At the beginning of dealing with such a topic, which was given to me, the terms have to be clarified. As Syriac Orthodox is a modern term, we have to reflect on the terminology; this will provide us also with some bibliography. Early Syriac Christology is a heritage of both, the West Syriac and the East Syriac tradition. We try to characterize the individual authors with the main lines of their Christological thought. Finally, we look at the Christological Declarations of 1971 and 1984, where the heads of the Catholic Church and of the Syriac Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch express “the deep spiritual communion” between their Churches and agree that “there is no difference in the faith” in the incarnation.
Terminology and some Bibliography
Syriac Orthodox or Jacobite
The term Syriac Orthodox was not in use in texts of the fifth or sixth century, the formative period for the Christological question to address here.1 In the sources of this period, including the seventh century, West Syrian anti-Chalcedonians referred to themselves as “Orthodox” while their opponents called them Severans (after Severus of Antioch) or Theodosians (after Theodosius of Alexandria) or akephaloi—acephals2 or diakrinomenoi etc.
The name “Jacobites” was coined originally for the followers of Jacob Baradaeus (Episcopal consecration in 542, † 578) in the sixth century controversy with Paul of Beth Ukkame,3 but later it became common for anti-Chalcedonians in general, even in the Arab language.4 The faithful of the Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church in India under the Syriac Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch are called still today “Jacobites” and call themselves so.
Since the second half of the twentieth century, “Oriental Orthodox” (a term used in Addis Ababa 19655) became the term for all Churches who share the recognition of the first three ecumenical Councils alone (Nicaea 325, Constantinople 381, and Ephesus 431); these include, besides the Syrian Orthodox of Antioch, the Coptic Orthodox of Alexandria, the Armenian Apostolic, the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo and the Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo as well as the Malankara Orthodox Syriac Churches.
Christological Position
In Christology, Oriental Orthodox Christians emphasize the unity in Christ, and don’t accept the definition of Chalcedon (the fourth ecumenical Council in 451), which declared “one and the same Christ, Son, Lord (
As weapon to exclude any separation of the divine and human natures in Christ, Cyril of Alexandria took the so-called mia-physis formula of the “one incarnate nature (or hypostasis) of the God Logos” (
For Chalcedonians, the statement of one single (monos) nature leads to a mingling of the natures of Christ (in violation of the divinity or disappearance of the humanity of Christ), and the term “Monophysites” came into use. Conversely, their opponents accused them of dividing Christ into two subjects and called them “Nestorians”. East Syrians (called “Nestorians”) would see in the “one nature” Theopaschitism and in the Chalcedonian definition an unclear terminology. The Christological controversy suffers from the problem of the different concepts of physis and hypostasis used by the opposing parties.
Monophysite – Miaphysite
The term “monophysite”—formed in analogy to the earlier term “dyophysite” or “diphysite”9 which was used with a pejorative meaning to denote Chalcedonian and “Nestorian” teaching—is documented from the beginning of the seventh century onwards;10 it was in use for a long time even by Syriac scholars until the end of the twentieth century. The term appears in the titles of important studies, which paved the way to a better understanding. This holds true for Joseph Lebon and his impressive thesis of 1909, the groundbreaking work which revealed the “orthodoxie foncière” of Severus of Antioch, based on at that time still unedited manuscripts.11 Thus, the term “monophysite” is part of the history of research12 and does not always bear a heresiological meaning.13
Some scholars involved in ecumenical dialogues from the second half of the last century onwards, among them Alois Grillmeier, started with a different terminology. In 1989, in vol. 2/2 of “Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche” in the chapter on Severus, after the quotation of Eduard Schwartz14, Grillmeier wrote: “Here it is best if we speak of the post-chalcedonian supporters of the mia-physis formula or the mia-physis christology.”15
The Coptic Orthodox tradition was especially sensitive concerning the use of this term. In the last Christological Declaration from the revised version of the “Agreed Statement” from Cairo, Egypt on October 13–17, 2014 by the Anglican-Oriental Orthodox International Commission—the first version was made at the meeting in Holy Etchmiadzin, Armenia on November 5–10, 2002 – paragraph seven reads:
7. The term ‘monophysite’, which has been falsely used to describe the Christology of the Oriental Orthodox Churches, is both misleading and offensive as it implies Eutychianism. Anglicans, together with the wider oikumene, use the accurate term ‘miaphysite’ to refer to the Cyrilline teaching of the family of Oriental Orthodox Churches, and furthermore call each of these Churches by their official title of ‘Oriental Orthodox’. The teaching of this family confesses not a single nature but one incarnate united divine-human nature of the Word of God. To say ‘a single nature’ would be to imply that the human nature was absorbed in his divinity, as was taught by Eutyches.
However, the term “monophysite” still appears in lexica or theological writings—obviously it is not that easy to eradicate it, according to my own experience of more than 30 years in theological work. The alternative “miaphysite” constructed from the mia-physis formula, was challenged by Philippe Luisier in 2014.16 However, Brock has definitely objected17 and with him three other scholars.18
Syriac Translations of Greek Authors
Quite a number of texts originally written in Greek survived in Syriac translation and became highly influential to West Syrian anti-Chalcedonians. Above all, this concerns Severus of Antioch, and even authors like Theodosius of Alexandria—Grillmeier called him “spiritual heir of Severus of Antioch”19—as most of his writings survived in Syriac and impacted the anti-Chalcedonians in Syria. Followers like Jacob Baradaeus called him an “ecumenical patriarch” indicating his universal responsibility for the anti-Chalcedonians. Theodosius called Severus “our father” and an “ecumenical light.”20
Concerning Theodosius, we have to consult the Documenta ad origines monophysitarum illustrandas, from B.L. add. 14602, edited by Jean-Baptiste Chabot in 1907,21 offering documents of the anti-Chalcedonians in the period from 564 to 575.22 The documents are partly written in Greek, but also in Syriac.23 The dossier, completed in 580, is an important source for the whole Tritheist controversy,24 but also on the Agnoetic debate for which Albert Van Roey (d. 2000) published the editio princeps of five texts against the Agnoetes written in the period 530 to 580 in Syriac with Latin translation.25 The texts of the Agnoetic debate and the Tritheist controversy all date from the period 530 to 580.26
Probably, more by accident, Van Roey in his editions and analyses to a great extent dealt with literature originally written in Greek but survived only in Syriac. This concerns the Tritheist controversy between Damian of Alexandria and Paul Callinicum, who brought the anti-Chalcedonian churches of Antioch and Alexandria into a schism for 30 years from 586 to 616.27 There is a voluminous “Anti-Tritheist Dossier”, edited by Van Roey, Ebied and Wickham.28 Besides, there is also the so-called Probus dossier around the debate between Probus and the Severan monks in 596 in Antioch under Patriarch Anastasius of Antioch, still unedited and studied first by Van Roey, and then also by myself.29
What is Syriac-Orthodox Christology?
First, Syriac-Orthodox Christology is part of Syriac Christology which means a Christology expressed or written in East or West Syriac. The development in the first four centuries, therefore, is a heritage of the Syriac-Orthodox Christology, before the rejection of the definition of Chalcedon (451) eventually led to West Syriac Christology (in the Syriac-Orthodox Church of Antioch). This legacy of the first four centuries, however, is also shared by the East Syriac Christology (in the Assyrian Church of the East), which evolved in the Persian Empire already after the council of Ephesus (431). The richness of the Syriac theological literature goes far beyond classifications and formulas. In the following, we can only try to outline the main authors with their Christological characteristics, especially seen in the perspective of the development of Christology.30
Syriac Christology before Aphrahat
Syriac Christology took its starting point from writings like the Syriac Odes of Solomon (40 Syriac zmīratā from the first quarter of the second century are preserved),31 the Syriac Didascalia from the fourth century, and the Acts of Thomas and the Liber Graduum. Through Tatian and Bardaisan, there is some influence of Hellenistic culture in the second century. However, fundamental contributions to the formation of Syriac Christology and terminology are due to Aphrahat the Persian Sage (* between 270 and 285, † after 345) and above all to Ephrem († 373). With the latter, the confession of faith of the Syriac tradition, according to Bou Mansour, gains a certain equilibrium that excluded any earlier attempts at subordinationism: “In Ephrem the confession of faith in the Son as God and man finds an indisputable balance in the Syriac tradition.”32 Ephrem defended the full humanity of the Son against Marcion, Mani and Bardaisan.
