67
780s to translate Syriac documents into Chinese, and to recopy and emend old Chinese manuscripts to promote the new image. Adam, the composer of the Sian tablet inscription, was behind this campaign. A seventh-century imperial decree and two early eighth-century Chinese texts were emended, and at least thirty-five seventh-century Syriac texts were translated into Chinese, to conform to the new style. He nearly succeeded in eliminating all traces of the old identity. Indeed, if Hsüan-tsung's decree of 745 had not been preserved, he could only be shown to have tampered with the text of a single imperial decree, T'ai-tsung's decree of 638. As it is, there is evidence that his revisionism went much further.
Much of the argument in this section will rely on taking Hsüan-tsung's decree of 745 at its face value. The decree states that Nestorian monasteries were called 'Persian monasteries' until 745, and orders them to be renamed 'Syrian monasteries' thereafter. The decree clearly envisages a prompt change from one consistently applied nomenclature to another. In 745 the T'ang dynasty was at the height of its prosperity, communications were good, and there is no reason to suppose that the leaders of the Nestorian church in China found difficulty in regulating such matters in the churches under their jurisdiction. It will therefore be assumed that the term 'Persian monastery' was indeed consistently used until 745 by the Nestorians for their monasteries in different parts of China, even in remote Tun-huang. If the decree of 745 can be trusted, two Nestorian manuscripts will have to be re-dated to the 780s, even though their texts plainly state that they were written in 718 and 720 respectively. In other words, it will be assumed that they were deliberately emended and recopied. This may seem a bold assumption to make. But if the dates of these Nestorian manuscripts are correct then an imperial decree of the greatest emperor of the T'ang dynasty, at the height of his power, was not worth the paper it was written on. It seems easier to believe that texts were doctored to preserve the coherence of the new Nestorian official identity, especially since it can be proved that Adam did just that with T'ai-tsung's decree in the Sian tablet.
Three texts which were discovered at Tun-huang in 1908 contain Ta-ch'in ching-chiao in their titles, and a fourth contains ching-chiao in the text. A short explanatory note appended by a monk of the Nestorian monastery at Tun-huang to the text of the Book of Praise supplies a vital clue proving that these were seventh-century texts
Page 90
Page 91
67
780s to translate Syriac documents into Chinese, and to recopy and emend old Chinese manuscripts to promote the new image. Adam, the composer of the Sian tablet inscription, was behind this campaign. A seventh-century imperial decree and two early eighth-century Chinese texts were emended, and at least thirty-five seventh-century Syriac texts were translated into Chinese, to conform to the new style. He nearly succeeded in eliminating all traces of the old identity. Indeed, if Hsüan-tsung's decree of 745 had not been preserved, he could only be shown to have tampered with the text of a single imperial decree, T'ai-tsung's decree of 638. As it is, there is evidence that his revisionism went much further.
Much of the argument in this section will rely on taking Hsüan- tsung's decree of 745 at its face value. The decree states that Nestorian monasteries were called 'Persian monasteries' until 745, and orders them to be renamed 'Syrian monasteries' thereafter. The decree clearly envisages a prompt change from one consistently applied nomenclature to another. In 745 the T'ang dynasty was at the height of its prosperity, communications were good, and there is no reason to suppose that the leaders of the Nestorian church in China found difficulty in regulating such matters in the churches under their jurisdiction. It will therefore be assumed that the term 'Persian monastery' was indeed consistently used until 745 by the Nestorians. for their monasteries in different parts of China, even in remote Tun- huang. If the decree of 745 can be trusted, two Nestorian manuscripts will have to be re-dated to the 780s, even though their texts plainly state that they were written in 718 and 720 respectively. In other words, it will be assumed that they were deliberately emended and recopied. This may seem a bold assumption to make. But if the dates of these Nestorian manuscripts are correct then an imperial decree of the greatest emperor of the T'ang dynasty, at the height of his power, was not worth the paper it was written on. It seems easier to believe that texts were doctored to preserve the coherence of the new Nestorian official identity, especially since it can be proved that Adam did just that with T'ai-tsung's decree in the Sian tablet.
Three texts which were discovered at Tun-huang in 1908 contain Ta-ch'in ching-chiao in their titles, and a fourth contains ching-chiao in the text. A short explanatory note appended by a monk of the Nestorian monastery at Tun-huang to the text of the Book of Praise. supplies a vital clue proving that these were seventh-century texts
Page 90Page 91
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.