Patristic florilegia are paradoxical texts. On the one hand, they are very eloquent, as they often deal at length with clearly defined topics: on the other hand, however, they are obstinately mute, as they speak through the voices of others and seem to lack their own. Thus, although they do say much, and what they say is quite clear, what they intend to communicate through the voices of the âold mastersâ tends to escape our investigation. Their intention is of course closely related to their historical context, which, however, is difficult to determine, since the purely theological content of these florilegia remains far from factual history. They are mosaics, but in a way, they are quite the opposite of proper mosaics, as we cannot enjoy their overall subject and intention with one comprehensive glance; in order to appreciate the sense and underlying strategy of their composition, we must rather auscultate the fine junctions between the individual tesserae. This is also true in the case of a large florilegium of Christological content that occupies a prominent position in six manuscripts of the eighthâtenth centuries preserved at the British Library and in the Mingana Collection. In this chapter, I shall present a few fieldnotes from an on-going exploration on this florilegium.
The florilegium discusses highly technical topics such as: 1) the persistence of a difference between the natures from which Christ derives; 2) the exclusion of any duality from Christ; 3) the apology of the alleged novelty of the Miaphysite doctrine through a collection of patristic authorities, from Dionysius the Areopagite to the Cappadocians; and 4) an overview of the definition and the debates held at Chalcedon. A first exploration of the patristic materials of this florilegium, their relationship with the above-mentioned topics, and their complex itineraries through the centuries has led to some provisional results concerning the context in which they were originally collected and the circumstances that may have prompted the production of the florilegium as we have it now. The topics discussed in our florilegium were the core of a rather obscure Christological debate of the end of the sixth century, which, however, was crucial for the theological self-consciousness of later Syriac Miaphysitism, namely, the controversy around Probus, a Miaphysite theologian who converted to Chalcedonianism in the 580s. Much of what is discussed in our florilegium, especially the ânatural characteristicâ and the removal of the duality of Christâs natures, is already present in this sixth-century controversy.
These very topics resurfaced in an age of renewed polemics between Miaphysites and Chalcedonians, between the end of the Umayyad caliphate and the first decades of the Ê¿Abbasid rule. A precious source from the end of the eighth or the beginning of the ninth century is the letter of a man by the name of Elias, who converted from Chalcedonianism to the Miaphysite faith. This letter, addressed to the Chalcedonian syncellus Leo of ḤarrÄn, shows us that the discussion still focused on the same points concerning the difference between the natures in Christ and the exclusion of any duality. The authorities quoted by Elias to defend his Miaphysite options are the same as in our florilegium and are organized in a similar way. At approximately the same time, we observe how Nonnus of Nisibis and his relative AbÅ« RÄʾiá¹ah used the same florilegium we now read for their polemic against the Melkites.
After a presentation of the contents, structure, and aims of the florilegium, the chapter will move on to a contextualization of its gradual appearance between the sixth and eighth century, touching upon the relevant steps, including the debates between Probus and the Miaphysites, Eliasâ Letter, and Nonnus of Nisibisâ Christological writings. In the conclusions, I shall try and argue why, in that age, Miaphysite intellectuals felt the need to mobilise the resources of their metaphysical and theological tradition once again and to such an extent.
My exploration of this long story is necessarily partial and incomplete, for it is difficult to determine the exact production context of the florilegium, and it will perhaps remain impossible.
1 The Florilegium: Manuscripts, Content, Structure, and Aims
1.1 Manuscript Tradition
The Christological florilegium is preserved in six manuscripts.1 Applying and expanding the sigla used by Albert van Roey and Pauline Allen,2 the FLOS project is indicating them as follows:
| A |
London, British Library Add. 12154: a portion of the Christological florilegium at fol. 17vâ28r;3 |
| B |
BL Add. 12155: Christological florilegium at fol. 32vâ53v;4 |
| C |
BL Add. 14532: Christological florilegium at fol. 1vâ36r;5 |
| D |
BL Add. 14533: Christological florilegium at fol. 19vâ37v;6 |
| E |
BL Add. 14538: Christological florilegium at fol. 80vâ101v;7 |
| M |
Birmingham, Cadbury Research Library, Mingana Syr. 69: parts of the Christological florilegium at fol. 1râ17v.8 |
All these manuscripts, and especially B, C, and D, are invaluable repositories of Miaphysite writings throughout the centuries, which include not only florilegia, but also authored writings from the end of the sixth or the beginning of the seventh centuries, of which we would have otherwise lost trace.9 Suffice it here to mention the libelli of the Miaphysite monks against Probus, and a correspondence between a Chalcedonian monks of BÄt MarÅ«n and the Miaphysites, both of which will be treated or mentioned later in the present chapter.
The Christological florilegium opens the most fine-looking and probably most ancient of its witnesses, manuscript C (BL Add. 14532), which William Wright dated to the eighth century. This manuscript was conceived in a unitary way; it is called â®
William Wright had already noticed the recurrence of the Christological florilegium in C, D and E,10 whereas he had not noticed its presence in A (which contains only a small portion of it) and B, nor had Alphonse Mingana noticed that the first 17 folios of M contain a substantial part of it.
Except for A, the order in which the three florilegia are disposed is the following:
| B |
Trinitarian (in a longer form) â Christological â Anti-Origenist â Anti-Julianist |
| C |
Christological (with lacunae) â Anti-Julianist â Trinitarian â Anti-Origenist (partial) |
| D |
Christological â Anti-Origenist â Anti-Julianist â Trinitarian |
| E |
Christological â Anti-Julianist â Trinitarian â Anti-Origenist (partial, same extension as in C) |
| M |
Christological (with lacunae)Â â Anti-Julianist (with lacunae); the Trinitarian florilegium may well have featured in the manuscript, which, however, is heavily mutilated. |
1.2 Content and Structure
The present chapter will not tackle a micro-structural analysis of the single excerpts and their grouping into blocks within the florilegium, which will require a monographic study. Here, I shall rather concentrate on macro-structures and the historical traces of their progressive accumulation. The content of the florilegium throughout the manuscripts appears to be relatively stable, as it tends to include the same chapters in almost all the manuscripts. However, the general structure changes considerably from one witness to the other. This florilegium, as any other dogmatic florilegium in Syriac and other languages, is divided into chapters, like a normal authored treatise. Each chapter has its own title, written in red in all manuscripts, which is a sentence taken from the chapter itself; the chapter is nothing but a collection of excerpts from various patristic writings on the topic announced in the title; each excerpt bears its own rubric, which informs on the work, book and chapter from which it is extracted, and the author of the work. A list of the chapters and their titles can be found below in Appendix 1; the following analysis presupposes its consultation (the numbering is my own and is based on my forthcoming critical edition of the florilegium). If we assume C as a term of comparison, D presents a slightly different structure, as it stops earlier than C (at the end of chapter 85) and includes a block of chapters (69â80) that do not feature in C (where their absence must be due to the loss of a whole quire between fol. 9v and 10r) but can be found in B, D, and E. E is particularly close to C in terms of wording. Moreover, E has two additional chapters, which seem to be peculiar to it, at the beginning and at the end. M seems to have the same structure as C, although we cannot know whether it had two additional chapters like E, since the initial and final folia of the text are missing. The structure of B is unique, as it displays the chapters in a completely different order (47â68, 1â46, 69â80a, 86â87, 97â98, 100â102, 99, 80bâ85, 105â110, 88â96, 103â104) and starts the chapter numbering over in the three last blocks (105â110, 88â96, 103â104), apparently considering them as a separate florilegium.
1.3 Title and Aim of the Florilegium
It is difficult to reconstruct an original title for the Christological florilegium, since it bears a different one in each manuscript. It does not have any title at all in C and D; in E, it is called âagainst the dyophysites (â®
2 The Themes
Despite the different distribution of the chapters in the various witnesses, it is possible to enucleate five main thematic areas in the florilegium. This presentation of the contents will concentrate on the first four sections, and especially on the chapter titles, as they are the privileged place where the compiler reveals the implicit narrative and strategy of the selection.
2.1 Difference as to the Natural Characteristic
The compilation starts with a section (chapters 1â23) devoted to a crucial topic of Miaphysite Christology, the so-called ânaturalâ or âessential characteristic (or quality, or predication)â,11 â®
2.2 Avoiding Duality
The group of chapters that follows, from 24 to 46, concentrates on the correct way of using the numbers âoneâ and âtwoâ and of conceiving of the union with regard to Christ. In this group, the compiler almost exclusively quotes from Severusâ Against the Grammarian but also includes hitherto unedited quotations from Philoxenus of Mabbug (in chapter 24, from a âLetter against Flavian of Antiochâ and a âLetter to the abbots Theodore, Mama and Severusâ, also concerning Flavian of Antioch)16 and other authors, like Gregory Nazianzen, whose excerpts, however, are probably taken from Severusâ Against the Grammarian, where they were originally cited.17 In chapter 26, John the Grammarian is directly brought to the fore in two excerpts from his Apology of the Council of Chalcedon, both taken from Severusâ Against the Grammarian.18 In these excerpts, John maintains that the union, in order to be such, must preserve the two components that were united; many passages from Severusâ Against the Grammarian quoted in the following chapters object that the union is not real if a duality of any kind persists in it. The natures of which Christ consists remain in him only in the form of the composition but they do not subsist separately, such as to be counted as really, concretely two. If one speaks of a union, it is obvious that the two, or many, from which the union derives, must be mentioned and necessarily appear to the mind that contemplates them (e.g., chapters 35, âThe cutting and the duality which are in the thought cease [scil. after the union]â, 36, â âFrom two natures or hypostasesâ is said [only] in theoryâ, 37, âComposed [things] are separated only in theoryâ, and 38 âComposition is divided only in [oneâs] mindâ). However, the natures are only the theoretical origin of the union,19 the âfrom whichâ, but they do not exist as such in the real Christ; indeed, Severus writes, Cyril never expected Nestorius not to mention two natures, but expected him not to divide them at the level of concrete reality (chapter 45: âNot the fact itself of mentioning two natures is bad, but the fact of speaking of two natures after the union is contemptibleâ, â®
From the first two sections, it may seem difficult to determine whether the florilegium aims at a generic exposition of Miaphysite Christology against dyophysitism in general, or if it has a more specific polemical goal. It is not of secondary importance, however, that most of the excerpts come from a work that Severus had addressed against John the Grammarian, a champion of Neo-Chalcedonianism: chapter 26 is made up of Johnâs objections to Miaphysitism and Andrew of Samosataâs objections to Cyrilâs anathemas, while the following chapter contains Severusâ replies in various passages from Against the Grammarian and the treatise to Nephalius. These elements are significant clues to the fact that we are dealing with a specifically anti-Chalcedonian collection. It is already striking at this point that the general tone of the collection and the way the Miaphysite arguments are presented tend to be apologetic and/or polemical, seeing how the compiler selects and rearranges passages that serve as a polemical justification of the Miaphysite position against critical remarks coming from the Chalcedonian side. Some chapter titles in the first section are particularly eloquent, as they are formulated in a negative form and thus sound like replies to objections. See e.g. chapter 10: âThe union did not take away differenceâ; and reciprocally chapter 22: âSpeaking of union does not neglect the differenceâ; chapter 13: âEssential difference does not bring in with itself a cutting into two after the unionâ; chapter 14: âDivision does not follow a difference of essence in any regardâ; and the previously quoted title of chapter 17: âWe do not avoid confessing the property of the natures from which the Emmanuel derives, in order to preserve the union unconfusedâ. Thus, even though the title of the manuscripts B and C is âdemonstrations of the Fathers against various heresiesâ, in this florilegium the demonstrations do not attack the alleged heresies but rather defend Miaphysitism from the attacks of the heretics. This hypothesis is further confirmed by the following sections of the Christological florilegium, where the compiler goes on to define the Miaphysite tenets in a defensive way. Indeed, at the end of chapter 46, a passage from Severusâ letter to his correspondent Eleusinius is quoted where Severus refers to Theodoret of Cyrus, who had written that the phrase âunity in hypostasisâ, or âhypostatic unionâ, cannot be accepted insofar as it is stranger to the patristic tradition. Once again, an accusation coming from the Chalcedonian party.
