Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 70(3-4), 153-191. doi: 10.2143/JECS.70.3.3285150 © 2018 by Journal of Eastern Christian Studies. All rights reserved.
THE ALEXANDRIAN CHRISTOLOGY OF SHENOUTE OF ATRIPE
Johannes J. Knecht (University of St Andrews, School of St Mary’s)
1. Introduction
Based on a perceived strong influence of the theology of Cyril and/or Dioscorus, scholarship in the last century has read the Christology of Shenoute of Atripe (347-465 CE)1 in a Miaphysite2 light.3 Many older studies also have con- cluded that Shenoute’s theological thought is altogether quite unremarkable and some would even say his Christology in particular is weak.4 One is
1 For an in-depth study of these dates see Philippe Luisier, ‘Chénouté, Victor, Jean de Lycopolis et Nestorius. Quand l’archimandrite d’Atripé et Haut-Égypte est-il mort?’, Orien- talia, 78 (2009), pp. 258-281 and Stephen Emmel, ‘Editing Shenoute, Old Problems, New Prospects: The Date of Shenoute’s Death’, in Coptic Society, Literature and Religion from Late Antiquity to Modern Times: Proceedings from the Tenth International Congress of Coptic Studies, Rome, September 17th-22nd, 2012, and Plenary Reports of the Ninth Inter- national Congress of Coptic Studies, Cairo, September 15th-19th, 2008, eds. Paola Buzi, Alberto Camplani, and Federico Contardi, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 247 (Leu- ven, 2016), pp. 937-944. 2 This paper will systematically use ‘Miaphysite’ as referring to a Christological conception which defends that there is only one nature in the person of Christ. With having chosen to use ‘Miaphysite’ over ‘Monophysite’ I do not intend to make any substantial theological claims. 3 E.g.: E. Revillout, ‘Les origines du schisme égyptien: Le précurseur et inspirateur – Sénuti le prophète’, Revue de l’histoire des religions, 18 (1883), pp. 401-467 and pp. 545-581. Aloys Grillmeier and Theresia Hainthaler, Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche: Die Kirche von Alexandrien mit Nubien und Äthiopien nach 451, Bd II/4 (Freiburg, 1990), p. 71. Frederick W. Norris, ‘Greek Christianities’, in The Cambridge History of Christianity: Constantine to c. 600, eds. Augustine Casiday and Frederick W. Norris (Cambridge-New York, 2007), pp. 70-117, on p. 95. Rowan A. Greer, ‘Pastoral Care and Discipline’, in The Cambridge History of Christianity: Constantine to c. 600, eds. Augustine Casiday and Fred- erick W. Norris (Cambridge-New York, 2007), pp. 567-584, on p. 578. 4 K.H. Kuhn, ‘Saint Shenute,’ in Coptic Encyclopedia, 7 (New York, NY, 1991), pp. 2131- 2133. Adolph von Harnack, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, vol. II, 5th ed. (Tübingen, 1931), p. 373. H.F. Weiss, ‘Zur Christologie des Schenute von Atripe’, Bulletin de la société 154 Johannes J. Knecht presented with two main difficulties when maintaining a Miaphysite fram- ing, based on Shenoute’s assumed close proximity to the work of Cyril and/ or Dioscorus of Alexandria. First, modern scholarship has far from reached a consensus on how to interpret the Christology of Cyril and the place of the μία-φύσις formula in it.5 Thus, using a particular interpretation of Cyril’s Christology – for instance a Miaphysite reading – as a starting point is not conducive for gaining a better understanding of Shenoute’s thought. Second, if one compares Cyril or Dioscorus with Shenoute and uses them ‘to lead the conversation,’ one might infuse Cyril’s and Dioscorus’ concerns into the read- ing of Shenoute instead of letting Shenoute’s work speak for itself and on its own terms, which is what I hope to do in this paper. This paper will re-evaluate two claims made about the Christology of She- noute: (I) Shenoute is particularly strongly influenced by the work of Cyril of Alexandria and (II) Shenoute defends a Miaphysite understanding of Christ. These claims will be evaluated in dialogue with the most recent in-depth study of the Christological work of Shenoute of Atripe: Coptic Christology in Practice by Stephen J. Davis.6 In Davis’ discussion of Cyril and the reception
d’archéologie copte, 20 (1971), pp. 177-210. Maria Cramer, ‘Zur Sprache und Geschichte des koptischen Ägypten’, Les cahiers coptes, 3 (1953), pp. 9-18. Armand Veilleux, preface to The Life of Shenoute: Introduction, Translation and Notes (Kalamazoo, MI, 1983), pp. v-xv, on p. xi. Armand Veilleux, ‘Chénoute ou les écueils du monachisme’, Collectanea Cister- ciencia, 45 (1983), pp. 124-131. Johannes Leipoldt, Schenute von Atripe und die Entstehung des National Ägyptischen Christentums (Leipzig, 1903), p. 85 and p. 90. David Bell, intro- duction to The Life of Shenoute: Introduction, Translation and Notes (Kalamazoo, MI, 1983), pp. 1-40, on pp. 13-16. Bell, however, does acknowledge that Shenoute has had a better education than was ‘normal’ in the Thebaid. 5 Cf. Joseph van den Dries, The Formula of Saint Cyril of Alexandria: ‘Mia Fusis Tou Theou Logou Sesarkōmenē’ (Rome, 1939). J. Liébaert, ‘L’évolution de la christologie de saint Cyrille d’Alexandrie à partir de la controverse nestorienne’, Mélange de science religieuse, 27 (1970), pp. 27-48. G. Gould, ‘Cyril of Alexandria and the Formula of Reunion’, The Downside Review, 106 (1988), pp. 235-252. André de Halleux, ‘Le dyophysisme christologique de Cyrille d’Alexan- drie,’ in Logos: Festschrift für Luise Abramowski zum 8. Juli 1993, eds. Hanns Brennecke, et al. (Berlin, 1993), pp. 411-428. Susan Wessel, Cyril of Alexandria and the Nestorian Contro- versy: The Making of a Saint and of a Heretic (Oxford, 2004). Thomas G. Weinandy and Daniel A. Keating, The Theology of St. Cyril of Alexandria: A Critical Appreciation (London, 2003). John McGuckin, Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy (Crest- wood, NY, 2004). Hans van Loon, The Dyophysite Christology of Cyril of Alexandria, Supple- ments to Vigiliae Christianae, 96 (Leiden; Boston, MA, 2009). 6 Stephen J. Davis, Coptic Christology in Practice: Incarnation and Divine Participation in Late Antique and Medieval Egypt, Oxford Early Christian Studies (New York, 2008). The Alexandrian Christology of Shenoute of Atripe 155 of Cyril by later patriarchs, it becomes evident that Davis thinks the ‘mia- physis’ formula ‘lies at the very heart of [Cyril’s] later christological contro- versy with Nestorius.’7 Davis argues that the correct interpretation of Cyril’s Christology was defended by Eutyches, Dioscorus, and later Severus of Anti- och. This conception of the Christological controversy, and the place of Cyril and Dioscorus in it, provides the background and context of Davis’ interpre- tation and explanation of Shenoute. He writes: ‘The mid-fifth-century writings of the Upper Egyptian monk, Shenoute of Atripe (c.347-465 CE), provide a unique glimpse into the early reception of Alexandrian Greek Christology in a Coptic monastic setting.’8 Davis approaches the work of Shenoute with an eye to identifying how Cyril’s and Dioscorus’ Miaphysite Chris- tologies have been used and applied by Shenoute. Thus, the starting point of Davis’ exposition of Shenoute’s Christology is a Miaphysite reading of Cyril’s Christology. For Davis, a ‘Cyrillian’ influence means that one defends a Miaphysite Christology. In his discussion of Shenoute, these two things are conflated into one argument: a demonstrable Cyrillian influence coalesces with a Miaphysite Christology. I do not share this equation, and would argue that the ‘one nature formula’ is not central to Cyril’s thought.9 Thus, a Cyrillian influence does not automatically entail a Miaphysite Christology. Hence, these two aspects – Cyrillian influence and a Miaphysite reading of Shenoute – need to be approached separately. On my own terms, therefore, disproving the ‘Mia physite claim’ does not automatically mean there is no Cyrillian influence: a Cyrillian influence is not necessarily tied to a Miaphysite Christology. Since I want to disprove the ‘Miaphysite claim’ and at least nuance the ‘Cyrillian influence’ claim, I will deal with both of these arguments independently and not use the latter to argue for the former or vice versa. Davis’ goal is to show how Shenoute ‘reappropriated the work and legacy of early Alexandrian theologians.’10 He argues that Shenoute follows Atha- nasius and Theophilus meticulously in his denunciation of Arianism and
7 Ibid., p. 31. Cf. ibid., p. 48, pp. 50-51 and p. 53. 8 Ibid., p. 59. 9 Cf. van Loon, The Dyophysite Christology of Cyril of Alexandria (see n. 5), pp. 518- 530. 10 Davis, Coptic Christology (see n. 6), p. 61. 156 Johannes J. Knecht
Origenism but Cyril in his fight against Nestorius.11 Shenoute’s and Cyril’s Christology resemble each other greatly, Davis posits.12 They both (I) defend one nature in Christ, (II) apply the soul-body analogy, (III) reference the same Scriptural passages in their arguments, and (IV) protect the θεοτόκος. Although the evidence for the influence of Athanasius and Theophilus on Shenoute is quite convincing, I do question Davis’ conclusions concerning the relationship between Cyril and Shenoute. In this paper I will set out to nuance the claim that Shenoute has a par- ticularly strong Christological dependency on Cyril. The paper will suggest that Shenoute’s Christology is indeed strongly influenced by the Alexandrian patriarchs, but that Shenoute’s Christological discourses are not more ‘Cyril- lian’ than that they are, for instance, ‘Athanasian.’ One can surely identify some aspects of Shenoute’s arguments that clearly originate in the thought of Cyril of Alexandria alone – mainly the use of the soul-body analogy – but I will argue that the main thrust of Shenoute’s argument is more in line with a generally Alexandrian theological scheme, shared by patriarchs from Atha- nasius up to Cyril. To be sure, my aim will not be to disprove the similarities with the theology of Cyril, but rather to show that those aspects in Shenoute’s thought that Stephen J. Davis calls ‘Cyrillian’ are in fact broadly Alexan- drian, i.e. also seen and found in the thought of Athanasius of Alexandria and Theophilus of Alexandria. Second, I will argue, contrary to the majority view, that Shenoute’s Christology cannot be termed Miaphysite. For the sake of clarity: one has to distinguish between two aspects in the relationship of Cyril’s thought and Shenoute’s work. The first aspect can be described as a formal ‘party association.’ Post-Ephesus, and to an even larger extent post-Chalcedon, one had to be associated with the theology of Cyril and simultaneously oppose Nestorius, if one wanted to be considered ‘orthodox.’ As such, there is an inherent link between the opposition to Nestorius and the following of Cyril. By this logic, however, all anti-Nestorian-arguments are, in a way, Cyrillian. When approaching the Cyril-Shenoute relationship from this rather unhelpful formal aspect, one obviously has to conclude
11 Ibid., pp. 64-67. Cf. David Brakke and Andrew Crislip, introduction [of Part I] to Selected Discourses of Shenoute the Great: Community, Theology, and Social Conflict in Late Antique Egypt (Cambridge, UK, 2015), pp. 27-34, on p. 29. 12 Davis, Coptic Christology (see n. 6), pp. 67-76. The Alexandrian Christology of Shenoute of Atripe 157
Shenoute is a Cyrillian and not a Nestorian. Conversely, the second aspect is a more helpful way of framing and approaching the question. Accepting that Shenoute follows Cyril, contra Nestorium, in a broad and general way, as every thinker post-Ephesus attempts to do, is there an influence of Cyril’s actual mode of arguing on the thought of Shenoute? To put it succinctly: is Shenoute making a Cyrillian argument in a Cyrillian manner? Concerning the ‘Cyrillian influence’ claim, the following study will focus on this second aspect: the actual way in which Shenoute’s argument might relate to the work of Cyril.
