Syriac Christology and St Isaac of Nineveh

[Patrick Walsh]

Hello

I am only beginning to explore this wonderful area. And as I explore, my humility grows as I am in awe of the clarity and wisdom of the Church Fathers.

I know that the Syriac Fathers, such as St. Hevagrius of Pontus, St. Ephrem of Syria, St. Isaac of Nineveh, and St. Afraates of Matti come after much of this debate had ended with the council of Chalcedon. But I am curious to understand better where their Christology fits into the picture as a whole, in particular St. Isaac of Nineveh.

The reason I ask this is that the more I read of this topic, the more I begin to understand St. Isaac's particular approach to salvation. This also deepens my understanding of why indeed his theology is Orthodox, and not the Nestorian of the church he belonged to.

Any guidance to help further my understanding is appreciated.

Thanks
Patrick

[Eugene]

Hello Patrick,

I'm not a Syrologist, but I spent some time studying Syriac fathers, so I migh be able to say something on this topic, and other people will correct me if I'm wrong.

First of all, St. Ephrem of Syria and St. Afraates of Matti lived long before the Chalcedoinan schism and their theology has no sign of Nestorianism, so they both are perfectly Orthodox.

Hevagrius of Pontus is not Syriac, neither he is a saint, his writhings were found to contain some heresy (namely, he beleived in Origen's version of apokatastasis), so he was pronounced among heretics on one of the Ecumenical Councils. However, his writings are still valued in the Orthodox Church, some of them had even been included in Philokalia. He was also very respected in Syriac Nestorian Church, and many of his writings survived only in Syriac translation.

Now, the case of St. Isaac of Nineveh is still a mystery and challenge for us. He is among the most respected spiritual writers and saints in the Orthodox Church. However, according to historical data, he belonged to the Nestorian Syriac Church, and he even was a bishop there for a short period of time. We don't have any historical evidence whether at the end of his days he belonged to Nestorian or Orthodox Syriac Church. In his writings (at least volume 1) he does not say anything expilcitly and definitely on the matter of Christology, so we can not say surely wether he was Nestorian or not. However, the Syriac original of Volume 1 has plenty of references to Theodore of Mopsuestia and Diodore, both are well-known Nestorian writers accused of heresy at Chalcedon. Those references were removed from the text when this volume was translated into Greek in 10-th sentury by Orthodox monks, however they can be wiewed as an evidence that St. Isaac belonged to the Nestorian Church. As far as concern recently discovered volume 2 of his writings, there are a few chapters that contain some Nestorian views, however it is still questionabe whether all chapters of volume 2 belong to St. Isaac. Some people think that the case of St. Isaac challenges our wievs on the possibility of salvation and theosis outside the canonical boundaries of the Orthodox Church.

In Christ,
Evgeny

[Patrick Walsh]

Please forgive me for not being clear. But I was unaware that Hevagrius was not a Saint. So I learned something in spite of my lack of clarity.

I did not mean to imply that there was a question of my faith in the Syriac Fathers as being Orthodox, or my inability to accept their teachings as valid. Reading and studying St. Isaac of Nineveh has changed my entire perspective on the nature of Christ.

It is true that St. Isaac does not specifically address the Christological debate that brought about the council of Chalcedon. It is hard for me to explain, but the Christology of the two nature--the paradox of the formless form, the finite infinity, the bounded boundlessness--this is there in his writings.

I, as Gregory the Theologian says in his First Epistle to Cledonius, cannot see how one can attain salvation without incorporating the whole man--his spirit, soul, and body--and without Christ's assumption of the whole man with his whole divinity as the Word begotten before all ages. Without bringing the whole man to bear on Christ--the Way, Truth and Life--one is cut off from salvation. St. Isaac teaches the fullness of this truth in spite of the Nestorian church in which he maintained his sacramental life.

So I believe very much that St. Isaac did teach Christology from a somewhat oblique point of view--a point of view based on the wisdom of direct experience and understanding of holiness rather than a theological point of view. Once I disceovered this, I began to see why St. Isaac is so revered in the Orthodox Church.