2.3 A Variety of Sources
The next section of the florilegium (chapters 47 to 80, but especially 47â68) moves from the almost homogenously Cyrillian and Severan selection of the previous sections to a wider variety of sources. The intention is to show that many Fathers, since the beginnings of Christianity, had known the Miaphysite union and all the related conceptual apparatus, including the concept of composition of the two natures in Christ and the theopaschite idea of God suffering and dying on the cross. In a way, this section is a patristic florilegium in the florilegium, where the universally accepted authority of the pre-Chalcedonian Fathers is evoked to support the Miaphysite tradition, which was mostly represented by Severus and Cyril in the previous 46 chapters. The title of chapter 49 is particularly telling: âThe Fathers know that the union of the Word with His ensouled flesh was natural and hypostaticâ. The same pattern can be identified in other titles where the term âFathersâ is present, for example in chapter 52: âTestimonia of the holy Fathers who confess that God the Word suffered and died for us in the fleshâ or 53: âAlthough the Fathers separate two natures in theory, they see and say that the union occurred from those [two] and confess one incarnate nature of the Word after the union, and do not divide in any way those which were unitedâ. These chapters do not proceed in chronological order but start from Dionysius the Areopagite, who is seen as a genuine disciple of the apostles. Peter of Alexandria, Athanasius, Basil, ps.-Gregory Thaumaturgus, the synod of Antioch that condemned Paul of Samosata, especially Malchionâs letter against Paul, Gregory of Nazianzus, and John Chrysostom are then quoted in the following chapters. The compiler even adds a short selection of passages from the New Testament in chapter 50. Significantly enough, in B, where the structure is different, the block of chapters 47â68, which contains an apologetic selection of pre-Chalcedonian witnesses on the hypostatic union, opens the florilegium; the block containing chapters 1â47 immediately follows it. This cannot be the original order, because it is typical of florilegia to be appended to a piece of writing, not to precede it. Moreover, as stated above, at the end of chapter 46, a fragment from one of Severusâ letters to Eleusinius mentions an objection to the Miaphysite Christology raised by Theodoret, to which the following block starting with chapter 47 indeed seems to reply. However, the rearrangement of B is understandable, since the pre-Chalcedonian Fathers antedate Cyril and Severus, and thus they should be put before the Miaphysite theologians, as if paving the way to them.
2.4 The Council of Chalcedon
The anti-Chalcedonian nature of this florilegium becomes obvious in the fourth section of the florilegium (chapters 81â105), which contains a large and most interesting selection of translated excerpts from the Council of Chalcedon itself. In most manuscripts, these excerpts are indicated through obeloi in the margin,20 in order to warn the reader that they come from heretical writings. These excerpts seem to be extracted from a sort of commented epitome of the Council, since they are occasionally accompanied by critical and historical remarks, which, however, may have been written by the compiler of our florilegium. This finding is surprising, since, except for the canons published by Schulthess more than a century ago,21 we do not have Syriac translations of the proceedings of this Council. In our florilegium, citations from the council of Chalcedon alternate with excerpts from dyophysite writers such as Theodoret and Nestorius and, as a counterpoint, with passages from Cyril and Severus, always with an apologetic flavour. What is also surprising is that this section adds a sort of historical framework to the previous sections, providing the readers of the florilegium with a âdogmengeschichtlicheâ perspective and allowing them to understand the stakes of the Christological debate in historical perspective. Chapter 82, for instance, contains the whole Chalcedonian definition of faith, which is followed, in chapter 83, by Severusâ harsh criticism of it in a letter to an Isaac Scholasticus; in chapters 89 and 96, we find passages from Cyrilâs letters where he complains that his writings have been falsified so as to seem in agreement with the dyophysite tenets. Indeed, in chapter 98, we can have a look at the other side of this affair, with a quotation from Theodoretâs letter to Nestorius, communicating that Cyril has accepted the view of the dyophysites. All the chapters in between, 90â95, contain quotations from Nestorius and Cyril, aiming to show that Cyril may seem close to the dyophysites because he uses the language of unity too, but that the dyophysites conceive of unity in a wrong way, since they undermine it with a wrong conception of duality.
3 A Remote Root: The Probus Affair
A crucial clue to the original context that prompted the production of the material collected in this florilegium is provided by the last quotations in chapter 68. They are extracted from three different writings of Probus, a little-known Miaphysite and later Chalcedonian theologian of the end of the sixth century. Probusâ thought and writings received some attention in the last century; Albert Van Roey,22 Paolo Bettiolo,23 José Declerck,24 Theresia Hainthaler,25 and Karl-Heinz Uthemann26 wrote on him and published some of his works. Sebastian Brock27 has even suggested to identify him with the philosopher Probus, some of whose works are extant in Syriac.28 Uwe Michael Lang touched upon Probus in his monograph on Philoponusâ Arbiter.29 According to the West Syriac patriarch Dionysius of Tell-Mahre30 (ninth century; the pages on Probus are the only surviving ones from his chronicle) and to the twelfth-century historian Michael the Great, who elaborates on Dionysiusâ account, Probus was a Miaphysite theologian of the second half of the sixth century, an âerudite and intelligentâ man,31 who had accompanied the Miaphysite patriarch of Antioch, Peter of Callinicum, during a visit to Alexandria in 581â582, together with the archimandrite John Barbur who, according to another hitherto unknown source, was his teacher.32 In Alexandria, the two men were seduced by the theories of an Alexandrian âphilosopherâ or âsophistâ, named Stephen (whose identity remains uncertain).33 We know that, for a while, Probus had defended the Severan Miaphysite orthodoxy against Stephen and had even written a refutation of his tenets. What did Stephen teach, which needed a Miaphysite reaction? We know little about Stephenâs theories, but from our historical sources we know that he objected to the Miaphysites that one of their main arguments was absurd. He purportedly said that if one conceives of the unity in Christ as of a unity of nature, like the Miaphysites did, then any difference based on the preservation of the characteristics of the natures, not only any division, must disappear. Indeed, if a difference persists, one can still count two distinct natures. Indeed, Probusâ initial refutation of Stephen, according to an indirect source, bore the title âAgainst those who affirm that one must not confess that the difference as to the natural characteristic is preserved after the unionâ.34 Many chapters in the first section of the Christological florilegium seem to respond precisely to this criticism, as the titles of chapters 8 and 9 indicate: âThe difference, as far as essence is concerned, did not cease after the thought of the unionâ; âthe difference, as far as essence is concerned, remainedâ (â®
This debate between Probus and a group of Miaphysites was directed by the Chalcedonian patriarch Anastasius in Antioch in 595/6 by order of Emperor Maurice. The now Chalcedonian Probus and the monks debated, once again, on difference, division, and the natural characteristic. The sources for the reconstruction of this debate are still unedited, except for the aforementioned treatise On Difference, which has not been directly related to this disputation so far.41 Probus and the monks exchanged respectively eight libelli, of which only the seventh and eighth of the monks have come down to us, along with an excerpt of Probusâ response to their sixth libellus. Some questions by the patriarch Anastasius addressed to the Miaphysites, with the latterâs reply, are also preserved.42 The subject of Anastasiusâ questions and of the Miaphysitesâ replies immediately brings the reader into the same conceptual atmosphere as in the Christological florilegium, the wording being precisely the same.43 The libelli of the monks, however, are even more striking in this respect. The Miaphysite monks presented many patristic witnesses in support of their stance. The great majority of the excerpts quoted in the libelli have a correspondence in our florilegium, and especiallyânot by chanceâin its first section, which deals with the specific problem of difference and division in Christ (see Appendix 2). It is particularly significant that the omissions in the quotations also overlap; for example, if a quotation from Severus in a libellus is interrupted through the phrase âand againâ, â®
Some of the excerpts quoted in the libelli are longer than the corresponding excerpts in our florilegium, whereas some others are much shorter. This means that the libelli are not, or not entirely, the direct source of the Christological florilegium. Therefore, it is tempting to venture a little speculation and turn to Peter of Callinicum as the initial source of this patristic material. We do not have his treatise against Probus of 585 but, judging by Peterâs compilatory style in his massive extant work against the patriarch of Alexandria on tritheism, the Contra Damianum, which is largely based on patristic quotations, we can easily suppose that he made use of a large number of patristic sources in the lost treatise against Probus as well. Thus, one is easily led to suppose that Peterâs lost treatise against Probus may be the source of the selections from Severus, Cyril, and the other Fathers that the monks also quoted in their libelli ten years later. More generally, one could say that our Christological florilegium selects, collects and rearranges patristic materials that were produced in the decade of 585â595, during the controversy between Probus and the Antiochene Miaphysites. The florilegium may have drawn at least a part of its patristic testimonia, which were also used in the libelli of the monks (and in the response of the Miaphysite monks to the monks of BÄt MarÅ«n44), from Peter of Callinicumâs lost treatise, and it may have reassembled them into a new florilegium. Although speculative, the hypothesis that Peter of Callinicumâs patristic materials were selected and rearranged in later Syriac florilegia is not unreasonable. As Bishara Ebeid has recently shown, the greatest part of the trinitarian florilegium that accompanies our Christological florilegium, in most of the manuscripts where it is preserved, consists precisely in a rearrangement of the patristic excerpts contained in Peter of Callinicumâs Contra Damianum.45 Thus, the Christological florilegium may be at least partially the result of an analogous operation made on Peterâs work against Probus. Therefore, with Probus and with the Miaphysite response to the monks of BÄt MarÅ«n, we have brought to light the most ancient layer accessible to us of the geological stratification of our florilegium.
4 In Search of a Context: Why an Anti-Chalcedonian Florilegium?
Now that we have determined the likely context in which the materials of our florilegium originated, we must come back to the florilegium itself and necessarily ask two questions. What was the use of rearranging, in the late eighth century, the patristic archives that had informed an apparently remote and highly technical controversy of the sixth century? How important could the refutation of Chalcedonian Christology be in that age?
4.1 Eliasâ Letter to the Chalcedonian Syncellus Leo of ḤarrÄn
In the last decades, the period between the end of the seventh and the beginning of the ninth century has been intensively studied by Syriac scholars as the age of the establishment of the Umayyad and then of the Ê¿Abbasid rule in Syria and Mesopotamia, as well as the crucible of Christian Arabic literature and the heyday of anti-Islamic apology. Little attention, however, has been paid to Christological disputes of the same age involving the Syriac orthodox Church; as a matter of fact, only two articles by Ute Possekel were devoted to the topic in the last thirty years. Our sources are admittedly scarce, especially as far as the eighth century is concerned. One of Possekelâs articles46 sheds new light on a rather friendly dispute of the eighth (or possibly the beginning of the ninth) century that involved a Miaphysite convert from Chalcedonianism, a man named Elias, and his friend Leo, a syncellus of the Chalcedonian bishop of ḤarrÄn. This Elias must not be confused with the Syriac orthodox patriarch Elias of ḤarrÄn, who died in 723;47 in fact, he must probably be identified with an Elias of ḤarrÄn, by whom we have a treatise on the Eucharist addressed to Dionysius of Tell-Mahre, arguably before the latter was elected patriarch (Dionysius is called âof QenneÅ¡reâ in the dedication),48 in addition to a short preface to the above-mentioned pseudo-Philoponian treatise On Difference, Number, and Division. Specifically, we have an incomplete letter in twelve chapters addressed by Elias to Leo, in which he explains to his friend the theological rationale of his conversion; in the letter, Elias also quotes extensive passages from other works of slightly earlier Syriac Chalcedonian theologians, George, bishop of Martyropolis-Maipherqat, and Constantine, bishop of ḤarrÄn, who had written against the Miaphysites. The letter was edited and translated in 1985 by Albert van Roey,49 who had also published an extensive study on its contents and theology more than forty years earlier.50
The topics tackled by Elias, which were singled out by Van Roey in his study,51 partially but significantly overlap with those tackled by the monks in their libelli against Probus, in the above-mentioned treatise On Difference, and in the Christological florilegium. Even after Van Roeyâs fine doctrinal overview, Eliasâ letter would still deserve a detailed commentary. Here, I will just isolate some samples in order to highlight how the choice and treatment of two topics in the letter are particularly close to our florilegium. These are; 1) the distinction between âdifferenceâ and âdivisionâ of the natures in Christ, and 2) the rejection of the use of the expression âtwo naturesâ after the thought of the union. What is even more significant with regard to the Christological florilegium is that, as we shall see, the whole letter is interspersed with patristic quotations, and the last part of the letter is a discussion on Leoâs wrong understanding of the patristic quotations he had displayed when writing to Elias.52 In fact, most of these quotations once again overlap with those in the florilegium, as can be seen from the selection provided in Appendix 3.
