DOCSLIB.ORG

“Oriental Orthodox” Monophysite Formula by W

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
“Oriental Orthodox” Monophysite Formula by W Against the “Oriental Orthodox” Monophysite Formula By W. J. Whitman During the Nestorian controversy, St. Cyril of Alexandria used the following formula: the person of Christ is “one nature (physis) of the Word of God Incarnate.” Additionally, Cyril used the terms physis and hypostasis interchangeably. The Cyrilline Monophysites considered this terminology to be part of sacred tradition. However, the Orthodox faction believed no such thing. It is not the terminology of St. Cyril that we must believe, but the spirit of what he taught. Fr. John Romanides writes: “Thus, in order to understand the Fathers properly, we must know not only the expressions that they used, in other words, what they said and taught, but we must also know the corresponding concepts.”1 The Orthodox found it necessary to reformulate the linguistic expressions of Cyril‟s Christology in the midst of new controversies. The Monophysite faction resisted any refinement of theological terminology. After Cyril‟s time, a heretic named Eutyches adopted this same formula; but Eutyches‟ interpretation of it was diametrically opposed to Cyril‟s. Eutyches taught that the two natures (physeis) in Christ—the divinity and the humanity—were united into one nature (physis) in such a way that the humanity was virtually annihilated through absorption. The Cyrilline Monophysites, who clung to the words of Cyril, were willing to accept Eutyches as one of their own: for he used the “right” phrases and terms. It did not matter much to them that what Eutyches taught was entirely wrong. The Monophysites sided with Eutyches against the rest of Christendom at the Second Council of Ephesus in 449AD. In response to this, the Orthodox faction held the Council of Chalcedon in 451AD, to which the Monophysites were invited to give their defense. It is from this Council that the Orthodox Chalcedonian formula came. Chalcedon attempted to refine the expression of Christological doctrine in order to make it clear and easy to understand. The Fathers realized that it is important to differentiate between terms in theology. All the terms used in the early Christological and Trinitarian formulas were virtually synonymous: nature (physis), person (hypostasis), and essence (ousia) had very similar meanings at the time. There were and are no adequate terms to describe God in human language, but the Fathers were attempting to find a way to describe God that was at least almost adequate. They needed different words to differentiate between different things. The Fathers in the Ecumenical Councils put a lot of effort towards developing a standard terminology. They began to differentiate between terms in order to demonstrate that there were different kinds of natures. They called the general nature of the Godhead ousia or essence, they called the individualized-natures within that general nature hypostaseis or persons, and they called the two natures in the person of Christ physeis. By redefining these terms, they were able to show that their understanding of the Trinity was not self-contradictory. This redefinition of terms is why these words have an entirely different meaning in Christian philosophy than in non-Christian Greek philosophy. The greatest downfall of the Monophysite Christology is that it does not differentiate between terms as well as Chalcedonian Christology does. The Monophysites maintain that there are two natures (physeis) in Christ—humanity and divinity—and that these two natures (physeis) are one nature (physis) through the hypostatic union. When examining the Monophysite formula, one can only come to one of three conclusions: (1) Eutychianism—that one of the two natures was absorbed by the other and no longer exists on its own grounds—, (2) that Monophysitism is inherently self-contradictory insofar as it teaches that Christ is simultaneously one physis and 1 John Romanides, Patristic Theology, Ch. 17 two physeis, or (3) that the term physis has an entirely different meaning in the context of the two natures than it does in the context of the one nature. This third position is the one that most Monophysites hold to, so why shouldn‟t the term be replaced by a different term in one of these contexts in order to clarify the meaning of the formula? Well, that is exactly what the Fathers did at the Council of Chalcedon: they replaced the word physis with the word hypostasis in reference to the one nature of Christ. The Monophysites refuse to allow this differentiation between physis and hypostasis. If physis and hypostasis are synonymous, then Monophysitism is at least terminological Nestorianism. There are two physeis in Christ and physis means hypostasis, therefore there are two hypostaseis in Christ. It is not difficult to see how this could easily be interpreted in a crypto-Nestorian fashion.2 If it comes up in a debate, the Monophysite cannot consistently deny that Christ is two persons (hypostaseis)—he has no rational defense against a Nestorian opponent. But the Bible says that the Christian must „always be prepared to give a rational defense to anyone who asks him about his faith.