Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


Do humans have needed kno...
Today at 04:17 AM

Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
Yesterday at 07:11 PM

What's happened to the fo...
by zeca
Yesterday at 06:39 PM

New Britain
Yesterday at 05:41 PM

Do humans have needed kno...
Yesterday at 05:47 AM

Iran launches drones
April 13, 2024, 09:56 PM

عيد مبارك للجميع! ^_^
by akay
April 12, 2024, 04:01 PM

Eid-Al-Fitr
by akay
April 12, 2024, 12:06 PM

Lights on the way
by akay
February 01, 2024, 12:10 PM

Mock Them and Move on., ...
January 30, 2024, 10:44 AM

Pro Israel or Pro Palesti...
January 29, 2024, 01:53 PM

Pakistan: The Nation.....
January 28, 2024, 02:12 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Qur'anic studies today

 (Read 1272964 times)
  • Previous page 1 ... 36 37 3839 40 ... 368 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #1110 - September 23, 2016, 10:53 PM

    Quote
    Any idea what the theory is about 113 and 114 being late additions? And why it´s controversial?

    I'm not sure tbh. Maybe Zaotar or Zimriel would have more idea. Ohlig is mentioned as making this argument. Here's an interview critical of Ohlig's approach. These links don't touch on this particular theory though.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #1111 - September 24, 2016, 10:11 AM

    Gallez on Ohlig and Puin's Hidden Origins of Islam

    http://www.lemessieetsonprophete.com/annexes/Hidden_Origins_of_Islam-EN.pdf
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #1112 - September 24, 2016, 02:05 PM

    Interesting Zeca.

    We should see Gallez´ criticism also in function of his own theory and his own Catholic background.
    Quote
    He (Ohlig) is a New
    Testament scholar strongly influenced by the theology of liberal Protestantism.

    Makes the whole discussion even more interesting....

    I note too that Gallez keeps the hjr definition as "to emigrate" contrary to Kerr (also of revisionist school) who rejects it.

    There is a lot of fun debate here. I regret that there seems to be a bit of a barrier between accepted revisionists (with Crone setting the accepted limit) and the off-limit revisionists (Gallez, Ohlig, Kerr....) while all these scholars bring in very interesting elements.

    Or is this a  wrong perception?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #1113 - October 01, 2016, 12:52 PM

    Sijpesteijn (sheesh, delete some consonants in your name ...) also put up this article about another early hadith about Umar, written on papyrus.

    https://www.academia.edu/27677629/A_%E1%B8%A4ad%C4%ABth_Fragment_on_Papyrus

    Ahmed el Shamsy has weighed in:

    https://www.academia.edu/28799801/Debates_on_Prayer_in_Second_Eighth-_century_Islam_Some_Remarks_on_Sijpesteijns_Papyrus

    Spoiler: Sijpesteijn didn't consider the full context of the 'Umarite prayer, and didn't bring the full range of Maliki hadith to her analysis. The fragment doesn't prove such fluidity in Islamic practice so late.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #1114 - October 06, 2016, 09:11 PM

    Bruce Fudge - Theorizing the Qurʾanic Miracle

    http://marginalia.lareviewofbooks.org/theorizing-the-quranic-miracle-bruce-fudge/
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #1115 - October 09, 2016, 04:15 PM

    Michael Lecker - Were the Ghassānids and the Byzantines behind Muḥammad's hijra?

    Comment from Ian David Morris: https://mobile.twitter.com/iandavidmorris/status/615111227904270336
    Quote
    Just read Michael Lecker (HUJI)'s article, "Were the Ghassānids and the Byzantines behind Muḥammad’s hijra?"
    ...
    From genealogical evidence, Lecker argues for intimate ties between the Khazraj in Medina and the Ghassanids, clients of Byzantium.

    The Khazraj wanted to seize Upper Medina; the Ghassanids and Byzantines wanted to oust the Jews, who were friendly to the Sasanians.

    So Lecker argues the Khazraj, Ghassanids and Byzantines encouraged Muhammad's coalition at Medina in order to pursue their own interests.

    Lecker's argument might also explain the hijra's conventional dating to 622: a side-show in Heraclius' counter-attack on the Sasanians.


    Any thoughts on the plausibility of this?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #1116 - October 09, 2016, 05:21 PM

    Michael Lecker - Muslims, Jews and Pagans: Studies on Early Islamic Medina

    http://www.academia.edu/24094782/Muslims_Jews_and_Pagans_Studies_on_Early_Islamic_Medina_Leiden_E.J._Brill_1995._Islamic_History_and_Civilization._
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #1117 - October 10, 2016, 04:13 AM

    zeca, genealogies can be forged - during the Umayyad era, plenty of them WERE forged in order to cook up ancient pedigrees for recently-expedient alliances. The Qays and the Yemen were, of course, not political parties in the modern sense (as Patricia Crone has made clear) but they were, nonetheless, alliances made for the purpose of political gain. Crone documented several examples in another work, "Slaves on Horses".

    So I'd like to know more about when those genealogical links between the Khazraj and the Ghassan could have been agreed upon, and what the motive was for making those links. Otherwise, if those links are datable prior to Islam (as I tend to agree so far) Lecker's thesis seems plausible.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #1118 - October 10, 2016, 11:38 AM

    Thanks Zimriel.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #1119 - October 10, 2016, 01:42 PM

    The general theory that the northern Arabs seized power in connection with supporting the counter-attack of Heraclius, and that this was when Muhammad came to power, seems highly probable to me for many reasons.

    That said, Lecker strikes me as much too credulous about the reliability of genealogy and 'tribal' history/identity (he cites Goldziher's skepticism on this in a footnote, but rather quickly and facilely dismissed the problem).  Normally these are very difficult categories to rely upon, especially in largely illiterate societies.  Genealogy and group identity are one of the first things you see forged or created anew in the context of salvation history ... see the Bible, for example.  After all, if one 'wants' to be claim identity as part of a tribal identity, what's to stop one?  How many Americans claim to be 'part Cherokee'?  If you aren't American, you might be unfamiliar with this, but there's a rampant practice of white Americans claiming to be part Cherokee---for whatever reason this practice seems to have emerged in the 20th century, I assume driven by televised Westerns back in the day, and has no relation to reality.

    Traditionally, Islamic historians have put a great deal of emphasis on tribal identities, on the assumption that they existed as the sort of clear and discrete groups you find in the later literature, and that they were crucial social identities that rarely changed.  This seems very doubtful to me.  For example, the Khazraj, to my knowledge, are never mentioned in the Medina constitution, although many other tribes are.  Nor are any of the three supposed 'Jewish' tribes mentioned.  This is just about inconceivable if the Medina document has any authenticity.  If it does, then the standard tribal histories are wildly inaccurate about the tribal composition of Medina .... which I believe is probably the case. 

    Another problem is the suspicious name changes, i.e. the Khazraj 'used to' be called the Banu Qayla before Islam.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #1120 - October 11, 2016, 02:52 AM

    Amateur´s question:
    Reading Lecker´s article, I see pages and pages of dates, names and events from the first decades of 7 C and thus to my knowledge only mentioned in islamic tradition and hence having no solid historical proof. Am I correct in thinking this or am I totally mistaken?