1.1 Shenoute’s Sources Fundamental to evaluating the credibility of the ‘Cyrillian influence claim’ is the question of which patriarchal writings might have been available to Shenoute: what might he have read? Shenoute’s monastery had an astound- ing collection of writings.13 It is therefore safe to assume Shenoute probably had access to the main writings of his patriarchs, but again the question arises: which ones precisely? Hans-Joachim Cristea analyses the explicitly mentioned and quoted texts in Contra Origenistas.14 In this treatise, Shenoute quotes a line from Athanasius’ 39th festal letter, the first Oratio contra Arianos, and probably the Epistula ad Virgines. Theophilus’ 16th festal letter (401 CE) is most likely completely15 quoted immediately following Shenoute’s own words.16 In addition to these explicitly attested writings in Contra Origenistas, Shenoute probably had a broader knowledge of Athanasius’ and Theophilus’ work. Since Shenoute became the head of the federation around the time of Theophilus’ enthronement and quotes the whole 16th festal letter, it is
13 Hany Takla, ‘Biblical Manuscripts of the Monastery of St. Shenoute the Archimandrite’, in Christianity and Monasticism in Upper Egypt, eds. Gawdat Gabra and Hany Takla (Cairo, 2008), pp. 155-167, on pp. 155-156. 14 Hans-Joachim Cristea, introduction [‘Einleitung 2’] to Schenute von Atripe: Contra Origenistas, Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum, 60 (Tübingen, 2011), pp. 43- 110, on pp. 66-109. 15 There is a 16 page lacuna at the place where Shenoute’s work stops and Theophilus’ letter starts. 16 Contra Origenistas or I Am Amazed consists of two parts, (I) Shenoute’s own polemic and (II) Theophilus’ 16th festal letter. 158 Johannes J. Knecht reasonable to assume Shenoute had access to, or had read, Theophilus’ other festal letters. Concerning Athanasius’ work, we can reasonably assume that besides the explicitly attested writings, Shenoute probably had knowledge of the second and third Orationes contra Arianos and De Incarnatione. These texts were well known and central to the anti-Arian polemic in the fourth century.17 Furthermore, Cyril writes just before quoting Oratio III in his first letter to the monks in Egypt (Epistula 1, Epistula ad Monachos), that Athanasius, ‘when he composed for us his work concerning the holy and consubstantial Trinity, in the third book from the beginning to the end, called the Holy Virgin the Mother of God.’18 Cyril assumes the work he is referring to is known by the recipients. On a balance of probabilities, it is likely Shenoute knew these Athanasian texts. Athanasius’ Epistula ad Epictetus, although a personal letter, gained wide notoriety when Cyril quoted it a few times in a public address at the council of Ephesus.19 The matter is further complicated when we turn to the work and thought of Nestorius and Cyril Shenoute might have known. Shenoute never quotes Cyril in the Christological treatises under our consideration but repeatedly quotes Nestorius. What did Shenoute know of Nestorius’ work? Did he sim- ply take quotes from the work of Cyril or did he have another source? Cristea affirms Shenoute’s presence at the council of Ephesus, but thinks, when speak- ing of the Nestorian polemics and Shenoute’s knowledge of Nestorius’ work, Nestorius’ banishment to Panopolis is far more significant. Cristea mentions a tradition that speaks of a moment during this banishment in which Nestorius visits Shenoute and asks him to take care of his estate (Besitz) after death.20
17 Frances M. Young and Andrew Teal, From Nicaea to Chalcedon: A Guide to the Literature and Its Background, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI, 2010), p. 61. 18 St. Cyril of Alexandria, Letters 1-50, ed. and transl. L.I. McEnerney, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, D.C., 1985), p. 16. 19 Cf. McGuckin, Saint Cyril of Alexandria (see n. 5), pp. 379-89. Shenoute most probably attended Ephesus: Caroline T. Schroeder, ‘Monastic Bodies: Discipline and Salvation in Shenoute of Atripe’, in Divinations: Rereading Late Ancient Religion, eds. Daniel Boyarin, et al. (Philadelphia, PA, 2007), p. 6. Grillmeier, Jesus der Christus, vol. II/4 (see n. 3), pp. 178- 179. Davis, Coptic Christology (see n. 6), p. 63. Hugo Lundhaug, ‘Shenoute’s Heresiologi- cal Polemics and its Context(s),’ in Invention, Rewriting, Usurpation: Discursive Fights over Religious Traditions in Antiquity, eds. Jörg Ulrich, et al., Early Christianity in the Context of Antiquity, 11 (Frankfurt, 2012), pp. 239-261, on pp. 241-242. 20 Cristea, introduction to Shenute von Atripe (see n. 14), p. 84. The Arabic Vita, Makarius of Tkōw, and a section in the ‘Coptic Church History’ all attest to this encounter in Egypt. The Alexandrian Christology of Shenoute of Atripe 159
In light of this, Cristea concludes: ‘Eine persönliche Begegnung der beiden erscheint gut möglich.’21 This possible encounter in Egypt could explain why Shenoute gives quotes of Nestorius thrice that are not found in Cyril’s work.22 Both the historical aspect of this encounter in Egypt and the demonstrable broader awareness of Nestorius’ work show that Shenoute had knowledge of Nestorius, and perhaps even his writings in concreto, outside Cyril’s writ- ings associated with the Nestorius-Cyril debate. The majority of Shenoute’s Nestorius-quotes, however, have some resemblance – though not more than this – with the Nestorius-quotes in Cyril’s Adversus Nestorium. Hence, Cristea does not work under the assumption that Shenoute took the Nestorius-quotes directly from the work of Cyril; he compares Cyril and Shenoute on their respective interaction with the same quote.23 Based on this, we could conclude that Shenoute probably knew some of Nestorius’ thought through the work of Cyril but that his knowledge of Nestorius’ thinking was not confined to Cyril’s reiterations of Nestorius’ theology.24 Since Shenoute does not quote or mention Cyril in his Christological work, reconstructing which texts Shenoute might have known is more chal- lenging. Because of the substantial overlap in Nestorius-quotes with Cyril’s
21 Ibid. 22 One of these quotes resembles a Nestorius-quote in Marius Mercator, a second one has not been found in any other source, the third resembles a Nestorius-quote from the proceed- ings of the council of Ephesus. Cf. respectively Cristea, introduction to Shenute von Atripe (see n. 14), pp. 98-99; p. 90; p. 92. There might be a fourth instance of a quote not taken from Cyril. Cyril does mention this piece of Nestorius’ thought, but not in a writing (ep. 23 to Komarius, Potamon, Timothy, and Eulogius) that naturally would have been known by Shenoute. Besides Cyril, the quote is also found in ‘Theodotus of Ancyra’ and ‘Socrates of Constantinople.’ Ibid., pp. 95-96. 23 E.g. Cristea, introduction to Shenute von Atripe (see n. 14), p. 92 n. 246: ‘Auch Cyrill [like Shenoute] übernimmt die diesbezügliche Formulierung des Nestorius τὸν ταῖς τοῦ Θωμᾶ ψηλαφηθέντα χερσί (Cyr. Nest. 5,6 [ACO I 1,6, p. 103,12/p. 104-5]) ohne sie zu korrigieren.’ On p. 95 Critea says: ‘Gemäß dem Zeugnis des Cyrill hat Schenute Nestorius sinngemäß richtig zitiert.’ And again, on p. 97: ‘Shenoute (oder seine Quelle) hat den Satz des Nestorius durch den Zusatz dahingehend verändert […].’ 24 Timbie similarly concludes: ‘Shenoute attended the Council of Ephesus, but when he produced this discourse [Contra Origenistas] some ten to fifteen years later, he seems to have relied on a file of Nestorian material (just as he relied on the festal letter of 401…).’ Janet A. Timbie, ‘Reading and Rereading Shenoute’s “I Am Amazed”: More Information on Nestorius and Others’, in The World of Early Egyptian Christianity: Language Literature, and Social Context, eds. James E. Goehring and Janet A. Timbie, CUA Studies in Early Christianity (Washington, D.C., 2007), pp. 61-71, on p. 70. 160 Johannes J. Knecht
Adversus Nestorium, I will assume Shenoute probably knew this text or had access to it. Additionally, Shenoute probably knew Cyril’s festal letters, the Epistula ad Monachos (ep. 1),25 and the second and third letters to Nestorius (ep. 4 and ep. 17).26 There are no other letters or writings whose contexts, addressees, or moments of public reading would suggest Shenoute would have known them.
2. shenoute’s Christology
2.1 Contra Nestorium
Shenoute is far from silent on the doctrine of Christology, and is concerned with how to deal with – in very basic terms – the divinity and humanity of Christ. In Shenoute’s three main texts dealing with Christology, Contra Origen- istas or I Am Amazed (c. AD 445),27 And It Happened One Day (c. AD 455),28 and When the Word Says,29 Shenoute quite extensively discusses the relation of Christ’s humanity and divinity. In Contra Origenistas the polemic is directly pointed to Nestorius, who is quoted regularly. At first, Shenoute’s arguments against Nestorius in Contra Origenistas focus on the pre-existence of the Son of God in relation to the fleshly birth
25 This letter was addressed to the monastic communities in Egypt when Shenoute was abbot. 26 Both were read at the council of Ephesus. 27 This paper has used three translations of Shenoute’s I Am Amazed or Contra Origenistas: Cristea’s German translation, and the English translations given by Davis in his Coptic Christology in Practice (see n. 6) on the one hand, and by Brakke and Crislip, in Selected Discourses (see n. 11) on the other. Besides this, Cristea’s Coptic edition is used whenever references in Coptic are made. As a rule, when Shenoute’s I Am Amazed is quoted in the main text, I will use the translation of Brakke and Crislip, unless explicitly mentioned the quote is taken from Davis’ work. All three of these works consist of translated primary material and analyses by the translators. For a helpful article on some lexical and codico- logical improvements to the first translation of I Am Amazed by Tito Orlandi see Timbie, ‘Reading and Rereading,’ (see n. 24) pp. 64-71. Cf. Tito Orlandi, Contra Origenistas: testo con introduzione e traduzione, Corpus dei manoscritti Copti letterari (Rome, 1985). 28 Shenoute, And It Happened One Day, trans. Davis, in Coptic Christology (see n. 6), pp. 286-289. 29 Shenoute, When the Word Says, trans. Davis, in Coptic Christology (see n. 6), pp. 289- 291. The Alexandrian Christology of Shenoute of Atripe 161 from Mary.30 Nestorius is not yet mentioned by name, but Shenoute quotes someone who said: Mary bore ‘Christ’ and not ‘God.’31 This quote undoubt- edly indicates the church-wide θεοτόκος vs χριστοτόκος debate with Nestorius. χριστοτόκος is the term Nestorius proposed to settle a debate in his diocese between those who wanted to confess that Mary was solely ἀνθρωποτόκος (bearer of a man) and those who were set on using Mary’s traditional title, θεοτόκος (bearer of God). Nestorius argued both terms could be used in an orthodox way, if explained correctly, but that χριστοτόκος would be the less ambiguous term and more biblical in nature.32 In these beginning sections of the polemic, Shenoute aims to show that the one who was born of Mary (Gal 4:4) is also the one who existed with the Father before anything was made (Jn 1:3; 18:28; 20:21). Jesus Christ is both man and the eternal Logos. Because of this mysterious union, the one born of Mary is truly (I) the eternal God, who was before creation, but also (II) fully human. Shenoute describes this paradox in relation to Mary thusly: ‘Mary – his mother according to divine economy and his servant [ⲧⲉϥϩⲙϩⲁⲗ]33 according to his divinity.’34 In this small section, anti-Arian arguments are connected with – or intermingle with – anti-Nestorian arguments: in the union, established in Mary’s womb, the eternal Son of God, through whom every- thing was created, became man whilst remaining completely divine.35
30 Shenoute, Contra Origenistas, trans. and ed. Cristea, in Schenute von Atripe (see n. 14), pp. 186-190, pp. 264-265 (§§450-63). Shenoute, I Am Amazed, trans. Brakke and Crislip, in Selected Discourses (see n. 11), pp. 72-73. 31 Shenoute, Contra Origenistas, trans. Cristea, in Schenute von Atripe (see n. 14), pp. 186- 187, p. 264 (§451). Shenoute, I Am Amazed, trans. Brakke and Crislip, in Selected Dis- courses (see n. 11), p. 72. 32 Young, From Nicaea to Chalcedon (see n. 17), pp. 292-293. 33 Shenoute, Contra Origenistas, ed. Cristea, in Schenute von Atripe (see n. 14), p. 189. 34 Shenoute, I Am Amazed, trans. Brakke and Crislip, in Selected Discourses (see n. 11), p. 73. Shenoute, Contra Origenistas, trans. and ed. Cristea, in Schenute von Atripe (see n. 14), p. 189, p. 265 (§461). Cf. And It Happened One Day. Shenoute, And It Happened One Day, trans. Davis, in Coptic Christology (see n. 6), p. 287: ‘According to the economy she is his mother; according to his exalted divinity, she is his servant.’ L. Th. Lefort, ‘Caté- chèse christologique de Chenoute’, Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache, 80 (1955), pp. 40-45, on p. 44: ‘Selon une “economie” … est sa servante.’ Cf. Davis, Coptic Christology (see n. 6), p. 74. 35 A similar argument is made in And It Happened One Day. Shenoute, And It Happened One Day, trans. Davis, in Coptic Christology (see n. 6), p. 286-287. Lefort, ‘Catéchèse christologique de Chenoute’ (see n. 34) pp. 43-44. 162 Johannes J. Knecht
Shenoute posits that Nestorius believed Christ ‘“is a man in whom God dwells,” and [that] “after he was born of Mary, the Word entered him.’”36 In And It Happened One Day, Shenoute writes about Nestorius’ theology: ‘But Nestorius himself […] said “she who gave birth to a good man,” likening him to Moses, David and the others.’37 Davis elucidates that Shenoute, in his last quote, changes Nestorius’ χριστοτόκος to χρηστοτόκος.38 A χρηστός can be translated as ‘a good man.’ With his statement that Nestorius affirms Mary is a χρηστοτόκος, Shenoute implies Nestorius holds to the more radical ‘ἀνθρωποτόκος.’ Stating Nestorius thought Mary was χρηστοτόκος can either be a smart rhetorical strategy or a clear sign Shenoute is not very well aware of Nestorius’ theology. As mentioned above, Shenoute knows the debate cen- tered on the question of whether Mary bore a ‘Christ’ or a ‘God.’39 One should therefore acknowledge Shenoute most probably knew Nestorius used the term χριστοτόκος, and not χρηστοτόκος. However, Shenoute does misrepresent Nestorius’ thought and seems to understand it along χρηστοτόκος lines – Jesus was merely a blessed man whom the Logos entered. The most likely situation is that Shenoute used the pun following a certain, erroneous understanding of Nestorius’ theology. Formally Shenoute knows Nestorius defends the χριστο- τόκος, but at the same time he thinks Nestorius defended that the Logos entered a χρηστός after birth.