‟3 On a strictly Monophysite basis, one does not have a strong fortification against heresy. A Eutychian or Nestorian opponent could easily tear a Cyrilline Monophysite to shreds in a rational debate. The Chalcedonian formula, on the other hand, rose up as an indestructible bulwark of the orthodox faith. It is stated in The Declaration of Faith of the Council of Chalcedon that the Council of Chalcedon “receives the synodical letters of the Blessed Cyril, Pastor of the Church of Alexandria, addressed to Nestorius and the Easterners, judging them suitable, for the refutation of the frenzied folly of Nestorius, and for the instruction of those who long with holy ardor for a knowledge of the saving symbol. And, for the confirmation of the orthodox doctrines, it has rightly added to these the letter of the President of the great and old Rome, the most blessed and holy Archbishop Leo, which was addressed to Archbishop Flavian of blessed memory, for the removal of the false doctrines of Eutyches…” Thus, the Council of Chalcedon accepted the teachings of St. Cyril, but chose to refine his terminology and combine it with that of St. Leo, thereby establishing a formula that was clearly neither Nestorian nor Eutychian. The Council affirmed that Christ has two natures (physeis)—divinity and humanity—, which are united into one person (hypostasis) by virtue of the hypostatic union (i.e. the Incarnation). The Chalcedonian Declaration of Faith states: “Following the holy Fathers we teach with one voice that the Son of God and our Lord Jesus Christ is to be confessed as one and the same, that he is perfect in Godhead and perfect in manhood, very God and very man, of a reasonable soul and human body consisting, consubstantial with the Father as touching his Godhead, and consubstantial with us as touching his manhood; made in all things like unto us, sin only excepted; begotten of his Father before the worlds according to his Godhead; but in these last days for us men and for our salvation born into the world of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God according to his manhood. This one and the same Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God must be confessed to be in two natures, unconfusedly, immutably, indivisibly, inseparably united, and that without the distinction of 2 It is worth noting that the Monophysites in India seem to have a tendency to be more sympathetic to the Nestorians than they are to the Orthodox. 3 1 Peter 3:15 natures being taken away by such union, but rather the peculiar property of each nature being preserved and being united in one Person and subsistence, not separated or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son and only-begotten, God the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, as the Prophets of old time have spoken concerning him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ hath taught us, and as the Creed of the Fathers hath delivered to us.” .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Continuity and Tradition: the Prominent Role of Cyrillian Christology In
    Jacopo Gnisci Jacopo Gnisci CONTINUITY AND TRADITION: THE PROMINENT ROLE OF CYRILLIAN CHRISTOLOGY IN FIFTEENTH AND SIXTEENTH CENTURY ETHIOPIA The Ethiopian Tewahedo Church is one of the oldest in the world. Its clergy maintains that Christianity arrived in the country during the first century AD (Yesehaq 1997: 13), as a result of the conversion of the Ethiopian Eunuch, narrated in the Acts of the Apostles (8:26-39). For most scholars, however, the history of Christianity in the region begins with the conversion of the Aksumite ruler Ezana, approximately during the first half of the fourth century AD.1 For historical and geographical reasons, throughout most of its long history the Ethiopian Church has shared strong ties with Egypt and, in particular, with the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria. For instance, a conspicuous part of its literary corpus, both canonical and apocryphal, is drawn from Coptic sources (Cerulli 1961 67:70). Its liturgy and theology were also profoundly affected by the developments that took place in Alexandria (Mercer 1970).2 Furthermore, the writings of one of the most influential Alexandrian theologians, Cyril of Alexandria (c. 378-444), played a particularly significant role in shaping Ethiopian theology .3 The purpose of this paper is to highlight the enduring importance and influence of Cyril's thought on certain aspects of Ethiopian Christology from the early developments of Christianity in the country to the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Its aim, therefore, is not to offer a detailed examination of Cyril’s work, or more generally of Ethiopian Christology. Rather, its purpose is to emphasize a substantial continuity in the traditional understanding of the nature of Christ amongst Christian 1 For a more detailed introduction to the history of Ethiopian Christianity, see Kaplan (1982); Munro-Hay (2003).