    Thanks...
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #1121 - October 11, 2016, 10:36 AM

    Han Hsien Liew - The Caliphate of Adam: Theological Politics of the Qurʾānic Term Ḫalīfa

    http://www.academia.edu/23160697/The_Caliphate_of_Adam_Theological_Politics_of_the_Qurʾānic_Term_Ḫalīfa
    Quote
    This paper studies how medieval Sunnite Muslim exegetes from al-Ṭabarī (d. 310/923) to Ibn Kaṯīr (d. 774/1373) understood the Qurʾānic term ḫalīfa and other Ḫ.L.F-derived terms. While previous scholarship has examined how exegetes generally understood the term, this paper scrutinizes the exegetical commentaries (tafsīr) chronologically in order to discern the semantic and terminological shifts accompanying different commentaries over time. It demonstrates the importance of an intertextual approach in placing tafsīr literature in dialogue with writings on the caliphate in works of theology (kalām) and law (fiqh). Overall, the paper argues that the legal and theological development of the Sunnite theory of the caliphate provided exegetes with new clusters of terminology associated with the caliphate to enrich their commentaries on the Ḫ.L.F verses. This process was in turn catalyzed by the systematization of the caliphate discourse and the canonization of the four-caliphs thesis during the Sunnite Revival.

  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #1122 - October 11, 2016, 03:54 PM

    Reading Lecker´s article, I see pages and pages of dates, names and events from the first decades of 7 C and thus to my knowledge only mentioned in islamic tradition and hence having no solid historical proof. Am I correct in thinking this or am I totally mistaken?

    I don't know to be honest. I'm still not sure how far it's possible to find real historical information about the first half of the 7th century from the (much later) Islamic sources.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #1123 - October 11, 2016, 05:21 PM

    Thanks Zeca for your answer.

    But when reading such articles are we not rather studying the work of a specialist in the islamic tradition (like you could have a Greek mythology specialist) than the work of a historian?

    In a historian´s work I would expect much more emphasis on the sources of the info and the historicity of it. Like this it is quite impossible (for me at least) to judge if the conclusion is just another addition to the Islamic tradition or that it has actual historical value.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #1124 - October 11, 2016, 05:49 PM

    Yes, I think this is part of the problem for the non-specialist trying to read this kind of article. From my point of view it seems legitimate to argue that the tradition is passing down real historical information, but then the burden of proof should lie with the person putting forward the argument and not with the sceptics.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #1125 - October 11, 2016, 05:59 PM

    As a specialist, dont you think the failure to make a clear distinction between tradition and historical facts, ends up blurring the insights of specialists themselves?
    (I question this methodology from an exact science background)
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #1126 - October 11, 2016, 06:09 PM

    I'm definitely a non-specialist on early Islam. I think I'd agree about the apparent failure to make a clear distinction between tradition and historical facts.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #1127 - October 11, 2016, 06:22 PM

    If we have a look at the first page of Lecker´s article:
    http://www.academia.edu/24004218/Were_the_Ghass%C4%81nids_and_the_Byzantines_behind_Mu%E1%B8%A5ammads_hijra_in_Denis_Genequand_and_Christian_Robin_eds._Les_Jafnides_des_rois_arabes_au_service_de_Byzance_VIe_si%C3%A8cle_de_l_%C3%A8re_chr%C3%A9tienne_Paris_De_Boccard_2015_268_86

    The only date that I think is a historical fact is the start of Heraclius´campaign. All the rest is according to my knowledge Islamic tradition. Yet, no mention of this uncertainty (at least not in clear terms) is made.

    How can one make a clear argument this way? Can the specialists keep track like this of what is mythology and what is history? I doubt it.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #1128 - October 11, 2016, 07:13 PM

    Look at footnote 20 of the initial Lecker article that Zeca cites.  I quote:

    "Goldziher's sharp and no doubt justified criticism of the genealogists, and of Ibn al-Kalbi in particular, is more relevant to the ancient history of the Arabs than it is to the generations immediately preceding the advent of Islam.  At any rate, his harsh verdict should not discourage us from using and studying tribal genealogies and this was certainly not his intention.  For Medina the richness of the evidence assures us that the picture we have of its tribal genealogies is basically sound."

    That's his entire explanation.

    Well, that's settled then.  Although genealogical fabrication in Islamic tradition is acknowledged to be rampant, when it comes to Medina, because it's 'rich,' it's basically sound.  With that methodological discipline, one wonders how Islamic tradition could ever get anything wrong, because there's no source more 'rich' than the 600,000 hadith that Bukhari claims to have surveyed before selecting 6000 of them as 'valid.'  And what could be more 'rich' than the huge proliferation of fake isnads associated with the hadith?  In any other field of history, you'd say that such overwhelming 'richness' was a proof of rampant and uncontrolled fabrication, not of reliability.  But in Islamic Studies, 'sheer weight of documentation' is still taken by many scholars as an unimpeachable indicia of reliability.  This seems to reflect the idea that so much super-detailed documentation about the religion's origins can't possibly be wrong, even if it's incredibly late, and is part of what is acknowledged (even by the likes of Bukhari) to be a vast explosion of unreliable fabrication.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #1129 - October 11, 2016, 07:29 PM

    Thank you Zaotar for sharing your critical analysis.
    I am regularly reading these type of articles and it is as if Wansbrough and co never existed. How is this possible? These scholars are all academics from reputed universities. Is there a special type of science designed especially for Islamic studies? As an amateur, I think this is weird.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #1130 - October 11, 2016, 08:02 PM

    I think the historical side of Islamic Studies tends to suffer badly from lack of methodological rigor and a tendency to waffle uncritically about 'what must have been.'  It's easy to say that certain historical claims are broadly implausible or plausible (for example, the Byzantines were usually allied with NW Arabs against the Persians, so it's no big stretch to assume that was the case again with Heraclius), but the details are simply lacking.

    Contrast that with one of my favorite recent articles, which I don't think has been posted yet in this thread.  This is a brilliant and rigorous analysis of the transition between Ancient North Arabian devotional epigraphy and early Arabic devotional epigraphy.  IMO, it's a must read, bringing some superb new angles to bear on classic questions:

    https://www.academia.edu/28761420/The_Ancient_North_Arabian_and_Early_Islamic_Arabic_Graffiti_A_Comparison_of_Formal_and_Thematic_Features

    Good quote:  "It must be noted in this connection that, in the Arabic graffiti of the first two Islamic centuries, the references to the Prophet Muhammad are surprisingly rare and late.  Clearly the writers of the Arabic graffito, at least in the seventh century, did not share the concept of the Prophet Muhammad as such an important character as he came to be during the eighth–ninth centuries.  It should be added that the writers
    of the graffiti mention prophets other than Muhammad very often, which is a peculiar feature the exact significance of which is difficult to interpret."

    Among many things that I love about this article is that it doesn't conclude from this that there was no Muhammad, or that the Arab conquests did not help spread his religious ideas.  It just, quite accurately, points out that his historical personality does not seem to have been particularly important to the religious practice of the early Islamic era Arabs.  Professing belief in Muhammad didn't save you.  Allah saved you.