36 Shenoute, I Am Amazed, trans. Brakke and Crislip, in Selected Discourses (see n. 11), 73. Cf. Shenoute, Contra Origenistas, trans. and ed. Cristea, in Schenute von Atripe (see n. 14), p. 190, p. 266 (§464): ‘[…] nachdem er aus Maria geboren wurde.’ 37 Shenoute, And It Happened One Day, trans. Davis, in Coptic Christology (see n. 6), p. 288. Lefort, ‘Catéchèse christologique,’ (see n. 34) p. 45. In Cyril’s letter ‘To the Monks in Egypt,’ he compares Moses to Christ akin to what Shenoute is doing here. There is a small difference though. Shenoute says that Nestorius claims that Christ was merely a blessed man like Moses, whilst Cyril uses Moses as an example of the result of Nestorius’ instrumental-Christological claims. St. Cyril of Alexandria: Letters 1-50 (see n. 18), pp. 28-30. Cf. On the Unity of Christ: Cyril of Alexandria, Popular Patristics Series, 13, trans. John A. McGuckin (Crestwood, NY, 1995), p. 69. 38 Davis, Coptic Christology (see n. 6), p. 288 n. 71. A similar point is made by James Bethune-Baker, Nestorius and his Teaching; a Fresh Examination of the Evidence: With Spe- cial Reference to the Newly Recovered Apology of Nestorius (The Bazaar of Heraclides) (Cam- bridge, 1908), pp. 43-44. 39 Shenoute, Contra Origenistas, trans. and ed. Cristea, in Schenute von Atripe (see n. 14), p. 186, p. 264 (§451). The Alexandrian Christology of Shenoute of Atripe 163
Shenoute’s reiteration of Nestorius takes the form of a kind of Adop- tionism – the Logos came to the son born of Mary after birth.40 The ‘indwell- ing’ language found in the work of Nestorius is probably not problematic in itself – Cyril uses it also – but in connection with an adoptionistic under- standing of Nestorius’ theology it might imply a loose connection between humanity and divinity.41 All in all, Shenoute’s aforementioned representation of Nestorius’ thought is poor. This underpins Hugo Lundhaug’s conclusion that Shenoute uses Nestorius mainly for rhetorical purposes and not to con- tribute to the larger anti-Nestorian debate. According to Lundhaug, Shenoute ‘seems to be using references to these heresiarchs as rhetorical weapons in a battle against various opponents closer at hand, using references to the infa- mous heresiarchs to brand by association certain opinions and tendencies among his local opponents […].’42 One can conclude that in Shenoute’s direct context ideas circulated akin to Nestorius’ theology, or that Shenoute reacted against the physical closeness of Nestorius in exile. These observations are also in clear agreement with Samuel Moawad’s statement: ‘Most of the monks were not theologians and did not try to be. They could not and did not try to access the theological sources, for the majority of them could not understand the Greek language.’43 The main goal and role of the monks was ‘to support their patriarchs.’44 Cyril, in his Epistula ad Monachos and reacting to the growing Christological rumblings, writes that he does not expect his monks to be concerned with these questions on a highly educated level.
It would be better for you to pay no attention at all to such inquiries and not at all to dig up difficult questions which are seen, as it were in a mirror and are a puzzle for keen minds and trained intellects. For the finer distinctions of specu- lations transcend the comprehension of the less instructed. [Though I know that
40 Grillmeier has a similar observation. Grillmeier, Jesus der Christus, vol. II/4 (see n. 3), p. 215. 41 Letters 1.23 and 5.8: St. Cyril of Alexandria: Letters 1-50 (see n. 18), p. 29 and pp. 46-47. 42 Lundhaug, ‘Shenoute’s Heresiological Polemics,’ (see n. 19) pp. 259-60. 43 Samuel Moawad, ‘The Relationship of St. Shenoute of Atripe with His Contemporary Patriarchs of Alexandria’, in Christianity and Monasticism in Upper Egypt, eds. Gawdat Gabra and Hany Takla (Cairo, 2008), pp. 107-120, on p. 108. 44 Ibid., p. 112. 164 Johannes J. Knecht
some will nevertheless pry]. Hence, I thought it necessary to say some few words to you concerning these matters. I do not intend this that you may have a great battle of words.45
Cyril wants the monks to know how to react when they do encounter these heresies, but not to be reacting to the ‘finer distinctions.’ Keeping these con- siderations in mind, Shenoute’s somewhat careless reiteration of Nestorius’ theology is exactly what one could expect of one having this supporting role. The point is not that Shenoute would be incapable of understanding the sub- tleties of Nestorius’ arguments. Rather, it is simply not Shenoute’s task to rebut these false doctrines on a theologically technical level. His task is merely to disagree with Nestorius and argue along the lines of his patriarch.
2.2 One Nature There has been a strong current in academic research on Shenoute that reads him as being an ardent defender of Cyril’s and/or Dioscorus’ ‘Miaphysite’ Christology. Over a century ago, Bethune-Baker writes in his book on Nestorius: ‘[Shenoute] was as violent a champion of Dioscorus as he had been of Cyril, and refused to accept the decisions of the council of Chalcedon.’46 G.T. Stokes, a contemporary of Bethune-Baker, writes in the Dictionary of Christian Biography: ‘Senuti lived to be a heretic in the opposite extreme from Nestorius. After the council of Chalcedon he became a Monophysite and a violent partisan of the patriarch Dioscorus of Alexandria.’ 47 Neither Stokes nor Bethune-Baker present any theological evidence for their assertions. They do refer to the 1883 work of Revillout in the Revue de l’histoire des religions, but Revillout does not give any theological evidence there either for a Miaphysite reading.48 For Revillout, and later also Grillmeier, the association of Shenoute with the Miaphysite tradition is based in the fact that Shenoute had a good personal relationship with Cyril and post-Cyrillian Miaphysite thinkers.
45 Letter 1.4: St. Cyril of Alexandria: Letters 1-50 (see n. 18), p. 15. 46 Bethune-Baker, Nestorius and his Teaching (see n. 38), p. 43 (n. 2). 47 G.T. Stokes, ‘Senuti’, in Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature to the End of the Sixth Century A.D.: With an Account of the Principal Sects and Heresies, ed. Henry Wace (Grand Rapids, MI, 2007), pp. 888-889. 48 E. Revillout, ‘Les origines du schisme égyptien’ (see n. 3) pp. 401-467 and pp. 545- 581. The Alexandrian Christology of Shenoute of Atripe 165
A century later, this Miaphysite conception of Shenoute’s Christology is still prevalent. According to Davis, Shenoute defends, completely in line with Davis’ understanding of Cyril’s Christology,49 that there is only ‘one nature’ in the person of Christ. The evidence he presents for this conclusion is a small passage in Contra Origenistas (§805-6), in which Shenoute explains his inter- pretation of Jn 10:30.50 Shenoute writes (Davis’ translation is used):
Listen to the Lord when he says, “I and the Father, we are one.” For when he says, “I and the Father,” he reveals the hypostases. But when he says, “We are one,” he indicates the oneness of his nature, because it is a single essence which is consub- stantial.51
Shenoute follows this phrase up, in his explanation of Jn 14:28,52 with the affirmation that the Father and the Son share ‘a single glory, a single honour, and a single nature.’53 On Davis’ telling, this interpretation ‘correlates Cyril’s doctrine of the one nature of the incarnate Word with the Nicene doctrine of the common essence the Word shares with the Father.’54 Davis calls this Shenoute’s ‘defence of a “one-nature” Christology.’55 The following will show that on many levels this is a problematic reading of this particular passage. Furthermore, the conclusion Davis derives from this interpretation is at odds with the rest of the available corpus of Shenoute.56
49 Cf. Davis, Coptic Christology (see n. 6), p. 48. 50 NA28: ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν. 51 Shenoute, I Am Amazed, trans. Davis, in Coptic Christology (see n. 6), p. 284. The Coptic in Cristea’s work gives: ⲧⲙⲛⲧⲟⲩⲁ Ⲛⲧⲉϥⲫⲩⲥⲓⲥ (the oneness of his nature): Shenoute, Contra Origenistas, ed. Cristea, in Schenute von Atripe (see n. 14), p. 208. Cf. Shenoute, I Am Amazed, trans. Brakke and Crislip, in Selected Discourses (see n. 11), p. 79. Shenoute, Contra Origenistas, trans. Cristea, in Schenute von Atripe (see n. 14), p. 275 (§§805-6). 52 NA28: ὁ πατὴρ μείζων μού ἐστιν. 53 Shenoute, I Am Amazed, trans. Davis, in Coptic Christology (see n. 6), p. 284. Cf. Shenoute, Contra Origenistas, trans. and ed. Cristea, in Schenute von Atripe (see n. 14), pp. 208-9, pp. 275-6 (§§805-9): ‘Sie mögen erkennen, daß es ein und dieselbe Herrlich- keit ist, ein und derselbe Ruhm, ein und dieselbe Natur des Vaters und des Sohnes.’ 54 Davis, Coptic Christology (see n. 6), p. 69. 55 Ibid., p. 70. 56 Grillmeier discusses this passage on Jn 10:30 also, but he does not make an argument similar to Davis’. Grillmeier only ponders the level of Shenoute’s familiarity with the 166 Johannes J. Knecht
Nothing in the immediate context57 of the passage deals with Christology or mentions Nestorius by name.58 There is no description or hint – either in positive or negative terms – of how to conceive of the relation of humanity and divinity in Christ. Shenoute stresses the equality of Father and Son, and, in light of this, reaffirms Nicaea’s dictum: the homoousion. The following discussion of the generation of the Son by the Father is completely in line with this purely anti-Arian polemic, which is again underlined by Shenoute’s appeal to ‘Apa Athanasius.’ Athanasius himself, in the third Oratio contra Arianos, posits:
“I and the Father are One,” (and) he [Jesus] added, “I in the Father and the Father in Me,” by way of shewing the identity of Godhead and the unity of Essence. For they are one, not as one thing divided into two parts, and these nothing but one, nor as one thing twice named, […]. But They are two, because the Father is Father and is not also Son, and the Son is Son and not also Father; but the nature is one; […] and all that is the Father’s, is the Son’s.59
The similarities between Athanasius’ words and the aforementioned work of Shenoute are obvious. Both connect Christ’s saying in Jn 10:30 with the Nicaean affirmation that the Father and the Son are of the same essence and have a single nature. Shenoute’s comments concerning the ‘we are one’ and the ‘oneness of nature’ in Jn 10:30 should therefore be read along the lines
fourth-century Trinitarian dicta of Nicaea and Constantinople. Grillmeier, Jesus der Christus, vol. II/4 (see n. 3), p. 187. 57 The passage (§805-808) falls in a section (§§800-826) following an 8 page lacuna in the manuscript and ends abruptly due to a following 16 page lacuna (Shenoute, Contra Origeni- stas, trans. and ed. Cristea, in Schenute von Atripe (see n. 14), pp. 275-279). For other translations of this section see Shenoute, I Am Amazed, trans. Davis, in Coptic Christology (see n. 6), pp. 283-286 or Shenoute, I Am Amazed, trans. Brakke and Crislip, in Selected Discourses (see n. 11), pp. 79-81. 58 Davis does see a ‘Christological turn’ directly following Shenoute’s exposition of Jn 10:30/14:28, but subsequent parts will show that this is not a turn to Christology. 59 Orationes contra Arianos Discourse III.4: Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria: Select Writings and Letters, ed. and trans. Archibald Robertson, A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church (hereafter as NPNF), 2.4, eds. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (Edinburgh-Grand Rapids, 1891 (1998 reprint)), p. 395. Athanasius also uses Jn 10:30 to make a similar Trinitarian argument in the Second Oratio contra Arianos: Athanasius, Orationes contra Arianos, Discourse II.33, NPNF, 2.4, p. 366. Athanasius, De Decretum §24, NPNF, 2.4, p. 166. Cf. Ps.-Athanasius, Discourse IV.2. The Alexandrian Christology of Shenoute of Atripe 167 of Athanasius’ Oratio: the divine nature is undivided and the Son’s divinity should therefore not be seen as different or distinct from the Father’s divinity. There is one divine nature existing in three subsistences. Like the Athanasian passage, the passage on Jn 10:30 in Shenoute’s Contra Origenistas is purely Trinitarian in nature. The affirmation that there is ‘one nature’ in a Trinitarian context cannot and thus should not be transferred to an affirmation of ‘one nature’ in the person of Christ. The only possible link between this passage in Contra Origenistas and the Christological controversy is that some of the terms Shenoute uses here in a Trinitarian context (‘nature,’ ‘essence,’ and ‘hypostasis’) are also part of the terminological apparatus of the writers in the Christological controversy. This similarity however, does not provide the ground needed to argue that Shenoute makes a Christological argument here. Because the same terminology is used does not automatically mean the Trinitarian argument correlates with a Christological one. That Shenoute is not making a Christological argument becomes even more evident if one realises that Cyril also interprets Jn 10:30 as speaking of the intra-Trinitarian relation.60 In the third letter to Nestorius he explains:
