God's Love for Human Nature In

‘HE LOVES NOT THE PERSON BUT THE NATURE’ GOD’S LOVE FOR HUMAN NATURE IN ISAAC OF NINEVEH

Dmitrii F. Bumazhnov

Introduction: New Findings about Isaac’s Anthropology

St Isaac of Nineveh – also known as Isaac the Syrian – for several reasons can be regarded as one of the most remarkable holy fathers of the early Church.1 The first fact to be mentioned is that Isaac (ca. 640-700, floruit about 680) belonged to the Church of the East, more commonly known as the Nestorian Church.2 Recent discoveries of hitherto neglected writings allow some new light to be shed on his theology. Isaac’s popularity in – both Eastern and Western – Europe as well as his canonization in the Eastern Orthodox Church is still due to the 9th century Greek translation of the First Part of his writings.3

1 About Isaac’s life see Sabino Chialà, Dall’ascesi eremitica alla misericordia infinita. Ricerche su Isacco di Ninive e la sua fortuna (Florence, 2002), pp. 53-63. 2 The self-designation of this church in the past was “The Church of the East”. After a schism in 1968 there are two successor churches: the “Assyrian Church of the East” and the “Ancient Church of the East”. The name “Nestorians” given to it by its opponents in the Christological controversies of the 5th and 6th centuries was designed in order to put the Eastern Syriac Christians into disrepute since Nestorius had been condemned as a heretic at the Council of Ephesus in 431, cf. S. P. Brock, ‘The ‘Nestorian’ Church: A Lamentable Misnomer’, Bul- letin of the John Rylands Library, 78 (1996), pp. 23-35. Interestingly, the Eastern Syriac Christians sometimes called themselves “Nestorians”, cf. e.g. ‘Chronicle of Seert’, Patrologia Orientalis, 4, 3, p. 295, 9. General background information: W. Baum and D. Winkler, Die apostolische Kirche des Ostens: Geschichte der sogenannten Nestorianer (Klagenfurt, 2000). 3 See Θεοτόκης, Νικηφόρος, Τοῦ ὁσίου πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἰσαὰκ ἐπισκόπου Νινευῒ τοῦ Σύρου τὰ εὑρεθέντα ἀσκητικά (Λειψία, 1770) [The Transmitted Ascetic Writings of Our Holy Father Isaac the Syrian, the Bishop of Nineveh, ed. Nikiphoros Theotokis (Leipzig, 1770)]; Ἀββᾶ Ἰσαὰκ τοῦ Σύρου, Λόγοι ἀσκητικοί, Κρητικὴ ἔκδοσι, ed. M. Pirar (Ἱερὰ Μονὴ Ἰβήρων, Ἅγιον Ὅρος, 2012) [The Ascetical Works by Abba Isaac the Syrian, A Critical Edition, ed. M. Pirar (Holy Monastery of Iviron, Mount Athos, 2012)]; and M. Pirar, ‘Kriticheskoe izdanie perevoda ‘podvinicheskikh slov’ prepodobnogo Isaaka Sirina’ [M. Pirar, ‘A Critical Edition of the “Ascetical Works” by St. Isaac the Syrian’], in Proceedings of the First International Patristic Conference of Ss. Cyril and Methodius Theological Institute for Postgraduate Studies “Saint Isaac the Syrian and His Spiritual Legacy,” October 10th–11th, 2013, Moscow, ed. Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, Patristic Studies and Translations (Moscow, 2014), pp. 80-88. 270 Dmitrii F. Bumazhnov

This translation was based upon a West Syriac miaphysite4 redaction which thoroughly expurgated all major traces of the East Syrian “Nestorian” theological thinking in those texts.5 It was only after 1909, when Paul Bedjan edited the original version of the First Part according to some East Syrian manuscripts, that the interested public gained access to the genuine Isaac.6 In 1995 and 2011 there followed the editions of the Second and the Third Syriac Parts which were completely unknown before the 1970s.7 In 2013, Sabino Chialà published longer fragments of the Fifth Part.8

