______

NARSAI’S DEPENDENCE ON THEODORE OF

FREDERICK MCLEOD ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY

arsai stands out as the preemi- a much wider vein, more interested in the nent theologian among the fifth- overall spiritual and occasionally polemical century East Syrian Christians. themes that a scriptural passage might con- N While acknowledged as an ar- tain or suggest. In today’s context, Theodore dent defender of would be viewed as a systematic theologian, and hailed as both the founder of the School and a gifted, poetic popularizer.3 of Nisibis and an unusually skilled poet, Because our time is limited, I intend almost no attention has been paid—until now to restrict my comments to two areas recently—to his writings and to his person. where both Theodore and Narsai can be Fortunately, some 80 of his homilies are clearly shown to be close, if not identical, in extant,1 but with only a few having been their thought, despite their other differences. translated into modern languages. These The first will treat in detail how they under- nevertheless provide more than ample stand Adam and Christ’s humanity to be grounds for justifying the critical judgement God’s “image.” This will provide insight that Narsai is indeed a committed follower into how they both interpret scriptural texts of Theodore of Mopsuestia’s christological and how they understand salvation as a thought and well honored with the title “the transformation from a state of earthly mor- Harp of the Spirit.”2 To spell out in some tality, to one of immortality as well as how detail how Narsai mirrors Theodore’s out- plays a central role in this drama. look will now be the object of this paper. The second stress will center on the mean- While Theodore and Narsai overlap in ing Theodore and Narsai attach to the chris- their theological positions, they do differ in tological terms that they use to express their purposes, styles and the audiences to Christ as being one person (prosôpon/ and for whom they were writing. Theodore parsôpâ) with two hypostaseis/qnôme and was a biblical theologian who wrote well- two natures (physeis/kyane). Afterwards we reasoned commentaries in Greek that re- will expand upon this to illustrate how their mained faithful to what any given Scripture functional understanding has impacted upon text actually states. While Narsai followed their usual ways of speaking about Christ. In Theodore’s literal, historical and rational developing these points, we will discover method of interpreting Scripture, he wrote in how Theodore and Narsai enrich our under-

______Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 7 (2007) - Page 18 Narsai’s Dependence on Theodore of Mopsuestia ______standing of what each other holds, espe- truth, but also by his teaching instructed cially Theodore’s influence upon Narsai’s churches far distant.”8 Two years later in understanding of Christ. But first, they need 451 the fathers at the to be placed in their own historical relation- restored Ibas to his see. At his rehabilitation, ship to one another. he insisted that his letter praising Theodore be read to the council as a probative sign 9 THE HISTORICAL RELATIONSHIP that he as well as his letter were orthodox. Ibas is also credited with having played a Theodore lived from ca. 350 to 428, mostly pivotal role in translating Theodore’s works at , possibly staying at Tarsus with from Greek into Syriac.10 The point here is Diodore from ca. 383 to 3924 and later on that Narsai would have known of Ibas’ de- until his death at Mopsuestia as its .5 fense of Theodore during the time he spent Narsai’s life span may have briefly over- at and doubtless read Theodore’s lapped with Theodore’s—depending on works in Syriac.11 whether Narsai lived 90 or 100 years and This brief historical summary is meant whether he was born about 400 or ca. 410 to to focus attention on how Narsai doubtless 420.6 We know that he was raised in the came into contact with Theodore’s writings Persian empire, studied at Edessa (then un- and thought during the formative years of der Byzantine control) and eventually be- his life. But not only was Narsai acquainted came the head of the Persian school there with Theodore’s works, he also affirms how for twenty years until he was forced to flee firmly committed he was to Theodore’s for safety to the Persian empire. With the thought and his method of interpretation: assistance of Bishop , he founded a school at Nisibis that soon became the in- All who have grown rich from the tellectual and religious center and a source treasure of his books have been very of vocations for the East Syrians in the Per- well rewarded and have acquired an ability to interpret as he has done. I sian empire. As regards what most interests who learned [to do] this in a stammer- us, Narsai lived—at least for some time at ing way have learned from him, and Edessa either as a student or the head of its by my involvement with him I have school or both—when Ibas was the bishop acquired a way to be involved in the there from 436 to 457.7 The fathers at the study of [scriptural] words. I consider Second condemned Ibas [my] study of him has guided me to in 449 for being a staunch defender of Theo- [interpret rightly] what has been writ- 12 dore, citing as evidence Ibas’ controversial ten (there). letter to Mari the Persian in which he praises “the blessed Theodore [as] a preacher of the THEODORE’S AND NARSAI’S truth and teacher of the faith [as] he not only METHOD OF INTERPRETING subdued the heretics by the true faith while SCRIPTURE alive, but also after his death he left behind in his writings spiritual weapons to the chil- Theodore is acknowledged as one of the two dren of the Church…who through zeal for outstanding biblical interpreters in patristic God not only changed his city from error to times, being the other. He is recog-

______Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 7 (2007) - Page 19 Narsai’s Dependence on Theodore of Mopsuestia ______nized as the foremost proponent of the An- thor of the Scriptures, he believes that what- tiochene literal, historical and rational ap- ever God reveals there must be true. This proach to exegesis, while Origen is ac- became a major concern for Diodore and claimed as the leading exponent of a Chris- Theodore when the emperor Julian in the tian allegorical interpretation. Many factors early 360’s attacked the Christian Scriptures likely influenced Theodore in arriving at his as being mythic creations whose value lay in final hermeneutical stance, specifically his their underlying universal philosophical rhetorical education, his training in the An- meanings. Julian claimed that the Christian tiochene tradition under Diodore, his own Scriptures ought to be interpreted for their temperament and the evolution within his hidden spiritual meanings as the philoso- own thought.13 He believed that his method phers were doing with Homer. In his Reply was the best way to interpret what God was to the Emperor Julian,15 Theodore sought to revealing in a divinely inspired Scripture. justify the Gospels as having an actual basis He insisted that the only assured way to in fact. He realized that a faith commitment know God’s real intent was to center on ought to be based on what has truly hap- what the words explicitly state and mean in pened. A contemporary issue may help to the text itself.14 He, however, was not a fun- exemplify why Theodore was so adamant on damentalist. For he admitted that words can this point. Today many believe that Christ’s have a metaphorical as well as a strictly lit- bodily resurrection was a figment of Peter’s eral sense. While he was opposed to and imagination. While this happening cannot be rejected an allegorical interpretation, he was proven according to modern scientific his- open to the presence of a spiritual meaning torical methods, this does not mean that it when it arises out of a true typology. He did not actually occur. When a believer ac- disapproved of allegory because it employs cepts it as factually true, then one ought to the use of one’s imagination to discover a reflect on its implications, as St. Paul has meaning that may be inspiring but is, in fact, done, to realize its full significance for one’s wholly subjective, lacking any rationally life and one’s relationship to God. acceptable way to prove itself. Who is to say While Narsai faithfully adheres to Theo- that this possibility rather than innumerable dore’s literal, historical and rational methods other imaginative ones is what God intends? of interpreting the Scriptures, he applies In other words, Theodore insists on a stan- these in a different way because his purpose, dard that interpreters can agree upon as not medium of expression and audience are not merely explaining a text but justifying it in a the same as Theodore’s. Narsai’s metrical way that reasonable people can agree as to homilies are written in verse form with a what a text is actually asserting in its own greater thrust aimed at instructing, exhorting context. This is what he means by a literal and defending a scriptural message than interpretation. Theodore’s close theological scrutinizing of Besides seeking a meaning that can be lines or passages that are difficult to inter- explicitly warranted by the wording of a pret. Because it is a vast undertaking to sub- text, Theodore insists that at least its narra- stantiate how Narsai depends upon Theo- tive parts must contain historical or factual dore’s exegetical method, and since our time information. Since God is the ultimate au- is circumscribed, I want chiefly to discuss at

______Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 7 (2007) - Page 20 Narsai’s Dependence on Theodore of Mopsuestia ______this point two areas of dependence: namely, [united] to his body and likewise rational how Narsai mirrors Theodore’s understand- beings to his soul.”19 Theodore and Narsai’s ing of the ways Adam typifies Christ’s hu- understanding of “image” differs from that manity as God’s true “image”, and how the of most non-Antiochene Fathers who under- sacrament of baptism typifies the salvation stood “image” to be somehow spiritual and to be attained in an immortal heavenly exis- located in the human νοῦς. They argue that tence with God. the human body cannot image the transcen- The most striking and the easiest exam- dent Creator. Theodore, however, responds: ple to illustrate Narsai’s close dependence It is impossible that an image be made on Theodore is how Adam’s and Christ’s 16 such that it is not seen, since it is evi- humanity are God’s “image.” When com- dent that images are customarily made menting on the Genesis passage where among those who make them either Adam is said to be God’s “image,” Theo- for honor or affection, on this account dore affirms: so that they may be a remembrance of those unseen for those who neverthe- So also has the Artisan of creation less can see.20 made the whole cosmos, embellishing it with diverse and varied works and What is interesting for this study is how at the end established a human being Theodore and Narsai–and for that matter all to serve as the image for his house- the Antiochenes–accept what the Scriptures hold, so that all would render the explicitly state about Adam being made honor due to God by their care for and God’s image as a human being as such. veneration toward him.17 They reject the view of those who hold It is important to note that Theodore consid- “image” to be somehow a spiritual reflection ers “image” applicable not to Adam as an of God as not taking into account what God individual but to human nature as such has explicitly revealed in the text. Yet the whose head is Adam: Antiochenes differ among themselves. Dio- dore, and asso- So also when pondering upon God’s word, (Moses) interpreted ‘He made ciate the meaning of “image” with the au- the human being’ in a general sense, thority that God has bestowed upon humans 21 namely that it refers in a generical for rule over the material world. Since way to man and woman together. For Narsai follows Theodore’s rather than their after he said in the narrative account thought on this point, it is clear what is his that ‘God made a human being in the source. While Theodore and Narsai do not image of God,’ he added ‘He made deny that God’s bestowal of “image” upon them male and female,’ thereby Adam entails some authoritative role over [affirming] that the generic nature is material creation, they also teach that being what is designated.18 God’s “image” means that Adam has a reve- We see the same kind of generic under- latory and a binding role to play in the uni- standing in Narsai where he too applies verse.22 For Adam reveals God’s existence “image” to the whole human being: “The and will to the rest of creation and stands as Creator) depicted the power of His creator- the visible bond uniting the spiritual powers ship in him as an image, mute beings and the material world together as one, the

______Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 7 (2007) - Page 21 Narsai’s Dependence on Theodore of Mopsuestia ______spiritual powers to his soul and the material will, all of creation experiences peace. world to his body, thus enabling them to be When, however, Adam sins, he undermines joined to God through their unity with hu- his dignity and role as God’s “image,” with mans: grievous repercussions for all. He is the cause of his human nature remaining mortal. Indeed the one universal bonding was seen to be made for this purpose: be- This in turn affects his offspring and all the cause of the kindred relationship that rest of creation. For what he does as head the universe has to the human being, affects the members of his body. When, all come together so that by their so- therefore, the human body separates from its licitous care they might render with soul at death, it also severs the bond, uniting one consent their worship due to the spiritual and material worlds with human 23 God. nature, depriving them thereby of their ap- Narsai is even more explicit in that he pointed way to be one with God in peace. links the revelatory role of “image” to that This chaotic situation appears to be utterly of the “bond” of the universe: hopeless to the angelic powers, although God provides throughout the Hebrew Testa- (God’s) nature is immeasurably more ment hopeful signs that He has chosen from than created things and does not pos- all eternity another to be his true perfect sess a visible image as mortals have. With the name of image, He has mag- “image.” nified His image so as to bind the Theodore sees the restoration of all universe in order that (all) might ac- creation coming through Christ. Likely quire love [for God] by knowing Him inspired by Colossians 1:13-20 and Ephe- by knowing His image. sian 2:13-22, Theodore accepts these pas- sages as affirming in a literal, historical Theodore and Narsai reflect the same way God’s own revelation of how salva- functional outlook on “image” that is not tion is to be attained through Christ as his only revelatory but mediating. For if all perfect “image” within creation. These creation is bound together in Adam’s human verses proclaim Christ to be His Son and nature, then he serves both as the head of all His visible “image” for whom, through creation uniting them among themselves and whom and in whom all things in heaven as their mediator with God. Narsai expresses and earth are bound and recapitulated as this well when affirming how Adam as well the head of his Body, the Church and the as Christ fulfills this role: head of all creation. Theodore appears Through a human being I accomplish then to have seen how St. Paul’s remark in My transcendent will, and I make him Romans 5:14 that Adam is a type of the to be the one mediator between Me one to come can be applied to the Scrip- and human beings. By his mediation I ture’s revelation that both Adam and show my love before all creatures, Christ are God’s “images.” As a type, just as I showed it in the fashioning Adam must possess similarities to Christ’s [of Adam] at the beginning of the archetypical and perfect role as God’s ages.24 visible “image.” However to grasp Theo- As long as Adam remains faithful to God’s dore’s and Narsai’s thought here, we need

______Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 7 (2007) - Page 22 Narsai’s Dependence on Theodore of Mopsuestia ______to understand the relationship he sees ex- rooted in a reality that will take place in the isting between a true type and its archetype. future. Finally, Theodore requires a typical/ First, Theodore believed that a true type archetypical relationship to be explicitly ac- and its archetype had to be historical; that is, knowledged in the Scriptures. For God’s to both be real persons, events, places or revelation guarantees that a type will achieve situations that are actually existing, have its end. existed or will exist in the future. One of the If Colossians is accepted as the source reasons he rejected allegory is that the ar- of Theodore’s understanding of “image,” chetype would exist only in the imagination then it makes eminent sense that Theodore of the interpreter. This means that he re- (and later Narsai) attaches the notion of garded Adam and Christ to be real as well as bond to Adam’s role as “image.” For all his the two states of which they are heads. Sec- requirements for typology are met. Adam ondly, there must exist some real similarities and Christ qua man are both historical fig- between a type and its archetype, with the ures. So too is Adam’s role as “image” simi- archetype being the actual fulfillment of the lar to Christ’s, with Christ’s role being the type; in Theodore’s words: completion of Adam’s. Theodore expresses this when he is commenting on how “Christ This was the reason why he made a in the flesh” will recapitulate the universe: great number of dispositions in the Old covenant that the happenings both Therefore in our renovation when the provided the people of the time with interconnection of all creation is rein- the greatest benefit and also contained tegrated, our first fruits is Christ ac- a revelation of the developments that cording to the flesh in whom the per- would emerge later, as well as the fact fect and, as I have said, the compre- that the excellence of these latter hensive re-creation of all creatures would be seen to surpass the former. will be accomplished....Well, there- In this way the events in the former fore, did he state ‘in him are created times were found to be a kind of type all beings,’ not only because we have of what came later containing some all obtained through his deeds the outline of them as well as meeting promise of future benefits, but also needs at the time, while suggesting by because the perfect binding together the events themselves how far they of all beings will be preserved in him were inferior to the later ones.25 because of the divine nature dwelling Thirdly–and this is critical for understand- [within him], so that nothing can cut us off from what is common to us.26 ing the effects of baptism and the eucha- rist—there exists a dynamic bond existing In other words, for Theodore and Narsai, between and uniting the two in the sense “image” needs to be grasped as indicating that a type is like a seed being destined to how Christ’s humanity reveals the visible attain its flowering in its archetype. The rea- way that all creation can know and be united son for this certainty is that God is the Lord to God through the mediating role his hu- of history and can bring about its fulfillment manity plays because of its close union with in a mysterious but effective way. In this the Word of God. sense, a type can be said to have a spiritual Narsai likewise clearly affirms, as Theo- meaning but it is one that is dynamically dore does, the type/antitype relationship be-

______Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 7 (2007) - Page 23 Narsai’s Dependence on Theodore of Mopsuestia ______tween the roles of Adam’s and Christ’s hu- BAPTISM AS A TYPE manity as God’s visible “image”: Theodore and Narsai also refer to baptism He called the First Adam by the name and the as types and symbols. But of ‘image’ in a secondary sense, and because of our time limitation, we will dis- the ‘image’ was, in fact, in the Mes- cuss only baptism, though what we say is siah, the Second Adam. Thus [the applicable in general to the eucharist.29 In his words] “Come. Let us make man in our image” were fulfilled in that the Catechetical Homilies, Theodore is instruct- Creator took His ‘image’ and made it ing adults who are preparing for baptism, a dwelling place for his honor. The while Narsai is more interested in explaining promises to Adam came to be, in fact, the underlying meaning of the ritual in- in the Messiah; the one whom He volved. As Theodore affirms, those seeking called His ‘image’ but who was cor- to be baptized need instruction if they are to rupted has returned and been renewed understand what they are doing and entering 27 in the Messiah. into: “A revelation and an explanation are

Narsai also affirms that Christ’s humanity is required for these, if the one coming forward to receive [baptism] is to know the power of the mediating way for other humans and 30 angels in heaven to be joined with each these mysteries.” Theodore and Narsai do other and to be able to know, worship and this by showing how baptism fulfills what a be united with God: true type requires. First, one’s baptism and the heavenly resurrection it symbolizes are Angels and human beings will be actual events in the sense that Christ’s hu- united together by the yoke of his manity now enjoys immortal life with God— love, and they will celebrate him as a state that the baptized are assured too of the ‘image’ of the transcendent achieving if they remain faithful to the new King....They continually worship in life they received at baptism. There also ex- the temple of his body that One who ists a real similarity between the life attained is hidden in him and they offer at baptism and the future immortal life to be therein the pure sacrifices of their minds. In the haven of his body acquired in heaven. One’s baptismal life come to rest their thought impulses, shares even now in an inchoative, dynamic as they become worn out in search way the immortal life promised by the Holy of the incomprehensible hidden Spirit for a future heavenly life with God, in One. For this reason, the Fashioner Theodore’s words: “When we also receive of the universe chose him from the ‘the first fruits of the Holy Spirit’ by sharing universe, so that by his visible body in the mysteries, we believe that we already he might satisfy the need of the uni- exist in these realities;”31 and in a more ex- verse. A creature needs to search out plicit way: “(Believers) regard the first fruits what is hidden and discover its se- [to be] the small amount of grace [bestowed] cret meaning and intent. Because it in the present life [accepting them] as a con- is impossible that the hidden One’s 32 nature appear in an open way, He firmation of the things to come.” Narsai limited their inquiries to His visible expresses this too as being a certainty when ‘image’.28 he writes: “For what we possess in a myste-

______Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 7 (2007) - Page 24 Narsai’s Dependence on Theodore of Mopsuestia ______rious way by faith in the matter of types and way through baptism, Paul states that signs is assuring us that we will pass from we have also become a member of one [state] to the other.”33 Christ’s body because of our com- It is important to realize and stress that munion [with him] in his resurrection both Theodore and Narsai say that the im- the type of which we believe is being brought to fulfillment in baptism.36 mortal life a baptized person acquires and shares in ought to be considered as really Theodore insists that those baptized are as- existing on the level of a potentiality that is sured that they are no longer under the spell actively affecting one’s life in a radical way of Adam, the head of mortality, but are now here and now: “When one has become bap- under Christ, who is the head of an immortal tized and has received the [Spirit’s] divine life that the members of his Body now and spiritual grace, he has become totally share: “Therefore they will no longer be other in an absolute sense... The one who thought of as part of Adam but of Christ; descends into the water is reformed by the and they will no longer name Adam their grace of the Holy Spirit and is born again to head but Christ the one renewing them.”37 another superior human nature....You set Christ not only bestows a new life with the aside the former mortality and take on a na- Spirit but also nourishes those who are ture that is wholly immortal and incorrupti- members of his Body and unites them indi- ble.”34 Theodore likens this “new superior rectly to God because of his humanity’s me- nature” to the potentiality laying dormant in diating direct union with the Word: a new born baby: Therefore God the Word was united Just as one born of a woman pos- to His Father according to nature. So sesses the power to speak, hear, walk too through the union with Him, the and work with his hands but is now assumed man also receives a union completely undeveloped for all (these with the Father. And we in a similar actions), but afterwards with time he way with the natural union we have will receive these according to the with Christ in the flesh, receive, inso- divine decree. So likewise the one far as it can be done, a spiritual par- now born at baptism possesses in ticipation with him and become his himself all the power of an immortal body, [with] each one of us truly a and incorruptible nature and possesses member. So we hope to rise at the end all these, although he is not now capa- [of time] as he has, and be regener- ble of operating them and making ated into eternal life. So by going them work and act until the moment through him to God, we possess nec- that God has determined for us.35 essarily a family relationship with the 38 Connected with this idea of an inchoative Father. sharing in Christ’s immortal life is another result of baptism: to become bonded as a THEODORE AND NARSAI’S living member of Christ’s Body. Theodore UNDERSTANDING OF CHRIST’S relates this to his understanding of typology: PERSONAL UNION

Since we believe that we have been Theodore and Narsai are identical in their generated in these matters in a typical christological positions. This is especially

______Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 7 (2007) - Page 25 Narsai’s Dependence on Theodore of Mopsuestia ______evident in the terms they use to describe the ity.43 The term physis signified “nature” but union. Theodore sums up his position thus: with all the unique properties belonging to it as this concrete nature and not another. For when we distinguish the natures (physeis), we assert that the nature of Ousia and physis can be generally differenti- God the Word is perfect and [His] ated as being the genus and the species. Yet prosôpon is perfect. For it is not it is not clear how the Fathers distinguished [possible] to affirm that there exists a between hypostasis and prosôpon in the hypostasis without a prosôpon. The Trinity other than the terms suggest the dif- human physis is perfect and likewise ference between the inner and outer aspects [its] prosôpon....But when we look to of an existing individual. When Cyril chose the union, then we say one hypostasis as the term to express the unity in prosôpon.39 Christ, this appears to have been an innova- Narsai asserts the same position, in a tion. Theodoret chided Cyril: “We are en- slightly different way: “Our Lord, it is said, tirely ignorant of the union according to a possesses two natures (kyane) and two hy- hypostasis regarding it to be alien and for- postases (qnômê) in one person (parsôpâ) of eign to the divine Scriptures and to the Fa- the Godhead.”40 In fact, Narsai is careful to thers who have interpreted them.”44 In other insist that he does not hold for the existence words, up to this time, hypostasis was a of two parsôpe in the sense of two individu- term used in trinitarian , not Chris- als: “I am not introducing two parsôpe like tology. It would appear that Cyril saw hy- the unjust do. The Word of the Father and postasis as a term that any and all human the Body41 which is from us—I know as beings could relate to as expressing a unity one.”42 When both Theodore and Narsai’s that they knew about from their own experi- statements are assessed together, their stance ence, specifically that a human being is one on the union is that there are two natures, and the same despite accidental changes. each with its own hypostasis and prosôpon Such an understanding of a person as a sub- united in one prosôpon. But what do they stantial unity Cyril saw would also justify mean by these terms, especially when they the position of the Nicene Creed when it state that two prosôpa become one asserts that the Word was born of the Virgin prosôpon—a statement that is certainly con- Mary, suffered and died. fusing, if not contradictory. While Cyril saw hypostasis as express- While there was a lack of clarity in the ing the substantial unity present in Christ, late fourth century as to what is exactly yet he initially failed to grasp fully that the meant by the christological terms, there was term connoted the presence of a rational a general agreement by the fifth century re- “nature.” It is only later that the terms garding the terms ousia and physis for “person” and “nature” were distinguished “nature,” and hypostasis and prosôpon for from one another. and the Mono- “person,” though, of course, with nuances. physites, however, both understood Cyril’s After the Council of Nicaea, the Trinity was hypostasis as asserting there was only one regarded as having three hypostaseis and nature in Christ, that of the divinity.45 Even- prosôpa in one ousia, with ousia being the tually the Orthodox agreed to the formula fundamental substance of a specific real- that there was one Person (hypostasis) in

______Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 7 (2007) - Page 26 Narsai’s Dependence on Theodore of Mopsuestia ______

Christ but with two complete natures has its own prosôpon, he simply means that (physeis). As regards the term prosôpon, every existing concrete nature can manifest Cyril avoided it as the Antiochenes did hy- itself externally according to its natural postasis. Cyril doubtless rejected the term powers.47 As such, it is a functional term in because it connoted the exterior appearance Theodore and Narsai’s . of a person. He also suspected that Nesto- When, therefore, Theodore and Narsai rius’ willingness to affirm the presence of assert that the prosôpon of the Word and two hypostaseis in Christ meant that Nesto- that of Christ’s humanity comprise one com- rius held for two separate existing individu- mon prosôpon, they are simply affirming, als who are united under umbrella term as the Synoptics do, that Christ’s external, prosôpon in some sort of a moral union. visible acts are visibly revealing how his Doubtless reflecting Theodore’s thought, natures are inwardly acting together as one Nestorius exemplifies his understanding of reality. This means that a prosopic union all the christological terms by appealing to should be regarded as expressing not a per- the example of a king who exchanges his son in a metaphysical sense but rather the regal clothing for that of an ordinary sol- ways Christ’s human and divine wills can dier.46 The king’s ousia is his generic nature operate together as one in such a mysterious as a human being. Physis adds to ousia all way that one can rightly say there is truly that is proper to the king as this unique indi- one will and one “person.”48 In other words, vidual. Hypostasis then expands upon this, according to the way that Theodore and by denoting that this king is really existing Narsai conceive of the unity, the salvific within his own specific nature. The term roles that Christ plays throughout his earthly prosôpon primarily connotes the external life disclose the mystery of who he is in- aspects of a person. Nestorius brings out wardly as a true person. It highlights why a what is at the heart of prosôpon’s meaning functional, soteriological approach ought to when he distinguishes it from skêsis. The be joined to a metaphysical, Christological latter indicates what is the temporary ap- one. For both are necessary and essential to pearance that a person may have at this understand each other. time. In Nestorius’ example, the term signi- To summarize briefly, when Theodore fies how the king appears externally when asserts that Christ possesses two hypostaseis, he puts on an ordinary soldier’s attire. each with its own prosôpon, he is not affirm- Prosôpon, however, would denote how the ing two existing “persons” in Christ, but king’s actions reflect who he is as this par- rather the presence of two existing realities ticular king. It connotes how a nature will with their own natural properties and abilities manifest itself in ways wholly consonant to express these in outward ways.49 To high- with its nature, so that one can argue from light the difference between Theodore and one’s exterior deeds and speech to one’s Cyril’s approaches, it is helpful to see these inner self. While a person can deceive others in relationship to the various ways that the as to what is one’s true intent, still there term “person” is understood in our contem- does exist an essential relationship between porary culture. Some understand a “person” one’s outer and inner self. So when Theo- in a philosophical sense as a complete, in- dore states that each hypostasis and physis communicable, individual “substance” with

______Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 7 (2007) - Page 27 Narsai’s Dependence on Theodore of Mopsuestia ______a rational nature. This metaphysical empha- sons of the Trinity are necessarily relating as sis is manifested in the abortion controversy Persons to each other, the humanity of today. Those insisting that a “person” is pre- Christ has been destined to find its fulfill- sent from the first moment of conception are ment as a person in the Person of the Word. convinced that the mass of cells formed The last two aspects of “person” are arbi- there with its own DNA and dynamic thrust trary moral and legal determinations towards growth fulfills the definition of a whereby a corporation is considered to be “person” in a substantial sense. Many reject like a person and can be treated as if it were this emphasis upon an individual “sub- morally responsible for its actions and can stance” because it cannot be seen and evalu- be sued. The other is exemplified today by ated in a true scientific way. Others prefer to the Roe v. Wade and Roe v. Bolton Su- hold that a “person” becomes known from preme Court decisions that have established his or her activity on the presumption that as a constitutional fact that a fetus is to be the outer nature of every person can func- considered a “person” with legal rights only tionally reveal one’s inner nature as a per- when it is viable outside his or her mother’s son. A person can also be understood to be womb. such in a psychological sense when an indi- Thus when one speaks of the meaning vidual is conscious in one’s ego of being a of “person,” one may emphasis one dimen- true unity and the source of one’s acts of sion or aspect but not necessarily reject an- reasoning and willing to the point of being other. For Cyril, hypostasis signifies the responsible for what one intends. When un- substantial union of the Word and Jesus in a derstood in this way, the Word as the Person metaphysical sense. Its value is that it shows of unity in Christ may be regarded as the that what is said of Jesus can be asserted of One who is the ultimate cause and/or source the Word; for example that the Word truly of Christ’s divine and human operations. suffered and died. But for Theodore and The central question then becomes whether Narsai, such a statement means that the the “ego” of the unity or the will of each Word has actually suffered in His divine nature is the principle of its own operations. nature. For they believe that the act of suf- “Person” can also be taken as it is in the fering belongs to Christ’s human nature and Trinity as a real relationship existing be- not to the Word’s hypostasis. Such a rejec- tween persons. This accentuates a necessary tion is understood by Cyril as a clear denial element often overlooked when speaking of of the substantial unity of Christ’s natures. the meaning of the term. “Person” is so Theodore and Narsai, on the other hand, stressed as a free, responsible individual that were totally convinced that to avoid confu- one can overlook that the idea of “person” sion over the natures, one ought to refer to contains an essential communal dimension the unity as “one common prosôpon.” For and that a “person” becomes a “true person” this signifies that the subject of unity must only in relationships with others. In other always include both natures somehow oper- words, a “person” is not merely a self- ating as one. This is why they insist on those sufficient individual but also one who must titles that express this functional unity relate to others in a family, community, and (presuming that in some mysterious way the society. Perhaps one can say that as the Per- divine and the human wills act as one will).

______Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 7 (2007) - Page 28 Narsai’s Dependence on Theodore of Mopsuestia ______

This is conveyed by such titles as “Christ,” slave exists in the form of God, not the “Lord Jesus Christ,” the “assuming that the One assuming is the one as- One,” the “assumed one,” and, if Theodore sumed. The unity of the assumed one were aware of its use, the “Incarnate Word.” with the assuming One is inseparable, But while asserting this, Theodore and Nar- incapable of being sundered in any way.52 sai are adamant that human attributes can be applied only to Christ’s human nature and Narsai expresses the same outlook: not at all to the divine. For Christ’s human (The natures) are like the soul and the acts flow from his human nature, not his body which fit together and are called divine nature. Theodore justifies this by ap- one parsôpâ, the soul being the vivi- pealing to how the soul and body are differ- fying nature, and the body, the human ent natures50 but function as one: nature; and the two which are distinct from one another are called one When (Paul) spoke of the two natures parsôpâ. The Word is the nature of as two diverse realities, aptly accord- the divine essence, and the body the ing to the difference of natures, he human nature, one being the Creator posited this “I” [as belonging] to each and the other the creature.53 They are one of them as one; i.e., he speaks of one by their union… The soul does the two of them as [pertaining] to not suffer in the body when its limbs [his] common person (prosôpon). To are scourged, and the Divinity did not make known that he is speaking in suffer in the sufferings of the body in these instances not of one and the which it dwelt. If it is true that the same nature, he showed [this] by dis- soul which is something created like tinguishing his words.51 the body does not suffer, how then He expands upon what he means by the does the divine essence suffer whose need for distinctions: nature is exalted above passions? The soul suffers with the body in love and In the same way, even though some not by nature. And also the sufferings natures differ by nature, it [can] hap- of the body are predicated of the soul pen that they are truly united in an- in a secondary sense.54 other way. Thus they do not lose their distinction as natures [while still] hav- Narsai is holding here, as Theodore does, ing their own unity, just as the soul is that the soul and the body and the divine united to its body, [with] one human and human natures in Christ are each a real- being resulting from both… A human ity in se that can act fully according to its being in se is never affirmed to be in own natures without any diminishment and an absolute and proper sense to be one yet be considered truly one in the overall [the soul] or the other [the body], unity. They also regard a concrete nature to unless perhaps with some addition, such as an ‘interior man’ and an be the source of its own activity—as com- ‘exterior man,’ not a human being in monly accepted in regard to the Trinity an absolute sense but [one who is] where the activity of the triune Persons interior and exterior. So we also say flows from their common nature. How in the case of Christ our Lord, O Christ as a unified “person” can act in and amazing one, that the form of the through His two natures is the fundamental

______Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 7 (2007) - Page 29 Narsai’s Dependence on Theodore of Mopsuestia ______mystery in Christology—an issue that the ture in Christ, the divine nature of the Word council fathers have not addressed in their and that the Word qua God can be said to definitions.55 have really been born of Mary and suffered on the cross. Since Theodore cannot sepa- CONCLUSION rate hypostasis from a concrete existing nature, he has opted rather for the phrase the Although limited in scope, the present paper “one common prosôpon” which should be has fleshed out two areas that corroborate understood as a soteriological approach to Narsai’s declared commitment to Theo- the mystery of who Christ is as a person. It dore’s exegetical and theological inspira- is the way that the Synoptics portray Christ tion.56 The first reveals how Narsai closely as acting as one in human and divine ways. followed Theodore’s literal understanding of Theodore and Narsai presume that their the functional ways Adam’s and Christ’s functional understanding of “person” accu- humanity serve as “images of God.” Both rately reflects the ways Christ’s two natures Theodore and Narsai accepted what the act and are one internally. The consequences Genesis and Colossians texts actually state of this, of course, reveal themselves in the about how Adam and Christ in the flesh ful- ways that Cyril and Theodore express how fill the roles of “image.” We have argued properties can be attributed to Christ. Theo- that they derived their views by regarding dore does allow that the “I” of the common Adam’s roles as “image” as a type of prosôpon can speak as one in divine and Christ’s humanity, which acts as the true, human ways insofar as it comprises both perfect, visible “image” of the invisible natures. But when one wants to speak of the Word. They both apply “image” to Adam’s natures separately, one must attribute human human nature in two ways: first, Adam as acts to the humanity and divine to the divine the head of mortal existence reveals the ex- nature. This explains why Theodore wants istence and will of God and serves as the to qualify Cyril’s statement that Mary is the visible way for other creatures to show their mother of God by asserting that she is the praise and worship of God by caring for hu- mother of Christ in whom the Word dwells. man needs, and second, Theodore connects This, of course, opens Theodore and Narsai Adam’s role as “image” with his nature’s to the charge that they have so separated the role as the bond uniting the spiritual powers natures that they have made Word and Jesus to his soul and the material worlds to his to be two completely different individual body and, in this recapitulating way, ena- “persons.” bling all to share in his union with God the In conclusion, this paper does not want Word.57 merely to sketch the dependence of Narsai Our second major area for comparison upon Theodore but also to indicate the rich- was Theodore and Narsai’s understanding of ness of their theological thought. Too often Christology. They reject or at least do not they are cited for their positions on Christ understand Cyril’s stress upon the term hy- and solely evaluated in light of Cyril’s postasis as the best way to express the union Twelve and his understanding of of Christ’s natures. They believe that Cyril what the christological terms mean. Much is holding for the presence of only one na- more needs to be said beyond the limited

______Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 7 (2007) - Page 30 Narsai’s Dependence on Theodore of Mopsuestia ______boundaries of this paper, especially regard- dore, Theodore and Nestorius. Unfortu- ing Narsai’s role in forming the Church of nately other Christian traditions—the Ortho- the East’s theological outlook and express- dox, the various non-Chalcedonian commu- ing this metrically in far-ranging spiritual nities and the Christian West—have failed themes. Narsai may not be an original theo- to fully understand the ’s logical thinker but he is certainly a gifted own rich tradition that stresses a functional, poetic composer who has assimilated Theo- soteriological Christology that is arguably dore’s thought and language and applied complementary to Cyril’s essentialist ap- them in his writings. He is a valuable source proach. Such a misunderstanding has re- too for understanding the Antiochene tradi- sulted in a centuries-long, tragic ecclesial tion as represented in the writings of Dio- separation and alienation.

______Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 7 (2007) - Page 31 Narsai’s Dependence on Theodore of Mopsuestia ______

