Western Influences on West Syrian Monasticism: The Rule of John of Mardin

by Fr. Dale A. Johnson

The Monastery of Hananyo is known today as the monastery of Deir Zafaran (Saffron Monastery). It is famous as the seat of Patriarchs of the West Syrian Church for 700 years from the 12th to 20th century when the Patriarchal See moved from Turkey to Syria. 

John of Mardin re-established the monastery in the 12th century after a long period of disuse. The Rules he set in place became the monastic standard for nearly 700 years. His rule ranks in importance to the Rule of Benedict in the west for its length of use. The Benedictine Rule lasted 600 years until the Cistercians reforms in the 12th century. Not until the Patriarchal See of the West Syrian Church was forced to move after World War I and the Rule of John of Mardin abandoned. (1)

About the time John of Mardin was writing his rule in the East, sometime between 1124 and 1144 AD. St. Bernard was carrying forth the reforms of the Cistercians in Europe. What is remarkable about the rule of John of Mardin is that it seems heavily influenced by the Benedictine characteristics, perhaps influenced by the Rule of Basil and perhaps even the rule of Benedict itself. Both John of Mardin and Benedict drew from the Rule of Basil. What is interesting is to see how each man adapted and adjusted the Rule of Basil.

The development of a full monastic rule developed much later in the Syriac east. Monasteries did not have a rule in the sense that the western monasteries had a rule. The canons of Ephrem, Rabbula, Johanan Qursos, Abraham of Kashkar, Dadisho, Koriakos, and Marutha were prohibitions and emergency legislations for their day more than rules. (2) Besides, each monastery was under the direction of a Bishop and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Each monastery and each generation seemed to have its own temporary rule based on the character and desires of the bishop or abbot. We can see that these canons of the Syriac east are not really rules because they are a patchwork of injunctions rather that well ordered documents.

Internal Evidence

I believe that the rule of John of Mardin is the first rule developed in the Mesopotamian world that is robust and rounded in the way the rule of Benedict can be characterized.

Though it came 600 years after the Rule of Benedict, it drew from the same sources and perhaps even the Rule of Benedict itself.

When we look at the Rule of Basil and compare the Rules of John of Mardin and the Rule of Benedict we observe the following:

Both John of Mardin and Benedict added legislation about the election of the Abbot and included democratic values which St. Basil seemed to avoid.

Both John and Benedict added instructions about the care of the sick and there are detailed instructions in John of Mardin’s rule about how to treat the dying.

Both Benedict and John add offices to their rule which Basil did not include. Benedict creates the office of deans and John of Mardin relies of deacons and adds the duties of sacristan.

Still Benedict is much more detailed in his instructions than John of Mardin. Yet, John of Mardin is far more detailed than any of the eastern Syriac authors of monastic rules.

John of Mardin’s rule has parallels to Benedict’s rule in 26 of the 31 chapters in a general thematic sense. This alone does not prove that John of Mardin knew directly of the Rule of Benedict. But it is highly suggestive.

Probable External influences

There are three possible Benedictine influences on John of Mardin? First, it is possible that there was perhaps an indirect influence through the Latin Patriarch who lived in Antioch at the end of the first crusade. In fact, the Latin Patriarch, Bernard, had jurisdiction over the West Syrian Patriarch. This was illustrated on the occasion of a dispute between the West Syrian Patriarch and his Bishop in Edessa. The Patriarch demanded valuable books in Edessa be transferred to the Patriarchate. The Bishop refused and the Latin Patriarch called the West Syrians to his court to settle the dispute. Patriarch Bernard ruled in favor of the Bishop and the West Syrian Patriarch, Anthanasius l’farag. left the city and re-established the West Syrian Patriarchate near Miletene. There certainly would have been some influence on John of Mardin from the Latin Patriarch. Could there have been a transmission of knowledge through the Patriarch to John? 