4 Like “Nestorians”, the Syriac “Miaphysites” are members of another Syrian non-Chal- cedonian church which rejects the Council of Chalcedon (modern Kadıköy, Turkey) held in 451. Today this church is known as the Syrian Orthodox Church. For its early history see V. L. Menze, Justinian and the Making of the Syrian Orthodox Church, The Oxford Early Christian Studies (Oxford, 2008). Since the “Nestorians” lived in the Sasanian Empire and later in the Caliphate east of the Roman and Byzantine Empire, they are also referred to as East Syrians; the term “West Syrians” is mostly used as an alternative designation of the Syriac Miaphysites. 5 About the translation history cf. Chialà, Misericordia (see n. 1), pp. 325-364. 6 See Mar Isaacus Ninivita, De perfectione religiosa, ed. Paul Bedjan (Paris, 1909). For an English translation of Bedjan’s edition of the Syriac text see Mystic Treatises by Isaac of Nineveh Translated from Bedjan’s Syriac Text with an Introduction and Registers, transl. Arend Wensinck, Verhandelingen der Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen te Amsterdam, Afdeeling Letterkunde, Nieuwe Reeks, Deel 23,1 (Amsterdam, 1923). 7 See Isaac of Nineveh (Isaac the Syrian), The Second Part: Chapters XV-XLI, ed., transl. Sebastian Brock, CSCO 554-555 (Leuven, 1995) (works II, 4-41, Syriac text and English translation); transl. id., ‘St Isaac the Syrian: Two Unpublished Texts’, Sobornost: Incorporat- ing Eastern Churches Review, 19 (1997), pp. 7-33 (works II,1-2, English translation). Καβ- βαδᾶς, Νέστωρ, Ισαακ του Συρου, Ἀσκητικὰ Β3: Λόγοι ΙΒ´ - ΜΑ´ (Θήρα, 2005) [Isaac the Syrian, Ascetic Treatises B3: Parts 12-41, transl. Nestor Kavvadas (Thira, 2005)], Καββαδᾶς, Νέστωρ, Ισαακ του Συρου, Ἀσκητικὰ 2α: Λόγοι Α´ - Γ´ (Θήρα, 22006) [Isaac the Syrian, Ascetic Treatises 2α: Parts 1-3, transl. Nestor Kavvadas (Thira, 22006)], Καββαδᾶς, Νέστωρ, Ισαακ του Συρου, Ἀσκητικὰ Β2: Λόγοι Γ´ - ΙΑ´ (Θήρα: Θεσβίτης, 2006) [Isaac the Syrian, Ascetic Treatises B2: Parts 3-11, transl. Nestor Kavvadas (Thira, 2006)] (works II,1-41, modern Greek translation); Isacco di Ninive, Terza collezione, ed., transl. Sabino Chialà, CSCO 637-638 (Leuven, 2011); Isaac le Syrien, Œuvres spirituelles 2: 41 discours récemment découverts, transl. André Louf (Bégrolles-en-Mauges, 2003); Isaac le Syrien, Œuvres spirituelles 3: d’après un manuscrit récemment découvert, transl. André Louf (Bégrolles-en- Mauges, 2009) (works II,1-41; III, French translation); Isacco di Ninive, Terza collezione, ed., transl. Sabino Chialà, CSCO 637-638 (Leuven, 2011) (Part III, Syriac text and Italian translation); Ilarion (Alfeev), Prepodobnyi Isaak Sirin, O Bozhestvennykh tainakh i o dukhovnoi zhizni (Saint-Petersburg, 72013)] (works II,1-2, II,4-41 and parts from II,3, Russian translation). 8 See transl. Sabino Chialà, ‘Due discorsi ritrovati delle Quinta parte di Isacco di Ninive?’, Orientalia Christiana Periodica, 79 (2013), pp. 61-112. Chialà himself was not quite sure about the authorship of these fragments. ‘He Loves not the Person but the Nature’ 271

These findings as well as some further, hitherto unpublished texts of Isaac9 confronted scholars with a huge amount of new material which considerably enlarges our knowledge of Isaac’s theological thinking. Simultaneously, the non-expurgated Isaac to a certain degree provides a challenge for modern Eastern Christian theology, as he is, as a “Nestorian” writer, both an expo- nent of a theological tradition other than Byzantine Orthodoxy and a saint of just this part of Orthodoxy (i.e. of the modern Orthodox Greek, Romanians, Russians etc.). The purpose of this paper is, first, to offer glimpses into several funda- mental theological ideas Isaac had received from the tradition of his church. Then the reader shall be introduced to one of the newly discovered texts in which Isaac says that God loves not the human person but human nature – which is, against his time and background, a fairly astonishing turn. Using what we know today about Isaac’s theological system, I will then try to explain what this statement is supposed to have meant according to its author. I conclude with an attempt to assess whether Isaac’s view could contribute to, or at least be related to current debates about human dignity and human rights.

Some Theological Ideas Peculiar for the Church of the East and Adapted by Isaac of Nineveh

The Church of the East to which Isaac belonged was established in its “Nestorian” identity on the eve of the 6th century on the basis of Christian communities which had existed in the Sasanian Empire probably from the early second century onwards.10 Its main theological and especially exegetical

