sign in sign up
<<
Home , Chalcedonian Definition, Council of Chalcedon

Jesus and Mary: Qurʾānic Echoes of Syriac Homilies?

Clare Wilde

1 Late Antique Christological Disputes

Both the Qurʾān and the preserve memories of challenges to the truth of their respective prophets. While the qurʾānic prophet is maligned by his de- tractors as a sorcerer (e.g., Q 38:4), poet (e.g., Q 37:36), liar or one possessed by jinn (e.g., Q 52:29), the Bible attests to criticisms of from his contempo- raries that ultimately result in his crucifixion (e.g., Mark 15:1–15). The Bible also indicates that Jesus’ disciples disputed amongst themselves about his power (e.g., John 20:24–29).

1.1 Christological Divisions For centuries after Jesus’ own lifetime, Trinitarian and Christological questions occupied Christian theologians. Ecumenical councils were called (by the em- peror) in order to attempt a resolution to the disputes. While the Council of Nicea (325) addressed, among other issues, the relationship of to (), among the topics at the Council of (451) was how the second person of the was both human and divine. Needless to say, the ecumenical councils did not result in unanimous con- sent among all the Christian communities. For example, concerning the issues debated at the Council of Nicea, it was reported:

If you went to a shop in Constantinople wanting to buy a loaf, the baker instead of telling you the price, will argue that the Father [i.e., God] is greater than the Son. The money-changer will talk of the Begotten and the Unbegotten instead of giving you your money, and if you want a bath the bathkeeper assures you that the Son surely proceeds from nothing.1

While Christian groups who disagreed with Nicene would not survive, theological pronouncements from the were

1 See the account in Gibbon (1994, 28 [vol. 3, ch. XXVII]).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004385696_013 Jesus and Mary: Qurʾānic echoes of Syriac Homilies? 285 met with long-standing opposition. In fact, both Chalcedonian and non-­ Chalcedonian survive until this day. Although the various groups agree with the general concept of the (God taking on flesh), they have different understandings as to how, in the second person of the Trinity, divinity and humanity are united. The theological pronouncement at Chalcedon emphasized the union of two na- tures, one divine and one human, in the one hypostasis of the person of Christ. This is the understanding of the majority of and Greek Christians.2 Those who would come to be associated with the of the East (with a heavy concentration of adherents in contemporary Iraq and Iran) are sometimes termed Nestorian,3 as, like the fifth century of Constantinople of that name, they refused to term Mary “” (God-bearer). These Christians understand the person of Christ as containing two hypostases, one for the di- vine nature, and the other for the human nature. The other major group dis- senting view from the is termed Monophysite (or, more accurately, Miaphysite) as its members emphasised the unity of the natures (φύσεις) in the hypostasis. Fearing that Chalcedon’s definition might lead Christians to – erroneously – classify the activities, if not the natures, of Christ into divine and human categories, they insisted on the “oneness” of the nature, albeit both divine and human. Due to the efforts of to preserve this anti-Chalcedonian in and Iraq, Monophysite Syriac-speakers are often termed Jacobites.4 It should be noted that dissent from conciliar decisions in many cases was not merely based on theological (or philosophical) grounds.5 Furthermore, ecclesiastical councils that addressed such theological issues would also con- sider other matters. For example, Chalcedon also discussed issues of ecclesi- astical administration, such as the obedience of to . Given the multi-faceted nature of the Councils and the various Christian communities, there was rarely a uniform acceptance or rejection of conciliar pronounce- ments in a given region. Thus, after Chalcedon, it was possible to find both Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Christians in a single city. In such cir- cumstances, the various groups were well aware of each other’s existence and competing ideologies, as attested to by the rich legacy of debate texts produced by Chalcedonian and anti-Chalcedonian authors. Emperors, too, were all too

2 On the history of this group in the Arabic speaking world, see Griffith (2006). 3 On this nomenclature, see Brock (1996). 4 For further discussion on these divisions, see Griffith (2001). 5 For one example, see Frend (1982).