Until Aphrahat, the concern of Syriac Christological thought primarily was how to explain and to understand Christ as mediator (1 Tim 2:5: “There is one God and there is one mediator between God and human beings, the man Christ Jesus”). “There does not yet seem to be any trace of reflection on the ‘natures’ in the Son or of their union”33 in early Syriac works.
The Odes of Solomon point out the preexistence of the Son (and this fact may explain some passages, which sound docetic). The Acts of Thomas also emphasize the preexistence and the equality of the Son with the Father. Without doubt, however, they also take seriously that the Son became man and consider the historical dimension (of this event and of the earthly life of Jesus). The Syriac Didascalia, on the contrary, shows a Christology of subordinationism. The statements on the Son as mediator of salvation and his exaltation to the Father should be understood predominantly in light of the economy of salvation and not so much as ontological statements.
In the sources, a clear statement on the natures in the Son and on their union cannot be traced. Discussion on unity and on distinction in this union is related to the inner-Trinitarian relations, but not to Christ. There is no reflection on the constitution of the Son. Concepts like person, nature, prosopon are not used as technical terms, even less as terms for mixture and distinction.
Aphrahat the Persian Sage (* between 270 and 285, † after 345)
Though being a contemporary of the Council of Nicaea (325), Aphrahat virtually had no contact at all with the Greek theological problems, especially the Arian controversy.34 His Christology developed in relative autonomy from the Greek West; his opponents were the Jews. Central statements of Nicaea, like ‘identical in substance’ (homoousios), ‘true God of true God’, are not mentioned. Against the Jews, he argued strongly for the divine sonship of Jesus, his Godhead. The main sources for his arguments are rooted in the Old Testament and the Gospel, the latter known to him only in the form of the Diatessaron.35 Aphrahat confesses Jesus as God (alahā), Son of God (bar alahā), king, prince, light of light, creator (barē), counselor, leader, way and redeemer.36 Many titles for Christ, a richness of names, can be found (so-called name Christology).37 However, there are also statements that indicate a marked spirit Christology.38 His framework of a Christology of humiliation and exaltation is the foundation to assume his belief in the preexistence of the Son;39 in this way, he avoids the charge of subordinationism. His language is deeply rooted in the Bible; in his theology, he makes use of symbols, without Hellenistic philosophical terminology.
Aphrahat introduced the word kyānā in the history of Christological language (the sources for this use could be the letters of the New Testament, the Odes of Solomon, and the Acts of Thomas).40 In contrast to the Greek physis, which “always shows a tendency to define the essence of somebody or something”, in Aphrahat’s writings “kejān, the existence of somebody or something, is defined by the way it appears to men”41 (Bruns: “Seinsweise”, reality); the term lacks a metaphysical significance. It seems, that Aphrahat did not reflect the way of union of the divine and human in Christ; the words for mixture (mūzagā) or division (pūlagā) are lacking, only the terms for mingling, confusion (ḥūlṭanā) and, rarely, for cutting (psaqā) can be found, but not as technical terms.42
Ephrem the Syrian († 373)
Characteristic for Ephrem with regard to his Christology is an immense and unparalleled richness of names, images, and titles for Christ. Marking his godhead and preexistence are statements like Christ is God (alāhā), Son of God, child (yaldā), firstborn (būkrā), only begotten (īḥīdāyā), the beloved one (ḥabībā).43 Names indicating functions are mediator (meṣ΄āyā), revealer (mgalyanā), saviour (parūqā), physician, medicine of life, rock and many more. Eschatological titles are king (malkā), judge (dayanā), way, and many others. These titles contain symbols partly referring back to the second century.44
An approach oriented towards the economy of salvation seems to be typical for Ephrem: Christ follows us into the depths of our world in order to lead us back to the banquet of paradise.45 By the incarnation of the Son, the human being is exalted to the glory. By his descent into Sheol, the life killed death. With the body of the virgin, he entered the Sheol. With the tree of the cross, he led the human race back into the realm of life.46
All statements of humility in the Holy Scripture said of the humanity of the saviour. Against the Apollinarians (the controversies with them only started), Ephrem rejected attempts to diminish the perfect human reality of Christ.47 Against Marcionite interpretations of a pure heavenly son, he defended the humanity of the Son, with reference to soteriology and sacraments, which would lose all meaning (similar against Mani and Bardaisan).48
The term kyanā is ambiguous in Ephrem, according to Edmund Beck,49 indicating at the same time the individual person and the essence (or nature). The term qnōmā is lacking; the word ītūtā (for ousia) is used only for God. Ephrem is able to find in Christ two natures: a noble and a humble one,50 and to distinguish between the fearful (dḥīlā) and the weak (mḥīlā) nature.51
When he insists on one nature of the Son, he is opposing the Arians and their refusal of a divine nature in Christ; a diphysite Christology was not yet a question of his time. The “one nature” in this context means the one reality, which is not affected by the multiple changes (šūḥlafē) in the earthly life of Christ.52 According to Alois Grillmeier, he could have subscribed to the mia-physis formula of Cyril,53 but Ephrem can also express markedly each one of the two natures in itself.54 On the other hand, he says that Christ has mixed the two natures like the mixing of colours;55 mūzagā in this respect indicates a deeper kind of union than ḥūlṭanā.
Ephrem became the foundation and reference point for all the Syriac churches, whether they followed the Alexandrian or the Antiochian line of thinking.56
Jacob of Sarug (* around 450, † 520/21)
It was not easy to classify the Christology of Jacob of Sarug,57 as the history of research in the last century obviously shows, because of its irenic appearance. Meanwhile, it is clear without doubt that he was an anti-Chalcedonian. He represents an Alexandrian-inspired Christology of unity with some points of contact with the tradition of Ephrem.
Jacob insisted on the point that the acting subject is the same in all that the Son or the Logos performs as God or as man in his incarnation. Death and suffering belong to the divine hypostasis of the Son, as a condescension of his will. But statements like ‘he remained God without losing to be God’ are valid beyond confessional borders (and are documented as well in the Western Latin tradition).
No doubt that Jacob opposes any kind of a Nestorian Christology, which sees the two natures as hypostases (and as Nestorians he took the Chalcedonians, too, as his correspondence with the monks of Mar Bassus revealed); he emphasizes the unicity of the hypostasis in Christ. His formula in the letters is: “the one nature that becomes a body” or “the one embodied nature”58.
Because of Jacob’s insistence on the immutability of the Logos and his view of the incarnation, he was criticized as undervaluing the humanity of Christ. The new state of the Logos in the incarnation is explained by Jacob as ‘revelation’, ‘appearance’ with recourse to the respective biblical passages (1 Tim 3:16; 1 John 1:2; 3:5.8; Rom 9:5) according to the Peshitta. For Jacob, Nestorianism is so dangerous that he is hesitant to feature the human traits of the person of Christ alone without immediately emphasizing the divine aspect.59
Jacob stresses the unity in Christ very much. In line with the early Syriac tradition, he appreciates the concept of the mediator (to be sure, only in his letters, in his Mimre this concept comes second)—but, just to mention, the concept of mediator (1 Tim 2:5) has a central place also in the Latin tradition. However, unlike the Latin tradition, Jacob states a becoming (of the Logos), whereby he wants to preserve the immutability of the Logos. He opts for a unity “out of two”. Repeatedly he is polemicizing against a prosopic union of the “Nestorians”, which, in his understanding, is the subsequent union of the Logos with the man Jesus, or against the idea of a “dwelling” of the Logos in the man. He also rejects the concept of conjunction or of the “clothing” in this context.
In the Mimre, Jacob speaks of the two births of the Son and of the title Emmanuel; but this title must not serve to exclude the Godhead and to maintain only his humanity. Often Jacob is tempted to exalt the Godhead at the cost of the humanity of the Son—as scholars thought. Abramowski, however, found that in this regard he is more indebted to the Antiochian thinking: The manner of speaking of the immutability [scl. of the divine nature] in the incarnation is the same as that of the Edessene Theodorians. Therefore, it seems that Jacob followed the explanation of the divine element of the Theodorians but left out their presentation of the human nature.
The late Luise Abramowski also found some other traces of Jacob’s Edessenian formation at the school of the Persians in Edessa during her studies on Narsai (not yet published). Among these traces, we can mention a rigid distinction between the Son’s nature and his Incarnation, underlining the human element in Christ, the Christological use of hypostasis or qnoma; the descent by love and will; to reveal himself (etglī) and appear (ethzi); Christ as crucified King.
The concept “nature” is reserved in the Mimre nearly exclusively to the divine nature. The Son agrees to suffer with human beings, without his nature being attained by the passion. “Hypostasis” is identified with the divine nature; both terms are signifying the Godhead.