As to the first topic (difference vs. division and the natural characteristic), the fifth chapter of the letter rejects the dyophysite tenets by stating that one can only say âtwo naturesâ in the sense that in the union there remains a difference in their natural characteristic; any other affirmation of two natures cuts the union. As Elias writes, âwhy do you make of the difference in the natural characteristic a cause for the separation of the natures?â53 This question was still urgent in the eighthâninth century as it implies a typical Chalcedonian argument, which by Eliasâ time had already found full-fledged expression in John Damascene, and which requires a brief excursus on the opposed metaphysical presuppositions of Chalcedonians and Miaphysites.
In fact, both Chalcedonians and Miaphysites acknowledged the persistence of a ânaturalâ or âessentialâ difference in the union, i.e., a difference on the level of nature between humanity and divinity in Christ. Since Cyril, the Miaphysites had called it, as we saw above, a difference as to the natural quality,
Now, since Miaphysites identified nature/essence and hypostasis, they necessarily misinterpreted the Chalcedonian stance. Their position has been interpreted as ânominalistâ60 namely, that no universal nature/essence really exists. A nature can only be conceived of in thought, and it is not right to state that it really exists when it is instantiated in an individual, because only individuals exist, and ânaturesâ are concrete existing specific entities, thus being tantamount to hypostases. This explains Cyrilâs and Severusâ strenuous insistence on expressions like âwe can conceive of two natures only in subtle thoughts and imaginationsâ.61 With this conception in the background, the Miaphysites regarded the Chalcedonian formula as producing division and confusion at the same time, where division is caused by the Chalcedonians affirming the real existence of two different natures with their differing properties in Christ, which, according to the Miaphysite concept of nature, meant two individual Christs; confusion, for the reasons explained above, is caused by the Chalcedonians refusing to affirm a difference of properties at the level of the hypostasis, because, in their opinion, this would have meant a distinction between two different individuals. In brief, both Chalcedonians and Miaphysites affirmed the persistence of a difference on the level of the essence, but, for the Chalcedonians, this meant affirming a difference on the level of the universal natures, whereas, according to the Miaphysite concept of nature, affirming a difference of natures implied a difference between more individuals. Hence, Eliasâ question: âwhy do you make of the difference in the natural characteristic a cause for the separation of the natures?â This resonates with chapters 11 and 12 of the florilegium, âwe do not consider the difference to be cause of divisionâ and âHeretics try to introduce division through difference,â as well as the title of Eliasâ fifth chapter, âthe two natures that are posited by the dyophysites according to the essential difference viz. to the difference in the natural characteristic ⦠are not united, as they guiltily state, but separatedâ. Namely, the way the dyophysites conceive of the difference in the natural characteristic, i.e., as a reason to affirm a duality of nature, is illegitimate, because it reintroduces a separationâa dualityâin Christ. Of course, although they maintainedâopposite to the Chalcedoniansâthat the difference of properties is at the level of the individual nature/hypostasis, the Miaphysites did not draw from this the conclusion that there are two Christs, because their ontology was substantially different. While for the Chalcedonians two different sets of properties must be referred to two different, really existent essences (which in the case of Christ are instantiated within the same individual hypostasis), for the Miaphysites there are no such things as really existent essences to which properties must be referred, so that two different sets of properties can rest on the same individual without implying different essences in the background. An elegant illustration of this Miaphysite point of view is found in the above-mentioned sixth-century treatise On Difference, Number, and Division, where the authors explain that different sets of properties can exist within the same individual, without implying a multiplicity of individuals, since difference is not a matter of quantity but of qualityâi.e., it falls under a different category. Division, on the contrary, belongs to the domain of quantity. Elias echoes this argument in the fifth chapter of the letter, where he responds to a Chalcedonian remark that âevery difference, insofar as it is a difference, necessarily implies numberâ;62 against this, he affirms that ânumber is not connected to every difference ⦠that [type of] difference, to which number is not connected, does not produce a divisionâ.63
Since the natures are not separated, Elias writes in chapter 9, one can no longer use any expressions containing âtwo naturesâ (which is tantamount to numbering two natures) after thinking of the union that, as such, removes any âtwoâ. Previously, in chapter 5, Elias had written that âthose natures that you continue to count even after considering the union are separated, not unitedâ,64 because union must imply the disappearance of duality: âthe force of a real union does not tolerate division and number, and makes them ceaseâ65 (compare the title of chapter 79 in the Christological florilegium: âThe force of the union makes every duality ceaseâ). In chapter 9, after quoting a passage from Cyrilâs first letter to Succensus, he writes: â(Cyril) did say that he sees two natures when he considers the way of the incarnation of the Word with the eyes of the soul;66 but when he considers their concourse to the real union, he confesses one incarnate nature of the Wordâ67 (compare with the title of florilegium chapter 53, on which see also above under 2.3: âAlthough the Fathers separate two natures in theory, they see and say that the union occurred from those [two] and confess one incarnate nature of the Word after the union, and do not divide in any way those which were unitedâ); âthey no longer remain two after the thought of the unionâ68 (compare with the florilegium, title of chapter 75: âAfter the thought of the union, the cutting into two [that is present] in the thought ceases and departsâ). Also, in the seventh chapter of his letter, Elias discusses another important point of our florilegium, that is, since the two natures of the Chalcedonians are not really united, they must actually be defined as two independent hypostases (see the title of Eliasâ chapter 7: âthe Chalcedonians know that the two natures that they affirm in Christ are two hypostases and two sonsâ).69 Our florilegium treats this point as well, especially in chapter 65: âThe expressions âin twoâ or âin each oneâ are understood [as referring to] two hypostases that subsist in their proper subsistenceâ. These arguments correspond to the second section of the Christological florilegium. What is most relevant here is that the patristic quotations of chapter 9, as can be seen in the appendix, correspond with few exceptions to a compact block of quotations that are included in the third section of our florilegium, in chapters 52â54, and often appear in Elias in the same order as in the florilegium; note that the title of chapter 53 was mentioned here above as a parallel to Eliasâ arguments. This is a clear indication that Elias was using a collection of excerpts, the organization of which was already similar to that of the florilegium.
To sum up, Elias tackles precisely the same questions as in the first three sections of our florilegium, with the same apologetic tone, and, in doing so, he also abundantly quotes patristic authorities largely overlapping with those quoted in the florilegium. It must be noted, however, that Severus, the main authority quoted in the florilegium, is almost nowhere to be found in Eliasâ letter. This must certainly be partially due to the fact that he intends to make use of authorities that also Chalcedonians could accept.70 Thus, with Elias, we have reached a second geological stratum, which is much closer in time, and more similar, to what we see on the surfaceâthe Christological florilegium.
4.2 A Cumbersome Antagonist: Theodore Abū Qurrah
ḤarrÄn, the city of Eliasâ addressee Leo, and very likely of Elias himself, was, as Possekel has shown,71 a stronghold of Chalcedonian doctrine during the whole eighth century and beyond. Theodore AbÅ« Qurrah was the cityâs bishop at the beginning of the ninth century (the exact dates are unknown), thus he must have been roughly contemporary to Elias,72 and he was at the centre of a renewed moment of controversy between Chalcedonians and Miaphysites. Indeed, not later than 812/3, AbÅ« Qurrah went to Armenia with missionary purposes and sojourned at the court of prince AÅ¡ot Msaker. He tried to convert the princeâs court to the Chalcedonian faith, but AÅ¡ot wanted him to debate with a Miaphysite theologian, and invited the Arabic-speaking scholar of Tagrit, AbÅ« RÄʾiá¹ah, who did not himself go, but sent, as is well known, his relative Nonnus of Nisibis (d. ca. 860),73 even though he also wrote two letters to AÅ¡ot against Theodore AbÅ« Qurrah (AbÅ« RÄʾiá¹ahâs third letter, written before the debate, and fourth letter, written after it).74 The debate took place between 813 and 817, and according to all sources except for a Georgian one, which understandably considers the winner to be the Chalcedonian Theodore,75 Nonnus prevailed76 and Theodore was expelled from Armenia. Unfortunately, no account of the debate is available to us but, in the preface to Nonnusâ Commentary on John, the Armenian translator provides us with highly generic information on the topic of the confrontation. He writes that Theodore, whom he does not mention by name, âdivided into two the inseparable unity of Christ after the indivisible and unconfused unityâ. Nonnus, however, reaffirmed the Miaphysite orthodoxy: âto confess one from two naturesâ.77 Nothing more can be gathered from this source, nor are we better informed by Michael the Great, who is our âonly even moderately substantial sourceâ78 on Theodoreâs life; he mentioned these events, but mixed up Theodore AbÅ« Qurrah with another figure, Theodoricus Pyglo or Puggolo, who is different from him in many respects.79 We can only speculate whether Nonnus and Theodore debated on the same problems tackled by Probus, Peter of Callinicum and the Miaphysite monks more than two centuries earlier, and by Elias in his letter. The letters against the Melkites addressed to prince AÅ¡ot by AbÅ« RÄʾiá¹ah do not provide us with significant insight on the topics that were discussed in Armenia. Something more can be found on the other side of the controversy. Indeed, among the many extant works of AbÅ« Qurrah, we find two interesting writings in Greek and Arabic, respectively, a letter significantly addressed to the Armenians80 and a short Confession of Faith,81 the occasion of which is unknown. In both texts, AbÅ« Qurrah deals at length with the topic of ânatural properties, natural energies, and natural willsâ, in a polemic against Miaphysites and Monothelites. These three phrases remind us of the expression ânatural characteristicâ of the Miaphysites, which can indeed be regarded as a summary of the three. According to AbÅ« Qurrahâs exposition of the Chalcedonian orthodoxy, the two natures must be present in the single hypostasis of the incarnate Logos also after the union, as substrata containing the potentiality of the properties, energies and wills that are actually present in the concretely existing single hypostasis of Christ. Here, I shall quote only an exemplary statement from the second writing: âin the same way [as the properties of the two natures in Christ], sight is said to belong to the eye and not to the ear, and hearing to the ear and not to the eye, while sight and hearing together belong to the single hypostasis that has the eye and the earâfor instance, St. Peter or St. Paulâ.82 It is precisely against this kind of position that the Miaphysites recurrently argued over the centuries, i.e. in their opinion, even if different properties, belonging to different natures, rest on one single hypostasis, their difference cannot be explained through a duplicity of natures. AbÅ« Qurrah, on the contrary, starkly states: âunlike Severus, the scholastic ass, I do not deny that he [scil. Christ] has two natural propertiesâ, thereby meaning that the different properties point to the persisting existence of two natures in the incarnate Christ. For the Miaphysites, there is no admitting such a twofold substratum, for any duality whatsoever must be condemned. The Chalcedonians, on the contrary, do not see how a difference of properties may continue to subsist within a single individual, without the underlying persistence of such a duality, since it is clear that the unity of the hypostasis must be saved on the other side. Thus, although AbÅ« Qurrah does not mention the concepts of âdifferenceâ and âdivisionâ, he shows that in his age the debate still focused on the correct comprehension of the natural properties and their relation to the natures and the one hypostasis. Furthermore, since Theodore also treated this point when writing to the Armenians,83 we can legitimately suppose that the topic had some purport in the debate at the court of AÅ¡ot.
