The Syro-Chaldean Relation to Nestorianism. – Positions Contradicting Nestorianism. – Separation From the Rest of the Christian World and Hopes for Reunion. – The Influence of the Mosaic Law, Parables, and Their Relation to the Bible. – Distinctive Features of the Syriac Language. – Conclusion

In conclusion of these sketches of the life and customs of the Syro-Chaldeans, let us say a few words about their relation to Nestorianism—the heresy that for fifteen hundred years has lain as a dark stain upon the history of this people. Concerning Nestorius it suffices to note here that he was a native of Antioch, was made Patriarch of Constantinople, and was condemned by the Ecumenical Council at Ephesus in the year 431, for teaching that in our Savior Christ there are two persons: one divine and one human. His phraseology in effect teaches that there are two distinct beings—the Son of God and the Son of the Most Holy Mary—whose relationship differs from the relationship between the Divine Word and any other pious man more in degree than in essence. He had no personal connection whatever with the Eastern Syrians, and the only question that now falls to our consideration is how far they have adopted what is known as Nestorianism—that is, the teaching that the Son of God and the Son of Mary are two distinct persons. To determine with precision the theological views of the Syro-Chaldeans is extremely difficult, partly because they, like all Eastern peoples, do not like to be questioned, and partly because of a certain incoherence in their very mode of thought that prevents them from defining their ideas exactly. An answer to our question can therefore be reached only by investigating in their books whether their ancestors definitively adopted what we call Nestorianism, or whether they merely took the side of Nestorius through misunderstanding and failure to grasp the meaning of technical terms; and their traditional theology will help us to discover whether they are now Nestorians not merely in name but in actual doctrine. It is worth noting that the subject should be approached not with a desire to find fault with every ambiguous theological formulation, but in a spirit of love and forbearance that judges things by comparison with one another and, where necessary, assumes the better rather than the worse interpretation of insufficiently clear expressions.

On the one hand, we have the fact that Diodore, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Nestorius are venerated by the Syro-Chaldeans as saints and are the principal fathers commemorated at the feast of the so-called “Greek Teachers.” Their names are mentioned in several services and prayers, as well as in certain hymns. This does not necessarily mean that the Syro-Chaldeans hold the teaching proclaimed by these men, but only that they do not accept the verdict of universal Christendom with respect to them.

The Syro-Chaldeans likewise reject the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus—and consequently the authority of all subsequent councils—and do not accept the term Theotokos (Mother of God), by which the Ephesian fathers defined the true doctrine of the Incarnation; nor do they allow such expressions as “God died” or “the communication of attributes”—that is, the attribution to Christ Himself in His single person, under a title belonging to one of His two natures, of properties proper to the other, as, for instance, when the Apostle Paul says that “the Lord of glory” (a divine title) suffered crucifixion (which He suffered in His human nature). These modes of expression are explicitly rejected in Syro-Chaldean books and, by tradition, by the people themselves. Were it not for the books, one might rely on the prevailing modern view and say that the Syro-Chaldeans err considerably in their theology—but this signifies little, because the theology of ordinary people is far from distinguished by precision and clarity. The Syro-Chaldeans undoubtedly sometimes employ technical terms that sound unorthodox. This is owing to the fact that they do not bow before authority. Not accepting the expressions of the Ecumenical Councils, which gave definite meaning to certain theological terms, they have adopted their own expressions, which it is often difficult or altogether impossible to reconcile not only with orthodox technical language but with their own non-technical language on the same subject. The most widespread of these questionable expressions is the attribution to Christ of two kyane, two knume, and one parsopa. The word kyana means nature. But no one can explain with precision the meaning of the words knuma and parsopa. The first of these is used to designate the persons of the Holy Trinity and, consequently, in non-technical language (classical Syriac) means “selfhood.” The latter—the Greek prosopon—is employed in ancient grammars to designate “personhood.” The ordinary traditional commentary on this phrase runs thus: two kyane—Christ has two natures; two knume—Christ is perfect God and perfect man; one parsopa—there is only one Christ, and not as though one were God and another were man. In this interpretation either kyana does not express all that we mean by nature, or—as frequently happens owing to a confusion of subtleties and logical definitions in the Eastern mind—two distinct words, kyana and knuma, are used to express one and the same concept, although they appear to express different things. Assemani, however, states that by knuma the Syro-Chaldeans understand hypostasis, and by parsopa nature as it presents itself to the senses. Yet perhaps he was biased against the Syro-Chaldeans, being himself a Roman Catholic Maronite. In any case, the phrase is extremely ambiguous. In the “Scholium” of the priest Isaac of Ishbad it is written that “when the council of 632 resolved that in Christ there is one knuma, while in Him there are two natures and a duality of knuma, this was because in Greek there is no distinction between knuma and parsopa, and that it was not intended to define something contrary to the orthodox faith.”