I see this style of Christology present in all of the Syriac fathers, and in St. Symeon the New Theologian as well. I am hoping to be able to explore this further in order to increase my understanding.

Patrick

[Leandros]

Now, the case of St. Isaac of Nineveh is still a mystery and challenge for us.

According to Orthodox tradition (http://home.iprimus.com.au/xenos/ephraim.html), there is no question of non-Orthodoxy about St Isaac of Nineveh (who is also known as St Isaac the Syrian)

St Isaac the Syrian

The great luminary of the life of stillness, St Isaac, was born in the early seventh century in eastern Arabia, the present day Qatar on the Persian Gulf. He became a monk at a young age, and at some time left Arabia to dwell with monks in Persia. He was consecrated Bishop of Nineveh (and is therefore sometimes called St Isaac of Nineveh), but after five months received permission to return to solitude; he spent many years far south of Nineveh in the mountainous region of Beit Huzaye, and lastly at the Monastery of Rabban Shabur. He wrote his renowned and God inspired Ascetical Homilies toward the end of his long life of monastic struggle, about the end of the seventh century. The fame of his Homilies grew quickly, and about 100 years after their composition they were translated from Syriac into Creek by two monks of the Monastery of Mar Sabbas in Palestine, from which they spread throughout the monasteries of the Roman Empire and became a guide to hesychasts of all generations thereafter.

Dismissal Hymn of St Isaac
Let us worship the Word

He that thundered on Mount Sinai with saving laws for man has also given your writings as guides in prayer unto monks, O revealer of unfathomable mysteries; for having gone up in the mount of the vision of the Lord, you were shown the many mansions. Wherefore, O God bearing Isaac, entreat the Saviour for all praising you.

Kontakion of St Isaac
To you, the Champion Leader

As an ascetic and God bearer great in righteousness and an instructor of monastics do we honour you, who reveals of things sacred, and our protector. But, O Isaac, since you have great boldness with the Lord, intercede with Him for all of us who sing thy praise and who cry to you, "Rejoice, O Father most wise in God".

[Eugene]

According to Orthodox tradition, there is no question of non-Orthodoxy about St Isaac of Nineveh (who is also known as St Isaac the Syrian)

Exactly. The mistery is not that he is a saint, but how he is a saint if he belonged to Nestorian Cyriac Church (if he did).

[nurese-aid]

saint IS beyng particular church...he is a chapel himself. How then St.John of Shanhi was able interseed for none Orthodox peole and they was healed...They must be belive strongly in his intersession...in order to be healed...so by their belive they become well...how about opposit...

How then St.Nectarious was not allowed to serve or even not Metropalitan anymore...IF HE REALLY BECOME NOT PRIEST becuse of the peole in Orthodox Church oficially desided it!

[Patrick Walsh]

This is what my spiritual father forwarded me on the writing of the Holy St. Isaac of Nineveh.

"The Synaxarion says, 'The book of Saint Isaac is, with the Ladder of Saint John Climacus, the indispensible guide for every Orthdox soul to journey safely toward God. Hence, not many years ago, a holy spiritual father, Jerome of Aegina (d. 1966), recommended begging, if necessary, in order to be able to purchase a copy.'"

Patrick

[Scott Pierson]

I've seen books make the claim that he was a Nestorian then another author claim he was a Monophysite (the exact opposite of a Nestorian) and then others claim he was Orthodox. Personally I trust the tradition of the Church over any secular historian or scholar. Especially when the issue isnt even agreed upon by the "experts"!

Does anyone know where I can find an Akathist to St Isaac online?

-Scott Pierson

[John Charmley]

I've seen books make the claim that he was a Nestorian then another author claim he was a Monophysite (the exact opposite of a Nestorian) and then others claim he was Orthodox. Personally I trust the tradition of the Church over any secular historian or scholar. Especially when the issue isnt even agreed upon by the "experts"!

Does anyone know where I can find an Akathist to St Isaac online?

-Scott Pierson

Dear Scott,

Migrating here from the St. Isaac part of our dialogue on the EO/OO theme, I find nothing to suggest that he was EO. Leandros' post simply directs one to a site that says he is 'ours'.