4.3 A Pivotal Figure: Nonnus of Nisibis
As to Nonnusâ writings, we do not have any work related to his debate with AbÅ« Qurrah. However, it is worth reading his oeuvre to see whether his own concerns and the exchanges he had with his adversaries focused on the same topics as those displayed in our florilegium. This is indeed the case in his two extant letters of Christological content, which he sent to a monk named John and an anonymous person, respectively.84 To a lesser extent, it is also the case as far as his longer Christological treatise against Thomas of Marga is concerned;85 this, however, treats the specific topic of Christâs will, which plays no role in our Christological florilegium. Both letters are closely related to the themes of our florilegium. Here I will focus on the first part of the letter to the anonymous person, which is particularly telling, as it deals with the preservation of the natural, or essential, characteristic, the Å¡Å«dÅÊ¿Å kyÅnÅyÅ (â®
âDivision ceases and difference is preservedâ (â®
ÜÜÜÜ Ü¦ÜÜ ÜÜÌ£ ÜÜ¢ÜÜܪ Ü«ÜÜÜ Ü¦Ü â¬â)
or sentences in the excerpts themselves, like this one from Severusâ Philalethes quoted in chapter 10:
âThe union does not put an end to the difference of the natures from which the Emmanuel derives, but it puts an end to the divisionâ (â®
ÜÜÜÜܬÜÌ£ Ü Ü Ü¡ÜÜÜ Ü Ü Ü«ÜÜÜ Ü¦Ü ÜÜÜÌÜ¢Ü ÜÜ¡Ü¢ÜÜÜ¢ ܥܡܢÜÜÜÜ .Ü¡ÜÜÜ Ü ÜÜÜ¢ Ü Ü¦ÜÜ ÜÜ â¬â),
with Nonnusâ letter to the anonymous:
âWe confess that the natural characteristic of the natures from which the Saviour derives is preservedâ (â®
Ü¡ÜÜÜܢܢ ÜÜÜªÜ ÜÜ¢ÜÜܪ Ü«ÜÜÜÜ¥Ü ÜÜÜ£ÜÜÜ ÜÜÜÌÜ¢Ü ÜÜ¡Ü¢ÜÜÜ¢ ܦܪÜÜ©ÜÜ â¬â, London, British Library Add. 14594, fol. 64rb); âbecause they were united, division ceasedâ (â®ÜÜ¡ÜÜ ÜÜܬÜÜÜÜ .ÜÜÜ Ü Ü Ü¦ÜÜ ÜÜ â¬â, BL Add. 14594, fol. 64va),
where Nonnusâ expression âthe natural characteristicâ is just a synthetic way to say, âthe difference as to the natural characteristicâ. We can also compare an excerpt from Severusâ second letter to Sergius the Grammarian as quoted in chapter 1 of the florilegium:
âThe difference of the natural characteristic stands firm and unchangeableâ (â®
Ü«ÜÜÜ Ü¦Ü ÜÜܪ ÜÜ¡Ü«ÜÜÜ¥ÜÜ¬Ü ÜÜÜ¢ÜܬÜÜ Ü¡Ü£Ü¬Ü¬ÜÌ£ ÜÜ ÜܡܬÜܦ̣ÜÜ¢Ü Ü©ÜÜ¡ â¬â)
with Nonnus:
âThe essential characteristic of the natures from which Christ derives remained unmovedâ (â®
Ü«ÜÜÜÜ¥Ü ÜÜÜ£ÜÜÜ ÜÜÜÌÜ¢Ü ÜÜ¡Ü¢ÜÜÜ¢ Ü¡Ü«ÜÜÜ Üܬܪ Ü Ü Ü¡ÜÜÜ¥ÜÜ¥ÜÜ â¬â, BL Add. 14594, fol. 64va).
These few parallels, together with others that will not be listed here, suggest that Nonnus did know the Christological florilegium, in a form identical or very similar to that found in the British Library and Mingana manuscripts, to which he was approximately contemporary. This is further confirmed by the fact that his relative, AbÅ« RÄʾiá¹ah, also used the Christological florilegium in his letter on the Trisagion, by quoting 12 of the 17 excerpts of the florilegiumâs chapter 52.86 Indeed, if we are to trust the Armenian translator of his Commentary on John, we know that Nonnus used to do what we would call a long bibliographical research before writing: âwith prompt zeal and through rigorous fasts and prayers, [Nanay] expended no little effort in going around for three years, traveling through the deserts in the land of Mesopotamia, where he hoped to find writings of orthodox teaching. Having attained his quest ⦠he composed the commentary ⦠in summary fashion, gathering from many [sources], one by one methodicallyâ.87 This is an accurate description of the method employed by a compiler, and it must also have been the work underlying the Christological florilegiumâif only to some extent, since, as we have seen, many materials had already been gathered in the sixth century. Given Nonnusâ and his relative AbÅ« RÄʾiá¹ahâs knowledge of the florilegium, it would not be so risky to speculate that they were directly involved in its final redaction.88 Although once again speculative, this conclusion is the closest we can get to historical facts on the basis of a sheer reconstruction of geological strata. As in geology, we try and reconstruct a whole (textual) scenario through traces, fossils, and the chemical composition of the ground. Our traces and fossils are the citations of, and allusions to (as in Nonnus), recurrent patristic excerpts from the sixth to ninth century; our chemical composition is the recurrence of Christological motifs, especially that of the preservation of a difference as to the natural quality in Christ.
By way of conclusion, let us then try to imagine a historical scenario.
Conclusion
What kind of historical picture can we sketch with the clues we have collected?
It is understandable that discussing these doctrinal issues, which had been harshly debated centuries earlier and had mostly disappeared in extant sources of the seventh and part of the eighth century,89 must have again raised interest in Eliasâ times, as Ute Possekel has also recently shown.90 By the middle of the eighth century, Chalcedonian Christology was thriving in the Umayyad Empire, thanks to the prominent intellectual and political position of the Chalcedonian Church and his major representative, John of Damascus. Later on, between the end of the eighth and the beginning of the ninth century, the Chalcedonians were actively proselytising, especially among Miaphysites; Theodore AbÅ« Qurrah, as we have seen, had attempted an unfortunate mission in Armenia, and among his writings we can also read a hortatory letter, in which Theodore tries to convince his Miaphysite addressee to convert to Chalcedonianism.91 As to the Damascene (together with other authors, such as George of Martyropolis and Constantine of ḤarrÄn, of whom we know only through quotations in Eliasâs letter), he had raised once again the old polemical arguments against the Miaphysites, and this time within the framework of a majestic theoretical system, which surpassed the previous works of Leontius of Byzantium, Theodore of Raithou, or Anastasius of Sinai, all of them authors who, in any case, had lived within the borders of the Byzantine Empire. We can imagine that it was of no little concern for Miaphysite theologians to have such important adversaries as the Damascene and AbÅ« Qurrah in the Chalcedonian party, which was also the most prominent of that day under the Umayyads. Johnâs writing Against the Jacobites, as well as parts of his Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, were particularly challenging for the Miaphysites. It is not by chance that both works are quoted by Elias in his letter.92 Michael the Great93 informs us that Cyriacus of Tagrit, under whose patriarchate the debate in Armenia between Nonnus and AbÅ« Qurrah took place, was particularly concerned with the challenges set by Chalcedonians (and Julianists), and that he actively engaged in negotiations and polemic issues with both parties, which, not surprisingly, are both represented as the polemical goal of two consecutive florilegia in our British Library and Mingana manuscripts. Considering the general lack of Miaphysite Christological sources between the death of George of the Arabs (708â¯CE) and the beginning of the ninth century, we are lucky to have at least Eliasâ and Nonnusâ letters, since they add crucial elements to the picture of the Miaphysite position at the end of a long period of triumphant Chalcedonianism. These sources reveal that the main questions at stake were the same as those tackled in our florilegium in the same years, and that, to address these questions, Elias and Nonnus used pretty much the same collection of patristic quotations and ideas as can also be found in the florilegium. Indeed, it is likely that the Christological florilegium started circulating in the form in which we now read it under Cyriacus, since all its manuscript witnesses can be dated no earlier than the end of the eighth century. Wrightâs eighth-century dating of BL Add. 14532, which seems to be the earliest witness to the florilegium, is telling in this regard.
Eliasâ and Nonnusâ letters show that, in the last years of the eighth century and at the beginning of the ninth, the questions94 debated at the end of the sixth century under the patriarchate of Peter of Callinicum regained high relevance among Miaphysite theologians, who then turned to sixth-century sources and patristic collections (and certainly added to them) to construct their arguments and texts. The controversial themes of the past were recurring once again, but the Chalcedonian metaphysics had significantly evolved. It is to this evolution of old topics in a new form that Miaphysite theologians intended to react. The new Chalcedonian view on the questions of nature, hypostasis, and properties imposed on the Miaphysites a work of re-conceptualization and re-organization of their tradition. The Christological florilegium, which tackles the same topics and uses the same sources in the same years, may thus be seen as a further actor in the debate between Chalcedonians and Miaphysites, based on the same arguments and materials. Through Eliasâ letter, we can even have a look at these anthological materials in the making, just as they were drawing close to their final form. We could even suppose that Elias, perhaps writing after the florilegium had reached its final form, used the Christological florilegium as we know itâif he did not himself contribute to its compilation. It is tempting to conclude that Cyriacus, who was a successor of Peter of Callinicum and probably could still have access to materials from previous controversies and especially from those involving Peter, may have ordered that those materials, which had already been organised in some way by the previous generations, be set up as structured handbooks to form his theologians for the urgent dogmatic controversies of his day against the predominant Church.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Bishara Ebeid for his valuable comments on the first draft of this chapter. The research leading to this chapter has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Unionâs Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement No. 758732).
Appendix 1. The Christological Florilegium: Chapter Titles 1â105
-
[The Fathers teach] what the difference is as to the natural characteristic of the [natures] from which Christ derives.
-
What does âas to the natural characteristicâ mean?
-
We confess the difference, the property, and the otherness of the natures from which Christ derives.
-
Not confessing the otherness of ousia nor the difference [of ousia] does not fall outside of the iniquity of those who confuse the ousiai.
-
Sometimes a division is also conceived along with the difference.
-
Division ceases and difference is preserved.
-
We see that the difference as to the natural characteristic does not vanish, thanks to the unconfused character of the union, but division has been taken away.
-
Difference as to the ousia did not cease after the thought of the union.
-
Difference as to the ousia remained.
-
The union did not take away difference, nor did it make it vanish nor cease; but it took away division into two. One thing is division, another one is difference.
-
We do not make the difference a cause of division.
-
Heretics try to introduce division through difference as to the ousia.
-
Essential difference does not bring in with itself a cutting into two after the union.
-
Division does not follow a difference of essence in any regard.
-
Difference as to the ousia denies duality after the union.
-
Otherness as to the natural characteristic also preserves the union unconfused and does not dissolve the formula âone incarnate nature of the Wordâ.
-
We do not avoid confessing the property of the natures from which the Emmanuel derives, in order to preserve the union unconfused.
-
One [is] the incarnate nature of the Word and it is not divided into two after the union, and yet [this] does not suppress the essential difference.
-
Since the human being can be separated in theory, [Severus] shows the difference of the [components] of which he consists.
-
Taking difference away is tantamount to introducing confusion.
-
After the unutterable union, the hypostatic union does not mix up the difference as to the natural characteristic, nor does it leave [any] trace of a cutting.
-
Speaking of union does not neglect the difference but removes division.
-
Wherever we confess one one incarnate nature of the Word, we also conceive of a difference as to the natural characteristic.
-
We do not maintain, nor confess, two natures before the union, in the union, or after the union.
-
The teacher [scil. Cyril] conceived of âafter the unionâ and of âunionâ as [being] the same thing.
-
The Grammarian spoke of âtwo naturesâ in the union.
-
One is the nature and the hypostasis in the union and in the composition.
-
Two things or beings are one once they are gathered together.
-
Even though the two are one because of the gathering, they [are] such not [because they are] equal by nature or equal by ousia.
