(Chrysostom) and Syriac (Ephrem) Aspects of “Authority” As the Image of God
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Ivar Kh. Maksutov Moscow GREEK (CHRYSOSTOM) AND SYRIAC (EPHREM) ASPECTS OF “AUTHORITY” AS THE IMAGE OF GOD 1. Introduction This topic has become prominent in current Patristic Studies due to the number of researchers, pursuing the problem of Greek-Syriac bi- lingualism.1 And it is of great importance to investigate the interaction of ideas which are contained in these languages themselves. This idea that can be found in the traditions which are oĞ en classed together as “Antiochene,” can give the answer to the key question of Christian an- thropology: What is the image of God in human beings? “Antiochene” writers in both Greek and Syriac give the same answer to the problem of the imago Dei: it is “authority.” It would be quite diĜ cult to discover the origin of this idea, but at least we can suppose that it was based on a literal exegesis of Gen. 1:26–28. It means that the verses “Let us create man in our image and likeness,” and “have dominion over the ę sh of the sea and over the birds of the air and over the caĴ le and over the whole earth and over every crawling living thing that crawls upon the earth,” were closely connected and the former was interpreted through the laĴ er. One can ę nd such an interpretation in the works of two of the most distinguished representatives of “Antiochene” Chris- tianity: St. John Chrysostom and St. Ephrem the Syrian. Both of them are excellent examples showing Greek and Syriac aspects of the imago Dei concept, since they are well-known for a perfect command of their native languages. Chrysostom was a genius of AĴ ic Greek, a brilliant rhetorician, philosopher, and theologian and Ephrem was the greatest poet of the patristic age and the most famous Syriac theologian. Both of them considered the image of God in humans as being “authority.” However, they understood the idea in diě erent ways because of lan- (1) For example, see S. Bџќѐј, From Ephrem to Romanos: Interactions be- tween Syriac and Greek in Late Antiquity (Aldershot, 1999); R. B ѡђџ Hююџ Rќ- њђћѦ, A Syrian in Greek Dress. The Use of Greek, Hebrew, and Syriac Biblical Texts in Eusebius of Emesa’s Commentary on Genesis (Leuven, 1997). Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 02:45:13AM via free access 312 Scrinium IV (2008). Patrologia Pacię ca guage diě erences: Ephrem named it ŀĭŏĵİŅķŅ (shultana) and Chrysos- tom called it ΦΕΛφ. 2. ΦΕΛφ and First of all, the original meanings of both terms should be recon- structed. Since the background of the “Antiochene” concept of the ima- go Dei is Semitic, the Syriac ŀĵİķĥ ought to be analysed ę rst. The way it is used in the theology and philosophy of St. Ephrem was thorough- ly investigated by Robert Murray, S.J.2 He argued that ŀĵİķĥ unites three ideas: 1) kingship; 2) free will, and 3) responsibility. Being such a complicated term, ŀĵİķĥ lost