On the other hand, if the orthodox doctrine of the Incarnation is set forth in plain, non-technical language, all who are acquainted with the ancient Syro-Chaldean books heartily and frankly acknowledge that doctrine and say that it is precisely the teaching their fathers taught them. All, for instance, would agree with such a proposition as the following: it was He who, from the beginning, according to His Godhead, dwelt in the bosom of the Father, and who, according to His humanity, in the fullness of time, appeared on earth as Jesus Christ. Likewise there would be no difficulty in accepting such expressions as “God the Son died according to His humanity,” whereas the Syro-Chaldeans would reject the simple statement “God the Son died,” since that expression, in their understanding, means that the Godhead itself died. Similarly, the term “Mother of God” in the Syro-Chaldean mind is confused with the notion of a mother giving birth to the Godhead itself. But they would indignantly reject the idea that rejection of this title entails the assertion that the Son of God descended upon the Son of Mary and united Himself with Him, or that God the Word descended upon a man and in that sense only became flesh. They allow that just as the Magi worshipped the infant Christ as God, so also the angels in the proper sense worshipped the newborn Infant. It may be that, in view of the inveterate habit of those who speak Syriac of confusing (not only in theology) the abstract with the concrete, it would be better to use the original authentic term “Theotokos” without translating it into the vernacular, so as not to cause confusion. The ancient Syrians have heard such strange propositions—savoring of Monophysitism and attributed (doubtless wrongly) to Roman Catholic missionaries in Mosul—that they constantly associate that expression in its translated form with the most grievous error.

Furthermore, in their books and especially in their services they employ language that is altogether at variance with Nestorianism. Not only in their three liturgies—which are probably older than the emergence of the heresy itself—but, for instance, in the rite of baptism, which is almost certainly of later origin, there are expressions that no conscious adherent of Nestorianism could accept. For example: “We confess Thee, our Lord Jesus, that according to Thy humanity Thou art of Abraham and David, and according to Thy essence—of Thy Father” (the shoraya [“beginning”], pronounced by priest and deacon and reminiscent of our antiphons). Here we approach the orthodox teaching that the person or “being” of our Lord resides in His Godhead. Likewise: “He [the trihypostatic God] promised him [the human race] resurrection from the dead by the manifestation of God the Word, the Savior of all, who took upon Himself the likeness (dmutha) of a servant, being equal to the Father,” etc. (the karozuta [“proclamation,” pronounced by the deacon and analogous to our litanies], the first). “We confess that the Son, consubstantial (bar kyana) with the Father, of His own will descended and in His compassion clothed Himself in our body (paghran) and in it brought us to Him” (the karozuta, the second). “Throughout the entire service, the Savior Christ is constantly identified in the most simple and absolute manner with the Divine Son, the second person of the Holy Trinity, and to express the theory of a connection between the Son of God and the Son of Mary (as Nestorianism would presuppose), it would not be too much to say that the service would have to be entirely rewritten—that is, always supposing it were to be used in its plain grammatical sense, without preconceived mental glosses in a sense contrary to what the words actually contain.”

In judging the theological views of the Syro-Chaldeans, one must always bear in mind the non-technical character of the Syriac language. It can scarcely be doubted that in many instances translations of Greek theological terms into Syriac were obscure, and it is no wonder if the Syro-Chaldeans sometimes misunderstood them. In this respect the difficulty of their position may perhaps be compared to those difficulties that arose between Latins and Greeks over the words hypostasis and ousia.

Although in general the mass of the Syro-Chaldean people cannot be accused of adherence to the Nestorian doctrine of the Incarnation, we cannot nevertheless acquit them of the charge of schism, and they cannot occupy a fully orthodox position until they accept the Ecumenical Councils.

Taking into account, however, the reunion that took place two years after the Council of Ephesus between the orthodox and John of Antioch with his bishops through conciliatory explanations, and keeping in mind the carefully irenic tone in which “the Westerners” are spoken of in such books as the Synhados or Book of Ecclesiastical Law—in which Nestorius is mentioned only once, on a matter of internal discipline (VII, § 4)—one may confidently hope that the Syro-Chaldeans will in time accept the definitions of the Council of Ephesus, when these are duly explained to them as precisely expressing the faith once delivered to the saints and as faithfully embodying their own beliefs. Of course, from the lips of simpler folk among the Syro-Chaldeans one can sometimes hear the most monstrous theological reasoning; but reasoning of this kind often savors as much of Gnosticism as of Nestorianism, and it is explained by complete ignorance of the ancient books. The same can be found among simpler folk in any other Christian nation. Just as John of Antioch and others misunderstood and considered unorthodox the teaching of St. Cyril and the fathers of the Council of Ephesus, so still more remote inhabitants of the East probably supposed that the expressions of the council which sided with Cyril meant something approaching Monophysitism, and rejected them on that account. It must be remembered that the Syrians knew of the acts of the council only through the intermediary of Nestorius’s partisans. In general it must be acknowledged that the intolerance which too often throughout all ages accompanied theological polemic, and the political interests of the time—these were probably the chief causes that clouded the judgment and misdirected the actions of the Syrians of that era.