    [Show full text]
  • The Chalcedonian Christology of St John Damascene : Philosophical Terminology and Theological Arguments
    Durham E-Theses The Chalcedonian Christology of St John Damascene : philosophical terminology and theological arguments Metallidis, George How to cite: Metallidis, George (2003) The Chalcedonian Christology of St John Damascene : philosophical terminology and theological arguments, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/1085/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk 2 UNIVERSITY OF DURHAM DEPARTMENT OF THEOLOGY GEORGE METALLIDIS The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. No quotation from it should be published without his prior written consentand information derived from it should be acknowledged. The Chalcedonian Christology of St John Damascene: Philosophical Terminology and Theological Arguments PhD Thesis/FourthYear Supervisor: Prof. ANDREW LOUTH 0-I OCT2003 Durham 2003 The ChalcedonianChristology of St John Damascene To my Mother Despoina The ChalcedonianChristology of St John Damascene CONTENTS Page ABBREVIATIONS 7 ACKNOWLEDGMENT 12 INTRODUCTION 14 CHAPTER ONE TheLife of St John Damascene 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Byzantine Hymnography and the Quest for Orthodox Unity: Notes on the Liturgical Commemoration of the Council of Chalcedon, Towar
    Byzantine Hymnography and the Quest for Orthodox Unity: Notes on the Liturgical Commemoration of the Council of Chalcedon, Towards the Reconciliation of “Eastern” and “Oriental” Churches Gregory Tucker* Among the issues remaining to be addressed along the path to reconciliation between the “Eastern” and “Oriental” Orthodox is the characterisation of Oriental teachers as heretics in the liturgical texts of the Byzantine Rite. The mere suggestion of liturgical revision to reflect the agreement that multiple theological vocabularies are legitimate and therefore theologians associated with them should not be anathematized or deprecated has been met with fierce opposition from some Eastern Orthodox. This paper considers what might actually be involved in such a revision, taking as an example the texts for the commemoration of the Council of Chalcedon. It suggests that the extent of necessary revision would be far less than is perhaps feared. Keywords: Chalcedon, liturgy, liturgical revision, Byzantine Rite, Eastern Or- thodox, Oriental Orthodox Introduction From an Orthodox perspective, one of the great fruits of modern ecumen- ism1 has been the inauguration of a new phase in the relationship between the “Eastern” and “Oriental” Orthodox churches.2 An unofficial bilateral dialogue began in 1964, which became an official dialogue in 1985. Initial conversations correctly prioritised discussion of contested points in Chris- tology (disagreement over which contributed significantly to and, to a large * Gregory Tucker, Universität Regensburg, Universitätsstr. 31, 93503 Regensburg, Germa- ny, [email protected] 1 This paper will not address opposition on principle to ecumenical dialogue (including dialogue between separated Orthodox groups) which is a common–indeed, characteristic– feature of some traditions within contemporary Eastern Orthodoxy.