When he talks of himself in terms appropriate to God: “He who has seen me has seen the Father’ and ‘The Father and I are one,” we understand his divine and inexpressible nature (τὴν θείαν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀπόρρητον ἐννοοῦμεν φύσιν) in virtue of which he is one with his Father by identity of substance, is image, stamp and effulgence of his Father’s glory.61
To Acacius of Melitene Cyril writes:
“[…] He who has seen me has seen the Father. I and the Father are one” – when he says this we maintain that the language applies most fittingly to God (θεοπρεπε- στάτην εἶναι διαβεβαιούμεθα τὴν φωνήν).62
60 For Cyril’s Trinitarian use of Jn 10:30 and Jn 14:28 cf. Marie-Odile Boulnois, Le para- doxe Trinitaire chez Cyrille d’Alexandrie: herméneutique, analyses philosophiques et argumen- tation théologique, Collection des études augustiniennes: Série antiquité, 143 (Paris, 1994), p. 87; p. 98 n. 199; p. 193; p. 206; p. 277; pp. 372-375; and pp. 537-538. 61 Cyril of Alexandria: Selected Letters, ed. and trans. Lionel R. Wickham (New York, 1983), pp. 22-25. Wickham gives both a translation and a critical Greek edition of the letters. 62 Cyril of Alexandria: Selected Letters (see n. 61), pp. 52-53. 168 Johannes J. Knecht
Lastly, in his ‘On the Creed’ Cyril explains:
“[…] He who has seen me has seen the Father. I and the Father are one.” Therefore the Son is consubstantial with the Father (οὐκοῦν ὁμοούσιος ὁ υἱὸς τῷ πατρί) and by that token too he is believed to have been begotten, true God of true God.63
In these three excerpts, Cyril shows that in his understanding Christ’s saying should be seen as denoting the intimacy of the intra-Trinitarian Father-Son relation. Cyril uses all ‘markers’ Davis sees in Shenoute (φύσις, ὁμοούσιος, ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ), but for Cyril this verse has no bearing on the relation of the two natures in Christ and he is very explicit about that fact. This Trinitarian use of Jn 10:30 becomes even clearer in another section of Cyril’s third letter to Nestorius. Cyril first describes the characteristics of the two distinct elements or natures in Christ: ‘The one Christ (εἷς καὶ μόνος Χριστός) [...] exists out of two differing elements (ἐκ δύο νοῆται).’64 Here- after, Cyril describes what is proper to Christ’s two distinct elements or natures. In this description, Cyril applies Jn 10:30 to define the character- istics of the divine nature, not taking its connection to Christ’s human nature into account. Theophilus of Alexandria, like Cyril, interprets Jn 10:30 in a similar vein in his 16th festal letter (AD 401), which is completely added to Contra Origenistas.65 One might be correct to argue that Cyril’s use of Jn 10:30 has some bearing on Christology since it describes one of Christ’s natures. However, for it to be in support of a Miaphysite reading it has to give an account of how that divine nature relates to the human nature, but it does not give such an account. In Cyril’s arguments, Jn 10:30 says nothing about how to think of the union of Christ’s natures. Thus, in line with Athanasius’ and Cyril’s use of Jn 10:30, we should read Shenoute’s passage in a Trinitarian and not a Christological light.
63 Ibid., pp. 104-105. 64 Ibid., pp. 22-23. 65 The beginning of Theophilus’ Festal in Contra Origenistas is lost due to a lacuna in the manuscript, but Cristea has translated this beginning from Jerome’s ep. 96. Hieronymus, Epistula 96.5: Cristea, Contra Origenistas (see n. 14), p. 281. Cf. Theophilus of Alexandria, trans. and ed. Norman Russell, The Early Church Fathers (London, England, 2007), pp. 103-104. The Alexandrian Christology of Shenoute of Atripe 169
Davis’ second reason, the first being the terminological correlation, for read- ing Shenoute’s anti-Arian explanations of Jn 10:30/14:28 as Miaphysite and Christological statements is found immediately following Shenoute’s exegesis of these verses.66 In that following section (§§809-17), Shenoute quotes some of his adversaries who ask the question: ‘How did the Father beget the Son?’67 He replies to them as follows:
Let these disrupters listen. His birth according to the flesh, which is possible for the wise and the whole Church of Christ to understand, was previously proclaimed by the angels, and announced as the good news by the Gospels and apostles. It was also indicated by the great patriarchs. But as for his begetting from the Father, no angels know it in order to proclaim it, nor prophets nor apostles nor any others at all in the whole creation except for him alone and his Father.68
Shenoute answers the prying question by first describing Christ’s birth in the flesh, which is knowable and attested by the one orthodox tradition: Scripture, the church, and the patriarchs. This quote brings Davis to conclude: ‘It is not surprising that this “christological turn” towards the Incarnation that Shenoute was advocating would inevitably bring him into more direct engagement with Nestorian opinions on the subject.’69 By the ‘more direct engagement with Nestorian opinions,’ Davis means Shenoute’s aforementioned allegedly Chris- tological explanations of Jn 10:30 and 14:28.
66 Shenoute, Contra Origenistas, trans. and ed. Cristea, in Schenute von Atripe (see n. 14), pp. 208-209, pp. 275-276 (§805-808). Shenoute, I Am Amazed, trans. Brakke and Crislip, in Selected Discourses (see n. 11), p. 79. 67 Shenoute, I Am Amazed, trans. Brakke and Crislip, in Selected Discourses (see n. 11), p. 79. Cf. Shenoute, Contra Origenistas, trans. and ed. Cristea, in Schenute von Atripe (see n. 14), pp. 209-210, p. 276 (§809): ‘Auf welche Weise zeugte der Vater den Sohn?’ 68 Shenoute, I Am Amazed, trans. Brakke and Crislip, in Selected Discourses (see n. 11), pp. 79-80. Cristea translates this section as follows: ‘Sie mögen hören, diese Unruhestifter, daß seine Geburt dem Fleische nach, die den Weisen und der ganzen Kirche Christi zu wissen möglich ist, zuerst von den Engeln verkündigt und von den Evangelien und den Aposteln als frohe Botschaft verbreitet wurde. Auch durch die großen Patriarchen wurde auf sie hingedeutet. Seine Zeugung aus dem Vater dagegen kennt kein Engel, […] noch ein Prophet, noch ein Apostel, noch überhaupt jemand […]. Es ist gottlos, wenn ein Mensch, zumal ein Häretiker danach forscht.’ Shenoute, Contra Origenistas, trans. and ed. Cristea, in Schenute von Atripe (see n. 14), pp. 209-210, p. 276 (§809-810). 69 Davis, Coptic Christology (see n. 6), p. 69. 170 Johannes J. Knecht
This section on the begetting of the Son, however, cannot be seen as a turn to Christology, nor as an introduction of Nestorian Christological polemics; the leitmotif is and remains Trinitarian and does not become Christological. Shenoute is not trying to make a Christological argument, as Davis argues,70 but is juxtaposing the fleshly origin of Christ with the eternal begetting of the Son by the Father. One is welcome to know and proclaim the former; the fleshly birth was perceivable – as is proven by its explicit proclamation in Scripture, by the church, and by the fathers – whilst the latter is mysterious and unknowable and should hence be left alone. Shenoute uses the fleshly birth here (§809) merely as a steppingstone for his main and much longer argument (§§810-7) concerning the intra-Trinitarian relation of Father and Son.71 Mentioning the birth in the flesh in the context of the begetting of the Son cannot be seen here as impetus or ground for a Christological interpre- tation of the verses from John. Again, Davis writes: ‘What is somewhat surprising – especially given Shenoute’s explicit appeal to the teaching of the “the great patriarchs” on the Incarnation – is the fact that Cyril of Alexandria is not mentioned by name in any of the three christological works examined in this chapter. […] Even where Cyril is unnamed, echoes of his voice remain audible in Shenoute’s anti-Nestorian polemic.’72 In light of our reading of the passage, Shenoute’s appeal to ‘the great patriarchs’ is not a reference to the Miaphys- ite Christology of a particular patriarch, but rather is – with the reference to the church and Scripture – a reaffirmation of the fact that one can know the events of the Incarnation, whereas the eternal begetting is and remains mysterious. Neither the linguistic argument nor the supposed contextual ‘Christological turn’ provide the evidence needed to support Davis’ claims. There is not one aspect of the explanation of Jn 10:30 or Jn 14:28 Shenoute presents that would support Davis’ association of this passage with a Cyrillian Miaphysite exposition of Christology. Furthermore, when one investigates the available
70 Ibid. 71 Shenoute, Contra Origenistas, trans. and ed. Cristea, in Schenute von Atripe (see n. 14), pp. 209-212, pp. 276-277 (§§809-817). Cf. Shenoute, I Am Amazed, trans. Brakke and Crislip, in Selected Discourses (see n. 11), pp. 79-80. 72 Davis, Coptic Christology (see n. 6), pp. 69-70. The Alexandrian Christology of Shenoute of Atripe 171 corpus of Shenoute at large, no Miaphysite tendencies can be found. In Contra Origenistas, Shenoute uses the term ⲫⲩⲥⲓⲥ six times: three times in the aforementioned passage; once, §326, in a quote from Arius – the Son is not the ‘Son of God’ by nature; once in §472 (the divine nature did not die); and once in §390 to denote the human nature in general. The term ⲟⲩⲥⲒⲁ is used thrice, all explicit reaffirmations of the homoousion (§§332, 804, and 806). ϩⲩⲡⲟⲥⲧⲁⲥⲓⲥ is only mentioned in §806, and ‘prosopon’ is not used at all. In his other writings, Shenoute sporadically utilises these terms, but never in a Christological manner that would allow for a conclusion such as that of Davis.73 Neither the reading of §§805-17 in Contra Origenistas, nor Shenoute’s use of the technical terms in his wider corpus warrants the con- clusion that Shenoute is a Miaphysite thinker. Even though this particular passage on Jn 10:30 cannot be tied to the Christological controversy, Shenoute does discuss and rebut Nestorius quite extensively elsewhere, as we have discussed above. However, in the context of this Nestorian polemic he uses the term ‘nature’ only once, and not to defend Cyril’s alleged ‘one nature’ Christology.74 It would be an argumentum ad igno- rantiam to conclude, based on the lack of technical terminology, that Shenoute does not think the ‘one nature’ formula is correct. However, this lack of tech- nical terminology in a passage written around 445 and dealing explicitly with Christology and Nestorius is at least telling.