NOTES

1 provides a listing of the 5 For a recent well-documented summary of homilies attributed to Narsai in his Theodore’s life and works, see Teodoro di Mop- “Introduction,” to Narsai doctoris syri homiliae suestia: Replica a Giuliano Imperatore, trans. et carmina, 2 vols., ed. A. Mingana (Mosul, Augusto Guida (Firenza: Nardini, 1994), 9-30. 1905), 1, 26-31. His two volume work, however, 6 Unfortunately scholars have had to draw does not include the memre that he considers to their biographical data on Narsai mainly from be doctrinally suspect. For a critical edition and two sixth century contemporaries who have the translation of five of these, see Frederick G. exact first name but are cited as coming from McLeod, ed. and trans., Narsai’s Metrical Homi- different cities: Barhadbšabba of Arbaye and lies on the Nativity, , Passion, Resur- Barhadbšabba of Halwan. While these two ac- rection and Ascension, PO XL, 182 (Turnhout: counts agree, more or less, on the skeletal outline Brepols, 1979). For a discussion of the memre of Narsai’s life, scholars are frequently unable to manuscript history and a listing of the primary verify their details and, in fact, when these schol- sources about Narsai’s life and published studies ars compare their accounts with one another and about him up to 1979, see McLeod, 7-34. Wil- with other sources, they find them to be confus- liam Macomber provides a comprehensive list- ing and even contradictory. For an exhaustive ing of manuscripts containing Narsai’s memre in (but unpublished) dissertation study of all the his article “The Manuscripts of the Metrical sources dealing with Narsai’s life, see Ibrahim Homilies of Narsai,” OCP 39 (1973). Ibrahim Ibrahim (1-84). Ibrahim also examines all the Ibrahim, in his unpublished dissertation, La doc- internal evidence present in Narsai’s metric trine christologique de Narsai, Thoma Aquino, homilies as well as the opinions of those who Rome, 1974-75, offers brief summaries (97-222) have speculated on how to reconcile all the con- of all the memre in Mingana’s listing. He also flicting data about his life. Ibrahim believes that considers 84 and 85 as authentic and strongly Narsai was born ca. 415 in a village northeast of argues for Narsai’s christological orthodoxy. the present Mosul, went for schooling at Edessa 2 A. Scher, ed., Histoire Nestorienne in 422, returned to his uncle’s monastery in Ke- (Chronique de Seert, PO VII [Turnhout: Brepols, far-Mari around 441-442, spent another 10 years 1910]), 114. at Edessa, returning to Kefar-Mari for a year 3 The different emphases are even evident in after which he returned to Edessa to become the Theodore’s Catechetical Homilies and Narsai’s director of the school in 452. After being ex- most doctrinal works, his liturgical homilies. pelled sometime after 471, he then helped Narsai is more concerned to sum up and eluci- Bishop Barsauma to establish the School of Nisi- date the spiritual meaning contained in the ritual bis in the Persian empire. He died ca. 502-503. symbolism of baptism, whereas Theodore is 7 The fathers at the Second Council of Ephe- more interested in explaining the theological sus (better known as the “Robbers’ Council”) thought contained in the verses of the Nicene deposed Ibas in 449. He was restored to office in Creed, the “Our Father” and the sacraments of 451 at the Council of Chalcedon. baptism and the eucharist. 8 For an English translation of the letter, see 4 See the entry on “Theodore of Mopsuestia” Robert Doran, trans., Stewards of the Poor: The in Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Man of God, , and Hiba in Fifth-century Sects, and Doctrines, ed. W. Smith and H. Wace, Edessa, Cistercian Studies 208 (Kalamazoo: IV (London: Murray, 1887). The articles is un- Cistercian, 2006), 171-72. signed but appears to have been written by H. B. 9 The Non-Chalcedonians regarded the fact Swete. that the fathers at Chalcedon accepted Ibas’ let-

______Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 7 (2007) - Page 32 Narsai’s Dependence on Theodore of Mopsuestia ______ter, when taken together with the language the Psaumes 138-148), CSCO, Scriptores Syri 190 fathers used to express their formula of faith, as (Louvain: Peeters, 1982), 1-18, esp. 10-18. clear proof that the Council was undoubtedly 15 See Augusto Guida, trans., Teodoro di Nestorian. In the sixth century when the emperor Mopsuestia: Replica a Guiliano Imperatore Justinian vainly attempted to reconcile the non- (Florence: Nardino, 1994). Chalcedonians with the Orthodox at the Second 16 For a treatment of Theodore’s understand- Council of Constantinople in 553, he was able to ing of the “image of God,” see Frederick have Theodore and—what he dubbed the “so- McLeod, The Image of God in the Antiochene called”—letter of Ibas condemned. He claimed Tradition (Washington: The Catholic University that the letter lauding Theodore was not the true of America Press, 1999), 62-70; and Roles of letter read at Chalcedon but one that is fraudu- Christ’s Humanity, 124-43. lent. For a discussion of this letter, see, Alois 17 Theodore of Mopsuestia, “L’homme créé Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition from ‘à l’image de Dieu’: quelques fragments grecs the Apostolic Age to Chalcedon (451), 2 vols. inédits de Théodore de Mopsueste,” ed. and 2nd rev. ed., trans. J. Cawte and P. Allen trans. Francoise Petit, Le Muséon 100 (1987) (Atlanta: John Knox, 1975), 2:414-15. 276. The same view is expressed in Theodore, 10 See the article “Ibas” in the Encyclopedia CH 12:8: “Our Lord God made a human being in of the Early Church, ed. Angelo Di Berardino, His image from the earth and honored him in trans. Adrian Walford (New York: Oxford, many other ways. He then conferred especially 1992). From a comment that James of Sarug on (Adam) the honor of being His image makes about the years he spent as a student at whereby a human being alone is called God and Edessa (see G. Olinder, Jacobi Sarugensis Epis- the Son of God.” The same thought is expressed tolae quotquot supersunt, CSCO 110, 58-60), it in E. Sachau, ed. and trans., Theodori Mop- appears that Diodore’s writings were also trans- suesteni Fragmenta Syriaca (Leipzig: Engel- lated about the same time. mann, 1969), 27 (Latin) / 15 (Syriac); also in H. 11 Narsai makes no mention of Ibas in his B. Swete, ed., Theodori Episcopi Mopsuesteni in extant works, possibly because Ibas assented to Epistolas B. Pauli Commentarii, 2 vols. the condemnation of Nestorius at Chalcedon. (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1880, 1882), I, 12 Narsai also mentions Theodore when he 261-62: “Well does (Paul) add ‘invisible’–not affirms: “Thus does all the Church of the ortho- that God may also be visible but for the manifes- dox confess this [view]; so also have the ap- tation of His greatness. If, nevertheless, we will proved doctors of the Church taught: Diodore, see that invisible nature in Christ as though in an Theodore and Mar Nestorius” (Connolly, 14); he image, in that he has been united to God the also refers to Theodore when speaking about the Word and will judge the whole world when he Eucharist: “The great teacher and interpreter appears according to his own nature, as is right, Theodore has handed down the tradition that our coming in the future age from heaven with great Lord spoke thus when he took the glory, he maintains for us the rank of image. It is bread” (Connolly, 16). evident that we all attribute the divine Nature, to 13 For a treatment of Theodore’s method of which is referred the greatness of whatever is interpretation, see Frederick McLeod, The Roles effected, to him as though to some image, al- of Christ’s Humanity in Salvation: Insights from though we do not impute authority [to be] the Theodore of Mopsuestia (Washington: The judge to a visible nature. I am amazed, however, Catholic University Press, 2005), 20-57. at those who have accepted this [as applicable] 14 For an understanding of Theodore’s exe- to the divine nature… For blessed Moses also getical thought, see Lucas van Rompay, trans., says of man ‘God made him to [His] image;’ and Théodore de Mopsueste: Fragments syriaques likewise blessed Paul, ‘man ought not indeed to du Commentaire des Psaumes (Psaume 118 et cover his head, being the image and glory of

______Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 7 (2007) - Page 33 Narsai’s Dependence on Theodore of Mopsuestia ______

God.’ For this could never be said of man, if it 29 Briefly Theodore emphasizes the role of were proper to the divine nature.” the eucharist as a necessary means to remain 18 Sachau, 28 a-b/16. This passage indicates faithful to the new state achieved at baptism. For that Theodore believed that “image” refers to this new inchoative life can be lost as long as a human beings, not merely to men as males. persona is free to turn from God’s will during 19 Mingana, 2:239. See also 2:251: “(The one’s earthly life. As an aid to avoid falling in Creator) fashioned and skillfully made a double this way, the eucharist nourishes a baptized per- vessel: a visible body and a hidden soul—one son’s spiritual life within the Body of Christ: human being.” For a treatment of Narsai’s view “When all of us are nourished by the same body of “image,” see McLeod, Image of God, 70-74, of our Lord, we participate in him by means of and The Soteriology of Narsai (Rome: Institutum this nourishment. All of us become the one Body Orientalium, 1973). This is an offprint of a chap- of Christ and receive thereby a participation in ter from my unpublished dissertation that treats and union with him as our head.” Theodore lik- of Narsai’s view on the “image of God.” ens this nourishment to what a mother provides 20 Swete, 1:262-63. for her newborn child: “For every animal born 21 Diodore, Chrysostom and Theodoret naturally from another animal receives its nour- likely drew their understanding from the Genesis ishment from the body of the one giving it birth. story where God allows Adam to name the ani- So also from the beginning God has ordered this mals and perhaps also from Paul’s remark in 1 to take place among created beings that every Corinthians 11:7 where the notion of “image’ is female animal engendering life has within her- associated with that of authority. self the nourishment befitting those she has en- 22 For a treatment of this view, see McLeod, gendered. It is necessary then that we who have Image of God, 58-61 and 78-80; and R. A. Nor- partaken of divine grace in a typical way also ris, Jr., Manhood and Christ: A Study in the receive our nourishment from above” (CH 1:4). Christology of Theodore of Mopsuestia (Oxford: While it is difficult to show a direct link between Clarendon, 1963), 140-48. Theodore and Narsai because they are both re- 23 Swete, 1:lxxx. flecting Paul’s thought, Narsai appears to be 24 Mingana I, 7. closely dependent on Theodore’s language. For 25 Robert C. Hill, trans., Theodore of Mop- instance, Theodore asserts: “It is well, then, that suestia: Commentary on the Twelve Prophets when giving the bread, (Jesus) did not say: ‘This (Washington: The Catholic University of Amer- is a type of my body,’ but ‘This is my body’; and ica Press, 2004), 186. likewise with the chalice [of wine], [he did] not 26 Swete, 1:269. Theodore leaves no doubt [say]: ‘This is a type of my blood,’ but: ‘This is that the Son as the visible “image” is Christ in my blood.’ For after these have received the his human nature: “For it is evident that these grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit, he things [God’s bestowal of the divine plerôma wanted that we too not regard their own nature and universal domination upon Christ qua man] but take them as being the body and blood of our pertain to the human nature which receives Lord” (CH 15:10). Narsai writes in a similar domination over everything by [its] union with vein :“The (Lifegiver) did not express them as a God the Word;” J.-M. Vosté, ed. and trans., type or a similitude, but as his Body in reality Theodori Mopsuesteni Commentarius in Evan- and Blood in truth.... Wherefore the bread is gelium Johannis Apostoli, CSCO 15-16/Syr. 62- strictly the Body of our Lord, and the wine is His 63 (Louvain: Officina orientali, 1940), 83/59. Blood properly and truly” (Connolly, 17). Both 27 Mingana II, 190. Theodore and Narsai are emphatic that the bread 28 McLeod, Narsai’s Metrical Homilies, and wine are truly transformed by the Spirit into 176/77. the body and blood of Christ’s humanity.

______Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 7 (2007) - Page 34 Narsai’s Dependence on Theodore of Mopsuestia ______

30 Theodore, CH 12:2. Theodore has an es- encompassing two states or ages: the present life chatological understanding of salvation but one of mortality that will continue until the end of possessing an incarnational aspect. Wilhelm de this world and the heavenly, immortal and im- Vries, in his “Der Nestorianismus’ Theodors von mutable life to which all the faithful will rise. Mopsuestia in seiner Sakramentenlehre,” OCP 7 We see this expressed in the excerpts #55-61 (1941) 91-148, maintains that Theodore consid- presented to the Second Council of Constantin- ered baptism as simply providing only forgive- ople; to cite but one: “What pleased God was to ness of sins, special graces to live a good life and divide the creation into two states: the one which a mere hope for the attainment of a future life. is present in which he made all things mutable; Ignatius Oñatibia, in his “La vida christiana, the other which is future, when he will renew all tipode las realidad celestes. Un concepto basico things and bring them to immutability,” Concil- de la teologia de Teodore de Mopsuestia,” Scrip- ium Universale Constantinopolitanum Sub torum Victoriense 1 (1954) 107; and Luise Iustiniano Habitum, ed. Johannes Straub, Acta Abramowski in her “Zur Theologia Theodors Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, tom. 4, vol. 1 von Mopsuestia,” Zeitschrift für Kirchen- (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1971), 44-72. see excerpts geschicte 72 (1961) 263-93 insist that de Vries’ #55-61. Straub, I: 14, and PG 66:1009. view misses the implications present in Theo- 34 Theodore, CH 14:9-11. dore’s understanding of how a type participates 35 Ibid., CH 14:10. in the reality of its archetype. This can be seen in 36 Staub, 124. See also Vosté, 80-81/57: Theodore’s statement that “It is through this “(God) made everyone a sharer in the Spirit mystery which you are about to receive that from whereby we are reborn in a spiritual way. And as now on you will share without doubt in these we possess a union of nature with him by a simi- future goods” (CH 14:2). While Theodore does lar birth, so we receive by his means a household not hold for a divinization in the sense that one relationship with God the Word.” can share directly in the life of God, he does 37 Theodore, CH 1:4. hold that one can share inchoatively in the im- 38 Vosté, 315-16/225-26. I have translated mortal life one will attain fully in the next life. οἰκειότης as “a family relationship” as a better Oñatibia points out that the sacraments and their way to express the kind of communion and part- heavenly fulfillment are two poles bound to one nership existing between a baptized person and another as a type to its archetype in a way that the Word. reveals the unity of God’s plan for salvation. 39 Swete 2:299. Abramowski observes that if de Vries’ interpre- 40 Mingana I:17. The Syriac word ithay tation was actually the correct one, Syriac trans- means existence in se, and kyana “nature” as lators would not have used the word physis has been just described. Hypostasis ap- “participation” and “sharing” but rather such pears to denote an existing inner self: “It is not phrases as “in the name of” and “under the ap- the hypostasis that carnal eyes have seen, but the pearance of” to express Theodore’s thought here. sign of its visible image” (Mingana I, 73). 31 Theodore, CH 16:30. 41 Like Theodore, Narsai refers to Christ’s 32 Swete 1:132-33. See also Theodore, CH humanity as the “Body.” It exemplifies too how 12:6: “(The assumed man) mounted to heaven in the concrete and the abstract can be used inter- order that henceforth we might have a surety of a changeably for one another. possessed participation because of [our] sharing 42 McLeod, Narsai’s Metrical Homilies, in [his] nature.” 64/65. 33 Theodore, CH 14:28. See also CH 12:2: 43 The term prosôpon is cited together with “For every sacrament is an indication in signs hypostasis in the case of the Trinity. In a Syn- and mysteries of invisible and ineffable things.” odal Letter that most likely expresses the official Theodore and Narsai regard salvation history as Tome of the First Council of Constantinople

______Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 7 (2007) - Page 35 Narsai’s Dependence on Theodore of Mopsuestia ______