In any case, much benefit may be expected from conciliatory explanations, and in this connection the following reflections of one scholar are not without interest: “The formula of reunion between Cyril and John of Antioch shows how, through mutual explanation, the disagreement was in this instance resolved; Cyril agreed to adopt expressions he had not used before, for example, concerning the consubstantiality of the Incarnate One with us according to humanity. Thus far the objections of the Syrians rendered a great service to the faith by inducing Cyril to better balance his language. His original ‘twelve articles’ stood in need of supplementary propositions, such as were provided by the reunion.”

But enough on the question of theology, vital as it is to the faith; let us now turn to certain other aspects of the Syro-Chaldean outlook.

Among this people the Old Testament idea of ritual defilement is still very much alive. For the European mind it is in the highest degree strange to find that certain things there are considered essentially unclean, even if they are physically quite clean. Thus, for example, after a burial in many places every person considers it his duty to wash his hands and face, even if all he did was simply to be present at the funeral service of the deceased. The notion of physical defilement arising from contact with a dead body extends ritually to all who were present at the burial. The same notion prevents people from touching a dog. In all these Eastern lands the finer qualities of the dog—its fidelity and affection—are entirely unrecognized, and although every householder keeps a dog as a watchdog in his yard and shepherds keep dogs to guard their flocks, it never occurs to anyone to consider the dog a friend. Some of the mountain dogs are magnificent, and in the plain of Urmia wealthy khans keep dogs for hunting; but the ordinary village dog in Persia is a wretched cur and in general an unattractive creature. Since it never receives anything but kicks and blows, it is usually in the highest degree cowardly and attacks everyone when it thinks it can do so with impunity.

Beyond doubt, the notions of ritual defilement rest to a considerable extent on a sound basis. Thus, even on purely physical grounds, it would be unwise to eat pork in such hot countries as Persia and Turkey. And yet, in the popular mind the concept is not that pork is unwholesome food, but that the pig itself is an unclean animal. The same applies to all crustacean fish. A Syro-Chaldean was once served a lobster salad in London, and the dish seemed to him extraordinarily tasty; but when he learned that the principal ingredient of the dish was lobster, he could not eat any further. One of the pupils in Urmia was tormenting a tortoise. When he was told that it was wrong to torment an animal, he replied with extreme surprise in his tone: “But it is an unclean animal, rabbi!” When asked why it was unclean, and if it was unclean, why one should tyrannize over it, he immediately replied: “It must be an evil animal—otherwise God would not have punished it by making it carry so heavy a burden.” Crustaceans and the tortoise are, as is well known, listed among the unclean in Leviticus 11:10, 29. This also explains why the Law of Moses is still regarded—if not entirely, then almost—as in force today. The Book of Leviticus is thoroughly known to all who could scarcely pass an examination on the history of the Gospels. The ancient Syriac books constantly ground their ordinances or canons upon the Mosaic Law.

Although the Syro-Chaldeans observe fasts strictly, they cannot be considered a particularly ascetic people. Perhaps the prevalence of Manichaeism among them in early centuries led to the establishment of canons against asceticism, insofar as it might in their eyes smack of the notion that the present world is evil. Thus, in the book of the Synhados, those who fast on Sundays for ascetic purposes are anathematized. Excessive asceticism is likewise disapproved of in the book on monks: “Henceforth let no one shut himself up in houses, or stand on pillars, or let his hair grow long, or impose iron upon himself.”

The Syro-Chaldeans in general attach very great importance to the outward forms of religion. For example, they attach far more significance to ecclesiastical ordinances than to moral laws. If a man violates the entire Decalogue, he, like his neighbors, consoles himself with the reflection that he is “a son of man” and that “God is merciful.” But if he breaks a fast or fails to pay tribute to the patriarch, he is considered worse than a pagan. In Western Europe, Christians often feel ashamed of their religion and are reluctant to openly confess what they believe, do not particularly care about being seen going to church or praying, and generally avoid using the name of God in everyday conversation. The Syro-Chaldeans look at all this in a completely different way. Outward form is of extraordinary importance to them, and it is not frivolity or hypocrisy that prompts them to intersperse their conversation with reminders of God and His works, but a living awareness that the Christian religion itself demands this of them. For instance, a conversation between two persons meeting on the street—which in Europe usually turns on the weather (about which the Orient speaks very rarely)—typically runs as follows:

— 1. All joy to you.

— 2. Did you come in peace?

— 3. Thanks be to God; how is your health?

— 4. If you ask—praise be to the Lord, I am well.

— 5. If God wills, come to my house tomorrow, and so on.

In like manner a layman feels not the slightest shame in concerning himself with church matters, and theological subjects are often discussed among laypeople. Among the Syro-Chaldeans it is not at all surprising if a man openly confesses his religion; what would surprise them is if he did not do so.