Biblical terminology and anti-Docetic expressions are characteristic also for the terminology in the Mimre. The will of the Son, to submit to the human affairs, is strongly accentuated. It is clear that Jacob does not pay homage to Docetism; this can be seen in statements like the one that the assumed body has soul and spirit and that it is able to suffer, especially in the mysteries of the life of Jesus. The Son truly became man and humbled himself to human proportions.
Repeatedly Jacob is polemicizing against “Nestorians” and Chalcedonians and any distribution of Christ’s properties to both natures. “To divide” and “to distinguish” is for Jacob synonymous. The mediator is “out of two”, but this fact does not allow again a distinction, and above all, the mystery of the Son’s unicity is inscrutable.
With his strongly marked Alexandrian Christology of union, Jacob connects some elements of the Syriac tradition: the docta ignorantia of Ephrem, formulations like to become of the same kind etc. The clothing image is used in the Mimre, in the letters it is attacked.60
Philoxenus of Mabbug († 523)
Philoxenus of Mabbug,61 likewise a disciple of the school of Edessa, never gave rise to doubts about his rejection of Chalcedon. The polemic against Nestorianism—Chalcedonians, too, are ranked as hidden Nestorians—is a constant theme in his whole work. The theology and Christology of Philoxenus can be classified62 into two periods: first the period of his defense of the so-called Theopaschite addition to the Trishagion, and then his struggle against Chalcedon.
Against a doctrine of two sons—whether this was the doctrine of real opponents or whether this is only a hypothetical consequence of another Christology, is not very clear, but often it is the second case—Philoxenus emphasized the unity of the one incarnate subject. Kenosis and incarnation have to be ascribed to the will and not to divine nature. Divine nature and will are not in conflict with one another, since it is impossible that in God there is any opposition. It remains, however, inscrutable how one is related to the other. The incarnation took place—unlike to the other miracles—in the person of the God Logos by divine will.
The unity in the Trinity, and the unity in Christology—as he puts it: one nature and hypostasis—are different for Philoxenus. Despite the unity in the divine nature, Philoxenus can distinguish in the Trinity three hypostases. On the other hand, in Christology there is only one nature and one hypostasis for Philoxenus. De Halleux has brought out that Philoxenus used the concepts of nature and hypostasis in different ways in Trinity and in Christology. Therefore it is not the same concept of nature as in the doctrine of Trinity, when he speaks of one nature and one hypostasis in Christology. Philoxenus always understands the incarnate Logos as one hypostasis of the Trinitarian nature.
The formula “one of the Trinity was embodied” was chosen by Philoxenus against Nestorianism and Eutychianism. However, above all it is directed against Nestorianism to ensure that no addition to the Trinity comes into its being.
The characteristic terminology for Philoxenus is his concept of “becoming without change.” This needs some explanation. The best comparison for Philoxenus is the sacrament of baptism: a Christian remains human and corporeal, even though he becomes a son of God and filled with the Spirit. However, God’s becoming without change remains an absolute new mystery. The Logos came from the fullness, while we are filled in baptism. God’s becoming is a descent, while the baptism is an “ascendant movement.”
Against the diphysite idea of assumption, Philoxenus polemicizes unremittingly. For him, the becoming indicates the mystery itself while the assumption marks only one aspect of it (namely the origin). He argues that the diphysites distorted the assumption, and he underlines that not a man was assumed, but the human nature (i.e.: not an individual but the non-individualized nature).
The reality of the incarnation, of the body and soul of Christ, is fully preserved in his approach; Philoxenus defended this point especially in his books against Ḥabib. It was his first great theological writing composed during his exile (under the Patriarchate of Calandion, 482–84),63 De uno e sancta trinitate incorporato et passo in 10 books, or Memre against Ḥabib. Maurice Brière began to edit this opus in 1920. It was only in 1982 that François Graffin could complete the edition. The campaign of the young Philoxenus in favor of the liturgical Theopaschite formula (perhaps by order of Peter the Fuller) under the Syriac monks on both sides of the Roman-Persian Limes in North-Mesopotamia summoned the counter-reaction of the East-Syriac “Theodorians.” The most important among them should have been Ḥabib,64 a distinguished monk of a venerable monastery, who spoke Syriac like Philoxenus and originated from the Sassanid Persian Empire. In this discourse, Ḥabib attacked the dogmatic letter of Philoxenus to the monks. Philoxenus, in his turn, refuted the discourse of Ḥabib.
The dossier of these two opponents65 presents, in words following André de Halleux, “two great Eastern Syriac theologians of the first post-Chalcedonian generation”66 and is done in a polemic in which both are equal. Ḥabib qualified the statements of Philoxenus as Eutychian and Manichean, Arian and Apollinarian, or as propositions of the young Arian dialectician Eunomius. Conversely Philoxenus called Ḥabib a Manichean and Marcionite, and interpreted his statements as Nestorianism. Both theologians attribute to one another the teachings of Bardaisan.67
Christology according to Severus of Antioch († 538)
In his volume 2/2 on the Church of Constantinople in the sixth century, Grillmeier put Severus of Antioch at the beginning as “the anti-Chalcedonian Pole,” and dealt with him together with his opponents in the first part (21–173). This simple fact underlines already the importance of Severus, who can be taken as church father of the anti-Chalcedonians. Zachhuber called Severus “probably the most important Greek speaking theologian at the turn from the fifth to the sixth century” and an “impeccable opponent of the council of Chalcedon.”68
Severus did not write a Christological treatise, but his writings, even homilies, are often densely written expositions on Christology. Soon his writings became translated into Syriac and were widely used in the controversies of the sixth century and beyond. One example is the controversy between Probus and John Barbur with the Severan monks in Antioch in 596.69 Forty-three quotations from Severus exist in the two books preserved of the debate—more than from Cyril of Alexandria—the two most frequently used patristic authorities.
Following my paper at the Salzburg Conference in February of 2018,70 I would like to characterize Severus’ Christology as follows. Severus presents a clear Trinitarian terminology with distinction between ousia – hypostasis:
Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three different hypostases, not mingled with each other, in one unique essence (ousia)… . We say that essence and hypostasis are concepts which indicate the existence of existing things. The essence brings to notice that the subject exists, and the hypostasis that it subsists … (Hom. 125: PO 29, p. 234/235)… . The essence indicates a commonality (gwnywt’); the hypostasis a peculiarity (dylnywt’) (p. 236/237)… . With regard to the Trinity the essence is the godhead, for the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God; none of them is more God than the other on account of the identity and equality of the honour of the essence (ousia). With regard to the hypostasis, that of the Father, that of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is in each case another (p. 238/239).71
Severus’ Christology as a whole is a Christology aimed at unity. “He is one without division and without mingling of the two natures, namely of divinity and humanity.”72 He expressed himself repeatedly against the two-natures doctrine and against any duality. The term “two” has to be avoided at any cost. Because Chalcedon did not make “from two” its main formula, essentially “it renounced the possibility of hindering the division of Christ into two.”73 If the formula of “one Christ from two” is rejected, for him the duality of sons and of christoi is the outcome.74
Severus struggled against the two-natures doctrine without compromise. Every duality has to be excluded since it is already taken as division or separation by Severus. At the same time, Severus held a clear anti-Docetic position; suffering and death on the cross were real, even necessary, because of soteriological reasons.
Severus used the body-soul-analogy—like many church fathers including Cyril of Alexandria—as an image showing how a single nature and hypostasis arises out of two.
We say that the human being, ours, which is composed from a soul and a body and which is in a single hypostasis (qnwm’), is a mortal, rational animal; still on the one side it is mortal through the body, on the other side rational through the soul; nevertheless it is still the whole animal which is called mortal and which as whole is characterized as rational; and the elements from which it is composed in a natural way are not mingled and it is not at all divided into two. It is also this way with the Emmanuel, because he is one from two natures, and one single hypostasis (qnwm’) and one single incarnate nature of the Logos, without in any way the elements having to be mingled, from which the ineffable unity comes to pass, and also, while one remains, without furnishing access to the duality from which the division arises. For he, who is really one, will never be two; and if he proceeds to become two, he has necessarily ceased to be one. (Hom 44: PO 36, p. 96–98)
According to Norman Russell, Severus “strengthens the image, making it more an exact description than an analogy.”75 The weakness of this image was outlined by Maximos Confessor in the seventh century, but already by Justinian, as Meyendorff76 explained, referring to Justinian’s Confessio rectae fidei:
Justinian perceives all the inconveniences of this image [scl. of the human individual, within whom the soul and the body, two distinct natures are united in one hypostasis] …; he therefore states that the image may be used to describe the hypostatic unity of Christ but not that of its composite character, for the two natures of Christ are neither complementary, as the soul and body are, nor simultaneously created, since his uncreated divinity pre-existed the incarnation.