Fr. Raphael's explanation I shall come back to on the EO/OO thread, as I am very mindful of Matthew's wish to stop that thread from spreading out, but here I will simply say ask a few questions.

How likely is it that someone who lived where Isaac lived would have been Chalcedonian? The Church of the East has always claimed him as one of their own, and there is no ground I know of for questioning this. This does not mean that his teaching cannot be accepted as Orthodox - but to claim that he, himself, was Chalcedonian Orthodox is simply to state what was not so. That is why I have a problem with this uncomplicated version of tradition - simply stating that such and such has been held for a long time is not, by itself, proof of anything beyond itself. To then say, when proof exists that that one prefers to believe error because it has been around a long time, is not, one suspects, a position likely to enhance the reputation of Christians for being able to engage in rational dialogue.

In Christ,

John

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Brothers & Sisters in Christ,

In my last post (a reply on the EO-OO thread) I suggested moving separate discussions to other more suitable threads and also controlling the focus of our discussion.

Then I spoke as a fellow poster but now as a co-moderator.

Looking at this thread I'm sure we can see what happens when we bring in the topic of EO-OO relations. It becomes difficult to discuss other topics as issues in their own right. Also it makes it very difficult for others to participate except the same few who keep replicating the same discussion throughout the group. Matthew previously already brought this point up. (And please see note at the top of this thread)

Please then if we could keep the themes of the threads on track.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[John Charmley]

Dear Brothers & Sisters in Christ,


Please then if we could keep the themes of the threads on track.

In Christ- Fr Raphael


Dear Father Raphael,

Of course. So, persevering with the quest for enlightenment, can anyone here throw some light on how and when the teachings of a Nestorian bishop came to be recognised by the EO as Orthodox?

I can see that most of his teachings have always been Orthodox (although I understand that there may still be some material in syriac which would not be EO teaching), but there must have been some point or points at which this became recognised and accepted. Can anyone help here?

In Christ,

John

[Peter Farrington]

+Hilarion says:

By the eleventh century, due to the Greek translation of his writings, Isaac became widely known in the Greek-speaking East: in the famous anthology of ascetical texts, the Evergetinon, the passages from ‘abba Isaac the Syrian’ stand on the same footing as those from the classics of early Byzantine spirituality. This is how a modest ‘Nestorian’ Bishop from a remote province of Persia became a Holy Father of the Orthodox Church of Chalcedonian orientation - a rather exceptional phenomenon in the history of Eastern Christianity.

St Isaac has exerted a considerable influence on Russian spirituality. His ascetical homilies, translated into Slavonic in the XIVth century, made a deep impression on St Nil of Sora, one of the most important monastic writers of the XVIth century. In the XIXth century major theologians, such as Philaret of Moscow and Theophane the Recluse, as well as famous secular writers, such as I.Kireyevsky and F.Dostoyevsky, were among his admirers. Dostoyevsky was deeply influenced by Isaac’s homilies and used some of them as a source material for ‘the writings of Elder Zosima’ in ‘The Brothers Karamazoff’.

So I would imagine that he came to be considered a saint by the EO because he was only known by a selection of writings and not in his context as an Assyrian bishop.

This surely says something about the nature of Orthodoxy within and without particular communions, as +Hilarion himself and Hieromonk Alexander Golitzin, in a review of +Hilarion's book, both elaborate on.

Best wishes

Peter

[John Charmley]

So I would imagine that he came to be considered a saint by the EO because he was only known by a selection of writings and not in his context as an Assyrian bishop.

This surely says something about the nature of Orthodoxy within and without particular communions, as +Hilarion himself and Hieromonk Alexander Golitzin, in a review of +Hilarion's book, both elaborate on.

Best wishes

Peter

Dear Peter,

Most interesting. I haven't seen the review by Golitzin, have you a reference for it? Perhaps you might expand on its relevance here?

In Christ,

John

[Peter Farrington]

Hi John

Here is a link to a review by Hieromonk Alexander.

I will not post the contents here but he raises some interesting points based on the fact that St Isaac is outside the communion of EOxy, and indeed OOxy as he mentions, but is still reputed a saint.

http://www.orthodoxeurope.org/page/11/3/2.aspx

Peter

[John Charmley]

Hi John

Here is a link to a review by Hieromonk Alexander.