9 Still unpublished are the writings 1–3 from the Second Part (II,1-3). For their translation see Isacco di Ninive, Discorsi Spirituali: Capitoli sulla Conoscenza, Preghiere, Contemplazione sull’Argomento della Gehenna, Altri Opuscoli, transl. Paolo Bettiolo (Magnano, 1990), pp. 49-197 (work II, 3); Brock, ‘Two Unpublished Texts’ (see n. 7) (works II,1-2), Louf, Œuvres spirituelles 2, Louf, Œuvres spirituelles 3 (see n. 7) (works II,1-3, III); Kavvadas, Askitika B2, Kavvadas, Askitika 2α (see n. 7) (works II,1-3), and Alfeev, Divine Mysteries, 35-86 (see n. 7) (works II, 1-2 and parts from II, 3). 10 The community most probably was situated in today’s Iraq and Iran. For the early history of Christianity in Mesopotamia see Marie-Louise Chaumont, La christianisation de l’Empire Iranien: des origines aux grandes persécutions du IVe siècle, CSCO 499, Subsidia 80 (Leuven, 1988); and Baum and Winkler, Kirche des Ostens (see n. 2). 272 Dmitrii F. Bumazhnov authority was the teacher of Nestorius, Theodore, bishop of Mopsuestia (†428), a city situated in the south of modern Turkey. Theodore was later officially condemned at the 5th Ecumenical Council in 553 for his Christo- logical views. He nonetheless remained an influential teacher. The fact that his exegetical writings were used as textbooks at the famous “Nestorian” theological school of Nisibis sufficiently testifies to the continuing importance of Theodore for the “Nestorian” tradition.11 One of the most unusual features of Theodore’s theological system is his teaching about two orders or, in Greek, katastases of God’s plan concerning the salvation of humankind. According to the traditional Patristic view, there are three principal phases of this process: a) the state of the world in Paradise before the fall of Adam, b) the actual state after the fall, and c) the future Kingdom of God. In contrast to this, Theodore knows only two stages. He distinguishes between the present katastasis characterized by corruptibility, mutability, suffering, and death on the one hand, and the future katastasis of incorruptibility, immutability, impassibility, and immortality on the other. The resurrection of the Lord was the first step in the unfolding of the second katastasis which will reach its full development after the general resurrection of the dead.12 In short, Theodore does not so much operate with ideas of a “paradise lost” that would have to be restored, but with the eschatological vision of surmounted deficiencies and shortcomings of the present world. One of the most obvious consequences of this twofold division is that, according to Theodore, the actual condition of the world began not with the fall of Adam but with its creation. Therefore, in Theodore and his followers, the fall of the first man plays a less important role than in the traditional threefold conception.

11 On the reception of Theodore’s theology in the Church of the East and, in particular, in the theological school of Nisibis see Adam Becker, Fear of God and the Beginning of Wisdom: The School of Nisibis and the Development of Scholastic Culture in Late Antique Mesopotamia (Philadelphia, 2006), pp. 113-125 and Nestor Kavvadas, ‘Translation as Taking Stances: The Emergence of Syriac Theodoranism in 5th Century Edessa’, Zeitschrift für antikes Christentum, 19 (2015), pp. 89-103, especially pp. 92-93. 12 Cf. Peter Bruns, Den Menschen mit dem Himmel verbinden. Eine Studie zu den kate chetischen Homilien des Theodor von Mopsuestia, CSCO 549, Subsidia 89 (Leuven, 1995), pp. 384-402; and Günter Koch, Die Heilsverwirklichung bei Theodor von Mopsuestia (Munich, 1965), pp. 66-75. ‘He Loves not the Person but the Nature’ 273

According to Theodore, Adam was created as mortal; his sin was a consequence of the weakness of his mortal nature and both the death and the fall are to be seen as parts of God’s plan designed to teach all human beings and make them aware of their dependence on their Creator.13 In this context, it is also hardly surprising that Theodore felt compelled to write a treatise “Against the Defenders of Original Sin” in which he refuted the Augustinian doctrine of hereditary sin.14 This was part of a controversy which Augustine’s polemics with the Pelagians had also generated in the Christian East, with yet quite different outcomes and eventually less influence of the theses of the bishop of Hippo.