-
Saying âtwoâ in whatever way is tantamount to cutting.
-
Separating [if only] in theory is tantamount to cutting.
-
Demonstration that âtwoâ means cutting, and that not even conceptually does one say âtwoâ without dividing in theory.
-
Not even in oneâs mind can one say âtwoâ without dividing Him who is from two.
-
Separation is a premise to duality.
-
The cutting and the duality which are in the thought cease.
-
âFrom two natures or hypostasesâ is said [only] in theory.
-
Composed [things] are separated only in theory.
-
Composition is divided only in [oneâs] mind.
-
The [natures] from which Christ derives appear two only in theory because of the difference as to the ousia, and because of inequality of species with regard to one another.
-
âOther and otherâ can be understood only as far as the essential characteristic is concerned, when what is composed is separated in theory.
-
Only in theory is one allowed to see the [natures] from which the union derives as âother and otherâ.
-
[Only] in theory do we know that two [entities that are] different as to the ousia were gathered together.
-
When one separates in the thought, one finds otherness as to the species and inequality of ousia.
-
Not because those [scil. the Chalcedonians] who are against the difference of the natures from which Christ derives say it is it necessary that we avoid to [mention difference], too.
-
Not the fact itself of mentioning two natures is bad, but the fact of speaking of two natures after the union is contemptible.
-
No one before Cyril had spoken with the very words âhypostatic unionâ.
-
The union of the Word with the flesh is called composition.
-
On the fact that Christ is one composite person.
-
On the fact that the Fathers know that the union of the Word with His ensouled flesh was natural and hypostatic, and they teach that He was united with regard to the ousia.
-
What is composed in a natural union from entities different by [their] nature is named after its parts, and the whole is called after each of them, and each of them is named after the name of its whole.
-
God the Word became human and was begotten in the flesh.
-
Testimonia of the holy Fathers who confess that God the Word suffered and died for us in the flesh.
-
Although the Fathers separate two natures in theory, they see and say that the union occurred from those [two] and confess one incarnate nature of the Word after the union, and do not divide in any way those which were united.
-
Refusal of saying âtwo naturesâ.
-
Saying âtwo united [scil. natures]â is opposite to saying âone incarnateâ.
-
âOneâ is said not only of simple things but also of composite ones, and whoever says: âif one is the incarnate nature of the Word, then confusion and mixture occurâ, says oddities.
-
Let us refer all the words present in the Gospels to one person and hypostasis; the teacher confesses one incarnate hypostasis of the Word.
-
On the words âwithâ and âtogetherâ.
-
It is not necessary that we avoid all the things that the heretics say, [but] recognizing the difference is no cause for cutting the one Christ into two natures.
-
Those who confess Christ [as] two natures add a [word that] leads astray the simple: they define the [natures through] the word âundividedâ.
-
As to the natures from which Christ derives, the holy Fathers know them as hypostases.
-
Two persons are ascribed to hypostases that [have] their proper subsistence and subsist separately.
-
We do not say that Christ [derived] from two persons in the same way as we say that [he derives] from two natures or hypostases.
-
On the fact that it is abominable to say that the nature of God the Word changed into the flesh to the point that they were confused.
-
The expressions âin twoâ or âin each oneâ are understood [as referring to] two hypostases that subsist in their proper subsistence.
-
âFrom twoâ and âtwoâ are not the same thing.
-
[Cyril] orders Nestorius, after he introduced the natures into the union, to avoid division.
-
For the adversaries it is the same thing to say âChrist in two naturesâ and âtwo natures in Christâ. [In this chapter we find three excerpts from Probus: âOf Probus, from the chartis he made as a confession of faith and gave to Anastasius, chief of the congregation in Antiochâ; âOf the same from the chartis he produced at the synod held in Antioch under the direction of Gregory, who was patriarch, and of twelve bishopsâ; âOf the same from the sixth chartis against the monksâ].
-
The Word is not known without the flesh after the union.
-
The natures or hypostases from which Christ [derives] are seen in one person and in one hypostasis and nature; they do not imply a division into two.
-
Only one Christ and Lord and Son is seen in one person and hypostasis and in his only nature, i.e. the incarnate [nature].
-
The natures or hypostases from which Christ [derives], by being in composition without diminution and without separation, make up one person.
-
When the natures from which Christ derives subsist in composition, the duality of hypostases and persons that [can be conceived of], as it were, in the phantasy of thoughts vanishes.
-
When the concept of the union is brought in, the presence of duality in the mind is removed.
-
After the thought of the union, the cutting into two [that is present] in the thought ceases and departs.
-
Seeing two [natures] is possible in theory alone, and the teacher [scil. Cyril] demonstrated that âafter the unionâ is tantamount to âafter the thought of the unionâ.
-
The [natures] that were united are not at all [any longer] two.
-
The expressions âthe one Son is not two naturesâ and âduality dissolves the unionâ are asserted absolutely.
-
The force of the union makes every duality cease, and the one incarnate nature of the Word makes every confusion and division cease.
-
[Cyril] prohibits the cutting in every respect.
-
Those who were in Chalcedon were required by the [political] leaders to formulate a Creed.
-
The definition that was established by the Synod of Chalcedon.
-
Saying what is in agreement with the 318 Fathers is not prohibited.
-
The blasphemies of the Tome of Leo, which are exposed one by one with the other remaining ones that have the same meaning.
-
In his letter to the Emperor Marcian, Dorotheus attests that Leo in his Tome affirms two natures after the union.
-
On the acceptance of Eutyches.
-
On the fact that Eutyches was accepted by Leo of Rome.
-
The condemnation of Dioscorus did not occur on account of faith.
-
âKnowing the difference of the words is one thing, separating the natures is another thingâ: regarding these unlearned words, saint Cyril says that they are not his own.
-
It is foolish to say that the union of the Emmanuel derives from two persons.
-
Hypostases or natures are the [entities] that were united.
-
Nestorius did not affirmâin wordsâneither two Christs or two Sons or one and another Son.
-
Nestorius confesses âunited naturesâ.
-
Nestorius affirms one person from two.
-
One thing [resulted] from two.
-
What the Easterners wanted the holy Cyril to quit and reject, and again what he wanted them to reject.
-
[Christ] is both [things] together, or, he is and is known as [both] âthisâ and âthatâ.
-
Of Theodoret, from the things he wrote to those who had his same opinion in Constantinople, after Cyrilâs union with the Easterners.
-
From the letter of Hiba to Mari the Persian, which was read to the Synod of Chalcedon in the tenth [but: eleventh] session.
-
Of Nestorius from the letter to the Constantinopolitans.
-
From a dialalià [Actio XI] of the Council of Chalcedon.
-
From the eighth [but: ninth] session on Theodoret.
-
Theodoret confesses two hypostases viz. natures.
-
Leo says that every nature preserves its property.
-
The holy Fathers say that sometimes the Emmanuel left the flesh that it might suffer its own [passions].
Appendix 2
Table 5.1
A sample of the correspondences between the Christological Florilegium and the Miaphysite Libelli of 595 (MSÂ D = BL Add. 14533)95
|
Excerpt in the 7th Libellus |
Position of the same excerpt in the florilegium |
|---|---|
|
fol. 111ra, from Cyril, 2nd Tome against Nestorius |
chapter 1 |
|
fol. 111rb, from Severus, Contra Grammaticum |
chapter 3, same interruption with ⮠|
|
fol. 111rb, from Severus, Letter to Eleusinius |
chapter 1 |
|
fol. 111rb, from Severus, Philalethes |
chapter 10 |
|
fol. 111va, from Severus, Apology of the Philalethes |
chapter 6 |
|
fol. 111va, from Severus, Letter 1 to Sergius the Grammarian |
chapter 7, same interruption with ⮠|
|
fol. 112ra, from Severus, Contra Grammaticum |
chapter 29 |
|
fol. 112rbâva, from Cyril, Letter 2 to Succensus |
chapter 55 |
|
fol. 112vbâ113ra, from Cyril, 2nd Tome against Nestorius |
chapter 67 |
|
fol. 113ra, from ps.-Athanasius, âDe incorporatione divina Verbi Deiâ |
chapter 54 |
|
fol. 113ra, from ps.-Julius of Rome, Discourse to those who fight against the divine incarnation of the Word |
chapter 54 |
|
fol. 113ra, from Cyril, Apology of the 8th anathematism, against Andrew |
chapter 58 |
|
fol. 113rab, from Cyril, Logos Prosphonetikos to Theodosius II |
chapter 65 |
|
fol. 113rb, from Proclus, Tome to the Armenians |
chapter 27 |
Appendix 3
Table 5.2
A sample of the correspondences between Eliasâ Letter to Leo and the Christological Florilegium
|
Passage and position in florilegium |
In Eliasâ Letter |
|---|---|
|
From Cyril, 2nd Tome against Nestorius, chapt. 67 |
Chapter 5, Eliae epistula 25 text; 18 trans. |
|
From Cyril, Letter to Eulogius, chapt. 53 |
Chapter 5, Eliae epistula 25 text; 18 trans. |
|
From Cyril, Letter 1 to Succensus, chapt. 53 |
Chapter 9, Eliae epistula 65â66 text; 47 trans. |
|
Immediately following in chapt. 53: From Cyril, Letter 2 to Succensus |
Also immediately following in Chapter 9, Eliae epistula 68 text; 50 trans. |
|
From Cyril, Letter to Eulogius, chapt. 59 |
Chapter 9, Eliae epistula 70 text; 51 trans. |
|
From Cyril, Letter to Acacius of Melitene, chapt. 53 |
Chapter 9, Eliae epistula 70â71 text; 51 trans. |
|
Following one in chapt. 53: From Cyril, Letter to Acacius of Melitene |
Previous one in chapter 9: Eliae epistula 70 text; 51 trans. |
|
From ps.-Gregory Thaumaturgus, Fides secundum partes, chapt. 54 |
Chapter 9, Eliae epistula 76 text; 55 trans. |
|
Immediately following in chapt. 54 after a bridging formula: From ps.-Athanasius, âDe incorporatione Verbi Deiâ |
Immediately following in Chapter 9, with the same bridging formula, Eliae epistula 76â77 text; 55 trans. |
|
From Gregory Nazianzen, Letter 1 to Cledonius, chapt. 52 |
Chapter 9, Eliae epistula 77 text; 56 trans. |
|
From John Chrysostom, 38th Homily on 1â¯Cor, chapt. 52 |
Chapter 11, Eliae epistula 94 text; 67 trans. |
|
From ps.-Athanasius, against Apollinaris, chapt. 49 |
Chapter 11, Eliae epistula 96 text; 69 trans. with the same interruption through ⮠|
This florilegium, as well as others preserved in the same manuscripts, will be published in a born-digital edition by the FLOS project.
Albert van Roey and Pauline Allen, Monophysite Texts of the Sixth Century (OLAÂ 56; Leuven: Peeters, 1994).
William Wright, Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum Acquired since the Year 1838 (3 vols.; London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1870â1872), 2:978â979.
Wright, Catalogue, 2:923â927. Here Wright did not notice the overlapping with the Christological florilegium with the same text in the other manuscripts, as he does in the case of C, D, and E. He even cuts the florilegium into two different sections (II and III), whereas they belong to the same florilegium.
Wright, Catalogue, 2:955â958.
Wright, Catalogue, 2:968.
Wright, Catalogue, 2:1007.
Alphonse Mingana, Catalogue of the Mingana Collection of Manuscripts (3 vols; Woodbrooke Catalogues 1â3; Cambridge: W. Heffer and Sons, 1933â1939), 1:173â178.
For an overview of these manuscripts as markers of intellectual identity for the Syriac Miaphysite Church, see Yonatan Moss, âLes controverses christologiques au sein de la tradition miaphysite: sur lâincorruptibilité du corps du Christ et autres questions,â in Les controverses religieuses en syriaque (ed. F. Ruani; ES 13; Paris: Geuthner, 2016), 119â136.
Wright, Catalogue, respectively 2:955, 2:968 and 2:1007.