I will not post the contents here but he raises some interesting points based on the fact that St Isaac is outside the communion of EOxy, and indeed OOxy as he mentions, but is still reputed a saint.

http://www.orthodoxeurope.org/page/11/3/2.aspx

Peter

Dear Peter,

What a thought-provoking review! By far the most interesting one I have seen, and what a host of important questions he raises - although the most important ones are not for here!

In Christ

John

[Peter Farrington]

Do the Antiochians use Syriac at all, or do they use Greek and Arabic?

When I was in Sweden it was good to see the Syriac youth making efforts to retain their use of Syriac, but from my contact with Antiochian friends in the UK I can only recall mention of Arabic?

Peter

[Kris]

Do the Antiochians use Syriac at all, or do they use Greek and Arabic?

When I was in Sweden it was good to see the Syriac youth making efforts to retain their use of Syriac, but from my contact with Antiochian friends in the UK I can only recall mention of Arabic?
Peter

From what I know, the Antiochian Church tends to use only Arabic and not Syriac (although English is the norm in the UK and USA).

[Peter Farrington]

I wonder when they ceased to use their native Syriac then?

Was it in response to a Hellenisation of their church culture? Did this happen at the time they stopped using their own liturgies also?

Peter

[Kris]

Was it in response to a Hellenisation of their church culture? Did this happen at the time they stopped using their own liturgies also?


I would assume the introcuction of Arabic was a response to Hellinisation (which was probably the cause of the loss of Syriac), although I read somewhere that the Byzantine liturgical tradition was derived from Antioch, so I suppose it is still "their own" liturgies.

I've also heard that the rite used by the Syriac Church (correct me if I'm wrong) represents that of Western Syria.

I wonder whether there was a greater concentration of Chalcedonians in Eastern Syria, and whether Arabization was greater in these areas, since there are still villages where even the Muslims have retained this old dialect of Aramaic.

[Peter Farrington]

Hi Kris

Is East Syria not where the Assyrians were based?

West Syria is Antioch and is the region of the Antiochean and Syrian Orthodox.

The Syrian Orthodox still speak a variety of Aramaic, but I was interested that the Antiocheans seemed to not.

I know that local liturgies were banned in the medieaval period in the Byzantine Empire, and that the Greek Alexandrians also used Greek rather than their native language so I guessed that there was a process of Greekification and centralisation, analagous to that which happened in the West, and which led to the loss of local languages and liturgies.

The Syrian Orthodox use their own variant of the Liturgy of St James, but you Byzantines only use Greek St James occasionally (it is the usual BOC liturgy). Certainly all liturgies can be traced to Syrian origins but the imperial Liturgy of St John Chrysostom did replace all local rites, as the Roman one did all local Western rites, more or less.

So much of the material I use in my own studies is in Syriac (and French) that I am learning Syriac, rather than Coptic. I guess for all manner of reasons the Greek Antiocheans chose to use Greek and then Arabic?

Best wishes

Peter

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I wonder whether there was a greater concentration of Chalcedonians in Eastern Syria, and whether Arabization was greater in these areas, since there are still villages where even the Muslims have retained this old dialect of Aramaic.

I wonder if the Chalcedonians would have been increasingly in the western areas over time.

If I remember correctly when the Crusaders arrived in these areas in the 11th century many of the Christians from Syria down through Lebanon and the Holy Land were still Chalcedonian & Byzantine in mentality with their own Patriarchs still in Antioch & Jerusalem (this last is often forgotten in the accounts of the Crusaders who had to interact with the Christian populations they encountered along their way to Jerusalem. At first they respected the fact that these were separate Patriachates but then they replaced them with Latin patriarchs directly subordinate to the Pope). I don't remember though the languages these local Christians spoke who were found in all the major cities & villages along the way to Jerusalem. Just on a guess- Greek in the cities, Aramaic in the villages.