A consequence of the mia-physis formula is the one activity, the mia energeia, stressed by Severus in several contexts. Against John the Grammarian, eventually the first neo-Chalcedonian, Severus wrote: “There is only one single activity (energeia), only one single operative motion (motus operativus), as there is also only one single speaking of the incarnate Logos, be it that the actions and the words have been different.”77
The God-human action and speech of Christ is conceived in such a way that everything is deduced by the divine Logos as nature principle. Every activity flows from the Logos, even when human activity is engaged.78 Severus interpreted the phrase
In the context of the new divine human energy of Dionysius, Severus came also to the “one composite energy,” mia energeia synthetos, and concluded a mia physis (kai hypostasis) synthetos.82 Later, Maximus Confessor states that the “‘theandric energy’ is not … that of a composite nature … instead it is the energy that belongs most naturally to ‘God made man’ to Him who became perfectly incarnate.”83 Also, the weaknesses of this concept of synthesis are indicated by Maximus Confessor.84 The concept violates the humanity and divinity of Christ.
Contrary to Leo’s formulation ‘agit enim utraque forma …’ in his Tome, Severus wrote against John the Grammarian:
If he [= Leo] in spirit were to hold and confess the hypostatic union, he could not say that each of the two natures keeps its propriety (proprietatem) without detraction, but he would say, like Cyril, that the Logos now and then permitted the flesh to suffer what is proper to it and to operate according to the laws of its nature. Thus the Logos would bear that as its own which is of the flesh, and still not relinquish what he has according to his essence (ousia), also not the superiority to suffering and his highest nobility.85
For sure, this is a different image of Christ to the one of Leo. Nevertheless, the context of such writings needs to be considered: while Leo wrote his Tome against Eutyches (and could write differently in other contexts), Severus wrote against a neo-Chalcedonian and wished to limit any autonomy of the human nature in Christ.
Severus criticized other fathers and even his great master (of the dogmas), Cyril of Alexandria, when he found a language of two natures. Then, for Severus, a purification of language was needed.86
Severus alone among the great anti-Chalcedonian fathers like Timothy Aelurus and Philoxenus developed and formulated the doctrine of the miaphysites regarding this question of the properties in Christology.87 He did it while relying on Cyril and was forced to treat this question above all because of his controversy with Sergius the Grammarian.88
Perspective on the Development in the Later Sixth Century
Daniel of Ṣalaḥ’s voluminous ‘Great Commentary on the Psalms’89 dated by Daniel himself to 542 is not yet edited, but David Taylor gives some insights in several articles. Concerning the Christology of Daniel, Taylor gives examples that Daniel emphasized the real humanity of the incarnate Word. “Daniel cannot resist telling us everything he knows about the growth of the foetus, even his emphasis on the caul, or amniotic membrane, which seems entirely irrelevant in this context. But you could not ask for a more explicit passage to underline the real humanity of the incarnate Word.”90
The Christological writings of the philosopher and theologian John Philoponus (c. 490–c. 575) in Alexandria are mainly preserved in Syriac. Although originally written in Greek, only some Greek fragments in John of Damascus survived. Based on the manuscript tradition, Lang thinks that he was in Syriac “occasionally read even in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.”91
The Christology of Philoponus was centered on the formula of the mia physis synthetos: “he repeats it almost like a refrain again and again in his Diaetetes. Most of the deliberations serve to demonstrate the philosophical basis of this formula and its rooting in tradition.”92 I may refer to my “final evaluation”93 and will highlight a few points.
In his Christology, Philoponus starts from the Severan mia-physis doctrine, which he received as tradition, and it is for him a given presupposition. He did not use much the mia-physis formula in his main Christological writing, the Diaetetes, yet the formula is a witness for him that a union of natures or hypostases has taken place. Philoponus gave a new reasoning for the mia energeia.
For Philoponus the synonymity of “nature” and “hypostasis”94 is substantiated with Aristotelian conceptuality. He understands nature as
Another debate among anti-Chalcedonians in Alexandria with the Severan deacon Themistius started in the time of Timothy of Alexandria (517–535) and reached Constantinople when Theodosius of Alexandria was exiled there. The texts of the controversy are from the period after Severus. Many of them written in Greek survived only in Syriac, which implies that the controversy had a certain impact in the Syriac-speaking world. Themistius ascribed ignorance to Christ in his humanity. He started from an anti-Julianist position: since Christ’s humanity was consubstantial to us and subject to natural needs and passions, consequently it is subject also to human ignorance. In the words of Pauline Allen:95 “The humanity of Christ is fully consubstantial with ours—it is also subject to suffering and death. Christ suffered as we suffer, and took upon himself all our natural and blameless passions. It was, however, in complete freedom that he permitted his humanity to undergo suffering.” In his theological reflection, Themistius remained within the mia-physis doctrine. It was especially Theodosius who refuted Themistius and stated that it is not possible after the union in Christ to speak of ignorance in Christ.96
Final Remarks
This overview, a rather rough sketch, may nevertheless suggest something of the richness of the theological reflection in the Syrian tradition. The reliefs of the individual authors can only be understood by keeping in mind their respective interlocutors or opponents and contrasting them with the Christological development in the East Syrian tradition.
Recently, more interest in the philosophical dimension of the miaphysite Christology emerged. Thus, Johannes Zachhuber97 tried to compare the miaphysitism of Severus and John Philoponus with the approach of the Cappadocians (which had its ambiguities98), and to investigate the notion of individuality and personality. Another recent field of research is the study of the term differentia in Philoponus’ approach and Christology, and this put in dialogue with Maximus Confessor.99
Important steps were made by the heads of the Catholic Church and the Syriac Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch in signing the Common Declarations of 1971 and 1984. In their 1971 Declaration,100 one of the earliest Christological declarations,101 Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Moran Mor Ignatius Yacoub III recognized a “deep spiritual communion” already existing “between their Churches.” This communion is based on a number of shared elements: the celebration of the sacraments, the common profession of the faith [in the Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, made man for the salvation of humankind], the apostolic traditions, the great fathers and doctors of the Church [including St. Cyril of Alexandria] who are their common teachers of faith. Both church leaders agree that there is “no difference in the faith” in the incarnation despite the “different theological expressions” of this faith.
An even greater step was made in 1984 between Pope John Paul II and Moran Mor Ignatius Zakka Iwas. They called each other “sister Churches” (nrs. 1 and 9). They wished to “to widen the horizon of their brotherhood,” affirmed this “deep spiritual communion” already uniting them and made an effort to find “a wholly common ecclesial life” (2). They declared, “In words and life, we confess the true doctrine concerning Christ our Lord, notwithstanding the differences in interpretation of such a doctrine which arose at the time of the Council of Chalcedon” (3). “Solemnly” they reaffirmed their “profession of common faith in the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ” (4).
The “common profession of faith” mentioned in 1971 is now clarified in 1984; it is “the Nicene Creed” of 325. In addition, the declaration specified that the later differences in history do not “affect or touch the substance of their faith” (3). The reason is that “these arose only because of differences in terminology and culture and in the various formulae adopted by different theological schools to express the same matter.” Therefore, they see “no real basis for the sad divisions and schisms” which arose concerning the doctrine of Incarnation (3). The subsequent Christological statement follows surprisingly clear the Christological declaration of 1973 between the Catholic and Coptic Orthodox Church, also signed by the church leaders (Pope Paul VI, Pope Shenouda).102 The Christological and hermeneutic explanation of the official Coptic-Orthodox—Catholic dialogue commission in Vienna from 1976103 was not used in 1984.
In view of the sacramental life shared in the two churches, the two heads envisaged practical steps on this basis: to collaborate in pastoral care and theological education. They authorized the faithful to receive the sacraments of Penance, Eucharist and Anointing of the Sick “from lawful priests of either of our two sister Churches, when they need them,” that is, in cases where it is materially or morally impossible for the faithful to find access to a priest of their own Church. In addition, Pope and Patriarch encouraged the Churches “to cooperate in priestly formation and theological education” (9).