Another influence most certainly was through the presence of the crusaders in Edessa during the youth of John. These Crusaders came from lands where the Benedictine Rule was alive and under reform. In fact the Latin Bishop of Edessa during the teenage years of John held the name Benedict who was mainly supported by the Latin Baladi family. A Benedictine monastery was built next to the church of John the Baptist, which was occupied by the Latins in Edessa. It was the former church of the West Syrians. Baldwin I was the Latin king of Edessa during this time and was instrumental in the development of deployment of the Knights Templar who evolved out of a Benedictine Order. The Templars fought in the Edessa district during the formative period of John of Mardin.

A third Benedictine influence could have come from Christian refugees who fled Edessa and traveled to Mardin under the protection of Zengi. These Christians may have included western Christians who would have known of Benedicitne syle monasticism.It is known that John of Mardin ransomed many of these Christians from captivity in Edessa and brought them to Mardin. (3)

Comparison of the Rules

If we look at the chapters of John of Mardin’s Rule we can see how similar it is to both Basil and Benedict.

Who was John of Mardin?

John of Mardn was 39 years old when he was made Bishop of Mardin by the Patriarch Athanaius Abu l-Farag. More than likely he was ordained at the monastery of Barsauma in Diyarbakir. Athanasius had recently moved there from his Patriarchal See in Antioch. The move was precipitated by a feud in the Jacobite community. He had excommunicated the Metropolitan of Edessa, Bar Sabuni, six years earlier in 1118 AD. It split the Jacobite church of Edessa and apparently John was in the party of the Partiriarch. Edessa had many valuable books. The Patriarch wanted these books for his own library in Antioch. Metropolitan Bar Sabuni would not give them to him. The Latin Patriarch Bernard in Antioch summoned Patriarch Athanasius and ruled against him. In a huff, Athansius retreated east and moved his Patriarchal residence to the monastery of Barsauma in Diyarbakir.

In the year 1124 AD, when John was ordained, Ilghazi, ruler of Mardin had just died and left the region to his son Timurtash, younger brother to Suleiman. Though Muslim, Timustash, like his father was a mild ruler and was just to Christians. It was an opportune time for John to begin his campaign of re-establishing Jacobites in Mardin.

He seems to have spent some time at the monastery of Barsauma in Diyarbakir. If this is true, then he would have been exposed to a model of highly advanced civil administration and organization. Prior to that time he spent his youth in Edessa, a city famous for its educational institutions where, no doubt, he was grounded in the superior cultural and linguistic benefits of that city. These advantages combined with his youthful age at the time of his ordination allowed him to make a profound impact on the history of West Syrian life.

In the meantime, Mardin was benefiting from the turmoil in Edessa to the west. Edessa suffered during the first twenty years of John of Mardin’s episcopate until its fall in 1144. Crusader overlords made it ripe for attacks from the Muslims who wanted back their city and their dignity. Thus, Christian refugees found Mardin and all of Tur Abdin to the east as a place of refuge. It became the new Jacobite frontier and a place of opportunity for an visionary and energetic Bishop.

John of Mardin’s charge and task was enormous and nearly impossible. He was given a diocese that was virtually dead. Hardly a monk was resident in the region and these were a scattered lot of unlearned men and women. The monasteries were abandoned and occupied by Kurdish and Arab squatters. Perhaps, not since the time Addai, the first apostle in the region, had so great a task been set before a Christian leader. His Patriarch must have had tremendous confidence in this young man. Bishop John more than filled these near herculean expectations as he built twenty nine churches and renewed or restored ten monasteries over the course of 38 years.

His greatest achievement was the resurrection of the monastery of Mor Hananyo. So beautiful and active did he make it that upon his death it became the seat of the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch for over 700 years.

In a biography John of Mardin writes, 

“As my wretchedness dwelt in the habit of monasticism in the holy mountain of the town of Edessa where my parents spiritually and carnally begot me and raised me up. Afterwards I set off from there and came to the East, that is to say, the country of this town of Mardin. I the humble John, then I saw this famous and holy monastery, the monastery of Mor Hananyo which was famous in a previous time not only for the decorations of all kinds or by the construction in human workmanship of skilled artisans or by the melted nature with rays of light from gold and valuable stones, according to that which the book tells us regarding the temple which King Solomon built. I saw everything under the sun is vanity. Everything is vanity of vanities except one thing: the firm building of a life that comes to maturity in a holy manner of life that is solid from the creation of the divine commandments. These persons become temples of God, in them he dwells and remains forever.”