73 ‘Nature’ is used in Ad Philosophium Gentilem (18), Leipoldt ed., CSCO 42, p. 49.10/ Wiesmann trans., CSCO 96, 25.9; Leipoldt ed., CSCO 42, p. 51.9/Wiesmann trans., CSCO 96, p. 26.21; Adversus Saturnum I (23), Leipoldt ed., CSCO 42, p. 77.23/Wiesmann trans., CSCO 96, p. 43.2; De Hominibus Malis (44), Leipoldt ed., CSCO 42, p. 208.19/ Wiesmann trans., CSCO 96, p. 122.18; De Ecclesiarum Sanctitate (46), Leipoldt ed., CSCO 42, p. 216.4-5/Wiesmann trans., CSCO 96, p. 126.3; De Iudicio Finalis (47), Leipoldt ed., CSCO 42, pp. 219.20, 224.12, and 224.19/Wiesmann trans., CSCO 96, pp. 127.27, 130.11, and 130.16; De Vita Monachorum XX (73), Leipoldt ed., CSCO 73, pp. 112.24-25 and 113.2/Wiesmann trans., CSCO 108, pp. 67.15 and 67.17. ‘Essence’ in De Iudicio Finalis (47), Leipoldt ed., CSCO 42, p. 224.12/Wiesmann trans., CSCO 96, p. 130.11; De Vita Monachorum XXIII (76), Leipoldt ed., CSCO 73, p. 132.1/Wiesmann trans., CSCO 108, p. 79.18. ‘Prosopon’ in De Vita Monachorum XXI (74), Leipoldt ed., CSCO 73, p. 119.20. 74 Shenoute, Contra Origenistas, trans. and ed. Cristea, in Schenute von Atripe (see n. 14), pp. 193-194, p. 268 (§472). Shenoute, I Am Amazed, trans. Brakke and Crislip, in Selected Discourses (see n. 11), p. 74. 172 Johannes J. Knecht
2.3 The Undivided Christ & the Soul-Body Analogy As was shown above, Shenoute’s explanation of Nestorius’ theology is poor. Even though Shenoute’s reiteration of Nestorius’ thought is not completely fair, the problem in Nestorius’ thought Shenoute tries to address is in line with the main critiques of Nestorius’ Christology: Nestorius divides the humanity from the divinity in Christ. According to Shenoute, Nestorius says that ‘it is the flesh that cries out against the divinity, “Why have you abandoned me?” and “The divinity ascended to the height and he left the flesh on the cross.”’75 Nestorius argues that what is said of the humanity cannot be said of the divin- ity and should be attributed to the humanity only.76 He is adamant that Cyril’s Christology implies divine passibility, an implication which Nestorius is understandably unwilling to concede. Nestorius himself writes:
Look closely, […], and you will find that the inspired chorus of the Fathers has not said that the consubstantial divinity is able to suffer, nor that divinity, coeternal with the Father, was begotten, nor that divinity rose from the dead when raising his destroyed temple.77
This belief forces Nestorius to argue that the divinity could have had no part in Jesus Christ’s dying and crying out to the Father. Shenoute counters these claims by appealing to Scripture. In Scripture, it becomes evident that the Logos is the one who became incarnate (1 Jn 1), of whom – the Logos incar- nate – it is said that he was crucified (Rev 3:15), who cried out to the Father while dying (Mt 27:46), and who was pierced (Jn 19:37). Christ, being fully God and fully human, died and suffered in the flesh (1 Pet 4:1).78 Grillmeier is right in his observation that Shenoute in this passage seems to distinguish between the ‘subject’ and the ‘nature’ when speaking about Christ. ‘The divine subject suffers in the human nature,’ he posits.79 He
75 Shenoute, I Am Amazed, trans. Brakke and Crislip, in Selected Discourses (see n. 11), p. 74. Shenoute, Contra Origenistas, trans. and ed. Cristea, in Schenute von Atripe (see n. 14), p. 192, p. 268 (§469). 76 Shenoute, Contra Origenistas, trans. and ed. Cristea, in Schenute von Atripe (see n. 14), pp. 190-192, p. 267 (§464-8). 77 St. Cyril of Alexandria, Letters 1-50 (see n. 18), 44: Letter 5 – Nestorius to Cyril. 78 Shenoute, Contra Origenistas, trans. and ed. Cristea, in Schenute von Atripe (see n. 14), pp. 192-194, p. 268 (§§469-72). 79 Grillmeier, Jesus der Christus, vol. II/4 (see n. 3), p. 216. The Alexandrian Christology of Shenoute of Atripe 173 concludes this based on Shenoute’s statement that ‘not because the nature of the divinity (ⲫⲩⲥⲓⲥ Ⲛⲧⲙⲛⲧⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ) died, but in the flesh (ⲥⲁⲣⲝ) he died, as it is written: “As for Christ, he suffered in the flesh (1 Pet 4:1).”’80 This is, to my knowledge, the only time in Shenoute’s corpus that he utilises the term ⲫⲩⲥⲓⲥ (nature) in a technical way in the context of a Christo- logical argument, and he uses it here to denote the one divine nature of the Trinity. Jesus Christ, as subject of the crucifixion, and in whom the human- ity and divinity are undivided, died. It is not clear though whether Shenoute made this distinction between subject and nature intentionally or whether this way of speaking is the result of his closeness to Scripture combined with his knowledge of the basic Christian confession that Christ’s divinity and humanity should not be divided. In other words, is Shenoute’s distinction between subject and nature intentional or the result of his biblical mind-set? Although Jesus Christ died according to the flesh, Shenoute does place the centrality and origin of action – the ‘acting principle’ in Christ – with the second person of the Trinity, the Logos. This pre-eminence of the Logos in the union shows most clearly in the following two instances: ‘You see that it is the Word that has existed from the beginning whom they touched with the hand, and he is not simply a human like us.’81 Later Shenoute writes, in a passage dealing with the thought of Apollinaris: ‘Furthermore, it is the Word itself that became flesh (ⲥⲁⲣⲝ), and desiring thus to make clear that he truly became man (ⲣⲱⲙⲉ), he said to Mary: [quote Jn 20:17].’82 In his incarnate state, the Logos was completely like us (Heb 4:15). Shenoute does not shy away from acknowledging the true humanity of Christ, despite his affirmation of the pre-eminence of the Logos, as he writes that Jesus Christ was hungry and thirsty, that he cried, suffered, and was aggrieved.83
80 Shenoute, I Am Amazed, trans. Brakke and Crislip, in Selected Discourses (see n. 11), p. 74. Cf. Shenoute, Contra Origenistas, trans. and ed. Cristea, in Schenute von Atripe (see n. 14), p. 194, p. 268 (§472). Grillmeier, Jesus der Christus, vol. II/4 (see n. 3), p. 216. 81 Shenoute, I Am Amazed, trans. Brakke and Crislip, in Selected Discourses (see n. 11), p. 74. Cf. Shenoute, Contra Origenistas, trans. and ed. Cristea, in Schenute von Atripe (see n. 14), p. 194, p. 267 (§468). 82 Shenoute, I Am Amazed, trans. Brakke and Crislip, in Selected Discourses (see n. 11), p. 76. Cf. Shenoute, Contra Origenistas, trans. and ed. Cristea, in Schenute von Atripe (see n. 14), pp. 200-201, p. 271 (§492). 83 Shenoute, I Am Amazed, trans. Brakke and Crislip, in Selected Discourses (see n. 11), p. 74. Shenoute, Contra Origenistas, trans. and ed. Cristea, in Schenute von Atripe (see n. 14), pp. 194-195, p. 269 (§476). 174 Johannes J. Knecht
In the anti-Nestorian polemic in Contra Origenistas, two ideas are jux- taposed. On the one hand a way of speaking that divides (ⲉⲛϥⲡⲱⲣϫ)84 the humanity from the divinity, of which Nestorius is accused, and on the other hand a conception in which both are ‘not-divided.’ Shenoute does not use words like ‘union’ or ‘unity,’ but only describes this relation in negative terms. The right way of speaking is when one does not divide the humanity from the divinity. This juxtaposition can be seen as the central issue of the polemic and Shenoute’s way of judging whether a certain con- ception of Christ is correct. One divides the natures when he thinks that certain actions of Christ are done by one of Christ’s particular natures, or if he believes in a literal departure of the Logos from Christ when he was nailed to the cross. Shenoute does not discuss what the unity of Christ, or his ‘undividedness,’ entails exactly. He does ‘simply’ argue that whatever is said of Christ or attributed to him should be said of Jesus Christ as the Logos made flesh. This way of arguing for the undividedness of Christ’s divinity and human- ity has striking similarities with the Christology of Athanasius and Ps.- Athanasius. Like Shenoute, Athanasius and Ps.-Athanasius do not provide us with an explicit explanation of how one should think of the relation between Christ’s divinity and humanity. The only thing he strongly argues for is that one should think of them as united. The body of Christ is really his own and should in no way be described as separate from the divinity. The follow- ing comparison is intended to show that (I) Ps.-Athanasius, Athanasius and Shenoute are mainly concerned with the unity of Christ’s humanity and divinity without providing a precise metaphysical framework for it and (II) that both Ps.-Athanasius and Shenoute show a similar awareness of the mystery surrounding the impassible divinity and the passible humanity of Christ.
84 Shenoute, Contra Origenistas, trans. and ed. Cristea, in Schenute von Atripe (see n. 14), pp. 191-192, p. 267 (§466): ‘Ohne den Körper von der Gottheit zu trennen?’ §468: ‘ohne in irgendeiner Weise die Gottheit vom Körper getrennt zu haben.’ §472: ‘Ist docht die Gottheit nicht vom Körper getrennt, während er am Kreuz ist.’ Shenoute, I Am Amazed, trans. Brakke and Crislip, in Selected Discourses (see n. 11), p. 74. The Alexandrian Christology of Shenoute of Atripe 175
Shenoute, I Am Amazed Ps.-Athanasius, Oratio Contra Arianos IV 85 You see that it is the Word that has existed For as when a man heard ‘The Word became from the beginning whom they touched with flesh,’ he would not think that the Word ceased the hand, and he is not simply a human like to be, which is absurd, as has been said before, us. And also it was said about him, ‘They will so also hearing of the Word which has been look upon the one whom they have pierced,’ united to the flesh, let him understand the without the divinity having been separated at divine mystery one and simple. More clearly all from the body.86 however and indisputably than all reasoning does what was said by the Archangel to the Bearer of God herself, shew the oneness of the Divine Word and Man.87
Shenoute, I Am Amazed Athanasius, Oratio Contra Arianos III But why did [Nestorius] not understand this, [W]hen we see Him doing or saying aught that he did not say ‘look at the hands and the divinely through the instrument of His own feet simply of a man,’ but he said ‘My own body, we may know that He so works, being feet and hands,’ not separating the body from God, and also, if we see Him speaking or the divinity.88 suffering humanly, we may not be ignorant that He bore flesh and became man, and hence He so acts and so speaks. For if we recognise what is proper to each, and see and understand that both these things and those are done by One, we are right in our faith, and shall never stray.89
85 The fourth Oratio Contra Arianos is Pseudepigraphic. Even though the text is not written by Athanasius, this Oratio does support the claim that there was a broader – not particularly Cyrillian – tradition in the fourth- and fifth-centuries that held a conception of Christ similar to what one encounters in Shenoute. Markus Vinzent dates the work in the mid- to early-fourth-century: Markus Vinzent, Pseudo-Athanasius, Contra Arianos IV: eine Schrift gegen Asterius von Kappadokien, Eusebius von Cäsarea, Markell von Ankyra und Photin von Sirmium, Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae, 36 (Leiden-New York, 1996), p. 85. 86 Shenoute, I Am Amazed, trans. Brakke and Crislip, in Selected Discourses (see n. 11), p. 74. Cf. Shenoute, Contra Origenistas, trans. and ed. Cristea, in Schenute von Atripe (see n. 14), p. 192 and p. 267 (§468): ‘Du siehst, daß es das Wort (ⲡⲗⲟⲅⲟⲥ) ist, das von Anfang an existiert, was sie mit der Hand betastet haben, und daß es nicht bloß ein Mensch (ⲣⲱⲙⲉ) ist wie wir. Auch haben sie über ihn gesagt: Sie werden sehen, wen sie durchbohrt haben (Jn 19,37), ohne in irgendeiner Weise die Gottheit vom Körper getrennt zu haben (Ⲙⲡⲟⲩⲡⲱⲣϫ Ⲛ ⲧⲙⲛⲧⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲗⲁⲁⲩ ⲉⲡⲥⲱⲙⲁ).’ 87 Athanasius [pseud.], Oratio contra Arianos IV.32, NPNF 2.4 (see n. 59), p. 446. 88 Shenoute, I Am Amazed, trans. Brakke and Crislip, in Selected Discourses (see n. 11), p. 73. Cf. Shenoute, Contra Origenistas, trans. and ed. Cristea, in Schenute von Atripe (see n. 14), pp. 192-193 and p. 267 (§466): ‘Warum hat Nestorius nicht erkannt, daß Jesus nicht gesagt hat: “Seht die Hände und die Füße eines bloßen Menschen,” sondern daß er sprach: “Meine eigenen Hände und meine Füße,” ohne den Körper von der Gottheit zu trennen (ⲉⲛϥⲡⲱⲣϫ ⲁⲛ Ⲙⲡⲥⲱⲙⲁ ⲉⲧⲙⲛⲧⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ)?’ 89 Athanasius, Oratio contra Arianos III.35 NPNF, 2.4 (see n. 59), p. 413. 176 Johannes J. Knecht