See the next footnote.
It is the argument of property
This is indeed one of the two passages mentioned in the previous footnote, where Cyril introduced the concept of natural characteristic and which Severus quoted in his writings.
Not by chance, one of the texts where Severus quotes Cyrilâs passages from the second Tome against Nestorius and the first letter to Acacius of Melitene.
Again, another foundational text of Severusâ conception of the natural characteristic.
For a description of their context and content, see André De Halleux, Philoxène de Mabbog. Sa vie, ses écrits, sa théologie (Universitas Catholica Lovaniensis. Dissertationes ad gradum magistri in Facultate Theologica vel in Facultate Iuris Canonici consequendum conscriptae III.8. Louvain: Imprimerie orientaliste, 1963), 209â210. Anton Baumstark, in Geschichte der syrischen Literatur, mit Ausschluss der christlich-palästinensischen Texte (Bonn: A. Marcus und E. Weber, 1922), 144 n. 5, had already pointed to the existence of these excerpts.
It is worth adding that this florilegium provides us with a significant number of previously unknown passages from Against the Grammarian, excerpted from the last chapters of the treatise, which are lost in the manuscripts transmitting it in its entirety and edited by Lebon.
From Severus, Against the Grammarian, II.14 and II.31, 124 and 235 (text), 97 and 184 (trans.).
Theoretical here means âthat can be contemplated exclusively in thoughtâ as opposed to âconcretely existingâ.
The use of these marginal signs was studied by Michael P. Penn, âKnow Thy Enemy: The Materialization of Orthodoxy in Syriac Manuscripts,â in Snapshots of Evolving Traditions: Jewish and Christian Manuscript Culture, Textual Fluidity, and New Philology (ed. L.I. Lied and H. Lundhaug; Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur 175; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2017), 221â241. See also Flavia Ruaniâs chapter in the present volume.
Friedrich Schulthess, Die Syrischen Kanones der Synoden von Nicaea bis Chalcedon nebst einigen zugehörigen Dokumenten (Abhandlungen der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Philologisch-historische Klasse, N.F. X.2; Berlin: Weidmann, 1908).
Albert Van Roey, âHet dossier;â Albert van Roey, âUne controverse.â
Paolo Bettiolo, ed. Una raccolta di opuscoli Calcedonensi: Ms. Sinaï Syr. 10 (CSCO 403â404, Scriptores Syri 177â178; Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1979).
José H. Declerck, âProbus, lâex-jacobite et ses epaporemata pros Iakobitas,â Byzantion 53 (1983): 213â232.
Hainthaler, âA Christological Controversy.â
Karl-Heinz Uthemann, âSyllogistik im Dienst der Orthodoxie. Zwei unedierte Texte byzantinischer Kontroverstheologie des 6. Jahrhunderts,â Jahrbuch der österreichischen Byzantinistik 30 (1981): 103â112, and Karl-Heinz Uthemann, âStephanos von Alexandrien und die Konversion des Jakobiten Probos, des späteren Metropoliten von Chalkedon. Ein Beitrag zur Rolle der Philosophie in der Kontroverstheologie des 6. Jahrhunderts,â in After Chalcedon: Studies in Theology and Church History Offered to Professor Albert Van Roey for His Seventieth Birthday (ed. C. Laga, J.A. Munitiz, and L. van Rompay; OLA 18; Leuven: Peeters, 1985), 381â399.
Sebastian P. Brock, âThe Commentator Probus: Problems of Date and Identity,â in Interpreting the Bible and Aristotle in Late Antiquity: The Alexandrian Commentary Tradition between Rome and Baghdad (ed. J. Lössl and J.W. Watt; Aldershot: Ashgate, 2011), 195â206.
On Probus the philosopher, see Henri Hugonnard-Roche, âLe commentaire syriaque de Probus sur lâIsagoge de Porphyre. Une étude préliminaire,â Studia graeco-arabica 2 (2012): 227â243; Henri Hugonnard-Roche, âUn cours sur la syllogistique dâAristote à lâépoque tardo-antique: le commentaire syriaque de Proba (VIe siècle) sur les Premiers Analytiques. Ãdition et traduction du texte, avec introduction et commentaire,â Studia graeco-arabica 7 (2017): 105â170; Henri Hugonnard-Roche, âProbus,â in Philosophie der Kaiserzeit und der Spätantike (ed. C. Riedweg, C. Horn, and D. Wyrwa; Die Philosophie der Antike 5.1â3; Basel: Schwabe Verlag, 2018), 2465â2469.
Lang, Arbiter, 38â40.
Fac-simile of the account (from Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Vat. Sir. 144, f. 89raâvb) and German translation in Rudolf Abramowski, Dionysius von Tellmahre, jakobitischer Patriarch von 818â845. Zur Geschichte der Kirche unter dem Islam (Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 25.2. Leipzig: F.A. Brockhaus, 1940), 138â144.
Abramowski, Dionysius von Tellmahre, 139.
He is called Probusâ â®
Much has been written on this Stephen, but any attempt at a precise identification has failed because of the presence of many Alexandrian âStephensâ in contemporary and later accounts; some of them may of course be one and the same person. See especially Declerck, âProbus;â Wanda Wolska-Conus, âStéphanos dâAthènes et Stéphanos dâAlexandrie. Essai dâidentification et de biographie,â Revue des Ãtudes Byzantines 47 (1989): 5â89, Uthemann âStephanos von Alexandrien;â Hainthaler, âA Christological Controversy,â 413â417. According to Uthemann, âStephanos von Alexandrien,â 388â399, and Wolska-Conus, âStéphanos,â 82â89, this Stephen was the sixth-century Alexandrian commentator of Aristotle of the same name.
This title is quoted by the Miaphysite monks in their eighth libellus against Probus, in MS B, fol. 152r, and D, fol. 122v. This treatise is identical with Probusâs âTreatise on differenceâ, of which the monks quote a short passage in their seventh libellus against Probus (see note 40 below), and with Probusâs so-called âHypomnestikonâ, which is preserved in MS B, fol. 238vâ240r.
It is reasonable, however, to suppose that Stephen was a Chalcedonian, if it is true that John Moschos and the future patriarch of Jerusalem Sophronius (unsuccessfully) tried to pay him a visit, probably to attend one of his lectures, in Alexandria (see Moschos, Pré spirituel, 119). In Moschosâ account, Stephen is also called âsophistâ as in Dionysius of Tell-Mahre.
All these events are related by Dionysius of Tell-Mahre; see Abramowski, Dionysius von Tellmahre, 139â140.
According to Dionysius of Tell Mahre (Abramowski, Dionysius von Tellmahre, 141), they were received by Gregoryâs successor (and predecessor, as he held the patriarchate twice, in 559â570 and 593â598) Anastasius, but this is unlikely due to the long chronological gapbetween the synod of Gubba Barraya and Anastasiusâ election in 593; see Van Roey, âHet dossier,â 185 n. 1, and Van Roey, âUne controverse,â 350.
See Appendix 1 for the titles of these texts.
Abramowski, Dionysius von Tellmahre, 140: âUnd sogleich schrieb der Patriarch Mar Petrus einen Brief oder Traktat in Vollmacht der ganzen Synode, in dem er die Meinung des Sophisten und des Probus vernichtete und zerstörte und durch Zeugnisse der Lehrer aufrichtete und bewies, daà wahrhaftig und wirklich der Unterschied der Naturen, aus denen Christus besteht, auch nach der Feststellung der Einheit gewahrt wird ohne Zählung und Unterscheidung dieser Naturenâ.
On this treatise, preserved in the MSS Vat. Sir. 144, London, British Library Add. 12171, and partially in BL Add. 14670, and published and translated among John Philoponusâ works in Opuscula monophysitica Ioannis Philoponi, 95â122 (text), 140â171 (trans.), see Lang, Arbiter, 33â40. Lang convincingly argues against the attribution to Philoponus and suggests that it must be considered a work produced in Philoponusâ circle. Van Roey suggested (Van Roey, âHet dossier,â 187), but later on retracted (Van Roey, âUne controverse,â 352 n. 9), that Probus may have been the author of this treatise during his Miaphysite phase, and that the treatise may have coincided with his work against Stephen (see note 34 above). This cannot be the case, since the only fragment we have from the treatise âOn differenceâ against Stephen (identical with Probusâs preserved Hypomnestikon, see again note 34 above) that the Miaphysite monks attribute to Probus in their seventh and eighth libelli does not overlap with any passage in the anonymous treatise On Difference, Number, and Division.
I am currently working on the edition of these sources, as well as of the whole Probus dossier.
In MS BL Add. 14533 (D), fol. 106v.
Anastasiusâ question on fol. 106v of BL Add. 14533 reads as follows: â®
Another Miaphysite source of the end of the sixth century that contains a great deal of excerpts also found in the Christological florilegium, exactly with the same form and length as in the florilegium, is the response of a group of Miaphysite monks, âpartisans of Peter (of Callinicum), patriarch of Antiochâ, to five propositions of the Chalcedonian monks of BÄt MarÅ«n (Wright, Catalogue, 2:945â946; partial translation in François Nau, âLes Maronites, inquisiteurs de la foi catholique du VIe au VIIe siècle,â Bulletin de lâAssociation de Saint-Louis des Maronites janvier [1903]: 343â350; avril [1903], 367â383. I am also currently preparing a critical edition and complete translation of this correspondence).
Bishara Ebeid, âMetaphysics of Trinity in Graeco-Syriac Miaphysitism: A Study and Analysis of the Trinitarian Florilegium in MS British Library Add. 14532,â Studia Graeco-Arabica 11 (2021): 63â108; Albert Van Roey, âUn florilège trinitaire syriaque tiré du Contra Damianum de Pierre de Callinique,â OLP 23 (1992): 189â203.
Ute Possekel, âChristological Debates in Eighth-Century Harran: The Correspondence of Leo of Harran and Eliya,â in Syriac Encounters: Papers from the Sixth North American Syriac Symposium, Duke University, 26â29 June 2011 (ed. M.E. Doerfler, E. Fiano, and K.R. Smith; Eastern Christian Studies 20; Leuven: Peeters, 2015), 345â368.
Josephus Simonius Assemani, Bibliotheca Orientalis Clementino-Vaticana (3 vols.; Romae: Sacrae Congregationis de Propaganda Fide, 1719â1728) 1:467 was at the origin of this confusion as he suggested that Elias should be dated to ca. 640; the identification with the patriarch was made by Rubens Duval, La littérature syriaque (Paris: V. Lecoffre, 1907), 378. Albert Van Roey, âLa lettre apologétique dâÃlie à Léon, syncelle de lâévêque chalcédonien de Harran,â LM 57 (1944): 1â52, at 4â10, corrected the mistake.
This treatise is preserved in the MS London, British Library Add. 14726, fol. 59vâ71v; see Wright, Catalogue, 2:830â831.
Eliae epistula.
Van Roey, âLa lettre.â
Van Roey, âLa lettre,â 21â51.
Eliae epistula, 89â106 (text), 64â76 (trans.).
Eliae epistula, 19 (text), 13 (trans.).
See e.g. Van Roey âLa lettre,â 23.
Porphyry, Isagoge, 7, 19â27.
John Damascene, De fide orthodoxa III.6, 120.11.
Christophe Erismann, âA World of Hypostases. John of Damascusâ Rethinking of Aristotleâs Categorical Ontology,â SP 50 (2011): 269â287, at 276â277. This is the grounds of the typically Chalcedonian concept of enhypostatos, or instantiation of an essence in a hypostasis, which Erismann discusses at length in the same article at 280â287, and has recently been the object of intensive enquiry; see Benjamin Gleede, The Development of the Term âenhypostatosâ from Origen to John of Damascus (VChr Supplements 113; LeidenâBoston: Brill, 2012); Johannes Zachhuber, The Rise of Christian Theology and the End of Ancient Metaphysics. Patristic Philosophy from the Cappadocian Fathers to John of Damascus (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020), especially 196â197, 207â214, 219â237, 292â295; Dirk Krausmüller, âEnhypostaton: Being âin anotherâ or âwith anotherâ: How Chalcedonian theologians of the sixth century defined the ontological status of Christâs human nature,â VChr 71 (2017): 433â448.