In fact, this Declaration led to a number of initiatives in this regard, which, nevertheless, could be continued and enlarged! There is still a fruitful field of theological work yet to make known the rich heritage of Syriac Christology. We must further develop it and help it to interact with the results of modern theological research and ecumenical dialogues. This will shed new light also to the Western theological tradition.
Selected Bibliography
Texts & Translation
Aphraatis sapientis Persae demonstrationes I–XXII, ed. René Graffin, Patrologia Syriaca I(Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1894).
Des Heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen de fide, Beck, Edmund, ed. (CSCO 154–155; Louvain: Durbecq, 1955).
Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Sermo de Domino Nostro, Beck, Edmund ed. (CSCO 270–271; Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1966).
Documenta ad origines Monophysitarum illustrandas. Chabot, Jean-Baptiste, ed. (CSCO 17 and 103; Louvain 1907 and 1933).
Maximus Confessor. “Ambiguum 5” in Constas, Nicholas. On difficulties in the Church Fathers: The Ambigua (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2014).
Severi Antiocheni Liber contra Impium Grammaticum, Orationis tertiae pars posterior – Textus, Versio. Lebon, Joseph, ed. (CSCO 101, 102. Paris: Typogr. Reipublicae, 1933).
Les homiliae cathedrales de Sévère d’Antioche. trad. syriaque de Jacques d’Edesse, eds. René Duval PO 4,1 (Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1906); Maurice Brière, PO 8,2 (1911, 19712); 12,1 (1915); PO 20,2 (1927, 19742); 23,1 (1932); 25,1 (1935); 25,4 (1943); PO 26,3 (1947); PO 29,1 (1960); Marc-Antoine Kugener, Edgar Triffaux, PO 16,5 (1922); Ignacio Guidi, PO 22,2 (1930); Maurice Brière, François Graffin, PO 29 (1960); PO 38,2 (1977); 37,1 (1975); 36,4 (1974); 36,1 (1971); 35,3 (1969); Maurice Brière, François Graffin, Christopher Lash: PO 36,3 (1972).
The Odes of Solomon. Charlesworth, J. H., ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973).
Studies
Aktas, Musa. Die Christologie des Philoxenus von Mabbug (450–523). Studien zu den drei Traktaten über die Trinität und die Menschwerdung des Gott Logos (GOF.S 57; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag 2020).
Bou Mansour, Tanios. “The Christology of Jacob of Sarug,” in T. Hainthaler, ed., A. Grillmeier. The Churches of Jerusalem and Antioch from 451 to 600 (CCT 2/3; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013) 430–477.
Bou Mansour, Tanios. “Introduction on Syriac Christology before Chalcedon,” in ibid., 419–429.
Ebied, Rifaat Y., Van Roey, Albert, and Wickham, Lionel R. Peter of Callinicum. Anti-Tritheist Dossier (OLA 10; Louvain: Departement Orientalistiek, 1981).
Forness, Philip M. Preaching Christology in the Roman Near East. A study of Jacob of Serugh (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018).
Franzmann, Majella. The Odes of Solomon. An Analysis of the Poetical Structure and Form (NTOA 20; Fribourg, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991).
Grillmeier, Alois, Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche I (Freiburg i.B.: Herder, 1979, 3rd edition 1990, resp. 2004 with additional corrections).
Grillmeier, Alois. Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche 2/2: Die Kirche von Konstantinopel im 6. Jahrhundert. Unter Mitarbeit von Theresia Hainthaler (Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 1989).
Grillmeier, Aloys, with Hainthaler, Theresia. Christ in Christian Tradition 2/2: The Church of Constantinople in the Sixth Century (London, Louisville: Mowbray, Westminster John Knox Press, 1995).
Grillmeier, Alois, Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche 2/4: Die Kirche von Alexandrien. Unter Mitarbeit von Theresia Hainthaler (Freiburg, Basel, Wien: Herder, 1990).
Grillmeier, Aloys, with Hainthaler, Theresia. Christ in Christian Tradition 2/4: The Church of Alexandria with Nubia and Ethiopia after 451 (London, Louisville KY: Mowbray, Westminster John Knox, 1996).
Hage, Wolfgang. Das orientalische Christentum (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 2007).
Hainthaler, Theresia. “John Philoponus, Philosopher and Theologian in Alexandria,” in CCT 2/4 (London: Mowbray, 1996), 107–146.
Hainthaler, Theresia. “The Christological Controversy on Proba and John Barbur,” Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 56 (2004): 155–170.
Hainthaler, Theresia. ed., Christ In Christian Tradition, Vol. 2/3: The Churches of Jerusalem and Antioch from 451 to 600. With contributions by Alois Grillmeier, Theresia Hainthaler, Tanios Bou Mansour, Luise Abramowski. In continuation of the work of Alois Grillmeier (Oxford 2013).
Hainthaler, Theresia. “Christological dialogues with the Oriental Churches. A survey,” in Ferracci, Luca, ed. Toward a History of the Desire for Christian Unity. Preliminary Research Papers. Proceedings of the International Conference at the Monastery of Bose (November 2014) (Wien, Zürich: LIT, 2015) 243–254.
Hainthaler, Theresia. “Christological Declarations with Oriental Churches,” in Dunn, Geoffrey D., and Meyer, Wendy, eds. Christians Shaping Identity from the Roman Empire to Byzantium. Studies Inspired by Pauline Allen (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2015) 426–456.
Hainthaler, Theresia. “Theological Doctrines and Debates within Syriac Christianity,” in Daniel King, ed. The Syriac World (New York: Routledge, 2019): 377–390.
Halleux, André de. Philoxène de Mabbog. Sa vie, ses écrits, sa théologie (Louvain: Impr. Oriental., 1963).
Lebon, Joseph. “La christologie du monophysisme syrien,” in Grillmeier, A., Bacht, H. eds. Das Konzil von Chalkedon I. 5th ed. (Würzburg: Echter, 1979), 425–580.
Murray, Robert. Symbols of church and kingdom. A study in early Syriac tradition (London: Cambridge University Press, 1975).
Russell, Norman. “Cyril of Alexandria’s Mia-physis Formula in the Christological Debates of the Fifth and Sixth Centuries,” in Chaillot, Christine, ed. The Dialogue between the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches (Volos: Academy Publications, 2016), 94–112.
Taylor, David. “West Syrian Christology in the Sixth century. The Psalm Commentary of Daniel of Ṣalaḥ,” in Hainthaler, T., Ansorge, D., and Wucherpfennig, A., eds. Jesus der Christus im Glauben der einen Kirche (Freiburg i. Br., Basel, Wien: Herder, 2019), 251–268.
Torrance, Ian R. Christology after Chalcedon. Severus of Antioch and Sergius the Monophysite (Norwich: Canterbury Press, 1988).
Van Roey, Albert, and Allen, Pauline. Monophysite Texts of the Sixth Century (OLA 56; Louvain: Departement Orientalistiek, 1994).
For a general orientation, cf. TRE, vol. 16, s.v. “Jakobitische Kirche”, 474–485; Wolfgang Hage, Das orientalische Christentum (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 2007), 130–167.
By Leontius of Byzantium, Pamphilus, Scythian monks, Justinian, cf. Alois Grillmeier with Theresia Hainthaler, The Church of Constantinople in the Sixth Century (Christ in Christian Tradition 2/2; London, Louisville: Mowbray, Westminster John Knox Press, 1995) and 2/4 (1996), 2/3 (2013), indexes s.n.—Henceforth: Christ in Christian Tradition = CCT.
E. W. Brooks, Iohannis Ephesini Historiae Ecclesiasticae IV 39 and 40 [Versio] (CSCO 106; Louvain: Officina Orientali et Scientifica, 1936), 164,3; 165,10 speaks of the two parties, the Paulites and the Jacobites (Syriac: beth Ya‘qōb, ibid., CSCO 105, 220,14; 218,24; Brooks translates Iacobitarum, Iacobitis); cf. E. W. Brooks, Iohannis Ephesini Historiae Ecclesiasticae IV 17 and 21 [Text] (CSCO 105; Paris: Typographeo Reipublicae, 1935), 204,7; 208,15 (Syriac: beth Ya‘qōb; Brooks translates socii … or pars Iacobitarum). See also Jean Maspero, Histoire des Patriarches d’Alexandrie. Depuis la mort de l’empereur Anastase jusqu’à la réconciliation des Églises jacobites (518–616) (Paris: Champion, 1923), 188. Cf. T. Hainthaler, “The Establishment of the anti-Chalcedonian Hierarchy by Jacob Baradaeus,” CCT 2/3 (2013): 189–192.