    The significance is indeed harder to interpret, since you could read this many ways.  For example, it is consistent with Shoemaker's thesis that Muhammad was expected to triumphantly conquer the Holy Land, and when he died, it was something of an embarrassing shock that people tried to move past.  But it's equally consistent with many other possibilities.  The one thing you can say for certain is that his charismatic authority doesn't seem to have been very important for the early believers after his death.  Given the dearth of early quranic inscriptions, probably the same is true about the Qur'an.  Arabian religion was, first and foremost, a popular and widespread devotion to Allah and securing the afterlife.  Muhammad and the Qur'an were sort of specialized subsets of that much broader practice.  Until they started making an epic revival in the late 7th century.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #1131 - October 11, 2016, 11:11 PM



    Personnally I see here a nth time attempt to adapt the incredible story of an unknown city (Mecca) to real history. As always, it's an epic failure.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #1132 - October 11, 2016, 11:34 PM

    The general theory that the northern Arabs seized power in connection with supporting the counter-attack of Heraclius, and that this was when Muhammad came to power, seems highly probable to me for many reasons.



    In my opinion the Iraqi war against their Persian masters (falsely started in 632 in the Islamic sources as established by P.Pourshariati but commencing in 628 as she demonstrated it)  has nothing to do with the Roman-Persian war started in 602. The Chronicle of Khuzistan is of great worth to comprehend the birth of this war which has nothing to do as well with a prophet based at 2000 km+ of al Hira. Even the Islamic sources are compelled to talk about an episode of this war before Islam because the souvenir was strong and cannot be "forgotten" or "islamized". This event was of course islamized as a "preparation" of the great conquest of Persia, but the agenda is so clear that it should convince only the Muslims and not a serious historian.

    Traditionally, Islamic historians have put a great deal of emphasis on tribal identities, on the assumption that they existed as the sort of clear and discrete groups you find in the later literature, and that they were crucial social identities that rarely changed.  This seems very doubtful to me.


    Yes, it is retro projection in the past of the present.


    For example, the Khazraj, to my knowledge, are never mentioned in the Medina constitution, although many other tribes are.  Nor are any of the three supposed 'Jewish' tribes mentioned.  This is just about inconceivable if the Medina document has any authenticity.  If it does, then the standard tribal histories are wildly inaccurate about the tribal composition of Medina .... which I believe is probably the case.  

    Another problem is the suspicious name changes, i.e. the Khazraj 'used to' be called the Banu Qayla before Islam.


    All of this should alert all historians in the field...
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #1133 - October 12, 2016, 12:00 AM

    Hello Antara,

    Interesting info! Can you be more specific on what this Chronicle of Khuzistan says about the period around 622 and hijra?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #1134 - October 12, 2016, 08:14 PM

     Chronicle of Khuzistan
    ANONYMOUS CHRONICLE  (ed. Guidi)
    Certain episodes taken from the Ekklesiastikai, that is Church Histories, and the Kosmostikai, that is, Secular Histories, from the death of Hormizd son of Khosro up to the end of the Persian monarchy.

    [REVOLT OF BAHRAM, 589-91]
    1.   Hormizd reigned twelve years.  He laid a heavy yoke on his nobles and
       upon the entire world.  One of his military commanders who had been sent by him to the residence of the Turks, and whose name was Warahran from Raziqaye [Rayy], rebelled against him and collected together many troops in preparation for war with the king.

    [KHOSRO'S FLIGHT]
    2.   Now when the nobles at the royal residence - who also disliked Hormizd - heard about Warahran's rebellion, they conspired together and deposed Hormizd, blinding him.  In his place they set Khosro his son.  When the news of this reached Warahran he was very angry - not for any love that he had for Hormizd, but because it was not he who had brought about the matter.  Accordingly he prepared his troops and got ready for battle with Khosro.  He set off and arrived to face Khosro who, seeing that Warahran's side was stronger than his own, fled before him, directing the steps of his impetuous haste on the southern road, that is to say, by Piroz Shabur [Anbar], ‘Anat, Hit and Kirkesion; and he went and took refuge with Maurice, the Byzantine Caesar.  Because he had left in flight, Mar Isho'yahb the Catholicos stayed behind and did not travel with him. Maurice greatly reproached Khosro for not being accompanied by the Patriarch of his kingdom, [p.161 all the more because Mar Isho'yahb of Arzon was a wise and skilled man.  So Khosro acquired a great hatred for the Catholicos for not accompanying him, and for a second   reason too, because he did not go out to receive him on the road, when he heard that Maurice had given him troops and that he had set out to return. Now the Catholicos stayed behind and did not go to receive the king because he was afraid of Warahran's wickedness, lest he destroy the Church and stir up persecution against the Christians.

    [KHOSRO'S RETURN]
    3. Maurice gave Khosro many troops, and they set off eastwards. When Warahran heard, he set off from Mahoze [Seleucia-Ktesiphon] with his forces, and fled to Adhorbaigan. Khosro met him with the Persian and Byzantine troops, and the Byzantines won the day, Warahran's side being defeated. Khosro then returned amidst great rejoicing, for it is said that there had appeared to Khosro the image of an old man holding his horse's bridle, and going into battle; when he returned from the battle and told his wife Shirin, she said to him, "This is Sabrisho', the bishop of Lashom".  This he stored in his mind, and remained silent.

    [BINDOI AND BISTAM]
    4.   At that time the brothers Bindoi and Bistam left prison, where they had been   confined by Hormizd; they were of great assistance to Khosro in that they   belonged to his mother's family.  He then sent Bistam to the residence of the Turks with a large army, while   Bindoi he left at court.  Because Bindoi used to reprove Khosro over state affairs, he planned to kill him, but Bindoi escaped, to go to his brother Bistam.  Now when he was passing through the region of Adhorbaigan, the local Marzban heard, and making him a banquet, caught him and dispatched him back to Khosro.  When his brother learnt this, he collected Turkish and Dailomite troops and came to Mahoze; but a Turk tricked him and killed him, sending his head [p.17] to Khosro. As for Bindoi, the king gave orders that all his limbs on the right side be out off, and he sent him to Belapat, where he had him crucified.  Bistam's head they hung round the neck of Shabur, the son of Warahran who had rebelled against him, and they made him ride on a camel around the king's residence.

    [DEATH OF ISHO'YAHB]
    5. Isho'yahb, the head of the Christians, was very wary of the king because of the great hatred that Khosro had gained for him for not travelling to Byzantine territory with him, and further by reason of the calumny of the Archiatros, Timothy of Nisibis.  After a short time the Patriarch went down to Hirta d-Tayyaye to see the king of the Tayyaye, Nu'man, who had been baptized and become a Christian; but when he reached the vicinity of Hirta, he fell ill and died, in a village called Beth Qushay.  When Nu'man's sister Hind heard, she went out with the priests and faithful of Hirta, and brought back the holy man's body in great state.
    Hind placed it in a monastery that she had built. Now the Church was without a leader for a period, and then a synod gathered at the king’s orders to elect a head. The king sent them a message saying, “Bring Sabrisho’ of Lashom, and appoint your head”. So they hastily brought him and made [him] their head. He was held in great honour all his days by the kind and his two Christian wives, Shirin the Aramean and Mary the Byzantine.