Shenoute, Athanasius, and Ps.-Athanasius have similar intentions in these passages. In the first place, they emphasise the continuation between the one who was before the Incarnation, the Logos, and the divinity in Christ. He did not change his divinity, nor stop being divine. The one who was before creation is the one who became flesh. Theophilus also, in his 17th festal letter, emphatically argues that the Logos did not change because of the Incarna- tion: ‘We profess that he remained what he had been before he became man.’90 Second, none of them try to explain how Christ’s two realities might have come into union with each other. Shenoute writes that Christ calls his body ‘his own’ – ‘they are my hands and my feet’ – and that arguing the body is not Christ’s own, and thus a separate reality, divides Christ’s two realities. Ps.-Athanasius appeals to ‘mystery’ when he describes the union, evidently not trying to further indicate how that union would have come to be. For both, the fact that the union has taken place is the focus of their arguments, not going into any detail of how this might have happened. Athanasius makes a small move towards a more technical description of the union in the second quote when he says that ‘what is proper to each [is] done by One.’ This, however, could be seen as a distinction between ‘nature’ and ‘subject,’ also seen in Shenoute and discussed above. The Logos really became flesh and thus the body is truly his body. Body and Logos should be described and seen as forming a mysterious unity. Shenoute shows that he is mainly concerned with defending the unity of Christ – a tendency not only expressed by Cyril but unmistakably similarly expressed by Athanasius. Cyril, differing from Ps.-Athanasius, Athanasius, and Shenoute, provides us in his anti-Nestorian writings with technical terminology and a metaphysical framework to give a sophisticated account of this union. This is not done by Ps.-Athanasius, Athanasius, nor Shenoute.91
90 Theophilus of Alexandria, The Early Church Fathers (see n. 65), p. 120. 91 For a convincing argument for the influence of Athanasius on Shenoute in Contra Origenistas, see: Mark Moussa, ‘I Am Amazed: Shenoute of Atripe’s Endorsement of Alexandrian Theology in the White Monastery’, Bulletin of the Saint Shenouda Coptic Society, 5 (1998-99), pp. 19-40. The Alexandrian Christology of Shenoute of Atripe 177
Shenoute, I Am Amazed Athanasius, Letter to Epictetus […] not because the nature of divinity For what the human Body of the Word died, but in the flesh he died, as it is suffered, this the Word, dwelling in the written, ‘As for Christ, he suffered in the body, ascribed to Himself, in order that we flesh.’ For also divinity was not separated might be enabled to be partakers of the from the body while it was on the cross.92 Godhead of the Word. And verily it is strange that He it was Who suffered and yet suffered not. Suffered, because His own Body suffered, and He was in it, which thus suffered; suffered not, because the Word, being by Nature God, is impassible.93
Since the unity of Christ’s divinity and humanity is crucial for Athanasius and Shenoute, both try to give words to the seeming contradiction that Christ actually suffered and that Christ’s suffering was not something the divinity was completely divorced from, while simultaneously upholding the belief that God is utterly impassible – ‘not because the nature of divinity died’ and ‘suf- fered not, because the Word is impassible.’ Both locate the suffering of Christ in Christ’s flesh – ‘but in the flesh he died’ and ‘His own Body suffered’ – though they also want to stress the undividedness of his person; the subject of the suffering and the not-suffering is the same – ‘for also divinity was not separated from the body while it was on the cross’ and ‘that He it was Who suffered and yet suffered not.’ Undoubtedly, Cyril would agree with these statements, though he provided a more sophisticated metaphysical framework to frame these beliefs.94 The basic Alexandrian tendency to argue for the unity of Christ and the pre-eminence of the Logos in the Incarnation is seen in Shenoute. Shenoute, however, stays with a more simple affirmation in fourth- century Athanasian fashion that divinity and humanity have come into
92 Shenoute, I Am Amazed, trans. Brakke and Crislip, in Selected Discourses (see n. 11), p. 74. Shenoute, Contra Origenistas, trans. and ed. Cristea, in Schenute von Atripe (see n. 14), pp. 193-194 and p. 268 (§472): ‘Nicht weil die göttliche Natur (ⲫⲩⲥⲓⲥ Ⲛⲧⲙⲛⲧⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ) gestorben ist, sondern im Fleisch ist er gestorben, wie geschrieben steht: Christus hat im Fleisch gelitten (1 Petr 4,1). Ist doch die Gottheit nicht vom Körper getrennt, während er am Kreuz ist (ⲕⲁⲓ ⲅⲁⲣ ⲧⲙⲛⲧⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡⲟⲣϫ ⲁⲛ ⲉⲡⲥⲱⲙⲁ ⲉϥϩⲓ ⲡϣⲉ).’ 93 Athanasius, Letter to Epictetus, §6, NPNF, 2.4 (see n. 59), p. 572. Cf. McGuckin’s translation of to Epictetus: McGuckin, Saint Cyril of Alexandria (see n. 5), p. 388: ‘All that his body suffered is spoken of as if he himself suffered it.’ 94 McGuckin points to the Epistula ad Epictetus §6 as the origin of Cyril’s phrase that ‘he suffered impassibly.’ McGuckin, Saint Cyril of Alexandria (see n. 5), p. 384. 178 Johannes J. Knecht union, and not a fifth-century (post-428) technical account of this union. One does find one instance in which Shenoute shows a clear advancement to Athanasius’ theology, to which we will now turn. As an integral part of the argument for Christ’s undividedness, Shenoute uses the famous soul-body analogy to show how this connectedness or unity of Christ’s humanity and divinity in relation to Christ’s suffering and death should be understood. The analogy follows Shenoute’s discussion of the suf- fering of Christ at the cross and serves as an example.
When a person has been killed, do they say “A body was killed”? Do they not say, “The whole person was killed,” although the soul does not die, but rather it is only the body that dies? So for the Lord. He died in the flesh, but is immortal in his divinity.95
In his analysis of the Nestorius-quotes in Contra Origenistas, Cristea identifies this as a passage Shenoute has taken from Nestorius.96 He observes:
Wahrscheinlich ist, daß er ihn [the analogy] in einer der Schriften Cyrills gefun- den hat, auch wenn sich eine direkte literarische Abhängigkeit von dem Exzerpt in Adversus Nestorianum nicht feststellen läßt. Daß Schenute gegen Nestorius mit demselben Vergleich argumentiert wie dieser selbst [Nestorius], ist ein weiterer Beleg dafür, wie substanzlos und unnötig der Streit mit Nestorius (nicht nur aus heutiger Sicht) gewesen ist.97
Cristea is right that Nestorius uses the soul-body analogy in his argument, but he has missed the fact that in Nestorius’ argument the analogy is used to make a completely different point. Nestorius introduces the analogy as follows: ‘[Sie] verwendeten den umfassenden Namen “Christus Jesus” um
95 Shenoute, I Am Amazed, trans. Brakke and Crislip, in Selected Discourses (see n. 11), p. 74. Shenoute, Contra Origenistas, trans. and ed. Cristea, in Schenute von Atripe (see n. 14), p. 194, p. 268 (§473): ‘Sagt man etwa, wenn ein Mensch getötet wird, ein Körper (ⲥⲱⲙⲁ) sei getötet worden? Sagt man nicht, daß der ganze Mensch getötet wurde? [Gleichwohl] stirbt nicht die Seele, sondern nur der Körper (ⲥⲱⲙⲁ) ist es, der stirbt. So ist es auch mit dem Herrn. Er ist im Fleisch gestorben, aber er ist unsterblich in seiner Gottheit.’ 96 He references Nestoriana 358,9-18, which is a passage taken from Cyril’s Adversus Nestorium 5.7. 97 Cristea, introduction to Shenute von Atripe (see n. 14), p. 94. The Alexandrian Christology of Shenoute of Atripe 179 sowohl den, der gestorben ist, zu bezeichnen als auch
98 Ibid., 94. This quote is taken from Nestoriana 358,9-18. 99 Thomas Weinandy, ‘The Soul/Body Analogy and the Incarnation: Cyril of Alexandria’, Coptic Church Review, 17 (1996), pp. 59-66, on pp. 60-61. 100 Ibid., p. 61. 101 E.g. Letters 1, 44, 45 and 50: St. Cyril of Alexandria, Letters 1-50 (see n. 18). Cf. Adver- sus Nestorii Blasphemias II, 336-9: Cyril of Alexandria, The Early Church Fathers, p. 142. 102 McGuckin, Saint Cyril of Alexandria (see n. 5), 198. Weinandy, ‘The Soul/Body Analogy’, (see n. 99) pp. 59-66. 103 Young, From Nicaea to Chalcedon (see n. 17), p. 318. 180 Johannes J. Knecht illustrate the type of relationship between them [humanity and divinity].’104 These academics agree that Cyril’s basic goal for utilising this analogy was to show there can be a single ontological reality formed out of two essentially differing natures; Christ has an ontologically singular existence, he has only one subjectivity.105 In Lionel R. Wickham’s words, the analogy denotes that there are ‘two distinct realities, which together constitute a single human being.’106 Cyril acknowledges the distinction of the natures, but the driving force behind the analogy is to argue for Christ’s ontological singularity. In what way does Shenoute use this analogy? Shenoute is not as pro- nounced and articulate as Cyril, but we can still find the core Cyrillian aspects in Shenoute’s utilisation of the analogy. For Shenoute, the main goal appears to be to underscore and defend the distinction of the natures whilst uphold- ing a single subjectivity. The subject of the crucifixion, the Logos incarnate, died, though remaining impassible in his divinity. In essence, Shenoute uses the analogy to underscore and explain the distinction between the subject and nature, discussed above. ‘Death’ can be ascribed to a whole person – soul and body – but one does not have to confess that both the soul and the body, which constitute that person, die. In a similar way, neither does one have to hold the Logos dies when confessing that the person of Christ dies. Weinandy’s characterisation of Cyril’s use of the analogy is perfectly applicable to Shenoute also: ‘the soul/body analogy is employed to illustrate not the manner of rela- tionship between divinity and humanity in Christ but only to assert that as the soul/body form one being (man), so the incarnational union forms the one entity or reality of Christ.’107 In line with what Young observed in Cyril’s use of the analogy, Shenoute also thinks that the manner of union is ‘beyond human explanation,’108 for the analogy is ‘an example within our reach,’109
104 Weinandy, ‘The Soul/Body Analogy’ (see n. 99), p. 60. 105 McGuckin, Saint Cyril of Alexandria (see n. 5), pp. 198-207. Young, From Nicaea to Chalcedon (see n. 17), pp. 315-9. 106 Wickham, introduction to Cyril of Alexandria: Selected Letters, ed. and trans. Wickham (see n. 61), pp. xi-l, on p. xxxii. 107 Weinandy, ‘The Soul/Body Analogy’ (see n. 99), p. 65. 108 Young, From Nicaea to Chalcedon (see n. 17), p. 318. 109 Shenoute, Contra Origenistas, trans. and ed. Cristea, in Schenute von Atripe (see n. 14), pp. 193-194, p. 268 (§472): ‘Begreift dies [the undivided state of the realities] anhand eines Beispiel aus unserem Bereich.’ The Alexandrian Christology of Shenoute of Atripe 181 implying that the actual state in which the realities exist in the economy is incomprehensible. Thus far it has become quite clear that Shenoute argues strongly that the Logos – as enfleshed from conception onwards and forming a unity with the flesh – is the subject of all that is done by Jesus Christ and said of Christ. This awareness is continued in Shenoute’s explanation of the days between the death and resurrection of Christ, as the following quote will show. As comparison, a section by Cyril is given also.
