CHRISTOLOGY AFTER CHALCEDON Severus of Antioch and Sergius the Monophysite IAIN R. TORRANCEbury Preis Norwach, St Mary's Works, Si Mary's Plain, Norexch, Norfolk NR3 2BH “The Canterbury Press Norwich is a publishing imprint ‘of Hymns Ancient & Modern Limited The Synac senpt was generated on an IBM PC XT Musing the package Multi-Lingual Schofor from Gamma Productions, Inc.. 110 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 609 Santa Monica, CA 90401 and a Syriac font supplied by George A. Kiraz ‘Alapb Beth Computer Systems $030 Maplewood Ave. # 203 Los Angeles. CA 90004 ISBN 0-907547-97-4 First published 1983 © lain R. Torrance AU rights reserved. No part of this publication whic! is . No par ch is copyright ne, sired aetna ste, oF iranamitied. i ny form ‘by any He rer pemsion of The Canrbry Pres Norsk or the appropri copyright owner. oF the approprints The design on the front cover shows; Add. 1 Secad so repeeducnd by perigee Te ke mamascriph The design was, nepentloy Ra mi ae itch Library. 26 TORRANCE AGH 47 Filmset by Eta Services (Typesetters) Beccics, rated and bound in Great Badin by Cambios nia casContents Preface Abbrevistions Part One A Theological Introduction to the Letters between. ‘Severus of Antioch aod Sergius the Grammarian 1 Introduction A. Severus, Antoninus and Sergius B. An outline of the events following Chalcedon, asa background to the life of Severus C. Earlier studies of Severus, and the orientation of this introduction D. Manuscript and translation Il The Misunderstanding between Sergius and Severus II] The Theological Argument of Sergius’ Letters Introduction Letter I Letter 1 Letter IIT The Apology of Sergius IV Concepts and Comparisons ¥ Introduction to the Letters of Severus to Sergius VI The First Letter of Severus VII The Second Letter of Severus VIII The Third Letter of Severus 4 0 2 cu ” ” a 49 59 18 a ws 135CONTENTS Part Two The Letters between Severus of Antioch and Sergius the Grammarian Letier 1 of Sergius Letter 1 of Severus Letter If of Sergius Letter Hof Severus Letter HI of Sergius Letter II! of Severus The Apology of Sergius Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Bibliography 43 147 165 171 203 213 237 248 249Preface This study began life as a thesis submit iversit Oxford. My research was supervised by DrSebouee nou n kindness and thoroughness were an example which I hope will never leave me. The thesis was examined by The Revd Dr Lionel Wickham and Bishop Kallistos of Diokleia, Their graciousness and careful altention to detail taught me a great deal. Archbishop Methodios of Thyateira and Great Britain encouraged me at every stage, and did me the honour of publishing an earlier draft of my translation of the Letters in Abba Salama 9 (1918), and of the theological introduction to them in Ekklesia kai Theologia 2 (4981), 3 (1982); 4 (1983) and 5 (1984). The Very Revd Dr Henry Chadwick took an interest in this study from the beginning, and that it is now being published is due entirely to his prompting and sound advice. I would also like to thank Mr Gordon Knights of The Canterbury Press Norwich, who has helped me through all the hurdles of preparing a typescript for publication. 1 would express my gratitude to The British Academy for its support in the provision of an award towards the publication of this book. My parents, Thomas F. Torrance and Margaret E. Torrance, have been a constant support to me, morally, financially and spiritu- ally. 1 owe them more than leould ever say. My wife, Morag, has helped me at every stage, and this study is @ part of both our lives. In gratitude and love I dedicate it to her. Canty Bay, East Lothian, Scotland. . August 1987 lain R. TorranceAbbreviations SEVERUS OF ANTIOCH EM Select Letters Collected Letters Philalethes Eiusdem ac Sergli Grammatici: Mutuge, od. and transi. J. Lebon, Comer Scriptorum Christianorwm Orientalium, \\9, 120 (Syr. 64, 65) (Louvain, 1949). The Sixth Book of the Select Letters of Severus, Patriarch of Antioch, in the Syriac Version of Athanasius of Nisibis, ed. and aes. E. W. Brooks, 4 vols. (London, 1902- “A Collection of Lettcrs from Numerous Syriac Manuscripts", ed. and transl. E. W. Brooks, Patrologia Oriencalis, \2, 14 (Paris, 1919-20), 163-342; 1-310. Le Philaléthe, ed. and uansl. R. Hespel, Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orien- talium, 133, 134 (Syr. 68, 69) (Louvain, 1952). CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA ‘Adv, Nest. Apol. contra Theod. Apol. pro XI Cap. contra Orient. Contra Diod. Tars. Epise. Contra Syn. De Recta Fide ad Theod. Ep. 1, Had Suce. Qusc Pusey edn. ‘Adversus Nestorit Blasphemias Contradic- tionum Libri Quingue. ‘Apologeticus contra Theodoretum pro XII Capitibus. Apologeticus pro Xfl Capitibus contra Orien- tales, ; Fragmenia contra Diodorun Tarsensem Epis- copum. ; Fragmenta contra Synousiasias De Recta Fide ad Theodosium imperatorem Epistola 1, Il. ad Succensum Quod unus sit Christus Cyril of Alexandria, Opera. Text ed. PE Pusey, 7 vols. (Oxford, 1868-77). repr. 1965.JOSEPH LEBON Le Monophysisme Chalkedon HTR RHE The Syriac Chronicle H. syr. 22 Le Monophysisme sévérien (Louvain, 1909), La Christologie du monophysisme syrien”, in Das Konzil von Chatkedon: Geschichte und Gegenwart, cd. A. Grillmeier and H. Bacht (Waraburg, 1951), 1, 425-580. ‘Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum (Berlin and Leipzig). Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orien- talium (Louvain). Patrologia Graeca Patrologia Latina Patrologia Orientalis Journal of Semitic Studies Journal of Theological Studies Harvard Theological Review Revue Phistoire ecclésiastique The Syriac Chronicle Known as that of Zachariah of Mitylene, trans. F. J. Hamilton and E. W. Brooks (London, 1899). Harvard (Houghton Library) syr. 22.Part One A THEOLOGICAL INTRODUCTION TO THE LETTERS BETWEEN SEVERUS OF ANTIOCH AND SERGIUS THE GRAMMARIAN1 Introduction A. Severus, Antoninus and Sergius ‘The correspondence between Sergius and Sev i Te copes: tues St tn Sova comp te Setgius. The fist leter from Sergius was addressed onginally not to Severus, but o Antoninus, the Bishop of Aleppo. who seems to have asked Severus to reply. The outline of Severus’ life is relatively well known." Apart fom his own very numerous letters.? and hints which he gives in his theo- logical writings, there arc three ancient “Lives of Severus*.? Though we may coubt their historical value, these lives even attempt to give something of a description of Severus, Thus, Athanasius says that Severus was a man “delicate in body and fine in person’’* When he did the work of his brethren in the monastery, the blood used to run from his hands. Athanasius again stresses that Severus was a com- passionate man,’ and, as we will sce, this is an important quality ii understanding him. All the carly biographers emphasise Severus’ asceticism, and Severus himself, writing to Justinian, says that his life was habitually frugal.® Severus was born in Sozopolis in Pisidia about 465. His family was well-to-do, and as a young man, not yet baptised, he was sent 10 Alexandria to study ypaparict and jmropurj. From Alexandria he went to Beirut, to study Roman law. At Beirut Severus came under the influence of a group of Christian students, and began to study Basil and Gregory Nazianzen. At this stage he was baptised, at the shrine of Leontius at Tripoli.” We are told that after his baptism Severus became increasingly as- cetic, spending much of his time in church. He qualified as an advoc- ate, and visited Jerusalem, where he decided to follow the monastic life. From Jerusalem, looking for a still more ascetic life, be weot into the descrt of Eleutheropolis. Here he eventually became aad was persuaded to enter the convent of Romanus. At this time he shared out with his brothers the property he inherited from bis parents, and after giving most of his share to the poor, bought a con- vent near Maiuma.eMRUSTOLOGY ALTER ct involved in opposing the Councit Sevcras uae alread 3000 mncapal scat of Peter the Then Chabon i te .o(2) bishops who consecrated Timothy Acturus.s aa nee fallow in this tradition. He already belonged 19 and Severus wa omophysite parly. which rejected the Henoticon the mom ee the archdeacon of Carthage, wrote of Severus that "dom sederet prius in monasterio Iberi, non suscipiebat Zeng. nis edictum, nec Petreum Mongon .. exinde missus est Permanere Constantinopolim ..."'® Severus was indeed sent to Constantin, aple. A Chakcedonian monk, Nephalius, stirred up the bishops in Palestine against the anti-Chaleedonian monks. who began to be harassed. John of Beth Aphthonia tells us that Nephalius even wrote an Apologia for Chalcedon, which Severus destroyed as if it had been a cobweb, with his two Orationes.!" This was the first import. ant anti-Chalecdonian work of Severus that we have. and it was written around 508.7 Cobweb or not, Evagrius tells us that Severus ‘was expelled from his own monastery by Nephalius and his party, and thence proceeded to the imperial city. to plead the case of him- self and those expelled with him." Severus spent the years 508-11 in Constantinople. He seems quite quickly to have gained the sympathy of Anastasius, who was already fot over-fond of the Patriarch Macedonius, who had definite lean- ings towards Chalcedon. The Chalcedonians in the capital made a collection of edited excerpts from Cyril, in an attempt to show that Cyn himself supported the Chalecdonian account of the two ‘natures. This work was apparently given to Macedonius, who gave it to the emperor. Severus, in tum, wrote his Philalethes, giving the {rve context of the quotations from Cyril." Relations between Severus and Masedonis steadily deteriorated. Macedonius’ ton was not strong. He had already undermined his support wit the extreme Chaloedonians by promising to uphold the Heno 4 c bee Philoxe- v# Justinian was engaged in an operation to regain Rome, ang the Goths sent Agapetus to Constantinople to treat with Justinian on their behalf. Agapetus arrived in Constantinople in 536. Zachar. ias tells us that he perverted the love of the king to Severus and Anthimus. Justinian’s interest clearly lay in the West, and Anthimus was replaced by Menas as Patriarch of Constantinople. Though Agapetus died in April $36, the position of Severus and the Mono- physites was lost. Severus, and his friends, were condemned>? at a ovvobos dvinuotoa in Constantinople lasting from May to June 536. The synod was confirmed by an edict of Justinian on the 6th of August 536. Accord- ing to the edict, Severus was guilty of both Nestorianism and Euty- chianism.2* his books were to be banned,?* and he was to be ‘banished. According to Athanasius, Severus left Constantinople with the help of the Empress Theodora.’’ He returned to Egypt. and there, about 538, “the Lord visited him with a light disorder, and .... he fell asleep"".>* Antoninus was Bishop of Aleppo (als). His predecessor was Peter. one of the bishops who assisted at the consecration of Severus in 512.2° While he was Patriarch, Severus wrote to him several times.*° Antoninus was expelled in 519, taking refuge in Alexandria, The Chronicle to the year 846 records that having suffered persecu- Uon in various places, Antoninus died in Constantinople.