    [CONFLICT IN NISIBIS, GREGORY OF KASHKAR]
    6. In Nisibis the metropolitan was Gregory of Kashkar. Tongue cannot recount all the disturbances and quarrels that Satan cause to spring up between these two blessed men [Gregory and Sabrisho’]. Gregory had had as a predecessor in Nisibis for a short time Gabriel son of Rufinus, but he was driven out because he was deeply versed in the course of the stars and the zodiacal signs. They then seized on [p.18] and fetched Gregory, bishop of Kashkar. Now Nisibis, which is the same as Antiocheia Mygdoniae – being so called because of the gardens and parks in it – because it was on the borders between the Persians and the Byzantines, was the collecting ground from all over the place of quarrelsome louts and trouble-makers, all the more so, because of its renowned School. There the Exegete was Henana from Hadiab, and he found fault on certain matters with the universal  Exegete [Theodore of Mopuestia] in his commentaries, the zealous Gregory would not tolerate it. He also wanted to correct he clergy who led corrupt lives, as well as the rest of the faithful, but they refused to comply. A certain deacon, known as the Bar Tha’le [‘son of foxes’] was discovered sacrificing a white cock in a wood outside the city; [Gregory] summoned and punished him; he also exposed certain monks who lived in the vicinity of the Sinjar mountains [and were given to] foul activities, and who were Mesallians: these he drove off in every direction. From then on accusations against him from the people of Nisibis and from outside multiplied. The king sent for him and ordered him to reside in the monastery of Shahdost. Having shaken the dust off his feet at the gates of Soba [Nisibis], he then departed. Mar Sabrisho’ wanted to depose Gregory, but the bishops did not agree. The king then ordered him [Gregory] to return to his [original] home, so he went off and built a monastery in the region of Kashkar, at a place called Bazza d-nahrawatha; there he founded a monastery and brought many to the religious way of life. They say that after Gregory’s resignation, it was not longer given to Sabrisho’ to perform miracles as he had done previously.

    [REVOLT OF NISIBIS AND ITS SUPPRESSION]
    7. Nisibis then rebelled against Khosro. When the king heard of it he sent against them Nakhwergan, a royal official, with [p.19] a large army, and elephants. With him, too, he sent Mar Sabrisho’. The town’s inhabitants closed the gates before him, but then, thanks to the inducements of the Catholicos, the Nakhwergan’s oath that he would not take retribution against them, they opened them for him. Once he had entered, however, he went back on his promise, seized all the nobles and tortured them, plundering their houses and destroying all their property; finally he put them to death in various different ways. Thus Gregory’s curse upon them came into effect, and Mar Sabrisho’ himself was aware of this.

    [GABRIEL OF SINJAR]
    8. There flourished at this time Gabriel of Sinjar, drostbad and archiatros. He was held in favour by the king for the following reason: he had let blood from Shirin’s arm, and she had had a son, who she called Merdanshah. She had not previously had any children. Now, although Gabriel had formerly been a heretic, he now wanted to be numbered among the orthodox; but because he had divorced his legal wife, who was a ‘confessor’ of noble birth, and had married two pagan wives with who he conducted himself in a pagan way, the Catholicos urged him to divorce his pagan wives and take back his legal one, but he refused. He then returned and rejoined the heretics, bringing many evils to bear on members of our side.

    [KHOSRO AND NU’MAN III]
    9. It is said that when Khosro fled before Warahran to Byzantine territory, he bade Nu’man, king of the Tayyaye, to accompany him, but he refused. He also asked him for a thoroughbred horse, but he failed to give him one. Furthermore, he sought for Nu’man’s daughter, who was exceedingly beautiful, but Nu’man would not consent, sending him a message saying, “I will not give my daughter to a man who is married in a bestial fashion”. All this Khosro stored up hidden in his heart. When he [p.20] had respite from wars, he wanted to be avenged on his enemies, amongst whom was Nu’man. So one day he invited Nu’man to a banquet, and instead of bread he laid before him husks of straw, at which Nu’man was greatly embittered. He therefore sent to his fellow tribesmen, the Ma’dd, and they took captives from, and ravaged, many districts belonging to Khosro, even reaching the ‘Arab. On hearing this Khosro was much disturbed, and he tried to induce him by all sorts of means to come to him, but he refused. One of Nu’man’s interpreters who lived on the island of Derin, whose name was Ma’na, made a secret pact with Khosro, and he told Nu’man “The king likes you very much, and he has sworn on the Gospel that he will not harm you”. Nu’man’s wife, Mawiyah, also told him, “It is filling that you should die with the title of king, rather than be driven out and stripped of the royal title”. Thus when [Nu’man] arrived at the royal court, [Khosro] did not kill him, but he ordered him to stay at his court. Later, as the story goes, he killed this glorious confessor by poison.

    [REVOLT OF PHOKAS, ESCAPE OF THEODOSIOS, FIGHTING AROUND DARA]
    10. Then there rebelled against Maurice, the Byzantine king, a certain man called Phokas who killed him, his children and his wife. One of [Maurice’s] children, called Theodosios, however, escaped and came to Khosro, by who he was received in great honour. The king gave orders that the Catholicos bring him to the church, and that the royal crown be placed on the altar, and then be place don his head, after the custom of the Byzantines. Then Khosro gave him an army and he set off against the Byzantines. Then Khosro gave him an army and he set off against the Byzantines. Phokas also sent many troops which encamped against Beth Washi, beyond the city of Dara. There they fought with Theodosios and routed his forces. [Theodosios] sent message to Khosro saying, “ I have not the strength to stand against the Byzantines”, so Khosro left Mahoze with large forces, in winter time, and reached Byzantine territory, [p.21] having with him the Catholicos. Phoka’s forces went out against them and the troops fell on each other. Many were killed on both sides, and they even threw a lassoe round Khosro, but one of his warriors, called Mushkan, managed to cut it. On the next day the battle lines were drawn up, and the Byzantines were worsted by the Persians. The king then fought against Dara, building ramps and making tunnels under the wall, and starting up fires. Thus by various means they breached the walls, and blood was spilt like water in the city. The bishop of Dara slashed the vein called ‘the universal vein in the body’ with a metal implement, and threw himself on to his bed, where he died from loss of blood. He did this because he was afraid of the [Persian] king who had said, “I will make him die forty deaths”. From that time onward Khosro had the upper hand [this] Byzantine territory. Dara was taken in the fourteenth year of Khosro.

    [NATHANIEL, BISHOP OF SHAHRZUR]
    11. After the king had fought against Dara, a Radh went down to the churches of Shiarzur and devastated them. When the faithful, along with Nathaniel their bishop, saw this they did not put up with it, but caused trouble for the Radh and drove him off. Whereupon he came to Nisibis, to Khosro, and upset him saying, “You are fighting for the Christians, and here am I, driven out by Christians”. The king then, without making any investigation, sent for Nathaniel bishop of Shiarzur, and ordered him to be imprisoned for six years, after which he crucified him. Although Khosro made a pretence of showing love for the Christians because of Maurice, he was really a hater of our people.

    [DEATH OF SABRISHO’]
    12. Mar Sabrisho’ fell seriously ill in Nisibis, and the king sent to him demanding that he release Gabriel from his anathema, but he refused. He made a will, which he sealed and gave orders that [his body] be brought to his monastery. How the people of Nisibis wanted [p.22] to lay his body in their church, but the king refused them when he heard of the Catholicos’s own orders, and his disciples laid his body on a camel and transported it to his monastery.

    [CATHOLICOS GREGORY I]
    13. Then Gregory of Porath was made Catholicos, through the contrivance of Shirin, because he came from her birthplace, even though all the members of the church, along with the king, wanted Gregory of Kashkar, who had been driven out of Nisibis. During his [time of] office Gregory acted in an unseemly fashion. He lived a few years, and then died.