some implicit meanings, when entering Greek-speaking Antioch as ΦΕΛφ. At the same time, the Greek term has its own independent scope of meaning. The best approach for a philo- sophical sense of ΦΕΛφ was proposed by German hermeneutist Mar- tin Heidegger.3 He showed that ΦΕΛφ has two key meanings: 1) „das, von woher etwas seinen Ausgang und Anfang nimmt;“ and 2) „das, was zugleich als dieser Ausgang und Anfang über das Andere, was von ihm ausgeht, weggreiĞ und so es einbehält und damit beherrscht.“4 Thus, ΦΕΛφ — is not just authority, but it is that kind of authority, which keeps in itself its own origin (΅ϢΘϟ΅). In Chrysostom’s theology and phi- losophy ΦΕΛφ is composed of Semitic ideas of ŀĵİķĥ, on the one hand, and its original sense in Greek philosophy, on the other. The origins of these semantic interactions can be discovered by means of a point-by- point comparison of their spheres of usage, as follows. 2.1. King of Animals In the world view of St. Ephrem ŀĵİķĥ generally means kingship, or rather, an honorable position of God’s viceroys, who were endowed with authority over the external world, especially over creatures. At the same time for Ephrem, free will and authority are both essential aspects of the imago Dei in humankind: ĭĥĶŎĿ ĵĶ ĥĵĬĥŎĘ ķĺħĿ ħĽĵĶķĘ ĵĻĭŁ ĪĺĪĶĥ ĵĬĿĴĥ ŀĵIJİĘ Īĥķ ĮŀĻĿ ĵĬ ķŀĶĺķĘ ĪħĥIJĪĥ Łĭħ ĬőĭIJķ įķķ ĽĵĶĬ ĪĥĵĬĥŎĘ ĻŀľĬő Ķĭŀĥ ħĬőIJ ĪĥĶŎĿĘ Īķŀĵİĭķ ħķĭŇķIJ IJĶĥ ĭħĻĿįŁĥ ĭħħĺIJĿĥ ĭħĴĵĬőė ĥĿĺĥĘ ħŀĭĵİķĥ ĬŎĭ (2) R. MѢџџюѦ, S. J., The Ephremic Tradition and the Theology of the En- vironment, Hugoye 2.1 (1999); accessed at hĴ p://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol 2No1/HV2N1Murray.html on Dec. 21, 2007. (3) M. Hђіёђєєђџ, Vom Wesen und Begriě der Physis, in: Iёђњ, Wegmar- ken (Frankfurt am Main, 1967) 309–371. (4) Hђіёђєєђџ, Vom Wesen und Begriě der Physis... 317. Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 02:45:13AM via free access Ivar Kh. Maksutov 313 ĬĴIJĵ ĪķĸħŎ ĥĪĶ ĺĵ ĥĿĺĥ ĭĺĵ Ĵĭĵ ĪħĬőĘ ĥIJŁĭĬIJ ĬĭŎĥ ĪĶĭŁĬ ĪĥĵĬĥĘ Ĭőĭ Īĺĵ ĺŇĵIJĥ ĭĺĵ ŁįŇŁIJĥ ŀĵIJİ ĬĭŎĥĖ5 Thus human beings are considered to be custodians of the world since they were granted free will and are answerable to God for how it is treated. Chrysostom does not pay much aĴ ention to this topic, in- stead he claimed that ΦΕΛφ appears in possessing the external world, e.g. animals: ΔΣΑΘΝΑ ΘЗΑ πΔϠ ΘϛΖ ·ϛΖ ΩΕΛΓΑΘ΅ ΘϲΑ ΩΑΌΕΝΔΓΑ πΈΐΓϾΕ·ΗΉΑ ϳ ̋ΉϲΖ, Ύ΅Ϡ ΓЁΈξΑ ΘЗΑ πΔϠ ΘϛΖ ·ϛΖ πΗΘ ΘΓϾΘΓΙ ΐΉϧΊΓΑ, ΦΏΏΤ ΔΣΑΘ΅ ЀΔϲ ΘχΑ πΒΓΙΗϟ΅Α ΘχΑ ΘΓϾΘΓΙ ΘΙ·ΛΣΑΉ.6 2.2. Freewill and Self-Control At the same time Chrysostom maintained that ΦΕΛφ is a distin- guishing feature of human beings, which appears in its structure as an ability to rule itself, or self-control. According to Chrysostom the soul is full of diě erent thoughts (ΏΓ·ΗΐΓϟ), which are of two kinds: some are unreasonable (ΦΏΓ·ЏΘΉΕΓ) and caĴ le-like (ΎΘΑЏΈΉΖ), others are beast-like (ΌΕΝΈνΗΘΉΕΓ) and wild (Φ·ΕЏΘΉΕΓ). And in order to become like God in virtue, human beings need to ΅ЁΘЗΑ ΎΕ΅ΘΉϧΑ Ύ΅Ϡ ΔΉΕ·ϟΑΉΗΌ΅, Ύ΅Ϡ ΘХ ΏΓ·ΗΐХ ΘΑ ΘΓϾΘΝΑ ΘχΑ ΦΕΛφΑ Δ΅Ε΅ΈΈϱΑ΅.7 For Ephrem ŀĵİķĥ meant personal freedom to act rather than self- control as long as free will is an implicit part of it: ĥķ ĨIJĿ ħŀĭĵİķĥ ĬĭŎĥ ĥĪĶ ĽĵĶĥ ĪĥĵĬĥŎĘ ĸĨIJIJ ŀħIJįĥ ĥĶŁIJ ĪħIJĪĺŁĥ ĪľĭŀŁĥ ĭħĪĭħīŇĥ ĪŀĿĿĥőĘ ķĬĭĥ ĥķŀ ĽĵĶĥ ĪĥĵĬĥĘ ĪĥĻ ĬŎĭ ŀĭĵİķĥ ħĬĵIJķ ľĥőĶĘ8 (5) “And God said: Let us make man in our image: that is to say, endowed with authority to the point that if it seems good to him he will obey us. Now what it means that we are in the image of God has been explained by Mo- ses, where he says: and let them have authority over the ę sh of the sea and the birds, the caĴ le and all the earth. Thus it is in the authority (ŀĵİķĥ) that Adam received over the earth and all that is in it, that the likeness of God con- sists, to him who has authority over things above and below” (Ephrem, Hom. in Gen. 2.29 (CSCO 152, 23); tr. in MѢџџюѦ, The Ephremic Tradition..., pars. 6). (6) “God created the human being as superior to all that exists on the earth and there is nothing over him, but everything under his power” (John Chrys., Hom. in Gen. 8; PG 53, 72). (7) “…control and overpower them, giving authority over them to the mind” (John Chrys., Hom. in Gen. 3; PG 54, 591). (8) “If it is by ŀĵİķĥ that Adam was the image of God, it is a most praise- worthy thing when a person, by knowledge of the truth and acting with truth, becomes the image of God, for that ŀĵİķĥ consists in these also (Ephrem, Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 02:45:13AM via free access 314 Scrinium IV (2008). Patrologia Pacię ca Anyhow in his works ŀĵİķĥ relates both to human freedom and to the image of kingship with a strong emphasis on the laĴ er: ĭĵĶķĥ ĴIJIJ ĽħIJĥ įĥĿĭŁĥ ĪŁĴĻĭĿ ħŀĭĵİķĬő ĭŁĭĪĥ ħĺħĪĭŁĥŇĘ ĴĪ ķIJĿĥ ĪĶĿĭŁĥ ĵĥ ĸIJĶ ĺĵIJĬőĘ ĵĭ ĨIJĿ Ķķ İĭĬĶĥ ĬŎIJ ĪĿįŀĥ ĶŀĺħĪĥĘ ĭĵĥ Ķķ Ĩķĸĥ ĪħĺIJĿĥ ĶŀĺħĪŁĥĘ ĥĵĥ Ķķ İĭĬĶĥ ĪĶĵĴĥ ĭħŇķIJIJ ĶŇĵĴĥĘ Ĭőķĭķ ĪĬŎķĭķ ħĵįĭĪIJĬĭķ Ķķ Ĵĵ ħīŇIJķ ħĽĵĶ ĥĵĬĥ ĥŁħĿIJĭĘ9 2.3. The Proper Order of Things Further development of the anthropological program of Chrysos- tom appears in the claim that human beings are in countless relations of ΦΕΛφ-ЀΔΓΘ΅·φΑ (subordination), in which he rules somebody or somebody rules him: ΔΓΏΏΤΖ πΔΓϟΗΉ ΘΤΖ ΦΕΛΤΖ Ύ΅Ϡ ΘΤΖ ЀΔΓΘ΅·ΤΖ, ΓϩΓΑ БΖ ΦΑΈΕϲΖ Ύ΅Ϡ ·ΙΑ΅ΎϲΖ БΖ Δ΅ΈϲΖ Ύ΅Ϡ Δ΅ΘΕϲΖ, БΖ ΔΕΉΗΆϾΘΓΙ Ύ΅Ϡ ΑνΓΙ, БΖ ΈΓϾΑȜΓΙ Ύ΅Ϡ πΏΉΙΌνΕΓΙ, БΖ ΩΕΛΓΑΘΓΖ Ύ΅Ϡ ΦΕΛΓΐνΑΓΙ, БΖ ΈΈ΅ΗΎΣΏΓΙ Ύ΅Ϡ ΐ΅ΌΘΓІ.10 Moreover, according to Chrysostom, the whole world is arranged the way that ΘΤ ΐξΑ ΩΕΛΉΑ ΘЗΑ ΐΉΏЗΑ, ΘΤ Έξ ΩΕΛΉΗΌ΅ πΔΓϟΗΉ.11 Especially in nature, in the relationships of animals the proper order of things (ΉЁΘ΅Βϟ΅) can be found, which is so important in Chrysostom’s worldview: ̍΅Ϡ πΑ ΘΓϧΖ ΦΏΓ·ΓΖ Έξ Θϲ ΅ЁΘϲ ΘΓІΘΓ ϥΈΓ ΘΖ ΩΑ, БΖ πΑ Θ΅ϧΖ ΐΉΏϟΗΗ΅Ζ, БΖ πΑ ΘΓϧΖ ·ΉΕΣΑΓΖ, БΖ πΑ Θ΅ϧΖ Φ·νΏ΅Ζ ΘЗΑ Φ·ΕϟΝΑ ΔΕΓΆΣΘΝΑ. ̍΅Ϡ ΓЁΈξ ψ ΌΣΏ΅ΗΗ΅ Θ΅ϾΘΖ πΗΘνΕΘ΅ ΘϛΖ ΉЁΘ΅Βϟ΅Ζ, ΦΏΏΤ Ύ΅Ϡ πΎΉϧ ΔΓΏΏΤ ΘЗΑ ·ΉΑЗΑ ЀΚ’ οΑϠ ΘΣΘΘΉΘ΅ ΘЗΑ ϢΛΌϾΝΑ Ύ΅Ϡ ΗΘΕ΅Θ·ΉϧΘ΅, Ύ΅Ϡ ΓЃΘΝ ΐ΅ΎΕΤΖ ΦΔΓΈΐϟ΅Ζ ΦΔΓΈΐΉϧ.