*? __ Of Sergius, Lebon notes, “nous ne connaissons ni sa patrie, ni les evenements de son histoire, en dehors de la pokkmique dont nous avons parlé™.*? We can sec (rom his letters that he was a monophy- site of an exaggerated ‘sont. He secms to have remained in the East,*? after Justin became emperor, so it is not unreasonable to assume that though he had a certain prominence, he was not a bishop. We do not know all the background of the origin of the corres- Pondence between Sergius and Severus, but we can surmise some of i. In the unoamed town where Sergius was living, a severe attitude was taken to converted Dyophysites. Sergius had a brief statement (OF nofsiasor, which scems to have been used as a doctrinal test* tonos the converted Dyophysites. This wus, “We d ; natures oF (10) propricties after the incxprewibie wees, us’ «edeidutuy Dad been submitted toan assembly. of which Amore Rus of Aleppo Wasa member. The opinion of the sssembly wy Sergius. suiting. “We do nol speak of divided proprieties’ = Senay tai t0 find this judgement difficult to understand, and tweet tion of prime importance for the commentator to atk if whic meant in the same way, in both Sergius’ wedeidaiov, and the ans ss the assembly. Sergius characterises the judgement asa concessing*” rehearses several of his objections to it, and begs the anembied Fathers to help him. The request is passed to Severs und the corres ponilence begins. : The question of the exact date of the correspondence is not eas Sergius was clearly addressing an assembly of bishops when be wrote, “O Good Fathers...."** Lebon asks, “Etaitce un synode?”** We cannot say. Was Antoninus at its head? Possibly, as Sergius writes to him. but Severus himself was not available at the time, being, as he says, “Far off"".*° If it was a synod, can we deduce more about it? Lebon suggests it was the Synod of Tyre in 514.1! which would allow a date of perhaps 515° for Sergius’ First Letter. ‘There is easier internal evidence for dating the end of the cortex- pondence, for both Sergius’ and Severus’ Third Letters point to a date after $18. To take these points in turn: in Sergius’ Third Leter, he speaks of the spark of his feeble tongue being used, “because of the remoteness of bishops in the east",*? which very probably refers to the expulsion of the Monophysites after the death of Anastasius in 518, Later in the same letter,?* Sergius, having prayed that Sever- us be given long life, says he looks forward to when he will say to the Lord God, “Thou hast tured away the captivity of Jacob...".”? Severus, in his Third Letter, clearly demonstrates a post-518 date, when he challenges Sergius, “Therefore show (me) when, in the six years I spoke in the Church of the Antiochenes, and wrote many letters, at any time I once said Emmanuel is one ousia, and of one signification and of one particularity’.** Later in the same letter, Severus describes himself as put to Might by enemies in his tracks.”” and at the end of the letier, Severus refers to Dioscorus I! of Alexan- dria, who died on 14th October, 517** as ifthe were already dead. B. An outline of the events following Chalcedon, ss « backgroand to the life of Severus. The ninety to.» hundred years following Chaleedon were a highlyCHRISTOLOGY ALTER CHALCE DON x veived pereal of history, Nevertheless, it i€ possible to deri erin irom povnting to certain bros factors which were aencork, Wigram.** for example, points to the policy of the empey. Sie be son after Chalcedon lost Rome, and in the 6th centy trad to recover il: the growing national feeling of certain parts of the Cane, and the jealousy of the great sexs: Canon 2 of Chalcedon fave painatchal juriadiction rather than just an honorary proce. vence in the East to Constantinople, and Rome unwaveringly helg te Chakedon, which approved the Tome of Leo. ; The account which follows in no way attempts to provide a his. ofthe period.*° It is intended, rather, to set Severus’ life agains, the background of his times, and to show him as the consistent, though conservative, follower of his predecessors. “Afier Chalcedon in 451, Dioscorus of Alexandria was exiled 10 Gangra in Paphlagonia, and Proterius, a Chalcedonian, was appointed in his place. The Alexandrians greeted him with a riot, In Jerusalem, the anti-Chalcedonian monks rejected Juvenal, their Chalcedonian bishop, and in his place appointed Theodosius. Before Marcian, the emperor, was able to replace Juvenal, Theodo- sius was able to consecrate a number of bishops, among whom were Peter the Iberian, who became bishop of Maiuma near Gaza, and Theodotus, the bishop of Joppa.*" ‘On the death of Marcian in 457, the people of Alexandria renewed their feud against Proterius. Those who had been expelled by Mar- Gian returned, and though Proterius was still alive and discharging the functions of his office, the people clected a Monophysite, Tumothy Aclurus, as their bishop.** Peter the Iberian was one of those who took part in his consecration.*? There was another riot, and Proterius was murdered in the baptistry. The emperor Leo then sent circular letters throughout the empire, asking the bishaps to de- clare their opinion regarding the ordination of Timothy Aelurus, and the Synod of Chalcedon. The bishops expressed their adherence to Chakedon, and unanimously condemned the ordination of Timothy Aclurus, who was sentenced to banishment at Gangra.