Shenoute of Atripe, Contra Origenistas Cyril of Alexandria, On the Unity of Christ ‘Der Mensch [ⲡⲣⲱⲙⲉ], der stirbt, Our opponents have chosen to hold and überläßt seinen Körper [ⲡⲉϥⲥⲱⲙⲁ] an teach that the Only Begotten Word of God dem Ort des Entschlafens denen, die ihn assumes a man of the line of the divine bestatten werden, und seine Seele David and Abraham, and took care to form [ⲧⲉϥⲯⲩⲭⲏ] geht zu Gott. Er selbst aber, him in the holy virgin, then conjoined der Herr Jesus, hat den Tod für uns himself to him, made him come to the trial verkostet (cf. Heb 2:9). Er ließ seinen of death, raised him from the dead, took Körper [ⲡⲉϥⲥⲱⲙⲁ] am Kreuz und ging him up to heaven, and seated him at the zu denen in der Unterwelt, damit seine right hand of God. 111 Gnade die Werke seiner Hände (auch) an jenem Ort erreichte. Ebenso aber kehrte er zurück, erweckte den Körper [ⲡⲥⲱⲙⲁ] am dritten Tag, trug ihn mit sich empor in die Himmel oder (anders gesagt) ging mit ihm hinauf. Er wird auch mit ihm (wieder) kommen […].’.110
The problem for Cyril is that if one posits that the ‘Only Begotten Word’ in any way acts upon the assumed human being, he cannot confess that ‘the Word became flesh’ (Jn 1:14). That is, if the Word of God can act upon the assumed human being, as another entity, the Logos did not become flesh
110 Shenoute, Contra Origenistas, trans. and ed. Cristea, in Schenute von Atripe (see n. 14), pp. 195-196 and p. 269 (§478). Cristea’s German translation is based on a different man- uscript at this point than the translation of Brakke and Crislip. The possible tension between Shenoute and Cyril only comes to the fore in Cristea’s used manuscript, which I hence have decided to discuss here. On the different manuscript traditions of the tractate, see Shenoute, Contra Origenistas, trans. and ed. Cristea, in Schenute von Atripe, pp. 195- 196. Cf. Shenoute, I Am Amazed, trans. Brakke and Crislip, in Selected Discourses (see n. 11), p. 74. 111 Cyril, On the Unity of Christ, pp. 69-70. 182 Johannes J. Knecht
(Jn 1:14). Those who confess this, hold that ‘a man is exalted into the glory of the Godhead and into the pre-eminence over all things […].’112 Prima facie, Shenoute seems to do exactly what Cyril argues against. A closer reading reveals, however, that Shenoute is quite meticulous in this passage. Shenoute first presents his ‘normal’ anthropological conception: a man has a soul (ⲯⲩⲭⲏ) and a body (ⲥⲱⲙⲁ).113 When a man dies, his soul continuous to exist whilst his body loses life. Concerning the Incarnation, Shenoute affirms elsewhere, contra Apollinarem, that the Logos assumed both a human body and a soul.114 Similar to a normal human being at the moment of death, Christ’s soul leaves his body. Though not explicitly stated, Shenoute does recognise that the incarnate state of Christ has not changed. The Logos is still incar- nate, but, between Good Friday and Easter morning, is only present to the soul and not the body.115 This divine presence is shown by the fact that the soul, as assumed by the Logos, distributes grace (ⲭⲁⲣⲓⲥ) – a characteristi- cally divine action – to those in the Underworld.116 The description of the raising, ascending, and second coming should be understood in this frame- work. Although the wording of Shenoute’s phrase seems to directly fit Cyril’s critique, the subject in Cyril’s reiteration of the erroneous descriptions is a ‘complete’ man (an ἄνθρωπος), with both a soul and a body, whilst for Shenoute it is only the body (ⲥⲱⲙⲁ). This subtle though crucial distinction shows that Shenoute is not holding to theology rejected by Cyril. The incar- nate state of Christ is not broken or changed because of his death. After death, the Logos is still present to the assumed human nature to the extent that the Logos can be present to it, for the body has died.
112 Ibid., p. 70. 113 Shenoute is quite consistent in his use of ⲥⲱⲙⲁ as indicating the fleshly part of the human existence. He sees ⲥⲁⲣⲝ as synonymous with ⲥⲱⲙⲁ. Cf. Shenoute, Contra Origenistas, trans. and ed. Cristea, in Schenute von Atripe (see n. 14), pp. 193-194 and p. 268 (§473). 114 Shenoute, Contra Origenistas, trans. and ed. Cristea, in Schenute von Atripe (see n. 14), pp. 200-201, p. 271 (§490-492). Shenoute, I Am Amazed, trans. Brakke and Crislip, in Selected Discourses (see n. 11), pp. 75-76. 115 Cf. Theophilus’ 17th festal letter §§7-8. Theophilus of Alexandria, The Early Church Fathers (see n. 65), pp. 123-124. 116 The Egyptian Hades or underworld is called Amente (ⲁⲙⲛⲧⲉ). Cf. Ibid., p. 52 and p. 66: Theophilus’ Homily on the Crucifixion and the Good Thief, which was made a part of the standard Coptic liturgy. The Alexandrian Christology of Shenoute of Atripe 183
The explicit recognition of a ‘soul’ in Christ is a clear post-Apollinarian advancement to the theology of Athanasius, who had no substantial place for the human soul in Christ, or at least did not discuss it.117 Grillmeier explains regarding the Christology of Athanasius: ‘The death of the Lord is explained in light of the “Logos-sarx” framework and is represented as a separation of the “Logos” from the body. It is the Logos, too, who descends into the under- world. A function which should by rights belong to the soul as the means by which the Logos descends is thus assigned to the Logos.’118 Shenoute has a different representation and seems to recognise that it is on account of the properties of the soul that the unity of Logos-soul can go to Amente and distribute grace.
2.4 Scripture in Christology Davis notes that Shenoute uses Scripture regularly in his polemic. The texts Davis thinks particularly stand out are: 1 Cor 2:8; Acts 3:15; Phil 2:5-8; 1 Pet 4:1; Heb 2:14; Jn 1:14; Mt 1:18; and Lk 1:35. He comments: ‘What is interesting about Shenoute’s choice of passages here is how he shows him- self to be enmeshed in the exegetical debates that raged between Nestorius and Cyril.’119 Especially the combination of Heb 2:14 with Jn 1:14 and Phil 2:6 with Mt 1:18 are, for Davis, clear indications that Shenoute is ‘enmeshed’ in the debates between Nestorius and Cyril. The Heb/Jn connec- tion points to the influence of Cyril’s work and the Phil/Mt connection to the direct engagement with Nestorius.120 These statements need to be reconsidered and nuanced for at least the following reasons. The link with Nestorius’ work in general is quite clear.121
117 Aloys Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition: From the Apostolic Age to Chalcedon (451), vol. I, trans. John Bowden, 2nd rev. ed. (Atlanta 1975), p. 312. 118 Ibid., p. 316. 119 Davis, Coptic Christology (see n. 6), p. 70. 120 Ibid., pp. 71-72. 121 Cristea, introduction to Shenute von Atripe (see n. 14), pp. 88-99. Shenoute quotes Nestorius: ‘Wenn du die ganze Schrift, die alte und die neue, durchgehst, wirst du in ihr keine Stelle finden, wo der Gekreuzigte Gott genannt wird.’ And Nestorius himself says: ‘Everywhere in Sacred Scripture whenever it makes mention of the “economy” of the Lord, the birth for our sake and Passion are ascribed, not to the divinity but to the humanity of Christ.’ Shenoute, Contra Origenistas, trans. Cristea, in Schenute von Atripe, p. 266 (§465). Nestorius, St. Cyril of Alexandria, Letters 1-50 (see n. 18), p. 45. Cf. Shenoute, Contra 184 Johannes J. Knecht
However, I doubt whether Shenoute really sees Phil 2:6a/Mt 1:18 as con- nected, or in some way making a similar point. Granted, Phil 2:6a is used to argue directly against a loose – ‘Nestorian’ – interpretation of the union, as Davis rightly argues, but Mt 1:18 – quoted three paragraphs and three scriptural references later, following the soul/body analogy – does not react to any Nestorian contentions directly.122 Mt 1:18 in Shenoute’s argument seems to be used to indicate the true fleshliness and the true divinity of the Incarnation; in the Incarnation, both have come together. Thus, because of the progression of Shenoute’s argument and the manner in which he employs Mt 1:18, I doubt Davis’ pairing of Mt 1:18 and Phil 2:6a in Contra Origenistas. The more pressing point in Davis’ argument though, is that he posits that Shenoute reacts to Nestorius following Cyril’s exegesis of the used verses. As we will see, the texts Shenoute uses in his Christological arguments, and the way he utilises them, are a reflection of the Scriptural texts and methods the Alexandrian tradition has used for over a century, and not a sign of Cyrillian dependence. Furthermore, although both Cyril and Shenoute do indeed connect Heb 2:14 with Jn 1:14, this connection is not found in Cyril’s work alone but can also be seen in Athanasius’ writings. A quick glance at the work of Athanasius and Theophilus will show that the appeal to almost all the aforementioned Christological loci classici, including the pairing of Heb 2:14 with Jn 1:14, are found in their work and in similar combinations. It is good to note Shenoute is not only using the texts Davis mentions, he quotes or alludes to a plethora of – mainly New Testament – verses in his reaction to the Christological questions.123 However, for now and for the sake of clarity, we will stay with the texts Davis identifies as being significant.
Origenistas, trans. and ed. Cristea, in Schenute von Atripe, p. 264 (§450-451)/Nestorius, St. Cyril of Alexandria, Letters 1-50, p. 45 (§7); Shenoute, Contra Origenistas, trans. and ed. Cristea, in Schenute von Atripe (see n. 14), pp. 269-270 (§480)/Nestorius, St. Cyril Letters 1-50 (see n. 18), p. 46 (§7). 122 Shenoute, Contra Origenistas, trans. and ed. Cristea, in Schenute von Atripe (see n. 14), pp. 193-194, p. 268 (§§471-474). Shenoute, I Am Amazed, trans. Brakke and Crislip, in Selected Discourses (see n. 11), p. 74. 123 In order of appearance in Contra Origenistas: 1 Tim 2:5, Rom 1:4, Acts 2:22, Acts 2:36, Heb 1:3, Col 1:15c/Col 1:18a, Jn 1:3, Jn 20:21, Gal 4:4, Jn 1:3, Eph 6:12, Lk 24:39b, Jn 20:28, 1 Jn 1:1, Jn 19:37, Mt 27:47, 1 Cor 2:8, Acts 3:15, Phil 2:6a, 1 Pet 4:1, Heb 2:14, Jn 1:14, Mt 1:18, Lk 1:35, Heb 4:15, (references to Christ’s emotions: Mt 4:2/ The Alexandrian Christology of Shenoute of Atripe 185
In the second Oratio contra Arianos, Athanasius connects Jn 1:14 and Phil 2:6-8:
Thus it is written, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;” and the wherefore it assigns not; but when “the Word was made flesh,” then it adds the reason why, saying, “And dwelt among us.” And again the Apostle saying, “Who being in the form of God,” has not introduced the reason, till “He took on Him the form of a servant;” for then he continues, “He humbled Himself unto death, even the death of the cross;” for it was for this that He both became flesh and took the form of a servant.124
A similar connection is also made in the third Oratio.125 Although the pair- ing of Jn 1:14/Phil 2:6-8 is not the one Davis identifies as Cyrillian, it does indicate that the use of Jn 1:14 and Phil 2:6-8 had been in the Alexandrian Christological tradition for a considerable amount of time when Shenoute wrote his text. The connection of Jn 1:14 with Phil 2:6-8 is also employed in Theophilus’ 17th festal letter (402 CE).126 Interestingly, the combination of John and Philippians in Athanasius’ third Oratio is found in a chapter dealing with the interpretation of 1 Pet 4:1,127 the usage of which in Contra Origeni- stas Davis similarly coins as an indication of Cyril’s influence on Shenoute. Theophilus uses 1 Pet 4:1 in his 16th festal also to make a similar Christologi- cal point.128 Furthermore, Athanasius, in the Epistula ad Epictetus uses a few of the passages Shenoute alludes to or quotes.129
Lk 4:2/Jn 4:7/Lk 19:41) Rom 5:8, Heb 2:9, 1 Pet 4:5b, Mt 25:31, Mt 2:13, Ps 117:27a, Mt 1:23, Lk 6:45b, Eph 2:2, 1 Cor 2:8, Jn 10:15, Jn 12:27, Mt 28:36, Jn 20:17, 1 Tim 6:16, Ps 103:2a. Shenoute, Contra Origenistas, trans. and ed. Cristea, in Schenute von Atripe (see n. 14), pp. 264-72 (§§451-96). 124 Athanasius, Oratio contra Arianos II.53, NPNF, 2.4 (see n. 59), p. 377. 125 Athanasius, Oratio contra Arianos III.29, NPNF, 2.4 (see n. 59), p. 409. 126 Theophilus of Alexandria, The Early Church Fathers (see n. 65), pp. 128-129 (§14). In the 17th festal, Theophilus, like Shenoute, employs the following verses in a Christo- logical context: Jn 12:27 and 1 Tim 2:5 (§4 p. 121); Jn 1:3 (§6 p. 122); Col 1:16-17 (§12 p. 126); Heb 1:3, Col 1:15, Mt 26:38 (§16 p. 130). In the 16th festal we similarly find: 1 Cor 2:8 (Shenoute, Contra Origenistas, trans. Cristea (see n. 14), p. 282 (§894)), Eph 6:12 (Shenoute, Contra Origenistas, trans. Cristea, p. 288 (§925)), and Heb 2:14 (Shenoute, Contra Origenistas, trans. Cristea, p. 298 (§957)). 127 Athanasius, Oratio contra Arianos III.26-35, NPNF, 2.4 (see n. 59), pp. 407-13. 128 Theophilus, Contra Origenistas (see n. 14), p. 283 (§896). 129 McGuckin, Saint Cyril of Alexandriai (see n. 5), p. 385 (Lk 24:39-40, Jn 1:14), p. 387 (Mt 1:23, Jn 20:28), and p. 388 (Jn 1:14). 186 Johannes J. Knecht
In his second festal letter, written in 330 AD, Athanasius quotes Heb 2:14. Jn 1:14 is not explicitly quoted, but is, I would argue, clearly in mind when Athanasius writes, just before the Hebrews 2:14 quote: ‘And others have written of His being born in the flesh of a Virgin.’130 Moreover, in On the Incarnation Athanasius argues:
[I]t belonged to none other to bring man back from the corruption which had begun, than the Word of God, Who had also made them from the beginning. And that it was in order to the sacrifice for bodies such as His own that the Word Himself also assumed a body, to this, also, they refer in these words: “Forasmuch then as the children are the sharers in blood and flesh, He also Himself in like manner partook of the same, that through death He might bring to naught Him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; and might deliver them who, through fear of death, were all their lifetime subject to bondage.”131
Again, Jn 1:14 is not quoted directly, but all the parts that make Jn 1:14 so crucial in the arguments of Cyril are mentioned here by Athanasius. The subject is ‘the Word of God,’ who had a part in the act of creation. This Word became flesh himself and ‘assumed a body.’ The four lines preceding the Hebrews 2:14 quote try to communicate that ‘The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.’ Hence, the combinations and use of the texts Davis wants to attribute to Cyril can be found in the work of Athanasius.132 Of course, Davis makes his claim based on a few more texts than the five texts discussed here (Jn 1:14, Heb 2:14, 1 Pet 4:1, Mt 1:18, and Phil 2:5-8). However, since these five passages form the core of Davis’ argument at this point, I believe I have sufficiently shown that Shenoute’s use of these passages is not a clear indication of ‘Cyrillian’ influence. Shenoute appeals to the broader Alexandrian tradition and presents the Scriptural arguments used by Athanasius, Theophilus, and Cyril to describe who Christ is. This sometimes means that Shenoute uses a verse also used by Cyril, but there is nothing
130 Athanasius, Festal Letter II: For 330 – Easter Day, §7, NPNF (see n. 59), 2.4, p. 512. 131 Athanasius, De Incarnatione, 10.3-4, NPNF, 2.4 (see n. 59), p. 41. Cf. St. Athanasius, On The Incarnation, trans. John Behr, Popular Patristics Series, 44a (1944: reprint, Yonkers, NY, 2011), p. 71. 132 Theophilus’s 16th festal mentions Heb 2:14 also, though not in connection with Jn 1:14 nor its sentiment. Theophilus, Contra Origenistas (see n. 14), p. 298 (§957). The Alexandrian Christology of Shenoute of Atripe 187 particularly Cyrillian to Shenoute’s choice of verses. There is simply not enough evidence in the work of Shenoute to point to one patriarch of influ- ence: be it Athanasius, Theophilus, or Cyril. The majority of the 35-40 Scrip- tural references Shenoute gives can simply be identified as being the loci classici of the Alexandrian tradition when speaking of Christ. In light of what we have seen thus far, it is fitting to attribute Shenoute’s use of these Biblical texts to his awareness and indebtedness to the broader preceding and contem- porary Alexandrian Christological tradition.