It is clear that John of Mardin did not look to the building of these churches and monasteries as his legacy. The buildings were only a means to the true structures of faith who were the living monks and faithful people.

In his biography, we are told that he raised up the native Syriac speech and language which was dead during this time. He did this by re-establishing schools. People had forgotten even the names of the churches and monasteries. We learn much about his activities through the writing of his contemporary, Michael the Great.

Features of the Rule

The basic principles for these rules are that they must be “reasonable”, consist of “common sense”, and not be “ponderous.” John was far-sighted too in that he saw the rule as necessary not only for the present situation but for future generations of monks. He repeats an admonition throughout the rule to not alter or change the rule. 

One can see the intelligence and education of John of Mardin in that he starts out by establishing the purpose of the rule followed by the context in which the rule was created.

We get a hint at the origin of this rule in that he came from Edessa which is about 200 miles west of Mardin. Edessa was under Latin rule most of his life until the midpoint of his reign as Bishop. Edessa remained under western influences until its fall in 1144 AD, so much so that Syriac speech developed into its own dialect distinct from the eastern dialect characteristic of Nestorian Christians. We get a hint that the region of Mardin was not completely desolate of monks. He only says that there were few Jacobite monks. The fact that John used the term Jacobite is curious and suggests that the West Syrian Community adopted this designation for themselves. There is no doubt that the term Jacobite was used by John of Mardin even though in later centuries it was considered as a term of derision by the Syrian Orthodox in later centuries. In Ms. Mardin Orth. 323 the term Jacobites is crossed out and the word “Syrians” replaces it. Nevertheless, Jacob Bardaeus was a great reformer of the liturgy and monastic offices in the seventh century. Certainly John followed in this reform tradition.

In a biographical section about the life of John of Mardin, it was estimated that some of the monasteries had been vacant for two to three hundred years. We get no help from Michael the Great in his history to verify this statement. It probably was not as damaged as the rule of John suggests because even today we find a pre-Justinian mosaic intact and various features of carved stone that date to the fifth and sixth century.

John has the tone of a refugee who is invading the land. Mardin was once a vibrant Jacobite region. For several hundred years from the 5th to 9th centuries it was filled with monasteries, churches, and living saints. John hints at the sources of the downfall and loss of the properties. Arabs and Kurds occupied the monastery of Hananyo. When we investigate this period of history we are reminded of the great social disruption which occurred in the region prior to 1124 AD. The First Crusade had stormed through the Near East. It caused tremendous social displacement and anger among the Muslims. A counter attack on Edessa by the Muslims, took back the city of Edessa in 1144 AD. It is likely that many Christians fled east to Mardin as refugees.

John of Mardin seems to be genuine in his humility as we read in this text. We detect this humility in his reference to others who came with him to re-establish West Syrian (Jacobite) Christianity in the region. He does not take credit for only himself. Yet he seems to realize the he was on a rescue mission. He had a sense of urgency in regard to the near total loss of West Syrian Christianity.

John of Mardin’s administrative ability is hinted at in the preface. He has deep insight into the psychological mechanisms of human behavior. He knows that those who build a monastery are “obligated to preserve it.” By sending out monks to build and restore monasteries he is depending upon the human sense of “pride of place” to maintain these edifices. John also reveals here that there is competition for these buildings by rival religions. The history of the monastery of Hananyo seems to have already indicated this tendency for others to occupy Jacobite sites. The monastery was abandoned as a monastery in the 5th century and turned into a Roman fortification. Mor Hanayo recovered the property in his day and turned it back into a monastery. Now, once again, squatters were living in the monastery and John of Mardin takes it back for the faithful.

John states a central purpose for this rule in the preface. He believes in a coenobitic type of monasticism. He believes that monks should live in community in obedience. The region of Mardin and Tur Abdin was famous for monks who practiced an individual piety. Earlier rules often refer to monks who lived solitary lives and were not obedient to local bishops or priests. The Rule of Rabbula (5th c.) mentions monks who were giving themselves the Eucharist in direct opposition to what the local bishops had instructed. This type of eremitical independence did not die out easily. Long after monasticism in the west shifted to Benedictine style monasticism. There were rabid eremitical monks in the east, perhaps most famously characterized by the stylite monks.

