not given to her she would become a Hagarene. It should be given her but along with a penalty that is appropriate for her to bear.
[Harvard Syr. 93, fols. 28b–29a, slightly amended by the near-identical versions found in Mingana 8 and Cambridge 2023.]
[#79] Addai: “During that time of famine and scarcity, because he did not have anything to eat and no one would hire him—not even [only] for his bread—a deacon joined those bearing arms, he even took up arms, and that entire year he lived with them. But as soon as that difficult time passed and there was opportunity to work, he shaved his head, took hold of his former habit, and dwelled in peace. What [[fol. 29a]] should be done with him? Is it right that he should minister in his former position, or does a canon prohibit this?”
Jacob: “The fact that as soon as [the famine] ended he immediately fled from evil and ran to [his] former dignity showed that he did what he did unwillingly and out of necessity. This too witnesses to this, that although he joined evil he did not do evil. Thus, observing his repentance, whenever his bishop wants to, he is allowed to show him mercy and to permit him [to return to] his former ministry.”
[Harvard Syr. 93, fol. 29a–b, slightly amended by the near-identical versions found in Mingana 8, Cambridge 2023, and Damascus 8/11.]
[#80] Addai: “When our bishop of Mardin was attacked by those from outside [the walls], those Arabs who ruled inside ordered everyone to go to the wall to fight. They did not exempt anyone from going, not even priests. Then, when the battle was raging, a priest or a deacon threw a stone from the wall and struck and killed one of the attackers attempting to scale the wall. I want to learn from the canons what should be done about this. [I want to learn] if he sinned, either he or the other priests and monks who—though unwillingly—pulled the war mangonel’s rope, threw stones, and killed some [[fol. 29b]] attackers from outside [the wall]. [I want to learn] if it is right for them to serve in the priesthood or if it is right for them to be under the canon’s [sentence] for only a little while?”
Jacob: “That they unwillingly were led by force shows them to be exempt from what was done. Therefore this is under their bishop’s authority. He should deal with them mercifully and permit their ministry when it seems [appropriate] to him. But in the matter of a priest who threw a stone from the wall and killed while with his own eyes he looked and saw who was killed: after a certain time during which as repentance he is prohibited from ministry, it should be left to the priest’s own conscience whether it is right for him to serve. As for whether they also have sinned, it is not right for this to fall under ‘questions’ [to me]. Rather, this should be given to the righteous, impartial judgment of God, the knower and perceiver of all.”
[Harvard Syr. 93, fol. 33b.]
[#96] Addai: “Why do we venerate images?”
Jacob: “We bow before God with lordly veneration as our Lord and creator. We venerate the cross as that upon which we see Christ. We venerate the images of martyrs and their bones as those who are God’s attendants and who also plead and petition him on our behalf. And, in accord with the apostles’ word, with honor we venerate secular rulers, whether they are heretics or pagans. But [these] venerations are distinct from one another.”
[Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium 367: 261.]
[#116] Addai: “If he is about to die, is a priest permitted to pardon someone who became a Hagarene or became a pagan?”
Jacob: “If he is about to die and a bishop is not near, [the priest] is permitted to pardon him, give him the Eucharist, and bury him if he dies. But if he lives, [the priest] should bring him to a bishop and [the bishop] impose on him a penance that he knows he is able to bear.”
[Harvard Syr. 93, fol. 40a–b.]
[#6] John: “Is it right for a priest to give Hagarenes or pagans who are possessed by evil sprits some blessings from the holy ones or, likewise, [holy water mixed with the dust of relics, that is] ḥnānā, [and] to spread them on them so that they might be healed?”
Jacob: “By all means. None should at all hinder anything like this. Rather, it should be given them for whatever sickness it might be. [[fol. 40b]] For I need not say that while you should give them some of the blessings, it is God who gives them health. Clearly it is right for you to give [this] to them without hindrance.”
[Harvard Syr. 93, fols. 42b–43b.]
