NESTORIUS AND THE CHURCH OF THE EAST What is the attitude of the Church of the East towards Nestorius? and how should one understand Nestorius’ own teaching if it is perceived in the context of the East-Syrian tradition of the Church of...
moreNESTORIUS AND THE CHURCH OF THE EAST
What is the attitude of the Church of the East towards Nestorius? and how should one understand Nestorius’ own teaching if it is perceived in the context of the East-Syrian tradition of the Church of the East? These are the questions the author of this book treats in his research.
Though Nestorius was not the founder of this Church, nor her head, and never belonged to the jurisdiction of the Catholicos of the East, it is evident from the present study that solidarity with Nestorius witnessed by the Church of the East is proved historically. Insofar as the Church of the East was becoming aware of the circumstances of the Council of Ephesus (431 AD), she was increasingly sure that the condemnation of Nestorius was unjust. As for his teaching, she considered it as an adequate response to the problems which the Antiochene tradition then faced. The acts of the synods of the Church of the East, as they are known from the Synodicon orientale, are rather moderate in expressing such a position, and in the liturgical texts Nestorius presented as a confessor of orthodoxy, though his doctrine is not included there. Nevertheless, the works by Nestorius and, in particular, his apology entitled Book of Heracleides, were well known in the Church of the East and gained authority there, especially, in the famous Great Monastery on the mount Izla. Under the influence of them, Mar Babai Rabba, the most important author in the history of the doctrinal development of the Church of the East, undertook his Christological synthesis of the Antiochene tradition and the original Mesopotamian thought.
The teaching of Nestorius, as it is presented in his ‘apology’, when compared with the polemical arguments of Cyril of Alexandria, demonstrates that the position of the Church of the East, showing that the real doctrine of Nestorius is not identical with its interpretation made and condemned by the Council of Ephesus, is very convincing. One can see that notion of the crucial terms such as Theotokos and Sonship in the Book of Heracleides differs from what is witnessed in Cyril’s writings, and that some statements attributed to Nestorius by the Council of Ephesus (confession of ‘two sons/christs’, separating the unique person of Christ into two, saying that Christ and the Word of God are ‘one and another’ etc.) are clearly denied by Nestorius.
The author of this book tries to find out and explain the common sources of the Antiochene tradition and the Church of the East. He demonstrates that both traditions were based on the exegetical methods of the Jewish schools of Syria and Babylon and were influenced by the Semitic mentality of the Aramaic speaking population of the regions. This helps us to find solutions to the ‘difficult’ moments which are in writings of the Antiochene authors, including Nestorius, by putting them back into the context of Semitic thought which is original though much hellenised in ‘the West’. Reading Nestorius like this lets us understand better why the Church of the East declared him one of the Doctors of orthodoxy. Historically, this ‘reading’ took place when the works of Nestorius were translated into Syriac in Persia and were considered in the context of the oral tradition started there by Addai the Apostle and connected with such authors as Ephrem the Syrian and Narsai.
In 1997, the Synod of the Assyrian Church of the East declared that she removed the anathemas against Cyril of Alexandria and Severus of Antioch from her liturgical books. The Western Christian community could respond by denying the 'traditional' connection between the name of Nestorius and the interpretation of his teaching made by his opponents. That would mean that Nestorius himself should not be anathemised.
The Antiochene tradition kept by the Church of the East is a very important part of the Tradition of the Universal Church. It not only played a significant role in the past, but is also necessary for the future. In particular, it solves the main problem of Christology: Christ is not divided into the ‘Jesus of history’ and the ‘Christ of faith’ in this tradition, but he is one and the same, whose historical humanity is regarded as an element of special importance for the Christian faith.