* In his place. the Alcxandnians elected another Timothy, a moderate Chaleedonian, nicknamed Basilicus of Salophaciolus. Zeno became emperor in February 474, but, as a result of a palace ‘conspiracy in which his mother-in-law, the Augusta Verina, took & feading role, he was ousted in 475 by Basiliscus, who reigned e igned for 20 months. Basiliscus recalled Timothy Aclurus from his exile to Cor santinople. where he was joined by Peter the Fi aed Monophysite bishop of Antioch. Ti llr. the exiled . Timothy, according to Evagrius toryINTRODUCTION 9 and Zacharias, persuaded Basitiscus to send a circul 1c eMpAre. explicitly 4 “halen ce ne pure explicitly anathematising Chalcedon and the ‘h doctrine sho tells us that Aca i wuld finople, was smpressed with Timothy sdactinelsar ene cote hie hesitated to sign the Encyclical which anathematised Chater and so diminished the jurisdiction of his see.** However icedon, Faller of Antioch signed, xs did Paul of Ephesus, Anattonas ctr salem, and five hundred other bishops.* * cru. Timothy then went to Ephesus, where restored (0 that see the dignity of the Pasar rae and been deprived by Chalcedon.** From there he proceeded to Alene dria. Historically, we may notice wo points in this: first, Timoth: was making it the standard of his party explicitly to anathematic: Chalcedon. Secondly, and equally explicitly, the anathematisation of Chalcedon was against the interests of Constantinople, and brought into play the jealousy of that see. * On his return to Alexandria, Timothy showed himself to be a truly remarkable man. Although a Monophysite, he insisted on the doce trine of the double consubstantiality, and from his exile he had writ- ten not only against the Chaleedonians, but also against the Eutychians. But even this he did with toleration and restraint: he waited four years before exposing by name the Eutychians Isaiah of Hermopolis and Theophilus of Alexandria.** Again. from exile, he had urged that converted Dyophysites (members of Proterius' party) should be treated with pastoral moderation. He referred explicitly to the regulation of Cyril and Dioscorus, that when a bishop. a presbyter or a deacon is converted, he should have one year of re pentance, and after that be re-established in his former rank."* In Alexandria all he required of members of the Proterian party was that they should anathematise the Synod and the Tome.”! This moderation earned him enemies: Theodotus of Joppa apparently wanted a much more severe attitude to be taken to the converted Proterians, and even practised re-anointing.”? He left Timothy's party to form an extreme separatist group. Zacharias, rather inter~ cstingly, tells us that Peter the Iberian did not at all agree with this faction, but was warmly attached to Timothy. Historically and theologically, we can see in Timothy Aelurus and Peter the Iberian a Monophysite position which is clearly Cyrillian, rather than Eutychian.”? Pastorally, it practised moderation. We have already seen that Severus expressed his admiration for Peter the Iberian, and from his letters, we can see that he made a particularCHRISTOLOGY ALTER CHALG Is w “ar allowing the pastoral practice of Timothy Aclurys, fn le Tendo Severn ert SRaul only be subject t0 the peniods of penance which 7; an "* and in the case of converted Chulcedonians, Neate that he again followed the example of Timothy, who, when reached Alexandria, received (hose who came from the heresy of the Dyophywtes. upon their anathematising the heresy in writing. ang accepting such a period of separation for penitence as he judged tq fe goad. "* He explicitly repudiated re-anointing.”” Thus, we can sey ‘a consistent tine of practice (rom Cyril, through Timothy, to Sever, us We can also sce the emergence of a more extreme Monophysite group, marked by its Eutychian leanings and its pastoral severity. a tempting 10 see here the theological and pastoral ancestry of Serguus, whom we will study shortly. | While Timothy Aclurus was in Alexandria, Acacius in Constanti- nople intrigued to bring back Zeno. Basiliscus, now too late, repu- diated his Encyclical and restored the rights of the see of Constantinople. Zeno returned in August 476, and Basiliscus was sent to Cappadocia and beheaded. Zeno expelled Peter the Fuller from Antioch."* and but for Timothy's age would have expelled him from Alexandria. He soon died, and in his place the Alexandrian bishops elected, on their own authority, Peter Mongus.”® Zeno, in exasperation, expelled Peter and in his place recalled Timothy Salo- phaciolus, the now aged Chalcedonian successor of Proterius. ‘The Alexandrians then sent a presbyter, John, to Constantinople, to obtain permission for them to elect as their bishop a person of their own choice, on the death of Timothy Salophaciolus.*° How- ‘ever, in Constantinople, John was apparently caught canvassing his own nomination, and only returned under an oath that he would never accept the see. Zeno issued a precept that, on the death of ‘Timothy. that person should be bishop whom the clergy and people might elect. Timothy very soon died, and John broke his oath, and ‘by means of a bribe, procured his own nomination as bishop.*! When Zeno heard this, be ordered that John should be ejected {rom ihe sex asa tiar, and that Peter Mongus should be restored, on ition that he subscribe to. a document which Zeno addressed to the Alexandrians, and admit into communion the party of Proterius. ‘This document the Henoti CH . was lenoticon of July 482.