All this is by no means simple hypocrisy. The Syro-Chaldeans constantly invoke the name of God in their conversations, and this is by no means in the spirit of hypocritical piety—to appear in as favorable a light as possible in the eyes of their neighbors. In this respect they act in exactly the same way as ordinary Muslims, who pray openly by the roadside in full view of everyone. It is a natural component of religion among the Syro-Chaldeans. And indeed, this custom carries great moral weight, since the use of sacred phrases often reminds the heart of their inner meaning.

It is less pleasant to observe that the blessed name of our Lord is often invoked quite carelessly and not infrequently actually in attestation of falsehood. “I swear by Christ” means among them scarcely more than our expression “seriously.” In some districts to say “I swear by God, I will not go” is hardly a stronger expression than a simple negative. In the mountains people often swear by “the robe of Mar-Shimun.” When addressing the patriarch one says: “I swear by your sacred garment” or “by your head.”

The punishment of entire families for the sins of an individual can hardly be called an idea native to the Syro-Chaldeans. And yet, under a semi-barbarous government, it is frequently put into practice. The entire family of a murderer suffers grievously for his crime and must often pay blood money. An entire village is frequently fined for the crime of one of its inhabitants. These strange and monstrous forms of civil law, embedded in the common practice of Eastern courts and in particular cases even in Jewish courts, represented something in the nature of actual justice, whereby in the former case the guilt of one individual was extended to his entire clan—which could serve as no small deterrent against committing certain kinds of grave crimes by striking terror into the whole people. Thus Simeon and Levi, in revenge for the dishonor of their sister, sacked the city of Shechem and slaughtered all its males (Gen. 34:25–27). Likewise, “all the men that appertained to Korah” were destroyed (Num. 16:32). In later times, at the court of Darius, the families of Daniel’s accusers were cast into the den of lions (Dan. 6:24). Yet the Syro-Chaldeans themselves say: “Every sheep must be hung by its own legs”—a man bears punishment for his own deeds, as God taught through the prophet Ezekiel: “The soul that sinneth, it shall die” (Ezek. 18:1). But this more enlightened teaching is overborne by Muslim practice. For this reason, if a traveler is robbed, the whole village is held responsible.

The same holds throughout Asia. For example, among the Tatars, when a mule disappears from a caravan, the people of the nearest encampment are obliged either to find it or to make compensation for it.

Parables, riddles, and similitudes make a strong impression on the Syro-Chaldean mind. The cleverness of the widow of Tekoa or the parable of Joram finds its counterpart in the facts of their everyday life. One may hope, however, that in general they draw from parables a clearer idea of morality than did one little “natar-kursi”—that is, a bishop-elect—who, on reading the Bible, thought that the moral of the parable of the Prodigal Son was that one should take one’s father’s property, journey to a far country, and, when all has been squandered, return to him again!

The stories that circulate among the Syro-Chaldeans are partly of precisely this character. A deaf man went to visit a sick person, and since he could hear nothing, he resolved in advance what to say. He decided to say “Peace be to you!” and then “How is your health?” The sick man would naturally answer “I am better,” and to this he would say “Thanks be to God.” Then he would ask “How is your treatment going?” and, having received an answer, would again say “May it be pleasing to you.” After that he would ask “Who is your doctor?” and, having received an answer, would say “Blessed be his coming.” Having memorized this prepared conversation, he went to visit the sick man, but unfortunately the answers he received did not correspond. The result was the following exchange.

— How is your health?

— Alas, I am dying, replied the sick man.

— Thanks be to God! And how is your medicine?

— My medicine is poison to me!

— May it be pleasing to you. — Who is your doctor?

— The Angel of Death.

— Blessed be his coming.

The conversation was cut short by the sick man’s relatives driving the visitor away.

Among the Syro-Chaldeans there circulates a tale about storerooms said to be located in the rock of the castle of Semiramis at Van, filled with treasure. A shepherd dreamed that he was given a word that could open this rock. He spoke the word, the rock opened, he entered, took the treasure, repeated the word, and came out. But noticing that he had left his staff behind, he spoke the word a third time and went back in. He was about to come out again when he suddenly forgot the word. And so he remained deep within the rock, and his cries can be heard clearly to this day. It is remarkable that the Syro-Chaldeans do not read the Arabic Thousand and One Nights and apparently have never heard of it, yet in this tale one clearly hears an echo of that Arabic work.

Also in circulation among them are riddles, chiefly biblical, such as the following. “In life I did not walk; when I died, I walked; and when I walked, it was neither on earth nor in the sky.” Answer: “Noah’s Ark.” “Who was it that went to hell because he did not tell a lie, and who is it that if he had told a lie might perhaps have gone to paradise?” Answer: “Herod, because he kept his word and delivered St. John the Baptist to death.” “There is a birth that will have no burial, and there is a burial that had no birth.” Answer: “The East has a birth and has no burial; the West has a burial but has no birth.” “Two went to court, and three came away condemned.” Answer: “Adam, Eve, and the serpent.”

It is not uninteresting to note here the extraordinary love of the Syro-Chaldeans for the Bible, which they approach with remarkable reverence and with which they have become so intimately familiar that all more or less literate persons think and speak precisely in its imagery. Some of its books—the Psalter and especially Leviticus with its ritual ordinances—many know by heart. As for the canon, there is no authoritative indication of it in the Syro-Chaldean books. The lectionary does not contain readings from the Catholic Epistles or Revelation, but it also does not contain readings from various books that are found in the Peshitta. Two readings are taken from non-canonical books. In the catalogue of Mar-Audishu, however, all our canonical and deuterocanonical books are included, with the exception of the book of Ruth, the Prayer of Manasseh, and Revelation. The books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and (possibly) two deuterocanonical books of Ezra are listed under one and the same name of Ezra. The Catholic or General Epistles are designated as “three Epistles—of James, Peter, and John.” This catalogue also contains the works of Josephus, the Diatessaron of Tatian, and other books. The book of the Synhados, citing the “apostolic canon” and setting forth the curriculum of study in schools, names the following sacred books: the Pentateuch, the book of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Ruth, Job, the Sixteen Prophets; for boys—the book of Ben Sira and the Psalms; from the New Testament: the Four Gospels, Acts, three Catholic Epistles, and fourteen Epistles of the Apostle Paul (VI, § 2).

All manner of superstitions are prevalent among the Syro-Chaldeans, and particularly widespread, for example, are beliefs that charms or incantations are highly beneficial for warding off the evil eye, curing illness, and in similar cases. This superstition they share with Muslims. Animals and children are commonly made to wear amulets. Charms are written on long strips of paper, often beautifully decorated, and kept in boxes. The authors of these charms are, unfortunately, in most cases found to be priests. In the book of the Synhados such things are repeatedly and strictly forbidden: no one may resort to sorcerers, and all witchdoctors and astrologers are subject to deposition if they are members of the clergy and to excommunication if they are laypeople. The charms themselves usually consist of a long prayer in the Syriac language. Muslim charms are drawn from the Koran and written in Arabic. In Kurdistan many people believe that certain priests can write a charm that will bring slow illness and death, madness, and other calamities upon those against whom it is written. A certain boy frequently rose and walked in his sleep. A priest wrote a charm that could prevent this, so long as the sick person kept it with him; but since the father of the sick boy could not agree with the priest on the price (two or three rubles), the charm remained unsigned.

In conclusion, let us say a few words about the language spoken by the Syro-Chaldeans. The vernacular used by the Syro-Chaldeans is one variety of ancient Syriac—not directly descended from the classical language, which in essence remains the vernacular of the inhabitants of Edessa or Urhai, but (probably) from the Aramaic dialects that were in use in Christian times in Mesopotamia, Babylonia, and Assyria. This is an extremely interesting language in which one can observe the differentiation of the ancient tongue along analytic lines, the old synthetic forms having given way to freer modes of expression, as in the modern European languages. Unfortunately, it has been corrupted by a multitude of foreign words that differ from district to district. In the plain of Urmia the foreign words are drawn chiefly from Turkish and Persian; in the mountains from Kurdish or Arabic; and in the plain of Mosul from Arabic. In every district, almost in every village, there is a distinct dialect so different that, for instance, a person from Urmia has difficulty understanding the inhabitants of Tiari, though they are in general so close to one another, especially in structure, that their common origin is evident. This diversity of dialects makes it extremely difficult or virtually impossible to print books in the vernacular that could be understood by all. Up to the present time the Syro-Chaldeans have overcome this difficulty by always writing in classical Syriac. The only books written in the vernacular before this century were certain books in the Alqosh (Elkosh) dialect—that is, the idiom used in the plain of Mosul. These books are written in a purely phonetic manner; among them is a book of liturgical Gospels, which it was natural to read in the vernacular. Since the introduction of printing presses, the vernacular dialects have gradually been committed to writing, and the English missionaries have done much in this regard. However, an excessively phonetic method was used, and preference was given to only one dialect—the Urmia dialect. There are as yet no established rules of orthography, and everyone writes as he sees fit. But it would be desirable to print in a manner accessible to the greatest possible number of people, and this can be achieved partly by paying greater attention to classical Syriac and to etymology—since a word written etymologically may correspond to two entirely different pronunciations—and partly by eliminating words that are used in only one district and unknown in others.