13 Cf. Theodore of Mopsuestia, ‘Fragmenta alia in Genesis’, in PG, vol. 66, pp. 640-641; Theodore of Mopsuestia, ‘Contra defensores peccati originalis’, in PG, vol. 66, pp. 1006- 1010; Robert Macina, ‘L’homme à l’école de Dieu. D’Antioche à Nisibe: Profil herméneu- tique, théologique et kérygmatique du mouvement scoliaste nestorien. Monographie pro- grammatique. II. Antioche et les nestoriens’, Proche-Orient Chrétien, 32 (1982), pp. 263- 277, and Nestor Kavvadas, ‘Some Observations on the Theological Anthropology of Isaac of Nineveh and its Sources’, Scrinium. Revue de patrologie, d’hagiographie critique et d’histoire ecclésiastique, 4 (2008), p. 150 with n. 13. 14 The Greek original of Theodore’s treatise is lost. Some Greek excerpts are transmitted by Photius, cod. 177, 121b-123a, cf. Photius,’ Bibliothèque, t. II, Codices 84-185, ed. R. Henry, Collection des Universités de France (Paris, 2003), pp. 177-182. The Collectio Palatina pre- served a couple of fragments in the Latin translation by Marius Mercator, cf. ed. E. Schwartz, ‘Concilium Universale Ephesenum’, in Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, V,1 (Berlin and Leipzig,1924-1925), pp. 173-176 (= PG, vol. 66 (see n. 13), pp. 1005-1012). Concerning the debate about “original sin” cf. Nestor Kavvadas, Theodore of Mopsuestia’s Against the Defenders of Original Sin, in, Grace for Grace. The Debates after Augustine & Pelagius, eds. Alexander Hwang, Brian Matz, Augustine Casiday (Washington, DC, 2014), pp. 271- 293. According to H.-I. Marrou, ‘Les attaches orientales du Pélagianisme’, Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 112 (1968), pp. 468-469, Theo- dore composed his writing aiming at Jerome of Stridon’s Dialogue against the Pelagians written in 415. Jerome, for his part, borrowed the notion of the universality of human sinning being an inheritance of Adam’s transgression directly from Augustine, cf. Dialogue against the Pelagians 3,19 (English translation: Saint Jerome, Dogmatic and Polemical Works, transl. J.N. Hritzu, The Fathers of the Church, 53 (Washington, 1965) pp. 377-378) and J.N.D. Kelly, Jerome. His Life, Writings, and Controversies (London, 1975), pp. 320-321. Alfons Fürst, ‘Augustins Briefwechsel mit Hieronymus’, Jahrbuch für Antike und Christen- tum, Ergänzungsband, 29, (Münster/Westfalen, 1999), pp. 177-230 provides a general context of Augustine’s and Jerome’s working together when polemicizing against the Pelagians. About Augustine’s reception in the Greek and Russian Orthodox Churches between the 5th and the 20th centuries in general see Orthodox Readings of Augustine, eds. G.E. Demacopoulos, A. Papanikolaou (Crestwood, 2008). 274 Dmitrii F. Bumazhnov

The strong impact of Theodore’s conception of two katastases is to be felt in a whole number of Eastern Syriac writers including Isaac of Nineveh.15 Among its main influences on Isaac, one could mention his teaching about the temporary character of Gehenna (hell)16 which appears to be a logical conclusion from God’s deliberate creation of Adam as weak and prone to sin. Another consequence consists in Isaac’s understanding of the Savior’s death on the cross not primarily as atonement for the sin of Adam but as the outmost expression of His love to all humans.17 Also in this case, the missing emphasis on the fall of Adam and Eve makes the aspect of atonement through Christ less important.

God’s Love for Human Nature

This approach has consequences for Isaac’s anthropology in general. Isaac’s statement concerning God’s love for human nature could be understood in a similar line. As a first step, one particular text deserves a closer look. It is a passage from the Third Part of Isaac’s works published in 2011 by Chialà:18

… there was no obstacle [for Him] … to bestow [His] grace openly … [it means] the [grace] which He showed towards the debtors [who owed] five hundred dinars and [towards] those [who owed] fifty dinars.19 He did so not because He loved [these] more than those, since He loves the other [debtors] not less than these, for He loves not the person [πρόσωπον] but the nature. And if it is the

15 Cf. D. Bumazhnov, ‘Mir, prekrasnyi v svoiei slabosti. Sv. Isaak Sirin o grekhopadenii Adama i nesovershenstve mira po neopublikovanomu tekstu’ [The world is marvelous in all its weakness – St. Isaac of Nineveh about Adam’s Fall and the Imperfectness of the World according to an Unpublished Text], Centuria 4,89, Syriaca • Arabica • Iranica. Simvol (Paris–Moscow), 61 (2012), pp. 179-196, and Nestor Kavvadas, Isaak von Ninive und seine Kephalaia Gnostica. Die Pneumatologie und ihr Kontext (Leiden and Boston, 2015), pp. 61-66. 16 Cf. e.g. Isaac of Nineveh II, 38. Isaac quotes from the first book of the Theodore’s Against the Defenders of Original Sin in the Second Part of his writings (II, 39, 7-8) when arguing that the punishment of the sinners in hell cannot be eternal. 17 Cf. Isaac of Nineveh II, 3, 4, 78. 18 Isaac of Nineveh III, 6, 30-31. Syriac text: Chialà, Terza collezione, CSCO 637 (see n. 7), 37, pp. 14-24. 19 Cf. Lk 7,41-42 ‘He Loves not the Person but the Nature’ 275

nature that He loves, all persons [πρόσωπον] remain enclosed within the borders of His love – the good and the evil.20

The central idea of God’s love for human nature is clearly expressed: “He loves not the person but the nature. And if it is the nature that He loves, all persons remain enclosed within the borders of His love – the good and the evil.” We will address more thoroughly below the use of the term person in these writings. For the moment, another aspect needs to be mentioned. In the same chapter 6 from the Third Part we find a similar text, albeit with a curious shift of emphasis from God to human beings and their mutual relations:21

Do not love or hate anyone [judging] from his habits [of action] but love his very substance more than examination of the habits [of action] as God does. The habits do change indeed, but you, following the example of God, shall remain unchanged towards one who is of the same nature as you.