*? It was a master- Pee of diplomacy and clea-thinking In 476 Odoacer bad deposed the last Roman Augustulus, and proclaimed himself king. With the loss orRone and the West, there was lost that section of the empire which wasINTRODUCTION 1 1 walcedon, As we saw at nople was impressed by but hesitated to sign an is concern was with Canon ‘ould be safeguarded, he was nings. The time way Fipe for most deeply committed to the theology of Ch the time of Hisihscus, Acccius of Constanti Timothy Acluruy’ doctrinal arguments, Encyclical anathematising Chalcedon. ah and the precedence of his see: if this « quite prepared 10 have onophysie lea an attempt 10 conciliate the monophysites doctrinally, yet wy ‘rally anathematising Chalcedon. This et without fe Toda 's is what the Henoticon set ft declared the three Councils of Ni i Ephesus to be standards of the faith, ceecived tne rennet on (Anathemas) of Cyril, and anathematised Nestorius and Eutyphee Doctrinally. the Henoticon avoided the contentious technical hrase (dv 860 di‘orou), and indeed taught a positive doctrine which both sides could accept, Thus, it affirmed the double consubstantiaity, stated that Christ is “one and not two", and said that both ihe miracles and the sufferings are those of a single person.*? Finally, it fanathematised any one who held any other opinion, “whethey at Chalcedon or in any synod whatever"."* This was not an explicit condemnation of Chalcedon, but amounted to a downgrading of it, 0 that its main importance lay in its condemnation of Nestorius and Eutyches Clearly. the prima facie purpose of the Henoticon was to create peace in Egypt between the Monophysites and the Proterians, and to provide a reconciliation between Constantinople and Alexandria. However, after some hesitation as it contained no explicit anathema ‘on Chalcedon and the Tome, Peter Mongus subscribed to it,*? as did Peter the Fuller of Antioch (who was replaced in his see after the expulsion of Calendio, the Chaleedonian bishop of Antioch who refused to sign and complained to Zeno), and the bishops of Ephe- ‘sus and Jerusalem." The Henoticon thus quickly became not just a test for Peter Mongus, but something of a government creed. Peter Mongus’ hesitation in signing was justified: in Egypt the Henoticon soon ran into stormy water. In Alexandria, a sizeable number of Monophysites.*? under the leadership of Theodore of Antinoe, seceded from the communion of Peter Mongus, on the Brounds that the Henoticon contained no clear and decided ana- thema on Chalcedon and the Tome. To pacify this faction, Peter explicitly anathematised both Chalcedon and the Tome, which pro- voked the wrath of Constantinople and Rome, but because be entered into communion with those who had uttered 80 anathema, the extremists withdrew from him into their monasteries, but with-cunrstoLogy Ar tead of Peter. They thus became ae areetephalts” (decd) oF the SePSTatit> (iocyioy brow We should nouce several points in this. ESARriNs, with justi non, calles Peter "a double dealer, a waverer, and ime-seryey Jachanas tells us that he tried t0 show to the Separ; Henovcon nullified Chalcedon, by accepting the tele chapters of Canland anathematising Nestorius and Eutyches.** This interpre. tation, that the Henoticon by itself annulled Chatecdon, was, ay shall see, one which was fo become increasingly Popular. Second. the Separatists were not all extremists in the Eutychian ten though without doubt they were intransigently conservittive, were supported, it would seem, in their demand for an anathema on Chalcedon, by Peter the Iberian,*® who, as we saw at the time of Timothy Aclurus, was not of the pastorully extreme party. We can argue that some were simply following the Alexandrian tradition which Timothy Aclurus laid down, that converted Proteriuns would be accepted if they explicitly anathematised the Synod and the Tome. As we have already seen, Severus aligned himself with this group. rejecting both Peter Mongus, and the idea that the Henoti- con. by itself and without explicit anathema on Chalcedon, was suf- ficient to heal disunity in the Church. Peter Mongus died in 490 and the emperor Zeno in 491. Zeno was succeeded by Anastasius, who continucd the policy of trying to unite the eastern empire on the basis of the Henoticon. Evagrius tells us that he was averse to the introduction of change, and that therefore, “during these times, the Council of Chalcedon was neither openly Proclaimed. nor yet repudiated by all; but the bishops acted cach Smrordiog to bis own opinion’.*! Euphemius, a Chaleedonian. was bishop of Constantinople, but was deposed in 496 and replaced Macedonius. In 498 Flavian became bishop of paral tt anne th sage that Sevrus +brean te Day gaia role in the ston . nius and Flavian throu; ors of Seversand| Priloxeaus, and withthe consent of Anas the Monephiriin ces a lenoticon was lost. and for a short time ‘out appoinung a bisho}INTRODUCE TON al quarrel wath Ante ee 2" th addition, such an extremist could hardly signal the overthrew of Cet of cast cause. which depended an the maintenance of ¢ mek, Henoti- tion by all pasties. 1216 pons. “The removal of Flavian of A have alteady seen, Flavian relused at Sion aa eae Avwe anathemsatise Chalcedon for Philoxcous, though he ws en 2 anathematise Nestorius and the schoo! of Diodore* Reopen us that Flavian admitted the Synod onl Evagrius tells tion of Nestorius and E faith Severus himself tothe monks in the expulsion from Constantinople in 536, trent of Flavian.** Flavian, then unlte Macedonian oe Henoticist. But this did not satisfy Phitoxenus, who insisted on on explicit anathema on Chalcedon, and Flavian was expelled in $12. Severus became Patriarch, and as we have scen, both explicitly con. demned Chaloedon, and, at Tyre in 514, expounded the Henoticos in an anti-Chalecdonian way.” The Henolicist compromise was now dead. We have already seen that the monophysite supremacy was to be short-lived. Anastasius died in 518, and the new emperor, Justin, was committed to healing the breach with Rome. Pope Hormisdas was able to make peace with Constantinople on his own terms, and in March 519 John of Cappadocia, Patriatch of Constantinople, duly anathematised his predecessor, Acacius, who had been the author of the schism.°* Severus, as we know. fled to Egypt, but the tide had now turned against the Monophysites. We have ofready seen in outline the rest of Severus’ life, including his final condem- nation in $36. Let us, in conclusion, draw together the points which have emerged from his historical background. We have seen that quite apart from his theological “fathers, Cyril and Gregory Nazianzen, Severus refers to and acknowledges the influence on him of Timothy Aelurus and Peter the Iberian. Both of these men condemned Eutychianism as explicitly as they con demned Nestorianism, Their monophysitism was thus Cyril as will become clear in the examination of his lettcrs to Sergius, Severus follows them in this. | Timothy Aclurus before the Henoticon, and Peter the Iberian, during the time of Peter Mongus, explicitly anathematised Chalce- don. Yet, we suggest that this condemnation was not fanatical: ‘neither of them was a pastoral extremist, for tbey were both opposed:AOL OGY ALTER E Epes of converted Proterians practed by Theadoty, SSeverusinunted on an explicit anathema againg the compromise of the Henotcon, bu agg nation was that of the conservative, we HE hr ‘out by his pastoral moderation, Tet ae nave group was that which practised Fe-anointing. and there sng Gouby But that Severus condemned this. . Pett then. that Severus was very consciously & member of a particular eration. He was a conservative, Dut a We will try 9 aaaniee raduion wo which he belonged was one of great theolog. Saidenth, ad to it he brought his own subllely. ry on to the reanoining of Joppa. Similarly. Chakedon. refusing Cc Eartler stodies of Severus, and the orientation of this introdoction Beyond question, the greatest work that has been produced on the Monophysitesis that by Lebon: Le Monophysisme sévérien. This was published in Louvain in 1909, and Lebon brought it up to datet¥ with his long article, “La Christologie du monophysisme syricn”, which was published in 1951. Much of the material of the earlier book is covered by this superb 160-page articte, and it is to this that ‘we will mainly refer. Lebon sets out to give an over-all view of Monophysite theology, and to considers Timothy Aelurus and Philoxenus as well as Sever- us. His study falls into two parts: the first, entitled “La doctrine monophysite de l'incarnation™ is short and descriptive;'® the second. entitled “La dogmatique monophysite de lincamation’*'®! 4s far longer and more analytical, In his first section, Lebon sketches where the Monophysites may be placed in terms of the widely accepted distinction between Alex- andrian and Antiochene Christologies. He immediately introduces the Christology of Cyril of Alexandria, showing that this becomes central to the Monophysites.‘*? He then gives us an outline descrip- on of Monophysite doctrine, picking out particular key concepts. Thus, be stresses the Monophysite exclusion of any type of change from the incarnation.'®* God the Word was made flesh, but re- mained who he was. Similarly. the Monophysites go to great pains to deny that the union to one nature involved any miature or confu- sson.'* He shows the Monophysite use of the union of body and soul a3 « model, with the insistence that this union does not produce an identity of cusia, of such a kind as would be destructive of the dif erence of the things which have been united.!°*INTRODUCTION Commenting on this, Lebon writes ad Monophysstes cloned st, they were alwa eure oF ccntiosion ite the union. hi mminological trachtonaliats, Cappadoctiny ind Cyril, who used “minture” ws very intimate union, but without ever wanting contusion, From this we can already sec the style of Lebon historian of dogma, he notes for us the Monoph fusion in the union, and the terminological writers. In concentrating on just one text, Lebon’s categories. we will try to answer 1 why any ade of confusion, in Severus, eat of eee ot attempt to move in a small way fom questions which are bases historical to questions which are batically theological Lebon begins his second section by taking two questions around which the Monophysite quarrel raged: (1) The question of whether there are one or two natures in Christ. This is the question raised by the Chaledonian éy 8a gioco. (2) The question of whether the 2uérns of the natures in the union is preserved or not. This is the question raised by the Chalee- donian culopdrns 84 piMov rijs (idrqros dxardpas dooce. He divides the section into two parts: one to examine cach question. To answer question (t), he leads us through a careful and detailed study of the vocabulary of the Monophysites, to show how their terms and usages differed from those of the Chalccdonians. jis study falls into three sub-sections. In the first, “Les tements de Vincarnation” Lebon shows that the Monophysites use ¢éonr, séoraas and npdoumor as perfectly synonymous.'?* Thus ¢éert, like déeracis and apéownor, refers to what is concrete sod indi- vidual. According to Lebon, then, the Monophysites ultimately con- fused the Chakedonians with the Nestorians, and reduced all Dyophysitism to the confession of two really distinct beings. In the second sub-section, “L'acte de Vincarnation”, Leboo stresses that to the Monophysites, the incarnation is an act, @ énsons. ‘The Monophysites never formally deGie the term, and Lebon tries to illustrate it by considering the condidons required for “us sroupement de choses” to merit the name “draos™.'*? drwors, for example, has no more radical encmy than oumber: if the coastitecs! elements in a dwous could be numbered, it would follow, within the who borrowed the w ord ‘study. Ava good. \yite denials of con- Parallels with eatlier and making use ofCHRISTOLOGY APTER CHALCTDON, 6 . that they were indepen i Monopole Tilly 10 iaate the toncens yethng ad un ei wth vga and rapd@eov.!'” and shows hares Lehoncanirarine incarnation the Monophysites use other terme pore te ae ler ‘ovuaoss, and in Severus, ovrBeos.!'* Shur se + Lebon turm ten formula of the MOnOphySiles: nia How rao Boos to the mayor ie explains that the nature of which the formoy serene unity is that of God the Word, who is the subject inthe sermyation. The formula is thus distinctively Cyrilian and any, Rarowan! Mustrating his main point, as before, through com. paruons be briefly discusses the phrases i #lovs ouwDeros, and wig dios Serrg.!? and then turns (o consider apparently Dyophysiie permitied by the Monophysites. We have already seem the Monophysite condemnation of Chalcedon and Nestorianism, and understanding that fr Si #iecow implied two natures in independent existence. Lebon now shows that to defend himself tains the accusation of teaching a confusion, Severus allowed that ove could speak of Bio dvous, but only d+ Seupig.''* Similarly to defend himself against the charge of confusion, Severus taught that the Word incamate is (aia ¢éoss) ¢« Svo.'"* For both these expres- ‘sons, Lebon shows Severus’ dependence on Cyril, In the second part to his second section, Lebon turns to the second question he outlined at the beginning: the “conservation ou destruc- tioa de la propriété des natures aprés l'union™.'" He first shows the Problem. On the one hand Severus was presented with the Tome (caching. “Agit enim utraque forma cum alterius communione quod propraum est", and Chalcedon stating thal “ouloucens 81 wader ris vorqres izaripas docs". which appeared to argue for the pre- sion of the ‘users of the natures which came to union, but in to ee that the independent existence of each nature seemed to 10 be implied. On the other hand, Severus was presented with ne Monophysitinm of a writer like Sergius, who wanted to HEEerate the nature of the unity to such an extent that he preached unification of Bubray as well as of ¢¢ous in the union. to an excelent terminological examination, Lebon shows that inmtRoDue TON 0 insists on, This debnition enabled & apparent Nestoranism of ecogtinng tne ne between the the union, and the apparent Eutychianism of allowing (re both of the natures in the union towt its integrity of ident But here again. while the foundations have been i makes what is lurgely a terminological point. The heaton eo that Severus. m making this distinction, was doing some pont is. dilferent (rom either Nestorianiom or Eutychigmum ne aly {com stceting a terminological path betwecn the tworeatee eet is the area our introduction will try to explore. femmes. This We have described Lebon's papet at some roduced 1 quarry of detailed references, termi ' fackground from which all who study the Monop ae nteneal row. Our own Uebt to him will be scen in the frequent refercnocs made to his works. However, a5 we have tied to show, thocgi ng contribution is enormous, his work is estentially map-making over new and difficult lerrain. In showing us 40 helpt Fully what termi used, and how and when, he hus somchow managed to roman, external to the concepts he describes. Working within the framework Lebon has given us, there is oom for a supplementary study. The dress of which Severus tells us, aad which Lebon describes for us, was not simply a union, but a union, an act of God the Word, for a purpose. We will want to suggest that this purpose, far from being exterior to the union, is part of what makes the union what it is. To sex the goal of the union as a determi- native part of the nature of the union is to inject a new dimension into the study of Severus. This soteriological dimension does not appear when one is map-making. As we will try to show, it is to soe the terms in a dynamic as well as a static descriptive way. By confin- ‘ing ourselves to one short but dense text of Severus, and bearing in mind his purpose as much as his terminology, we will hope, in a small way, to ask new and fruitful questions. As we have said, Lebon’s paper was published in 1951. Since then there has been a growing interest in the Monophysites. A recrat work is that by Roberta Chesnut.'2" Chesnut’s interest is to study the relationship between Christ and our knowledge of God in the three very different theological systems of Severus, Philoxeous and Jacob of Serug. We have already shown thal the aim of our study of the letters between Severus and Sergius it to try to show Severus’ Christology and terminology in its soleriologicel dimension. Though Chesnut gives 2 detailed description of some of Severas’ major terms and concepts, she is concerned neither with soteriology. length, becawne he haySHRISTOLOGY ALTER CHAS TT ih Severus relation to Cyril, and so her work isa mycre tains lutte to our study. Another modern soe 10 coy, Whecevuty a very general one, 18 that by John Meyendort, ee Caner n Eastern Chrstan Though!" he provides a percep ecount of the dehates after Chalcedon, showing Severus’ im ‘role in the formation of the theology of the separating Monophyi ches ore within the Monophysite churches that some of the stimulating modern work on Severus is being done. Since 1964, hive heen unoffcal theological conferences between theologians of the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches."2* The Panorthodo, Conference at Chambésy in 1968 decided that a Theological Dia. fogue should start between the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox ‘Churches. Consequently. the Orthodox Churches set up a Commis. sion for the Theolopeal Dialogue with the Ancient Oriental Churches.'2* This Commission first met in Addis Ababa in 1971, and then with the Non-Chaleedonian Commission in Athens in 197) ‘and in Addis Ababa in 1975, This introduction is written with the kind of questions raised by these Theological Commissions in mind, ‘We wall refer, in the broadest terms, to some points raised by Pro- fessor V. C. Samuel of the Syrian Orthodox Church, and Professor N. A. Zambototsky of the Russian Orthodox Church. Samuel tells us his aim very frankly. [1 is to question the view thal because Sever- ‘ws cnticised Chaloedon and the Tome, he could not have taught the faith of the Church in its purity."2* The question is whether the re- jection of Chaloodon by Severus was the result of & Christology ‘which explained away the human reality of Christ."?* To show that ‘Severus did not dissolve the human nature of Christ, Samuel points (o the heresics he rejected: Manichacism, Apollinarianism and Euty- uanism.'?* He also considers the accusations made against Sever- tas in 536.'7* On the basis both of this, and of Severus’ positive seachings, Samuel argucs “that Severus was nol s Monophysite”.!2* This it a provocative line to take, but Samuel justifies it in a very imeresung statement: “Severus never objected to the dynamic con- tinuance of the two natures in the one Christ, and the atcription of the term ‘monophytite’ to his theological position is nothing but the legacy of the polemics of a bygone age."?° As a consequence of this, Samuel argues that dispute between Severus and John the Grammarian, the issue was not whether ot not the manhood of (Christ was real. but bow the manhood was to be understood and imerpreted.'®* Throughout all of this argument, Samuel shows beyond douts the Cyrilizan foundation on which Severus on wi stood.IrSevery way not ad that Severus did tot object nawres our inte fad role of the human nature in a uions this has for ovr understanding of tl Brom the Chal conuderable axecement with Samuel." ff through Lebon, ahd secy him as rooted in the will ake Just (0 points which illusteate Zam First, Zambolotsky takey up Samuel's conan ex approach already seen, that ss regards the Monophysite formula yin ores, Geos ipen evemprisiry,"Sevetur potion cama ante ook oe imerpretation of ‘yin’ as simply ‘one’. The point thay isnot a Monophysite in the bad sense, which wauld involve dina ing the human nat \bolotsky examines this con. tention carcfully.'!* and concludes that the reality of Chase humanity is indeed strongly confirmed by S a rs then to ask how it is confirmed, what is its status and what is the nature of the union. Zambolotsky hintsat an answer to this-and this is the second point we will druw from his paper. We showed above how Samucl spoke of the “dynamic continuance” of the (wo natures in Severus’ Christology. Zambolotsky tells us that Severus’ human nature is not ‘hypostatic’ but like the human nature of Leontius of Byzantium and Jobn of Damascus ‘hypostatised’, received to the unity of the hypostasis of the Logos™."9 Thisis an approach we will try to explain and develop in our theological introduction. ea -donuan aide, Zambolotaky shew. ‘ows himsell to be in, approaches Severus theology of Cynl. We D. Manuscript and Translation The letters between Severus and Sergius were, of coune, writes ia Greek. In the preface to his edition of the Syriac text, Lebon refers to A. Baumstark, who judged that the Syriac translation was made by Paul of Kallinike.!* M. Brire agrees with this. 7 Paul was banished from his sce around 519. He later went to Edessa, where he tranulated many of Severus’ works. He died in exik. The manuscript translated is that edited by Leboo in 1949.19" Itis BL Add MS 17154. Wright describes the manuscript as being of vel- lum, about 74 inches by 6), and consisting of 52 leaves, some of hich ate slightly stained, especially at the beginning. Each page is divided into two columns, of from 31~42 lines, and be tells us that the volume is written in' a good, regular Estrangela hand of the 7bALTER CMALCE » CURISTOL ON tee Lebon tells us that Wright hav forgotten to si ee a photography seems to reveal that 3 folios have been cut out Trehon belied Add 17154 to be the only manuscripn of y, aciens #4 In an article published in 1975 Dr Sebastian Brock it ahowan that fragments of the letters survive in an 8th or 9th jranuscript, Harvard (Houghton Library) syr. 22.'*? jj bis oe tary export, Brock describes the manuscript as containing 80 f fm the vast majority of which are loose, and many of which are damaged.'** The folios are out of order and many have been Keeping to the order of the modern foliation Dr Brock has be, Lind enough to give me a list of what fragments of the letter tte manuscript preserves. This gocs slightly beyond the list he gives ig bis report.'#? The reference is to the pagination of Lebon's edition, 37 = 98.12-101.25 23 = 101.25-105.10 47 # 105.10-108.19 108. 19-1121 $116.20 3 2° 124133.17 25 w= 133.17-136.26 6 (a ftlost) A= 1A 4165.3} 72 = 1683-16718 Brock tctls us that the Harvard manuscript provides the same ‘twanslation as that found in Add 17154.14* It has not yet been pub- ‘shed. but in the wanslation of Lebon’s edition I refer in several fmmances to the Harvard reading, which Dr Brock most generously ‘made available 10 me. ‘The translation is fairly literal. As the letters were written in