The Syro-Chaldeans have very few verbs. To avoid the difficulty associated with this scarcity of verbs, the Syro-Chaldeans add, as in the classical language, supplementary causative verbs to almost all verbs, thereby doubling the number of meanings. Thus “to make to read” means “to teach”; “to make to learn” means “to instill,” sometimes also “to teach”; “to make to remember” means “to remind,” and so on. One must, however, be careful in using these supplementary verbs. One cannot say that the Apostle Paul wrote an epistle through the medium of a scribe; rather one must say “he had it written.” Another way of multiplying verbs is the use of the words “to eat,” “to draw,” “to strike,” and certain other verbs with nouns (of which there are a great many), and this leads to very curious results. Thus, in Syro-Chaldean a man “eats” sorrow, a schoolboy “eats” the rod, a judge “eats” bribes, a deceiver “eats” money, an angry man “eats” threats, a man caught in a lie “eats” his words. Even more widespread is the verb “to strike,” so that a man “strikes” almost everything: musical instruments, knees (when someone kneels), the plow, the sickle, the evil eye, strength (when someone makes an effort). Likewise the wind, lightning, thunder, locusts, a storm—all of these also “strike.” By means of such devices a multitude of diverse ideas can be expressed. The same holds for the verb “to pour”: a man “pours” slander or a gun; if he is a judge, he “pours” criminals into prison; a man “pours” someone on the road when he sees him from a distance. Likewise, for example, with the verb “to hold”: a man “holds” an excuse, “holds” someone’s ear (when he pays attention), “holds” someone’s hand (when he helps another), “holds” someone’s neck (when he restrains him from something), and so on.

The Syro-Chaldeans are very fond of diminutive words, though these words often no longer carry a diminutive sense. They always speak of a “little old man” (grandfather), a “little brother,” a “little father” (this familiar form is not used by sons), and especially of a “little uncle” (clearly corresponding to our “dear brother,” “good father,” “dear uncle,” and the like). The abbreviated form of these diminutive words passes into titles. The bishop in Persia is called “the little uncle,” and every elderly man receives a similar prefix before his name, such as “little uncle Jacob”; likewise an elderly woman is called “little aunt Mary,” “little aunt Elizabeth,” and so on.

A multitude of ideas are expressed by the words “son” of such-and-such and “daughter” of such-and-such. The inhabitants of a certain place are called its “sons.” A fellow countryman of a certain person is called the “son” of his land. “My namesake” is “the son of my name.” Two people bearing the same name address one another in the mountains as barshi, which is a corrupted form of “son of my name.” If you ask how old a certain person is, you will hear that he is “the son” of so many years. A thimble is “the son of a finger,” an echo is “the daughter of a voice,” a glove is “the daughter of a hand”; the daughter of the sun or moon is the halo often seen around them; the latter is also called a childhood illness that supposedly comes at the new moon. The original idea behind these expressions is that the derived noun shares the nature of its archetype. A man calls himself “son of man” to indicate that he is of human nature; the human nature in Syriac is barnashuta, which can be translated “son of humanity.” Hence even an uneducated Syro-Chaldean can readily understand (just as the Pharisees did in ancient times) what the Savior Christ meant when He called Himself “the Son of God.” An uneducated Western person might think that since Christ was the Son of God, by that very fact He was not Himself God. The Syro-Chaldean does not think so, and a simple child there will understand that this title means nothing other than that our Lord was of the same essence as the Heavenly Father—just as the child himself, a “son of man,” shares the same essence with his earthly father. There are few adjectives in the Syro-Chaldean language, and therefore the Syro-Chaldeans, to form adjectives, add to a noun the word “lord” of such-and-such. In this way they can form any epithet whatsoever. A waterway, according to their terminology, is “lord of water,” a costly thing is “lord of price,” and even a married woman is “lord of a husband.” All these peculiarities clearly demonstrate the closeness of the Syro-Chaldean language to Hebrew with its later accretions and branches.

Such, in brief outline, is the life and character of that ancient Eastern people who, after fifteen centuries of estrangement from the Orthodox East, took a step—in the person of one of their most worthy representatives—toward restoring the bond with the Holy Orthodox Church that had once been broken. Having himself been received into the loving bosom of the Holy Orthodox Church, His Grace Jonah, Bishop of Supurgan, set out for his homeland with the apostolic task of bringing his entire people into that same holy bosom. The task is great and difficult, and much labor lies before him in clearing for his people the path to Orthodoxy, obstructed as it is by centuries of estrangement and error. But may the prayers of all faithful sons of the Holy Church assist him in his apostolic endeavor. The work he is performing carries such enormous significance for our entire fatherland—in his fulfillment of the mission entrusted to him by Divine Providence in ordering the destinies of the peoples of the most ancient continent, the cradle of all mankind—that it ought to be close to the heart of all our society, which can render this cause no small service through its material support.

* * *

Notes

The source for these sketches is the work The Catholicos of the East and His People, by A. J. Maclean and W. H. Browne, which was reviewed in Khristianskoe Chtenie [Christian Reading] for the year 1898, where a promise was given to subsequently acquaint readers more fully with its contents. The present sketches constitute the fulfillment of that promise.

For more detail see the article by Prof. A. Lopukhin, “A New Field for the Mission of Orthodoxy,” and in the book by His Grace Sophony — The Contemporary Life and Liturgy of the Jacobites and Nestorians, p. 172 and following.