    [CATHOLICOSATE VACANT]
    14. Because of Gabriel [of Sinjar’s] deviousness and his hatred for the church, the church remained for a period without any leader. And even the king became impatient with the accusations against Gregory. To govern the church they appointed Mar Aba, the archdeacon, from Ktesiphon, an upright and wise man. The church was a long time without a head. Gabriel of Sinjar was full of threats against the orthodox, and he ejected our people from the monastery of Mar Pethion and the monastery of Shirin, as well as from others, settling in their place men from the party of the heretics.

    [YONADAB OF ADIABENE AND OTHER NOTABLES]
    15. There flourished at that time in the church Yonadab of Hadiab who, thanks to the familiarity he had with God and his friendship with the king, received official letters from the king giving him authority over the entire mountain where the men of [the monastery of Mar] Mattai, the corrupters of Mosul, lived. But when he had obtained from the king his desire to expel them and drive them out in every direction, Gabriel’s craftiness prevented him carrying this out. There also flourished Barhadbeshabba of Holwan, famous for his writings. There also excelled in a virtuous way of life Shubhalmaran of Karka d-Beth Slokh, Afrahnoi of the Zabe region, and Gabriel of Nahargul, a great man who performed miracles.

    [THE THEOLOGICAL DISPUTE BEFORE KHOSRO]
    16. Then Gabriel stirred the king up against us, with the result that we came for a disputation with members of this party. Since there was no Catholicos in the church then, the following came down of their own accord to take part in the disputation: Yonadab metropolitan of Hadiab, Shubhalmaran of Karka d-Beth Slokh, Giwargis from mount Izla and the bishop of Narargul, and Sergios of Kashkar from Tel Pahhare. These men held a disputation in the king’s court, and Gabriel and his party were worsted, while we orthodox won the day. The king rebuked Gabriel [and told him] to cease from this [form of] harrassment, but he did not listen; instead, he went on bitterly reviling the orthodox.

    [MARTYRDOM OF GIWARGIS]
    17. [Gabriel] also accused Giwargis of Izla before the king, [saying] that “he has left the Persian religion and become a Christian, thus insulting both Hormizd and yourself”. As a result the king sent and had him imprisoned for a year; then he had him crucified at Behardashir, in the middle of the fodder market. The faithful managed to seize his body and they laid it in the church of Mar Sergio of Mabrakhta.

    [YAZDIN]
    18. Now at that time Yazdin from Karka in Beth Garmai was well known at the king’s place of residence. This man was the advocate of the church, like Constantine and Theodosius, and he built churches and monasteries all over the place, modelled on the heavenly Jerusalem. He was is great favour with Khosro, just like Joseph in Pharoah’s eyes, and even more so, with the result that he was famous in both the Persian and the Byzantine kingdom. It is said that Yazdin every day, from one morning to the next, sent the king 1000 staters.

    [BABAI OF IZLA AND BABAI OF NISIBUS]
    19. At that time Mar Babai of Izla also shone out for his virtuous way of life. After Rabban Mar Abraham of Kashkar he caused that monastery [of Mar Abraham] to flourish. Many hard-working brethren went forth from that monastery, I mean [people like] Mar Jacob who founded the monastery of Beth ‘Abe, and Mar [p.24] Elia who built the monastery on the Tigris by Hesna ‘Ebraya, and Mar Babai, son of Nisibene parents: this blessed man left all that he possessed and went up and became a solitary in the monastery of Mar Abraha, but finally left there to go and himself build a monastery in the vicinity of the monastery [of Mar Abraham]; there a great number of brethren resided with him. Although [Babai of Nisibis] was of a well-known family in the world, yet he chose to engage in the hard labours of ascenticism; his manner of life surpassed description, and when Yazdin heard about him he came to see him. When he had seen him in extreme asceticism, with his body mortified, Yazdin was dismissed by the saint as he stood on his feet. Some time afterwards Yazdin brought him a gold cross in which were embedded a lot of valuable jacynths and emeralds, in the centre of which there was part of the wood of our Lord and Saviour’s Cross, along with other effects for the adornment of his monastery.

    [THE TWO BABAIS]
    20. Satan, who loves strife, caused much harmful antagonism to spring up between these two fortified towers of religion, not stopping or ceasing until the very end of their contests. The followers of Mar Babai the Great did not allow anyone to enter their monastery until he had anathematized the virtuous Mar Babai of Nisibis, calling him ‘Babai the Small’. We have mentioned this briefly because the way of life of them both was more open and bright than the sun itself, and their many writings testify to their [true] confession and to the purity they had. Mar Babai the Great composed numerous writings, disputations, and commentaries, while Mar Babai of Nisibis wrote books on the way of life of solitaries, much admired by their audience, as well as homilies on repentance, composed in verse.

    [CAMPAIGNS AGAINST THE WEST, CAPTURE OF JERUSALEM]
    21. [p.25] Khosro then gathered his troops and entered Byzantine territory. He appointed two generals, and sent them to the west where they took Marde, Amid, Mayfarqat and Edessa. They constructed bridges over the Euphrates and crossed it in the direction of Mabbug. One of the generals, whose name was Shahrbaraz, made straight for Jerusalem, and he endeavoured to get them to open the gates to him, but they refused; accordingly he made ready for battle against it, building ramps. He breached all the walls and entered it, seizing the bishop and the city officials, torturing them [in order to get hold of] the wood of the Cross and the contents of the treasury. Because divine might had shattered the Byzantines in face of the Persians as a result of their shedding the innocent blood of Maurice and his children, God left no place secret which they did not show the Persians; they also showed them the wood of the Cross which lay concealed in a vegetable garden. The [Persians] made a large number of chests and sent it along with many other objects and precious things to Khosro. When these reached Yazdin, he held a great celebration and, with the king’s permission, took part of [the Cross], sending on the rest to the king. Out of respect the king deposited it, along with the sacred vessels, in a new treasury that he had built in Ktesiphon.

    [CAPTURE OF ALEXANDRIA]
    22. Then the Persian forces struck for Alexandria, sealed by walls and with the waters of the Nile surrounding it; it also had strong gates, and had been built by Alexander on the advice of Aristotle his master. They fought against it for a time, and failed to take it; then a man called Peter, who had done down to Alexandria from Beth Qatraye as a young man to be trained in philosophy, went out to them and told the commander of the Persian forces, “I will hand the city over to you”. Now this Peter had found one day [p.26] in the city archives the following written at the end of a book: “When Alexandria faces distress from the western gate opposite the sea, it will be taken”. SO the Persians requisitioned some small fishing boats and embarked on them. In the early morning, while it was still dark, they joined with the fishermen in the fishing vessels, and so entered the city. Killing the watchmen by the gates, they opened up for their companions and proclaimed victory for Khosro on the walls.      
    Terror seized hold of everyone, and the wind even carried off to the Persian camp a fleet of boats which had been loaded with treasures belonging to the church and to the nobles, in readiness to get it away by sea. All this was sent to Khosro, along with the keys of the city. When the messenger bearing the keys reached Yazdin he made replicas of them in gold that very night and dispatched them to the king, in order to gain even greater favour with the king.