2.5 Mary as qeotókov One of the other pillars of Davis’ strong Cyrillian reading of Shenoute is the latter’s frequent and ardent defence of Mary’s title: θεοτόκος. Davis argues: ‘Shenoute’s methods of Biblical interpretation are also tied to other christo- logical themes that show his self-conscious indebtedness to Cyril – namely his ardent defence of the term “Theotokos” and in his use of the union of soul and body as a metaphor for the Incarnation.’133 The value of the latter part of this statement has already been acknowledged above. The fact that Shenoute ‘described the Incarnation in terms of the Word’s creation of a body for himself,’ which Davis identifies as a ‘Cyrillian phrasing,’134 in the context of the θεοτόκος again affirms for him that Shenoute is highly indebted to Cyril. A few things can be said in reaction to these assertions. As Davis himself duly acknowledges: ‘[T]he title Theotokos had long been part of the theo- logical and liturgical idiom of the Alexandrian Church.’135 If the use and defence of the title θεοτόκος is indeed a broader and older tradition than just ‘Cyrillian,’ then this affirmation does beg the question whether and why Shenoute’s defence of the θεοτόκος is an example of his ‘self-conscious indebt- edness to Cyril.’ What makes this defence ‘Cyrillian?’ Davis seems to argue
133 Davis, Coptic Christology (see n. 6), 72 and cf. p. 70. 134 Ibid., p. 73. 135 Ibid., p. 34. Since Davis acknowledges this tradition, there is no need for extensive proof of the use of θεοτόκος before the Nestorian crises, but cf.: Athanasius, Orationes contra Arianos, III.14, III.29, III.33, IV.32 (Ps-Athanasius) and Vita Antonii §36. Outside Athanasius, see for instance St Macarius. St Macarius the Spiritbearer: Coptic Texts Relating to Saint Macarius the Great, Popular Patristics Series, 28 (Crestwood, NY, 2004), p. 118. 188 Johannes J. Knecht that the ‘Cyrillian’ component of Shenoute’s θεοτόκος-defence136 in And It Happened One Day is the idea that the Word fashioned a body for himself: the Logos built himself a temple in the womb of Mary. Shenoute writes the following in And It Happened One Day (Davis’ translation is used):
Was the one who took clay from the earth and fashioned for himself a human being according to his image and according to his likeness not capable of building for himself his own temple, the holy body, just as he willed, in the womb of the woman he honored more than all (other) women? […] Even more so then has it been the case for the one whom he loves, the one whom he fashioned in the womb of Mary. According to the economy she is his mother; according to his exalted divinity, she is his servant.137
In his reading, Davis is correct to posit that the main idea in this passage is the eternal Logos creating his own body in the womb; he fashioned the body with which he came into union in the Incarnation. Again, this idea is not particularly Cyrillian and can clearly be found in the work of Athanasius. In On the Incarnation Athanasius makes a similar claim:
Although being himself powerful and the creator of the universe, he prepared for himself in the Virgin the body as a temple, and made it his own, as an instrument, making himself known and dwelling in it.138
Athanasius clearly has a similar idea as Shenoute does concerning the role of the Word in the fashioning of Christ’s body in the Incarnation. Even though Cyril might also have the same conception, the observation that this tradition is broader and older does force us to state that (I) Shenoute’s use of the θεοτόκος and (II) his appeal to the idea that the Word created a body for himself in the womb do not provide enough evidence to conclude that Shenoute has a ‘self- conscious indebtedness to Cyril.’
136 Shenoute does actually only speak of the Motherhood of Mary, but Davis connects this to the θεοτόκος discussion. Since I am in direct conversation with him, I follow him in this connection. 137 Davis, Coptic Christology (see n. 6), pp. 73-74 and Shenoute, And It Happened One Day, trans. Davis, in Coptic Christology, p. 287. 138 Athanasius, On the Incarnation, Popular Patristics Series, 67. Cf. Athanasius [pseud.], Oratio contra Arianos IV.34, NPNF, 2.4 (see n. 59), p. 446. The Alexandrian Christology of Shenoute of Atripe 189
3. conclusion
We have evaluated four aspects of Shenoute’s Christology and Christological argumentation in which Stephen Davis sees a strong Cyrillian influence. First, regarding the claim that Shenoute defends a ‘one nature’ Christology in line with Dioscorus and (allegedly) Cyril, we have concluded that Shenoute is not the Miaphysite thinker academics like Bethune-Baker, Stokes, Grillmeier, and Davis make him out to be. The needed utilisation of technical terminology in order for someone to make this claim is simply not present. Second, Davis rightly claims that the fact that Shenoute uses the soul-body analogy to elu- cidate his theology is a sign of Cyrillian influence. The soul-body analogy per se is not a sign of Cyrillian influence, for there has been a broader fourth- century utilisation of this image. However, the way in which Shenoute employs this image is undoubtedly Cyrillian. Also, the use of this analogy contradicts the claim that Shenoute is a Miaphysite: it stresses the unity of subject, but maintains the distinction of the natures. We have seen that the general way in which Shenoute argues for the undividedness of Christ is not particularly Cyrillian, but broadly Alexandrian. The schemes we see in Shenoute’s argu- ment are also seen in the work of Athanasius and Theophilus. Third, the Scriptural passages Shenoute appeals to are, in Davis’ eyes, taken from Cyril’s discourses with Nestorius. Our investigation has shown, how- ever, that the texts Shenoute incorporates in his Christological arguments are not particularly ‘Cyrillian.’ Athanasius and Theophilus appeal to these texts in a similar way, which supports the claim that Shenoute is using a broadly accepted Alexandrian mode of argumentation rather than an overtly Cyrillian mode. Fourth, and finally, Shenoute defends the title θεοτόκος for Mary. Davis wants to point to Cyril as the source of this sensibility. This research has shown that the θεοτόκος is already defended and used by Athanasius. Besides this, one can quite believably make the argument139 that Cyril fought on behalf of the Egyptian monasteries in his protection of the θεοτόκος, instead of vice versa. This shows that around 450 CE Shenoute, and perhaps a broader monas- tic movement, was not that concerned with the technical details of the Christological controversy. Not to say that Shenoute is indifferent about the outcomes of the controversy, but he is not contributing or participating
139 Something which Davis does himself. 190 Johannes J. Knecht on the technically sophisticated level (perhaps following the direct orders in Cyril’s Epistula ad Monachos) of the main figures of the controversy: Nesto- rius, Cyril, Theodosius, and Leo the Great. If this is true, the monastic anti- Chalcedonian tendencies in Upper-Egypt might thus be, in part, more an act of faithful obedience to the ecclesiastical convictions in Alexandria and less of a well thought-out theological conviction on the matter. My argument here is not to say that there was no-one in monastic Upper-Egypt who was concerned with the actual technical debate, which formed the basis for the later Egyptian departure from the Chalcedonian Churches. Rather, it does suggest that the grounds for the anti-Chalcedonian movements in Egypt might not have been as monolithic as sometimes suggested. How then to characterise Shenoute’s Christology? Shenoute’s Christology is deeply Alexandrian. He argues emphatically for the singularity of the person of Christ: everything done and said of Christ is rightly said and done of the Logos-made-man. In pre-Cyrillian fashion, how to precisely understand and metaphysically describe the nature of the union is not further explicated by Shenoute. The union is mainly described in negative terms: do not divide the natures in Christ by thinking of the humanity and divinity as separate entities. Asking the question whether Shenoute is a Miaphysite thinker assumes a con- cern with technical Christology on Shenoute’s part that is simply not present in his writings: one would be asking a question that Shenoute simply does not answer. In my opinion, instead of trying to connect Shenoute’s Chris- tology to the discussions at large, reflection on and study of how Shenoute’s Christology relates and functions in the day-to-day monastic life of the White Federation might lead to more fruitful insights and would be more in line with Shenoute’s own concerns. Such research could provide new and helpful examples of how a doctrine – Christology in this case – can inform, be informed by, and frame lived-out monastic faith and praxis.
Abstract
Scholars in the last century have argued strongly for a reading of Shenoute of Atripe’s Christological thought as being primarily influenced by the work of Cyril of Alexandria and Dioscorus of Alexandria. A subsequent conviction that both Cyril and Dioscorus defended a ‘one nature Christology’ have led some The Alexandrian Christology of Shenoute of Atripe 191
to argue – e.g., Stephen J. Davis and Aloys Grillmeier – that Shenoute held this Christological position as well. This paper evaluates – in extensive dialogue with Stephen J. Davis – the textual grounds for these claims: is Shenoute demonstrably influenced in his Christological thought by the work of Cyril of Alexandria and is there evidence of Miaphysite tendencies in his writings? I argue against the majority view, based largely on Shenoute’s tractate Contra Origenistas, that there is no evidence in Shenoute’s work leading to a conclu- sion that he held Miaphysite convictions. Moreover, this paper aims to show that Shenoute is not more influenced by the thought of Cyril than by that of Athanasius and Theophilus. My argument, therefore, leads to the conclusion that what one encounters in work of Shenoute is a broadly Alexandrian Christology, reflecting a dependency on Alexandrian Christological positions held and defended by the Alexandrian patriarchs from Athanasius up to Cyril. Keywords: Christology; Shenoute of Atripe; Cyril of Alexandria