This is the Syriac name of the lake. Muslims call it Urumi. In Europe it is called Urmia and Urumia.

Mar-Auragam has been designated the successor to the patriarchate, but whether he will in fact inherit it or not cannot be said. He is a pious and good man. Shamasha Nimrod, a man of the highest ability, renders great service to the patriarch, the Syrian people, and the government, and would do still more good if he did not encounter obstacles and had full scope for the exercise of his abilities.

Mr. Huc, in his Travels in Tartary, Tibet, and China, says that he saw the same thing in those countries; Tatars and Tibetans play in the same way as everyone else, but the Chinese have entirely different rules.

Synhados, bk. 6, par. 1.

Its presumed author lived in the time of the Council of Nicaea (Assemani, Bibl. Or., vol. III, p. 1). The book contains references to the Council of Chalcedon and to the Jacobites, and there are many other similar anachronisms.

Among the Syro-Chaldeans the same word is used for preaching as for the pronouncing of litanies, the latter being the specific duty of the deacon.

Synhados, bk. 6, par. 1; also in the “Book of the Heavenly Mysteries” in various places.

Synhados, VII, preface.

Ibid., VIII, par. 2 and 4.

Ibid., VIII, par. 4.

Synhados, IX, par. 2, 4; “Heavenly Mysteries” under the word “patriarchs.”

“Book of the Heavenly Mysteries,” under the word “patriarchs.”

Synhados, IX, par. 5, VIII, par. 20. In general, there is considerable confusion on this subject.

The date of this epistle is given as follows: “40 years after the martyrdom of SS. Peter and Paul, 280 years before the Council of Nicaea” (Synhados, IX, par. 5). Chronology is not a strong point of the Synhados. Concerning this epistle, Dr. Neale observes that it is evidently spurious (Note in Badger’s Nestorians and their Rituals, vol. I). The late date of its composition can be seen from the circumstance that canons threatening deposition of a patriarch for misconduct could not have appeared before the ninth century; the epistle may therefore have been spuriously composed after that time in the interests of a patriarch who wished to escape judgment upon himself.

Synhados, VIII, par. 17.

Book of the Heavenly Mysteries, s.v. “bishop.”

Synhados, VIII, par. 19.

Synhados, VIII, par. 11, and Book of the Heavenly Mysteries, s.v. “metropolitans.”

Synhados, VIII, par. 17, VI, par. 6, can. 8.

Synhados, VIII, par. 22.

Book of the Heavenly Mysteries, s.v. “metropolitans.”

The Syro-Chaldean hierarchy at present consists of the following persons:

1. Mar-Shimun (Simon)—his personal name is Ruil (or Reuben)—Patriarch and Catholicos of the East, residing in Kochanes. His diocese: Kochanes (not in a tribal territory, but considered as belonging to the Ashiret or independent tribes), Tiari, Tkhuma, Diz, Valto, Tal, Mar-Bishu, etc., and the non-tribal districts of Albek, Sura, and others.

2. Mar-Hnanishu (Mercy of Jesus—personal name Itzhak or Isaac), metropolitan or maran. His diocese: Shamadin in Turkey, Tergavar and Mergavar, two elevated plains in Persia near the Turkish border.

3. Mar-Auragam (Abraham). Patriarch-designate, first cousin of Mar-Shimun. His diocese: Upper Berwer, near Kochanes.

4. Mar-Sergis (Sergius). His diocese: Jilu and Baz, two tribal districts in Turkey.

5. Mar-Ishu-yav (Jesus Gave), of Duri. His diocese: Lower Berwer, the southern part of Tiari (in Turkey).

6. Mar-Ionan (Jonah). His diocese: the village of Ukri on the river Zab, in Lower Berwer.

7. Mar-Sliva (Cross—personal name Shlimun or Solomon).

8. Mar-Saurishu (Hope of Jesus). His diocese: several mountain villages in Persia near Urmia, and the plain of Gavar in Turkey.

9. Mar-Dinkha (Rising Sun). His diocese: the village of Tis in Shamadin, in Turkey, taken from the metropolitan’s diocese.

10. Mar-Yukhanan (John). His diocese: the village of Tulaki, Tergavar district, in Persia, taken from the metropolitan’s diocese.

11. Mar-Gauriel (Gabriel)—personal name Yaku or Jacob. His diocese: the territory watered by the Barand and Urmi rivers in the plain of Urmia, in Persia, and the Soldus district to the south of Lake Urmia. Cathedral village: Ardashay; residence: the city of Urmia.

12. Mar-Ionan (Jonah, who has accepted Orthodoxy). His diocese: the district watered by the river Nazluchai (in the northern part of the Urmia plain), the plains of Gavilan and Salmas—though in the latter there are very few native Syro-Chaldeans. His residence is Supergan or Supurgan on the shore of Lake Urmia.

