The Alexandrian Christology of Shenoute of Atripe
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
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.