The Muslim al-Jaḥiẓ (777–869) described Christians as Nestorians, “Melchites and Jacobites,” see T. Hainthaler, “Theological Doctrines and Debates within Syriac Christianity,” in Daniel King, ed., The Syriac World (London, New York: Routledge, 2019), 377–390, here 377.
In January 1965 a conference of the Heads of Oriental Orthodox Churches was held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Cf. http://www.scooch.org/about/about-scooch/ (last accessed 01 July 2022). The term was used especially in ecumenical dialogues.
Cf. analysis in T. Hainthaler, “A short analysis of the Definition of Chalcedon and some reflections,” The Harp 20 (2006): 317–331.
Cyril, however, was not aware that this formula originated from Apollinarius of Laodicaea in Ad Iovianum, a work, brought into circulation under the name of Athanasius by the followers of Apollinarius after the latter was condemned in Constantinople 381 (“Apollinarian fraud”). First quotation of the mia-physis formula in 430 in Cyril of Alexandria, Oratio ad Arcadiam et Marinam augustas de fide (CPG 5219): Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum I, 1, 5, 65,25–30; Patrologia Graeca 76, 1212AB. Athanasius is mentioned in the introduction of the quote, ACO I 1,5, 65,22–24.
Can. 8: “If anyone … does not understand [the expression “the one nature of God the Word made flesh”] according to what the Fathers have taught … and tries to introduce one nature or substance made of the deity and human flesh of Christ: let him be anathema.” English: CCT 2/2, 450.
Cf. Grillmeier, CCT 2/2, 153, n. 370.
In the 7th century, Greek
Joseph Lebon, Le monophysisme sévérien, étude historique, littéraire et théologique sur la résistance monophysite au concile de Chalcédoine jusqu’à la constitution de l’église jacobite (Louvain: Van Linthout, 1909), comprising 551+22 pages. The editions of the writings of Severus in CSCO were published only in the years 1929–1949. Lebons long essay in 1951, too, has the heading: “La christologie du monophysisme syrien,” in A. Grillmeier and H. Bacht, eds., Das Konzil von Chalkedon I (Würzburg: Echter, 1951, 5th ed. 1979) 425–580, with 155 pages, densely written and very demanding. – The influential book of the English historian W. H. C. Frend, The rise of the monophysite movement (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972), or the often-used study Roberta C. Chesnut, Three monophysite christologies. Severus of Antioch, Philoxenus of Mabbug and Jacob of Sarug (London: Oxford University Press, 1976) use the term in the title, to mention but a few. Still, Bernard Meunier, Le christ de Cyrille d’Alexandrie, l’humanité, le salut et la question monophysite (ThH 104; Paris: Beauchesne, 1997).
Cf. older publication till 1940, like Wilhelm de Vries, Sakramententheologie bei den syrischen Monophysiten (Roma: Pont. Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1940). See also Paul Krüger, Das syrisch-monophysitische Mönchtum im Tur-Ab(h)din von seinen Anfängen bis zur Mitte des 12. Jahrhunderts (Münster i. W.: Greve, 1937); Martin Jugie, Theologia dogmatica christianorum orientalium ab ecclesia catholica dissidentium. – 5. De theologia dogmatica nestorianorum et monophysitarum (Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1935); Hermann Fuchs, Die Anaphora des monophysitischen Patriarchen Jôḥannàn I., herausgegeben, übersetzt und im Zusammenhang der gesamten jakobitischen Anaphorenliteratur untersucht (Münster i. W.: Aschendorff, 1926); Eduard Schwartz, Johannes Rufus. Ein monophysitischer Schriftsteller (Heidelberg: Winter, 1912); Felix Haase, Patriarch Dioskur I. von Alexandria, nach monophysitischen Quellen (Breslau: Aderholz, 1908); Gustav Krüger, Monophysitische Streitigkeiten im Zusammenhange mit der Reichspolitik (Jena: Pohle, 1884).
Cf. the distinction between a heretical “real monophysitism” and a “verbal monophysitism” that can be interpreted in an orthodox sense, already by Lebon (ibid.).
Eduard Schwartz, Publizistische Sammlungen zum Acacianischen Schisma (München: Verlag d. Bayerische Akademie d. Wissenschaft, 1934), 171, n. 1: “Die Bezeichnung der gesamten Opposition gegen das Chalcedonense als ‘monophysitisch’ ist modern [not correct, T.H.] und höchstens in der Geschichte des Dogmas, nicht in der der Tatsachen erträglich, der es nicht auf eine begriffliche Formel ankommt, sondern auf die historischen Wirklichkeiten.”
A. Grillmeier, Jesus der Christus 2/2 (Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 1989), 162, n. 370: “wir sprechen hier am besten von den nachchalcedonischen Anhängern der Mia-Physis-Formel oder der Mia-Physis-Christologie.” English version: A. Grillmeier with T. Hainthaler, CCT 2/2 (1995), 153, n. 370.
Philippe Luisier, “Il miafisismo, un termine discutibile della storiografia recente. Problemi teologici ed ecumenici,” Cristianesimo nella storia [= CrSt] 35 (2014): 297–307.
S. P. Brock, “Miaphysite, not monophysite!” CrSt 37 (2016): 45–52. The article of D. Winkler, “Miaphysitism. A new term for use in the history of dogma and ecumenical theology,” The Harp 10 (1997): 33–40, appeared in 1997 not 1977 (as Brock wrote 50, n. 16).
Philippe Blaudeau, Baby Varghese and Dietmar Winkler, see CrSt 37 (2016): 7–44.
A. Grillmeier with T. Hainthaler, CCT 2/4 (1996): 53.
I.-B. Chabot, Documenta ad origines Monophysitarum illustrandas (CSCO 103; Louvain: Istas, 1933), 68,16–17. CCT 2/4, 53, n. 1. For the Syriac text, see CSCO 17; Louvain: Istas, 1907.
CSCO 17 (T). For a list of Theodosius’ works see CPG III + Suppl., 7130–7159.
Albert Van Roey and Pauline Allen, Monophysite Texts of the Sixth Century (OLA 56; Louvain: Peeters, 1994), 265–303, offers a very helpful “overview of the documenta monophysitica” by P. Allen.
Ibid., 300–301.
Cf. the analysis of A. Grillmeier in CCT 2/3, 268–280.
A. Van Roey, Monophysite Texts, 1–102.
Ibid., p. IX. For analyses, see CCT 2/2 on the Agnoetes, and CCT 2/4.
Cf. T. Hainthaler, in: Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche 2/4 (Freiburg, Basel, Wien: Herder, 1990), 79–82; CCT 2/4, 78–79.
Rifaat Y. Ebied, Albert Van Roey and Lionel R. Wickham, Peter of Callinicum. Anti-Tritheist Dossier (OLA 10; Louvain: Departement Orientalistiek, 1981). Edition by R. Y. Ebied, A. Van Roey and L. Wickham, Petri Callinicensis Patriarchae Antiocheni Tractatus contra Damianum I, Quae supersunt libri secundi (CCG 29; Turnhout: Brepols, 1994); II Libri tertii cap. I–XIX (CCG 32; 1996); III Libri tertii cap. XX–XXXIV (CCG 35; 1998). IV. Libri tertii cap. XXXV–L et addendum libro secundo (CCG 54; 2003). The work was composed after Easter 588 in Alexandria (CCG 29, XX).
A. Van Roey, “Une controverse christologique sous le patriarcat de Pierre de Callinique,” in Symposium Syriacum 1976 (OCA 205; Rome, 1978), 349–357; T. Hainthaler, “Eine christologische Kontroverse Ende des 6. Jahrhunderts unter den Antichalcedoniern des Patriarchats Antiochien,” in Martin Tamcke ed., Syriaca. Zur Geschichte, Theologie, Liturgie und Gegenwartslage der syrischen Kirchen. 2. Deutsches Syrologen-Symposium (Juli 2000, Wittenberg) (Studien zur Orientalischen Kirchengeschichte 17; Hamburg 2002), 197–211; enlarged and deepened in: Jesus der Christus 2/3 (2002), 403–437 (“Eine christologische Kontroverse unter den Severianern Ende des 6. Jh. Die Konversion des Probus und Johannes Barbur zum Chalcedonismus”). English Version: eadem, “A Christological Controversy among the Severans at the End of the Sixth Century. The Conversion of Probus and John Barbur to Chalcedonism,” CCT 2/3 (2013), 386–418; eadem, “The Christological Controversy on Proba and John Barbur,” Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 56 (2004): 155–170.
For detailed analyses, I may refer to the volumes CCT 1 (1975), 2/2 (1995), 2/3 (2013) and 2/4 (1996).