There are also two more bishops who have been consecrated by Mar-Shimun but do not have dioceses under his authority. The diocese in the plain of Urmia follows the rivers flowing from the mountains of Kurdistan to Lake Urmi, and the inhabitants usually say of themselves that they belong to such-and-such a river.

Synhados, VIII, par. 1–9; “Heavenly Mysteries,” s.v. “bishops.”

Synhados, IV, par. 17.

The Synhados forbids mandatory payment for baptism, VI, par. 6, can. 7.

Cf., e.g., Synhados VIII, par. I.

It is mentioned in the Apostolic Constitutions, VIII, 5. Smith and Cheetham, D.C.A., s.v. “Kiss.”

Synhados, VI, par. 4, can. 2.

“Kasha” means priest. This is a corruption of the ancient designation “kashisha,” meaning elder or presbyter. In the books the term “kapa” is also used—equivalent to sacerdos.

“Heavenly Mysteries,” s.v. “priests.”

Smith and Wace, D.C.B., s.v. “Nestorianism.”

VII, par. 2, can. 5.

Synhados, bk. VII.

From the so-called Liturgy of Nestorius.

That is, the animals whose hides went to make the girdle were probably first offered in sacrifice.

Al-Biruni (973–1048), cited in Smith and Wace, Dictionary of Christian Biography, s.v. “Nestorianism,” states that Nestorians and Melkites agree with one another in the observance of fasting and the celebration of Christmas and Epiphany, but differ with regard to other feasts and fasts.

A similar ceremony is performed at a Tatar wedding. Gifts in the form of money are placed in a jug of fermented milk, and the father of the bride drinks the wine and takes the money. (Huc, Travels in Tartary etc., vol. I, chap. VIII).

Their names in the books are given as follows: Gadai, Maccabee, Tersai, Hebron, Hipson, Bacchus, and Jonadab. Their teacher was Eleazar.

Such is the common name for the Eucharist: kurbana (korvan).

Synhados, V, § 7 and 14.

Book V, § 11, Council of Gangra.

VII, § 3, rule 5. But in the Khudra fifty days of fasting are counted, if Sundays are included.

Synhados, V, § 3, VII, rule 6.

Guardian, September 30, 1887, p. 1559.

See Smith and Wace, Dict. Christ. Biog., s.v. “Nestorianism.”

See Smith and Wace, Dict. Christ. Biog., under April 17.

Among some Syro-Chaldeans there circulates the opinion that Nestorius, upon coming among them, so greatly approved of their “Liturgy of the Apostles” that he adopted it himself. They all believe that it was he who gave them their third liturgy; but this is probably an error.

The particle Mar, commonly prefixed to the names of saints, does not strictly mean what “saint” means for us. It means “my lord” and is given to a bishop, living or dead, and in practice corresponds to the French monseigneur. Mar, however, is also given to St. Stephen, St. Ephrem, and several other persons who were not bishops.

1 Cor. 2:8. Liddon, Bampton Lectures, V, 5.

Assem., Bibl. Orient. De Syris Nestorianis, t. III, 1.

Possibly the Council of Chalcedon, at which, according to some, 630 fathers were present. Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, § 188.

See Scholium, final part, § 1.

A man wishing to say that a great multitude of people had gathered in a certain place remarked that “there was much human nature there.”

Literally: “being pehma.” In Phil. 2, pehma = the Greek ikon. The substitution is quite exact, because pehma, like ikon, means exemplar, copy.

From a letter of Bright, Professor of Ecclesiastical History and Canon of Christ Church in Oxford, who, however, states that he is acquainted with Syro-Chaldean worship only in translation.

From a letter of Bright. See also Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, §§ 155–157. One may also adduce another important observation of Bright to the Anglican missionaries: “your duty in this mission is to look beyond the words.”

It would be interesting to investigate whether this preserves a remnant of Manichaean dualism, which regarded certain animals as essentially constituting evil. Neither among the Christians nor among the Muslims of these lands has the teaching of the book of Genesis taken hold—that all of God’s creatures were originally good. “And God saw every thing that He had made: and, behold, it was very good” (Gen. 1:31).

Synhados, V, § 11.

VII, § 2, can. 7.

Mosley, Ruling Ideas in Early Ages, Lecture V.

Huc, Travels in Tartary, vol. I, chap. III.

Synhados, V, § 22; VI, § 6, canon 18.

In the city of Mosul the Gospels are read in Arabic, although they are written in the Syriac alphabet.

Interesting information on the language of the Syro-Chaldeans or Assyrians (principally the inhabitants of the Urmia region) can be found in the Collection of Materials for the Description of Localities and Tribes of the Caucasus (published by the Administration of the Caucasian Educational District). See especially vol. XV (Tiflis, 1894), which contains samples of Assyrian tales and writings and includes a fairly complete Russian-Assyrian and Assyrian-Russian dictionary with Russian transcription of Assyrian words.

Donations for the support of the Orthodox-Russian mission among the Syro-Chaldeans may be directed to the Economic Administration of the Holy Synod, with an indication of the purpose of the donation.