Unlike the above-mentioned passage (III, 6, 30-31), this passage focuses not on God’s love for humans but on interpersonal relationship. Of course, God is still part of this relationship, as humans and their relations ought to follow the example of God whose love does not know any conditions or changes. Doing so, one should not consider the changing and mutable “habits” of one’s neighbour but rather love “his very substance” (qnūmeh). One particular reason for this attitude lies in the fact that every human being is partaking in the same human nature as one’s neighbour. Comparing both texts, we can notice that terms such as “nature” and “substance” are contrasted with an individual person (parṣūpā < πρόσωπον) and his or her “habits” (znayē) or, according to another possible translation, “manners of action”. This scheme is continued. The table below represents further terminological correspondences which show that Isaac closely con- nects “person”, “habits of action”, and “will” and contrasts them with human nature.

20 If not indicated otherwise, all translations are mine. Greek words between square brackets designate Greek loanwords in Syriac. 21 Isaac of Nineveh III, 4, 26. Syriac text: Chialà, Terza collezione, CSCO 637 [see n. 7], 25, pp. 5-8. 276 Dmitrii F. Bumazhnov

III,6,31 III,4,26 III,4,26 I,35 II,18,8–14 (beginning) (end) nature nature substance nature nature nature (kyānā) (qnūmā) (kyānā) (kyānā) (kyānā) person person habits or habits or habits (znayē) will (ṣeḇyānā) (parṣūpā) manners of manners of of knowledge action (znayē) action (znayē)

The connection between “person” (parṣūpā < πρόσωπον) and “habits, manners of action” (znayē) shows that, for Isaac of Nineveh, person/parṣūpā implied a dynamic aspect. In this regard, he was moving along lines earlier developed by Theodore of Mopsuestia. According to Frederick McLeod, “Theodore understands prosōpon as denoting, or at least always connoting, the essential relationships that exists between a person’s external, habitual ways of speaking and acting and his or her inner nature that serves as the immediate, proximate source and cause of such activity.”22 In this light is to be seen the connection between the person/parṣūpā and his or her will/ṣeḇyānā in Isaac of Nineveh: Isaac contrasts their dynamic character with the nature23

22 F.G. McLeod, ‘Theodore of Mopsuestia’s Understanding of Two Hypostaseis and Two Prosōpa Coinciding in One Common Prosōpon’, Journal of Early Christian Studies, 18 (2010), esp. p. 402: ‘In general, prosōpon connotes, if not denotes, how a person acts in accordance with one’s specific nature and can be known as such by these actions. Theodore’s understanding of prosōpon, for its part, is to be seen in the context of the general philosophical meaning of this word in late antiquity, cf. J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (London, 51977), p. 115: “the terms πρόσωπον and persona were admirably suited to express the otherness, or independent subsistence, of the Three (i.e. hypostases of the Trinity, D.B.). After originally meaning ‘face’, and so ‘expression’ and then ‘role’, the former came to signify ‘individual’, stress being usually on the external aspect or objective presentation. The primary sense of persona was ‘mask’, from which the transition was easy to the actor who wore it and the character he played. […] In neither case, it should be noted, was the idea of self-consciousness nowadays associated with ‘person’ and ‘personal’ at all prominent.” As it is the case with Greek πρόσωπον, parṣūpā’s basic meaning is “face”, cf. M. Sokoloff, A Syriac Lexicon. A Translation from the Latin, Correction, Expansion, and Update of C. Brockel mann’s Lexicon Syriacum (Winona Lake and Piscataway, 2009), s.v. 23 Isaac’s understanding of human nature (kyānā, equivalent of Greek φύσις) has some further complexities, the investigation of which cannot be done here. For the texts in question a widespread and rather general notion of ‘the human being as consisting of (rational) soul and (material) body’ can be assumed, cf. Ps.-Justin (2nd ‒ early 3rd century), ‘On the Resurrection 8,8’: τί γάρ ἐστιν ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἀλλ̉ ἢ τὸ ἐκ ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος συνεστὸς ζῷον λογικόν; Greek text: ‘Pseudojustin ‒ Über die Auferstehung,’ Text und Studie, ‘He Loves not the Person but the Nature’ 277 which, to be sure, likewise has a certain “motion”24 but is fundamentally weaker than the will.25 God’s love for human nature is also the subject of an insightful passage from the Second Part:26

And just as there is not a single nature who is in the first place or last place in creation in the Creator’s knowledge … similarly there is no before or after in His love towards them: no greater or lesser amount [of love] is to be found with Him at all. Rather, just like the continual equality of His knowledge, so too is the continual equality of His love; for He knew them [all] before they ever became just or sinners. The Creator and His love did not change because they underwent change after He had brought them into being …