(381), the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are said to leper, “I will it: be clean,” He showed here that possess “a single Godhead and power and… there exists one will and one operation according three most perfect hypostaseis or three perfect to one and the same power. This takes place not prosôpa” (Norman Tanner, ed., Decrees of the on the level of nature but on the level where he Ecumenical Councils 1: Nicaea I to Lateran V was honored to be united to God the Word. For [Washington: The Catholic University of Amer- in accordance with God’s foreknowledge, he ica Press, 1990], 28). The two terms appear to was made a man from the seed of David, pos- have the same or very similar meaning, though sessing an affectionate kindred relationship with hypostasis is said to be most perfect, perhaps to the Word from [his time of conception in] the indicate that no divine Person is greater than the womb” (PG 66: 1003). others as they are all most perfect. 49 Those asserting that Theodore’s willing- 44 Straub, I: 14. ness to assert the presence of two hypostaseis in 45 Narsai expresses Theodore’s view that Christ means that he is holding for two separate one cannot separate hypostasis (qnôma) from persons must confront the use of the term to ex- nature physis (kyana) when he states that the press the three Persons in the Trinity, The term Word cannot become flesh in his qnôma: “If it is indicates that there are existing real substantial true that His qnôma became flesh and did not relational differences between the Father, Son assume flesh from Mary, how did it help our and Spirit but not that there are three separate nature that He became flesh in His own nature?” Gods. This is evident in the way that Theodore This is found on p. 5 of the 69th memra con- regards the soul to be a hypostasis: “The soul of tained in the Syriac manuscript 5463 of the Brit- men, however, is not like this, but it resides in its ism Museum. Mingana lists it as Memra 81 but own hypostasis and is much higher than the body did not publish it in his two volume work. seeing that the body is mortal and acquires its 46 Nestorius, The Bazaar of Heracleides, ed. life from the soul and dies and perishes when- and trans. Godfrey L. Driver and Leonard Hodg- ever the soul happens to leave it. As regards the son (Oxford: Clarendom Press, 1925), 20-23. [human] soul, when it goes out, it remains and 47 See Sachau, 51-52/92-93. Sachau trans- does not perish but lasts forever in its own hy- lates the last word of this section as naturae, postasis. For it is immortal” (Swete, 2:318). So while the Syriac has parsôpa. The sense is that understood, Christ’s human hypostasis ought not the actions of the two natures are united and ex- to be considered in Theodore’s thought a sepa- pressed as one parsôpa: “For there is a unity of rate individual from the Word, just as the body all [attributes] when they are asserted about our ought to be viewed as an individual existing Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, but when the na- apart from its soul. Since each hypostasis has its tures are examined separately as to what each own prosôpon, this explains why Jesus’ existing expresses, [one must note] how this coheres with human nature was bodily capable of dying on the its nature and how this accords with the rule as cross. But as Theodore continually insists, this to how things are to be said of each of the na- nature is so intimately united with the Word’s tures. But when they are joined together in a divine nature in a true prosopic unity that wor- unity of person (parsôpa), both of the natures are ship can be shown it, but not to Christ’s human- said to be [united] in a participatory way in a ity in se but because his humanity serves as the case where they are in an agreement because of true “image” of God: “For such was the dignity the unity. For in this situation, what is distinct by of the assumed man that God dwelt in him; and nature is also affirmed to be clearly existing in a believing this, we also adore him. Otherwise conjoined way [to the other nature] because of who would be so mad that he would adore the the unity of the person (parsôpa).” man separately?” (Swete, 2:222). 48 Theodore expresses this unity of will 50 Theodore’s opposition to Apollinaris’ use when he asserts: “When our Savior said to the of the analogy shows that he is aware of its seri-

______Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 7 (2007) - Page 36 Narsai’s Dependence on Theodore of Mopsuestia ______ous limitations: to express the true unity in not enter into the question of how the two func- Christ. Three are especially telling: 1) the na- tion together as one other than the fact that they tures of the soul and the body are incomplete; 2) ultimately do form one will. the soul comes into existence out of necessity, 56 The time and space limitations placed whereas the Word preexists Christ’s humanity upon this paper prevent an elaboration of what from all eternity; and 3) the Word has freely Theodore and Narsai mean when they speak of entered into His union with the humanity of Je- the union as being an “indwelling.” For an in- sus. depth study, see McLeod, Roles of Christ’s Hu- 51 Staab, 167-68. manity, 176-204. Theodore’s choice of the 52 Swete 2:318-19. phrase “an indwelling of good pleasure” must be 53 Theodore and Narsai have no problem in interpreted, in my opinion, in light of Colossians interchanging an abstract term with a concrete 1 and 2, especially 2:9 where the divine fullness one and vice versa, such the divine nature for the (plerôma) is said to dwell in Christ “in a bodily Word, and the human nature for “Body.” way.” Theodore expresses this when he says: 54 Mingana II, 229. It is interesting to point “For the entire grace of the Spirit has been given out here how Theodore and Narsai follow the to me because I am joined to God the Word and Jewish manner of speaking and writing that have received true Sonship… This cannot hap- looks upon the abstract as contained in the con- pen to you, as you can acquire a small share but crete and the concrete as revelatory of the ab- not at all equal to mine” (Vosté, 297-98/213). stract. In other words, one recognizes the ab- Narsai expresses a similar outlook in Memra 4: stract as being real only when it exists visibly in “God formed him by the Spirit, and the Spirit the concrete. Narsai expresses the soul/body filled him with the power of His will, so that he analogy also in Memra 81 (see McLeod, Nar- might give life from his fullness and vivify all. sai’s Metrical Homilies, 27 for the Syriac text He made him whole and perfect in body and and an English translation): “When I say that the soul, so that through him He might free the body Word and the Body are two in nature, it is like and the soul from slavery” (McLeod, Narsai’s (saying) that the body and the soul within it are Metrical Homilies, 48/49). Norris sums up in- one man. The soul with the body and the body sightfully the relationship between Theodore’s with the soul are distinct but fit together and prosopic unity and his stress on an “indwelling every one testifies that they are two but called of good pleasure” when he affirms: “The union one.” For a carefully worded passage where Nar- [by indwelling] is logically prior both to the pro- sai qualifies his statements about the Word, see sopic unity which it effects, and to the sort of co- Mingana I, 336: “He has revealed before all operation to which, as we have seen, Theodore creatures His divinity thanks to his humanity. He alludes in other passages” (222). This co- has showed that even if He has suffered qua operation occurs in the prosopic union. man, he is the Son of God. The Jews have cruci- 57 The initial peace that all creation enjoyed fied the Son of God in a corporeal sense. They is presaging the universal peace that Christ is to have not crucified the Word of the Father who is establish in the future when he will recapitulate generated from Him.” all creation within his humanity and unite all to 55 The Third Council of Constantinople God. Because the fullness of God dwells in (680-681) does address the issue of whether Christ in a bodily way (Col. 2:9), he serves as there are two or only will in the union of Christ’s the mediator whose humanity contains and sums natures. Because so many identified the notion up all creation and whose intimate union with of “nature” with that of “person,” the fathers the Word enables all creatures to be at one with insisted on the presence of two will faculties and God. It is easy, therefore, to detect how Theo- operations, in order to safeguard the integrity of dore, relying on Pauline thought, has found Christ’s human nature. But wisely the fathers did traces of these revelatory, mediating and unify-

______Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 7 (2007) - Page 37 Narsai’s Dependence on Theodore of Mopsuestia ______ing roles in Adam as a type of Christ’s humanity immortal life that Christ’s humanity now pos- and why he has proposed salvation to be a move- sesses in heaven. He is now the first fruits that ment from a state where Adam acts as the head anticipates the future immortality that awaits all of mortality to one where Christ’s humanity is who remain vitally united to his Body and the head of an immortal existence. It is within through his human nature also to God. Since such a salvational framework that Theodore such a world view is mirrored in Narsai’s writ- seeks to explain how baptism and the eucharist ings, there exists grounds for asserting that he typify a real participation in Christ’s death and was indeed close to Theodore’s method of inter- resurrection and provide those who become preting the scriptural passages that treat of the members of his Body a true initial sharing in the “image” of God, the sacraments and salvation.

______Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 7 (2007) - Page 38