âUniversals subsist as universals in individualsâ (Erismann, âA World of Hypostases,â 283). To indicate this principle, Zachhuber, The Rise, 193, created the siglum NNWH, âno nature without hypostasisâ; Erismann devoted a whole article to it: Christophe Erismann, âNon Est Natura sine Persona: The Issue of Uninstantiated Universals from Late Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages,â Methods and Methodologies: Aristotelian Logic East and West, 500â1500 (ed. M. Cameron and J. Marenbon; Investigating Medieval Philosophy 2; Leiden: Brill, 2011), 75â91.
See Van Roey, âLa Lettre,â 23, and Erismann, âA World of Hypostases,â 275, based on John of Damascus.
Erismann, âNon Est Natura,â 83â84.
Among many examples quoted in the Christological florilegium, see for instance Severus, Against the Grammarian, II.31, 237 (text): â®
Eliae epistula, 16 (text), 11 (trans.).
Eliae epistula, 17 (text), 12 (trans.).
Eliae epistula, 21 (text), 15 (trans.). Here, once again, the misunderstanding between the two groups is based on contrasting ontologies (and not only on terminology); both agree that individuals are distinguished numerically, so that one cannot count more than one individual Christ. However, their differing conception of the universals, their concrete existence, and what an individual is, leads them to complete incomprehension. Chalcedonians count two natures but would never dare count two individuals; Miaphysites would never dare count two individuals either, but since nature is exclusively identical with the individual, they regard the Chalcedonians as counting two individuals.
Eliae epistula, 26 (text), 18 (trans.).
Elias also reveals here the fundamental Miaphysite ânominalismâ.
Eliae epistula, 66 (text), 48 (trans.).
Eliae epistula, 71 (text), 51 (trans.).
Eliae epistula, 51 (text), 37 (trans.).
It must be considered, however, that the letter abruptly ends at the beginning of the twelfth chapter, which is indeed devoted to the discussion of quotations from Severus.
Possekel, âChristological Debates.â
According to Possekel, âChristological Debates,â 358, the fact that Elias does not mention Theodore would indicate that Eliasâ letter was written before Theodoreâs theological floruit. Apart from the fact that we do not have the entirety of the letter, Eliasâ silence on Theodore may also have a strategic reason. Being a Ḥarranite convert from Chalcedonianism, Elias quotes Chalcedonian authorities of the recent past, such as George of Maipherqat or John Damascene, but he may have found it prudent, or simply respectful (considering the friendly tone of his letter), to avoid mentioning, and start a polemic with, his own former bishop.
Albert Van Roey, Nonnus de Nisibe. Traité apologétique. Ãtude, texte et traduction (Bibliothèque du Muséon 21; Louvain: Bureaux du Muséon, 1948), 5.
See also Bishara Ebeidâs chapter in the present volume, with secondary literature.
This information is drawn from Nikolaj J. Marr, âÐÑкаÑн, монголÑÑкое название Ñ ÑиÑÑиан в ÑвÑзи c вопÑоÑом об аÑмÑÐ½Ð°Ñ -Ñ Ð°Ð»ÐºÐµÐ´Ð¾Ð½Ð¸ÑÐ°Ñ ,â ÐизанÑийÑкий вÑеменник 12 (1906): 1â68, at 9 and n. 2 (âna gruzinskom jazike sohranilosâ prenie Abukury s armjaninom. V pamjatnike imeem tendencioznoe izobraženie, po-vidimomu, togo religioznogo prenija ⦠Sudja po etomu halkedonitskomy istoÄniku armjanin pobeždenâ). Marr does not give any indication as to his source, which he only defines as âChalcedonianâ (halkedonitskij istoÄnik); he merely states that he found the information in the Georgian MS 51 of the âSociety for the Spreading of Literacy among Georgiansâ, which would contain, on fol. 67râ68r, a debate between Theodore AbÅ« Qurrah and an Armenian, whom Marr assumes to be Nonnus of Nisibis. As far as I can see, however, in the catalogue of the Society (Ð.С. ТакаиÑвили, ÐпиÑание ÑÑкопиÑей ÐбÑеÑÑва ÑаÑпÑоÑÑÑÐ°Ð½ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ Ð³ÑамоÑноÑÑи ÑÑеди гÑÑзинÑкого наÑÐµÐ»ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ [2 vols.; ТиÑлиÑ: ТипогÑаÑÐ¸Ñ Ð.Ð. ÐозловÑкаго, 1904â1912], 1:372â378), MS 51 has a part of the epic of Rustam (Rostomiani) from the Shah-Name and does not seem to contain the debate of AbÅ« Qurrah and Nonnus. Currently I am not able to locate the manuscript, which must be preserved at the Abuladze centre of Georgian Manuscripts in Tbilisi as part of the S-collection, just as all the manuscripts once owned by the Society.
For an overview of our sources of information concerning the debate, see Marr âÐÑкаÑн;â Van Roey, Nonnus de Nisibe. Traité apologétique, 3â15 and 18â21; Igor Dorfmann-Lazarev, Arméniens et byzantins à lâépoque de Photius: Deux débats théologiques après le triomphe de lâorthodoxie (CSCO 609, Subsidia 117; Louvain: Peeters, 2004), 69â74; see also Theodore AbÅ« Qurrah, Works, xiâxviii. According to Marr, the âGeorgian sourceâ (see previous note) reproduces the debate, but this information cannot yet be verified.
Nonnus, Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John, 3. See also Dorfmann-Lazarev, Arméniens et byzantins, 74.
See Theodore Abū Qurrah, Works, xiv.
Michael the Great, Chronicle, 4:495 (text), 3:32 (trans.); Dorfmann-Lazarev, Arméniens et byzantins, 69.
Theodore AbÅ« Qurrah, Works, 83â95.
Theodore AbÅ« Qurrah, Works, 151â154.
Theodore AbÅ« Qurrah, Works, 153â154.
Theodore AbÅ« Qurrah, Works, 89â90.
Van Roey, Nonnus, 38â41.
Van Roey, Nonnus, 33â37.
AbÅ« RÄʾiá¹ah, The Writings, 84â86 (text), 104â107 (trans.). On AbÅ« RÄʾiá¹ahâs use of the Christological florilegium see Bishara Ebeid, âMiaphysite Syriac Patristic Florilegia and Theopaschism: AbÅ« RÄʾiá¹ahâs Defence of the Christological Trisagion Hymn,â Annali di Scienze Religiose 14 (2021), 231â269.
Nonnus, Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John, 3.
See also Bishara Ebeidâs chapter in the present volume.
With some notable exceptions, like the Plerophories composed by John of the Sedre (d. 648) against the dyophysites and the Julianists preserved in MS London, British Library Add. 14629 and published by Jouko Martikainen, Johannes I. Sedra (Göttinger Orientforschungen, I. Reihe: Syriaca 34; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1991), and the monothelete florilegium of MS London, British Library Add. 14535 (on which see Sebastian P. Brock, âA Monothelete Florilegium in Syriac,â in After Chalcedon: Studies in Theology and Church History Offered to Professor Albert Van Roey for His Seventieth Birthday [ed. C. Laga, J.A. Munitiz, and L. van Rompay; OLA 18; Leuven: Peeters, 1985], 35â45; Jack Tannous, âIn Search of Monotheletism,â Dumbarton Oaks Papers 68 [2014]: 29â67; Maria Conterno, âThree Unpublished Texts on Christâs Unique Will and Operation from the Syriac Florilegium in the ms. London, British Library, Add. 14535,â Millennium 10 [2013]: 115â144 and Maria Conterno, âByzance hors de Byzance: la controverse monothélite du côté syriaque,â in Les controverses religieuses en syriaque [ed. F. Ruani; ES 13; Paris: Paul Geuthner, 2016], 157â180).
Elias certainly wrote his letter after 743 (Van Roey, âLa lettre,â 9). In 1944, Van Roey considered that the letter may even date to the beginning of the ninth century (Van Roey, âLa lettre,â 20â21). However, the lack of any reference to Theodore AbÅ« Qurrah tends to keep the dating withing the third quarter of the eighth century. Although this is a proof e silentio, it must be reminded that Elias is carefully up to date as to the Christological developments of his time, and these developments do not go beyond John of Damascus.
Theodore AbÅ« Qurrah, MayÄmir, 104â139.
Eliae epistula, 46 and 96 (text), 33 and 69 (trans.) (from Johnâs Against the Jacobites); 33â34 and 42â45 (text), 24 and 29â32 (trans.) (from Johnâs De fide orthodoxa).
Chalcedonians: Michael the Great, Chronicle, 4:495â497 (text), 3:32â34 (trans.); Julianists: Michael the Great, Chronicle, 4:483â486 (text), 3:10â15 (trans.). On Julianism under Cyriacus, see Ute Possekel, âJulianism in Syriac Christianity,â in Orientalia Christiana: Festschrift für Hubert Kaufhold zum 70. Geburtstag (ed. P. Bruns and H.O. Luthe; Eichstätter Beiträge zum Christlichen Orient 3; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2013), 437â458, at 454â456.
Admittedly, the only chronological information provided by Eliasâ letter is that it was written after 743, to which the Damasceneâs Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, quoted in the letter, is dated. As I said, it is likely that the Elias of the letter is the Elias of ḤarrÄn (the city of which AbÅ« Qurrah was bishop at the beginning of the ninth century) who wrote the preface to the treatise On Difference, Number, and Division and dedicated his treatise on the Eucharist to the not-yet patriarch Dionysius of Tell-Mahre. Thus, we should assign Eliasâs floruit between the end patriarchate of Cyriacus of Tagrit (790â817) and the beginning of Dionysiusâ, which was also Nonnusâ main period of activity.
Extension of the Miaphysite Libelli against Probus in MS D: fol. 107râ123v.
Bibliography
Primary Sources
AbÅ« Raʾiá¹a, The Writings = Graf, Georg, ed. ḤabÄ«b Ibn Ḫidma AbÅ« RÄʾiá¹a. Die Schriften. CSCO 130â131, Scriptores Arabici 14â15. Louvain: Imprimerie Orientaliste, 1951.
Eliae epistula = van Roey, Albert, ed. and trans. Eliae epistula apologetica ad Leonem, syncellum Harranensem. CSCO 469â470, Scriptores Syri 201â202. Leuven: Peeters, 1985.
John Damascene, De fide orthodoxa = Kotter, Bonifatius, ed. Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos Band II: Expositio Fidei.Patristische Texte und Studien 12. BerlinâNew York: De Gruyter, 1973.
Michael the Great, Chronicle = Chabot, Jean-Baptiste, ed. Chronique de Michel le Syrien, patriarche jacobite dâAntioche (1166â1199). 4 vols. Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1899â1910.
Moschos, Pré spirituel = Rouët de Journel, Marie-Joseph, trans. Jean Moschus. Le pré spirituel. SC 12. Paris: Cerf, 1946.
Nonnus, Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John = Thomson, Robert W., trans. Nonnus of Nisibis. Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John. SBL Writings from the Islamic World 1. Atlanta, Georgia: SBL Press, 2014.
Opuscula monophysitica Ioannis Philoponi = Å anda, Albert, ed. and trans. Opuscula monophysitica Ioannis Philoponi quae ex manuscriptis Vaticano et Britannico syriace edidit et latine interpretatus est. Beirut: Typographia Catholica PP. Soc. Jesu, 1930.
Porphyry, Isagoge = Busse, Adolf, ed. Porphyrii Isagoge et in Aristotelis Categorias Commentarium. Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca 4.1. Berlin: Typis et Impensis G. Reimeri, 1887.
Severus of Antioch, Against the Grammarian = Lebon, Joseph, ed. Severi Antiocheni Liber Contra Impium Grammaticum oratio prima et orationis secundae quae supersunt. CSCO 93â94. Scriptores Syri 45â46. Louvain: Imprimerie Orientaliste, 1929.