As in Benedict’s opening chapter and in the Rule of the Master, John identifies types of monks. First is the coenobitic type who is under the authority of an abbot. Poverty, obedience, prayer, and work are the main features of this life.

The second type of monk is a cloistered hermit. Perhaps this is in a semi-eremitical arrangement which was often preferred in the Near East. Monks would live under an abbot but cloistered in their cell and meet once a week for worship and Eucharist.

The third type of monk is an anchorite who is not under any authority, although he must live in community for a period of time and subject him to obedience and humility. After this period of time, which could be years, this type of monk is free to wander. Poverty seems to be the main characteristic of this type of monk.

The three types of monks are in an order from the lowest to the highest. Clearly, the anchorite is the highest ideal.

Materialism was a great threat to monastic life. This period of time in both the east and the west was full with greed and avarice. Venetian merchants were moving goods between the east and west creating desires for things that did not advance the soul. Many crusaders went to the Near East in search of physical wealth. This disease of materialism could be found on both sides. Christians and Muslims in both worlds were drawn to opportunity to plunder others for their own benefit.

John of Mardin saw materialism as a great vice. He drew upon a personal example of how materialism infects the soul. The more one has the more it creates need for more material things. If one has excess oil or lentils it requires more containers and that require more work to purchase or trade for more things. It is an endless cycle of gain until one is crushed under the weight of materialism.

John sees the threat of materialism as a deeply spiritual evil, especially as it tends to cut one off from his neighbor. “The one who obtains does not contribute to his neighbor.” This is the centerpiece of his charge against materialism. If one has excess then one is to give it to the neighbor. When one does not give to the neighbor it causes a bankruptcy of love in the person who hoards.

The poor who have nothing can also be infected by materialism, stricken with jealousy and envy. The problem of materialism is a spiritual sickness which has nothing to do with how much or how little one has. Are you rich in heart? John of Mardin is asking in this rule. If you have an abundance of love you will give without thought of reward and praise.

As John was writing this rule he seems to have had some opposition already to it. He mentions those to want to invalidate the rule. There is no doubt that as he began to gather up his scattered flock for his monastery of Hananyo that there were brothers who resisted. 

There was a check and balance system to the office of the abbot. An abbot cannot act alone according to the rule. An abbot must always consult with his stewards who are elected by the brethren. This prevents an abbot of appointing only those who would not resist him on moral and ethical grounds. Especially in regard to money, the stewards control the recording of income and expenses. Bishop John clearly lays out a method for such record keeping.

While the abbot is kept in check by the stewards, the stewards are kept in check by the abbot whom they must nearly always obey. Only for a case of ethical concern or sickness shall the steward resist the command of the abbot. John compares the stewards to soldiers who have a life and death duty to obey. John uses an ancient Latin image of a soldier pledging his life on his bier to support his fellow soldiers.

The genius of John of Mardin was his ability to synergize the Syriac monastic world with Benedictine influences. It is the same genius we see in Benedict and each was able to affect their respective cultures in ways that spanned the centuries.


Notes:

1.Sources for John of Mardin, Michael the Great Chronique IV, p. 630f., 633. Ms. Dam. Patr. 12/15, fol. 479a-481b, Ms. Mardin Orth. 176. Bar Hebraeus Chronicon eccl., II, col 499ff.

2.Voobus, Arthur, Syriac and Arabic Documents, Regarding Legislation Relative to Syrian Asceticism, 1960, Estonian Theological Society in Exile, Stockholm.

3.Runciman, Steven, A History of the Crusades, Vol. II, 1965, Harper torch Books, New York. 

4.Clarke, W.K.L., The Ascetical Works of Saint Basil, pp. 133-228, 1925, SPCK, London.

5.Fry, Timothy, Ed., The Rule of St. Benedict in English, 1981, Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Mn.

6.Ms. Sarfeh Patr. 38, fol. 180a-181a; Ms. Sarfeh Patr. 252, fol. 18b-19b.