[#13] John: “If a Christian should become a Hagarene or a pagan and, after a while, he should regret [this] and return from his paganism, I want to learn whether it is right for him to be baptized or if by this he has been stripped of the grace of baptism.”
Jacob: “On the one hand, it is not right for a Christian who becomes a Hagarene [[fol. 43a]] or a pagan to be [re]baptized. He had been born anew by water and by spirit according to the word of our Lord. On the other hand, it is right that there be a prayer over him [said] by the head priest and that he be assigned a time of penitence for as long as is proper. After a time of penitence, he should be allowed to also share in the [divine] mysteries. We have this as confirmation: those who were baptized by water but had not received the Holy Spirit were later made worthy of [the Spirit] by prayer alone and through the laying on of hands by the head priest [Acts 8:14–18]. But concerning whether he had been stripped of the grace of baptism because he became a Hagarene, I have this to say: Concerning those things whose giver is God, it is not ours to say whether they are taken away, or indeed stripped, from whoever had received them. But this is God’s alone [to decide]. He looks for their return and penitence because he does not want the death of a sinner. Rather, he wants him to be separated [from evil] and to return. So here, in this world and this present life, he will not take grace from him. But there, on that last day, [the day] of judgment, he will strip him of grace, take the talent from him as from the evil servant [Mt 25:28–30], [[fol. 43b]] and throw him into eternal fire.”
[Bar Hebreaus, Nomocanon, in Bedjan, Nomocanon Gregorii Barhebraei, 22, 42.]
We should not rebaptize a Christian who became a Hagarene or a pagan and then came back. But the chief priest should pray over him and a time of penitence be set over him. When he completes [it] he should share [the Eucharist].
A Christian who became a Hagarene and came back or became a pagan and came back: the chief priest should pray over him. When he completes a time of penitence he should share [the Eucharist].
[Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium 367: 237.]
[#9] John: “Is it necessary that the church’s doors be closed on the day when the Eucharist is offered?”
Jacob: “This is necessary, especially because of the Hagarenes, so that they might not enter, mingle with believers, disturb them, and ridicule the holy mysteries.”
[#23] John: “If an entire village of heretics should return to the true faith, what should one do with their mysteries?”
Jacob: “They should be sent to the adherents of their faith. For this also happened to me. Once there were some Hagarenes who carried off the Eucharist from Byzantine territory. When they feared their conscience and brought it to me, I sent it to adherents of the Byzantine confession.”
[François Nau, “Lettre de Jacques d’Édesse sur la généalogie de la sainte vierge,” Revue de l’Orient Chrétien 6 (1901): 518–20.]
From [the scriptures] we understand that Christ truly had come. And we say that if he truly had come, from the line of David he became manifest in the flesh, just as the prophets said concerning him. If he had come and from the line of David became manifest, by all means he also came in his time. If he had come and came in his time, and from the line of David became manifest in the flesh, then also, by all means, his birth is from the line of David. Thus these things all depend on one another, are bound like [links in a] chain, are affirmed and result from compelling arguments, and there is no doubt concerning them.
That Christ is from the line of David is acknowledged by all: that is, by the Jews as well as by the Hagarenes, as well as by all Christians who confess that from human nature he was enfleshed and became incarnate. Thus this, then, that in the flesh Christ is from the line of David (as was previously written by the holy prophets) is acknowledged and foundational to all of them: that is, to the Jews, as well as to the Hagarenes, as well as to the Christians.
I have said that this is foundational to and is confessed by the Jews, even though they deny the true Christ who truly came. But concerning him whom they await to be revealed, by all means they say and affirm that he is and will be from the line of David. So too the Hagarenes. They do not know or want to say that the true Christ who came and who is acknowledged by Christians is God and the son of God. Nevertheless, they all firmly confess that he truly is the Christ who was to come and who was foretold by the prophets. Concerning this they have no dispute with us, rather with the Jews. Both in thought and in word they are united and reprovingly and contentiously stand firm against [the Jews]. For, as I previously wrote, they already knew what had been acknowledged by the prophets: Christ would be born from David, as well as Christ who came was also born from Mary. Indeed, it is truly acknowledged by the Hagarenes, and none of them dispute this. Always saying to everyone that Jesus, the son of Mary, truly is the Christ, they also call him the Word of God, in accord with the holy scriptures. But because they are not able to distinguish word from spirit, in their ignorance [[519]] they add that he is the spirit of God, just as [because of their ignorance] they do not consent to call Christ God or the son of God.