    [JEWISH ACTIONS IN JERUSALEM]
    23. When Jerusalem was taken the Jews in their hatred for us set fire to all the churches there, and it was during this conflagration that the church of the Resurrection was destroyed; it had been built by Constantine and Helena, and was adorned with priceless marbles and mosaics. The descendants of the crucifiers also approached the Persian commander and told him that all the gold and silver and the treasures of Jerusalem were placed beneath the tomb of Jesus. Their crafty design was to destroy the place of the burial. When he yielded to them they dug some three cubits around it, and discovered a casket with the inscription: “This casket belongs to Joseph the Councillor” – the man who provided the tomb for the body of Jesus. When the commander heard about the trick of the Jews, he drove them off cruelly. On hearing all this, Yazdin informed the king, who gave orders that the property of the Jews should be confiscated, and they themselves be crucified. As for Joseph’s [p.27] body, he himself [i.e. Joseph] had given orders prior  to his death that it be laid beside the tomb of our Lord.

    [YAZDIN’S BUILDING ACTIVITY]
    24. Then Yazdin requested the king that he might rebuild the churches of Jerusalem, and he sent no small quantity of money and restored them to all their beauty. He also built churches and monasteries all over the place.

    [THE PERSIAN COMMANDER AT LYDDA]
    25. The Persian commander also heard that the shrine of Mar Giwargis [George] of Lydda contained great riches, so he sent along the major part of his soldiers, but they were unable to enter it, being prevented by divine power. Finally the commander himself went in a great rage and, arriving at the door of the church, in a tyrannical manner he spurred on his horse to enter it. The horse’s hooves then stuck to the ground, and it could not move forwards or backwards. God thus showed him that, even though he had allowed him to enter Jerusalem, it was not because his [God’s] power was weak, but in order to punish the Byzantines who used to say that Khosro was unable to gain control of Jerusalem. [The commander] made a vow, [saying] “If I am preserved alive, I will make a silver model of the church of Mar Giwargis”. This indeed he did, and that wonderful model hangs in the church to this very day.

    [HERACLIUS’S CAMPAIGNS]
    26. Subsequently, while Khosro was residing at Dazqarta d-Malka, the Caesar Heraclius gathered numerous forces and came down against him. Khosro was greatly agitated and in fear of him. Heraclius came down by the northern regions, devastating, ravaging and taking captives from them all; and when he approached Dasqarta, Khosro fled from before him and came to Mahoze. It is said that when he wanted to flee from Dasqarta he heard the sound of a semantron, and in his agitation he struck [p.28] his side and his bowels were loosened, at which Shirin said, “Fear not, deity”, at which he replied “How am I a deity, seeing that I am being pursued by a priest?” He said this because he had heard that Heraclius had received the grade of priesthood, and he swore, “If I win, I shall not leave a church or a semantron in all my realm”. The fear and trembling that seized him at the sound of the semantron was the result of his thinking that the Byzantines, who carried semantra, had reached Dasqarta. [Heraclius] took all the royal treasure, made captives and devastated many regions, whereupon he turned back.

    [REBELLION OF SHAMTA AND NIHORMIZD]
    27. Then a number of troops rebelled against Khosro, and Shamta, Yazdin’s son, and Nihormizd rose up and made Khosro’s son, Sheroi, king. Many troops joined him. When Khosro heard, pangs seized him and deathly pain came upon him; he abandoned his kingdom, fleeing by night, taking with him two young boys from his household, who accompanied him. They escaped and hid in the royal gardens, but when [Khosro] saw that the troops had caught them up, he and the boys wept over each other, and he put his hand on the enclosure wall to jump over it to the other side and so escape, but in his fright he failed to get over, and so was caught. They brought him to the house of a man named Mihraspend were they confined him, giving him just enough food to keep him alive.

    [DEATH OF KHOSRO]
    28. Then Nihormzid and Shamta requested the king Sheroi, Khosro’s son, that they might kill Khosro, and on his giving them permission they went into the place where he was confined, and Shamta raised his sword to strike him. Khosro wept in front of him and said, “What wrong have I done to you that you should kill me?” So Shamta did not strike; but Nihormizd hit him on the shoulder with an axe, repeating the blow on the other shoulder. Sheroi his son mourned over him [p.29] and he was buried in the tomb of the kings. Shamta did this because Khosro had plundered the house of Yazdin his father when he died, and had brought many afflictions on Yazdin’s wife, while Nihormzid acted thus because [Khosro] had killed his father. Khosro son of Hormizd reigned thirty eight year.

    [SHEROI’S REIGN]
    29. There was peace and tranquility for all the Christians during the days of his son Sheroi, but the king’s nobles, together with Shamta, made a plot and killed Khosro’s children, including Mardanshah, the son of Shirin.

    [FALL OF SHAMTA]
    30. Subsequently Shamta was accused before [the king] of seeking to seize the kingdom. Having sent for him, he imprisoned him. Then Shamta escaped, and they set off and found him in Hirta of the Tayyaye. The king had his right hand cut off, and he put him in prison.

    [ISHO’YAHB II]
    31. Over the church Isho’yahb of Gdala was appointed head. As a young man he had taken a wife, but this did not prevent him being appointed bishop of Balad, and then finally exalted to the catholicosate. He was adorned with every virtue.

    [DEATH OF SHEROI]
    32. As for Sheroi, once summer had arrived and he had set off for Media, as was the royal custom, he was overtaken by an intestinal illness and he died on the journey. He reigned for eight months.

    [REIGN OF ARDASHIR]
    33. Then they made his son Ardashir king in his place – he was the child of Anzoi the Byzantine – despite the fact that he was young boy. When one of the Persian generals called Feruhan, who had joined the king Heraclius, heard that the child Ardashir had come to the throne, he prepared Byzantine and Persian troops and came to Mahoze, defeated the Persian army and slew Ardashir. He removed Yazdin’s son Shamta from prison and crucified him in from of the gate of the church of Beth Narqos. This was because he had once insulted [p.30] this general'’ daughter. [Feruhan] dismissed the Byzantine [soldiers] who had come with him, and they went back to Heraclius. With them he sent for Heraclius the wood of the Lord’s Cross that they had brought from Jerusalem, and which had been kept in the Persian treasury, as well as boundless other gifts.

    [REIGN OF FERUHAN]
    34. Ardashir reigned one year and six months. This general Feruhan, who killed Ardashir, reigned forty days, and then one day as he left Mahoze one of his warriors struck him from behind with a spear and he died. His [body] was trampled on by all the people.

    [REIGN OF BURAN, EMBASSY TO HERACLIUS]
    35. The Persians then made Buran, Sheroi’s wife, sovereign. When she came to the throne she wisely sent the Catholicos Mar Isho’yahb to Heraclius to make peace for her with him. He was accompanied by Quryaqos [Cyriacus] of Nisibis, Gabriel of Karka in Beth Garmai, and Marutha of Gustra. They were received amidst great joy by the king Heraclius, and he did all that they wanted. Buran, Sheroi’s wife, who ruled over the Persians, was eventually strangled.

    [REIGN OF YAZDGARD III]
    36. They then made Yazdgard, of royal stock, king in the city of Istakhr. With him the Persian empire came to an end. He set off and came to Mahoze where he appointed a general called Rustam. Then God brought the Ishmaelites against them like sand on the sea shore; their leader was Muhammad, and neither walls nor gates, armour or shield, withstood them: they gained control over the entire land of the Persians. Yazdgard sent against them countless troops, but the Tayyaye routed them all, and even killed Rustam. Yazdgard shut himself up inside the walls of Mahoze, and finally escaped [p.31] by flight. He reached the country of the Huzaye and Maronaye, where he ended his life.