In any case I was able to find this interesting comment about St Issac in the Introduction the Holy Transfiguration version of his homilies:

After noting that St Isaac originally came from the area now known as Qatar when he was made bishop of Nineveh, the Intro comments about why he may have retired as bishop:


It is certain that the citizens of Nineveh were displeased to have a foreigner as their bishop. ...The appointment of Saint Isaac, who came from the distant, uncivilized region of Qatar...must have been regarded by the Ninevites with the utmost displeasure. At that time Nineveh and its environs, being near the Jacobite stronghold, the monastery of Mar Matta, was a centre of Monophysite activity. Continuous and vehement doctrinal dispute plagued the city, and the loyal sons of the Persian Church [who were Nestorians] must have expected Saint Isaac to champion their cause... We know, however, from the saint's writings the dislike he had for disputation... such actions, could have been misinterpreted, especially by narrow-minded persons. If, as bishop, Saint Isaac remained as silent on christological issues as he does in his Homilies, many suspicions would have arisen. There is no indication, for instance, that he accepted the christological formula which confesses two hypostases in Christ. If he did not state himself clearly about this, the extremists in his flock would have charged him with crypto-Monophysitism.



In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Peter Farrington]

Dear Father

I am not sure that the quote is accurate in that +Hilarion, iirc, says that other texts from St Isaac are Nestorian in tone and do contain Christological matter.

I think it is also +Hilarion who says that the Greek translators who made use of St Isaac were selective in the texts they used and therefore wittingly or unwittingly promoted his sancitity by their exclusion of texts that would have counted against him.

Peter

[John Charmley]

Dear Father

I am not sure that the quote is accurate in that +Hilarion, iirc, says that other texts from St Isaac are Nestorian in tone and do contain Christological matter.

I think it is also +Hilarion who says that the Greek translators who made use of St Isaac were selective in the texts they used and therefore wittingly or unwittingly promoted his sancitity by their exclusion of texts that would have counted against him.

Peter

Dear Peter/Father Raphael,

The first part of St. Isaac's homilies (the 82 homilies) were in wide circulation in the Near East in the 8th and 9th centuries, in Syriac. It was probably during the latter part of this period that they were translated into Greek in the Orthodox monastery of St. Saba in Palestine. The translators included 4 texts which are not by him, but by John of Dalyatha, and, even more remarkably, one by Philoxenus of Mabbug, whom Peter knows well.

It was not until 1770 that the Greek text was published, edited by the monk Nikiphoros Theotokis, but according to Brock (and who knows better?) this was from a bad translation, on which most subsequent translations were based. It was not until 1909 that the Syriac original of the First Part was published.

The second part had a more troubled existence and was not translated from Syriac and is known to us now through a text sold by the Rev. Yaroo Neesan to the Bodleian Library in Oxford. It has never been translated into Greek, although parts of it have circulated in Arabic translations.

There is a more recently discovered Third part which turned up is mss. form in Tehran and which has been translated into Italian and French, but not English.

What is becoming clear from the translations of parts two and three is that there are passages which would be described as Nestorian, and there are similar passages in the Syriac texts of the First Part, which we must assume were missed out by his Greek translators for reasons too obvious to need stressing.

None of this makes the teachings which have been circulated any less Orthodox, but it does suggest that we are not yet in possession of a full assessment of St. Isaac's thought.

I shall confine this post to St. Isaac, but in a subsequent one address Fr. Raphael's comments about the spread of the Chalcedonians in this region.

In Christ,


John

[Peter Farrington]

Dear John

Thanks for that very interesting and informative post.

Where should I go to read more, both from a serious scholarly view about St Isaac and from the point of view of his own work?

Best wishes

Peter

[John Charmley]

I wonder if the Chalcedonians would have been increasingly in the western areas over time.

If I remember correctly when the Crusaders arrived in these areas in the 11th century many of the Christians from Syria down through Lebanon and the Holy Land were still Chalcedonian & Byzantine in mentality with their own Patriarchs still in Antioch & Jerusalem (this last is often forgotten in the accounts of the Crusaders who had to interact with the Christian populations they encountered along their way to Jerusalem. At first they respected the fact that these were separate Patriachates but then they replaced them with Latin patriarchs directly subordinate to the Pope). I don't remember though the languages these local Christians spoke who were found in all the major cities & villages along the way to Jerusalem. Just on a guess- Greek in the cities, Aramaic in the villages.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Dear Father Raphael,

Historians will always take any excuse to bring history into things, and accordingly, here goes!