    [Show full text]
  • Jesus Christ the God-Man"
    Dr. Rick Bartosik Lecture Series: The Doctrine of Christ Lecture 3: "Jesus Christ the God-Man" THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST Today there is very little controversy over the true humanity of Christ. In the early church the problem for many was not the deity of Christ, which they accepted, but the true humanity of Christ. E.g. the Docetists (from dokeo, meaning “to seem” or “to appear”) argued that Christ was totally divine, and that his humanity was merely an appearance. New Testament passages on the true humanity of Christ John 1:14 John 8:40 Romans 1:3-4 Romans 9:5 Philippians 2:8 (key Greek words: morphe, homoioma, and schema) Hebrews 2:14 Hebrews 2:17 THE UNION OF DEITY AND HUMANITY (HYPOSTATIC UNION) Meaning: The Greek word hypostases means “nature.” So “hypostatic union” refers to union of the two natures in one person, Jesus Christ the God-man. The Chalcedonian Definition (AD 451). The Council of Chalcedon expressed what the church, after 400 years of study, came to believe about the Person of Christ. After the many controversies that existed, the church finally came to agreement over the answer to the question, “Who is Jesus Christ?” “Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards His Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards His manhood; like us in all respects
    [Show full text]
  • Positions of Key Thinkers in Adventist History on the Human Nature of Christ Ryan L
    Southern Adventist University KnowledgeExchange@Southern Senior Research Projects Southern Scholars 1998 Positions of Key Thinkers in Adventist History on the Human Nature of Christ Ryan L. Ashlock Follow this and additional works at: https://knowledge.e.southern.edu/senior_research Part of the Religion Commons Recommended Citation Ashlock, Ryan L., "Positions of Key Thinkers in Adventist History on the Human Nature of Christ" (1998). Senior Research Projects. 100. https://knowledge.e.southern.edu/senior_research/100 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Southern Scholars at KnowledgeExchange@Southern. It has been accepted for inclusion in Senior Research Projects by an authorized administrator of KnowledgeExchange@Southern. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Ashlock I Ryan L. Ashlock Honors Research Project April 22, 1998 Positions of Key Thinkers in Adventist History on the Human Nature of Christ How can I be saved? The question has occupied the minds of generations of people the world over. One has only to look at the proliferation of world religions to see that man seeks after something better than is contained in this life. In the Christian realm with a seemingly simple Biblical answer of, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved" (Acts 16:31 ), it would seem that the question is answered beyond any need for discussion, but Christian history would teach us otherwise. What does it mean to believe on the Lord Jesus? What is involved in this belief? And Who is Jesus? In the Seventh-day Adventist Church, the topic of Christ's nature has caused heated debate.
    [Show full text]
  • Theological Equipping Class Christological Heresies February 21, 2021
    Theological Equipping Class Christological Heresies February 21, 2021 Recap: What are Heresies? "a doctrine that ultimately destroys, destabilizes, or distorts a mystery rather than preserving it" (Alistair McGrath) Trinity: unity, plurality, equality, mystery - how do Trinitarian heresies "minimize the mystery"? Christology: humanity, deity – how do Christological heresies tend to "minimize the mystery"? Major Heresies of the First Two Centuries of the Church: legalism and dualism Major Heresies of the Next Two Centuries: Trinitarian heresies (Arianism, adoptionism, & modalism) Five Christological Heresies to consider today: 1. Apollinarianism 2. Nestorianism 3. Eutychianism 4. Monophysitism 5. Monothelitism Context and Significance Political jockeying for preeminence Emphases of Alexandria and Antioch Why does this really matter? ● Does God actually save man? Well, in order to do so, God must become man. So if Jesus isn't God or isn't man, that doesn't happen! ● When it comes to Trinitarian heresies, we established that it is truly God who comes down. But today we will address the question of whether He comes down far enough. Does the Son of God actually incarnate, unite Himself to humanity; or does He just come part of the way? Is He only partly human and thus we are only partly saved. 1 Apollinarianism ● Apollinaris (sometimes Apollinarius) of Laodicea (360s & 370s) ● What is humanity? Spirit + flesh/body o the immaterial logos was simply clothed with physicality ● So Christ possessed a human body, but not a human soul or mind or emotions, or, as it would be called in Greek, a "rational soul." ● Is Jesus fully human? o God in a man suit ● What drives Apollinaris? o Fear that if Christ is truly and fully human with a human mind and soul, then that will somehow compromise or taint Christ.