    [ARAB CONQUESTS]
    37. The Tayyaye gained control of Mahoze and all the territory. They also came to Byzantine territory, plundering and ravaging the entire region of Syria. Heraclius, the Byzantine king, sent armies against them, but the Tayyaye killed more than 100,000 of them. When the Catholicos Isho’yahb saw that Mahoze had been devastated by the Tayyaye and that they had carried off its gates to Aqula, and that those who remained there were wasting away from hunger, he left and took up residence in Beth Garmai, in the town of Karka.

    [CYRIACUS OF NISIBIS]
    38. Quryaqos of Nisibis passed away, and out of their hatred towards him, the citizens of Nisibis accused his disciples before the Emir of the city. He sent and imprisoned them, and Quryaqos’s cell was plundered, as was the metropolitan treasury of Nisibis. In Quryaqos’s cell they found objects and all sorts of woven garments, silks and gold lampstands, such as are quite unsuitable for disciples of Christ.

    [FURTHER TROUBLE AT NISIBIS]
    39. Then Mar Isho’yahb the Catholicos sent for Barsauma the Exegete of Hirta, and made him metropolitan in the monastery of Mar Sergios outside the city, [hoping] that they would make peace with him and accept him, but they would not.

    [MAREMMEH SUCCEEDS ISHO’YAHB II]
    40. Mar Isho’yahb held the patriarchate for eighteen years. His body was laid in the martyrion of the church of Karka in Beth Garmai. Maremmeh was appointed as patriarch over the church; he came from the region of Arzon, his village being Qozimas, and he had been appointed metropolitan of Beth Lapat. He had put on the monastic [p.32] habit in the monastery of Mar Abraham of Izla; he was greatly acclaimed both during his solitary life and as metropolitan, and when he had been place on the candelabra of the catholicosate he was held in honour by all the leaders of the Ishmaelites.

    [DISCOVERY OF RELICS IN A JEWISH VILLAGE]
    41. They say that there was a village entirely inhabited by Jews, situated between Mahoze and Hirta, called Mata M<h>asya. One day when a student was passing there, one of the descendants of the crucifiers took him and brought him to his house, where he confined him for no short time grinding the cornmill. Then a Christian was sent to the village by the king on some business or other, and by God’s providence he went in and lodged at that very house. When the student saw him he cried out, and the Christian seized the owner of the house, who revealed to him the whole truth, saying, “If you forgive me this misdeed, I will let you into a secret about a splendid treasure”. So he showed him a place in his house where the bodies of the young men Hnanya and his companions lay. Thus, through the affair of the student, God provided for the discovery of the treasured bodies of those blessed men.
    It is said that one day when Maremmeh was travelling from Mahoze to Hirta he happened to pass the night in that same village, and out of their respect for him they received him in great honour.

    [MAREMMEH’S ACTIVITIES]
    42. This Maremmeh built the church of the monastery of Mar Sergios of Mabrakhta that had burnt down, adorning it with all kinds of decoration. This leader excelled in supreme virtues.
    For Beth Lapat he anointed and sent as shepherd Sergios bishop of Nahargul, an excellent and upright man. Maremmeh also went up to Nisibis to make peace between its inhabitants and their metropolitan, but they would not submit. [p.33] He then sent for Isaac bishop of Arzon and appointed him over them. He was a chaste and virtuous man, and all the days of his life he did not eat any food [lit. bread] from the church of Nisibis, or have anything to do with its property, but he brought all that he needed for himself and his disciples from his own district.

    [A JEWISH FALSE MESSIAH]
    43. At that time a certain Jew came forth from Beth Aramaye, from a village called Pallughta, where the Euphrates waters are divided up to irrigate the land, and he said that the messiah had come. He collected together weavers, barbers and fullers, some 400 men in all, who set fire to three churches, and killed and local governor. Then the army came from ‘Aqola against them and slew them, their wives and children. Their leader was crucified in his own village.

    [DISCOVERY OF SOME MANICHAEANS]
    44. Again, in the region of Behqawad, at a village called Shatru, some Manichaeans were caught. People say that they used to confine a man in a house from the beginning of the year, underground, feeding him the whole year on whatever he desired, and then they killed him as a sacrifice to demons, after which they used his head for divination and sorcery for the whole year. Each year they would slaughter one person. They also used to bring in a virgin whom no man had known, and they would all sleep with her; the child that was born as a result the immediately boiled until its flesh and bones were like oil, when they would pound it in a mortar and work in flour, making little cakes. They would make everyone who joined their [sect] eat one of these cakes, and he would never deny Mani. By divine agency they were all arrested, thanks to a student whom they wanted to seize but who escaped. As a result they were crucified, together with some prostitutes [p.34] who were held in confinement by them, and with whom they fornicated. In all there were some seventy people.

    [DEATH OF MAREMMEH, CONTEMPORARY BISHOPS]
    45. Maremmeh held office for three and a half years, after which he died. His body was laid in the monastery of Mar Sergios of Mabrakhta.
    The following metropolitans and bishops flourished at that time: Mar Sabrisho’ of Karka who lived off a diet of dried pulses all his life; Isaac of Nisibis, Sabrisho’ of Hirta, Yazdpanah of Kashkar, Aristos of Nahargul, Moshe of Nineveh, Yohannan of Zabe, Abrisho’ of Tirhan, and Sergios of Beth Lapat.

    [ELIAS, METROPOLITAN OF MERV]
    46. Elias, metropolitan of Merv, converted large numbers of Turks and other peoples. Merv is a river after which the town and district are named. People say that it is twelve parasangs across, and inside the outer wall there are towns and many fortresses, with wheat and barley, gardens and parks. It was built by Alexander, son of Philip; he called it Alexandria. When he had conquered and subjugated many nations in the east, he stated to go back home, but was assassinated, by means of poison, by his own servants by the river Euphrates, at a place called Be Niqya, in the territory of Babylon. He reigned twelve years and six months.
    It is told concerning this Elias, metropolitan of Merv, that when he was travelling round the area just inside the outer boundaries, he was met by a petty king on his way to fight with another king. After Elia had urged him at length to desist from war, the king said to him, “If you show me a miracle such as the priests of my gods show, then I will believe in your God” [p.35]  The king gave orders to the demon-worshipping priests who were with him to invoke the demons they worshipped. Immediately the air grew dark with clouds, with incessant wind, thunder and lightening. Then Elia was stirred by divine power, made the sign of the heavenly cross, and stopped that hallucination which the rebellious demons had confected, and all of a sudden it was completely obliterated. Then the king, having seen what the blessed Elia had performed, fell down and did reverence to him. Both he and his entire encampment believed, and [Elia] took them down to a river and baptized them all. Having established them with priests and deacons, he returned home.

    [CITIES FOUNDED BY SELEUCUS AND OTHERS]
    47. Seleucus reigned thirty two years, and he built Antioch, Laodicaea, Seleucia, Apamaea, Edessa – which is the same as Urhay – and Beroea, that is Haleb.
    The town now called Babylon was built by Semiramis, but the old Babylon is where the Tower was built. Ninos, son of Belos, built Erekh (that is, Edessa), and Akhar (that is, Nisibis), and Kalyah (that is, Ktesiphon), and Kalah (that is, Hatra of Sanatrug). He also built Nineveh and Rehoboth.