Then, if all these things are acknowledged without controversy, that is both by us and by the Hagarenes—namely that Christ was born from the line of David, as the prophets said, that Christ was born from Mary, that this one who was born from her is truly the Christ, as opposed to the one whom the Jews await—then it should also be confirmed both by us and by the Hagarenes that he came in his time. Then after these things have been acknowledged by the two parties, what is it that opposes, calls into question, or is at all difficult concerning whether we should say that Mary is from the line of David? For this is clear and without dispute . . . .
. . . Then I declare that, even if this is not demonstrated by the scriptures, by a compelling and true syllogism like this we should demonstrate to every Christian or Hagarene who inquires that the holy Virgin Mary, the bearer of God, is from the line of David . . . .
. . . . Brother, lover of God and lover of truth, I want the truth to be witnessed by this compelling and true syllogism established by us and not by words from superfluous stories. If there should be some man—whether he should be a Hagarene or a Christian—who converses with you, asks you, and inquires about this, if he is rational and at all possesses a rational mind, he will understand the syllogism. When he hears it, without dispute and of his own accord he will witness the truth. [[520]] These things that have been said suffice to clearly show a Christian or a Hagarene who disputes this [subject] that the holy Virgin Mary was from the line of David.
[BL Add. 12,172, fol. 124a.]
“Why do the Jews worship toward the south?” Behold, I say to you that this question is in vain and what was asked is not true. For Jews do not worship toward the south, just as Hagarenes also do not. For as I saw them with my own eyes and as I am now writing to you, behold, those Jews who live in Egypt as well as those Hagarenes who are there were worshiping toward the east. Even now the two people worship [likewise], the Jews toward Jerusalem but the Hagarenes toward the Kaʻba. Those Jews who are south of Jerusalem worship toward the north, and also the Hagarenes there worship toward the east, toward the Kaʻba. Those south of the Kaʻba worship toward the north, toward [that] place. Indeed, from all these things that have been said it becomes apparent that here, in the regions of Syria, the Jews and the Hagarenes do not worship toward the south, rather toward Jerusalem and the Kaʻba, their races’ ancestral place.
[Harvard Syr. 93, fol. 24a–b, slightly amended by the near-identical version in Mingana 8.]
In accord with the holy apostle [Paul]’s commandment, before clergy and without any strife or blows, [clergy or monks] should judge and examine their actions intelligently, soberly, justly, in the fear of God, as it is proper for Christ’s brothers. For when one had a suit with his brother and dared to bring the suit before outsiders and not before the clergy, [Paul] spoke censoring and reprimanding those who behaved foolishly like this. [[fol. 24b]] Although he said these things to Christian laity, if he had commanded this for laity, how much more should clergy and monks not bring worldly suits against their adversaries. If they are monks who have a suit, loving one another, their suit should be altogether unnecessary. So, if having some suit like this a clergy or monk dares to bring it out before secular judges for judgment and hands his brother over to blows and lashes, he should be judged as an enemy of Christ’s laws and should receive a censure from the ecclesiastical canons appropriate for his folly.
[Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium 367: 272.]
When clerics have suits, they should bring them not to outsiders, rather to the judgments of the holy church.
[Bar Hebreaus, Nomocanon, Bedjan, Nomocanon Gregorii Barhebraei, 21–22.]
Costly goods that depict pagan tales of gods and goddesses will not be used as a covering for a holy table. If they are used, they will be torn apart. So too [they will not be used] either for clerical vestments or hangings, nor [will] those that have a Hagarene confession of faith written on them.