The main observation to be made here is that Isaac, when speaking about the creation of human beings and God’s love for them, does not refer to “person” or “hypostasis” but to “nature”. Further it might be argued that, according to Isaac, the nature of rational beings does not undergo any change after their creation. The point Isaac is trying to make in the text quoted is another one: he underscores the immutability of God’s love for His creation.

in Patristische Texte und Studien, 54 (Berlin and New York, 2001), pp. 120,15-16. Cf. also John of Damascus, ‘An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith’ III,16: “Therefore, since every man is made up of a soul and a body, in this sense men are said to have one nature”, English translation: F.H. Chase, ‘Saint John of Damascus, Writings’, in The Fathers of the Church, 37 (Washington, 31981), p. 315; Greek text: Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskus, Bd. 2, Expositio fidei, ed. B. Kotter, Patristische Texte und Studien, 12 (Berlin and New York, 1973), 154, pp. 27-28. Isaac takes this view e.g. in I, 21-26 when speaking about ‘our nature’ (kyānan, see Bedjan, Mar Isaacus (see n. 6), 26,3) encom- passing the nature of the body and the nature of the soul. For human nature in early Syriac authors see A. Vööbus, ‘Theological Reflections on Human Nature in Ancient Syrian Traditions’, in The Scope of Grace, Essays on Nature and Grace in honor of J. Sittler, ed. Ph.J. Hefner (Philadelphia, 1964), pp. 99-119. 24 Cf. I, 38, Bedjan, Mar Isaacus (see n. 6), 293, 19. 25 Cf. I, 293 and Dmitrii Bumazhnov, ‘“Gott liebt nicht die Person, sondern die Natur des Menschen.” Hl. Isaak von Ninive über die Liebe Gottes zur menschlichen Natur im Kontext seiner Lehre von der allgemeinen Erlösung. Der Einfluss Maximus des Bekenners oder Entwicklung eigener Ideen?,’ in Reading the Way to the Netherworld. Education and the Representations of the Beyond in Later Antiquity, eds. I. Tanaseanu-Döbler et al., Beiträge zur Europäischen Religionsgeschichte, 4 (Göttingen, 2017), pp. 431-438. 26 Isaac of Ninive II, 38, 3. Translation by S. Brock in: Brock, The Second Part, CSCO 555 (see n. 7), p. 161; Syriac text: Brock, The Second Part, CSCO 554 (see n. 7), pp. 15-21. 278 Dmitrii F. Bumazhnov

Human nature does not substantially change. What really changes in this katastasis is a person’s will which is responsible for becoming righteous or sinners. The importance of the personal decisions of the will in this katastasis is emphasised in an unpublished text from the Second Part where Isaac says: “The Kingdom [of God] and Gehenna are not [existing as] retributions of good and evil deeds but as retributions of the [decisions of] the will.”27 As we already know, according to Isaac, Gehenna is only a temporary phe- nomenon for a fixed period of time,28 and God “is going to bring” all human beings “to a single equal state of perfection”.29 This means that the sinful decisions of the will – no matter how terrible they might have been – are ultimately not able to alter God’s love and His plan of a general salvation of all humans. Isaac refers exactly to this point when admonishing humans to love each other just as God does: “Do not love or hate anyone [judging] from his habits [of action] but love his very substance more than examining the habits [of action], just as God does.”30 In other words, the habits of human action and the human will do not substantially affect human nature. In Isaac’s opinion, it has been created weak31 but remains in itself essentially good during the whole first katastasis. As for the human person/parṣūpā,32 we can conclude that Isaac associates it with the will and therefore considers the person changeable, responsible for decision-making and, consequently, capable of being bad. Before creating the human race, God was perfectly aware of humanity’s possible deviations in the first katastasis and conceded the freedom to do so to their wills/persons. The present katastasis has a pedagogical purpose. Isaac describes it as “school”

27 Isaac of Nineveh II, 3, 3, 93 (Oxford Bodleian Library ms syr.e.7. fol. 81r), cf. also II, 18, 12. 28 Cf. Isaac of Ninive II, 40, 5. 29 Isaac of Ninive II, 40, 4. Translation by S. Brock in: Brock, The Second Part, CSCO 555 (see n. 7), p. 175; Syriac text: Brock, The Second Part, CSCO 554 (see n. 7), 162, pp. 14-15. 30 Isaac of Nineveh III,4,26. Syriac text: Chialà, Terza collezione, CSCO 637 (see n. 6), 25, pp. 5-6. 31 This notion is omnipresent in Isaac, cf. some exemplary evidence from the First Part: I, 81, 131, 403, 412, 428, 458, 482, 499-500, 546 and Bumazhnov, ‘Adam’s Fall’ (see n. 15), pp. 186-194. Isaac in this regard follows Theodore of Mopsuestia, cf. n. 13 above. 32 See also the table above. ‘He Loves not the Person but the Nature’ 279 for humans.33 Meanwhile, God’s love for human nature remains unaffected by evil deeds and is the cause of humans’ eventual universal salvation. Isaac argues that God cannot be affected by anything simply by virtue of His unchangeable nature, cf. II,40,1: “[…] God has been eternally the same in all that belong to Him in His nature […] He does not change as a result of what happens with creation.”34 In a slightly rough summary one may say that, when connecting God’s love with human nature and not with the person, Isaac both safeguards humans’ freedom in the present katastasis and guarantees their universal salvation in the next. Isaac’s saying that God “loves not the person but the nature”35 should not be misunderstood in the sense of disdain for the individual person. The important point here is that Isaac’s concept of the person is that of a particular manifestation of human nature, with each individual’s walk in life. His understanding of person is somehow still closer to initial concepts, including their figurative applica- tion of persona denoting first, the mask, and second, the actor behind this face. The important thing Isaac seems to say is that God’s relationship to humans is to their human nature and does not depend on, or change with their actions.

A Parallel in Maximus Confessor

Isaac’s ideas were certainly not unique in Patristic tradition. Interestingly enough, we find very similar ideas in another 7th century holy father, Maximus the Confessor (†662). In his Hundred Chapters on Love I, 25, Maximus says36:

33 Cf. II, 39, 5. For the “pedagogical” perspective on the present katastasis see e.g. I, 71 and Macina, ‘L’école de Dieu’ (see n. 13) for general context. 34 Translation by S. Brock in Brock, The Second Part, CSCO 555 (see n. 7), 174; Syriac text: Brock, The Second Part, CSCO 554 (see n. 7), 163, pp. 9-10. 35 III, 6, 31, cf. n. 18 above. 36 Maximus the Confessor, Chapters on Love I, 25; Greek text: Massimo Confessore, Capi toli sulla carità, ed. Aldo Ceresa-Gastaldo (Rome, 1963), 58, pp. 1-7: Ὥσπερ ὁ Θεὸς φύσει ὢν ἀγαθὸς καὶ ἀπαθὴς πάντας μὲν ἐξ ἴσου ἀγαπᾷ ὡς ἔργα αὐτοῦ, ἀλλὰ τὸν μὲν ἐνάρετον δοξάζει, ὡς καὶ τῇ γνώμῃ οἰκειούμενον, τὸν δὲ φαῦλον δι ̉ ἀγαθότητα ἐλεεῖ καὶ ἐν τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ παιδεύων ἐπιστρέφει˙ οὕτω καὶ ὁ τῇ γνώμῃ ἀγαθὸς καὶ ἀπαθὴς πάντας ἀνθρώπους ἐξ ἴσου ἀγαπᾷ, τὸν μὲν ἐνάρετον διά τε τὴν φύσιν καὶ τὴν ἀγαθὴν προαίρεσιν, τὸν δὲ φαῦλον διά τε τὴν φύσιν καὶ τὴν συμπάθειαν, ἐλεῶν ὡς ἄφρονα καὶ ἐν σκότει διαπορευό- μενον.” – English translation according to George Berthold (transl.), Maximus the Confessor. Selected Writings (New York, 1985), p. 38. 280 Dmitrii F. Bumazhnov

Just as God who is by nature good and free of passion loves all in an equal way as His creatures but glorifies the virtuous man for having become His friend through his intention and has mercy on the wicked out of his goodness and converts him by chastening him in this life, so also does the one who is good and without passion37 through his intention to love equally all humans – the virtuous because of his nature and good will and likewise the wicked because of his nature and [through] compassion by which he pities one who is foolish and makes his way in darkness.

Generally, there are four common points between the text of Maximus and those by Isaac. At the same time, it is highly unlikely that this concurrence has anything to do with either the texts or their authors being in anyway inter- related.38 Like Isaac, Maximus suggests a connection between God’s love for humans and human love for one’s neighbour; in both cases God’s love is a paradigm for humans to be followed.39 Then, in both authors, the perfect love includes the good and the wicked;40 the common basis for such love is human nature.41 That implies, as we can infer, that according to Maximus’ Chapters on Love I, 25, God Himself loves human nature, too. However, unlike Isaac, who operates with more generalizing terms, Maximus does not say explicitly that God loves human nature in contrast to human persons. The exact interpretation of Maximus’ text in the context of his theological system is beyond the scope of this article. But it deserves attention that at least