    [HORMIZDAN HOLDS OUT AGAINST THE ARABS]
    48. At the time of which we have been speaking, when the Tayyaye conquered all the territory of the Persians and the Byzantines, they also entered and overran Beth Huzaye, conquering all the strong towns, that is to say, Beth Lapat, Karka d-Ledan, and the citadel Shushan. There remained only Shush and Shustra, which were extremely well fortified; while of the Persians only Yazdgard and one of his generals, called Hormizdan the Mede, remained to take a stand against the Tayyaye. He collected together troops and held Shush and Shustra. This Shustra is very extensive in its situation, and is well protected [p.36] by mighty rivers and canals, which surround it on every side like moats. One of the [canals] was called Ardahshiragan, after Ardashir who dug it, while another, which crossed it, was called Semiramis, after the queen. Another was called Darayagan, after Darius. The largest of all was a mighty torrent coming down from the northern mountains.

    [ABU MUSA]
    49. Then a Tay general called Abu Musa went up against the Mede Hormizdan. It was he who built Bosra to settle the Tayyaye, at the point where the Tigris flows into the great sea, situated between cultivated land and the desert; just as Sa’d, son of [Abu] Waqqas had built as another place for the Tayyaye to live the city ‘Aqola, named Kufa, after the bend of the Euphrates.

    [FALL OF SHUSTRA]
    50. When Abu Musa went up against Hormizdan, the latter devised ways of delaying the Tayyaye engaging him until he had collected an army, sending message to Abu Musa that he should desist from taking captives and laying waste, and that he himself would send whatever tribute they imposed on him. Matters stayed like this for two years, and then, trusting in the strength of his walls, Hormizdan broke the peace between them, and slew the men who served as ambassadors between them. One of these was Giwargis, bishop of Ulay. He also imprisoned Abraham, metropolitan of Porath. He sent numerous troops against the Tayyaye, but they routed them all, and the Tayyaye dashed in and beseiged Shush, taking it after a few days. They killed all the distinguished citizens, and seized the house called the House of Mar Daniel, taking the treasure that was kept there, which had been preserved on the king’s orders ever since the days of Darius and Cyrus. They also broke open and took off a silver chest in which a mummified corpse was laid; according to many [p.37] it was Daniel’s, but others held that it belonged to king Darius. They also beseiged Shustra, fighting for two years in order to take it. Then a man from Qatar who lived there became friends with someone who had a house on the walls, and the two of them conspired together, and went out to Tayyaye, telling them, “If you give us a third of the spoil of the city, we will let you into it”. They made an agreement between each other, and they dug tunnels inside under the walls, letting in the Tayyaye, who thus took Shustra, spilling blood there as it was water. They killed the Exegete of the city and the bishop of Hormizd Ardahsir, along with the rest of the students, priests and deacons, shedding their blood in the very [church] sanctuary. Hormizdan himself they took alive.

    [KHALID’S CAMPAIGNS IN THE WEST]
    51. Afterwards a man called Khalid came from the Tayyaye and went to the West, taking the districts and towns as far as the ‘Arab. The Byzantine king Heraclius heard, and sent a large army against them, under a commander called a Sakellarios; but the Tayyaye defeated them, destroying more than 100,000 Byzantines, and killing their commander. They also killed Isho’dad, bishop of Hirta, who was there staying with ‘Abdamshih who was undertaking an embassy between the Tayyaye and the Byzantines. The Tayyaye thus gained control of all the territory of Syria and Palestine. They wanted to enter Egypt too, but they were unable to do so, because the boundary was guarded but the Patriarch of Alexandria with a large and strong army: he had blocked all the entrances and exits to the region, building walls along the Nile bank everywhere. Only with difficulty, owing to their height, were the Tayyaye able to enter and take the land of Egypt, the Thebaid, and Africa.

    [DEATH OF HERACLIUS]
    52. The king Heraclius [p.38] went up to the capital, fell sick and died as a result of the grief that dominated him over the Byzantine disaster. He reigned, together with his son, twenty eight years.

    [SOURCE OF THE ISHMAELITE VICTORY]
    53. The victory of the sons of Ishmael, who overpowered and subdued these two strong empires, came from God; over Constantinople, however, he did not yet give him control. Hence the victory belongs to him.

    [THE KA’BA]
    54. On the subject of the Dome of Abraham, we have been unable to discover what it is, except that, because the blessed Abraham grew rich in property, and wanted to get away from the envy of the Canaanites, he chose to dwell in distant and spacious parts of the desert; since he lived in tents, he built that place for the worship of God, and for the offering of sacrifices. It took its present name from what its [function] had been, since the memory of the place was preserved with the generations of the tribe; it was no new thing for the Tayyaye to worship there, but goes back to antiquity, to their early days, in that they show honour to the father of the head of their people.

    [SOME ARAB TOWNS]
    55. Hasor, which Scripture calls “head of the kingdoms”, belongs to the Tayyaye, while Medinah is named after Midian, Abraham’s fourth son by Qentura; it is also called Yathrib. And Dumat Gandal [belongs to them], and the territory of the Hagaraye, rich in water, palm trees and fortified buildings. The territory of Hatta, situated by the sea in the vicinity of the Islands [Peninsula] of Qatar, is rich in the same way; it is also thickly vegetated with various kinds of plants. The region of Mazon also resembles it; it too lies by the sea, and contains a territory of more than 100 parasangs. [So] too the territory of Yamama, in the middle of the desert, and the territory of Tawf, and the city of [p.39] Hirta, which had been settled by king Mundar, surnamed “the warrior”; he was sixth in the line of the Ishmaelite kings.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #1135 - October 12, 2016, 09:56 PM

    Great chronicle.  Let this infamous episode never be forgotten:

    [DISCOVERY OF SOME MANICHAEANS]
    44. Again, in the region of Behqawad, at a village called Shatru, some Manichaeans were caught. People say that they used to confine a man in a house from the beginning of the year, underground, feeding him the whole year on whatever he desired, and then they killed him as a sacrifice to demons, after which they used his head for divination and sorcery for the whole year. Each year they would slaughter one person. They also used to bring in a virgin whom no man had known, and they would all sleep with her; the child that was born as a result the immediately boiled until its flesh and bones were like oil, when they would pound it in a mortar and work in flour, making little cakes. They would make everyone who joined their [sect] eat one of these cakes, and he would never deny Mani. By divine agency they were all arrested, thanks to a student whom they wanted to seize but who escaped. As a result they were crucified, together with some prostitutes [p.34] who were held in confinement by them, and with whom they fornicated. In all there were some seventy people.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #1136 - October 12, 2016, 10:23 PM

    Indeed very interesting chronicle! First time I read this....
    Has it been commented in a scientific article somewhere? Is there more info on what this means for the history of early islam?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #1137 - October 12, 2016, 10:56 PM

    ^There's this, which I haven't read as yet:

    Chase Robinson - The conquest of Khuzistan: a historiographical reassessment

    https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:adc55a47-98c2-4830-afc3-8da37fbf87c0/datastreams/ATTACHMENT01
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #1138 - October 12, 2016, 11:31 PM

    Michael Philip Penn - When Christians first met Muslims: a sourcebook of the earliest Syriac writings on Islam
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #1139 - October 13, 2016, 08:27 AM

    Ian David Morris reading Peter Webb:

    https://mobile.twitter.com/iandavidmorris/status/786320503191408640

    https://mobile.twitter.com/iandavidmorris/status/786663093183152128
  • Previous page 1 ... 36 37 3839 40 ... 368 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »