Christological features and the problem of authorship of the 11th treatise from the Second Collection of St. Isaac the Syrian

Abstract: The article criticizes and questions the authorship of the 11th treatise from the 2nd Collection, attributed to St. Isaac the Syrian. A sufficient factual basis is provided to confirm this thesis. Thanks to the comparative analysis, a whole complex of contradictions is revealed between the author of the 11th treatise and St. Isaac the Syrian. The terminology, Christological and exegetical views of these authors reveal a clash between two traditions - Alexandrian and Antiochene theology. For the first time, the genesis of the influence due to which the Christology of St. Isaac the Syrian acquired a pronounced Alexandrian character. On the other hand, a comparative analysis of the teachings of the author of the 11th treatise made it possible to discover considerable similarities and, in fact, identity with the teachings of Mar Narsai. Based on this fact, a thesis is put forward that the 11th treatise belongs to the pen of this prominent East Syrian theologian. The article outlines methods for a detailed comprehensive study of the treatises of the 2nd Assembly, which can further contribute to the identification of dubious and forged texts, the presence of which has gone unnoticed. The treatise was first published by Paul Bejan at the end of the 1st Collection, in an appendix where the publisher included fragments of the 2nd Collection of St. Isaac the Syrian, found in the now lost Urmia manuscript. Subsequently, the treatise was translated into Latin [Isaacus Ninivita, 1943]. The clearly expressed East Syrian (Nestorian) two-subject Christology of the treatise allowed the opinion about the adherence of St. to gain a foothold in the scientific community. Isaac the Syrian Nestorian doctrine. Nevertheless, acquaintance with other treatises of both the 1st and 2nd critically published Collections containing Christological fragments allows us to state rather the opposite: “Mar Ishak uses specific concepts, for example, hultana (“mixture”, “union”), which usually in the Christology of the East Syrian Church could not be used to express the unity of two natures in Christ” [Kavvadas, 2016, 141]. Most scientists ignored such an obvious contradiction or, more mildly, went unnoticed. There is an example when another researcher - in the same collection cited above (!) - comes across the opposite opinion: Isaac “proclaims his belief in two natures, not mixed (our italics - I. N.), but united in one person" [Kyala, 2016, 161]. Some researchers have attempted to “reconcile” such incompatible extremes [Ilarion Alfeev, 2017, 106–121; Conference: St. Isaac the Syrian on the Cross of Christ, 2014, 125–136]. When getting acquainted with these works, one discovers the artificial nature of the argumentation and the lack of methodology that allows one to accurately determine the nature of this phenomenon. Neglect of such methods of patrolology (or omission of them altogether), such as comparison of terminology and stylistics, as well as exegesis and theological opinions, takes these works beyond the scope of patrolological research, since they contain the private opinions of the authors, based more on their worldview than on facts. In our study, we will not neglect the methodology developed by patrolological science over time (see about this: [Sagarda, Sagarda, 2004, 58–82; Epifanovich, 2010, 55–70]). The task of this study will be to identify the reasons for the differences in the Christological views of St. Isaac the Syrian and discovering the source of influence of this phenomenon. Let's start with a review of the authors' terminology. The left column of Table 1 (“Table of Terms”) will contain the Christological terms of St. Isaac the Syrian, on the right - the author of the 11th treatise, the authorship of which is attributed to St. Isaac. The 11th treatise is thoroughly permeated with Christological reflections and provides rich material for seeing the identity or difference in this area between the two authors. From the presented comparison it can be seen that the terminology of the authors is different and even in similar terms there are distinctive nuances. The term “incarnation”, which St. Isaac repeatedly uses in his treatises and which succinctly conveys the mystery of the Incarnation - the union of two natures, is completely absent from the author of the 11th treatise. His analogue to this term is “inhabitation” or “dwelling” - a term dating back to Fyodor of Mopsuestia (see: [Seleznev, 2002, 47]), while the term “incarnation” in St. Isaac, according to our observations, goes back to St. Athanasius of Alexandria (Athanasius Alexandrinus. De incarnatione, §1, 1; Athanasius of Alexandria, 2015, 103), and in general the Christological terminology, which we will talk about below and which can be seen in the notes in this article, in St. Isaac will be dependent on the terminology of St. Athanasius or borrowed from him. An expanded interpretation of the term “incarnation” by the author of the 11th treatise is such formulations as “Man in Whom the Divinity lives”, “Man who has become completely His church because of His favor” (Isaac the Syrian, 2013, 141), which again refers us to the two-subject terminology of Theodore of Mopsuestia (see: [Conference: St. Isaac the Syrian on the Cross Khristov, 2014, 133]). The next term used by both authors is “perception.” This term was widely used in all faiths, in this case the difference is that St. Isaac, the Word Incarnate perceives “flesh”, while in the author of the 11th treatise the Divinity perceives “Man” in His dwelling (Isaac the Syrian, 2013, 141). Here we can trace two theological systems that were developed during Christological disputes. St. Isaac the Syrian, in almost all the Christological fragments of the 1st Assembly and the critically published 2nd Assembly, follows the “Word is Flesh” position, which was developed by the Orthodox party and, mainly, St. Athanasius of Alexandria (see: [Zabolotny, 2010, 178, note 8]). The author of the 11th treatise moves in line with the two-subject Christology “Word - Man”, which was developed by Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia (see: [Zabolotny, 2020, 324–325]). It is important to note that these two theological positions do not overlap among our authors: as they say, everyone thinks in their own way. The next term - “vestment”, or “garment” - goes back to Aphraates and St. Ephraim (see: [Seleznev, 2002, 58]). Before we begin the analysis of this term, I would like to draw attention to example 3 in Table 1. In this example, sentences of almost identical construction are recorded, with the same meaning - the appearance of the Creator in the human environment. However, the above theological paradigms force authors to express the same idea in different ways. Consider the last example in which both authors use the term “vestment” or “clothing”. As you can see, when the terms are identical, there is no identity of meaning, despite the similarity of expressions. If for the author of the 11th treatise the humanity of Christ serves as clothing for the Divinity, then for St. Isaac's clothing of the Divine is humility - and it is here that the terms differ in essence. The author of the 11th treatise uses the general term “Divinity”, since in the doctrine of the Nestorian doctrine the Second Hypostasis essentially cannot be incarnated. She is in unity with the person born of the Virgin Mary through the “Person of Unity” and dwells in him through “benevolence” (see: [Zabolotny, 2020, 245, 307]). On the contrary, St. It is the Second Hypostasis – the “Word” – that incarnates Isaac and thereby puts on humility and enters into communication with us through the means of our body. The expression “The Word Incarnate” is Orthodox and directly refers us to the Christological theology of St. Athanasius of Alexandria, who repeatedly uses it (Athanasius Alexandrinus. De incarnatione, § 1, 1; § 4, 5; Athanasius of Alexandria, 2015, 103, 112, 152, 230). As we see, with the same terminology (“vestment”), the theological positions are very different among our authors. Let us present relatively another theological topos, found in the writings of both of these authors (see Table 2). Выражение «тело мира» (ܕܓܘܫܡܗ ܕܥܠܡܐ) снова отсылает нас напрямую к богословию свт. Athanasius of Alexandria (Athanasius Alexandrinus. De incarnatione, § 41, 52; Athanasius of Alexandria, 2015, 140–141, 247, 297) and to the doctrine derived from it that the human race is part of this world and that thanks to the Incarnation of the Word the world was united with the Creator. We also find the term “mixing” (ঠং৐) in St. Athanasius, in the context of Christological reasoning 4. This fact reveals the identity of the theological ideas of St. Isaac the Syrian and Saint of Alexandria. It can also be noted that the thought of St. Isaac moves in line with the theology of St. Athanasius, that St. Isaac literally paraphrases the ideas of the saint in his teachings. To complete the picture, it remains to present the stylistic differences in the language of St. Isaac and the author of the 11th treatise. However, the publishers of the 2nd Collection themselves admit that the Christological language of the 11th treatise “corresponds to East Syrian terminology” (see: (Isaac the Syrian, 2013, 147, note 25)). The style of the 11th treatise differs in many ways from the style of St. Isaac, but we will limit ourselves to those fragments in which the theme of the Passion of the Cross and the Incarnation are present simultaneously. Each author follows his own theological position stated above (see Table 3). 3. Table of stylistic differences Stylistics of St. Isaac can be described as poetic theology; the saint’s language is light and lyrical, describing theological categories in a relaxed and non-schematic manner. On the contrary, the teaching of the author of the 11th treatise strictly follows the two-subject Theodorian Christological scheme “Word - Man”. The author constantly emphasizes that there is a “Man” and there is One who “dwells” in him, or “dwells” in him through good will, or “accepts” everything that relates to this Man. Such schematic and conditional language is alien to the literary genius of St. Isaac and reveals not only a difference in styles, but also a difference in thinking. There are quite a lot of disagreements between these authors, and we will not fail to point out one more (see Table 4). 4. Table. Ascetic aspect As you can see, the authors we are studying have a different approach to prayer practice, and it is important to note that the context of the teaching is the same: the image and example of prayer in front of the Ark. The doctrine of consciously ascending to heaven with one’s own mind is absent from St. Isaac. Moreover, the conscious movement of the mind in prayer by St. Isaac refers to mental activity, which cannot penetrate into the spiritual realm: “when the mind is in motion, then it is in the spiritual realm” (Isaacus Ninivita, 1909, 169–170; Isaac the Syrian, 1911, 64). Also, the second example shows the contrast in the thinking of the two writers. The author of the 11th treatise reveres the Cross and believes that the Shekinah, who lived in the Old Testament Ark, has now settled in the Cross of the Lord. It would be strange for this author to say that “human graves” became the place where the Shekinah moved in. On the contrary, the prayer experience of St. Isaac allows us to say the opposite, that the Shekinah of God can appear everywhere if the prayer practice is done correctly. Finally, we will point out one more additional fact, which, on the one hand, confirms the falsity of this treatise as belonging to the pen of St. Isaac the Syrian, and on the other hand, gives an indication of who may still own this text. The 11th treatise contains elements of anti-Jewish polemics that took place in East Syrian literature in the 6th–7th centuries. (see: (Isaac the Syrian, 2013, 146, note 22)), such topics are alien to the texts of St. Isaac. It is interesting to note that the anti-Jewish treatises were written by the Nestorian theologian Narsai; his Christological views practically coincide with the two-subject Christology of the author of the 11th treatise. As some researchers note, “Narsai did not cross the line that should have been followed by the recognition of two subjects in Christ, although he came close to it” [Zabolotny, 2020, 244]. However, Narsai, “following the strict diphysitism of Theodore of Mopsuestia, distinguished 2 specific, individualized natures - the second Hypostasis (see: [Zabolotny, 2017, 410]). From this follows a complex theological articulation (alien to the poetic language of St. Isaac), which can be observed in the author of the 11th treatise; his thought stands on the line between “Theodorianism” and “Nestorianism” 7. By comparing Narsai's teachings with the teachings of the author of the 11th treatise, we found at least 8 points of intersection. Let's present them in a table, highlight the parallels in italics, and underline our explanatory remarks (see Table 5). 5. Table of parallel places The parallels presented in Table 5 give a clear understanding of the unanimity of the authors. General Christological, exegetical and anti-Jewish polemical topoi, together with stable phrases, allow us to put forward the thesis that the 11th treatise belongs to Peru by Mar Narsaya. Summing up the research So, the identified set of contradictions, including terminological and stylistic differences, as well as the difference in Christological and ascetic views between the two authors, allows us to more confidently attribute the 11th treatise, located in the 2nd Collection of St. Isaac the Syrian, to forged texts attributed to the pen of the reverend father. The goal that the Nestorian scribes pursued when introducing the 11th treatise into the 2nd Assembly, as we believe, was to maximally balance and obscure the pronounced “Alexandrian” Christology that St. Isaac, as we have shown, directly goes back to St. Athanasius, Patriarch of Alexandria. Moreover, the terminological and theological position of mixing “Creator and creation”, “Word and body” is alien not only to the author of the 11th treatise, but also to the entire East Syrian tradition in general. Such statements already directly led to the theology of St. Cyril of Alexandria, which could cause rejection and rejection among the Nestorian reader. The introduction of the 11th treatise ensured the successful dissemination of the 2nd Assembly in the East Syrian environment, which at that time was still dominated by anti-ascetic tendencies associated with the activities of Bar Sauma (see: [Zabolotny, 2020, 241–242]), which made ascetic writing extremely in demand. In this study, for the first time, the reason for the difference in the Christological views of St. Isaac the Syrian and the source of influence is indicated - “The Sermon on the Incarnation of the Word” by St. Athanasius of Alexander. Acquaintance with Rev. Isaac the Syrian with this treatise 9 is confirmed by the use of terms and specific quotations with the same context. Christological views of St. Isaac the Syrian fully corresponds to the Alexandrian theological position “Word is flesh”, developed by St. Athanasius of Alexandria. The doctrine of the “single body” ( ̚ ͕ ͦ ͓ ͪ ͐ ) after the incarnation of God the Word (Athanasius Alexandrinus. De incarnatione, § 9, 12; Athanasius of Alexandria, 2015, 110–111) and the term “confusion” ( ͚ ͠ ͛ ͐ ) were reflected in the teaching of St. Isaac the Syrian about the union (mixing) of “Creator and creation,” which, in turn, was clearly reflected in the doctrine of deification and pneumatology in the writings of the saint. All of the above theological positions are alien to the “Theodorian” and, in general, the entire East Syrian tradition. In fact, we have before us a unique case in the history of the Church of the East - the appearance and transmission of the Alexandrian theological tradition in the writings of the most famous venerable theologian of the Syrian East. And finally, the question of the authorship of the 11th treatise, the content of which comes into sharp conflict with the Christological teaching of St. Isaac the Syrian, it is necessary to revise and transfer this treatise to the category of forged texts. At the same time, a comparison of the contents of the 11th treatise with the teachings of the prominent theologian of the Church of the East, Mar Narsai, showed their complete mutual agreement. Considering the wide range of similarities found in the content of just one small treatise, it is possible to speak with a high degree of probability that the treatise belongs to Peru Mar Narsaya. It must be added that in the 2nd Assembly of St. Isaac the Syrian, in addition to the 11th treatise, there are several more treatises and text fragments, which, upon painstaking research, reveal their artificial inclusion by the scribe. In the next article we will make a detailed review of the composition of the 2nd Assembly and indicate the places we have discovered that have signs of interpolation. 1. Athanasius of Alexandria (2015) – Athanasius the Great, St. Creations. M.: Siberian Blagozvonnitsa, 2015. T. 1. 2. Isaac the Syrian (1911) - Isaac the Syrian, St. Ascetic words. Sergiev Posad: Type. St.-Tr. Sergius Lavra, 1911. 3. Isaac the Syrian (2013) - Isaac the Syrian, St. About Divine mysteries and spiritual life: newly discovered texts / Transl. from Syriac, note, preface. and after. Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeev). St. Petersburg: Oleg Abyshko Publishing House, 2013. 4. Isaac the Syrian (2024) - Isaac the Syrian, St. Ascetic Words, presented in order of increasing virtue: new translation / Comp. monk Damascene (Milis), prev., comment. and ed. Jerome. Nikon (Skarga), prev., trans. and note. Jerome. Vasily (Konstantinov). Kozelsk; St. Petersburg: Vvedensky stauropegial male convent of Optina Pustyn; SPbDA, 2024. 5. Mar Narsai (2019) – Mar Narsai. Against the Jews / [entry. article and translation from the Syriac by D. F. Bumazhny, S. V. Fomicheva] // Theological works. 2019. No. 49. pp. 320–355. 6. Athanasius Alexandrinus (1965) – Athanasius Alexandrinus. De incarnatione //Athanasiana syriaca. Part I/Ed. by R. W. Thomson. Louvain: Secrétariat du Corpus SCO, 1965 (CSCO; vol. 257; Scriptores syri; t. 114). 7. Isaacus Ninivita (1909) – Mar Isaacus Ninivita. De perfectione religiosa / Ed. par P. Bedjan. P.; Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz, 1909. 8. Isaacus Ninivita (1943) – Un traité nestorien du culte de la Croix / Éd. par J. van der Ploeg // Le Muséon. 1943. Vol. 56. P. 115–127. 9 . Epifanovich (2010) – Epifanovich S. L. Lectures on Patrology. St. Petersburg: Resurrection, 2010. 10. Ortiz de Urbina (2011) – Ignacio Ortiz de Urbina. Syrian Patrology / [trans. from lat. M.V. Gratsiansky]. M.: PSTGU Publishing House, 2011. 11. Hilarion Alfeev (2017) – Hilarion (Alfeev), Met. The spiritual world of St. Isaac the Syrian. St. Petersburg: Oleg Abyshko Publishing House, 2017. 12. Zabolotny (2017) – Zabolotny E. A. Narsai, Theologian // Orthodox Encyclopedia. M., 2016. T. 48. pp. 402–412. 13. Zabolotny (2020) – Zabolotny E. A. Syrian Christianity between Byzantium and Iran. St. Petersburg: Nauka, 2020. 14. Kavvadas (2016) – Kavvadas N. The Antiochian foundation of Ishak’s theology // Isaac the Syrian, St. (Mar Ishaq of Nineveh). Book about the ascent of a monk: First collection (treatises I–VI) / General. ed. and lane from Syriac, Arabic, Greek A. V. Muravyova. M.: Ed. house "Yask", 2016. pp. 137–142. 15. Kalinin (2019) – Kalinin M. G. Appendix [trans. with sir. M. G. Kalinina] // Venerable Isaac the Syrian. Ascetic words. Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra, 2019. pp. 527–580. 16. Kessel (2016) – Kessel G. M. Manuscript tradition of the first volume of the Syrian corpus of Isaac of Nineveh // Isaac the Syrian, Rev. (Mar Isaac of Nineveh). Book about the ascent of a monk: First collection (treatises I–VI) / General. ed. and lane from Syriac, Arabic, Greek A. V. Muravyova. M.: Ed. house "Yask", 2016. pp. 56–78. 17. Kyala (2016) – Kyala S. Christological position // Isaac the Syrian, St. (Mar Ishaq of Nineveh). Book about the ascent of a monk: First collection (treatises I–VI) / General. ed. and lane from Syriac, Arabic, Greek A. V. Muravyova. M.: Ed. house "Yask", 2016. pp. 161–162. 18. Conference: St. Isaac the Syrian on the Cross of Christ (2014) – Baer I., Rev. St. Isaac the Syrian about the Cross of Christ // St. Isaac the Syrian and his spiritual heritage. Materials of the First International Patristic Conference of Church-wide Postgraduate and Doctoral Studies named after Saints Cyril and Methodius. M.: [Church-wide postgraduate and doctoral studies named after. St. Cyril and Methodius], 2014. pp. 125–136. 19. Sagarda, Sagarda (2004) – Sagarda N. I., Sagarda A. I. Complete body of lectures on patrolology. St. Petersburg, 2004. 20. Seleznev (2002) - Seleznev N. N. Christology of the Assyrian Church of the East. Analysis of basic materials in the context of the history of the formation of religious doctrine. M.: Euroasiatica, 2002. Compare: “he takes on His own body (👦👑🏼), “the body that He takes on Himself (🦦👪👑👑👑👑👑𝑑𝑑𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑟𝑑𝑑𝑟𝑧s" (Athanasius Alexandrinus. De incarnatione, § 9, 11; Athanasius of Alexandria, 2015, 110). “God’s Word took upon Himself a body ( ͡ ͠ ͑ ͗ ͕͐͗͐͠ ͣ͒͢ ͓ͦͪ͐)'" (Athanasius Alexandrinus. De incarnatione, § 45, 57; Athanasius of Alexandria, 2015, 145). See: also in the 1st Assembly (Isaac the Syrian, 2024, 234, 371, note 314). Compare: “The Savior justly clothed himself with a body ( ͡ ͡ ͒ ͡ ͦ ͓ ͪ ͐ ) so that after the grafting of the body ( ͡ ͡ ͚ ͡ ͛ ͦ ͓ ͪ ͐ ) to life, it would no longer remain in death as mortal, but as one clothed ( ͕ ͠ ͒ ͫ ͐͠ ͡ ͝ ͘ ͡ ͘ ͡ ͒ )’ with immortality.” (Athanasius Alexandrinus. De incarnatione, § 44, 57; Athanasius of Alexandria, 2015, 144). In his study, Met. Hilarion (Alfeev) gives the following note to this place: “Sir. “And among us he talked with us in clothes that Providence created in the womb of the Virgin.” The Greek translation of this phrase is an example of how the terminology of “clothing” was carefully avoided among the Chalcedonites” [Ilarion Alfeev, 2017, 108, note. 5]. However, if, for example, we turn to the most ancient East Syrian (Nestorian) manuscript Vat. syr. 367 (VIII century), fol. 50r, then the term “clothes” will not be found in this place. The term "robes" appears several centuries later in the British manuscript Brit. Add. 1432 (X century), fol. 148r, the text of which contains the West Syrian edition (see: [Kessel, 2016, 78]). And only after the West Syriac edition did this term migrate to the East Syriac manuscripts. The thesis that the “Chalcedonites” carefully avoided the terminology of “clothing” turns out to be untenable, since it does not take into account the textuality of the manuscripts and is based on a manuscript of the 13th century uncritically published by P. Bejan. It is worth adding that in his study Met. Hilarion often refers to uncritically published texts, the authorship of which may be questionable, which, in turn, may produce biased research results. Shekinah (Heb.) – the presence of God. For the difference between these concepts, see: [Zabolotny, 2020, 324–326]. It is important to note that Rev. Isaac in the 1st Assembly mentions the lid of the Ark, but does not give any Christological interpretation. On the contrary, the context of the teaching is devoted to Pneumatology - the descent of the Holy Spirit on the one praying (Isaacus Ninivita, 1909, 173–174; Isaac the Syrian, 1911, 66). The translation of the treatise “On the Incarnation of the Word” refers to the early translations that were made “in the pan-Orthodox era” [Ortiz de Urbina, 2011, 238].