    [Show full text]
  • And Eastern Monophysitism
    Athens Journal of History - Volume 1, Issue 4 – Pages 267-288 The Political and Social Conflict between Orthodox Christianity (Constantinople and Rome) and Eastern Monophysitism By Jayoung Che The 4th Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (431) denounced Eutychianism/Monophysitism as a heresy. Rushdoony suggested that the Chalcedonian formula made Western liberty possible because the unity and particularity (or individuality) firmly grounded in the triune God freed man from the oppression of the state. In my opinion, however, even the triune God does not always refer to everybody’s liberty, but could degenerate into an instrument protecting the privileged. The so called universalism exploited by some Byzantine emperors or most senatorial aristocrats refers to the enforcement of the religious dogma; the former preferred Monophysitism for consolidating autocratic imperial power, and the latter the Chalcedonian formula for securing their liberty against the emperors’ despotism. Enforcing whichever kind of religious dogma denotes the degeneration of the Byzantine Society towards an exclusive, privileged society. Contrary to religious exclusivism, there was a type of Christianity which was more universal and open- minded, not only towards heretics but even to the pagans. Introduction As Constantine the Great promulgated the Edict of Milan (313 AD), the Hellenic-Roman traditions and the various sects of Christianity began to co- exist legally. Actually, however, the universalism of Christianity allowed it to open its mind towards the so called pagans
    [Show full text]
  • The 7Th Ecumenical Council & East-West Tensions
    UNIT 2C: TRADITION 57: The 7th Ecumenical Council & East-West Tensions This lecture considers seven related topics: (1) The theology of icons at the Seventh Ecumenical Council; (2) The decree of the Seventh Ecumenical Council; (3) The underlying theology of the Seventh Ecumenical Council; (4) Toward an integrated Orthodox Christian life; (5) Two 9th century theologians of note: St Photios the Great and St Symeon, the New Theologians; (6) Conclusion: The East and the West; and (7) An appendix on the Filioque. The focus is on understanding the place of icons in the Orthodox Church, as well as on the growing tensions between the East and the West. The Theology of Icons at the Seventh Ecumenical Council The art historian, Robin Cormack has posed the question: What are “the allowable functions of religious art”?1 In a sense, this was the question with which the Church struggled from the end of the seventh century until the end of the ninth century, seeking to understand the relationship of beauty to worship. The broad scope of the question is justified by the fact that during the Byzantine period, icons (from the Greek word, eikon, meaning image) meant not only frescos or paintings on wooden panels (as today), but many other forms of art, including “mosaics, carved ivory, illustrated manuscripts and even statues.”2,3 Certainly, Professor Cormack is correct that the Quinisext Council in 692 placed art “firmly on the 1Robin Cormack, Byzantine Art (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 86. Robin Cormack was formerly Professor of History of Art at the University of London, Deputy Director of the Courtauld Institute of Art and Co-curator of the 25 October 2008-22 March 2009 Royal Academy of Arts Exhibition, Byzantium 330-1453.
    [Show full text]
  • Armenian Apostolic Church
    Armenian Apostolic Church The Armenian Apostolic Oriental Orthodox Church, is one of the original Oriental Orthodox churches. The Armenian Church recognizes the Ecumenical Councils of Nicaea (325), Constantinople (381), and Ephesus (431). The decisions and the dogmatic formulations of these councils are the basis of the theological thought of the Armenian Church which help her to protect herself against different sects and religious denominations which threatened her in the past as well as today. Some councils which were recognized by the Latin and Byzantine Orthodox Churches as Ecumenical were denied according to the councils of the Armenian Church. The councils which were not recognized by the Armenian Church as Ecumenical are the following: the Council of Chalcedon (451), the Second Council of Constantinople (553), the Third Council of Constantinople (681) and the Second Council of Nicaea (787). In 451 the Council of Chalcedon, the Universal Church realized its first divergence because of the dangerous ideas put forward regarding the problem of the human and divine nature of Christ. Some oriental bishops did not accept the conclusions of the Chalcedonic Council and were thus separated from the West. Among the oriental Orthodox Church family are the Armenian Apostolic, Coptic, Ethiopian, Assyrian, and Indian Malabar. In fact, Armenian Church did not participate in the Council of Chalcedon (451), because in 451 Armenia were having one of the important battles of his history, Battle of Vartanats. The Armenian church has been labeled monophysite because they rejected the decisions of this council, which condemned monophysitism. The Western Church proceeded with its activities cutting off ties with the Oriental Orthodox Churches.