Lexikon der antiken christlichen Literatur, s.v. “Salomo,” 542. Edition and Commentary by J. H. Charlesworth, The Odes of Solomon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973). Cf. the commentaries of Michael Lattke, Die Oden Salomons in ihrer Bedeutung für Neues Testament und Gnosis (OBO 25,1–2; Fribourg, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979), and Majella Franzmann, The Odes of Solomon. An Analysis of the Poetical Structure and Form (NTOA 20; Fribourg, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991).
T. Bou Mansour, “Introduction on Syriac Christology before Chalcedon,” in CCT 2/3, 419–429, here 423.
So Bou Mansour, CCT 2/3, 420–423 (‘The Problem of the Mediator’), here 423.
For Aphrahat, see A. Grillmeier, CCT 1 (London, Oxford: Mowbrays, 21975), 214–218.
Lexikon der antiken christlichen Literatur, s.v. “Aphrahat,” 37–38, here 38.
Cf. Demonstratio XVII: 2 (Patrologia Syriaca I; Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1894), 785–788. Main source for Aphrahat’s Christology is Dem. XVII; see Peter Bruns, Das Christusbild Aphrahats des Persischen Weisen (Bonn: Borengässer: 1990), 122–133.
See A. Grillmeier, CCT 1, 215.
Demonstratio VI: 14, 293–297. See I. Ortiz de Urbina, Die Gottheit Christi bei Afrahat (OC 31; Rom: Pont. Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1933), 124–138.
Dem. VI: 9, 275–278.
See Dem. VI: 10, 277–280; or Dem. VI: 9 (ref. to Phil 2:7).
A. J. Klijn, “The Word kejān in Aphraates,” Vigiliae Christianae 12 (1958): (57–66) 66. See P. Bruns, Christusbild, 144–149, 151–152.
T. Bou Mansour, in CCT 2/3, 425–426.
See A. Grillmeier, Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche I (Freiburg i.B.: Herder, 1979, 3rd edition 1990, resp. 2004 with additional corrections) 516–527 (on Ephrem), here 520. Unfortunately, the available English version, CCT vol. 1 (1975), is outdated, and does not yet contain the chapter on Ephrem. For the whole cf. Robert Murray, Symbols of church and kingdom. A study in early Syriac tradition (London: Cambridge University Press, 1975) Table III, 354–363.
A. Grillmeier, Jesus d. Chr. I, 521.
See Edmund Beck, Die Theologie des hl. Ephraem in seinen Hymnen über den Glauben (StAns 21) (Rome: Libreria Vaticana, 1949), 54–55.
Cf. E. Beck, ed., Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Sermo de Domino Nostro (CSCO 270–271; Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1966), CSCO 270, 3–4; CSCO 271, 3–5. A. Grillmeier, Jesus der Christus I, 522.
Ibid., 524.
T. Bou Mansour in: CCT 2/3, 427.
E. Beck, Theologie, 39–41.
A. Grillmeier, Jesus der Christus I, 525, n. 37.
E. Beck, ed., Des Heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen de fide [=Hymn. de fide] 19, 2–3 (CSCO 154–155; Louvain: Durbecq, 1955), CSCO 154, 72; CSCO 155, 56–57.
Cf. T. Bou Mansour in: CCT 2/3, 427–428, with reference to Hymn. de fide 10,3; 29,1; Virg 7,109; 28,1; Sermo Dom. N. 1,18–19.
A. Grillmeier, Jesus der Christus I, 526.
Hymn. de fide 8,6; 29,2; 53,9.11; T. Bou Mansour in: CCT 2/3, 428. Cf. Sermo de Dom. Nostro 34: Beck, CSCO 270, 31–32; CSCO 271, 32f., a text to which even Antiochene theologians like Diodore could have subscribed; for reasons of authenticity see E. Beck, Ephraems Reden über den Glauben: Ihr theologischer Lehrgehalt und ihr geschichtlicher Rahmen (StAns 33; Rome: Herder, 1953), 93–95.
Hymn. de Nat. 8,2, CSCO 186, 59; 187, 51: “(both) natures he joined (mzg) like colors, and there was an image (zalmā): the God-man (alah barnaš).” See T. Bou Mansour in: CCT 2/3, 428.
A personal reminiscence: The first Syriac Consultation in the Syriac Dialogue, organized by Pro Oriente in 1994 June, 24–29, brought together participants from at least nine Syriac Churches (Chaldean, Syrian-Catholic, Maronite, Syro-Malabar, Syro-Malankara and Syrian Orthodox from Antioch and Malankara Orthodox from India, and Assyrian Church of the East), in other Consultations even 10 with the Mar Thoma Church. When the participants, at one occasion, were invited to start singing Syriac hymns from Ephrem or Narsai, all could join in. The participants realized their deep ties through these poets of the fourth and fifth century.
Cf. W. Hage, “Art. Jakob von Sarug,” in TRE 16 (1987), 470–471. Jacob studied at the school of Edessa (470), was made periodeutes (
Bou Mansour, CCT 2/3, 439–442, esp. 440, 442, and 461 (not in the Mimre), 467.
Bou Mansour, CCT 2/3, 448.
Philip M. Forness, Preaching and Religious Debate: Jacob of Serugh and the Promotion of His Christology in the Roman Near East (Ph.D. diss., Princeton Theological Seminary, 2016), published: Preaching Christology in the Roman Near East. A study of Jacob of Serugh (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), argues that Jacob uses the pairing of miracles and sufferings—which is used also in Leo’s Tome—in order to promote in his homilies the miaphysite position.
Here, we follow the results of the study by T. Bou Mansour, “The Christology of Philoxenus of Mabbug,” in T. Hainthaler, A. Grillmeier, CCT 2/3, 478–544.
See André de Halleux, Philoxène de Mabbog. Sa vie, ses écrits, sa théologie (Louvain: Impr. Oriental., 1963), 50.
Ibid., 238.
It is not sure whether this is his real name or simply an ironic address “my dear friend”, cf. A. de Halleux, Philoxène de Mabbog, 234 with n. 29.
Ibid., 227.
A. de Halleux, “Le mamlelā de ‘Ḥabbīb’ contre Aksenāyā: Aspects textuels d’une polémique christologique dans l’Église syriaque de la première génération postchalcédonienne,” in After Chalcedon (OLA 18; Louvain: Peeters, 1985), 80: “deux grands théologiens syriaques orientaux de la première génération post-chalcédoniens.”
Among new research, we have to mention David A. Michelson, The Practical Christology of Philoxenos of Mabbug (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014); for a review see T. Hainthaler, JThS 68 (2017): 379–381. Musa Aktas composed a monograph, based on the three treatises on Trinity and Incarnation (often called “Sententiae”), with new Syriac edition and a German translation of this voluminous and demanding text: Musa Aktas, Die Christologie des Philoxenus von Mabbug (450–523). Studien zu den drei Traktaten über die Trinität und die Menschwerdung des Gott Logos (GOF.S 57; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag 2020).
J. Zachhuber, “Grillmeiers Darstellung des 6. Jahrhunderts – Leistung und Grenzen,” in T. Hainthaler, Dirk Ansorge and Ansgar Wucherpfennig, eds., Jesus der Christus im Glauben der einen Kirche. Christologie – Kirchen des Ostens – Ökumenische Dialoge (Freiburg i.B.: Herder, 2019) 409: “dem wahrscheinlich bedeutendsten griechisch-sprachigen Theologen an der Wende vom fünften zum sechsten Jahrhundert, … diesem unversöhnlichen Gegner des Konzils von Chalcedon.”
See T. Hainthaler, “The Christological Controversy on Proba and John Barbur” Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 56 (2004): 155–170, here 166–167: “Regarding Severus, there are 21 quotations in libellus VII, taken from Contra impium Grammaticum (against John the Grammairian) II and III, Philalethes, Oratio II ad Nephalium, first and third letter to Sergius the Grammairian, letters to Maron and Eleusinius. In libellus VIII, we can find 22 citations from Severus taken from all three Orationes Contra impium Grammaticum, third letter to Sergius, Philalethes, letter to Eleusinius. In summary, we have 43 citations from Severus, which means Severus is used more than Cyril. It is striking that we have many quotations from the writings against John the Grammairian, an increasing number in libellus VIII. We have also quotations from the controversy with the anti-Chalcedonian Sergius (the one with a leaning towards a Eutychian view), but those from the controversy with John are much more. This could be already an indication, that the monks felt their opponents arguing more like Chalcedonians than anti-Chalcedonians. The first citation from Sergius is in the middle of lib. VII, and in lib. VIII we have only once a citation from the Sergius correspondence.”