37 As common in Greek Patristic literature, the expression “without passion” (ἀπαθής) here denotes someone at “a high stage of spiritual life” because of being without sin or sinful passion, see G.W.H. Lampe, A Patristic Lexicon (Oxford, 212009), pp. 171-172. 38 Ceresa-Gastaldo, Massimo Confessore (see n. 37), p. 16, n. 3 indicates that the Hundred Chapters on Love were written around 626. By this time, Isaac might just have been born, see Chialà, Misericordia (see n. 1), pp. 56-57. Since Maximus and Isaac belonged to different churches and lived in two countries politically opposed (the Byzantine Empire and Umayyad Caliphate respectively), it seems highly unlikely that Isaac could have read a Syriac translation of the Hundred Chapters. No such translation is known to me. 39 Cf. Isaac of Nineveh III, 4, 26: ‘Do not love or hate anyone [judging] from his habits [of action] but love his very substance more than examination of the habits [of action] as God does. The habits do change indeed, but you, following the example of God, shall remain unchanged towards one who is of the same nature as you’. 40 Cf. Isaac of Nineveh III, 6, 31: “And if it is the nature that He loves, all persons remain enclosed within the borders of His love – the good and the evil”. 41 Cf. Isaac of Nineveh III, 6, 31: “He (i.e. God) loves not the person but the nature … And if it is the nature that He loves …”. ‘He Loves not the Person but the Nature’ 281 two important Church fathers, in intellectual moves apparently fully independent from one another, formulated the idea of God’s love of human nature, and derived from this the example for human love of the one’s neighbour.

Some Proposals for the Discussion about Human Dignity in the Eastern Christian Tradition

This last observation leads us to some concluding suggestions concerning a general discussion about human dignity in the Eastern Christian Tradition. As the base for a Christian grounding of “human dignity”, the standard invocation, also common in the Eastern tradition, is the Biblical account about the creation of man and woman “in the image of God” in Gen 1:26-27. Especially Isaac, however, hardly elaborates on the “image of God” pattern. Rather there is another, more abstract and philosophical strain, namely that present in the two texts by Isaac of Nineveh and Maximus the Confessor treated above. It provides an alternative – as we might feel tempted to say, both more generalizing, and more optimistic – Christian approach to the problem of a theological foundation of “human dignity.” As we have seen, their conception of God’s love for human nature regard- less of the individual deeds of anyone, be they good or evil, is at the same time designed to be an example for our love for our fellow human beings. In other words, the basis of human dignity in Isaac and Maximus appears to be God’s love for all men and women without any difference. Isaac expands this idea by saying that God’s love never depends on our deeds but has in view our good, even though basically weak nature. What helps Isaac, at least, to uphold his optimism is his perception of the second katastasis, the state of the world before the eschatological coming of God’s kingdom, as a state bearing a “pedagogical” sense. This allows him to combine a realistic approach to human beings as non-perfect individuals with yet a generally positive, optimistic look on the human race as such. The concept of God’s image in the human being, by contrast, is only some- what vaguely present in Isaac’s writings: It is regarded as a potential to be realized and seems to be present in various degrees in various individuals42

42 Isaac does not offer any thorough reflections about the “image of God” pattern. Also, apparently, the concept of theosis, otherwise widespread in Greek Patristic literature, does 282 Dmitrii F. Bumazhnov

The more important factor is God’s love, which according to Isaac’s emphasis is unconditional and stable, constant and equal for all. Taking Isaac’s generous approach as a reference also for inter-human relations, every human being has to be considered unconditionally as owner and bearer of “human dignity”, with no regard for his abilities, social status, or his guilt, deficiencies or handicaps. As Isaac understands it, God’s love does not have any beginning and is deeply interconnected with the mystery of the creation of human beings and the world in general. Isaac finds remarkable words for this:43

In love did He bring the world into existence; in love does He guide it during this its temporal existence; in love is He going to bring it to that wondrous transformed state, and in love will the world be swallowed up in the great mystery of Him who has performed all these things; in love will the whole course of the governance of creation be finally brought to an end.

Abstract

The article explores the anthropology of the Syriac church father Isaac of Niniveh, also known as Isaac the Syrian. Perhaps a distant echo of the debates around Augustine’s concept of original sin, Isaac starts with an idea of God as immutable and unchangeable, whose love for the human race as his creation is equally universal and unconditional, and does not make differences on grounds of individual deeds. One consequence in inter-human relations is also unconditional love for one another, reflecting the dignity God has bestowed on humanity at large.

not play a significant role for him. Some allusions to the imago Dei pattern, with different explanations of the function of image are e.g. I, 22, 77, 103, 492, 570. Isaac’s handling of the topic would indeed deserve a separate analysis. Generally about the exegesis of the image of God in the Eastern Syriac tradition see C. Pasquet, L’homme, image de Dieu, seigneur de l’univers. L’interprétation de Gn 1,26 dans la tradition syriaque orientale, Thèse présentée pour l’obtention du Doctorat conjoint en Histoire des religions et Anthropologie religieuse (Paris IV) Etudes en Théologie (I.C.P.) (Ms. Paris, 2006). 43 Isaac of Niniveh II, 38, 2. Translation by S. Brock slightly modified in: Brock, The Second Part, CSCO 555 (see n. 7), 160; Syriac text: Brock, The Second Part, CSCO 554 (see n. 7), 148, pp. 15-19.