    [Show full text]
  • The Graphic Icons of Anastasios of Sinai Calum Samuelson Olivet Nazarene University, [email protected]
    Olivet Nazarene University Digital Commons @ Olivet M.A. in Christian Thought Theology 5-2015 The Graphic Icons of Anastasios of Sinai Calum Samuelson Olivet Nazarene University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.olivet.edu/theo_mact Recommended Citation Samuelson, Calum, "The Graphic Icons of Anastasios of Sinai" (2015). M.A. in Christian Thought. 1. https://digitalcommons.olivet.edu/theo_mact/1 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theology at Digital Commons @ Olivet. It has been accepted for inclusion in M.A. in Christian Thought by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Olivet. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE GRAPHIC ICONS OF ANASTASIOS OF SINAI BY CALUM SAMUELSON B.A., Olivet Nazarene University, 2013 THESIS Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Christian Thought in the School of Graduate and Continuing Studies Olivet Nazarene University, 2015 Bourbonnais, Illinois Contents Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ iv Abbreviations .......................................................................................................................v Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1 Chapter I: Theological, Artistic, and Political Development (325 – 685) .....................4 Section
    [Show full text]
  • The Personal and Social Context of Justinianic Religious Policy Prior to the Three Chapters Controversy
    University of Kentucky UKnowledge Theses and Dissertations--History History 2017 THE PERSONAL AND SOCIAL CONTEXT OF JUSTINIANIC RELIGIOUS POLICY PRIOR TO THE THREE CHAPTERS CONTROVERSY Joshua McKay Powell University of Kentucky, [email protected] Author ORCID Identifier: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0827-8106 Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.13023/ETD.2017.298 Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Powell, Joshua McKay, "THE PERSONAL AND SOCIAL CONTEXT OF JUSTINIANIC RELIGIOUS POLICY PRIOR TO THE THREE CHAPTERS CONTROVERSY" (2017). Theses and Dissertations--History. 48. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/history_etds/48 This Doctoral Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the History at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations--History by an authorized administrator of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. STUDENT AGREEMENT: I represent that my thesis or dissertation and abstract are my original work. Proper attribution has been given to all outside sources. I understand that I am solely responsible for obtaining any needed copyright permissions. I have obtained needed written permission statement(s) from the owner(s) of each third-party copyrighted matter to be included in my work, allowing electronic distribution (if such use is not permitted by the fair use doctrine) which will be submitted to UKnowledge as Additional File. I hereby grant to The University of Kentucky and its agents the irrevocable, non-exclusive, and royalty-free license to archive and make accessible my work in whole or in part in all forms of media, now or hereafter known.
    [Show full text]
  • Iran's Ethnic Christians: the Assyrians and the Armenians
    JETS 61.1 (2018): 137–52 IRAN’S ETHNIC CHRISTIANS: THE ASSYRIANS AND THE ARMENIANS PHILIP O. HOPKINS* Abstract: The idea that Christianity is foreign to Iran is a misconception. Christians have lived and often thrived in Iran. People from most every major Christian sect have made, or have tried to make, Iran their home. To a degree, these sects have cross-pollinated, but they have maintained their own identities. After mentioning Iran in the OT and early church histo- ry to provide an overview of the country’s connection with all of Christianity, this paper focuses on the Christianity of the Assyrians1 and Armenians of greater Iran, two ethnic Christian groups that left a marked impact on the country and the area in general. The account of Assyr- ian and Armenian Christianity 2 in greater Iran centers on their beginnings to the modern pe- riod when the Protestant Modern Missions Movement began. Key words: Christianity in Iran, Armenian Christians, Assyrian Christians, Iran and the Bible, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, Church of the East, Eastern Christianity, persecution, growth * Philip O. Hopkins is a professor of Christianity and Islam at Russian-Armenian University, 123 Hovsep Emin St., Yerevan, Armenia, 0051 and Research Associate for the Centre of World Christianity at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London. He can be contacted at [email protected]. 1 The Iranian Assyrians are not the same Assyrians mentioned in the Bible. Adam H. Becker, Revival and Awakening: American Evangelical Missionaries in Iran and the Rise of Assyrian Nationalism (Chicago: Univer- sity of Chicago Press, 2015), 231, 337, argues that the term “Assyrian” is used accurately for Assyrian Iranians soteriologically, dealing with “death, salvation, community, and tradition,” but not racially or ethnically.
    [Show full text]