After Chalcedon, Antioch, first under Peter the Fuller, then under Severus, aided by Philoxenus of Mabbug, continued to reject the findings of the Council, whilst rejecting Eutyches - and Dioscorus. With the death of Severus in 542 A.D. there was, in effect, a double succession to the see which has continued to this day. Severus was deposed, and after him, Melkite forces ruled in Antioch, and a Chalcedonian bishops was consecrated; but the non-Chalcedonians also consecrated a bishop of Antioch after the death of Severus.

The leading figure in the survival and later prosperity of the non-Chalcedonians was the remarkable figure of James Bardaeus whose activities and importance have often led to the Syrian Church being called the Jacobite Church.

The Muslim conquest of the region in the 7th century saw a brief period of prosperity for the Jacobites, who were preferred to the Melkites by the Arabs for obvious reasons. After about 750A.D., however, both parties suffered cruel persecutions.

Father Raphael does well to remind us that the Crusaders encountered the Chalcedonian (mainly confined to the big cities and the coast) and non-Chalcedonian (some big cities, especially Antioch, and the interior) patriarchs, but of course regarded them all as heretical and schismatic; not an edifying period in Christian history, I fear, although for those who like their Faith clear and precise, with heretics getting their just desserts, I guess it would look different!

So there has been a 'double succession' ever since. Syriac has never quite died out, and there has been a 20th century revival. The so-called Jacobite Church has played a critical role in its survival.

For those interested in such matters, there is a charming 19th century book called Six Months in a Syrian Monastery which has been republished by the excellent Gorgias Press, which whilst dated in its history, provides a vivid picture of the region in the century before last.

In Christ,

John

[John Charmley]

Dear John

Thanks for that very interesting and informative post.

Where should I go to read more, both from a serious scholarly view about St Isaac and from the point of view of his own work?

Best wishes

Peter

Dear Peter,

Works are not that numerous. You already know +Hilarion's excellent study, which is one of the best available.

In addition, Brock has a splendid introduction to Syriac Fathers on Prayer and the Spiritual Life(Cistercian Studies Series, 101), which can be had from the USA via Amazon.

Brock's short introduction to The wisdom of St. Isaac of Nineveh (Gorgias Press) is also worth taking on board.

The texts of +Hilarion's lectures can be had on line at
http://www.isaacthesyrian.com/studies.html

Another Orthodox study which I have found useful is:
Abba Isaac the Syrian: An Approach to His World
by Vasilleios
which I think you can find on Amazon UK - for about £200!
(I would need to be very ascetical about my book buying for a very long time to buy that! I read mine via University inter-library loan!).

I am sure others will have suggestions, but these are my sources.

In Christ,

John

[Peter Farrington]

Hi John

I have found

Abba Isaac the Syrian: An Approach to His World

at www.orthbooks.co.uk for £6.95

Do you want me to buy you a copy and sell it to you for £100?

Peter

[John Charmley]

Hi John

I have found

Abba Isaac the Syrian: An Approach to His World

at www.orthbooks.co.uk for £6.95

Do you want me to buy you a copy and sell it to you for £100?

Peter

Dear Peter

Seems a good offer to me, although not as good as buying one myself from the same source as you cite - so many thanks for that!

As a warning to me against taking my history from Anglican and EO sources, I find that the sources for saying that Severus condemned Dioscorus fail to mention that, as with Chalcedon, it was not for doctrinal reasons. Tricky stuff this history - as my students keep reminding me!

In Christ,

John

[Kusanagi]

I asked a metropolitan concerning the sainthood of Isaac the Syrian and he posted me an article about the history of the Assyrian Orthodox church at his time and that when there was a problem with the schisms the Assyrian church was not involved as they were secluded and kept themselves to themselves so they were not affected by the heresy that was going on at tha tparticular time so any teachings he and other saints may have would be kept pure as handed down to them from other Holy Fathers before they went into seclusion.