T. Hainthaler, An Orientation to Severus of Antioch’s Christology (in print). Cf. also T. Hainthaler, “Severus von Antiochien (gest. 538). Kirchenvater der Anti-Chalcedonier,” in Martin Tamcke, ed., Profile gelebter Theologie im Orient. Sidney Harrison Griffith zum 80. Geburtstag (GOF.S 55; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2018), 51–64. For all details, cf. A. Grillmeier, CCT 2/2 (1995), 28–175.
CCT 2/2, 71, n. 149.
Severus of Antioch, Hom. 14, 17, M. Brière, F. Graffin, eds., Patrologia Orientalis 38, Turnhout: Brepols, 1976, 410,23–25. CCT 2/2, 133.
Grillmeier, CCT 2/2, 161; Jesus d. Chr. 2/2, 170.
Ibid., n. 392.
Norman Russell, “Cyril of Alexandria’s Mia-physis Formula in the Christological Debates of the Fifth and Sixth Centuries,” in Christine Chaillot, ed., The Dialogue between the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches (Volos: Academy Publications, 2016), (94–112) 101–106, here 102.
John Meyendorff, Christ in Eastern Christian thought (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1975), 82; with reference to Justinian’s Confessio rectae fidei: Schwartz, Drei dogmat. Schriften Justinians, p. 80–82.
J. Lebon, ed., Severi Antiocheni Liber contra impium grammaticum III, cap. 38 (CSCO 102; Louvain: Impr. Orientaliste Durbecq, 1952), 175,6–7; Syr. IV 6, 238,4–8. CCT 2/2, 163.
Cf. Grillmeier, CCT 2/2, 163. Jesus d. Chr. 2/2, 173.
Severus Ant., ep. 3 ad Johannem abbatem (CPG 7071,28): Doctrina Patrum, ed. Diekamp, Münster, 1907, 309 XXIV. Cf. CCT 2/2, 170.
Maximus Confessor, “Ambiguum 5, 22–26” in Nicholas Constas, On difficulties in the Church Fathers: The Ambigua, vol.1 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2014), 52–59.
Ibid., 53, 55.
See Lebon, Le monophysisme sévérien, 319–326, and Grillmeier, CCT 2/2, 336–338. For the background and origin of synthesis see Grillmeier, CCT 2/2, 458–461.
Maximus Confessor, Amb. 5, 21, 53.
See Juan-Miguel Garrigues, “La personne composée du Christ d’après saint Maxime le Confesseur”, Revue Thomiste 74 (1974): 181–204, 189–196. On the problems of the Severan mia physis synthetos cf. Maximus Confessor, Ep. 15, PG 91, 573A; he defended the necessity of the Chalcedonian distinction.
Severus Ant., Severi Antiocheni Liber contra impium grammaticum III, cap. 29, 79,18–25. Cf. Grillmeier, CCT 2/2, 162.
See Grillmeier, CCT 2/2, 72–79. 174.
Joseph Lebon, “La christologie du monophysisme syrien,” in A. Grillmeier and H. Bacht, Das Konzil von Chalkedon I, 534–576; cf. controversy on Proba and John Barbur and my analyses (above note 30).
On the controversy with Sergius, cf. Ian R. Torrance, Christology after Chalcedon. Severus of Antioch and Sergius the Monophysite (Norwich: Canterbury Press, 1988); Grillmeier, CCT 2/2, 111–128.
David Taylor, “West Syrian Christology in the Sixth century. The Psalm Commentary of Daniel of Ṣalaḥ,” in T. Hainthaler, D. Ansorge and A. Wucherpfennig, eds., Jesus der Christus im Glauben der einen Kirche, 251–268, here 252: “divided into three volumes and contains more than 1200 manuscript pages.”
Taylor, “West Syrian Christology in the Sixth century,” 263–264.
Uwe Michael Lang, John Philoponus and the controversies over Chalcedon in the sixth century. A study and translation of the Arbiter (SSL 47; Louvain: Peeters, 2001), 15–20, here 20.
T. Hainthaler, “John Philoponus, Philosopher and Theologian in Alexandria,” in CCT 2/4, 107–146, here 112.
Ibid., 142–146.
Ibid., 142.
A. Van Roey and P. Allen, Monophysite Texts, 302, summarizing texts of the Documenta monophysitica.
For these debates, cf. T. Hainthaler, “Theological Doctrines and Debates within Syriac Christianity,” 377–390.
Johannes Zachhuber, “Personhood in Miaphysitism: Severus of Antioch and John Philoponus,” in Alexis Torrance and Symeon Paschalidis, eds., Personhood in the Byzantine Christian Tradition: Early, Medieval, and Modern Perspectives (London: Routledge, 2018), 29–43.
Cf. already noted in Alois Grillmeier, Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche I, 768.
Sebastian Mateiescu, “John Philoponus and the Interpretation of the Differentia in the Aftermath of Chalcedon,” in Mikonja Kneževiae, ed., Aristotle in Byzantium (Alhambra, California: St. Sebastian Orthodox Press; Podgorica: Center for Hellenic Studies, 2020), 125–166; Christophe Erismann, “John Philoponus on Individuality and Particularity,” in Alexis Torrance and Johannes Zachhuber, eds., Individuality in Late Antiquity (Farnham: Ashgate, 2014), 143–160. Now Sebastian Mateiescu, “Providence as Judgment in Maximus the Confessor. Some Christological Implications,” in T. Hainthaler et al., eds., Pronoia. The Providence of God in East and West (2017) (Pro Oriente 42; Wiener Patristische Tagungen VIII; Innsbruck, Wien: Tyrolia, 2019), 351–364.
Joint Declaration Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Mar Ignatius Yacoub III, Rome, 27 October 1971. https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/speeches/1971/october/documents/hf_p-vi_spe_19711027_dichiarazione-comune.html (last accessed 01 July 2022).
T. Hainthaler, “Christological dialogues with the Oriental Churches. A survey,” in Luca Ferracci, ed., Toward a History of the Desire for Christian Unity. Preliminary Research Papers. Proceedings of the International Conference at the Monastery of Bose (November 2014) (Wien, Zürich: LIT, 2015), 243–254, esp. 246.
Common Declaration of Pope Paul VI and of the Pope of Alexandria Shenouda III, May 10, 1973, https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/speeches/1973/may/documents/hf_p-vi_spe_19730510_dichiarazione-comune.html (last accessed 01 July 2022). For the details see T. Hainthaler, “Die Gemeinsame Erklärung vom 23. Juni 1984. Theologische Aussage und ökumenische Bedeutung,” in Johannes Oeldemann, ed., Gemeinsamer Glaube und pastorale Zusammenarbeit. 25 Jahre Weggemeinschaft zwischen der Syrisch- Orthodoxen Kirche und der Römisch-Katholischen Kirche (Epiphania Egregia 6; Basel: Reinhardt, Friedrich, 2011), 24–51. – Common Declaration of Pope John Paul II and His Holiness Moran Mor Ignatius Zakka I Iwas, June 23, 1984, https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/speeches/1984/june/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19840623_jp-ii-zakka-i.html (last access 29 July 2022).
In this “Christological Declaration” (29 August 1976) in ISPCU 76 (1991/I), 21, it is explained by both parties: “When the Orthodox part rejects all duality in Jesus Christ, it is intended to say that every act of Jesus Christ is in fact the act of God the Word incarnate and not that some of His acts be attributed to His Divinity alone as it might seem. When the Catholics confess their faith in Jesus Christ, then they do not deny what the Orthodox say, but they want to emphasize that in Him are preserved all the properties of the Divinity as well as all the properties of the Humanity, a fact which the Orthodox profess incessantly. When the Orthodox confess that Divinity and Humanity of Our Lord are united in one nature, they take “nature”, not as a pure and simple nature, but rather as one composite nature, wherein the Divinity and Humanity are united inseparatedly and unconfusedly. And when Catholics confess Jesus Christ as one in two natures, they do not separate the Divinity from the Humanity, not even for the twinkling of an eye, but they rather try to avoid mingling, commixtion, confusion or alteration.” See T. Hainthaler, “Christological Declarations with Oriental Churches,” in Geoffrey D. Dunn and Wendy Meyer, eds., Christians Shaping Identity from the Roman Empire to Byzantium. Studies Inspired by Pauline Allen (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2015), 426–456, esp. 431–433.