Theodore AbÅ« Qurrah, MayÄmir = Qunsá¹aná¹Ä«n BÄÅ¡Ä, ed. MayÄmir ThÄwdÅ«rus AbÄ« Qurrah usquf ḤarrÄn ʾaqdam taÊ¿lÄ«f Ê¿arabÄ« naá¹£rÄnÄ«. BayrÅ«t: Maá¹baÊ¿at al-FawÄʾid, 1904.
Theodore Abū Qurrah, Works = Lamoreaux, John, trans. Theodore Abū Qurrah. Library of the Christian East 1. Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 2005.
Secondary Literature
Abramowski, Rudolf. Dionysius von Tellmahre, jakobitischer Patriarch von 818â845. Zur Geschichte der Kirche unter dem Islam. Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 25.2. Leipzig: F.A. Brockhaus, 1940.
Assemani, Josephus Simonius. Bibliotheca Orientalis Clementino-Vaticana. 3 vols. Romae: Sacrae Congregationis de Propaganda Fide, 1719â1728.
Baumstark, Anton. Geschichte der syrischen Literatur, mit Ausschluss der christlich-palästinensischen Texte. Bonn: A. Marcus und E. Weber, 1922.
Bettiolo, Paolo, ed. Una raccolta di opuscoli Calcedonensi: Ms. Sinaï Syr. 10. CSCO 403â404, Scriptores Syri 177â178, Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1979.
Brock, Sebastian P. âA Monothelete Florilegium in Syriac.â Pages 35â45 in After Chalcedon: Studies in Theology and Church History Offered to Professor Albert Van Roey for His Seventieth Birthday. Edited by C. Laga, J.A. Munitiz, and L. van Rompay. OLA 18. Leuven: Peeters, 1985.
Brock, Sebastian P. âThe Commentator Probus: Problems of Date and Identity.â Pages 195â206 in Interpreting the Bible and Aristotle in Late Antiquity: The Alexandrian Commentary Tradition between Rome and Baghdad. Edited by J. Lössl and J.W. Watt. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2011.
Conterno, Maria. âThree Unpublished Texts on Christâs Unique Will and Operation from the Syriac Florilegium in the ms. London, British Library, Add. 14535.â Millennium 10 [2013]: 115â144.
Conterno, Maria. âByzance hors de Byzance: la controverse monothélite du côté syriaque.â Pages 157â180 in Les controverses religieuses en syriaque. Edited by F. Ruani. ES 13. Paris: Paul Geuthner, 2016.
De Halleux, André. Philoxène de Mabbog. Sa vie, ses écrits, sa théologie. Universitas Catholica Lovaniensis. Dissertationes ad gradum magistri in Facultate Theologica vel in Facultate Iuris Canonici consequendum conscriptae III.8. Louvain: Imprimerie orientaliste, 1963.
Declerck, José H. âProbus, lâex-jacobite et ses epaporemata pros Iakobitas.â Byzantion 53 (1983): 213â232.
Dorfmann-Lazarev, Igor. Arméniens et byzantins à lâépoque de Photius: Deux débats théologiques après le triomphe de lâorthodoxie. CSCO 609, Subsidia 117. Louvain: Peeters, 2004.
Duval, Rubens La littérature syriaque. Paris: V. Lecoffre, 1907.
Ebeid, Bishara. âMetaphysics of Trinity in Graeco-Syriac Miaphysitism: A Study and Analysis of the Trinitarian Florilegium in MS British Library Add. 14532.â Studia Graeco-Arabica 11 (2021): 63â108.
Ebeid, Bishara. âMiaphysite Syriac Patristic Florilegia and Theopaschism: AbÅ« RÄʾiá¹ahâs Defence of the Christological Trisagion Hymn,â Annali di Scienze Religiose 14 (2021), 231â269.
Erismann, Christophe. âA World of Hypostases. John of Damascusâ Rethinking of Aristotleâs Categorical Ontology.â SP 50 (2011): 269â287.
Erismann, Christophe. âNon Est Natura sine Persona: The Issue of Uninstantiated Universals from Late Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages.â Pages 75â91 in Methods and Methodologies: Aristotelian Logic East and West, 500â1500. Edited by M. Cameron and J. Marenbon. Investigating Medieval Philosophy 2. Leiden: Brill, 2011.
Gleede, Benjamin. The Development of the Term âenhypostatosâ from Origen to John of Damascus. VChr Supplements 113. LeidenâBoston: Brill, 2012.
Hainthaler, Theresia. âA Christological Controversy among the Severans at the End of the Sixth Centuryâthe Conversion of Probus and John Barbur to Chalcedonism.â Pages 386â418 in Christ in Christian Tradition Volume II: From the Council of Chalcedon (451) to Gregory the Great (590â604): Part 3. The Churches of Jerusalem and Antioch from 451 to 600. Edited by A. Grillmeier, T. Hainthaler, T. Bou Mansour, and L. Abramowski. Translated by M. Ehrhardt. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.
Hugonnard-Roche, Henri. âLe commentaire syriaque de Probus sur lâIsagoge de Porphyre. Une étude préliminaire.â Studia graeco-arabica 2 (2012): 227â243.
Hugonnard-Roche, Henri. âUn cours sur la syllogistique dâAristote à lâépoque tardo-antique: le commentaire syriaque de Proba (VIe siècle) sur les Premiers Analytiques. Ãdition et traduction du texte, avec introduction et commentaire.â Studia graeco-arabica 7 (2017): 105â170.
Hugonnard-Roche, Henri. âProbus.â Pages 2465â2469 in Philosophie der Kaiserzeit und der Spätantike. Edited by C. Riedweg, C. Horn, and D. Wyrwa. Die Philosophie der Antike 5.1â3. Basel: Schwabe Verlag, 2018.
Krausmüller, Dirk. âEnhypostaton: Being âin anotherâ or âwith anotherâ: How Chalcedonian theologians of the sixth century defined the ontological status of Christâs human nature.â VChr 71 (2017): 433â448.
Lebon, Joseph. âLe monophysisme sévérien.â Pages 424â580 in Das Konzil von Chalkedon: Geschichte und Gegenwart Vol. I. Edited by A. Grillmeier and H. Bacht. Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1951.
Marr, Nikolaj J. âÐÑкаÑн, монголÑÑкое название Ñ ÑиÑÑиан в ÑвÑзи c вопÑоÑом об аÑмÑÐ½Ð°Ñ -Ñ Ð°Ð»ÐºÐµÐ´Ð¾Ð½Ð¸ÑÐ°Ñ .â ÐизанÑийÑкий вÑеменник 12 (1906): 1â68.
Martikainen, Jouko. Johannes I. Sedra. Göttinger Orientforschungen, I. Reihe: Syriaca 34. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1991.
Mingana, Alphonse. Catalogue of the Mingana Collection of Manuscripts. 3 vols. Woodbrooke Catalogues 1â3. Cambridge: W. Heffer and Sons, 1933â1939.
Moss, Yonatan. âLes controverses christologiques au sein de la tradition miaphysite: sur lâincorruptibilité du corps du Christ et autres questions.â Pages 119â136 in Les controverses religieuses en syriaque. Edited by F. Ruani. ES 13. Paris: Geuthner, 2016.
Nau, François, âLes Maronites, inquisiteurs de la foi catholique du VIe au VIIe siècle.â Bulletin de lâAssociation de Saint-Louis des Maronites janvier (1903): 343â350; avril (1903), 367â383.
Penn, Michael P. âKnow Thy Enemy: The Materialization of Orthodoxy in Syriac Manuscripts.â Pages 221â241 in Snapshots of Evolving Traditions: Jewish and Christian Manuscript Culture, Textual Fluidity, and New Philology. Edited by L.I. Lied and H. Lundhaug. Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur 175. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2017.
Possekel, Ute. âJulianism in Syriac Christianity.â Pages 437â458 in Orientalia Christiana: Festschrift für Hubert Kaufhold zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by P. Bruns and H.O. Luthe. Eichstätter Beiträge zum Christlichen Orient 3. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2013.
Possekel, Ute. âChristological Debates in Eighth-Century Harran: The Correspondence of Leo of Harran and Eliya.â Pages 345â368 in Syriac Encounters: Papers from the Sixth North American Syriac Symposium, Duke University, 26â29 June 2011. Edited by M.E. Doerfler, E. Fiano, and K.R. Smith. Eastern Christian Studies 20. Leuven: Peeters, 2015.
Schulthess, Friedrich. Die Syrischen Kanones der Synoden von Nicaea bis Chalcedon nebst einigen zugehörigen Dokumenten. Abhandlungen der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Philologisch-historische Klasse, N.F. X.2. Berlin: Weidmann, 1908.
TakaiÅ¡vili, Ekvtime S. ÐпиÑание ÑÑкопиÑей ÐбÑеÑÑва ÑаÑпÑоÑÑÑÐ°Ð½ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ Ð³ÑамоÑноÑÑи ÑÑеди гÑÑзинÑкого наÑелениÑ. 2 vols. ТиÑлиÑ: ТипогÑаÑÐ¸Ñ Ð.Ð. ÐозловÑкаго, 1904â1912.
Tannous, Jack. âIn Search of Monotheletism.â Dumbarton Oaks Papers 68 (2014): 29â67.
Uthemann, Karl-Heinz. âSyllogistik im Dienst der Orthodoxie. Zwei unedierte Texte byzantinischer Kontroverstheologie des 6. Jahrhunderts.â Jahrbuch der österreichischen Byzantinistik 30 (1981): 103â112.
Uthemann, Karl-Heinz. âStephanos von Alexandrien und die Konversion des Jakobiten Probos, des späteren Metropoliten von Chalkedon. Ein Beitrag zur Rolle der Philosophie in der Kontroverstheologie des 6. Jahrhunderts.â Pages 381â399 in After Chalcedon: Studies in Theology and Church History Offered to Professor Albert Van Roey for His Seventieth Birthday. Edited by C. Laga, J.A. Munitiz, and L. van Rompay. OLA 18; Leuven: Peeters, 1985.
Van Roey, Albert. âLa lettre apologétique dâÃlie à Léon, syncelle de lâévêque chalcédonien de Harran.â LM 57 (1944): 1â52.
Van Roey, Albert. Nonnus de Nisibe. Traité apologétique. Ãtude, texte et traduction. Bibliothèque du Muséon 21. Louvain: Bureaux du Muséon, 1948.
Van Roey, Albert. âHet dossier van Proba en Juhannan Barboer.â Pages 181â190 in Scrinium Lovaniense. Mélanges historiquesâHistorische opstellen Ãtienne Van Cauwenberg. Recueil de travaux dâhistoire et de philologie IV.24. Louvain: Bibliothèque de lâUniversité Bureau du Recueil, 1961.
Van Roey, Albert. âUne controverse christologique sous le patriarcat de Pierre de Callinique.â Pages 349â357 in Symposium Syriacum 1976: célebré du 13 au 17 septembre 1976 au Centre Culturel âLes Fontainesâ de Chantilly (France). Edited by F. Graffin and A. Guillaumont. OCA 205. Roma: Pontificium Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1978.
Van Roey, Albert. âUn florilège trinitaire syriaque tiré du Contra Damianum de Pierre de Callinique.â OLP 23 (1992): 189â203.
Van Roey, Albert, and Allen, Pauline. Monophysite Texts of the Sixth Century. OLA 56. Leuven: Peeters, 1994.
Wolska-Conus, Wanda. âStéphanos dâAthènes et Stéphanos dâAlexandrie. Essai dâidentification et de biographie.â Revue des Ãtudes Byzantines 47 (1989): 5â89.
Wood, Philip. The Imam of the Christians. The World of Dionysius of Tel-Mahre, c. 750â850. Princeton, NJâOxford: Princeton University Press, 2021.
Wright, William. Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum Acquired since the Year 1838. 3 vols. London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1870â1872.
Zachhuber, Johannes. The Rise of Christian Theology and the End of Ancient Metaphysics. Patristic Philosophy from the Cappadocian Fathers to John of Damascus. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020.