70
of the Origin of Origins. Both texts prominently feature the expression Syrian brilliant teaching in their titles and explanatory notes at the end of the texts state that they were written in the 'Sha-chou Syrian monastery'. As the monastery is called a 'Syrian' rather than a 'Persian' monastery the manuscripts must have been either written or copied later than 745, and as they use Adam's term 'Syrian brilliant teaching' they can probably be dated to the 780s. But the explanatory notes at the end of the texts tell us that the first manuscript was copied in the fifth year of the Kai-yuan period (717) by Chang-ku, and the second in the eighth year of the same period (720) by Su-yüan, both novice monks (fa-tu) in the Tun-huang Nestorian monastery.
We have no reason whatever to believe that Nestorian monasteries were called 'Syrian' monasteries as early as the second decade of the eighth century, and indeed Hsüan-tsung's decree states quite specifically that they were called 'Persian' monasteries until 745. These early dates, therefore, can only be accepted if we reject the plain sense of Hsüan-tsung's decree of 745, ordering all Nestorian monasteries in China to adopt the title Ta-ch'in ssu, ‘Syrian monastery', and I prefer to conclude instead that our manuscripts of these two works were copied and edited in the 780s. We have seen already, in the case of T'ai-tsung's decree of 638, that Adam was not worried about introducing anachronisms into old texts if they were necessary to preserve the coherence of his new 'Syrian brilliant teaching' identity. Accordingly, we need not be surprised to find the term 'Syrian brilliant teaching' and 'Syrian monastery' employed in texts ostensibly written over thirty years before a Nestorian monastery could be called a 'Syrian monastery' and more than fifty years before Christianity would be described as the 'brilliant teaching'.
No doubt the originals of our copied manuscripts were indeed written in Tun-huang in the second decade of the eighth century by Chang-ku and Su-yüan. The puzzle is to explain how it was possible for the Kai-yuan documents, as I shall call them for convenience, to be translated into Chinese at Tun-huang in the early eighth century, when Reuben's Syriac texts of these works lay neglected in Ch'ang-an's imperial library; and why it was necessary for Adam to translate these two works into Chinese in the 780s, as the Book of Praise implies he did, when Chinese versions already existed at Tun-huang. I can only conjecture what might have happened. Obviously some of Reuben's Syriac 'scriptures' existed in China in more than one manuscript, and the monks at Tun-huang in the early eighth century had their own
70
of the Origin of Origins. Both texts prominently feature the expression *Syrian brilliant teaching' in their titles and explanatory notes at the end of the texts state that they were written in the 'Sha-chou Syrian monastery'. As the monastery is called a 'Syrian' rather than a 'Persian' monastery the manuscripts must have been either written or copied later than 745, and as they use Adam's term 'Syrian brilliant teaching' they can probably be dated to the 780s. But the explanatory notes at the end of the texts tell us that the first manuscript was copied in the fifth year of the Kai-yuan period (717) by Chang-ku, and the second in the eighth year of the same period (720) by Su-yüan, both novice monks (fa-tu ) in the Tun-huang Nestorian monastery.
We have no reason whatever to believe that Nestorian monasteries were called 'Syrian' monasteries as early as the second decade of the eighth century, and indeed Hsüan-tsung's decree states quite specifically that they were called 'Persian' monasteries until 745. These early dates. therefore, can only be accepted if we reject the plain sense of Hsüan- tsung's decree of 745, ordering all Nestorian monasteries in China to adopt the title Ta-ch'in ssu, ‘Syrian monastery', and I prefer to conclude instead that our manuscripts of these two works were copied and edited in the 780s. We have seen already, in the case of T'ai-tsung's decree of 638, that Adam was not worried about introducing anachronisms into old texts if they were necessary to preserve the coherence of his new 'Syrian brilliant teaching' identity. Accordingly, we need not be surprised to find the term 'Syrian brilliant teaching' and 'Syrian monastery' employed in texts ostensibly written over thirty years before a Nestorian monastery could be called a 'Syrian monastery' and more than fifty years before Christianity would be described as the 'brilliant teaching'.
No doubt the originals of our copied manuscripts were indeed written in Tun-huang in the second decade of the eighth century by Chang-ku and Su-yüan. The puzzle is to explain how it was possible for the Kai-yuan documents, as I shall call them for convenience, to be translated into Chinese at Tun-huang in the early eight century, when Reuben's Syriac texts of these works lay neglected in Ch'ang-an's imperial library; and why it was necessary for Adam to translate these two works into Chinese in the 780s, as the Book of Praise implies he did, when Chinese versions already existed at Tun-huang. I can only conjecture what might have happened. Obviously some of Reuben's Syriac 'scriptures' existed in China in more than one manuscript, and the monks at Tun-huang in the early eighth century had their own
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.